Woman, Thy Name Is Object
3 May, 2006
It seems to me that in today’s society, women are often, for lack of a better word, objectified. And if you don’t agree with the objectification of women, you are a feminist. Well, what if you a) don’t agree with the objectification of women, and b) don’t agree with all the tenets of modern feminism? What does that make you?
Other than a misfit.
However, I don’t think that objectification of women is merely in a sexual sense. It certainly is, and I certainly can not stand that one bit, but I think it even exists among your “traditional Christian conservative homeschooling” circles. Oh, they’d deny it, I’m sure. After all, God created men and women equal. It’s just that men are more equal than women. Gotta love the Animal Farm twist there.
But how in the world are women being objectified in such a circle? They don’t treat women as sexual objects, after all. Well, maybe not…but I’d venture a guess that they do treat them as objects. See, in your traditional circle, women are expected to stay at home, raise 10+ children, submit to their husband in everything and not question what he says. The man’s word is law. Women are not allowed any say…they are under the authority of their husband. I’ve seen too often this “women can’t have any opinions other than their husband’s mentality”, and it IS objectifying women.
We were created equal. We were created to submit to our fathers and husbands. BUT submission does NOT mean complete and utter domination of the man over the woman. The woman is not an object to be used by the husband in whatever way he pleases. Yes, she should submit, but that doesn’t mean she can’t hold her own opinions. There is nothing wrong with a woman saying she thinks such and such and holding a *gasp* intelligent discussion with her husband about it! There is no reason a woman should be required to vote the exact same way her husband does, have the exact same political ideas her husband does (or even not hold ANY political ideas).
What exactly is the point of objectifying women in this way in the first place? They aren’t good for anything and can’t even think for themselves, so we might as well just relegate them to childbearing and childrearing? What then? We want people who can’t think for themselves <i>rearing</i> our children? That is preposterous. If they can’t think for themselves, they certainly can’t think for other people, especially children who are easily impressed upon.
Besides, we know that women can and do think for themselves. They aren’t stupid. Look at the Bible at Ruth, at Esther, at Naomi, at the Theotokos. Or what if we looked through history? Queen Victoria, Queen Elizabeth I, Amy Carmichael, Joan of Arc, Condoleeza Rice… these aren’t stupid women.
Women can think for themselves. They don’t need to be objectified. It is demeaning and it is not respectful. (Any objectification – sexual or otherwise) I think part of the problem is, however, is that in these circles, the girls are being raised to be like their mother. Willful puppets with no backbone doing everything they are told to do. Is this why we don’t send them to college? So they don’t learn that they can think for themselves?
*cheers*
I think girls need to be careful about where they go to college and how, but I definitely think college is worth considering. Not all girls will go, of course, just like not all guys do, but the mentality that college for girls is a sin is just…illogical. If these people are taking their ideas (and many seem to) from the days of the founding fathers, when women were not sent to college, they need to realize that among the founding religious and political circles, women WERE educated – to the same degree as the men! (Horrors!) It took a perceptive father in those days, as he had to either do the educating himself or hire a tutor to do it, but it WAS done.
[...] You can read the rest of the post here. It definitely provides an intriguing view point that I haven’t seen addressed before, but does seem worth some consideration. [...]
Melodi-
What really bugs me is that these girls are being given the idea that they are all to become wives and mothers and homemakers and going to college does nothing to help them in that regard. Or that it will hinder them in being the good wives and mothers and homemakers they are supposed to be. Perhaps that is true–especially if we’re worried about them learning to think for themselves. But if we complain about being brainwashed by the “Liberal Left”, shouldn’t we first take the log out of our own eyes?
Indeed!! And just take a look at the letters between John and Abigail Adams. Or James and Dolley Madison. Are these women uneducated? Do they blindly follow where their husbands lead? Certainly not.
If women are to teach their children, do we not want them to be able to teach them how to think? And if they cannot think themselves…how is it we presume they can teach others how to think?
“Perhaps that is true–especially if we’re worried about them learning to think for themselves.”
