'Empowering to women'?

[AngloDoom]

We've all heard this statement. Some of us may have used it ourselves. What's I'm wondering, though, is what exactly constitutes empowerment for women when it comes to matters of expressing sexuality?

We often see people look at adverts of young, attractive, tastefully-nude women on television to which someone will say "this is making an object of women" while another person says "this is empowering women."

We may hear people who claim pole-dancing, pornography, and sometimes even prostitution is a form of empowerment for women when it comes to sexuality.

What are your thoughts on the matter, Escapist? What games, advertisements, etc have you seen that empower women's sexuality in a way that you don't think exploits it? Where is the line? What do you think of the above examples?

 

[Aetera]

I think that the main difference is whether the women are doing it for themselves or if they're doing it for attention. It's a really overused phrase either way.

 

[Merkavar]

I think that the main difference is whether the women are doing it for themselves or if they're doing it for attention.

i think thats pretty much it.

 

[Aetera]

I think that the main difference is whether the women are doing it for themselves or if they're doing it for attention. It's a really overused phrase either way.

You got first AND /thread!?
The gods of the intertubes are watching over you today.....

Well, I did make my ritual weekly sacrifice to the intertube gods. They must have been pleased by my offering of delicious cake and cute pictures of cats.

 

[Mad Scientist]

All I know is that most things specifically marketed as empowering to women aren't.

I don't think cases of nudity or sexiness are empowering or disempowering to women. I do think that the ridiculous overemphasis on female appearance vs. male competence is a serious social issue, but that's a lot less related to sexy advertising than vocal people on either side of the fence would have us think.

 

[AngloDoom]

I think that the main difference is whether the women are doing it for themselves or if they're doing it for attention. It's a really overused phrase either way.

Can't it be both? Or a misguided idea?

An example is a car advertisement where it showed a woman walking through her home, hurling her clothe of as she went, breaking her jewelery, then getting into a car fully nude and driving away to represent freedom. Obviously, many people interpreted it as a rather empowering advertisement, but when they were asked "Do you think this advertisement would ever work if it showed an overweight/unattractive woman" most people seemed to change their idea.

Just because women have a certain intent behind it, doesn't mean it's empowering. How many unattractive/overweight women are in advertisements that are supposed to be 'empowering'?

 

[Ferrious]

Just because women have a certain intent behind it, doesn't mean it's empowering. How many unattractive/overweight women are in advertisements that are supposed to be 'empowering'?

This is a very good point, and ties back to the core of marketing. The idea is that, if you are a woman watching the advert, you wish to BE the woman in the advert. If you are a male watching, you wish to attract women like the woman in the advert. The implication is that the product on offer will make you a) more like the woman, or b) more attractive to the woman. If you put an unattractive woman on the advert the whole concept comes crashing down.

Do not kid yourself, the adverts are not trying to be empowering, they're trying to sell you the product.

You want an example of empowerment? "How to Look Good Naked". This show manages to be about trying to look good without objectifying, because a lot of it is about personal image. The key thing about the whole empowerment issue (as said above) is motive - if a female wishes to dress seductively/scantily/whatever because she wishes to do so, that's her business. To oppose that would be repression of female rights. To create an environment whereby a female feels she HAS to dress that way to be accepted/successful is an environment of objectification.

 

[willofbob]

it's a stupid,sexist , misguided ideal and all those who use it should be ashamed. i have alot to say about it but using these words will get me banne so let me conclude by asking if women really need empowering. They already have equal rights to men and now those feminist swine are just being greedy

this is a pet peave of mine, in case you didn't realise

 

[Hive Mind]

I don't see why anyone cares what gender they are. Male, female, neither, both - whatever. Means as much to me as my eye colour or shade of eyebrow.

 

[BonsaiK]

We often see people look at adverts of young, attractive, tastefully-nude women on television to which someone will say "this is making an object of women" while another person says "this is empowering women."

Actually it's not doing either. It's both making an object of AND empowering those particular people (of any gender) who are being displayed, but it's having no real effect outside of that on women, or men, at large, except for a small minority with a chip on their shoulder or some barrow to push. A perfect distraction from their own self-esteem and mental health issues.

