Quantcast

Study: Brain Objectifies Women as Body Parts, Men as Whole: Is Objectifying Women Natural?

Daryl 2012/07/26 20:37:15
You!
Add Photos & Videos

STLOUIS.CBSLOCAL.COM reports:
A recent study finds that our brain objectifies women as different body parts, while viewing men as a whole.
women body parts viewing news sports weather traffic louis spots

Read More: http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2012/07/26/study-brain...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • morris44 2012/07/26 20:58:05
    No
    morris44
    +47
    Processing something as an object (body parts) is not the same thing as the act of objectifying women.

    Our brain also sees animals as food. But we are able to refrain from eating our cat.

    Men can (and should) act right toward women.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • chicku 2012/07/28 07:21:48
    Yes
    chicku
    +2
    women are assessed by their body parts
    men should also put a control over their mind so they could evade temptation
  • Jesferk... chicku 2012/07/28 14:22:23
    Jesferkicks
    +1
    my dyin' butt. Women were made to look at.
  • Sue Deenim 2012/07/28 07:08:20
    No
    Sue Deenim
    +3
    A woman who exposes her parts usually wants or needs her beauty to be objectified. In our society, many women seem to find it reassuring. Women who cover up deal with men intellectually before the 'parts' are involved. A woman can't be seen as different body parts if she is dressed modestly. We can't change men. If we show them a skin-flick, they will nearly always watch. We can dress however we want, but should not complain if men don't look at us with respect.
  • Jesferk... Sue Deenim 2012/07/28 14:23:36
    Jesferkicks
    +1
    looking at you with desire hardly shows disrespect
  • Sue Deenim Jesferk... 2012/07/31 15:37:41
    Sue Deenim
    What does it show? So, should I appreciate some stranger having a physical reaction to my body? You don't have a clue who I am, but your parts are reacting to my appearance? That seems like it fulfills the meaning of objectifying.
  • Jesferk... Sue Deenim 2012/07/31 22:36:40
    Jesferkicks
    If you want to classify an admiring glance the same as some fool running around with a hardon, by my guest.
  • Sue Deenim Jesferk... 2012/08/01 11:18:54
    Sue Deenim
    You said desire, not admire and looking, then changed it to glance. You're supposed to make your point, not change it.:-) A passing glance is not disrespectful. The more skin that is exposed, the longer that 'glance' is. Us women have a choice to cover up and be more respected or uncover and get the other kind of 'look'. What we can't have is half-naked respect. I don't believe most men are wondering how we feel about global warming, when they go beyond that glance that you're talking about. I believe men do objectify women, but we have to take responsibility too..
  • Jesferk... Sue Deenim 2012/08/05 10:16:40
  • Firebird64 2012/07/28 07:02:51
    Yes
    Firebird64
    +2
    Yes and no. It depends on the context. Come on, be real: I'm less likely to evaluate a woman based on her physique if she's someone I'm interacting with in daily life. If I see a glossed-up model on a magazine cover or a giant billboard, then I will analyze her physical characteristics primarily. It's a social, cultural thing mainly, not just psychological.
  • wrwheelerjr 2012/07/28 05:42:11
    Yes
    wrwheelerjr
    +3
    In general people like to be objectified but on their own terms. It may be for ones mind, body, passion or particular skills but usually people dont mind being objects to strangers if it in some way serves their own purposes. This is true for men and women. Most of us want friends who know who we really are and value us too to provide ballance.
  • Seeker of Truth - War Wizard 2012/07/28 05:29:38 (edited)
    Yes
    Seeker of Truth - War Wizard
    +5
    Objectify this...





    michelle jenneke
  • SJG Seeker ... 2012/07/28 22:30:14
    SJG
    +1
    Got tissues???
  • wrwheel... Seeker ... 2012/07/29 15:29:45
    wrwheelerjr
    +1
    Wow, then she backed it up with skills and a win. You go girl!
  • macaction 2012/07/28 04:33:27
    Yes
    macaction
    Yes, especially when the broad wears a tiny little orange bikini on a run way. Are we supposed to look at her and think "wow she would make a great card player"? No...we think "holy hell i wish i could remove the tiny bit of clothes she has on and introduce her to mr.happy".
  • serena moon 2012/07/28 04:27:00
    No
    serena moon
    +1
    SOME MEN DO THAT,MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE WHAT THE MEDIA, MOVIES AND PROGRAMS (LIKE THE KARDASHIAN'S AND OTHERS)MAKE A LOT OF PERSONS THINK
  • nurul.hikma0 2012/07/28 03:00:27
    Yes
    nurul.hikma0
    +2
    she is natural
  • Jesferk... nurul.h... 2012/07/28 14:24:50
    Jesferkicks
    incorrect, product of her actions
  • Patroness 2012/07/28 02:50:48
    No
    Patroness
    +3
    NO. It is a behavior taught by society and societal influences. People also used to say oppressing minorities was natural. And guess what? It is not, never was, and never will be. It's society that tries to make it "natural".
  • pdt_ski 2012/07/28 01:55:14
    No
    pdt_ski
    The only reason to run this study is to make a statement. If you assume that all it does is prove what we already know, and if it is "natural" such that you can't change our biological makeup, what's the point? Do women now require special privileges to offset this "natural" imbalanance in perception - if it is an imbalance? What if being identified by "parts" is better? More to the point, what if being identified as a "whole" is actually the necessary offset because Men, well, not things of beauty (unless you are a woman).