As a current college student, I object to the idea that college helps you think for yourself.
If it wasn’t for the fact that ROTC and engineering require me to attend college, I highly doubt I’d be here. In fact, I’d probably be interning somewhere or starting my own business. Sure I might take some DL courses or what-not, but nothing like a full degree…or at least not in the traditional way. So before you say that women need to go to college to get an education…do consider: Bill Gates never finished college. Dave (founder of Wendy’s) got his GED in 2001 or so. And one of the presidents/high-ranking officials in Lockheed (now Lockheed Martin) in the 80s/90s didnt even get a BA. Bottom line: You dont need a college degree to be successful at what you do. And college does CERTAINLY not equal learning…at least not today.
That depends on where you go to college. There are certainly colleges that DO equate learning, such as the University of Dallas (which is why I’m going…). I think it depends on the institution. We can’t say that college as a whole does not equal learning, but there are many colleges which do not, just as there are those that do. Even if they are *gasp* Catholic.
It does depend on the institution, and what God has called you to do in your life. Even though I hope to get married and raise a family, my parents still feel it right for me to get a college education. If I have kids (and I hope I have lots!) I’m going to homeschool them, and my parents pointed out that in some states, the law used to be that you couldn’t educate your children at home unless you had four years’ education above the highest grade you planned to teach. If any laws like that are ever enacted again, I won’t be fighting against the national government for the right to raise my own kids (not that fighting against the status quo is a bad thing
).
I’m not trying to say everyone should go to college, mind you. It’s not for everyone, and many people get along just fine without it.
I’m just saying it’s not a sin or a terrible idea. 
I agree very much with that last paragraph. Nice job.
Excellent posts, comments. Melikes what I read. You should post more.
Hello!
The title of your post about women be “objectified” caught my eye, but you barely mentioned the biggest area in which women are made into objects today – through lust, fueled by immodesty. Our femininity makes us worthy of being veiled, but the beauty of the female body is exploited and abused all around us without most giving it a second thought. How can a man look at us as a whole person when the revealing of our body is tantalizing his passions? When this happens, women are being subjected to the role of an object, a plaything for a man to fanticize over and disrespect.
That said, may I gently mention that I don’t find the photo on your heading a very dignified portrayal of femininity? The bare shoulders and exposed cleavage automatically cheapen the apparent worth and God-given beauty of the young woman in this photo.
Remember…things of sacredness, of worth, of beauty, are veiled to protect them. It’s cheap trinkets that are carelessly exposed.
Yours in Christ,
Claire
If you notice, I did mention it, but stated that it was not the only area of objectification. I think that today when the objectification of women is thought of, the area of lust comes to mind. And I would also venture to say that such is not confined solely to women, but that the reverse is also true.
As for the body being exploited, yes, it is. But I also think that the mindset people are being raised in contributes to this. For instance, you mention bare shoulders. I for one do not think there is anything wrong with bare shoulders, but that does stem somewhat from taking ballet. As for the exposed cleavage… that has in recent years become more of a sexual attraction than in past eras. For instance, look at the Renaissance – cleavage was shown, but it was for practical purposes, not to incite lust. In those days, a woman (regardless of rank) always wore stays (sort of like a corset, but different), and if she did not she was regarded as a “loose woman”… those who did not were the prostitutes. Whilst wearing such a contraption, one could not easily nurse a child from the bottom, so the obvious choice of practicality lay in wearing a dress low cut enough so as to be able to take the breast up and over the dress to feed the child.
Of course, in today’s society, such is frowned upon, but it does illustrate the fact that what is modest and immodest varies from culture to culture and time period to time period.
I agree that there is nothing wrong with bare shoulders, especially in the photo in question, where the shoulders technically are covered. As for the cleavage–I see the photo every time I click a page on this site, and I didn’t notice the cleavage until it was just pointed out. It could be better in that respect, I admit.