 

[Astoria]

I think that the main difference is whether the women are doing it for themselves or if they're doing it for attention. It's a really overused phrase either way.

Sounds about right. And most of the time you can look at something and tell if it's explotation or not.

 

[AngloDoom]

it's a stupid,sexist , misguided ideal and all those who use it should be ashamed. i have alot to say about it but using these words will get me banne so let me conclude by asking if women really need empowering. They already have equal rights to men and now those feminist swine are just being greedy

this is a pet peave of mine, in case you didn't realise

'Feminism' is to believe in equal rights between men and women. Feminism isn't a dirty word and it's quite strange a lot of people seem to think it is.

Also, men and women are not equal in all rights. Just look at who makes the laws in most Western countries and employment levels of men and women in large office environments: they are not nearly the same. Please don't try to make out that men are the worse off in society right now because that comes across as simply not looking outside your own viewpoint.

I don't see why anyone cares what gender they are. Male, female, neither, both - whatever. Means as much to me as my eye colour or shade of eyebrow.

Unfortunately, for a lot of people it doesn?t. Women will often receive steeper punishments for violent crimes because they are considered to be ?nurturing? simply because they are women. There?s a lot of examples of sexism, it?s just usually a lot more subtle than it used to be.

We often see people look at adverts of young, attractive, tastefully-nude women on television to which someone will say "this is making an object of women" while another person says "this is empowering women."

Actually it's not doing either. It's both making an object of AND empowering those particular people (of any gender) who are being displayed, but it's having no real effect outside of that on women, or men, at large, except for a small minority with a chip on their shoulder or some barrow to push. A perfect distraction from their own self-esteem and mental health issues.

I don?t know if I agree that it has no effect outside of the individual displayed. A lot of lesbians I know are often asked to perform for men, join threesomes, or just generally receive a lot of hounding from a lot of men because the only images they see of lesbians are pornography and things from Nuts or Zoo magazine. As a result of images that belittle and idealise lesbian relationships these men, and sometimes women who simply make-out for attention, are helping to perpetuate exploitative materials and keep the whole loop going.

[...] if a female wishes to dress seductively/scantily/whatever because she wishes to do so, that's her business. To oppose that would be repression of female rights. To create an environment whereby a female feels she HAS to dress that way to be accepted/successful is an environment of objectification.

Possibly the best view on this issue I've heard in quite a while. I've talked to people before and said "this is exploitative" and their immediate stance is I'm some kind of prude who is intimidated by open female sexuality. However, I have female friends and ex-girlfriends who frequently go out in lingerie in night-clubs to feel pretty or to fit in with a party and have no intention of taking someone home. These women are a lot more powerful than the women who do the same in hopes of luring a man - simply because they feel they need to in order to get attention.

However, what are peoples stances on pole-dancing, pornography, and similar? I know a lot of women who argue both are very empowering because they earn a lot of money and the woman has control, and I've heard from others that it's the very definition of exploitative. What are your opinions?

 

[Hive Mind]

Women will often receive steeper punishments for violent crimes because they are considered to be ?nurturing? simply because they are women.

Source for this theory?

 

[herts]

I think that the main difference is whether the women are doing it for themselves or if they're doing it for attention. It's a really overused phrase either way.

Pretty much wins this one.

 

[Legion]

I think that the main difference is whether the women are doing it for themselves or if they're doing it for attention. It's a really overused phrase either way.

This is basically it.

'Feminism' is to believe in equal rights between men and women. Feminism isn't a dirty word and it's quite strange a lot of people seem to think it is.

Indeed, but the word is a little loaded, especially now women and men, are for the most part, equal. It really should be called "equalism" or something.

 

[Hitman Dread]

No, that's not basically it. To this day, in no country in the world can a woman explore her sexuality with the same freedom as a man and not be looked down upon by society. THIS is the issue, not the intention of the action. Both threads have showed this vast misunderstanding of the true reason behind slut marches and similar actions.

Indeed, but the word is a little loaded, especially now women and men, are for the most part, equal.

Truly said by a man.

 

[BonsaiK]

We often see people look at adverts of young, attractive, tastefully-nude women on television to which someone will say "this is making an object of women" while another person says "this is empowering women."

