Can someone explain this to a possibly-dumb guy (me)

I’m 100% for gender equality and was raised entirely with and by women, so I’ve always been against sexism and never had sexist role models.

Because of this, I’m loving the progress that’s being made lately to begin addressing at least some of the long-established inequality.

Something that’s always confused me, though, is situations such as Sharon Stone’s recent (or upcoming) photo-shoot for The New York Times.

At a time when female rights are finally so front-and-center, I find it weird that this photo-shoot would go ahead, looking like the start of a porn scene.

It’s not the first time I’ve seen this happen, either, as other prominent and successful women have done similar things and I don’t understand.

Why would someone oppose the male over-sexualization of women on one hand, while seemingly objectifying themselves on the other.

I totally get that all women should be able to do whatever they want and shouldn’t have to adhere to dated ideas of female demureness.

So, I’m of course not saying all supporters of feminism should dress like suffragettes.

But at the same time, I don’t get how letting it all hang out is an empowering choice, as surely that’s exactly what sexist men want?

Wouldn’t sexual objectification be sexual objectification, regardless of who’s making the decision to do the objectifying?

Obviously there’s no comparison to a male-led society forcing women into it, rather than women deciding individually what they want to do.

But as a man, I just don’t understand the thinking behind abhorring and fighting age-old patterns of sexual objectification, while simultaneously objectifying yourself.

All of my female relatives and friends agree, so I’m struggling to find the other side of the argument, so who’d like to explain it me?

I’ve read articles online, of course, but they are all written by a small handful of professionals, so I’m keen to hear a wider range of opinions.

And I’d appreciate not being flamed, too, please, as I genuinely want to understand, so I can change my mind and viewpoint, if necessary.

That's an article selling beauty products. Capitalism does a great job of kicking feminism in the *ss.

This is partly why I think feminism is such complete bu||sht. The women who are shouting "equality for women!!" are the same women who expect men to open a door for them.

As a female, I have just as much opportunity in the workforce (if not more) than men. My rights are no more oppressed than men's are.

And you are 100% correct, posing in such a way has the COMPLETE OPPOSITE effect that these women are trying to impose. I truly feel like they just want something to btch about (sexual inequality), but they still want men to think they're sexy (hence the photo). What a joke.

Since when is Sharon Stone or the likes of her considered role models/representatives of women as a whole? She is just an actress. In any case, sexual objectification is only one of the stereotypes that women struggle with. Agism is another big one. Maybe her photo shoot (I have no idea what it looks like) was aimed at agism i.e. showing off that a woman can still be desirable at that age. P.S. I am not saying that's the right way to go about it.

Since when is Sharon Stone or the likes of her considered role models/representatives of women as a whole?

When they stand in front of a camera and became known as successful women to the entire media-consuming world.

Sure, she – or anyone – doesn't need to behave as a positive role model, but when a person becomes famous, they become a role-model to all those who don't know better, and even some who do, whether they like it or not.

And that's surely a big part of why many want fame in the first place – for adulation and respect from, as well as influence over, the general public.

Hypocrisy runs rampant in most movements and feminism is no exception. Usually the problem is that not everyone is on board with every single thing/grievance - it's not cohesive. Your example is stellar!

Read some Camille Paglia for clarification.

Read some Camille Paglia for clarification.

Thanks. Will do.

The pictures are celebrating her 60th birthday. Sharon has always been someone to do things for publicity. Part of feminism is being empowered to do anything you want for your own benefit and not a man's benefit. Sharon has always been someone who has sun her own life as powerfully as possible.

I say this completely respectfully, DanZee, but you seem to have missed the whole point of my original post.

The pictures are celebrating her 60th birthday. Sharon has always been someone to do things for publicity. Part of feminism is being empowered to do anything you want for your own benefit and not a man's benefit. Sharon has always been someone who has sun her own life as powerfully as possible.

The idea that feminism is the celebration of what any women do is a strange idea that some early 3rd wave feminists have. Which I believe started as a back lash against sex worker exclusive feminism that was part of the 2nd wave. I remember the debate being about if you could be a stripper and a feminist. Or a sex worker and a feminist... and then later if you could be a stay at home mother and a feminist. Lots of strange examinations. Later 3rd wave feminist focus on intersectionality.

This is a very interesting thread - and timely!

Respectful discussion as well.

I do wish more posters would join in.

I don't understand the need to prove I'm "still desirable ". Prove to whom? And desirable to whom? Men I don't know and will never meet? Why would I ever care about something like that?

Hey AlwaysAsking,

I almost always regret weighing in on these kind of discussions, mostly because I lose my train of thought easily, can't articulate exactly what I think, and usually don't end up on any solid conclusion. However, I also almost always feel compelled to do so, so what the hell. I'll try to mitigate my own fragile ego by prefacing it with an IMO...

