The (alleged) problem of "objectification" is one of priority or degree - when the sexual qualities of a person, as perceived by another, preclude that other from treating them with basic human dignity. But the issue is always framed in terms of the sexual feelings one has for another (usually a man for a woman, rhetoricized to condemn traditional male sexuality), when the sexual feelings in question are perfectly healthy.
If there's a problem with how one person is treating another, it's not because these sexual feelings exist between them. It's because something else is lacking - namely, that basic human dignity. But the sexual feelings are assigned all of the blame for that lapse of respect, as if one could not possibly have sexual feelings without necessarily suffering from a brain fart that precludes them from simultaneously viewing the object of their affections as a human being.
This is, frankly, an offensive stereotype, that is as misandrist as the behavior is misogynist that people who bring up "objectification" are actually objecting to. And it's sex-negative, because we end up blaming people for their sexual feelings as an early warning system for shitty behavior, when all this foregone conclusion accomplishes is a self-fulfilling prophecy, because we're not even considering room for the possibility that a "dude" could like a "chick" and still treat her with respect.
So if you want to lodge a credible complaint about how one person is treating another, consider what's missing from the equation (i.e., human dignity), and don't simply take the presence of sexual feelings to be evidence that a foul has automatically been committed. Because if the conclusion is that the only way men can treat women with respect is if they all get castrated first, then not only have you already lost (this is never going to happen), but you've also given up your right to complain about being treated like an object, because you've voluntarily surrendered your own humanity.
No comments:
Post a Comment