Men's Group

La Lioness Priyanka

(53,866 posts)

7. i am arguing that ALL journals whether you deem them legitimate or not

Fri May 18, 2012, 10:49 AM

May 2012

charge money to read articles. medical journal, science journals, social science journals.

your argument about authorship was incorrect as well.

how we view/see/rotate something, is work cognitive scientists do. i am not saying that this study is good or bad, because unless i read the real study, i can't say anything about the methods/data/theory.

Since you haven't read the actual study, I don't see how you can trash it. Maybe it is worth trashing, maybe not. You seem highly motivated to trash it, which i find to be an unscientific approach to take.

At least look at the data/methods and then make your decisions.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

175 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"Objectification": Science, or Junk Science? [View all] Warren DeMontague May 2012 OP

The title is more than a little laughable. Gore1FL May 2012 #1

Junk Science-- HuskiesHowls May 2012 #2

The evidence is irrefutable. ZenLefty May 2012 #3

It could be there are more telling phenotypic differences 4th law of robotics May 2012 #93

Dont forget how the male gaze objectification process disrupts the flow of consciousness Warren DeMontague May 2012 #104

From the study: 4th law of robotics May 2012 #4

you do understand that she didn't conduct the study, she merely wrote the article about the study La Lioness Priyanka May 2012 #5

I can't criticize it if I don't want to pay $40 to read it, can I. Warren DeMontague May 2012 #6

i am arguing that ALL journals whether you deem them legitimate or not La Lioness Priyanka May 2012 #7

"It's a bogus psychobabble term that was coined to further an agenda." ZombieHorde May 2012 #8

Yes. Warren DeMontague May 2012 #9

Excellent news! Will you share it with the rest of us? nt ZombieHorde May 2012 #10

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague May 2012 #11

Your readers. ZombieHorde May 2012 #12

Im sure many people like many things. Warren DeMontague May 2012 #13

Are you going to post evidence for your claim? nt ZombieHorde May 2012 #14

Yes. Warren DeMontague May 2012 #15

Sweet. ZombieHorde May 2012 #16

Aint it? Warren DeMontague May 2012 #17

Your lack of evidence has helped reafirm my opinion on the subject. ZombieHorde May 2012 #18

Apparently, many people are willing to pay $40 a pop for it. Warren DeMontague May 2012 #19

As best I can figure objectification has occurred if the person being looked at disapproves. lumberjack_jeff May 2012 #22

I love it when people use phrases like "a well understood cognitive process" Warren DeMontague May 2012 #23

I am not sure what you are trying to say. ZombieHorde May 2012 #24

The passage cited demonstrates that it's a fascinating opinion, but hardly hard science. Warren DeMontague May 2012 #25

Psychology of Women Quarterly is a peer-reviewed scientific journal. ZombieHorde May 2012 #26

Yes, it's subjective. Exactly. Saying that "men reduce women to body parts" and "see them as bodies" Warren DeMontague May 2012 #28

Caring about the situation is subjective, but the scientific findings are not any more subjective ZombieHorde May 2012 #29

I disagree. I think the entire theoretical framework is bogus, created by people who have built Warren DeMontague May 2012 #30

The document has many examples to support the theory of objectification. ZombieHorde May 2012 #37

Please answer the questions. Warren DeMontague May 2012 #42

The questions are based on a false premise. ZombieHorde May 2012 #44

I'm asking for the objective difference between sexual attraction that is non objectifying Warren DeMontague May 2012 #45

Here's the problem Major Nikon May 2012 #88

The movie Freakonomics claims crime has been going down because of abortion. ZombieHorde May 2012 #89

I'm not sure what that has to do with the current subject Major Nikon May 2012 #90

The movie talked about some of those influences, and counters them by showing ZombieHorde May 2012 #91

If I want someone to interpret crime statistics, my first choice would be a criminologist Major Nikon May 2012 #92

I think, you'd need more than that. People and social systems are complex, non linear phenomena Warren DeMontague May 2012 #95

Believe it or not, the answer to this question- Old and In the Way Feb 2014 #153

So, if they are non-objectified.... Old and In the Way Feb 2014 #152

Easy solution, Mr. Smartypants. Old and In the Way Feb 2014 #151

Junk science, for one simple reason. hifiguy May 2012 #20

If you have several hours to kill, read the PDF in the link above. Warren DeMontague May 2012 #21

Have you never taken a class on the subject of psychology? ZombieHorde May 2012 #32

I have. Warren DeMontague May 2012 #41

All right. I'll stop. This wasn't really going anywhere anyways. nt ZombieHorde May 2012 #83

Best to quit before the hole you dig is too deep to crawl out of. Old and In the Way Feb 2014 #154

You might ask that same question to those who developed radical feminist 'theory' Major Nikon May 2012 #80

Game, set and match. hifiguy May 2012 #81

That might be true, but the discussion at hand is on about peer reviewed document. nt ZombieHorde May 2012 #82

A document that takes for granted ideas that never were proved in the first place Major Nikon May 2012 #84

