Everyday Feminism: Women can objectify men on the 'micro' level, but it doesn't matter.

[dismal]

Anti feminists will always have the same problem with whatever examples they dream up to make their point. Regardless of the gender of the victim or the victor immediately involved in a given scenario, the particular action or situation will always take place inside an environment designed, developed, implemented and ultimately controlled by men for the benefit of at least a particular group of men. That is what patriarchy means, that men run shit, not that men can never be victims of shit. White supremacy doesnt mean that there will be no poor white people or rich black people, only the higher up the socio-political-economic ladder you go, the whiter the population gets and that the system is setup to make sure that will be the case. FDR can run the executive branch for a time from a wheelchair, but the House, the Senate, and the SCOTUS in control with an FDR will always be a majority of walking people. Social hierarchies have proven over human history to be pyramids not funnels. The top always gets smaller and it is not an accident.

Objectify. Put men in suits. Signals authority and power. Put women in push up bras and tight shape focusing dresses signals pussy.

Come on. The field is owned by men which they consider to be the object. Check suits again if confused.

Not a feminist, just being objective.

Do you think most of the women you meet are trying to signal "pussy" to you with their clothes?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Do you think most of the women you meet are trying to signal "pussy" to you with their clothes?

Yes. To be fair, however, I think that no matter what they happen to be wearing.

 

[bigfield]

Objectify. Put men in suits. Signals authority and power. Put women in push up bras and tight shape focusing dresses signals pussy.

Come on. The field is owned by men which they consider to be the object. Check suits again if confused.

Not a feminist, just being objective.

Do you think most of the women you meet are trying to signal "pussy" to you with their clothes?

Usually this is the point where someone says that women don't dress sexy for the sake of men.

 

[dismal]

Do you think most of the women you meet are trying to signal "pussy" to you with their clothes?

Usually this is the point where someone says that women don't dress sexy for the sake of men.

I was wondering what it was like to go through life seeing pussy signals everywhere.

I never thought most women were signaling "pussy" at me, but perhaps I was mistaken.

 

[thebeave]

Do you think most of the women you meet are trying to signal "pussy" to you with their clothes?

Usually this is the point where someone says that women don't dress sexy for the sake of men.

I heard they dress sexy to make other women angry and jealous.

 

[Rhea]

Men in general seem to be ambivalent to women's complaints of objectification. I've suspected for a long time that the main reason for this is that men secretly wish women would be as easily impressed with us as we are with them.

that made me chuckle.

 

[Toni]

Cindy Crawford allowed her own 13 year old daughter to model. Presumably if the industry was so rife with abuse she wouldn't have allowed it.

I don't think Cindy Crawford's parenting choices are indicative of anything other than those are her parenting choices.

Cindy Crawford has been incredibly fortunate to be able to have the long and lucrative career she has had. She commands a great deal of power in her industry and as such, is able to exert a great deal of control over the types of shoots her children are booked into, can be on set, etc. It is not likely that her children are going to be sent on overseas trips for months at a time at age 13.

The fact is that the industry is rife with abuses, particularly for the very young, which is why there is a huge push to set 16 as a lower limit.

Airbrushed standards are impossible -- and advertisers who airbrush every single imperfection from any model they use with the explicit message that it's their product that is responsible rather than Photoshop ought to be sued.

You are misunderstanding. Advertisers who falsely imply that their products result in results only achieved by airbrushing are committing consumer fraud. I'm not concerned about that here. I'm more concerned about the dangerous emphasis on extremely thin models, young girls being fat shamed for being a size 2 (at age 15 and at 5'10"), who are sexually exploited by photographers and agents, who are not able to actually pursue an education which would allow them to support themselves when their career dries up (at say 29) or to understand how to manage their own assets or even to understand and be aware of what their rights are.

Abuse is not okay, but abuse exists in all industries. The shift manager at McDonald's has as much abuse potential over her subordinates. Models typically do better per hour than McDonald's workers, though.

I've worked--not at a McDonalds but at a different 'family' restaurant change and yes indeed, managers can be quite abusive and sometimes act illegally and exploit the fact that most of their workers are too young to know how to stand up for themselves. But they exert far less control over the lives of their shift workers than do those who run modeling agencies.

A shift manager doesn't take her employees overseas, away from parents and other family and friends, withhold their passports, fat shame them for eating (anything) or for developing hips and breasts and not fitting into a size 00 or 0 or weighing more than 100 lbs at nearly 6 ft tall. Also, there are stricter limits in most states about the age at which someone can work at McDonalds (in my state, very few positions if you are under 16 and none until you are 15) and the hours one can work on any given day or how late one can work on a school night. The shift manager does not take a percentage of her employees wages.

For starters.

Fashion models are not victims. It's simply absurd to think so. Or if they are victims, the vast majority of all employed people are also victims.

You've already pointed out that most industries have the potential for abuse. This is especially true where employees are relatively powerless, so especially young people, and people who have developmental disabilities or who lack appropriate work papers (in the US, illegal migrants). Modeling can certainly be exploitative of the age and vulnerability and lack of power of the very young models.

I go to work every day to get a salary, and unlike some models, I do get out of bed for less than $10,000 a day. Am I being exploited?

I have no idea if you are being exploited.

