Fotografica Gregor wrote:
EVERYTHING photographed is "objectified" by the very nature of the medium - whether it be women, people in general or any other object or scene.  It is the reduction person place thing and moment into tangibility that photography is about.....

I don't think that wide definition of objectified is what people object to.
Thaksin your avatars for example. It does what you describe as does all photography or art.
But we are left with NO doubt at all that your image portrays the human element of the model no?
What art is about is expression and communication of an aesthetic or a feeling or a human truth.
So when I look at your image I see something beautiful aesthetically but also some very human emotion/expression in the image; a vulnerability yet strength , a beauty that comes from inside you and her ad much ad it is to do with the beauty in the sensitivity the light and form.  There is a sensitivity to that that is not accidental. You have not objectified woman you've done the opposite.

I hope it's ok to give unsolicited critique in the positive

In some ways Art must be objective so it objectifies - reduces - to what is important . You show us something far more than reduction of the female form to purely sexual function. Not that there is any objection I think in reducing the female to simply form anyway.

Neal Bloom wrote:
maybe one day a camera will be able to capture a persons character, morality, intelligence, dignity.

until that day my camera captures nice bodies.

That's the difference between a portrait and a headshot.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

That's true. Well expressed. As is Erlinda's point.
But these I think are not objectifed images. Some people may think they are but I think they'd be mistaken.
It's when photographs intend to objectify and arent about beauty but degrading to status of object I think there are issues. And ultimately an intelligent viewer rejects those which are negative anyway.

It's pretty clear that you don't understand what it means to objectify, or you're even more confused about something else.

Or are you saying that if a photo doesn't intend to objectify, but is degrading it's ok?

There's no relationship between objectification and degradation, but you keep writing about them as redundant terms. Everything you've written could be written without mention of objectification.

"It's when photographs aren't about beauty, but degrade, there are issues."

I will admit that I'm not reading your words literally as written, but instead as I believe they are intended. "Degrading to the status of object" is what objectification means, so I find it hard to believe that you intended to write "It's when photographs intend to objectify and arent about beauty, but objectify, I think there are issues."

Normally I don't think it's constructive to analyze the way a post is written, but my main point is about communicating accurately and having your thoughts clear.

Your complaints are about women being portrayed at an inequal social status - your homemaker cliche or sexual degradation in porn. Those things can be done without objectifying and are problems independent of objectification.

When you attach them to the word objectification you stigmatize the word, and it's not a perforation term, just descriptive.

Man Ray's photo of a woman as a cello/violin  ( http://silpayamanant.files.wordpress.co … ingres.jpg ) is portraying her as an object. It's really just a clever recognition of shape unless you decide to project deeper meaning on comparing woman to a musical instrument. Or maybe the photo is really about humanizing an instrument ("my violin is not happy today. She does not like to sing in this weather").

Objectification is not, by definition, a bad thing. That's really what this entire thread is about going back to the OP. If you tell someone their photo is "objectifying" when the word is used interchangeably with degrading, you make them defensive. Also if you assume that all objectification is a bad thing, you can obscure the meaning of a photo. The Man Ray photo could be saying the women are filled with with diversity or that they have a physical beauty but also an internal beauty that they put out.

Using objectification and degradation means that people end up debating whether that image is objectifying, which is indebateably yes, when the real debate is whether it's degrading or not.

When you misuse the word you completely skew the discussion.


In the other hand, someone could argue that any portrayal of a person as an object is always degrading, but you're not saying that if you're accepting objectification when it's about beauty.


Stereotyping and degradation are separate from objectification and if you don't keep those distinctions clear, people can't learn to see objectification and there are ways in which degradation happens through objectification.

I think that often happens because people don't know how to see objectification in a photo, which means that they can't see the degradation when it's caused by objectification. They have to be kept as distinct terms or no progress is made.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

I don't think that wide definition of objectified is what people object to.
Thaksin your avatars for example. It does what you describe as does all photography or art.
But we are left with NO doubt at all that your image portrays the human element of the model no?
What art is about is expression and communication of an aesthetic or a feeling or a human truth.
So when I look at your image I see something beautiful aesthetically but also some very human emotion/expression in the image; a vulnerability yet strength , a beauty that comes from inside you and her ad much ad it is to do with the beauty in the sensitivity the light and form.  There is a sensitivity to that that is not accidental. You have not objectified woman you've done the opposite.

I hope it's ok to give unsolicited critique in the positive

In some ways Art must be objective so it objectifies - reduces - to what is important . You show us something far more than reduction of the female form to purely sexual function. Not that there is any objection I think in reducing the female to simply form anyway.

Define "human".

If by human you mean the same thing that I described when I defined what I meant by "humanity" then the avatar does objectify. The photo is not about her and what makes her unique. Her identity and context have been stripped. There's almost no face, so the bit about strength and vulnerability is coming from body language. She's more of a symbol of women than the individual herself.

Once you start generalizing, then you've begun the process of removing the individual, which is what objectification does.

The photo is of "a woman" (object) not "a specific woman" (individual/person).

That type of lighting always objectifies, but isn't necessarily degrading.

Elizabeta Rosandic wrote:
I just wrote a paper for a Feminist Aesthetics class at my college on this subject, so you have me all excited now .

Bascially, the objectification of women in artwork and photographs is the portrayal of women whose function is to be observed, hence what is known as the "masculine gaze" (notice I use the word "masculine", not "male"). It is the idea that women are the observed, men are the observers. Women are passive, men are aggressive. This same ideology has lead to other societal gender roles that we know and love today.

If you're objectifying women (and I haven't looked at your port so I can't give my personal opinion on your work), it means, in feminist theory, that you are portraying women as passive objects of desire who serve no other function than to be looked at enticingly. One could certainly argue that this is the case in any image made of a woman, and the line of where portrayal meets objectification is blurry in many cases. There are, however, certain qualities in images that feminist historians have dubbed as "objectification". They include having the eyes and head turned down so that the subject is not making eye-contact with the viewer and the woman having little to no body hair with the genitals reduced to almost nothing.

Here are some examples of this in art:

http://www.artclon.com/paintings/standi … 38841.html

http://www.artvalue.com/auctionresult-- … 049761.htm

Jane Ussher wrote a great essay about this subject in the 90's. She says the reasoning behind this treatment of women is because of the fear of not being able to be aggressive, or "perform", on the part of the man. If there is no aggression in the woman, then the man is the aggressor by default. To quote her, "women are afraid of being raped, men are afraid of being laughed at".

EDIT: Freude calls this "scopophilia", or "the love of looking".

I don't know if this has been covered, since I haven't finished the thread yet, but this is something I REALLY want to comment on. I don't want to lose the ability to quote and respond.

You're description of the entire feminist outlook on this is antiquated for one, and couldn't be further from true feminism. Now, I'll explain.

The core concept of feminism is the idea that woman are as capable, and deserve to be treated equally with men. By simply flipping the roles, you'll see the failure of the reasoning. If a female photographer were to objectify a male model, there would be no question of whether he is being exploited. A photograph objectifies the subject only if the humanity of the subject isn't portrayed. In many forms of photography, humanity isn't desirable. In others, it's required. The objectification of the model is a result of the style of the photography, and shouldn't be pinned on the photographer. For that reason, it can't be true that objectifying a model in any way could offend the feminist construct.

Then there's the exploitation aspect implied in the objection.

To claim a model is being exploited is a dangerous thing to assume. Without concrete evidence that the model didn't agree, which they do, you're really reaching into the dark. Models often have no problem with being objectified, and sometimes actually seek it. There is nothing wrong with objectification under the right circumstances, but the word sets off red flags due to its ubiquitous misuse.

Which means...

By making the assertion that a model has in some way been wronged by being objectified, you're taking the position that said model is unable to make competent decisions on their own. If the model is female, it falls well out of the realm of feminism.

Now let's talk about the antiquity of modern "feminist" philosophy.

Originally, feminist philosophy was aimed at the equalization of women. In the early years, (First gen) it was about women being socially equal. Opinions, and capability, being seen equal to men, and being allowed to exert political pressure in the same way men do. It was successful.

Then there was sexual equalization. The idea that a woman is capable of deciding for herself how to express her sexuality. If a woman wants to have sex, she should be able to do so, and not be ostracized by the men. Also successful.

Then there came the professional equalization of women. The idea that women are as capable of holding high level positions in business, and industry. That women aren't only suitable for "Girl jobs". This was the third generation, and it was likewise successful.

