Objectification of women

I was, as always, entertained by the latest Private Eye. One of the letters struck me, though, complaining that The Eye should attack live objectification of women, just as it does televised pornography from Richard Desmond.
I've seen these attacks, and mostly they're about Desmond's hypocrisy, not solely because he's a pornographer: they contrast the prurient 'family values' that his publications support with the pornography he also broadcasts. But that's a different subject.
What I object to is that the letter writer regards the sexual objectification of women to be intrinsically wrong, such that linking an activity to it makes that activity worthy of being banned. She has a go at Private Eye for talking about loss of revenue and local economics, comparing pornography to 'the brutal mass rape and murder or women as a means to controlling [sic] the coltan trade'.
If women are co-erced into working in, and then voicing support for, the sex industry, whilst feeling exploited and trapped, it is the co-ercion that is the problem. On the subject of exploitation, however, I have to disagree that there is anything special about it: I am exploited, as is everyone in western/capitalist society, because I need to work in order to earn money. If I earn too little, then it is better for me to be part of a regulated and legal industry where I have options available to me to seek more money for my work. Opposing the industry so that I either can not get this work, or must work illegally, will not help me.

Exploitation is a separate issue from one of working. Anyone can be exploited in any job, and can feel exploited in any job. If a woman values her bodily privacy as worth more than she gets paid in the sex industry then as long as she is not forced to work there, then there is no exploitation.

Secondly, there is the myth of exploitation in the sex industry being based on need. This is the argument that I have already addressed by pointing out the nature of life and capitalism. We all need food, drink and shelter to survive, and we need to work to get these things. Work is forced apon us. That a woman is able to choose to sell her body is a benefit, not a problem: it is one more means to support herself. If a person can either starve or sell her body then she is not being coerced by anyone: there is no wrong being done to her by her customers. In so far as she is being coerced at all, it is by life, just as we all are. A man in that same situation (starve or sell his body) would starve because no-one would buy his body. If anything, that sort of sex industry is an example of life favouring women. but I think it is just an example of the force that compels everyone, man and woman, to find some means of support.

The next argument is that normalisation of the sex industry is cited by women as the reason that they can't become fully equal with men at work. This is well dealt with in research showing that sex is not one of the important factors in determining income, and that if it does, women earn more!
http://www.warrenfarrell.com/pages.php?id=39
http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=1834
Perhaps we shouldn't assume that the workers we interview are omniscient and that what they say is a barrier is really the only hurdle?


But let's move on. Finally the writer says that it's an issue of how we choose to portray and promote sexuality for all. I find this statement genuinely offensive. The writer is implying that we should tell people like me that their attraction for attractive women is dirty and wrong, and we should instead promote her (presumably) ideal of sexual relationship. I can't help but wonder who decided that my desires are filthy and perverted, but that hers are pure and wonderful? If we're going to change how we portray and promote sexuality, it should be to a system that allows people choice, not a system that promotes any one version.

I find the objectification of men despicable. The idea that one can and should muddy something as pure as sex with something as stifling as romance is a nasty one. Sex is no more intrinsically linked to deep, lasting, exclusive emotional attachment than it is to underpaid work. Men are routinely objectified as suppliers of money, comfort, stability, support or romance. It is even customary for magazines and women to talk of getting what you want from a man by withholding or offering sex. That sounds much worse than the open and honest process of directly paying someone for something you want and he (or she, in the case of the sex industry) has. Manipulation is exactly the same only without even any pretence of consent from the other party, and is therefore worse.
[I can imagine a situation in which a woman is forced to do the bidding of a man who then sells her as a prostitute. I think that this is better addressed as slavery, rather than a perfect example of how the sex industry must necessarily be]

Along the same lines, a far greater evil than pornography are romances. Pornography portrays and unrealistic world in which women behave just as men would like them to behave, desire what men wish they'd desire (and what men themselves desire: unrestricted sexual gratification) and on which no other aspect of the drudgery of real life impinges. Romances portray an unrealistic world in which [the important] men behave just as women would like them to behave, desire what women wish they'd desire (deep, committed and exclusive emotional attachment) and on which few aspects of the drudgery of real life impinge.
Romances seem a little better, since they do include 'nasty' men and some nasty aspects of real life. This is necessary for the hero to rescue the heroine from them. Romances however suffer from the additional problems of pretending to be realistic and actually distorting people's expectations (I have encountered many women hoping to be a heroine of a romantic story, but no man who seriously expected to experience a situation from a porn film without paying for it). Given the similarities, it is shocking that I am the only person I have ever known to criticise romances, but there are vast numbers of people who despise pornography for its supposed effects on how men treat women (which have repeatedly failed to be shown in studies).

If we're examining sex discrimination, I will also mention the disturbing portrayal in many films, programmes and advertisements of men as bumbling clowns incapable of arranging anything but a piss-up, and women as clever beacons of enlightenment and perfection. A photo of a pretty model says nothing about her character. It does not say that she is worthless apart from her looks; it takes her looks and leaves the rest unsaid. Similarly, pornography takes attractive women and sells their looks, leaving the rest of the women uncharacterised. Only when it comes to men do we have media portrayals that are typically negative, rather than merely silent.



