Men's Group

Gore1FL

(21,825 posts)

48. As I pointed out up-thread

Sun May 20, 2012, 12:51 AM

May 2012

In the study they showed pictures of unknown people.

Pictures are fucking objects. You can't speak to them. You can't know them--unless you had previous knowledge of the subject.

If someone showed me vacation pictures of somewhere I have never been, I am not going to have the same experience as if they showed me pictures of a destination spot that I had been to myself.

The is a more "intimate" (for lack of a better word) connection to the place in the picture if you know it.

The same is true with pictures of people. All anyone has to judge in the picture is the picture--which is an object. If the models were known to the viewer previously, they wouldn't see the model, male or female, as an object. They'd say, "Oh, that's Bob," or "Oh, that's Tammy."

The whole study seems dubious at best, and ultimately in-and-of-itself does not reasonably support the hypothesis. It doesn't disprove the hypothesis either. It's mostly subjective data open to broad interpretation.

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