Now we are onto the fourth generation. This battle is still being fought. It isn't being taught in schools, because the professors are working from the third gen battle plan. The misperception that women are being held back by men, and that social change must take place to educate men to solve the issue. Social change DOES need to take place, and there IS a problem. The misperception is...

Men aren't doing it this time. That's right.

Women are oppressing other women. Fourth gen feminists are fighting against other women this time. Slut shaming, jealousy, workplace sabotage... Women are doing serious damage to each other, and the feminist tradition is to blame the men, but it isn't the men this time. When a woman succeeds, the other women are spreading rumours about her sleeping her way to the top. When a woman chooses to engage in sexual conduct with a man of their choosing, her sisters call her a slut, and exclude her. It's all girl on girl crime.

Think about it. When a man calls a woman a slut, it's admiration. Why the hell would a man dislike a woman that expresses her sexuality freely? That's just one example, and this post is long enough.

I hope I have added some new insight, but if this has already been said. I apologize. I'm posting unusually for me, but I felt it was important enough to take the risk.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:

It's pretty clear that you don't understand what it means to objectify, or you're even more confused about something else.

Or are you saying that if a photo doesn't intend to objectify, but is degrading it's ok?

There's no relationship between objectification and degradation, but you keep writing about them as redundant terms. Everything you've written could be written without mention of objectification.

"It's when photographs aren't about beauty, but degrade, there are issues."

I will admit that I'm not reading your words literally as written, but instead as I believe they are intended. "Degrading to the status of object" is what objectification means, so I find it hard to believe that you intended to write "It's when photographs intend to objectify and arent about beauty, but objectify, I think there are issues."

Normally I don't think it's constructive to analyze the way a post is written, but my main point is about communicating accurately and having your thoughts clear.

Your complaints are about women being portrayed at an inequal social status - your homemaker cliche or sexual degradation in porn. Those things can be done without objectifying and are problems independent of objectification.

When you attach them to the word objectification you stigmatize the word, and it's not a perforation term, just descriptive.

Man Ray's photo of a woman as a cello/violin  ( http://silpayamanant.files.wordpress.co … ingres.jpg ) is portraying her as an object. It's really just a clever recognition of shape unless you decide to project deeper meaning on comparing woman to a musical instrument. Or maybe the photo is really about humanizing an instrument ("my violin is not happy today. She does not like to sing in this weather").

Objectification is not, by definition, a bad thing. That's really what this entire thread is about going back to the OP. If you tell someone their photo is "objectifying" when the word is used interchangeably with degrading, you make them defensive. Also if you assume that all objectification is a bad thing, you can obscure the meaning of a photo. The Man Ray photo could be saying the women are filled with with diversity or that they have a physical beauty but also an internal beauty that they put out.

Using objectification and degradation means that people end up debating whether that image is objectifying, which is indebateably yes, when the real debate is whether it's degrading or not.

When you misuse the word you completely skew the discussion.


In the other hand, someone could argue that any portrayal of a person as an object is always degrading, but you're not saying that if you're accepting objectification when it's about beauty.


Stereotyping and degradation are separate from objectification and if you don't keep those distinctions clear, people can't learn to see objectification and there are ways in which degradation happens through objectification.

I think that often happens because people don't know how to see objectification in a photo, which means that they can't see the degradation when it's caused by objectification. They have to be kept as distinct terms or no progress is made.

I don't think you are actually reading what I say.

I have quite clearly stated in my above post that objectification is NOT necessarily a bad thing. Read my post where I gave cited the blue nude.

The point I am making is that it's when objectification is intentionally degrading or negatively stereotyping I see a problem. So don't say I am confusing the two when I am making the two distinct.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
Define "human".

If by human you mean the same thing that I described when I defined what I meant by "humanity" then the avatar does objectify. The photo is not about her and what makes her unique. Her identity and context have been stripped. There's almost no face, so the bit about strength and vulnerability is coming from body language. She's more of a symbol of women than the individual herself.

Once you start generalizing, then you've begun the process of removing the individual, which is what objectification does.

The photo is of "a woman" (object) not "a specific woman" (individual/person).

That type of lighting always objectifies, but isn't necessarily degrading.

Can you not see that is what I am saying?

You are fighting an imaginary argument here.

Though I disagree with minor details.
The body language had been captured and a conscious choice of the model to do it and the photographer to capture it.
Though even if there was no body language and the form is captured but no humanity is inherent it doesn't necessarily mean it is bad.
Hence the blue nude; the man ray pic, or if you look in my port the image where I have become a mannequin. Objectification in itself is not bad; all art does that to a certain extent as others have said. I don't ever hear anyone complain that a toilet door symbol of male and female are objectified. So what the problem is with objectification is the type of objectification.

To represent something another can identify with in some ways is necessary to generalise or reduce to the essentials. So the nude being strong yet vulnerable it could be said is something common to all women with which we can identify; and even which men can appreciate.

Yes we could have the conversation about those types of objectification that people are concerned about without objectification per se being raised. So this is what I am saying. That it's what certain types of objectification can do or are perceived to do is the problem not objectification itself which all Western art is bound to do in some way. EWe reduce things in image making to the essentials that others can empathise with or understand or appreciate. That is fine. But when a conscious decision is made to objectify to purely sexual object, military object, gender or racial negative stereotype etc that people can have issue with.

Even then I don't know if thone particular images ate necessarily bad. For example a propaganda poster where a person is reduced to strong machine or soldier. These are dehumanized images and they were meant to appeal to people to take up arms etc without showing the horror tragedy etc of war. But they can still be aesthetically pleasing.
Likewise, I think men can look at t and a without then judging all women solely on that. So it is why I suggest this a problem only for the lesser educated. So while I think it healthy to consider these issues when making images it's actually a problem of society rather than requiring harsh criticism of image makers. Though as with movie making or entertainment, there is no need to pander to the lowest common denominator.

But yes I think the word objectification has become stigmatized to mean something else which is not helpful I agree.

Bad Dog Photog wrote:
The core concept of feminism is the idea that woman are as capable, and deserve to be treated equally with men. By simply flipping the roles, you'll see the failure of the reasoning. If a female photographer were to objectify a male model, there would be no question of whether he is being exploited. A photograph objectifies the subject only if the humanity of the subject isn't portrayed. In many forms of photography, humanity isn't desirable. In others, it's required. The objectification of the model is a result of the style of the photography, and shouldn't be pinned on the photographer. For that reason, it can't be true that objectifying a model in any way could offend the feminist construct.

The "core construct" of feminism has changed several times actually, depending on the particular sect of feminism and the time period. If I were to take a gander at what most feminists would agree with (and this varies A LOT) it would be the Simone de Beauvoir theory that gender is entirely a social construct based on a system of social roles (otherwise known as patriarchy) that call for women to be passive, protected, and beautiful to look at, while men are aggressive, protectors, and not beautiful to look at.

The objectification of a model, as some have argued in this thread, can be difficult to avoid because photography is often inherently objectifying. However, as the photographer is often the person in control of the overall composition of the photograph (yes, models may bring ideas, but ultimately the photographer is the one who sees the big picture) the photographer has the ability to chose whether or not a photograph will be objectifying. Someone in here brought up the idea of the portrait, which is almost always non-objectifying.

Bad Dog Photog wrote:
Then there's the exploitation aspect implied in the objection.

To claim a model is being exploited is a dangerous thing to assume. Without concrete evidence that the model didn't agree, which they do, you're really reaching into the dark. Models often have no problem with being objectified, and sometimes actually seek it. There is nothing wrong with objectification under the right circumstances, but the word sets off red flags due to its ubiquitous misuse.

Which means...

By making the assertion that a model has in some way been wronged by being objectified, you're taking the position that said model is unable to make competent decisions on their own. If the model is female, it falls well out of the realm of feminism.

No, there isn't an exploitative aspect implied in objectification. Nor does the objectification of a model mean he/she's in a dangerous situation. I'm not sure where in my post you got that idea. People often choose to be objectified. I choose to be objectified quite often.

Bad Dog Photog wrote:
Now let's talk about the antiquity of modern "feminist" philosophy.

(snip)

Now we are onto the fourth generation. This battle is still being fought. It isn't being taught in schools, because the professors are working from the third gen battle plan. The misperception that women are being held back by men, and that social change must take place to educate men to solve the issue. Social change DOES need to take place, and there IS a problem. The misperception is...

