Sunday, May 22, 2005
But Seriously Folks...
In my last post, I posted a picture that accompanied a reuters news item about the Cannes Film Festival. Here it is again:
My comments were partly humorous, but in all reality, I find stuff like this a little disturbing. I recieved a comment to the effect that my lamenting this lady's lack of face was still based on looks. I think I should clarify.
Let me ask. If, in my last post, I hadn't told you who this was (Miss Europe), would you have known? Of course not. That's because her breasts, while certainly great, aren't an identifying feature. Someone's face, however, is. Now depending on your following of European beauty pageants you could argue that had her face been shown, you still might not know who she is. But her family would. People that know her would.
I guess my point is that the camera person in this instance chose to obscure her face, which is a person's main identifying hallmark, in favor of solely showing a view of her breasts. What does this say?
What if I told you that studies show that in the dreams of many rapists, women are faceless or have their faces obscured? Devoid of identifying features, they become objects to be used instead of living people.
Some will say I'm reading too much into this. I'm a feminist, but feminism has gone "out of vogue". But increasingly in our culture women are objectified at an unprecedented level. Ever heard the saying, "the greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing people that he didn't exist."? Well, the greatest trick ever perpetrated on us women was convincing us that we were liberated.
Categories: Feminism, Opinion
My comments were partly humorous, but in all reality, I find stuff like this a little disturbing. I recieved a comment to the effect that my lamenting this lady's lack of face was still based on looks. I think I should clarify.
Let me ask. If, in my last post, I hadn't told you who this was (Miss Europe), would you have known? Of course not. That's because her breasts, while certainly great, aren't an identifying feature. Someone's face, however, is. Now depending on your following of European beauty pageants you could argue that had her face been shown, you still might not know who she is. But her family would. People that know her would.
I guess my point is that the camera person in this instance chose to obscure her face, which is a person's main identifying hallmark, in favor of solely showing a view of her breasts. What does this say?
What if I told you that studies show that in the dreams of many rapists, women are faceless or have their faces obscured? Devoid of identifying features, they become objects to be used instead of living people.
Some will say I'm reading too much into this. I'm a feminist, but feminism has gone "out of vogue". But increasingly in our culture women are objectified at an unprecedented level. Ever heard the saying, "the greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing people that he didn't exist."? Well, the greatest trick ever perpetrated on us women was convincing us that we were liberated.
Categories: Feminism, Opinion
As to what is the photograph trying to say? Hard to say. One could say it's objectifying women. But also, it could be looked at as art. It really comes down to intent. Even without a face, our bodies are a beautiful thing. Yes there are some that will treat women as objects, but there are others that will see a body (male or female) as just the work of art that it truly is.
By the way, there is an obverse behavior that women practice toward men. Many women look for men who seem outwardly agressive, confident and successful. They may end up in unhappy relationships because, just as their male counterparts did, they fell for an image or someone playing a role.
The moral of the story is for both sexes to fight societal conditioning and look for a kind, compatible person as a partner, not an object.
Morris
Ask Morris
hubba hubba!
LiT
a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do :p