The New And Improved Fashion Board

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
We're all objectified, every day. Is there really a tremendous difference in being objectified for your body and being objectified somewhere on a chart as "employee 431"?

But aren't women objectified as an employee as well as for their bodies? That's the rub.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Objectification's an odd word I've never been comfrotable with. If not for its allegedly evil effects, how would anyone reproduce?

I don't think it's that odd a word. Women are treated as sexual objects, to be bought and sold all the time, whether it is their image or their bodies. Or they are treated as if they can be bought and sold by men who are in no such position, reducing them to nothing but an object.

Of course women, in general, have their issues too. Some of it is a by-product of their constant objectification. The stereotype is that women see men for what they have or do instead of for who they are. Men see women for what they look like instead of who they are. Would women objectify men in a similar manner if the power dynamic between men and women was exactly the same?

Either way, can we all agree that Coltrane has been completely failing us in enabling our objectifying ways? I mean, let's stay focused here.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Apropos of nothing in particular regarding strippers, in FB Lore, one of the most well-loved Sebbyisms is the line "everyone agrees that I am mostly correct." (It may be a well-loved Sebbyism, but I can never remember if I am quoting it correctly, or what the actual subject of his comment was, but anyway.)

So, if anyone responds to your comment with something along the "everyone/mostly" lines, it is because they were reminded as they read your post of that delightful little phrase from the annals of FB History.

You think I'm funny? Like funny 'ha ha'? Like I'm a comedian or somethin'?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
But aren't women objectified as an employee as well as for their bodies? That's the rub.

I don't think it's that odd a word. Women are treated as sexual objects, to be bought and sold all the time, whether it is their image or their bodies. Or they are treated as if they can be bought and sold by men who are in no such position, reducing them to nothing but an object.

Of course women, in general, have their issues too. Some of it is a by-product of their constant objectification. The stereotype is that women see men for what they have or do instead of for who they are. Men see women for what they look like instead of who they are. Would women objectify men in a similar manner if the power dynamic between men and women was exactly the same?

Either way, can we all agree that Coltrane has been completely failing us in enabling our objectifying ways? I mean, let's stay focused here.

TM

I think that when trollish men objectify women, those women actually have the power in those circumstances. Their power isn't immediately recognizable, since the trollish men who comment on them to give their pathetic selves a sense of power usually aren't directly under the control of the co-worker women they objectify. But late at night, alone, sitting on the fat asses, watching tv and wishing they actually could "connect" with a woman, those guys get a pretty harsh repayment.

Women run everything in the bigger picture. They just don't realize it because they're viewing "control" as something exclusively involving workplace power. When you consider the bigger picture (take my life, for instance, where I quite literally lose money hand over fist to my wife's whims, and live where she wants, and play along with the social life she wants), women have the upper hand.

I subscribe the the Freudian view that sex drives all, and through that prism, there's no conclusion reachable but that women have the upper hand. they have the resource. We're always in a state of trying to gain it. He who has the gold makes the rules. The only problem for women in the power dynamic is that they age.

I'd say strippers are either (a) the most logical and icily detached of capitalists, or (b) failures who lack the skill to utilize the resource properly.

Nobody has more power than an attractive woman with brains. Except maybe a drop dead gorgeous woman with brains and cunning.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
But aren't women objectified as an employee as well as for their bodies? That's the rub.

I don't think it's that odd a word. Women are treated as sexual objects, to be bought and sold all the time, whether it is their image or their bodies. Or they are treated as if they can be bought and sold by men who are in no such position, reducing them to nothing but an object.

I don't want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything as a career. I don't want to sell anything bought or processed, or buy anything sold or processed, or process anything sold, bought, or processed, or repair anything sold, bought, or processed. You know, as a career, I don't want to do that.

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Either way, can we all agree that Coltrane has been completely failing us in enabling our objectifying ways? I mean, let's stay focused here.

TM

I like how they're all looking at me:

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I more or less agree with you. I'd actually like to have a happier take on stripping as empowering or whatever, and I'm sure for some it is (but probably not for the majority or sex workers/strippers). I think it is sad that the power dynamic in our country regarding sex is the way it is, but I'm not sure what, if anything, could ever be done to change that. The best efforts in the sex shop arena seem to occur when women have some ownership/input (eg., Good Vibrations).