You're a little ahead of yourself. We're actually in third wave feminism at the moment.

Bad Dog Photog wrote:
Men aren't doing it this time. That's right.

Women are oppressing other women. Fourth gen feminists are fighting against other women this time. Slut shaming, jealousy, workplace sabotage... Women are doing serious damage to each other, and the feminist tradition is to blame the men, but it isn't the men this time. When a woman succeeds, the other women are spreading rumours about her sleeping her way to the top. When a woman chooses to engage in sexual conduct with a man of their choosing, her sisters call her a slut, and exclude her. It's all girl on girl crime.

Think about it. When a man calls a woman a slut, it's admiration. Why the hell would a man dislike a woman that expresses her sexuality freely? That's just one example, and this post is long enough.

No, patriarchy oppresses people. It always has. Slut shaming is the result of patriarchy. It is the result of the societal roles that dictate that women should be passive, and therefore not actively seeking out sexual partners. In the same way that men who are not aggressive enough in seeking out partners are seen as not "masculine" and given other derogatory names.

This derives from the Beauvoir theory, which I mentioned earlier, which tends to be the go-to theory for feminism.

And men calling women sluts = admiration? What? Are you serious???

Elizabeta Rosandic wrote:
Ok, without getting terribly soapboxy, I feel the need to correct some assumptions you've made about feminism and feminist history that are quite flawed.

Bad Dog Photog wrote:
The core concept of feminism is the idea that woman are as capable, and deserve to be treated equally with men. By simply flipping the roles, you'll see the failure of the reasoning. If a female photographer were to objectify a male model, there would be no question of whether he is being exploited. A photograph objectifies the subject only if the humanity of the subject isn't portrayed. In many forms of photography, humanity isn't desirable. In others, it's required. The objectification of the model is a result of the style of the photography, and shouldn't be pinned on the photographer. For that reason, it can't be true that objectifying a model in any way could offend the feminist construct.

The "core construct" of feminism has changed several times actually, depending on the particular sect of feminism and the time period. If I were to take a gander at what most feminists would agree with (and this varies A LOT) it would be the Simone de Beauvoir theory that gender is entirely a social construct based on a system of social roles (otherwise known as patriarchy) that call for women to be passive, protected, and beautiful to look at, while men are aggressive, protectors, and not beautiful to look at.

The objectification of a model, as some have argued in this thread, can be difficult to avoid because photography is often inherently objectifying. However, as the photographer is often the person in control of the overall composition of the photograph (yes, models may bring ideas, but ultimately the photographer is the one who sees the big picture) the photographer has the ability to chose whether or not a photograph will be objectifying. Someone in here brought up the idea of the portrait, which is almost always non-objectifying.

Bad Dog Photog wrote:
Then there's the exploitation aspect implied in the objection.

To claim a model is being exploited is a dangerous thing to assume. Without concrete evidence that the model didn't agree, which they do, you're really reaching into the dark. Models often have no problem with being objectified, and sometimes actually seek it. There is nothing wrong with objectification under the right circumstances, but the word sets off red flags due to its ubiquitous misuse.

Which means...

By making the assertion that a model has in some way been wronged by being objectified, you're taking the position that said model is unable to make competent decisions on their own. If the model is female, it falls well out of the realm of feminism.

No, there isn't an exploitative aspect implied in objectification. Nor does the objectification of a model mean he/she's in a dangerous situation. I'm not sure where in my post you got that idea. People often choose to be objectified. I choose to be objectified quite often.

Bad Dog Photog wrote:
Now let's talk about the antiquity of modern "feminist" philosophy.

(snip)

Now we are onto the fourth generation. This battle is still being fought. It isn't being taught in schools, because the professors are working from the third gen battle plan. The misperception that women are being held back by men, and that social change must take place to educate men to solve the issue. Social change DOES need to take place, and there IS a problem. The misperception is...

You're a little ahead of yourself. We're actually in third wave feminism at the moment.


No, patriarchy oppresses people. It always has. Slut shaming is the result of patriarchy. It is the result of the societal roles that dictate that women should be passive, and therefore not actively seeking out sexual partners. In the same way that men who are not aggressive enough in seeking out partners are seen as not "masculine" and given other derogatory names.

This derives from the Beauvoir theory, which I mentioned earlier, which tends to be the go-to theory for feminism.

And men calling women sluts = admiration? What? Are you serious???

You clearly have been educated by a third generation feminist. There is a current tendency for them to mistake feminism and misandry, so I encourage you to be wary. Don't believe everything you hear in a school, or anywhere. Do research into the person's claims, and learn more.

You're wrong, and so is your teacher. We're in the fourth generation. It just got in.

It started a few years ago.

You're going to have to dig very deep to find the movement online, and professors in school don't often teach it, because they are the enemy in this generation. As I said, this one is a girl on girl battle. None of this matters though, since you should be following your heart anyway, not the drum of some movement.

As I described, slut shaming couldn't be a result of patriarchy, as it isn't masculine behaviour. You're confused.

If you really want to have a conversation about feminism, I suggest we do it elsewhere. This is a thread about Photography, and whether we objectify women. I made the point that objectifying women is required in some photography, and impossible in others, so the photographer isn't to blame. I also pointed out how putting feminism into the equation only serves to confuse(obfuscate) the issue. I did so to encourage others to leave it out of the consideration, because it will hinder the search for truth.

Bad Dog Photog wrote:
You clearly have been educated by a third generation feminist. There is a current tendency for them to mistake feminism and misandry, so I encourage you to be wary. Don't believe everything you hear in a school, or anywhere. Do research into the person's claims, and learn more.

You're wrong, and so is your teacher. We're in the fourth generation. It just got in.

It started a few years ago.

Well, thanks for the wonderful condescending comments in which you assume that I am currently studying feminism in school (haven't for a few years now) and use that to undermine my sense of individual intelligence. We are in third wave feminism. That is a historical fact. If you have sources that say otherwise please provide them.

Bad Dog Photog wrote:
As I described, slut shaming couldn't be a result of patriarchy, as it isn't masculine behaviour. You're confused.

No, it is you who has confused what is "patriarchy" with what is "masculine". Patriarchy is a societal system in which, basically speaking, men are aggressive and women are passive. Masculinity falls under patriarchy as the act of being aggressive. Slut shaming is the result of women stepping out of a passive sexual role and being shamed for it. The shamers in question could be anyone- male or female- but the act of slut-shaming is borne out of the patriarchal need for women to remain passive. Both men and women who engage in slut-shaming are adhering to patriarchy.

Bad Dog Photog wrote:
If you really want to have a conversation about feminism, I suggest we do it elsewhere. This is a thread about Photography, and whether we objectify women. I made the point that objectifying women is required in some photography, and impossible in others, so the photographer isn't to blame. I also pointed out how putting feminism into the equation only serves to confuse(obfuscate) the issue. I did so to encourage others to leave it out of the consideration, because it will hinder the search for truth.

If we're going to talk about the objectification of women it's pretty difficult to avoid talking about feminism. Furthermore, feminist theory can absolutely be applied to this conversation.

In theory, if a model is being objectified in a photo, the model is being portrayed as the object of viewing, with little more purpose than that. If the model serves another purpose other that being the object of viewing in the photograph, the level of objectification goes down.

Being objectified is, in patriarchy, the role of the woman. Being passive, and being looked at.

Here's a classic example of objectification:
http://trueadvertise.files.wordpress.co … iserad.jpg

The model is literally only eye candy put on the bottle to be enjoyable to look at. She doesn't serve any other purpose.

Here's the portfolio of a portrait photographer (not on MM) who, IMO, does some great work and is not objectifying his/her subjects. Take your pick (no pun intended):
http://onemohr.net/portfolio/portrait/

One could easily build stories surrounding the models in these photographs by just looking at them. It forces the viewer to wonder why the models have particular expressions or looks. It is intellectually stimulating to look at the models, instead of simply looking at them for the sake of looking at them.

Elizabeta Rosandic wrote:
Well, thanks for the wonderful condescending comments in which you assume that I am currently studying feminism in school (haven't for a few years now) and use that to undermine my sense of individual intelligence. We are in third wave feminism. That is a historical fact. If you have sources that say otherwise please provide them.


