ask dr. di

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

not to upstage dr. lola, of course. but i had a feminist question, i meant to ask you over IM but never had time. what's objectification? does it have to do w/ physical appearance and taking someone ONLY based on this? is it more complicated? i'm beginning to worry i "objectify" women but i guess it's just a word anyway.

― black plastic (black plastic), Monday, 13 October 2003 00:54 (twenty-two years ago)

i will send you a copy of my art history essay which is connected to this topic. BOY DOES THAT SOUND PRETENTIOUS!!! in the meantime, i wouldn't worry about whether you objectify women. the issue is really complex. it would be hard for you, as a woman, to deny the agency of women by looking at other women - since the act of checking women out involves having agency in itself. in any case, who's to say that the woman being "objectified" has no agency? since appearance is a performance, theres a certain amount of activity involved in it.

― The Lady Ms Lurex (lucylurex), Monday, 13 October 2003 03:24 (twenty-two years ago)

rebekah considers me an authority on feminism! my ego is HUGE right now :-)

― The Lady Ms Lurex (lucylurex), Monday, 13 October 2003 05:09 (twenty-two years ago)

I just wear the same thing each day unless it smells

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Monday, 13 October 2003 10:30 (twenty-two years ago)

Does objectifying women really depend on denying that women can even have agency, tho?

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Monday, 13 October 2003 10:31 (twenty-two years ago)

And lastly, since no-one's ever to say (in a reallife context, at least) whether or not someone being looked at has agency, does objectification even exist outside of the media? I imagine it does, obv.

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Monday, 13 October 2003 10:34 (twenty-two years ago)

"objectification" implies reducing something to the status of an object - passive. i find the term contentious. as you say, andrew, the agency thing is problematic: what about people who ogle women but think that if a woman dresses a certain way she is asking (actively) to be ogled? theres some faulty logic in that which is pretty offensive to me, but it doesn't quite fit the standard definition of "objectification". i don't understand your second post.

― The Lady Ms Lurex (lucylurex), Monday, 13 October 2003 10:44 (twenty-two years ago)

Just that you can objectify A woman while not objectifying WOMEN, whether yr a woman yrself or not, but we discussed this on AIM. Didn't want to leave yr question hanging on here. People you don't know are more or less visual objects; you can see them as people w/feelings, but yr imagining the form those feelings take. This was all talked over before but I thought I should reply.

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Monday, 13 October 2003 12:28 (twenty-two years ago)

this helps! thanks di & andrew.

― black plastic (black plastic), Monday, 13 October 2003 22:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Just that you can objectify A woman while not objectifying WOMEN, whether yr a woman yrself or not, but we discussed this on AIM.

i mostly brought that into it because early feminist conceptions of "objectification" are quite heterosexist.

― The Lady Ms Lurex (lucylurex), Tuesday, 14 October 2003 00:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Why didn't you accept Dr. Phil's offer of his hand in marriage, Di?

― The Leader (Adrian McCoy), Tuesday, 14 October 2003 00:12 (twenty-two years ago)

because i am not attracted to him.

― The Lady Ms Lurex (lucylurex), Tuesday, 14 October 2003 00:41 (twenty-two years ago)

whats not to love about dr. phil? balding, mustached, patronizing - yum yum!

― black plastic (black plastic), Friday, 17 October 2003 16:07 (twenty-two years ago)

i read andrew's qn. "Does objectifying women really depend on denying that women can even have agency, tho?" as "Does objectifying women really depend on denying that women can even have agency, ho?"

― unknown or illegal user (doorag), Saturday, 18 October 2003 08:59 (twenty-two years ago)

andrew is a motherfuckin P.I.M.P.

― unknown or illegal user (doorag), Saturday, 18 October 2003 09:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Thanks for taking the time to recognise

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Sunday, 19 October 2003 09:04 (twenty-two years ago)

actually i am way more confused about this issue than i pretend to be.

― The Lady Ms Lurex (lucylurex), Wednesday, 22 October 2003 02:42 (twenty-two years ago)

So you DO have a thing for Dr. Phil!

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 22 October 2003 04:33 (twenty-two years ago)

ew what are ya?

― The Lady Ms Lurex (lucylurex), Wednesday, 22 October 2003 04:39 (twenty-two years ago)

PERCEPTIVE

― Andrew Thames (Andrew Thames), Tuesday, 28 October 2003 13:24 (twenty-two years ago)

dear dr di, have you really quit our band, i hope not, it would not be a very swift move.
yrs concernededly,
concerned of roslyn.

― duane, Thursday, 30 October 2003 00:12 (twenty-two years ago)

domestic telepaths

― ducklingmonster, Thursday, 30 October 2003 00:48 (twenty-two years ago)

its not just a domestic/cos it doesn't describe the pain/...

― The Lady Ms Lurex (lucylurex), Thursday, 30 October 2003 01:12 (twenty-two years ago)

oh Dr Di your therapy makes me cry

― ducklingmonster (ducklingmonster), Thursday, 30 October 2003 01:49 (twenty-two years ago)

ducklingmonster/when they listen to your band everybody wantsta/git down with the futurians on planet claire/and duane's sister strips down to her underwear.

― The Lady Ms Lurex (lucylurex), Thursday, 30 October 2003 07:54 (twenty-two years ago)

now im gigglecrying

― ducklingmonster (ducklingmonster), Thursday, 30 October 2003 21:17 (twenty-two years ago)

two years pass...

dr. phil was mentioned 3 years ago today on this board :( damn we're late

― jelkino (jergins), Friday, 13 October 2006 07:11 (nineteen years ago)

TRUE. We always showed Dr. Phil love even before he began posting.

― Confounded (Confounded), Friday, 13 October 2006 12:34 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.