    The really funny part is, based on attraction, the study is wrong. Women tend to fixate on small details of a man - his eyebrows, for an example from Robert Jordan (fiction but true to fact).
  • Elizabeth 2012/07/28 01:54:56
    No
    Elizabeth
    In my opinion, it's learned. I have two sons and they don't do it, but they are young. I speak to them about it, so hopefully, they will think of a woman they chose to unite with as more than an object. It's tough b/c there are women I know who want to be objectified. This is going to be an uphill battle b/c we are surrounded by PIGS!
  • themani... Elizabeth 2012/07/28 04:12:47
    themaninthebigwhitevan
    define "PIGS"
  • Jesferk... themani... 2012/07/28 14:26:08
    Jesferkicks
    cops used to define PIG as Pride, Integrity & Guts
  • alun.pa... themani... 2012/07/28 21:53:17
    alun.palmer
    Oink!
  • El Prez 2012/07/28 01:21:58
    No
    El Prez
    +3
    Partially but not exclusively. There is an aspect to both men and women that can be objectified but that does not nullify their also being recognised as a whole. Women are physically shaped and built to attract men and vice versa, however that aspect is only a part of their lives and personalities. In their young adult years this aspect is most prevelent and fades over time. It is no surprise that the human brain is predisposed to identifying and focusing in on reproduction. Life will go on.
  • NicoleCohn El Prez 2012/07/28 18:27:07
    NicoleCohn
    You are my answer...thank you. :P Lol!
  • El Prez NicoleCohn 2012/07/28 20:18:22
    El Prez
    And thank you!!!!!
  • No
    ⚥Κόζμω Græme اليا Mongrain
    +1
    Needs further study…
  • Jesferk... ⚥Κόζμω ... 2012/07/28 14:26:28
    Jesferkicks
    +1
    good one
  • Pete 2012/07/28 01:06:36
    No
    Pete
    +1
    Anyone who makes a generalization based on only one study is lacking a brain or afflicted with a very small mental capacity.
  • Jesferk... Pete 2012/07/28 14:27:57
    Jesferkicks
    then how would you describe people of religion who make generalizations based on NO studies?
  • Pete Jesferk... 2012/07/28 23:47:30
    Pete
    You are making an extreme generalization by grouping all persons with any association with religion in one category. Since a discussion of the scientific validity of religion is far off-topic, I will just point out that for a meaningful discussion you would have to define what you mean by "people of religion." I would say that the range of "people of religion" could include the most avid follower of one of the world's major religions, with the experience of each being very different but based on historical thought, to the skeptical scientist who demands positive scientific proof. Einstein, for example, could very loosely be called religious since he believed in a pantheistic god "who doesn't play dice with the universe." A more contemporary scientist, Frank Tipler of Tulane University has written a book entitled _The Physics of Immortality_ in which he defines God as the "omega point" which is an entity becoming apparent at a particular point in the evolution of this universe. Because of the basically limited capacity of the human brain, many "people of religion" from Einstein to the minster of the corner church take a leap called "faith," when confronted with incomprehensible reality. It was this kind of "faith" or intuitive, right-brained reasoning which has led Einste...
    You are making an extreme generalization by grouping all persons with any association with religion in one category. Since a discussion of the scientific validity of religion is far off-topic, I will just point out that for a meaningful discussion you would have to define what you mean by "people of religion." I would say that the range of "people of religion" could include the most avid follower of one of the world's major religions, with the experience of each being very different but based on historical thought, to the skeptical scientist who demands positive scientific proof. Einstein, for example, could very loosely be called religious since he believed in a pantheistic god "who doesn't play dice with the universe." A more contemporary scientist, Frank Tipler of Tulane University has written a book entitled _The Physics of Immortality_ in which he defines God as the "omega point" which is an entity becoming apparent at a particular point in the evolution of this universe. Because of the basically limited capacity of the human brain, many "people of religion" from Einstein to the minster of the corner church take a leap called "faith," when confronted with incomprehensible reality. It was this kind of "faith" or intuitive, right-brained reasoning which has led Einstein and other scientists to great scientific discoveries. So I would say that "people of religion" incorporate the right brain's intuitive thinking with the left brain's sequential evaluation of scientific fact to make a leap of "faith." Wow, I really didn't mean to go on about this, so I will stop and apologize to the moderators if they consider this off-topic and inappropriate.
    (more)
  • Jesferk... Pete 2012/07/31 22:53:42
    Jesferkicks
    Interesting post, wrong, but interesting. Because earlier scientists still held "basic" religious beliefs is hardly an argument that the scientific procedures of today can in any way be classified as religious. In fact the scientific procedure that we humans try to follow today is the antithesis of religious belief solely because scientific claims can "only" be based on empirical, repeatable experimental data. Obviously, religious beliefs are excluded from such a restriction.