Actually it's not doing either. It's both making an object of AND empowering those particular people (of any gender) who are being displayed, but it's having no real effect outside of that on women, or men, at large, except for a small minority with a chip on their shoulder or some barrow to push. A perfect distraction from their own self-esteem and mental health issues.

I don?t know if I agree that it has no effect outside of the individual displayed. A lot of lesbians I know are often asked to perform for men, join threesomes, or just generally receive a lot of hounding from a lot of men because the only images they see of lesbians are pornography and things from Nuts or Zoo magazine. As a result of images that belittle and idealise lesbian relationships these men, and sometimes women who simply make-out for attention, are helping to perpetuate exploitative materials and keep the whole loop going.

I'm sure women got hounded mercilessly by men long before the invention of Zoo magazine and similar publications. I'd say a more likely scenario is that some men hound women because those men are horny and they figure "you can't win the lottery without submitting a ticket".

However, what are peoples stances on pole-dancing, pornography, and similar? I know a lot of women who argue both are very empowering because they earn a lot of money and the woman has control, and I've heard from others that it's the very definition of exploitative. What are your opinions?

I've seen pole-dancing as my job takes me to those venues occasionally. What strikes me as the most characteristic feature isn't the eroticism (which was frankly minimal) but the sheer athleticism involved. The gymnastic abilities required to do some of the more extreme pole-dancing movements are right up there with anything a sports gymnast would do. Also, seeing women dancing around doing whatever the hell they want, usually to their own chosen routines and music, while men just passively, weakly sit there and watch (if the guys touch the girls or are rude the bouncers swiftly take them outside and "re-educate" them) really drives home that it's the women who have 100% of the power and control in that scenario. It's clearly not just an athletic medium but a creative one.

Pornography is just the convergence of sex and media, and probably started with cavemen drawing on walls with charcoal. There's nothing wrong with porn that isn't also wrong about sex and sexuality in general, because all porn is doing is depicting or implying potentially sexual situations or actions. All the "exploitative stuff" that happens really has nothing to do with porn itself, it's the way it's used in the marketplace. A gun can be used to create lawlessness or it can be used to maintain order, likewise, porn can be something that imprisons or something that emancipates. There's no use lumping every experience into one basket and trying to come up with a generalised experience or theory of pornography, that's like trying to say that all food tastes the same and has equal nutritional value. I think porn is excellent, except the stuff which isn't, but then what I define as "excellent" may not fit someone else's definition, however I think all porn (like all food) is potentially excellent, given the presence or absence of certain criteria, and I think that the openness and ease of access to pornography is one of the benefits of living in a westernised society. People in other countries start riots over things like this.

 

[loodmoney]

I think that the main difference is whether the women are doing it for themselves or if they're doing it for attention.

I disagree with the latter part of this. The opposite of "doing it for themselves" is "doing it for others", which is a different notion altogether. (Someone could be doing it for themselves, yet still enjoy their command of others' attention as well, for example.) I think Ferrious gets it right:

The key thing about the whole empowerment issue (as said above) is motive - if a female wishes to dress seductively/scantily/whatever because she wishes to do so, that's her business. To oppose that would be repression of female rights. To create an environment whereby a female feels she HAS to dress that way to be accepted/successful is an environment of objectification.

I think there is a second sense of the question, one that might be harder to answer, namely if the activity itself is exploitative/empowering, regardless of the dancer's attitude or (perceived) agency in the situation. To answer this you would need to look at other facts, like to what extent the show is pandering to a sexist audience (e.g., whether the dancer acts vulnerable and submissive, or otherwise non-threatening), who has economic control (how much does the strip club owner get compared to the girls, are the customers obliged to pay a certain amount), and the broader ramifications of the action (an ignorant customer might develop/keep disgusting views about other women, as a result of watching an empowered stripper. We might consider any activity that promotes such attitudes as exploitative to all women, not just the stripper).

This distinction between different senses of empowerment and exploitation--personal agency and societal effects--would also explain why people seem to be talking cross-purposes about strippers, advertisements, Lady Gaga, etc. You might do something of your own free will (e.g. pose naked for a photo), yet others take your actions and exploit them (e.g. use it to shame others into buying perfume). So there can be cases where a situation is both empowering and exploitative.