talkpolitics | Out of touch, eh?

It's curious how Meryl Streep's speech (a giant in the profession of acting), which mostly dealt with not-so-overtly political issues, as much as it was calling for empathy and civic vigilance in the upcoming Trump era, was massively denounced (because, you see, an actress has dared to speak of something beyond the latest Gucci outfit, the pearl necklaces of the celebrities, Kim's fake ass, or on some rare occasions, the creative process in cinema in the best case)... And Leo DiCaprio (admittedly an underrated actor, but hardly of Mrs Streep's caliber even in the best case estimations) receives emphatic pats on the back and massive admiration merely for making 40 years of age and having assumed the role of some sort of Al Gore v.2.0? Am I the only one to sense double standard here?

The way I'm reading this, because Leo has a penis this gives him much greater leeway; hell, Robert DeNiro had a boorish statement about Trump, and he wasn't scolded even remotely as harshly as Madonna was. In 2003, Sean Penn gave a rambling speech about the fake WMDs at the Oscars, but again no one decided an actor has no right to use that tribune to flount their political biases. But when an actual actress even hints at a political commentary - Vanessa Redgrave for instance - everyone instantly dogpiles her, hastening to point a finger and put her in her place.

Because, you see, Leo DiCaprio who's been waving his beer belly flanked by an entourage of 18 y.o. wannabe starlets, cannot be declared out-of-touch, but Meryl Streep, Susan Sarandon and Vanessa Redgrave suddenly live in their "Hollywood bubble" and don't know shit about the problems of the regular Joe from Iowa? Please.

On a side note:
2012 Trump: Meryl Streep is one of my favorite actresses!
2017 Trump: Meryl Streep is one of the most overrated actresses!

Sounds just like,
2012 Trump: The Electoral College is a disaster for democracy!
2017 Trump: I won so big OMG LOL!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I considered writing this above, but decided to not go off on a tangent. I see now that I should have.

Our disconnect is not that "I think objectification is OK and you don't." It's that I disagree fundamentally with the classification of what they are doing as "objectification."

Objectification, in its very meaning, implies a lack of agency. The women are "objects," and all decisions are made on their behalf because they are considered objects, and therefore not human beings with their own agency.

What Madonna, Gaga, and Cyrus are doing here is the exact opposite of that. By asserting their right to make their own decisions with respect to sexual expression, they are rejecting classification as an object. What they are doing cannot be called "self-objectification" by any understanding of what that word means. Their act is one of personification, of humanization, of self-actualization. It is the opposite of objectification - and thus, if objectification really is what we are so concerned about, their expression ought not bother us in the slightest.

I reject your judgement that what they are doing is objectifying, and what I am, in fact, saying, is that self-expression is "a-OK," even if that expression seems "icky" in light of outdated Victorian mores - as long as it's consensual.

That is where we disagree.

Nice goalpost-moving there.

Look, I'll be maximum blunt here. Miley Cyrus giving her ass to be "fucked" by a guy on stage is not too different from the prostitutes lining up behind glass screens on the Red Lights Lane in Amsterdam, offering their genitalia to passers-by for cash. That you prefer to interpret this as "self-actualization", is entirely your prerogative. I just think she's treating HERSELF as an object - consentually.

No goal-post moving. As I said, I realized while writing the post that there was a disconnect on what "objectification" actually means. I thought about talking about it, decided against it, went to edit my post to include it - and found out you had already replied so had to put it below.

The long and short of it is: you think there's something "wrong" with what Cyrus is doing. I do not yet see anything that you have provided to show why this actually in any way is harmful, is immoral or unethical (you above mention their unsuitability to teach morality or ethics, so this implies that you find their behavior immoral or unethical) or in any way inappropriate.