    You're right, I do categorize all people of religion generically together because to fit into that club one must accept a belief in some sort of divinity. I'm fully aware of the several avenues to this conclusion and of the myriad special effects humans have added to religious belief making the several religions markedly different in appearance, but those don't alter the fact of the leap you expose. Belief in a deity based on no facts.

    I too, apologize to the Lead Poster if our conversation is too far asunder to be within the bounds of this thread.
  • Pete Jesferk... 2012/08/03 10:58:03
    Pete
    Since we haven't yet been reprimanded for off-topic posting and I'm not sure what the rules are here, I will just add that you make a good point. Certainly the ultimate, primary criterion for establishing scientific fact is empirical data which can be replicated. However, in reality, the initial impetus for obtaining that empirical data is often a kind of intuitive thinking which could be considered comparable to the faith that characterizes religious belief. For example, Einstein had a goal of unifying all of the four known forces to produce a grand explanation of the universe, the G.U.T. or Grand Unifying Theory which is still sought today. Einstein died without achieving his goal, but his "faith" or the "intuition," or whatever you call it, which led to General and Special Relativity theories, survived without proof in a way similar to the tenacity of religious faith in the absence of proof. For Einstein, religion was science. And the proof of his relativity theories rested primarily on his mathematical predictions, not on empirical studies. Similarly, Stephen Hawking, a currently active, practicing physicist, who couldn't be classified as an "earlier" scientist, has based all of his scientific discoveries on mathematical prediction rather than empirical evidence. I...
    Since we haven't yet been reprimanded for off-topic posting and I'm not sure what the rules are here, I will just add that you make a good point. Certainly the ultimate, primary criterion for establishing scientific fact is empirical data which can be replicated. However, in reality, the initial impetus for obtaining that empirical data is often a kind of intuitive thinking which could be considered comparable to the faith that characterizes religious belief. For example, Einstein had a goal of unifying all of the four known forces to produce a grand explanation of the universe, the G.U.T. or Grand Unifying Theory which is still sought today. Einstein died without achieving his goal, but his "faith" or the "intuition," or whatever you call it, which led to General and Special Relativity theories, survived without proof in a way similar to the tenacity of religious faith in the absence of proof. For Einstein, religion was science. And the proof of his relativity theories rested primarily on his mathematical predictions, not on empirical studies. Similarly, Stephen Hawking, a currently active, practicing physicist, who couldn't be classified as an "earlier" scientist, has based all of his scientific discoveries on mathematical prediction rather than empirical evidence. It's a bit difficult to acquire empirical evidence for black holes and their properties since they cannot be observed, but Stephen Hawking has, again, predicted the properties of black holes based on mathematical premises. Like Einstein before him, Stephen Hawking's theories seem to have their origin in intuition or the kind of metaphorical thinking that originates in the right brain as opposed to the sequential, rational thinking of the brain's left hemisphere. If you read his books, you will see the basis for this statement in his use of metaphor to explain time, for example, which is similar in nature to the metaphor of the elevator traveling to infinity which inspired Einstein's theories of relativity. While "faith" and right brain "intuition" have not been scientifically proven to be similar, religion considered in a much broader sense than that typifying historically organized religion could considered to be scientific in a very broad sense.
    (more)
  • Jesferk... Pete 2012/08/05 10:51:49
    Jesferkicks
    Well, we haven’t got scolded yet, so I’ll answer. You are entirely correct about how concepts/ideas and the like in science get their start from someone’s wondering how or why something happens or exists. We call those theories. Taking your Einsteinian example, his two (2) relativity theories were classified as just that, theories, until the empirical evidence, such as the two (2) visions of star systems on each side of a light-bending galaxy were shown to exist, that was later, first test was light behind the sun during an eclipse, anyway. That experiment among many others showed Einstein’s theories and their predictive capabilities to be good enough to then classify them as “generally accepted” facts, much like Darwin’s evolution theory was tested multiple times along with its predictive capability to where it now is a “generally accepted” fact. Belief in a deity, on the other hand is professed by some as a “fact” without any substantiating evidence nor any demonstrated predictive capability. Einstein never offered his equations as proof, he offered them as a way to read the universe and predict what will happen (by which he in effect redefined gravity). He relied on others to demonstrate whether his theories could be proved or not. Your right again, Hawking is a...
