The future stands still, dear Mr. Kappus, but we move in infinite space. - Ranier Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet

Monday, May 5, 2008

Letter 14

Dear Josephine,

Ms. magazine, recently published an article "out-of-body image: self-objectification -- seeing ourselves through others' eyes -- impairs women's body image, mental health, motor skills and even sex lives" by Caroline Heldman. Heldman argues that the objectification of women's bodies as presented in our culture via communication mediums, and it can be mentioned, genderized images, causes women to not only critique their own bodies, but to see them as objects of desire: "A steady diet of exploitative, sexually provocative depictions of women feeds a poisonous tread in women's and girls' perception of their bodies, one that has recently been recognized by social scientists as self-objectification - viewing one's body as a sex object to be consumed by the male gaze."

This self-objectification leads to women's judgement of their physical appearance and their awareness of outside perception (or, how they believe they are perceived by others). It is this perception, in part, that causes women to place importance upon a body image (measuring the "flab" on their stomach, wearing high heels, acting like a "woman"), etc. Heldman spends a portion of her essay discussing the mental, physical, cognitive impact self-objectification has on those who are "medium or high self-objectifiers": they are more likely to be depressed, have low self-esteem, are at higher risk of eating disorders, may perform lower on their academic studies, are often less interested in politics, etc.

In addition, Heldman states, young girls are taught at an early age to flaunt their bodies. During this portion of the article I couldn't stop thinking of those ever-popular bratz dollz, like the ones seen here. These dolls implicitly place a value on materialism by showing the dolls' attentiveness to clothing, makeup, and hair styles. They even, subliminally, appear to place an importance on posing - isn't it interesting the placement of their bodies (in that picture) and the high-heeled shoes that seem to so effortlessly support them?

Later in the article, Heldman discusses the implications of self-objection on sex. She asserts:

"Self-objectification can likely explain some other things that researchers are just starting to study. For instance, leading anti-sexist male activist and author Jackson Katz observes, 'Many young women now engage in sex acts with men that prioritize the man's pleasure, with little or no expectation of reciprocity.' Could this be another result of women seeing themselves as sexual objects, not agents?"

In the above quotations Heldman is making a fascinating point. If, as she earlier stated, "girls are taught: your body is a project that needs work before you can attract others," then they are also taught: your body is an object with the primary objective - please, not be pleased. This concept makes men the primary focus of sexual pleasure, and makes women the servers of that pleasure. And, since media is purporting women's bodies as the pinnacle of male desire, then there bodies are fulfilling this image when, for example, there is a blatant disregard for women's satisfaction during the sex act.

Here is the paradox of objectification: it is founded in a perspective that forces personal identity and physical bodies to become separate, while simultaneously relying on bodies for the formation of an identity (women as agents of desire). The objectification of women, enforced by cultural depictions of them as sex pleasers, marginalizes women by stripping them of their identities and re-defining them solely by their bodies. These bodies in turn, become sexualized, a movement that renders them unrecognizable by their owners.

And, in turn, here is the biggest danger of self-objectification: the loss of personal identity (for example, how we show who we "are", what we believe in, etc.). For self-objectification finds its roots in society that creates and upholds socialized bodies and identities as normative.

In a sense, our bodies represent a signification process. To illuminate this process is to call attention to the genderized society in which we reside. But this is only one step. We have to, states Heldman, "view our bodies as tools to master our environment, instead of projects to be constantly worked on". We have to redirect our attention to ourselves and away from media images, to "create mental and emotional space for true self-exploration."

In her essay “The Body and the Reproduction of Femininity: A Feminist Appropriation of Foucault”, Susan Bordo advocates for individuals to resist prescribed gender roles. “I view our bodies as a site of struggle," she states, "where we must work to keep our daily practices in the service of resistance to gender domination, not in the service of ‘docility’ and gender normalization”.

Both Heldman and Bordo are right. We must stop seeing ourselves as objects, and focus on understanding our own identities.

love,

l.c.

3 comments:

M said...

An interesting post, Laura... and interestingly, I couldn't disagree with you more. I've written on my own blog about some similar topics some months ago (my "in praise of hot chicks" series, I think)-- and I'm pretty familiar with Heldman's argument here--- but I think it's retrogressive and a little blinded by its old-school feminist couching.

The sex act in and of itself REQUIRES that we objectify each other and ourselves to varying degrees. In order to perceive another person as sexually appealing, sooner or later, you're going to have to stop thinking about his or her subjectivity and automony. You're gonna have to just jump him or her and relish the fact that the OBJECT of your affection has a friggin' body. And the flip side of that is that, if you want to be sexually attractive-- which I for one certainly do-- you do everything you can to remind potential suitors that, indeed, you are a sexual object. I can honestly say that, in those few precious moments during which I'm being fucked, I do not what to be respected for my mind. I want to be wanted and lusted after. Becoming an object is not necessarily a bad thing.