If we're going to talk about the objectification of women it's pretty difficult to avoid talking about feminism. Furthermore, feminist theory can absolutely be applied to this conversation.

In theory, if a model is being objectified in a photo, the model is being portrayed as the object of viewing, with little more purpose than that. If the model serves another purpose other that being the object of viewing in the photograph, the level of objectification goes down.

Being objectified is, in patriarchy, the role of the woman. Being passive, and being looked at.

Here's a classic example of objectification:
http://trueadvertise.files.wordpress.co … iserad.jpg

The model is literally only eye candy put on the bottle to be enjoyable to look at. She doesn't serve any other purpose.

Here's the portfolio of a portrait photographer (not on MM) who, IMO, does some great work and is not objectifying his/her subjects. Take your pick (no pun intended):
http://onemohr.net/portfolio/portrait/

One could easily build stories surrounding the models in these photographs by just looking at them. It forces the viewer to wonder why the models have particular expressions or looks. It is intellectually stimulating to look at the models, instead of simply looking at them for the sake of looking at them.

I didn't click those links, because they are irrelevant to my argument from either side. This fact tells me that you are not interested in conversation, but are trying to spread propaganda. This means you aren't open to my ideas, and now I am not open to yours.

We're done.

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
I do idealize the women in my photographs.  I intentionally make them look beautiful,

IMO, every woman (and every man) has some beauty (and some ugliness) that can be captured. That you have the skill and talent to capture that beauty in women? Is not objectifying them, it is using your skill and talent to capture a certain aspect of them. That it isn't complete or objective is immaterial. It is your talent and vision. It's not a bad thing in the world to see and capture beauty.

Bad Dog Photog wrote:
I didn't click those links, because they are irrelevant to my argument from either side. This fact tells me that you are not interested in conversation, but are trying to spread propaganda. This means you aren't open to my ideas, and now I am not open to yours.

We're done.

They're irrelevant to your argument? I was using them to explain how it is possible to photograph a person non-objectively. You are the one who has provided zero outside examples of your claim of the "fourth wave" feminism. Furthermore, YOU are the one who has opened this argument. I have done nothing but offer my responses to your statements. In turn, you have been extremely condescending.

It's clear that you were never open to my ideas to begin with and just enjoy having someone to talk down to.

Elizabeta Rosandic wrote:

They're irrelevant to your argument? I was using them to explain how it is possible to photograph a person non-objectively. You are the one who has provided zero outside examples of your claim of the "fourth wave" feminism. Furthermore, YOU are the one who has opened this argument. I have done nothing but offer my responses to your statements. In turn, you have been extremely condescending.

It's clear that you were never open to my ideas to begin with and just enjoy having someone to talk down to.

Like I said, if you want to have a conversation about feminism, we could have done that outside of this thread. This thread is about photography, and objectification. Feminism doesn't apply, and obfuscates the thread. I even explained exactly why.

You then made your argument against me specifically, and dismissed the concept of there being a new generation of feminist based on your ignorance of its existence. This is exactly the point I introduced about feminism that we could have discussed in another venue. That offer is rescinded, since you are clearly not willing to discuss the topic, rather want to convince me that I wrong. Well, it would be absurd for me to keep links to everything I read, or record every conversation I have with all of the people I talk to. This makes your request for data to back up my argument absurd.

Your assumption that I'm talking down to you demonstrates why I'm not willing to continue the discussion. Your attitude toward this whole thing has convinced me not to waste my time. I don't care if you ever learn about the fourth generation of feminism. You refused to learn about it from me. Maybe you should ask yourself what other educational opportunities you've lost from other people as well.

I opened a door to you in good faith, and you slammed it in my face. I'm ok with that, now it's your turn to find peace.

Again, I'm done.

Bad Dog Photog wrote:
Like I said, if you want to have a conversation about feminism, we could have done that outside of this thread. This thread is about photography, and objectification. Feminism doesn't apply, and obfuscates the thread. I even explained exactly why.

I don't even recall using the word "feminism" in the post you replied to. You were the one who accused me of having "antiquated" feminist views for reasons that did not make sense (I'll be happy to discuss why your idea of "fourth wave" feminism is obsolete in PM, if you'd like).  You were the one who brought up feminism in general. I used feminist art theorists to describe my thoughts about objectification, and like I said you can't really have a discussion about the objectification of women without discussing feminism, but YOU were the one who went on a rant about feminism in general.

Bad Dog Photog wrote:
You then made your argument against me specifically, and dismissed the concept of there being a new generation of feminist based on your ignorance of its existence. This is exactly the point I introduced about feminism that we could have discussed in another venue. That offer is rescinded, since you are clearly not willing to discuss the topic, rather want to convince me that I wrong. Well, it would be absurd for me to keep links to everything I read, or record every conversation I have with all of the people I talk to. This makes your request for data to back up my argument absurd.

No, I made an argument against your understanding of feminism and feminist history and told you why it was flawed. Instead of offering a relevant rebuttal, you simply accused me of "spreading propaganda".

Assuming you don't have a PhD. in gender studies or women's history it I don't see how it would be uncalled for to ask you to provide links, especially since your idea of "fourth wave" feminism really had nothing to do with feminism at all (again, willing to discuss that further in PM), nor did your bringing up of this theory have anything to do with the OP.

Bad Dog Photog wrote:
Your assumption that I'm talking down to you demonstrates why I'm not willing to continue the discussion. Your attitude toward this whole thing has convinced me not to waste my time. I don't care if you ever learn about the fourth generation of feminism. You refused to learn about it from me. Maybe you should ask yourself what other educational opportunities you've lost from other people as well.

It's not an assumption- would you like me to point out specifically the times you've talked down to me? Right now would be an excellent example. You're ending a debate that you started on the basis of it having nothing to do with the OP- when it was YOU who brought up feminism in general, not in connection to objectification, and apparently expected me not to debate you on it?

Elizabeta Rosandic wrote:

Bad Dog Photog wrote:
Like I said, if you want to have a conversation about feminism, we could have done that outside of this thread. This thread is about photography, and objectification. Feminism doesn't apply, and obfuscates the thread. I even explained exactly why.

I don't even recall using the word "feminism" in the post you replied to. You were the one who accused me of having "antiquated" feminist views for reasons that did not make sense (I'll be happy to discuss why your idea of "fourth wave" feminism is obsolete in PM, if you'd like).  You were the one who brought up feminism in general. I used feminist art theorists to describe my thoughts about objectification, and like I said you can't really have a discussion about the objectification of women without discussing feminism, but YOU were the one who went on a rant about feminism in general.

Bad Dog Photog wrote:
You then made your argument against me specifically, and dismissed the concept of there being a new generation of feminist based on your ignorance of its existence. This is exactly the point I introduced about feminism that we could have discussed in another venue. That offer is rescinded, since you are clearly not willing to discuss the topic, rather want to convince me that I wrong. Well, it would be absurd for me to keep links to everything I read, or record every conversation I have with all of the people I talk to. This makes your request for data to back up my argument absurd.

No, I made an argument against your understanding of feminism and feminist history and told you why it was flawed. Instead of offering a relevant rebuttal, you simply accused me of "spreading propaganda".

Assuming you don't have a PhD. in gender studies or women's history it I don't see how it would be uncalled for to ask you to provide links, especially since your idea of "fourth wave" feminism really had nothing to do with feminism at all (again, willing to discuss that further in PM), nor did your bringing up of this theory have anything to do with the OP.


It's not an assumption- would you like me to point out specifically the times you've talked down to me? Right now would be an excellent example. You're ending a debate that you started on the basis of it having nothing to do with the OP- when it was YOU who brought up feminism in general, not in connection to objectification, and apparently expected me not to debate you on it?

I said I'm done. Now I'm starting to see why you're having a hard time learning.

Bad Dog Photog wrote:
I said I'm done. Now I'm starting to see why you're having a hard time learning.

Good for you.

Like I said, if you don't want to discuss it here, go ahead and send me a PM.

Of course, that would require coming up with an actually argument instead of just talking down to me (again).

Elizabeta Rosandic wrote:

Good for you.

Like I said, if you don't want to discuss it here, go ahead and send me a PM.

Of course, that would require coming up with an actually argument instead of just talking down to me (again).

Look... I told you I'm not going to talk to you about it anymore. You had your chance, and you blew it. I'm watching this thread for something interesting on the subject now. I'm no longer interested in your opinion. You obvious attempts to keep me talking to you by dropping insinuations which might make me look like I'm admitting defeat if I don't respond will not work. I'm not going to play your childish game. That's it.