'postscript':
What I have to say about this is probably echoed in a debate that I haven't yet watched here:
https://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=4143
I could also point out that this is a nice example of when 'do as you would be done by' really does not work. I would not mind being sexually objectified by strangers (or even sometimes by friends). Women (stereotypically/ as a trend) do not mind someone lusting after a deep and exclusive emotional connection with them. But it turns out that some women get offended if they're lusted after exclusively sexually, and some men, such as myself, object to being lusted after for exclusivity.

Pornography and sexism

This is adapted from an e-mail I sent in reply to an argument about to which magazines we would like to subscribe.

I do believe that sexism is defined as discrimination or prejudice, typically
against women. I understand that some, or even most, pornography is made by
abusing the 'stars', both men and women (i.e poor industrial relations, low pay,
limited working rights and so on), but I'd hardly call that sexism. It's just
unpleasant.
I also guess that famous magazines pay really quite well for their pictures, and
I can't understand why a woman earning a living is sexism. I understand that
many women find the concept of pornography distasteful, and would never do it
themselves, but personal taste and sense of disgust is very different from
discrimination.
Pornography shows, overwhelmingly, women because that is what the market seems
to want. I assume that if pictures of naked men were popular they'd be sold too.
If a desire for pictures is so different between the sexes it's not
discrimination. No-one seems to get upset when a man calls himself heterosexual
because he's discriminating against other men. Market forces like this are not
usually called discriminatory.

If you find it objectionable that many men can take pleasure in seeing pretty
women, you're fighting a losing battle, since it is intrinsic to humanity that
we appreciate beauty, and that most men find women sexually appealing. I'm not
entirely sure why being sexually appealing is being discriminated against. Even
if it is, I don't believe that there's any evidence that pornography causes
this, rather than being a result of it.

If, on the other hand, you accept that men might have such instincts, but
believe that they should be controlled, and that pornography is clearly these
instincts being uncontrolled, I have to ask why you find it so necessary to
control other people's behaviours, and why you want to control men's instincts.
Why discriminate against men? Men who examine pornography typically do it in
private and
harm no-one.
If the argument is solely that it might lead them to treat women differently
elsewhere, then I think you'll find yourselves arguing for us to ban, amongst
many, Christianity and Islam, since many preachers of these religions have a
tendency to denounce homosexuals and, to a lesser extent, women, which might
lead the faithful to treat them differently elsewhere in life. Of course, what
we actually find is that even people who explicitly believe that such people are
inferior are able to treat them with respect and dignity in person. How much
more able is a man to do so when rather than being brainwashed by extreme
beliefs he is simply enjoying one thing about women? Being sexually appealing
and a rational, thinking being are not mutually exclusive, unlike being sinful
and inferior and worthy of respect.

I can find nowhere in pornography (assuming it is, as I said, legally produced)
the denial of human rights, respect or dignity. The women in such pornography
would have freely consented to make it, as is their right. If you think that
it's so undignified that we shouldn't allow people to consent to do it, why do
we allow people to work in service jobs at all? I'd call it undignified to model
underwear, although that's not pornography. I'd not be respected working in
MacDonald's or as a waiter in many restaurants.
We don't ban undignified jobs because it's a person's right to decide how much
it is worth to do something unpleasant. Many marxists argue that it is
undignified to work for money at all, and that's their decision, but most of us
have no intention of letting their beliefs rule our lives.
It's also a far cry from discrimination or prejudice and hence sexism.

2.
If you find sexual interactions degrading, that's your own belief, and a
commonly held one. But there's no possible way to justify calling it a universal
truth, and it is up to you to interact with people who agree with you (or not)
as you please. It is not right to impose your beliefs on all others by calling
something offensive to you and therefore immoral even for complete strangers to
make, purchase or enjoy.

In summary, although I can agree that most pornography produced nowadays is not
produced in the most pleasant environment, I don't think that there's any
discrimination instrinsic to pornography, and I'd rather you pointed out the
moral failings of the companies and their production methods than assume that
pornography is evil.
I can also agree that I'd find pornography ... distasteful, but
we can sort that out by voting in the poll, rather than trying to avoid
democratic decisions by calling it offensive. I find it far more offensive that
anyone would seek to control what ought to be a democratic decision by invoking
offence. Pornography would have to be truly discriminatory (and therefore
illegal) before I'd agree that we shouldn't vote on it as we'd vote on anything
else. What if I decided that the Economist, because of its right-wing views, is
offensive? What about the Grauniad, because of its poor English and left-wing
views? How dare you include such scandalous items in the poll? I think we need
another group e-mail apologising for this offensive content too.
If it's legal, then there is the perfect right and
absolute duty to put suggested subscriptions on the poll, whether they're
offensive to someone or not.
[...]'s original complaint suggests that finding the images would make [it] an unwelcoming place to many women, and I agree. I think that not doing the duty to consider all proposals and treat them the same would be even more wrong.

I hope that next time someone finds a thing offensive and considers complaining, my counter-complaint about whether offence is sufficient reason for doing anything about it can be assumed.

If I've missed a vital point in the argument, I'd like to hear it, because I really do feel as though I've missed something important. I truly cannot understand how you link these things together so easily, and I've laid out my guess at the arguments involved to save you time and effort if they are yours.