Chelsea, over on the pretty dumb things blog, has written quite eloquently on how she's settled the issue of being both a feminist and a stripper-- i.e., a two-dimensional visual fuck toy-- for herself. She's figured out a way to embrace her own self-objectification so that she actually feels empowered by it. This is a stance to which I aspire, as I kinda think it's the only realistic way to make inner peace with this issue.

This is not to say, of course, that there isn't room to lose your autonomy in said sexual melee. Because we are a sexually dualistic species, and an intelligent one at that, we're never going to be without conflict about this stuff. And yeah, god knows I deal with all the insecurities and body image bullshit all the time. But that's just part of what being a human means. There is no magic philosophy that will free us from feeling shitty about ourselves. I really do believe that blaming the media and the male gaze and whatever else can only engender more animosity and less empathy between the genders.

Oh, and Heldman's argument kinda posits women as victims of culture all over again. Tired news, Ms. Heldman. And I, for one, resent the fuck out of being told of all the ways in which I and the rest of my gender continue to be victimized, when the so-called "victimization" is really just part and parcel sentient, dualistic sexuality.

So, I guess I believe that identifying with your gender does not necessarily entail "docility" or detachment from one's own "identity." One can be a girl, enjoy being looked at and wanted AND not feel denegrated by that gaze. All at the same time! It can be done! I'm convinced of it.

But thanks, Laura, for this post! It got me all stirred up this morning!

Ugh... and apologies for the lengthy comment!

John Doe said...

Your body is an object. It is not the self. Bodies are both tools to master our environment and projects to be constantly worked on, and you can't evaluate your body in any sense unless you objectify it to a degree.

Heldman makes a complete non-sequitur from self-objectification to subservience, and it just doesn't work that way. Witness the countless male gym-goers (excuse the stereotype) that see themselves as bronze Greek demigods built to fuck. Absolutely objectified when flexing for the mirror, but absolutely not concerned with pleasing instead of being pleased.

The objectification of others, now, can be put alongside other generally callous worldviews with dehumanization processes operating well outside the scope of sexuality. That said, I think Marjorie is being a bit dismissive of this kind of thinking--the ultimate state of objectification is not one in which your partner isn't respecting you for your mind, but indeed forgets or simply doesn't care that the mind is there at all. It's a rather more creepy state of affairs. But as I said, I think it's a broader cultural issue of treating people as means rather than ends (to put a philosophic point on it).

As for the Bratz dolls: as with Barbie, I've always found it hard to swallow that a girl is going to compare herself a doll when she has, you know, all these other real women to feel inferior to.

Much more problematic is, as you touched upon, the Bratz's fetishization of commodities and the notion that an identity is something to be bought and sold in terms of accessories. Not to mention the sexualization of prepubescents, but that's another sticky subject--no (disgusting) pun intended.

"There is no magic philosophy that will free us from feeling shitty about ourselves. I really do believe that blaming the media and the male gaze and whatever else can only engender more animosity and less empathy between the genders."
Yeah, women are victimized, double (and impossible) standards, etc. It's all a bit "Women Studies 101" and is indeed old hat. Mainstream audiences won't read this, and those in the audience that will are either going to nod their heads (and raise their fists?) or just think it's all a bit tiresome, because hasn't the discussion moved past this?

Yet to suggest, as you seem to be doing, that the media and male attitudes are now exempt from criticism forgets that American culture hasn't quite caught up to the Ivory Tower. The article (as excerpted) fails abysmally as treating the issue as one with nuance and complexity, but it's still fair to harp on the core ideas. There's no magic philosophy, but there are certainly better ones.

M said...

Fair enough, Alex. I don't think I'm saying that "male attitudes and the media are exempt from criticism." It's just that the "core ideas" are so deeply problematic that I feel pretty alienated from them. It's true that I forget-- regularly-- that your average schmo isn't thinking through the finer points of contemporary feminism on a daily basis. Yes, absolutely-- I'm both myopic and dismissive when faced with texts that reek of the philosophies that were more relevant to my mother's generation than my own.

But someone's gotta harp on the problems with the older feminist regime, too.

That said, I think you make excellent points regarding a)Heldman's non-sequitur and b) dolls as a point of comparison to real-life specimens of superior femaleness.

Look what you've started, senorita Laura!