The word itself is meaningless Major Nikon May 2012 #76

Tell that to the woman who fell in love with a wall. ElboRuum Jun 2012 #109

Reality Check 1: People find it arousing to see certain other people in states of undress stevenleser May 2012 #27

That is not what the study is saying at all. That is not even close. ZombieHorde May 2012 #31

I'm sure there are 100,000,000 ways of approaching the same thing. stevenleser May 2012 #33

"It's evil for men to think of women as sexy/attractive/arousing." ZombieHorde May 2012 #34

Not exactly mind reading. I take into account a lot of history of "objectification" articles and stevenleser May 2012 #35

"Almost every objectification study has the same goal. Women=poor and downtrodden, Men=evil..." ZombieHorde May 2012 #38

Its my opinion, as I am sure I dont need to add, feel free to accept or reject as you will. stevenleser May 2012 #39

The document is not about assigning roles, it is about exploring the human psyche. nt ZombieHorde May 2012 #40

And knowing what they want to see. caseymoz May 2012 #57

And what is the conclusion of the document? ZombieHorde May 2012 #61

The conclusion is that the omnipotent male gaze causes all kinds of spooky action at a distance Warren DeMontague May 2012 #65

No. It is more about the effects of self objectification and the media than sex. ZombieHorde May 2012 #67

Im still waiting for an answer to the questions in #45. Warren DeMontague May 2012 #74

I have already answered your questions, but you won't read that either. ZombieHorde May 2012 #78

No, you haven't. Warren DeMontague May 2012 #85

Human perception to perceived stimuli. ZombieHorde May 2012 #86

Okay, now you're just putting me on. Warren DeMontague May 2012 #87

she's kind of cute, it's like she can never be snooper2 Jun 2012 #114

Well, as a zombie, maybe you find this attractive, but Old and In the Way Feb 2014 #156

It should be simpler to disprove his claim, wouldn't it? lumberjack_jeff May 2012 #47

There is no reason for me to try because I did not make the claim. ZombieHorde May 2012 #62

His claim is that most if not all studies on the subject come to a very gender-biased conclusion... lumberjack_jeff May 2012 #66

I have no idea what you are trying to communicate. ZombieHorde May 2012 #68

He said that something is rare-to-nonexistent. lumberjack_jeff May 2012 #72

Why don't you list the points in this paper? caseymoz May 2012 #56

The pictures were a very small part of the document. ZombieHorde May 2012 #70

There aren't enough problems for you yet? caseymoz May 2012 #75

The link is not to the data, but to the report. ZombieHorde May 2012 #77

So what is the scientifc basis for statements like "disruptions in the flow of consciousness" Warren DeMontague May 2012 #97

A flow of consciousness is our thoughts, but I don't know what a disruption would be. ZombieHorde May 2012 #98

And like I said, that's a fine concept to meditate on, but it doesn't really belong Warren DeMontague May 2012 #99

Could just be poor writing. ZombieHorde May 2012 #100

On that point, we agree. Warren DeMontague May 2012 #102

Ever have sex with a consciousness? Old and In the Way Feb 2014 #155

And women oogling a hot guy is never "objectification". Odin2005 May 2012 #36

It is not about oogling. It is about a specific, psychological phenomenon, which happens to "both" ZombieHorde May 2012 #43

It's about a made up term that was designed to support an agenda and concomitant ideas Warren DeMontague May 2012 #46

As I pointed out up-thread Gore1FL May 2012 #48

An object is something that exists in time and space. People ARE objects. Warren DeMontague May 2012 #49

this is my 2 cents on that 'object' word. Whisp Jun 2012 #110

To me, that sounds like an apt description of a shitty lover. But not really the basis for a Warren DeMontague Jun 2012 #111

And never did get an answer. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #130

Sexual pleasure is part of humanity Major Nikon May 2013 #131

yes it is, and so is doing math. Whisp May 2013 #132

The reverse is also true Major Nikon May 2013 #133

no disagreement from me on that shallowness thing. Whisp May 2013 #134

I'm certainly not going to say you shouldn't feel that and don't have good reason to do so Major Nikon May 2013 #135

Um, just an aside - All words are "made up terms". nt Zorra May 2012 #53

Um, I think I made that exact point. Warren DeMontague May 2012 #58

Which they assume is based on social rather than biological differences 4th law of robotics May 2012 #101

A little bit of truth there. caseymoz May 2012 #50

I think it's absurd to posit some either/or dichotomy in the brain. Certainly, I think we all Warren DeMontague May 2012 #59

Junk science [/journalism], here's why mathematic May 2012 #51

Reciprocal bullshit Catherina May 2012 #52

I don't think you'll get an argument in this forum. n/t Gore1FL May 2012 #54

I have to add, the problem with a study like this is caseymoz May 2012 #55

Also, for the record, I'm "anti-science" like the Pope is "anti-Dogma" Warren DeMontague May 2012 #60

I now realize I am the only person here who read a word of the document. nt ZombieHorde May 2012 #63

I waded through most of it, actually. Warren DeMontague May 2012 #64

Then you should have noticed it has very little to do with men. nt ZombieHorde May 2012 #69

You mean aside from canards like "the pervasive male gaze"? nt Warren DeMontague May 2012 #73