In any critical normative social theory, it is problematic to adjudicate on the actions of the 'other' group. On the one hand, acting in way which reinforces or permits the underlying oppressive ideology/superstructure can be viewed as contributing to it's continued existence. On the other hand, that ideology/superstructure originates from the consensus views of the 'one' group, and as such cannot actually be effected directly by the 'other'. In more concrete terms, Sharon Stone's photoshoot may encourage her objectification within the 'one' group, but ultimately only the objectifiers have the power to change that interpretation.

Restricting or directing womens' behaviour (or any 'other' group) actually has the effect of reinforcing oppressive ideologies and superstruture. It maintains that the definitions that the 'one' group places on those behaviours. In essence, it is requiring the 'other' group to assimilate into the 'one' group in order to escape oppression. 'A women should act like a man if she wants to be treated equally'. I realise that's not exactly what you are saying, but again, the issue is with the 'one' groups definitions and interpretations of behaviour, not the behaviour itself.

Intersectionality, as rosephase mentioned, throws a further wrench into the whole issue; further fragmenting and obscuring both the 'one' and the 'other' groups and making it far more difficult to focus on the specific behaviours of individuals. Sexuality, race, gender, socio-economics, age; all these issues play are role in our position and power in defining the hegemony. Most, if not all, of us hold some 'other' position in some respect, and so our individual ability to redefine the playing field on a grand-scale is limited.

For sure, as you point out, certain individuals have greater ability to effect superstructural changes - in Sharon Stone's case, the representation of women in the media. However, requiring women to refuse to express sexuality or feminity in the media as a means of minimising objectification again misses the point. Instead, as is slowly happening, there needs to be a wider range of representations of women, or facets of the same woman, across media. Also, there is arguably far greater impact to be made in entertainment such as movies, tv, video games which present idealised situations where hegemony and norms are subconcious reinforced or challenged.

As predicted, this kinda turned into a rambling, incomplete thought and now I have to go to work. Hopefully someone can get something out of that and keep the discussion alive!

T

I am not a feminist. And I believe in women and men being paid equally for the same work. I believe that people should have a right to choose to be a full time parent (stay at home is silly to me- I was home for 7.5 years with my son and I rarely stayed in one place and tried not to be "at home" -that label sounds so passive and it's such an active and involved job when done right IMO). I believe that getting paid equally at work doesn't mean that things have to be similarly "equal" in a romantic relationship between a man and a woman. I believe it's great when a man courts a woman if that's what both of them want and I don't see it hypocritical if the woman also wants an intense career including prestige and a great salary if that floats her boat, or a low salary because she works in government or a nonprofit and she's passionate about her work.

I do see it as hypocritical if a woman wants a man to financially provide for her and she doesn't contribute by raising a child or caring for elderly parents full time but yet she balks at her husband trying to control the finances. I believe each person in a relationship should contribute whether it's with a salaried job or work in the home of some kind. And if they don't then the person who doesn't should be ok with the other person having more power over where the money goes. with exceptions of course like if one partner cannot work/is disabled.

I think the "feminist" label is misinterpreted which is one reason I don't use that label personally.

I also cannot stand in general demands on social media to "share" a post and if you don't then apparently you don't support the cause -and that happens a lot with "me too" and "feminist" topics. To me it's ironic that women are supposed to have freedom of choice. Why is not then valid that I choose not to express my views on social media, let alone in the precise way required - i.e. to re-post, share, sign off, etc.

When they stand in front of a camera and became known as successful women to the entire media-consuming world.

That's a very heterogeneous group that you refer to. There are hundreds of very different individuals that belong to that group. Expecting that everyone of them should conform to the same attitude is unrealistic imo. If people are dump enough to pick Sharon Stone as a role model then that's a whole different problem and it is called lack of education and a shallow set of societal values. Society educating people to be more discerning would probably be a more constructive way to go about it than expect every possible "role model" out there to conform to the same behaviour. Sharon did what she has done all her life.

Well, due to the limited replies, I'm going to write an essay.

WaywardKiwi

I understand your great points and generally I agree.

I think I just find it confusing that in the same few months as ‘ring card girls’ in boxing and ‘grid girls’ in Formula 1 are being banned from the sports due to their sexist nature, photo shoots like Sharon Stone’s are still fine and unquestioned.

They’re sometimes even heralded as symbols of feminism – all while the male-dominated power structure continues to enjoy the view and pocket the profits.

So my question is arguably less about women’s choice and right to use their sexuality to benefit their career, and more about why one is seen as empowering, while the other is seen as sexist.

As I see it, they’re all examples of women having the freedom, then using that freedom, to choose to use their sexuality to make a living and/or promote themselves in the media, while that same male-dominated media reaps the bulk of the rewards.

Which is fine, if that’s the informed choice of everyone involved.

What I don’t yet understand is why one would be considered empowering for women and an example of women exercising their feminist freedom of choice, while the other would be considered oppressive and sexist.

Plus, I don’t really agree that ultimately only the objectifiers have the power to change interpretations. Public pressure can and is forcing them to do so.

Sure, there’s an argument that, in the end, the power of change is still theirs, regardless of the amount of pressure on them.

But a counter argument is that even though they hold the final power to change things, they will likely lose some or all of that power if they don’t change, so they have to change if pressured to do so.

And yes, much of the problem is with men’s definitions and interpretations of behaviour, rather than the behaviour itself, but that doesn’t remove personal accountability.

I can go to work in shorts, t-shirt and sneakers, but I realise that if I choose to dress smart or smart-casual, I’m more likely to be seen as the professional I am and want to prove myself to be.

So, while the corporate power structure is ultimately responsible, which is why many companies are abandoning dated dress codes, I still have accountability.

A similar, related example was Rolling Stone’s recent Black Panther cover, which played into dated stereotypes and sexual fetishisation of black men.

Was that just a harmless, unintentional result that happened because no one was watching the road, while at the wheel?

Was it arguably chosen intentionally, to encourage discussion of race by ironically using a stereotype to challenge stereotypes?

Or was it yet another example of age-old, race-based fetishisation of black men by the mostly-white media, to sell products?

Obviously it was Boseman’s choice to agree to be portrayed however he and the magazine’s design and marketing teams saw as most appropriate.

But wasn’t there also some personal accountability to realize that a cover promoting his possibly game-changing movie, as well as the subsequent media overhaul that it could lead to, may have been more credible without dated racial stereotypes of the kind that led to movies like Black Panther being important in the first place.

Again, personal accountability can have ripple effects, both negative and positive, to a wider cause, so I believe accountability is key, if you support or stand to benefit from the cause in any way.

Which brings me to this response.

Clio

I agree, Sharon Stone was just being Sharon Stone.

Maybe a better example would be Emma Watson’s Vanity Fair shoot, last year.

I had the same confusion there that I did with Sharon Stone’s shoot, as Watson is a self-proclaimed feminist.

Not only does she not have the same history as Sharon Stone, but she also takes a firm stance about her beliefs and is clearly a more relevant role model for young women, at the moment.

Obviously her shoot was different, but fundamentally it took a similar direction, which is why so many people accused her of hypocrisy.

Even her resulting statement, “I really don’t know what my t**ts have to do with [feminism],” seemed very odd and, in my opinion, missed a fairly major point.

The point being that the sexist, male-led power structure that you’re fighting against arguably sees you, and all women, as ‘t**s’ first and ‘capable woman’ second.

So why, as a self-proclaimed, prominent feminist, would you use your feminist freedom of choice to choose to sexualise yourself in a situation where it wasn’t required and where you would be just as beautiful, sexy and powerful – if not more powerful – fully clothed?

But again, I’m a possibly-clueless guy, which is why I’m here in the first place, holding a question mark over my head.

And yes, it’s a heterogeneous group I was referring to, but isn’t that the point of any important social movement?

If people pull together, as an affected group, regardless of differences, they can use their strength as a unit and are more likely to affect the kind of changes that they, at the root, most likely all want, need and deserve, and which they will almost certainly all benefit from, as members of the group?

But yes, that’s unlikely and difficult, if not impossible, to do, as not everyone will agree with the aim, or even see or understand the bigger picture, or their personal, unavoidable role in it.

You keep bringing up actresses as examples of role models. Women excel in a lot of more useful sectors (e.g. Science, Law, Medicine, Government). I am pretty sure that the vast majority of these women dress "appropriately". I was raised to value scientists, leaders of social innovation, humanitarians, inventors, explorers, regardless of gender. Marie Curie, Alexander Fleming, Georgios Papanikolaou, Mahatma Ghandi, Albert Schweitzer, Thomas Edison. Now THESE were some kick ass role models. Actors are just people who portray roles on screen. At the end of the day what they do is not substantial enough in my mind to merit a "role model" label. If a society is dumb enough to value media led images created to sell products/magazines/tickets/whatever over real substance to the point of thinking of them as role models then it has a disturbing quota of poorly educated people and better education of what/who is really important/valuable is needed in that country. Problem solved.

Agreed on all points, but that’s not the world we live in, or even the subject under discussion. That goes without saying, surely.

Ask 30 random strangers today to tell you who Kim Kardashian and Malala Yousafzai are and why they’re important, and the responses will speak for themselves.

With all due respect, you’re oversimplifying, at best.

Maybe I am, but I think that the problem starts with people assigning so much importance to actresses and reality television personalities. Most of these people's image is inevitably controlled by capitalism and its drive to sell products/magazines/tickets or they would be out of a job. How realistic is it to expect of them to go against Media commercialism all the way? Sure, some may try to do it up to a point but then, if they stand to lose money or hurt their career, most of them probably say "that's not the world we live in", just like you just did.