There will be no PM. There will be no exchange of ideas. There will be no more response.

...and now... there is no longer much respect left for you. Let it go.

Bad Dog Photog wrote:

Look... I told you I'm not going to talk to you about it anymore. You had your chance, and you blew it. I'm watching this thread for something interesting on the subject now. I'm no longer interested in your opinion. You obvious attempts to keep me talking to you by dropping insinuations which might make me look like I'm admitting defeat if I don't respond will not work. I'm not going to play your childish game. That's it.

There will be no PM. There will be no exchange of ideas. There will be no more response.

...and now... there is no longer much respect left for you. Let it go.

So I blew it because...

I argued with you? I didn't agree with you?

I don't follow your logic. You told me that, even though you brought it up, if we were to discuss feminism we should do it elsewhere. I invites you several to times to PM me about it, and you fervently decline? Because...?

You've opened a discussion and then stopped it with a bunch of insults because it didn't go your way? How mature of you.

Elizabeta Rosandic wrote:
So I blew it because...

I argued with you? I didn't agree with you?

I don't follow your logic. You told me that, even though you brought it up, if we were to discuss feminism we should do it elsewhere. I invites you several to times to PM me about it, and you fervently decline? Because...?

You've opened a discussion and then stopped it with a bunch of insults because it didn't go your way? How mature of you.

Bad Dog Photog wrote:

Look... I told you I'm not going to talk to you about it anymore. You had your chance, and you blew it. I'm watching this thread for something interesting on the subject now. I'm no longer interested in your opinion. You obvious attempts to keep me talking to you by dropping insinuations which might make me look like I'm admitting defeat if I don't respond will not work. I'm not going to play your childish game. That's it.

There will be no PM. There will be no exchange of ideas. There will be no more response.

...and now... there is no longer much respect left for you. Let it go.

It's not worth it, it's as bad as trying to have a discussion with Christians.  They all have their own "ideas", and you were the bad guy as a result of your birth.

R Bruce Duncan wrote:
You need to give it a rest, Bad Dog-

RBD

Oh yeah?

Why is that, and how did I become the one that needs to give it a rest? Did it somehow become taboo to stand your ground, and refuse to engage in a battle? If you aren't trying to pick a fight, then you might want to examine how you come off, especially since you haven't been involved in this conversation until now.

So do you have something to contribute to the topic of objectification, and whether it is acceptable? Do you have something to say about my assertion that depending on photographic genre, objectification is required in some, impossible in others, and not much a reflection on the photographer? Maybe you want to weigh in on whether feminism has a place in gauging the value of photographs. Eh?

Or did you just come in here to get into the argument... If so, leave me out. I don't want to argue about this. I made my point on the subject, and see no reason to get into a mudslinging contest.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:

Can you not see that is what I am saying?

You are fighting an imaginary argument here.

Though I disagree with minor details.
The body language had been captured and a conscious choice of the model to do it and the photographer to capture it.
Though even if there was no body language and the form is captured but no humanity is inherent it doesn't necessarily mean it is bad.
Hence the blue nude; the man ray pic, or if you look in my port the image where I have become a mannequin. Objectification in itself is not bad; all art does that to a certain extent as others have said. I don't ever hear anyone complain that a toilet door symbol of male and female are objectified. So what the problem is with objectification is the type of objectification.

To represent something another can identify with in some ways is necessary to generalise or reduce to the essentials. So the nude being strong yet vulnerable it could be said is something common to all women with which we can identify; and even which men can appreciate.

Yes we could have the conversation about those types of objectification that people are concerned about without objectification per se being raised. So this is what I am saying. That it's what certain types of objectification can do or are perceived to do is the problem not objectification itself which all Western art is bound to do in some way. EWe reduce things in image making to the essentials that others can empathise with or understand or appreciate. That is fine. But when a conscious decision is made to objectify to purely sexual object, military object, gender or racial negative stereotype etc that people can have issue with.

Even then I don't know if thone particular images ate necessarily bad. For example a propaganda poster where a person is reduced to strong machine or soldier. These are dehumanized images and they were meant to appeal to people to take up arms etc without showing the horror tragedy etc of war. But they can still be aesthetically pleasing.
Likewise, I think men can look at t and a without then judging all women solely on that. So it is why I suggest this a problem only for the lesser educated. So while I think it healthy to consider these issues when making images it's actually a problem of society rather than requiring harsh criticism of image makers. Though as with movie making or entertainment, there is no need to pander to the lowest common denominator.

But yes I think the word objectification has become stigmatized to mean something else which is not helpful I agree.

I don't know if I'm getting your points in posts prior to this one.

There isn't really more than one type of objectification. The element your referring to by saying "type" is the only problem.  Really what you're identifying is stereotyping, not objectification. It's the making general statements, and when it comes to media the universality of the general statements. All of those examples you gave can be done without objectifying. If you simply say "All women feel _______" you've generalized without objectifying.

My point is that I agree with your underlying views, but that your articulating them in a way that's inaccurate and that innaccuracy provokes a debate and the underlying message and views don't get expressed and don't lead to change. 

I don't think that  academic education is a significant part of the issue in the slightest. In fact there's was recently a big expose on the changes Harvard has been making in it's business school in an attempt to decrease the institutionalized sexism.

The issue is really about the repetition of the message and the lack of diversity being presented.

People talking about how porn leads men to believe that women want certain things. I think porn alone, can not do that. It has to be reinforced in other ways. I think the bigger issue is that it leads women to want some of those things - they create an association between certain acts and pleasure. I think there are some women who will genuinely develop new pleasures/tastes from the messages in porn. I think there are women who will think that's the case when it's not true. I think there are women who will watch porn and believe that's what men want, which is not necessarily true, but the bad part is that they may develop an apprehension about sex based on projections from things they've seen in porn.

Inaccurate messages that are repeated over and over affect both genders, and really that has nothing to do with objectification, it's lack of diversity.

Really if you go to a porn website that lists videos by genres, the message that's giving, to me, seems pretty diverse, especially if I have to google a term.


This takes us back to improper use of "objectification". It allows an individual who wants to say that all porn shows the same thing, which is is not true, to make a convincing argument on an emotional basis rather than factual by citing objectification, which may be factually correct, and they further their emotional agenda without basing it on fact.

Really, if you think about it, all acting is objectifying. In mainstream films the people in them are the director's marionettes. We're not seeing the feelings of the person were seeing. They are just a body being used to tell a story.


Sometimes being pedantic is a waste of time. Other times it can provide the type of clarity that truly opens eyes and changes points of view.

Elizabeta Rosandic wrote:
Ok, without getting terribly soapboxy, I feel the need to correct some assumptions you've made about feminism and feminist history that are quite flawed.

Bad Dog Photog wrote:
The core concept of feminism is the idea that woman are as capable, and deserve to be treated equally with men. By simply flipping the roles, you'll see the failure of the reasoning. If a female photographer were to objectify a male model, there would be no question of whether he is being exploited. A photograph objectifies the subject only if the humanity of the subject isn't portrayed. In many forms of photography, humanity isn't desirable. In others, it's required. The objectification of the model is a result of the style of the photography, and shouldn't be pinned on the photographer. For that reason, it can't be true that objectifying a model in any way could offend the feminist construct.

The "core construct" of feminism has changed several times actually, depending on the particular sect of feminism and the time period. If I were to take a gander at what most feminists would agree with (and this varies A LOT) it would be the Simone de Beauvoir theory that gender is entirely a social construct based on a system of social roles (otherwise known as patriarchy) that call for women to be passive, protected, and beautiful to look at, while men are aggressive, protectors, and not beautiful to look at.

The objectification of a model, as some have argued in this thread, can be difficult to avoid because photography is often inherently objectifying. However, as the photographer is often the person in control of the overall composition of the photograph (yes, models may bring ideas, but ultimately the photographer is the one who sees the big picture) the photographer has the ability to chose whether or not a photograph will be objectifying. Someone in here brought up the idea of the portrait, which is almost always non-objectifying.

Bad Dog Photog wrote:
Then there's the exploitation aspect implied in the objection.

To claim a model is being exploited is a dangerous thing to assume. Without concrete evidence that the model didn't agree, which they do, you're really reaching into the dark. Models often have no problem with being objectified, and sometimes actually seek it. There is nothing wrong with objectification under the right circumstances, but the word sets off red flags due to its ubiquitous misuse.

