Thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian's videos?

[Caehlim]

Back to the main point though, I admit that I don't fully understand "objectifying" something.  However, without any kind of real, standard definition that doesn't constantly change depending on how someone wants to interpret a situation, I find it becomes increasingly useless to a conversation.

According to the philosopher Martha Nussbaum, a person might be objectified if one or a selection of the following properties are adhered to:

    Instrumentality - as a tool for another's purposes: "The objectifier treats the object as a tool of his or her purposes"
    Denial of Autonomy - as if lacking in agency or self-determination: "The objectifier treats the object as lacking in autonomy and self-determination"
    Inertness - as if without action: "The objectifier treats the object as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity"
    Fungibility - as if interchangeable: "The objectifier treats the object as interchangeable (a) with other objects of the same type, and/or (b) with objects of other types"
    Violability - as if permissible to damage or destroy (Violence): "The objectifier treats the object as lacking in boundary integrity, as something that it is permissible to break up, smash, break into"
    Ownership - as if owned by another: "The objectifier treats the object as something that is owned by another, can be bought or sold, etc"
    Denial of Subjectivity - as if there is no need for concern for their feelings and experiences: "The objectifier treats the object as something whose experience and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account

I believe this is actually the same definition Anita Sarkeesian uses in one of her videos, however it's been too long since I've watched them to be one hundred percent certain.

[Garuss Vakarian]

From reading every ones comments it seems every one has ultimately different views on Objectifying. There for I have come to the conclusion it effects different people differently ranging from "Wha? It's ok to think im sexy." to "Im not a object to lust for." This to me means that before one try's to flirt, or become romantically involved in another they must gauge to what level this person would respond to your attempts to garner romantic attention. This is speaking from a man who seeks romance and companionship, not simply sex. If I were to speak of simply sex it is a whole new can of beans, making it pure objectifying. But since I would be seeking a companion, it is simply me naturally seeking a mate. MY own personal conclusion is, I understand what feminism is saying. And it is correct. Except objectifying in the form of attraction is not a bad thing. There is nothing wrong with a physical attraction to another. In fact, it is how one's romantic interest in another originates. How is one to have original interest in some one unless they are attracted to them? No, personality does not make truthfully for first impression due to the fact that unless your blind, you will always see them first then hear them. That said, one can also fall for someone they dont find attractive, but for the most part appearance is a human beings natural first step to choosing a mate.

However, I will chose to not accept this. Even if it makes sense in theory, I believe it is a damaging thing in practice.  Sex is the most human part of being human after all, right? Procreate, it is the base goal of all life on earth. Humans may have a form of transcendence in comparison to animals but we are after all also animals. By the notion of Objectifying I should never consider the attraction I have for my partner, in spite of the fact that it is one of the most vital parts of a relationship. If you dont find your partner beautiful Edit:( Either physically or in personality.) why are you with her or him? This is not to shame different body types and such since after all we all have different tastes. IE: My older brother loves heavy set women, while my twin favor's lithe and small women. Im found more in between, a more all the right curvs in all the right places kind of mentality, with a small favor for women that are taller then me. I dont see anything wrong with sexual attraction, especially since it is a uncontrollable thought to do so.  I assure you, Anita more then one point in her life got a little loss of breath at the sight of a ripping hot man at the side of a pool. ;) . Or, hot women. Not sure on her preference. But none the less, if your human your most assuredly going to find some one some where hot at some point in your life.

Edit: However personality is a big deal, and honestly what truly matters. many women I have found attractive ended up ugly in my opinion due to incompatibilities or certain weaknesses of character. (IE: Being mean or controlling of me.) In fact most my more successful relationships resulted from moving out of my comfort zone and dating some one id normally find out side my preferences.

[consortium11]

Notice I did not say finding someone attractive was objectifying them.

I said that observing, judging and taking enjoyment from their bodies is objectifying them.

In how many circumstances can one find another attractive without having observed their body? If observing someone's body is objectifying them then surely the resulting attraction is likewise objectifying?

(On a side note, isn't having sex pretty much the most literal example of "taking enjoyment from" another's body? Doesn't this definition put it firmly within the objectifying category?)

[Shjade]

On a side note, isn't having sex pretty much the most literal example of "taking enjoyment from" another's body? Doesn't this definition put it firmly within the objectifying category?

Are you taking enjoyment from their body alone, or enjoying them as a person?

When the attraction is such that anyone could be there as long as they looked like who you're with, that strikes me as objectification: their body is what matters, not who they are.

[Sethala]

I believe this is actually the same definition Anita Sarkeesian uses in one of her videos, however it's been too long since I've watched them to be one hundred percent certain.

Yeah, she goes over something roughly similar to that in her first "women as background decoration" video, if I remember correctly.  I wasn't going to put too much stock in her claim in what objectification means however, as apparently her first video managed to conflate the concepts of objectifying people, a philosophy that the only reality that exists is what you percieve, and the basics of English sentence structure, ending up with a giant wibbly-wobbly ball of ill-defined concepts.

Are you taking enjoyment from their body alone, or enjoying them as a person?

When the attraction is such that anyone could be there as long as they looked like who you're with, that strikes me as objectification: their body is what matters, not who they are.

I think this is starting to get into the territory of making "objectified" into a very subjective concept, which makes it very hard to find a use for it when debating the merits of something.  This doesn't help when we're talking about a person who seems to be capable of taking offense to anything that portrays a woman to be anything but her ideal of what a woman in media should be like.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I am not sure if the emphasis can be made again that finding another person attractive is not necessarily objectification.  Nowhere in my definition or example is this given nor in the definition by Martha Nussbaum.  If a person cannot admire a woman without doing more than one of the listed items given by Nussbaum, then they certainly have an issue with women.  Simply glancing over at a woman or even taking a second look is not objectification.  The problem here is that there is an attempt to bring this definition back to the ridiculous.  Simply looking at someone and thinking to yourself, “they’re hot” is not objectifying them or at least not in a way damaging.  Once more the objectification comes when there is some expectation or exertion of power toward that individual. 

Being attracted to someone is not objectification.  Feeling as if you have some right to them or power over them because of an attraction is objectification. 

[Wolven Soul]

You are absolutely right, her videos do take things completely out of context, and she doesn't seem to have a whole lot of interest in doing a whole lot of research into the things that she is saying.  For instance, I believe in one of her videos she made a reference to one of the Hitman games, where you can kill off strippers I think.  Never once mentioning the fact that you are actually penalized for doing so. 

Recently I believe she has talked about women being raped in video games.  I am not sure if she mentioned this in an interview or one of her videos, and if the former, I apologize.  But such a thing, as far as I know, has never actually happened in a video game.  It is still something that is incredibly taboo.  In fact, I have heard of a scene in a video game where a man is raped by a woman. 

This woman is damaging to gaming and damaging to feminism as well.