In the past, when I've drilled down into the meat of the matter with people who have strong objections to Cyrus' kind of expression, I have often found that they are concerned less with objectification and more with a traditional adherence to Victorianism. They were raised to think that sex is inherently "dirty," and thus any open, public expression of it is unhealthy. They, of course, realize at some level that this is moral policing, and a somewhat indefensible position, so they latch onto feminist-sounding ideals like "objectification" without really considering what objectification actually means. Hint: it has nothing to do with sex, and everything to do with consent and free-agency.

I believe I have made my point: if objectification really is the concern, then we have little cause for objection, since in many ways this could be seen as the opposite of objectification. If the cause is other (dealing with ethics or morality) than the burden of proof is on the one making the objection to show why what is occurring is immoral, unethical, or even harmful in any way.

Why is objectification morally wrong - is that what you're asking right now?

I have already stated, in multiple replies, that I disagree with you that what they are doing is objectification in the first place. There is a reason I am quibbling on definitions: the great moral evil of objectification has nothing to do with sexuality. The evil is in reducing someone only to a commodity, to a product for consumption without their consent, robbing them of their self-agency.

The fact that they are acting out sexually has nothing to do with objectification - and even if one could say that they are making themselves into a product, you must remember the second part of that definition involving agency and consent.

This leaves the question of where the objection lies, and the only remaining thing to object to is the sexual nature of the expression - which raises the question: what is actually being objecting to, and why?

"The fact that they are acting out sexually has nothing to do with objectification"

Not true (https://www.bustle.com/articles/22050-why-is-objectification-bad-the-sneaky-way-womens-bodies-are-cropped-to-pieces).

"even if one could say that they are making themselves into a product, you must remember the second part of that definition involving agency and consent"

And I have already stated in multiple replies that with or without consent, objectification IS wrong. Or in the very best case, it strips the one doing it from the moral right to preach against it.

Look, we're going in circles. Multiple times at this point. This is getting a bit tiring.

I think I'm still having trouble seeing something clearly here. Could you explain to me what "self-objectification" is? I ask because I haven't heard the phrase in all my 40-odd years, until you coined it in this very discussion in order to denounce it.

If you stopped acting dumb like you've admitted doing above, perhaps you wouldn't be having so much trouble seeing things clearly - even after I've repeated my point several times, point-blank.

Self-objectification? Presenting oneself as a sex trophy for others to consummate, be it actively or passively. And making profit out of it.

I repeat for the umpteenth time. They can do that if they want. I have no problem with that. It's their choice. What I DO have a problem with, is the same persons then going on and claiming the moral high ground to pontificate against other people doing it. It's hypocritical. It's degrading to women. It's SELF-degrading. It's consentual, I get it - but that still doesn't stop it from being degrading. It's amazing that you're defending the self-degrading of women.

This is just common sense. I've been called many things over this thread: a nun, Medieval, cretinous, and whatnot. I think this very much shows who's capable of a civilized discourse and who the real bully here is.

Edited 2017-01-25 07:57 (UTC)

Now we've moved from "self-objectification" to "self-degrading", I see. Very well.

You and I are probably never going to agree here. I don't know why you're insisting that women who incorporate sexual innuendo into their stage acts are losing a "moral high ground" - or even that they need a "moral high ground" in order to make progressive statements about women's rights.

Thomas Jefferson owned a whole freaking plantation full of slaves, but he wrote some pretty important and powerful things about slavery. You can go ahead and dismiss all of it, but it would be your loss. Constructing a need for a "moral high ground" as a qualifier for a right to be heard on a given topic is a logical fallacy known as the "genetic argument" and is more arrogance than wisdom.

In this specific case, it's also uncomfortable close to, "if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that skirt".

Shall we argue about that one next?

Edited 2017-01-25 08:23 (UTC)

Treating herself as an object...
Dang, I guess I'm gonna have to bow out of all political statements forever then, given my masturbation habit. ;)

Out of touch, eh?

(frozen comment) no subject

(frozen comment) no subject

(frozen comment) no subject

(frozen comment) no subject

(frozen comment) no subject

(frozen comment) no subject

(frozen comment) no subject

(frozen comment) no subject

(frozen comment) no subject

(frozen comment) no subject