I didn’t know about the correlation between low cut blouses and breastfeeding in the old days, though. That’s pretty interesting to learn about. It’s funny how styles and what is/is not considered modest changes.
As far as college is concerned, I say “go for it” but if that means you are bringing loans into the marriage…bad idea. It’s not fair to the family if your husband has to work to pay your college loans…or if it deprives your children of having you at home because you’ll have to work to pay them off…
The objectification of women via appearance is an issue exclusively based on individual prejudice, and is as such an individually determined matter. For instance, in certain circles in Japan, bare shoulders are practically lewd, but cleavage and incredibly short skirts/shorts are passed over with barely a second thought. In Victorian-era England, it was considered absolutely shocking for a woman’s ankles to be visible.
Lust is not something caused by looking. Lust is something caused by feeding the look. As such, it is the looker’s responsibility, not the dresser’s, to ensure that he does not stumble. This does not, of course, mean that Christian women should dress to flaunt their sexuality. However, it does mean that the one who looks cannot blame the one who dresses for falling into sin. That’s nothing more than the “devil made me do it” argument rehashed.
Which is one reason, Hir V, why I was not intending to go on at length concerning the objectification of women via appearance.
I have no interest in bringing loans with me into marriage. For that matter, I have no interest in even having loans, and I shan’t, if all goes well. However, I see no reason why people should, in general, deny women the right to go to college, or hold a job, or vote how they choose, etc.
Yes, the husband has authority over the wife. But that is NO excuse for ordering her what to do in every last little thing. They are still equal, affter all.
“Our femininity makes us worthy of being veiled…How can a man look at us as a whole person when the revealing of our body is tantalizing his passions?”
Very well put. The female body is a beautiful thing to behold. Even women will check out other women. I’m a single 27-yr old guy, and I’m always on the look out. It’s really not fair to me or the girl if she wears raunchy outfits. I’m sorry, but we are very simple creatures. We see something we like or want, we go get it, and that’s all we think about while we’re going to get it. Don’t give us something so obvious. The thrill of the hunt and the chase have been immortalized by poets and writers since we’ve become a literate species. And beautifully too.
It’s hard to define the sexes, but I think we can point to certain distinguishing tendencies. In the hunt, the man hunts and chases down the woman. Wow, that sounds like I’m objectifying the woman! She’s just a thing to chase down right? Well, first of all, this is an analogy in a limited setting. But second of all, and I’m sorry, that’s just how guys think when they have a mission: what are my objectives, and how will I achieve them. There’s no time for formalities. And third of all, don’t you want to be hunted down? Isn’t it thrilling to be desired and wanted and chased after? Rest assured, that’s not the end of the story. The analogy doesn’t address courtship. Yes, it starts out with an objectification, but what happens after should ideally be a period of getting to know the other person, as a person and not an object. Someone made the comment that a wife shouldn’t have to vote the same as her husband or have the same political views. I think it’s correct to state that a woman, as an individual, has the right to her own opinion. But why would you marry a guy who doesn’t think like you anyway? Isn’t marriage hard enough with two people from the same race, religion, economic and social upbringing? Of course you don’t HAVE to think what your husband tells you to think, but wouldn’t you rather be in a position to be told what you already believe?
Woman are objectified because that’s just how guys think — initially! We are object-driven creatures. Two guys in conversion are acquiring information to put into practice – are asking what makes this happen so I can make it work, or why’d so-n-so do this, should I be doing it? Two women in conversation are discussing events or people – did you see the such-n-such? who was there? I don’t like those events, but my friend does. In general, women think and talk ABOUT things, men think and talk TO DO things. This doesn’t mean that men only objectify women, it just depends on the context. Plus, give us some credit, we’re not THAT simple a creature – we want to live happily ever after too!
The differences between the sexes will never be defined. It’s more of an unspoken understanding that we’re different, yet forever attempting to reconcile these differences. It will never actually happen, like an asymptotic curve forever approaching a limit, but the interactions caused by it will either attract two people closer together, or push two people away. That’s a beauty of the design of two sexes.