The document is more than a few sentences. nt ZombieHorde May 2012 #79

Yes, its a towering edifice of nonsense that rests on logical pillars like Warren DeMontague May 2012 #96

Take "pervasive male gaze" out of it caseymoz Jun 2012 #113

The one in the OP or the one from 1997 posted upthread? lumberjack_jeff May 2012 #71

Wrong. caseymoz Jun 2012 #112

Inverting the image is a drawing trick rrneck May 2012 #94

Im willing to grant it approximately the same level of scientific legitimacy as, say, homeopathy Warren DeMontague May 2012 #103

I think you're comparing oncology and ontology foo_bar May 2012 #105

Like I said, I think a legitimate statement would be something like "people seem to Warren DeMontague May 2012 #106

"flow" in the psych jargon sense is mentioned upstream foo_bar Jun 2012 #107

We're going to need to keep an eye on you, young Skywalker. Warren DeMontague Jun 2012 #108

or perhaps in ManyShadesOf Jun 2012 #115

Pay the $45 bucks to read it Warren DeMontague Jun 2012 #116

whatever you say ManyShadesOf Jun 2012 #117

Do you have anything of substance to contribute to the thread? Warren DeMontague Jun 2012 #118

I did ManyShadesOf Jun 2012 #119

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Jun 2012 #120

Excuse me? ManyShadesOf Jun 2012 #121

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Jun 2012 #123

Remember when NASA bombed the moon? Warren DeMontague May 2013 #129

This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Jun 2012 #122

If we could take all the energy people put into these bullshit cultural crusades, and channel it Warren DeMontague Jun 2012 #124

Here are some examples of what is claimed as "obectification" of men: Warren DeMontague Aug 2012 #125

"Space Patriarchy"...?? Upton Aug 2012 #126

The Space Patriarchy was responsible, among other things, for the Brutish NASA assault on our Warren DeMontague Aug 2012 #127

WHY DID THEY HAVE TO BLOW UP THE MOON??? WHY??? nomorenomore08 May 2013 #137

Kick Warren DeMontague May 2013 #128

This debate covers more than just "objectification", but still cuts to the heart of it Major Nikon May 2013 #136

In practical terms, mostly junk science AKA pseudo-science. nomorenomore08 May 2013 #138

Worth adding that, I most certainly do believe that some people use "objectification" as a label for Warren DeMontague Jun 2013 #139

It's nothing more than an abstract idea intended to pathologize male behavior Major Nikon Jun 2013 #140

I especially like the idea of the miniature inspector inside the dudes' heads Warren DeMontague Jun 2013 #141

Look at this link from my favorite site, Jezebel. Bonobo Jun 2013 #142

The idea that Jesus is watching you masturbate was promoting atheism Major Nikon Jun 2013 #143

Funny implication in that... ElboRuum Jun 2013 #144

Evidently parents thought so Major Nikon Jun 2013 #145

One wonders how he finds the time to intercede in High School football games. Warren DeMontague Jun 2013 #146

It would be a damn nice PSA if the folks in the Gender Education Group could publish Old and In the Way Feb 2014 #157

Kick for relevance.... opiate69 Feb 2014 #147

What I think would be interesting would be a discussion on Kant's theories regarding objectification stevenleser Feb 2014 #148

"More soon.." Looking forward to it, Steven. opiate69 Feb 2014 #149

Interesting, yes. Will it happen here, I doubt it. Major Nikon Feb 2014 #150

Kicking. Again. Because sadly, it's relevant. ElboRuum Feb 2014 #158

Yeah, pretty much everything I'm interested in saying on the matter can be found in this thread. Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #159

Those that refuse to debate objectification have good reason not to do so Major Nikon Feb 2014 #160

Yes, yes, and yes! TM99 Feb 2014 #162

Hmm, delicious conflation. ElboRuum Feb 2014 #163

Such is the nature of egocentrism Major Nikon Feb 2014 #164

Kick Cause this entire thread shouldn't fade away. In_The_Wind Feb 2014 #161

Well, here we are almost 2 years later, and one can actually read the study without paying $45 Bucks Warren DeMontague Mar 2014 #165

I once saw a pen... Bonobo Mar 2014 #166

Did the pen cost 45 bucks? Warren DeMontague Mar 2014 #167

Kick Warren DeMontague Apr 2014 #168

It is worth reminding, of course, to any erstwhile defenders of the boundaries of "good science"- Warren DeMontague Apr 2014 #169

"Objectification" is to "junk science" as Chevy Vegas are to junk food. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2014 #171

Even if the science is sound, it doesn't mean the conclusions derived from it are valid Major Nikon Apr 2014 #172

Sure. I think it entirely plausible that statistically, people are slightly more likely to recognize Warren DeMontague Apr 2014 #173

Also, it's totally legitimate to say "people getting turned on by bikini pictures MAKES ME MAD!" Warren DeMontague Apr 2014 #170

Damn.. I missed whatever precipitated this most recent kick, but kick again for sound science opiate69 Apr 2014 #174

And again, the "study" from 2012 which is the oft-quoted "scientific proof" of the phenomenon Warren DeMontague Sep 2014 #175