Originally posted on my blog SkepTex on 11/20/12
Objectification theory, hitherto referred to as OT, is another linchpin of feminist theory. Like Patriarchy theory, it is poorly defined by way of its supposed effect, thought the effect is assumed to be a social construct and undesirable. The most comprehensive explanation of OT I have found is the article Feminist Perspectives of Objectification from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. That author wishes it be known that the link above is an archived fixed edition, and that a Winter 2012 archived edition is scheduled to be available on December 21. I will explore the most current available edition for the purposes of this paper.
The rough definition of OT is that Objectification is seeing or treating a person, usually a woman, as an object. There are 10 features of objectification, and it is unclear if more than one feature is needed to demonstrate an example of objectification. It is implied weakly in the article that only 1 of the features need be present, but this application renders the theory hopelessly vague, easily subject to interpretation and opinion. If OT proponents wish to use a single feature to proclaim objectification of an individual, it would be fair to state that their argument falls short of conjecture and enters the realm of ideological opinion. I would also like to posit that the features which I will list may have explanations other than objectification.
This post was originally published on my blog SkepTex back on 11/14/2012
In order to address the accusations that will follow, I should mention in advance my perspective on this subject, and perhaps more importantly, what angles I am not coming from.
I am a skeptic by nature, and much of what I have encountered of feminism has given me cause to be extremely skeptical of it. The hostility in which feminist's react to valid criticism, especially when much of that hostility is viscous character assassination and ad hominem, brought my suspicions to the surface years ago. Since that time, I have taken it upon myself to investigate many of their claims, and have found them to be lacking more often than not. In my research I have seen others write online articles on many of these topics in a piecemeal fashion. I am of the opinion that a more unified presentation of them together might have more of an impact than scattered refutations.
My assessment of feminism is not founded on religious ideology. I am an atheist, and do not subscribe to those notions. Neither is my position based on misogyny. I hold women in no less, or more, regard than I do men. I am in fact in a committed and mutually fulfilling relationship with a woman. My opinion is not based on right wing Conservative notions. My political views do not subscribe to any of the conventional or minor political parties.
I should also point out that I have no desire to turn back the clock and retract female equality. I believe that the Equality movement was a great step forward and was sorely overdue. I also believe that women, like men, must be vigilant in preserving their rights and health.
Women have gained numerous rights in America, and they are wise to continue preserving those rights through activism. But to hear feminists tell it, things remain terribly unequal. This is where I begin to draw the line.