    Well, we haven’t got scolded yet, so I’ll answer. You are entirely correct about how concepts/ideas and the like in science get their start from someone’s wondering how or why something happens or exists. We call those theories. Taking your Einsteinian example, his two (2) relativity theories were classified as just that, theories, until the empirical evidence, such as the two (2) visions of star systems on each side of a light-bending galaxy were shown to exist, that was later, first test was light behind the sun during an eclipse, anyway. That experiment among many others showed Einstein’s theories and their predictive capabilities to be good enough to then classify them as “generally accepted” facts, much like Darwin’s evolution theory was tested multiple times along with its predictive capability to where it now is a “generally accepted” fact. Belief in a deity, on the other hand is professed by some as a “fact” without any substantiating evidence nor any demonstrated predictive capability. Einstein never offered his equations as proof, he offered them as a way to read the universe and predict what will happen (by which he in effect redefined gravity). He relied on others to demonstrate whether his theories could be proved or not. Your right again, Hawking is a theoretical physics genius and has never, to my knowledge, performed experiments to demonstrate any of his ideas. But he holds his ideas out as theories, somewhat arrogantly some might say because he IS smarter than most everyone else, but he only claims them as his mental gymnastics suggesting theories of how things might be to result in what we observe. Such as his ultra-brilliant work on black hole event horizons. Thus stands the difference, scientists offer theories based on mental gymnastics and then publish their ideas so the lab rat scientists can conduct the experiments to support or torpedo those theories. I see this not in the apologists and practitioners of religion.
    (more)
  • rudithic 2012/07/28 00:48:02
    No
    rudithic
    +2
    I believe that objectifying women is wrong, as a relationship doesn't NEED a skinny woman with big breasts and a large back side. A relationship needs love by both members, and that love should be a true love for their PERSONALITY rather than their BODY. It is correct to love a person to see them as beauty, but not to class them as a thing that they can dispose of as they please.
  • Paula Cooke 2012/07/28 00:20:04 (edited)
    No
    Paula Cooke
    +3
    Its learned and ingrained into our patriarchal society. By even suggesting its "natural" justifies the sexual aggression women face daily.
  • Jesferk... Paula C... 2012/07/28 14:37:53
    Jesferkicks
    hmmm ,,, case of the bury-your-head-in-the-sand syndrome. I venture to submit the sexual admiring of the female form by men happens in 100% of all cases, (caveat: straight men, I mean) and therefore can be classified as "natural" whether you choose to recognize it or not. When a man disrespects another man the "natural" response is to deck him, but most men refrain because, although it being a natural tendency, it usually isn't justified. "Natural" does not "justify" anything to a reasoning individual.
  • debhead 2012/07/27 23:57:12
    No
    debhead
    I believe women are seen as a whole person. Women, as a whole, are seen covered in everyday living and are judged by who they are as a human being.
  • Zeus2713 2012/07/27 23:41:51
    Yes
    Zeus2713
    +4
    Obviously both genders objectify women!!! Men think of breast, butt, and face, and women think of shoes, makeup, breast, earrings, necklace, bracelet,rings, blouse, shorts/pants, belt, butt, socks, shoes, toe rings!!! Its natural, but, its wrong to say it out loud!
  • pdt_ski Zeus2713 2012/07/28 02:04:24
    pdt_ski
    It is actually part of males and females being complementary. Men like to look, women like to be looked at. I'm not making that up and I don't think, in my experience, that it is nurture. Case in point: brother observing that his daughters (when they were very young) would practice making faces in the mirror, they love to perform... don't think this is from watching their mother because she doesn't act like that.

    I believe Adults are still in their hearts children inside big bodies; some have become a little dead inside but they still have the same essential personalities. Women like to be beautiful , since the first mirrors unearthed from Mesopotamia, and I think that's just awesome. The hidden part (note: knew this but comes up in Divorcé's Guide To Marriage) is that men need to be loved and appreciated, too.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Living

2014/09/23 10:27:58

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals