Men routinely objectify women, and many women willingly objectify themselves. This is obvious in the world of advertising, where men use women’s bodies to sell goods and services. Many people assert that boys and men are more visual than girls and women when it comes to mate selection. Certainly, boys and men generally tend to be more polygamous than girls and women.
All throughout the animal kingdom, heterosexual males try to attract females, and heterosexual females try to attract males. It is how most animal species perpetuate themselves. However, capitalists exploit human heterosexual males’ natural sexual desire for females, in much the same way that religionists exploit people’s desire for immortality and fear of death.
Many heterosexual men see women as little more than sex objects, sexual playthings, etc. On the other hand, many heterosexual women see men as little more than walking and talking ATM’s.
Sexist heterosexual men regularly complain about female gold diggers, but they see nothing wrong with objectifying women. They fail to realize, that just as they do not want to be used for their money and material possessions, most women do not want to have their value tied up entirely in their looks. Some men do not mind being used for their money by attractive women, and some women do not mind being viewed as sex objects. (A few years ago, celebrities such as Pam Anderson and rapper L’il Kim said they would rather have beauty than brains.) However, these people are exceptions to the rule. Most people want to be valued as human beings, and not as objects or cash machines.
As a former manager of a restaurant, I have had personal experience with the objectification of women in the workplace. I knew one manager that would throw away the job applications of any women he did not find attractive. Of course, he did not last long on the job. However, one only has to look at the many businesses and even government agencies that seem to hire only women that are physically attractive. Obviously, many employers continue to put greater emphasis upon girls’ and women’s looks, than upon their competence or expertise.
Female models are becoming increasingly younger. Very young girls are found in provocative poses. Pre-adolescent youths are wearing lipstick, revealing clothing, makeup, etc. In other words, they are being sexualized. (Moreover, many young girls are worrying about their weight and obsessing about figures they do not even have yet. Some are even suffering from anorexia. They are missing their childhood, and learning at very young ages that their value is tied completely to their looks.) If grown men are sexually attracted to these young girls, it seems that the fantasy is unlikely to stop there. Hardcore child pornography would seem like a natural progression for some, just as some drug users go from soft drugs to hard ones.
The question naturally arises as to what we should do about the objectification of girls and women. Many feminists advocate censorship and other authoritarian measures. However, it is problematic, to say the least, to go down that road. For example, to avoid hypocrisy and double standards, censors would have to extend the supposed right to censor to those with whom they disagree.
Feminists are in conflict with patriarchal religions, such as those embraced by the Religious Right in the U.S. The Religious Right is always trying to censor teachings about evolution, LGBTQI rights, competing religions, music, art, books including classics, etc. This is all done with the greater good in mind, just as feminists advocating censorship are doing so for the greater good.
Similarly, many religionists, particularly Muslims, advocate or embrace laws against blasphemy. However, if feminists succeed in censoring sexist images, are not religionists also in the right to bring about censorship for what they regard as the greater good?
We do not censor patriarchal religions. We oppose them through education, secular alternatives and better ideas. That is how it should be, and we should deal with sexist images and messages in the same democratic way.
There is also the issue of women’s autonomy. For decades, the popular feminist battle cry has been “a woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body.” However, surely that cannot apply only to a woman’s right to get an abortion. A woman should have the right to use her sexual attractiveness to her advantage if she so chooses, or if she feels compelled to do so out of economic necessity. Obviously, no one must ever be forced by violence or threats of violence to model clothing, dance in a video, etc. However, the individual must be allowed to make her choice, circumscribed though it may be.
Someone once said, “Just because you have the right to do it, doesn’t mean it’s right to do it.” This means that, though we must respect individual rights, we must fight against the objectification of girls and women. This must be done through education, letter writing campaigns, boycotts, mass demonstrations, etc. Capitalist excess will continue to be a problem, especially in the U.S. However, as long as U.S.-style capitalism exists, we will have to challenge its most dehumanizing aspects. This fight should not include censorship campaigns, however. For as the French historian Alexis de Tocqueville stated, “Freedom is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have.”