I would not want anyone I care about to engage in either industry but that is based upon me believing that the work is damaging: physically, emotionally, mentally. Some lucky few are successful and get out with a nice chunk of change to set them up for life or at least to help launch them into a new life. But an awful lot more are just used and tossed away.

I think almost any job in retail or services is frankly more damaging physically, emotionally, and mentally, but perhaps I'm just too swayed by the number of people who'd love to be models, versus the number of people who'd love to clean toilets.

Most people who want to be models just think about how much fun it would be to dress in beautiful clothing, and to have people do your hair and make up and to be rich and famous. Most models do not achieve the high levels of success that make one rich and famous. In fact, modeling is hard work. Being required to be extremely thin--to restrict your calories, especially when you are young and still developing, is physically damaging. Being exposed to substance abuse and situations where you are vulnerable to sexual exploitation is emotionally damaging. Have your entire ability to get a job being based upon how you look is damaging.

What does it mean to exploit a porn model? Is it better or worse to be cleaning toilets or performing in porn?

Or is it just that you can't dismiss an entire industry and each case ought be weighed on its merits?

I'd prefer to clean toilets, actually. And have as part of my job sometimes.

The question is not just is modeling damaging to (often very young) models but does it also promote unrealistic or exploitative views of women?

I think that there is beginning to be some awareness of how much influence media images can have on individuals, groups, society. Not necessarily for good.

 

[Unbeatable]

But what about women giving up privileges that they have in our society?

That's one interpretation of what "equality" would constitute. It's not the only one, and unfortunately for feminist PR, there is no centralized authority within the feminist movement who's capable of forcing everybody to remain on the same page. There are multiple branches of feminism, and of course, the most offensive ones will get the most attention from non-feminists.

"Helping to improve things for women" is not necessarily about equality.

What does "necessarily about equality" even mean? Equality is a vague abstract ideal like "Freedom" or "Justice", a feel-good word that hardly any sane person would overtly oppose. It doesn't actually describe anything. It doesn't logically necessitate anything. It doesn't tell you anything about the actual state of the physical world for which feminists are aiming. It's nice rhetoric, and maybe a nice general guideline for feminists to keep in mind to ensure that they don't go overboard while pursuing their actual, concrete goals, but it's not a well-defined goal in itself. Feminism is about making various changes to the actual world so that women are better off in various ways.

 

[Metaphor]

The fact is that the industry is rife with abuses, particularly for the very young, which is why there is a huge push to set 16 as a lower limit.

Except you haven't demonstrated it's rife with abuse. You've just asserted it.

I'm not concerned about that here. I'm more concerned about the dangerous emphasis on extremely thin models, young girls being fat shamed for being a size 2 (at age 15 and at 5'10"), who are sexually exploited by photographers and agents,

Any model who is under 16 (or whatever the relevant age is in a jurisdiction) who has engaged in sex with a person over 18 has been statutorily raped, and the rapist should be prosecuted if the public prosecutor has a case.

Fat-shaming is an issue I'd like to discuss and I'll be starting a separate thread for it.

who are not able to actually pursue an education which would allow them to support themselves when their career dries up (at say 29) or to understand how to manage their own assets or even to understand and be aware of what their rights are.

Child actors often pursue an education. If anything, being a fashion model ought to be more flexible for furthering education than being a child actor.

I've worked--not at a McDonalds but at a different 'family' restaurant change and yes indeed, managers can be quite abusive and sometimes act illegally and exploit the fact that most of their workers are too young to know how to stand up for themselves. But they exert far less control over the lives of their shift workers than do those who run modeling agencies.

How do you know that?

A shift manager doesn't take her employees overseas, away from parents and other family and friends, withhold their passports

There are fashion agencies that have withheld passports from models? Which agencies? When?

, fat shame them for eating (anything) or for developing hips and breasts and not fitting into a size 00 or 0 or weighing more than 100 lbs at nearly 6 ft tall. Also, there are stricter limits in most states about the age at which someone can work at McDonalds (in my state, very few positions if you are under 16 and none until you are 15) and the hours one can work on any given day or how late one can work on a school night. The shift manager does not take a percentage of her employees wages.

So do you have a problem with an actor's manager taking 10% of the fees for the actors she manages?

Modeling can certainly be exploitative of the age and vulnerability and lack of power of the very young models.

Although this is getting a bit off track, do you think the situation is worse than for child actors, and if so, why?

Most people who want to be models just think about how much fun it would be to dress in beautiful clothing, and to have people do your hair and make up and to be rich and famous. Most models do not achieve the high levels of success that make one rich and famous.

That isn't the point though -- the point is you think the industry is rife with abuse and it damages the models in it.

In fact, modeling is hard work. Being required to be extremely thin--to restrict your calories, especially when you are young and still developing, is physically damaging. Being exposed to substance abuse and situations where you are vulnerable to sexual exploitation is emotionally damaging. Have your entire ability to get a job being based upon how you look is damaging.

Why is that more damaging than having your entire ability to get a job being based upon how smart you are? Surely you can do even less about how smart you are than about how you look?

The question is not just is modeling damaging to (often very young) models but does it also promote unrealistic or exploitative views of women?

I think that there is beginning to be some awareness of how much influence media images can have on individuals, groups, society. Not necessarily for good.

What is the end game?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

abuse in the modeling industry

http://www.businessinsider.com/models-form-alliance-and-reveal-scary-industry-statistics-2012-1?op=1