Which means...

By making the assertion that a model has in some way been wronged by being objectified, you're taking the position that said model is unable to make competent decisions on their own. If the model is female, it falls well out of the realm of feminism.

No, there isn't an exploitative aspect implied in objectification. Nor does the objectification of a model mean he/she's in a dangerous situation. I'm not sure where in my post you got that idea. People often choose to be objectified. I choose to be objectified quite often.

Bad Dog Photog wrote:
Now let's talk about the antiquity of modern "feminist" philosophy.

(snip)

Now we are onto the fourth generation. This battle is still being fought. It isn't being taught in schools, because the professors are working from the third gen battle plan. The misperception that women are being held back by men, and that social change must take place to educate men to solve the issue. Social change DOES need to take place, and there IS a problem. The misperception is...

You're a little ahead of yourself. We're actually in third wave feminism at the moment.


No, patriarchy oppresses people. It always has. Slut shaming is the result of patriarchy. It is the result of the societal roles that dictate that women should be passive, and therefore not actively seeking out sexual partners. In the same way that men who are not aggressive enough in seeking out partners are seen as not "masculine" and given other derogatory names.

This derives from the Beauvoir theory, which I mentioned earlier, which tends to be the go-to theory for feminism.

And men calling women sluts = admiration? What? Are you serious???

The idea of the gender construction is an interesting one, especially the interpretation of the specifics. In the interpretation above, are the men the dominant ones who've forced women into that role, or are the women the dominant ones who've "enslaved" men?

In the past couple of years I've learned a bit about dominance and submission from friends who do it professionally and also from non-pro friends. During a couple of recent conversations the person describing their preference to submit (and set the limits and control the safe word) has described it in a way that sounds far more like being the center of attention, as well as being in control. I'm sure for some people it genuinely is submitting, but I think for others it's genuine a way of taking control. I think that same question of who's really dominating can be asked about the gender construct above.


I've found that the meaning of the word slut has changed. I associate it only with positive things - like independence, controlling one's own sexuality, being proactive etc. I don't go around using it that way, or pretty much using the word at all. If I were to it would be only with certain friends who would understand the use as being supportive of their choices and envious of their behavior.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has those associations, though I'm sure it's a minority point of view.

Elizabeta Rosandic wrote:

Bad Dog Photog wrote:
You clearly have been educated by a third generation feminist. There is a current tendency for them to mistake feminism and misandry, so I encourage you to be wary. Don't believe everything you hear in a school, or anywhere. Do research into the person's claims, and learn more.

You're wrong, and so is your teacher. We're in the fourth generation. It just got in.

It started a few years ago.

Well, thanks for the wonderful condescending comments in which you assume that I am currently studying feminism in school (haven't for a few years now) and use that to undermine my sense of individual intelligence. We are in third wave feminism. That is a historical fact. If you have sources that say otherwise please provide them.

Bad Dog Photog wrote:
As I described, slut shaming couldn't be a result of patriarchy, as it isn't masculine behaviour. You're confused.

No, it is you who has confused what is "patriarchy" with what is "masculine". Patriarchy is a societal system in which, basically speaking, men are aggressive and women are passive. Masculinity falls under patriarchy as the act of being aggressive. Slut shaming is the result of women stepping out of a passive sexual role and being shamed for it. The shamers in question could be anyone- male or female- but the act of slut-shaming is borne out of the patriarchal need for women to remain passive. Both men and women who engage in slut-shaming are adhering to patriarchy.


If we're going to talk about the objectification of women it's pretty difficult to avoid talking about feminism. Furthermore, feminist theory can absolutely be applied to this conversation.

In theory, if a model is being objectified in a photo, the model is being portrayed as the object of viewing, with little more purpose than that. If the model serves another purpose other that being the object of viewing in the photograph, the level of objectification goes down.

Being objectified is, in patriarchy, the role of the woman. Being passive, and being looked at.

Here's a classic example of objectification:
http://trueadvertise.files.wordpress.co … iserad.jpg

The model is literally only eye candy put on the bottle to be enjoyable to look at. She doesn't serve any other purpose.

Here's the portfolio of a portrait photographer (not on MM) who, IMO, does some great work and is not objectifying his/her subjects. Take your pick (no pun intended):
http://onemohr.net/portfolio/portrait/

One could easily build stories surrounding the models in these photographs by just looking at them. It forces the viewer to wonder why the models have particular expressions or looks. It is intellectually stimulating to look at the models, instead of simply looking at them for the sake of looking at them.

There was recently a thread about whether or not digital tools "feminized" results.

Most of it revolved around sorting out the definition of feminized which was not how most people interpreted it. It's something you might find interesting. Things get clarified a bit in the last two pages, which might influence responses to earlier posts.

Bad Dog Photog wrote:

Oh yeah?

Why is that, and how did I become the one that needs to give it a rest? Did it somehow become taboo to stand your ground, and refuse to engage in a battle? If you aren't trying to pick a fight, then you might want to examine how you come off, especially since you haven't been involved in this conversation until now.

So do you have something to contribute to the topic of objectification, and whether it is acceptable? Do you have something to say about my assertion that depending on photographic genre, objectification is required in some, impossible in others, and not much a reflection on the photographer? Maybe you want to weigh in on whether feminism has a place in gauging the value of photographs. Eh?

Or did you just come in here to get into the argument... If so, leave me out. I don't want to argue about this. I made my point on the subject, and see no reason to get into a mudslinging contest.

The two of you have ended up having a conversation about your conversation. It's a meta loop that's not going anywhere.

I have no idea how you're feeling, but your choice of wording makes you sound agitated in a way that's unpleasant to be around. 

The give it a rest comment is completely dismissive, and either objectifying [ ] or trolling! but I think it was not directed at you personally but as an attempt to push the sense of agitation from the thread.


You seem knowledgeable, but it's hard to digest some of the ideas as presented.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
Really, if you think about it, all acting is objectifying. In mainstream films the people in them are the director's marionettes. We're not seeing the feelings of the person were seeing. They are just a body being used to tell a story.


Sometimes being pedantic is a waste of time. Other times it can provide the type of clarity that truly opens eyes and changes points of view.

Yes. Exactly.

The rest of the post too, but this specifically is what I have been trying to say.

Good job. +1

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
The two of you have ended up having a conversation about your conversation. It's a meta loop that's not going anywhere.

I have no idea how you're feeling, but your choice of wording makes you sound agitated in a way that's unpleasant to be around.

The give it a rest comment is completely dismissive, and either objectifying [ wink ] or trolling! but I think it was not directed at you personally but as an attempt to push the sense of agitation from the thread.

That is exactly what happened, and I tried to get out of the loop before my agitation got the best of me. Then when it looked like it was finally over, someone comes by to poke me with a stick. (metaphorically)

When seeing a dog being harassed to the point of agitation, what motive could incite you to poke it further?

I just want to have an intelligent conversation about this interesting question, but in order to do that I have to endure the attacks from people off topic for telling them they are off topic. This is insane.

I'm glad the whole thing has quieted down, and I hope it stays that way so the conversation can continue.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
I don't know if I'm getting your points in posts prior to this one.

There isn't really more than one type of objectification. The element your referring to by saying "type" is the only problem.  Really what you're identifying is stereotyping, not objectification. It's the making general statements, and when it comes to media the universality of the general statements. All of those examples you gave can be done without objectifying. If you simply say "All women feel _______" you've generalized without objectifying.

My point is that I agree with your underlying views, but that your articulating them in a way that's inaccurate and that innaccuracy provokes a debate and the underlying message and views don't get expressed and don't lead to change. 

I don't think that  academic education is a significant part of the issue in the slightest. In fact there's was recently a big expose on the changes Harvard has been making in it's business school in an attempt to decrease the institutionalized sexism.

The issue is really about the repetition of the message and the lack of diversity being presented.

People talking about how porn leads men to believe that women want certain things. I think porn alone, can not do that. It has to be reinforced in other ways. I think the bigger issue is that it leads women to want some of those things - they create an association between certain acts and pleasure. I think there are some women who will genuinely develop new pleasures/tastes from the messages in porn. I think there are women who will think that's the case when it's not true. I think there are women who will watch porn and believe that's what men want, which is not necessarily true, but the bad part is that they may develop an apprehension about sex based on projections from things they've seen in porn.