RT and I read the book Strip City in which a former stripper went back and checked out the strip club scene with fresh eyes after having been out for a number of years. And I'm sure RT has other books to discuss on the subject. It really is an interesting subject to me, and I'm not some strip club hater (though they aren't for me), but people who ignore the power dynamic at work and the way a lot of the women feel about men as a result of it are fooling themselves.*



*yes, I realize that a lot of men go to strip clubs for the very purpose of fooling themselves (into thinking these women would otherwise give them the time of day).

When I was in law school, I worked in a battered womans' shelter. That year the stupid city council, uncomfortable with Houston's reputation as having the best strip clubs in the country, started fucking around with the SOB ordinance. One of the shrewder things that they did was to make strippers have licenses, with real names on them, that were supposed to be on display when they were on stage.

The organization that I worked for vigorously complained, because there were enough instances of strippers being stalked as it was. Houston City Council was unpersuaded by our objectification arguments.

Houston's no longer considered one of the better places in the country to see scantly clad and naked women dance, and I don't think that Houston strippers are nearly as safe as they were before 1997.

This is an interesting summation of what happened with the Houston SOB laws.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Women run everything in the bigger picture. They just don't realize it because they're viewing "control" as something exclusively involving workplace power. When you consider the bigger picture (take my life, for instance, where I quite literally lose money hand over fist to my wife's whims, and live where she wants, and play along with the social life she wants), women have the upper hand.

2. If given the choice, I'd probably live in a cabin in northern Michigan. But that would destroy the marriage b/c my wife would be miserable (but would LOVE it if the cabin were a "summer home").

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think women that are angry at men generally don't get as much attention from men as they want...

A run of the mill feminist (meaning a women that thinks women should have equal rights with men, want to make a career for themselves and don't want to be dependent on men) are usually more generally stable and well adjusted than most men (in my opinion).

(1) I like angry women. What's not to like about an angry woman?

(2) Why are feminists always women?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Women run everything in the bigger picture. They just don't realize it ....

I agree with half of what you say.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
As I have stated before I have dated a few strippers and met a lot of their friends. Less can attest to this also, but a well adjusted stripper is pretty rare. However, I wouldn't say they are hostile towards men. Women who aren’t happy with their bodies, and feminists* (often you get both with the same packages) tend to be hostile, overly sensitive and generally angry towards men.

Strippers on the other hand don't seem to have the anger at men. I think women that are angry at men generally don't get as much attention from men as they want, where strippers get all the attention they need. Having said that, strippers, although not angry and sensitive towards men are generally a screwed up bunch. Even though they make an obscene amount of money they never have any because most of it is spent on drugs and clothes. The typical stripper will have an old nasty car, live in a run down apartment, but have a closet full of Channel. In addition, they are about as stable as a pool of nitroglycerine surrounded by trees in the fall. I have never figured out why. They do have hostility but it seems to be directed at each other. They are always fighting with each other and seem to have a lot of hostility towards women that come into the clubs (of course they pretend to like the girls that come in). Most strippers will tell you they don't have many friends that are women and don't trust women in general.

Of course these are sweeping generalizations, and of course there are exceptions, but I think they hold true most of the time.

*By feminist, I mean the hard core types that think the entire society is rigged against them, they can never catch a break because they are female and see sexism everywhere. A run of the mill feminist (meaning a women that thinks women should have equal rights with men, want to make a career for themselves and don't want to be dependent on men) are usually more generally stable and well adjusted than most men (in my opinion).

Dude, strippers don't get angry at men because they're conditioned never to do so by their marketplace. They switch off effortlessly, unconsciously, their normal human reaction to the often grotesque stimulae around them. It's a variation of what I do when the twit I've worked for blathers to me about some case. On the surface, I'm thinking "what a massive douche... he thinks (a) he's smart, and (b) I give a fuck." But what comes out of my mouth? "Oh, I agree. That's the same issue I was looking into. I think we should [insert some phoned in strategic gibberish about case here]."

