Who's afraid of a beautiful woman?
There's some exhibit at a museum in Pittsburgh featuring never before seen photos of Marilyn Monroe. Now, I'm not some retrograde star fucker who pines for the golden age of Hollywood when all the men were either latent homosexuals or confirmed rapists and all the women were hopped up on pills. But seeing Monroe's ethereally beautiful mug plastered all over this city quickly became one of a few bright spots on my otherwise dreary morning commute.
To my horror, this morning I saw that someone defaced one of the billboards touting the exhibit. Under the copy, in awkward, sloppy lettering, stood the hastily spray painted profundity 'women are not objects' followed by some bastard amalgam of an anarchy sign and the symbol for female. I guess the self defense class let out early last night and someone was feeling frisky.I'd like to address the trog that wrote this, or in the very least some of her proxy sisters. You. Janeane, or Betty, or Andrea, or Gloria, or whatever the hell you call yourself at the height of orgasm; you, the joyless, festering hold out to old timey feminism, who still believes and asserts to whomever is listening, in no uncertain terms, with a straight face no less, that American women are oppressed; you who believes that admiring a picture of a long dead Hollywood icon is akin to objectifying women; here is what you should have written on that billboard: "Beautiful women make me uncomfortable, as I am not beautiful."
Because that's what it is. Today we prefer puke splattered terminal cases like Lindsey Lohan and Paris Hilton, women who are almost attractive and personable enough to be cocktail waitresses and are wholly undeserving of the masturbatory acclaim we afford them. And that's OK, because you can look at them and know you are better than they are. They only exist to amp up our collective self esteem. But a gorgeous, desired woman only serves to remind us what we are not.Well, some of us, anyway. I regard those snaps of Monroe the same way I do a sunset; something to be admired for its beauty and something that hopefully afforded a modicum of joy to the viewer. But not to this woman, who was so beset by the picture that she felt compelled to risk life and limb just to give some unhinged freelance writer fodder early in the morning.
I've never truly been able to understand objectification as a concept. Much like catholicism, I find it to be full of holes. For instance, if I ogle greased up Turkish wrestlers, am I objectifying
them? If yes, did they at least enjoy it? If I am raped by the gaze of a lesbian, am I still being objectified? This has happened to me several times and I need someone to tell me if I should be offended. At which point do I turn into an object? Do I need hallucinogens to facilitate the process? Because that sounds alright.I was once witness to a feminist's argument where she cited an experiment that somehow deduced that when men looked at a picture of a woman, they behaved as though they were studying an object. It was quickly pointed out to her that they were indeed studying an object, as a picture of a woman and an actual woman are two entirely different things. This apparently never occurred to her, nor the people who had undertaken the study, who were going to the trouble of measuring brain waves and response times when they could have just ask someone less confused than your typical feminist.
And that anecdote is a pretty good description of the reasoning failures of most feminists; an emotional, cunt-centric reaction to what is wholly obvious to everyone else. That a picture is just a picture. That calling a woman beautiful doesn't mean she is also stupid or weak or subservient, or that she can't also be strong and smart and capable. That being beautiful is a plus, not a minus, and that it's also usually a freak occurence.More and more, feminism looks like a coping mechanism for women who can't get their shit together. Because the truly strong among us don't feel the need to shout it from the roof tops, nor do we feel threatened by every little thing, like a billboard. Sometimes a picture is just a picture.


13 Comments:
This is excellent, and why I read you.
If the beautiful woman in question is a dead body, does that make it objectifying? OR JUST COOL??@!!
You alright, sister.
Hmmm. You did seem to extrapolate some rather sweeping claims about the entirety of feminism from one bit of inept graffiti there.
Anonymous~ Nope...you'd be wrong there. The writer made reference to those feminists who are strong and not threatened by something as silly as a billboard depicting a picture of a long-dead Hollywood beauty.
Re: Ojectification, in a sense it's entirely appropriate for models as they are in fact employed to be objects. Where this becomes a problem is here (to elaborate on something I said over at Disinfo):
...That calling a woman beautiful doesn't mean she is also stupid or weak or subservient, or that she can't also be strong and smart and capable.
...namley that Marlyn Monroe in particular and the vast majority of women photographed in general are rarely if ever celebrated for those qualities. Granted photography isn't really a useful medium to for revealing strength or capability, but it's a fair claim that this sort of thing is an example of the rather toxic culture of placing the primary value of a woman on how attractive she is.
Nice article.
I wonder if not everyone gets objectified. If I hire a physician, don't I just objectify him for his medical education and his brain?
A Nobel Prize winner, he just gets objectified for his brains, too. And a construction worker, does he not get objectified as a construction appliance? Who cares about his personality!?
Even feminist writers get objectified for their ideas, don't they?
from the icons out there, seems like Virgin Mary was pretty beautiful as well..
Marilyn Monroe is pretty. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As such it isn't something that should have one official standard of public worship as you seem to preach.
You aren't talking about feminism in your post at all. You're talking about what kind of girls you find pretty. Granted that is your right to express opinion.
But you don't have a fucking clue about what feminism is and you only come off as ignorant and afraid of the concept of feminism. I found this article to be idiotic.
Feminism is about gender equality in society. That's it. It's about a womans right to choose if she wants to be a housewife or a businesswoman.
You make blog posts attacking "feminism" when you really are just talking about women in particular who don't have a damn clue about what feminism means and don't represent the true ideology whatsoever. At least make sure you are clear about that before attacking an entire ideology and everyone who participates in it based on the stupidity of a few militant dykes.
That would be like criticizing an entire religion based on the actions of a few extremists. There are more valid reasons to critique religion.
You only make true feminism look worse when you pose it for something it's not supposed to be. Try using the term pseudo-feminists instead.
I hear this all the time, and I don't believe that's what feminism is. It's female supremacy. There is a huge difference between feminists and strong women, just like their is a huge difference between male chauvinists and strong men. A strong personality of either gender doesn't need a cheering squad.
This was very funny, because a lot of it is true. You have a way with words.
Thanks!
Feminists think they have the right to not be offended, what an outrageous form of entitlement. Good article, mutterhals.
Post a Comment
<< Home