Inaccurate messages that are repeated over and over affect both genders, and really that has nothing to do with objectification, it's lack of diversity.

Really if you go to a porn website that lists videos by genres, the message that's giving, to me, seems pretty diverse, especially if I have to google a term.


This takes us back to improper use of "objectification". It allows an individual who wants to say that all porn shows the same thing, which is is not true, to make a convincing argument on an emotional basis rather than factual by citing objectification, which may be factually correct, and they further their emotional agenda without basing it on fact.

Really, if you think about it, all acting is objectifying. In mainstream films the people in them are the director's marionettes. We're not seeing the feelings of the person were seeing. They are just a body being used to tell a story.


Sometimes being pedantic is a waste of time. Other times it can provide the type of clarity that truly opens eyes and changes points of view.

I am pretty sure the op is not talking about objectification in general.
And I agree that all image making involves a degree of objectification so it may not be the best word for what the ops (or the ops sons) concern is.

So while I see the point you are making you are still having difficulty in seeing mine precisely because you are overly concerned with pedantics.
About pedantics.
Here is,a,thread about mukluks. Except it isn't about mukluks. I therefore said what Mukluks were then moved on and let them talk about slipper socks:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=910274

So here I think the op is meaning objectification in the specific way that is being discussed. It is absolutely relevant you ask for clarification; but lets not lose sight of the slipper socks.

I think when the op or feminists discuss objectification they are referring to gender stereotyping and sexual objectification. And the misogyny that can be reinforced by it.

I don't think even porn or at least erotic art  necessarily objectifies. A lot of it does however.

I think while for example one could imagine a highly erotic movie where the characters are developed it may be not charged with objectification. Whereas the Budweiser ad most definitely is, but may not be harmful. Except to those who see women as nothing but sexual objects, or judge other women because they may be feminine/provocative and then we all suffer as a result. But I think that's a wider problem in society because we don't educate people not to judge others on appearance. I personally don't think one can blame the images. Unless of course they are really degrading to women. I don't think using an attractive woman draped on a car is degrading to women at all. It may be objectification and it may not help the hard of thinking; but it's no more responsible than say violence in movies to be blamed for psychotic behaviour. Sexist pigs will be sexist pigs even if such imagery was banned. And censorship or being  overly judgemental would have far worse repercussions for women because then any woman in lipstick would end up frowned upon.

I wasn't necessarily referring to higher education though it is notable one doesn't not get whistled at or called a minger on campus. Yes you can get institutionlised sexism even in higher education establishments. You can also get women who judge other women - I can recall for example overhearing two female lecturers in the campus coffee bar assuming that two female masters students were part of a marketing conference on beauty products. A third lecturer joined them and put them right, found it amusing and took pleasure in pointing out one shouldn't judge on appearance and they looked embarrassed at their mistake. They probably thought I was a hooker who had wandered onto campus in patent boots seamed  stockings and and a fur and lots of make up . lol:

However what I was meaning is that it is the job of education even in primary schools to educate children not to judge people by gender or looks or race etc. If this was effective then we wouldn't have to worry about image making. We rely on that message being conveyed in the unseen curriculum but it doesn't always get done. I think it then a bit rich for people to then blame ills caused by sexism etc on image makers rather than that being a result of it not being paid attention to during the education process.

But back to the point. I agree with a lot of what you are saying. However I also know what the op is meaning and what people are concerned about when they refer to objectification. And true that some will even see all objectification as a result  as bad when clearly it isnt. Actually it's faintly ridiculous. A wild example but an actor playing a robot for example. It's actually quite difficult to become something inanimate. I enjoyed playing a mannequin for a shoot and do not see that objectification as negative. One could even see a scenario where one could make a real model like a blow up doll on order TO criticise sexual objectification.

So yes I agree we shouldn't maybe be talking about objectification but say what we really mean.
But equally lets not ignore what we really mean to do the ops question justice. AND I don't think for one minute having more diverse models, or showing more humanity, would make any difference to the son's concern. It's the voyeurism male gaze stuff I think he's referring to.

I have no problem being objectified as a model. Give me a dildo however and I don't care how beautiful your images are or how human you make me look I will metaphorically ram it up your ass!

I raised that because for example men see masturbation as demeaning. They all do it yet they call each other wankers. So the adult mag/porn obsession with dildos is sexual objectification of a very negative kind. Not that I think it should be banned or that models who do it should be harshly criticised. I think there is a danger in demonizing women masturbating; it's already bad enough that others think 'slut' .However, I think image makers are right to question what is being said when they make such images and the effect it has on morons. So hence I certainly wouldn't do it; and the only wrecking balls I'd do are to anyone who expected me to partake in making such images.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
I am pretty sure the op is not talking about objectification in general.
And I agree that all image making involves a degree of objectification so it may not be the best word for what the ops (or the ops sons) concern is.

...

I think when the op or feminists discuss objectification they are referring to gender stereotyping and sexual objectification. And the misogyny that can be reinforced by it.

I don't think even porn or at least erotic art  necessarily objectifies. A lot of it does however.

I think while for example one could imagine a highly erotic movie where the characters are developed it may be not charged with objectification. Whereas the Budweiser ad most definitely is, but may not be harmful. Except to those who see women as nothing but sexual objects, or judge other women because they may be feminine/provocative and then we all suffer as a result. But I think that's a wider problem in society because we don't educate people not to judge others on appearance. I personally don't think one can blame the images. Unless of course they are really degrading to women. I don't think using an attractive woman draped on a car is degrading to women at all. It may be objectification and it may not help the hard of thinking; but it's no more responsible than say violence in movies to be blamed for psychotic behaviour. Sexist pigs will be sexist pigs even if such imagery was banned. And censorship or being  overly judgemental would have far worse repercussions for women because then any woman in lipstick would end up frowned upon.

I wasn't necessarily referring to higher education though it is notable one doesn't not get whistled at or called a minger on campus. Yes you can get institutionlised sexism even in higher education establishments. You can also get women who judge other women - I can recall for example overhearing two female lecturers in the campus coffee bar assuming that two female masters students were part of a marketing conference on beauty products. A third lecturer joined them and put them right, found it amusing and took pleasure in pointing out one shouldn't judge on appearance and they looked embarrassed at their mistake. They probably thought I was a hooker who had wandered onto campus in patent boots seamed  stockings and and a fur and lots of make up . lol:

However what I was meaning is that it is the job of education even in primary schools to educate children not to judge people by gender or looks or race etc. If this was effective then we wouldn't have to worry about image making. We rely on that message being conveyed in the unseen curriculum but it doesn't always get done. I think it then a bit rich for people to then blame ills caused by sexism etc on image makers rather than that being a result of it not being paid attention to during the education process.

But back to the point. I agree with a lot of what you are saying. However I also know what the op is meaning and what people are concerned about when they refer to objectification. And true that some will even see all objectification as a result  as bad when clearly it isnt. Actually it's faintly ridiculous. A wild example but an actor playing a robot for example. It's actually quite difficult to become something inanimate. I enjoyed playing a mannequin for a shoot and do not see that objectification as negative. One could even see a scenario where one could make a real model like a blow up doll on order TO criticise sexual objectification.

So yes I agree we shouldn't maybe be talking about objectification but say what we really mean.
But equally lets not ignore what we really mean to do the ops question justice. AND I don't think for one minute having more diverse models, or showing more humanity, would make any difference to the son's concern. It's the voyeurism male gaze stuff I think he's referring to.

I have no problem being objectified as a model. Give me a dildo however and I don't care how beautiful your images are or how human you make me look I will metaphorically ram it up your ass!

I raised that because for example men see masturbation as demeaning. They all do it yet they call each other wankers. So the adult mag/porn obsession with dildos is sexual objectification of a very negative kind. Not that I think it should be banned or that models who do it should be harshly criticised. I think there is a danger in demonizing women masturbating; it's already bad enough that others think 'slut' .However, I think image makers are right to question what is being said when they make such images and the effect it has on morons. So hence I certainly wouldn't do it; and the only wrecking balls I'd do are to anyone who expected me to partake in making such images.

The OP relayed a story and then thought out loud as a way of processing.

