|
DaveW -> Objectification (5/19/2008 12:13:47 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ah-pappapishu Objectification is by no means a bad thing. But perhaps emotional neglect combined with tyrannous objectification is the true problem that women face. In fact, all things considered, I think women should understand and appreciate objectification, being a wholly natural and instinctive masculine tendency, and consciously steer the discussion towards the proper role, guidelines and management of this tendency. quote:
ORIGINAL: CheshireMuse We should APPRECIATE being turned into an object??? Are you serious? The fact that you really don't see how degrading this is to women (or anyone) kinda scares me. This exchange took place over in the She Says folder and I wanted to respond to it and to open it up to objectification in general with the workplace specifically, not just the overtly sexual objectification the OP there was refering to. I would like comments by both men and women. The point that we automatically objectify people brought to mind the business model of the 1950s and 60s. If you were a worker on the line at GM or white collar type at Ford or US Steel or 3M, you were not considered a person. You were a welder, a wheel assembler, an accountant, a middle manager, etc. Any life you had outside the 4 walls of your workplace was of no consequence. You could not make a personal call and no non-business related messages from the outside were allowed in, EVER. To violate that was grounds for dismissal. You had your vacation times set by the company (esp if you were in the auto industry - change over) You were not allowed sick days. Then things started to change. Women came into the workplace and all of a sudden employees had to be "persons," and not just machines doing a job. Then computers started replacing people. Then offshore competition drove much of the remaining workplaces to either fold or severly downsize. And now, the employees that still have those kind of jobs have to be treated as people. Is this an efficient model, or was it more efficient to just objectify (and pigeonhole) an iron worker, longshoreman, accounts recievable analyist, etc?
|
|
|
|