[mercurial]

> The real problem about women being objectified is that women are ready to be objectified - either for money or for some other form of compromise. This is the real problem. As long as such women exist, the product makers and corporations would obviously use them. So, if you want this to stop, you have to revolt when someone from your own gender (male/female) is ready to represent your gender infront of a public audience and accept to be objectified for money. Don't go after the corporation that hired them, instead ask these people why they let them objectify you, on behalf of you/your gender in the first place. This is the real problem

Either you think objectifying women is wrong, or you don't. If you do, then it's absolutely logical to go after the people deciding to run their marketing campaign this way. You will always find people ready to do whatever if you put enough money on the table. It doesn't mean it's not wrong.

[randomdata]

What I fail to understand is why objectification of the body is wrong, but objectification of the mind is normal, if not encouraged.

We spend a lot of time trying to make individual thought into an interchangeable machine. You don't even have to dig very deep in HN to see people boasting about the benefits of a college education, or why you should drop out, in order to make yourself like just like everyone else, creating an "us vs them" mentality. Then we put the most attractive minds on display for all to see. "Buy this and you can be smart and successful just like me!"

Exploiting a woman to display her body to sell a laptop battery is no more wrong than exploiting a woman to use her mind to create the battery in the first place. In either case, we are not appreciating the person for being a person, just an object that gets the job done.

Women are not free of problems because of their gender, but this case seems entirely about a non-sensical shame of the human body.

[mercurial]

Interesting analogy. This actually made me pause and think for a while.

However, I think it is ultimately flawed. The message here is clearly targeted at the reptilian part of heterosexual male brains: buying this battery is like buying this woman to bed her. Straightforward and effective.

Saying "do this and be smart just like me" works in a completely different way. It does reduce people to one dimension: their success, while ignoring their appreciation for the finer points of Zoroastrianism. But I would not call it exploitative. You put forward a positive quality (business skill, programming chops, whatever) and you encourage people to take action and work to acquire it. This is a fairly positive message.

I would say also that paying a woman to create a battery (provided the compensation is fair) is not exploitation. In this context, we are not talking about economic exploitation, but exploitation of heterosexual male lust in ways which send out the message that women are nothing better than sex toys.

To every straight, at least moderately attractive male who have trouble understanding how this can be an issue, I suggest to challenge yourselves and go out to a gay night club on a Friday night. If anything, this should be an interesting experience, and may help you understand some things which can make women uncomfortable.

[randomdata]

You definitely make some great points. I do, however, wonder why you consider business skills a positive quality, but being a sex toy a negative quality? Neither is inherently good or inherently bad.

I expect it is because the woman is viewed as a sex toy without getting to choose to be one? However, the stereotype about a man's wallet seems to play into the same idea. A man who looks wealthy is going to be assumed to be a smart businessman, even if he wishes to not be seen that way.

I admit that I still don't fully understand, and maybe it is impossible for me to fully do so, but I'm glad we can talk openly about it to learn more.

- "I suggest to challenge yourselves and go out to a gay night club on a Friday night."

I have actually done this and found it to be a fun and positive experience. Nothing creepy or uncomfortable about it. I guess I am, perhaps, too ugly to have experienced what you are talking about?

[mercurial]

> You definitely make some great points. I do, however, wonder why you consider business skills a positive quality, but being a sex toy a negative quality? Neither is inherently good or inherently bad. > > I expect it is because the woman is viewed as a sex toy without getting to choose to be one? However, the stereotype about a man's wallet seems to play into the same idea. A man who looks wealthy is going to be assumed to be a smart businessman, even if he wishes to not be seen that way.

But society does not see businessmen in the same light as sex toys. At all.

The problem is that we've been living in a patriarcal society for a long, long while. Sending the message "women are sex toys" also means "women are sex toys, nothing more - they are here for your enjoyment". It's a message that they are not in a position of power, contrary to the businessman. They are not equal.

> I have actually done this and found it to be a fun and positive experience. Nothing creepy or uncomfortable about it. I guess I am, perhaps, too ugly to have experienced what you are talking about?

It's a bit difficult to explain. Imagine suddenly that somebody sees you as just a piece of meat, ready to be consumed and thrown out afterward. This is not a pleasant feeling. And congrats for challenging yourself!

[randomdata]

So would you say the root problem is our puritan shame of sex, as I suggested earlier? If a sexual person was held in the same regard as a business person, wouldn't that be something to strive towards, not shy away from?

"It's a bit difficult to explain. Imagine suddenly that somebody sees you as just a piece of meat, ready to be consumed and thrown out afterward. This is not a pleasant feeling."

See, I wish people would value me for my body in that way. It is the constant having to prove myself with my mind, instead, that made me think of the original comparison. Without being able to fully understand what you are feeling, it seems like it could be the same thing in many ways – ultimately rejecting what you have and seeking what you don't have.

[mercurial]

> So would you say the root problem is our puritan shame of sex, as I suggested earlier? If a sexual person was held in the same regard as a business person, wouldn't that be something to strive towards, not shy away from?

Well, it already is... for men. A man with many sexual partners is looked favourably upon. A woman doing the same is called a slut. There is a gender imbalance built into our society, and until such time as a majority of men recognize it, it will keep being there. But it is a question of equality and power more than sexuality. Just as if you systematically represented male CEOs and female secretaries in the media. This wouldn't be about sex, but would be equally problematic.

> See, I wish people would value me for my body in that way. It is the constant having to prove myself with my mind that made me think of the original comparison. Without being able to fully understand what you are feeling, it seems like it could be the same thing in many ways – ultimately rejecting what you have and seeking what you don't have.

You have a point here. I'd say the problem is treating people as the means to an end - whether as sex toys, problem-solving machines or plain old cannon fodder.

[king_jester]

It's true the interaction between companies and their employees has issues, esp. with regards to employees whose output is more mental than physical.

But objectifying women's bodies to sell a product is sexual objectification[1]. The issue with this is that we live in a society where attitudes that women do not control their bodies or that others get to control those bodies is a root cause of sexual violence against women and promotes an attitude that blames victims of such violence for being the cause of that violence. Keep in mind that for the vast majority of history in the western world, women were treated literally as objects and were bartered and sold and denied protection of the law when assaulted (this last point arguably is still true).

The difference between that objectification and the kind that occurs when a business simply treats you as a faceless output unit is that sexual objectification mainly has negative effects for women compared to men. The tech world has a long history of contributing to that objectification of women in a way that doesn't apply to men, who are the most common type of worker in the tech industry (that isn't to say that there aren't issues for tech workers with their jobs).

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification

[wahnfrieden]

Very different issues you're talking about. It's disingenuous to equate them, but nice slip of rhetoric.

[randomdata]

What you say may be true, but I fail to see the difference. That is why I brought it up. I'm open to learning and understanding more about the subject, but simply passing it off as rhetoric doesn't really help the cause. Care to explain what you mean?

[wahnfrieden]

If you apply enough reductive logic, anything can seem to be the same thing.

[randomdata]

Surely, but that doesn't explain why this case is not reductive in the way I have presented. You can claim anything to be not true, but that doesn't make the claim true.

If we want to progress women's rights, we need to be able to talk about the problems, not just sweep everything under the rug with "No, you are wrong."