His son's statement is fallacious …"was convinced that my objectification of women via photograpahy was devaluing women as a gender." That's an example of the true meaning of begging the question. He hasn't actually established that the OP's photography is objectifying in the first place. It's possible that the photos he was commenting on (his port has probably been updated) were not objectifying at all. I think the real subtext of that conversation was a child demonstrating their maturity by challenging a parent and that the comments were more a description of what he'd learned than an expression of opinion.

But I don't think that's relevant because this is a new discussion tacked on to an old one.

I've never met a genuine feminist who conflated objectification and stereotyping. I don't believe for a second that feminists are confused about that at all.

I've been defining porn is when the sex act is the subject and erotica is when the person's feelings are the subject. It has nothing to do with the intend of the photo, it has to do with the vehicle of the arousal that they both intend - porn being a tangible trigger and feelings being an abstract trigger. The viewer is aroused by empathy, not voyeurism.

Using that definition erotic art is never objectifying because you can't empathize with an object.

The ironic thing is that in porn targeted to straight men, men are objectified 100% of the time. Their faces and identity are irrelevant and mostly aren't seen. They could pretty much be replaced by a dildo and the only difference would be slightly less realism, no legs an no body hair.

When I think of porn in 2013, I think of web video, stills and magazines seem insignificant at this point. I don't watch a lot, but what I think of based on memory, most scenes show the woman's face and show her feelings. Feminists often have to point out that women have sexual feelings and drives too.

When you have disembodied parts - just close up shots of a sex act, then they've been turned into an object.

In "porn" it's not so much the pornography that's objectifying, it's the industry that objectifies the performers. "Who cares if he injured you last time? Stop whining and get to work or you'll be replaced!" Coersion lack of concern for physical and mental health - that's where the worst objectification in porn happens. Sometimes you can see that in the performance too.


Really your underlying theme is abuse, not objectification. You could probably substitute the word and your posts would still make grammatical sense. They'd probably be more accurate to your point as well.

With the exception of it being non-consentual, objectification is really never good or bad, just neutral.

It may be the case that abusers need to objectify someone to feel comfortable abusing them. Or that abusers who aren't intending to be abusive can't see the abuse because they've objectified them. Any case where people are "just numbers" is a situation where someone is objectified.

I have no idea where you've gotten the idea that men think masturbation is demeaning. I bet if you really thought about it, you'd conclude that men view male masturbation as having a different meaning than female masturbation - men do it because they can't get someone to sleep with them, and women do it because they are horny nymphomaniacs.

What you probably mean is that men view masturbation as shameful - a quick aside: I saw a blog post that discussed "emotion shaming" today and about how people are shamed for enthusiasm. They get called "too real" or "a lose canon".

Maybe my real point is that there's such think as "objectification shaming" and that's what the OP's son did, especially since there were no specifics provided.

When I was 5 or 6, there was a phase where everyone went around shaming each other by saying "You're epidermis is showing!" They used tone of voice to create feelings of shame for something that's not shameful.

That's really what I was getting at when I referred to the word objectification being stigmatized. People use it as a weapon of shame, and outside of a lack of consent, there's simply nothing wrong with objectification. What's wrong is abuse. Objectification may be part of the abuse process, but the abuse is what needs to be focused on, not the objectification.

And really the biggest problem with focusing on objectification is that the abuse isn't addressed.

Not every photo of a woman has to be of a woman as a person. Just like men, women aren't so fragile that objectification alone is abuse.

We need a movement to stop objectification shaming!


That's what irks me about all of the people who are proud to shoot with their camera manually - they're Program mode shaming. There's also Semi-automatic mode shaming. Really they're just revealing their lack of understanding of how the camera works.


While that's a little OT, I think it's important to watch for shaming, because seeing how it's applied can provide a lot of insights.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
The OP relayed a story and then thought out loud as a way of processing.

His son's statement is fallacious …"was convinced that my objectification of women via photograpahy was devaluing women as a gender." That's an example of the true meaning of begging the question. He hasn't actually established that the OP's photography is objectifying in the first place. It's possible that the photos he was commenting on (his port has probably been updated) were not objectifying at all. I think the real subtext of that conversation was a child demonstrating their maturity by challenging a parent and that the comments were more a description of what he'd learned than an expression of opinion.

But I don't think that's relevant because this is a new discussion tacked on to an old one.

I've never met a genuine feminist who conflated objectification and stereotyping. I don't believe for a second that feminists are confused about that at all.

I've been defining porn is when the sex act is the subject and erotica is when the person's feelings are the subject. It has nothing to do with the intend of the photo, it has to do with the vehicle of the arousal that they both intend - porn being a tangible trigger and feelings being an abstract trigger. The viewer is aroused by empathy, not voyeurism.

Using that definition erotic art is never objectifying because you can't empathize with an object.

The ironic thing is that in porn targeted to straight men, men are objectified 100% of the time. Their faces and identity are irrelevant and mostly aren't seen. They could pretty much be replaced by a dildo and the only difference would be slightly less realism, no legs an no body hair.

When I think of porn in 2013, I think of web video, stills and magazines seem insignificant at this point. I don't watch a lot, but what I think of based on memory, most scenes show the woman's face and show her feelings. Feminists often have to point out that women have sexual feelings and drives too.

When you have disembodied parts - just close up shots of a sex act, then they've been turned into an object.

In "porn" it's not so much the pornography that's objectifying, it's the industry that objectifies the performers. "Who cares if he injured you last time? Stop whining and get to work or you'll be replaced!" Coersion lack of concern for physical and mental health - that's where the worst objectification in porn happens. Sometimes you can see that in the performance too.


Really your underlying theme is abuse, not objectification. You could probably substitute the word and your posts would still make grammatical sense. They'd probably be more accurate to your point as well.

With the exception of it being non-consentual, objectification is really never good or bad, just neutral.

It may be the case that abusers need to objectify someone to feel comfortable abusing them. Or that abusers who aren't intending to be abusive can't see the abuse because they've objectified them. Any case where people are "just numbers" is a situation where someone is objectified.

I have no idea where you've gotten the idea that men think masturbation is demeaning. I bet if you really thought about it, you'd conclude that men view male masturbation as having a different meaning than female masturbation - men do it because they can't get someone to sleep with them, and women do it because they are horny nymphomaniacs.

What you probably mean is that men view masturbation as shameful - a quick aside: I saw a blog post that discussed "emotion shaming" today and about how people are shamed for enthusiasm. They get called "too real" or "a lose canon".

Maybe my real point is that there's such think as "objectification shaming" and that's what the OP's son did, especially since there were no specifics provided.

When I was 5 or 6, there was a phase where everyone went around shaming each other by saying "You're epidermis is showing!" They used tone of voice to create feelings of shame for something that's not shameful.

That's really what I was getting at when I referred to the word objectification being stigmatized. People use it as a weapon of shame, and outside of a lack of consent, there's simply nothing wrong with objectification. What's wrong is abuse. Objectification may be part of the abuse process, but the abuse is what needs to be focused on, not the objectification.

And really the biggest problem with focusing on objectification is that the abuse isn't addressed.

Not every photo of a woman has to be of a woman as a person. Just like men, women aren't so fragile that objectification alone is abuse.

We need a movement to stop objectification shaming!


That's what irks me about all of the people who are proud to shoot with their camera manually - they're Program mode shaming. There's also Semi-automatic mode shaming. Really they're just revealing their lack of understanding of how the camera works.


While that's a little OT, I think it's important to watch for shaming, because seeing how it's applied can provide a lot of insights.

You know, I don't think this is OT at all. The problem is that the topic is different for different people. Some are adhering to the literal topic,(Objectifying) some are addressing the implied topic (abusiveness). We are working from different understandings of what the topic is attempting to uncover.

For the record, I was commenting on objectification in its pure form, and that it isn't a reflection on photographers who are simply adhering to the parameters of the genre. With this being the case, there is no question that could be examined from a feminist perspective, since it is a question of definition, not intention.

Yeah... That's pretty much it.

Thanks for bringing that up.

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
I'm the OP, and I'm really enjoying this discussion.

-Don

After the better part of a decade, it's good to remind people.

According to reports, the sadly disfigured 26-year-old’s quality of life has been greatly diminished due to such a condition. Sources said the abnormal, visibly blemished creature has been repeatedly passed over for employment opportunities, frequently gawked at and harassed on the street by total strangers, and has faced near constant discrimination for over two decades, all due to the horrific and debilitating birth defect.

Indeed, many are reportedly unable to look past the glaring deformity and simply see the 26-year-old as a human being.