Again, I completely agree.

My confusion and question was never about why celebrities are seen as role models, though, or whether they even should be. That answer is clear.

My confusion is over why some objectification of women is seen as an empowering feminist statement, while other, identical objectification is seen as oppressive.

I wouldn’t loudly oppose objectification of my gender and body, while posing, oiled up, in a Speedo and saying, “Hey, it’s my right to do what I want.”

And yeah, obviously as a man I don’t have centuries of dated gender expectations pressuring me to be simultaneously both sexy and demure.

But the point still stands, though.

As does the Emma Watson example, as many accused her of hypocrisy, while others claimed her Vanity Fair shoot was a powerful example of her feminism.

Her celebrity aside, it was mostly non-famous people who applauded her, some of whom were likely among those who feel boxing ‘ring card girls’ are sexist.

It’s the apparent contradiction that confuses me.

I assumed there was a complex, feminist point that I, as a man, was missing.

But maybe the answer is as simple as, “Hey, we humans are just kinda stupid, sometimes.”

Life tends to be multi-dimensional (thus there can be multiple points of view about the same phenomena) yet your thought process about this sounds somewhat linear to me. Many times in life the freedom to be able to do one thing may overstep on the freedom to be able to do another thing. I think women ideally would wish to be free of objectification regardless of circumstances/ what they wear/ how they portray themselves. "Hypocrisy" points to ethics and ethics is not an exact discipline. There can be multiple right and wrong answers to one question/ phenomenon depending on the circumstances and the points of view of the involved parties. I am not sure whether everyone could agree on one "right" answer about where the right to wear (or not) whatever crosses the line of being ok to be objectified for it, if that makes sense. "Objectification" in my mind contains a strong dose of moral judgement and ethics many times is too fluid to box in one "right" answer.

Again, I completely agree.

 

My confusion and question was never about why celebrities are seen as role models, though, or whether they even should be. That answer is clear.

 

My confusion is over why some objectification of women is seen as an empowering feminist statement, while other, identical objectification is seen as oppressive.

 

I wouldn’t loudly oppose objectification of my gender and body, while posing, oiled up, in a Speedo and saying, “Hey, it’s my right to do what I want.”

 

And yeah, obviously as a man I don’t have centuries of dated gender expectations pressuring me to be simultaneously both sexy and demure.

 

But the point still stands, though.

 

As does the Emma Watson example, as many accused her of hypocrisy, while others claimed her Vanity Fair shoot was a powerful example of her feminism.

 

Her celebrity aside, it was mostly non-famous people who applauded her, some of whom were likely among those who feel boxing ‘ring card girls’ are sexist.

 

It’s the apparent contradiction that confuses me.

 

I assumed there was a complex, feminist point that I, as a man, was missing.

 

But maybe the answer is as simple as, “Hey, we humans are just kinda stupid, sometimes.”

I think you're assuming there's a one size fits all definition of "feminism" and "gender equality". I don't think there is.

I agree, once again, with both of you.

Most replies are only focusing on my interim interpretation, though, and not on what you think the interpretation is of the people and situations I’ve mentioned.

That's what my whole post is about.

Sure, you can’t speak for another person, but this is all hypothetical, isn’t it, unless someone wants to get involved and take a firm stance.

Let's boil it down to this:

Why are ‘ring card girls’ and their ilk being banned, while photo shoots such as Sharon Stone’s will likely not receive even an accusation of sexism?

I see no difference between the two, so hypothetically what would be the argument that boxing and racing girls are sexist and anti-feminist, while bikini celeb shoots aren’t?

And don't misunderstand; I don't yet have an opinion either way. I just ask questions where I see them. Once I can see no more questions, then I can form an opinion.

It's just that I can currently see and understand the hypocrisy argument, but not yet the counter argument.

 

Why are ‘ring card girls’ and their ilk being banned, while photo shoots such as Sharon Stone’s will likely not receive even an accusation of sexism?

 

For the same reason that some people are being prosecuted for sexual harassment while others (including the current USA president) aren't. Life does NOT operate in linear ways. Under different circumstances similar phenomena may turn out very differently. It just so happens that some person(s) in a position of power, for whatever reason, oppose "ring card girls" and are in a position to ban them while photo shoots by Hollywood celebs aren't within their sphere of interest or influence. When it comes to moral judgments, there's not a one size fits all definition nor are they always enforced to everyone in the same way. Why are men considered "studs" for sleeping around while women are considered "sl@t$"? History is full of such contradictions. I will exit the discussion here.

Fair enough. Thank you.

I still have no idea of the answer to my original question(s), but I'm sure if someone here agreed with celebs like Emma Watson, they'd have chimed in by now.

Interesting discussion, either way. All the best.