You don't really think they respect you, do you?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
(1) I like angry women. What's not to like about an angry woman?

Buzz kill. Hard to watch the game when they are going on and on about men being insensitive.

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
(2) Why are feminists always women?

It is true that some men call themselves "feminists", but pretty much every man whom I have ever met that has called himself a "feminists" is a total tool.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by Not Bob
So, if anyone responds to your comment with something along the "everyone/mostly" lines, it is because they were reminded as they read your post of that delightful little phrase from the anals of FB History.

This is much funnier now that I've removed that extra "n."

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
This is much funnier now that I've removed that extra "n."

I thought sebby didn't like anal?

ETA OK, I can't stand it anymore. I have to say it. Your sig line drives me nuts because it is *two* distinguishable differences, so the use of "only" -- "only"!!!!!!!!! -- is just wrong.

I know it's a quote or whatever. But it kills me.

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I think that when trollish men objectify women, those women actually have the power in those circumstances. Their power isn't immediately recognizable, since the trollish men who comment on them to give their pathetic selves a sense of power usually aren't directly under the control of the co-worker women they objectify. But late at night, alone, sitting on the fat asses, watching tv and wishing they actually could "connect" with a woman, those guys get a pretty harsh repayment.

Women run everything in the bigger picture. They just don't realize it because they're viewing "control" as something exclusively involving workplace power. When you consider the bigger picture (take my life, for instance, where I quite literally lose money hand over fist to my wife's whims, and live where she wants, and play along with the social life she wants), women have the upper hand.

I subscribe the the Freudian view that sex drives all, and through that prism, there's no conclusion reachable but that women have the upper hand. they have the resource. We're always in a state of trying to gain it. He who has the gold makes the rules. The only problem for women in the power dynamic is that they age.

I'd say strippers are either (a) the most logical and icily detached of capitalists, or (b) failures who lack the skill to utilize the resource properly.

Nobody has more power than an attractive woman with brains. Except maybe a drop dead gorgeous woman with brains and cunning.

Proving the point that only ugly women are feminists. Voila!

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
Proving the point that only ugly women are feminists. Voila!

And bitter, because they aren't getting enough attention from men. Because really, across the board, the thing most necessary to women is positive sexual male attention.

ETA I have to say that sebby's earlier post that ended "You don't really think they respect you, do you?" kind of said what I was thinking last night.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I think that when trollish men objectify women, those women actually have the power in those circumstances. Their power isn't immediately recognizable, since the trollish men who comment on them to give their pathetic selves a sense of power usually aren't directly under the control of the co-worker women they objectify. But late at night, alone, sitting on the fat asses, watching tv and wishing they actually could "connect" with a woman, those guys get a pretty harsh repayment.

Women run everything in the bigger picture. They just don't realize it because they're viewing "control" as something exclusively involving workplace power. When you consider the bigger picture (take my life, for instance, where I quite literally lose money hand over fist to my wife's whims, and live where she wants, and play along with the social life she wants), women have the upper hand.

I subscribe the the Freudian view that sex drives all, and through that prism, there's no conclusion reachable but that women have the upper hand. they have the resource. We're always in a state of trying to gain it. He who has the gold makes the rules. The only problem for women in the power dynamic is that they age.

I'd say strippers are either (a) the most logical and icily detached of capitalists, or (b) failures who lack the skill to utilize the resource properly.

Nobody has more power than an attractive woman with brains. Except maybe a drop dead gorgeous woman with brains and cunning.

Come on, man. You can't be serious.

1. Men who objectify women on the street, in the office or wherever, often already have somebody and certainly aren't incapable of being with someone. So, what you're saying is they don't have the power to be with anyone they want. And that is true of everyone.

2. You aren't really telling me that the influence your wife holds over you in a loving, committed relationship is superior to the actual positions of power men hold in the public and private sectors all over the world, are you?

3. Sex doesn't drive all. Money and power do. The more you have of either, the less power sex has over you because, in the most cynical terms, it is a commodity, like anything else.

TM