'Tis said, by feminists and Conservatives, that Hugh Hefner was "an exploiter and an objectifier of women," and that the centerfolds in
Playboy were pornography. I wouldn't know. Frankly, pictures of naked women turn my stomach, so I never looked at them. I read--used to read--
Playboy for the high-quality fiction and political essays. I like that Mr. Hefner said, fairly recently, anent his objectification of women, "Well, they
are objects." I suppose he meant in the same way that men are objects to me, and I certainly can't disagree with that.
But while we're on the subject, I've investigated the matter of the "objectification" of women (and men), and in actual fact I can find nothing wrong with it, if, in fact, it exists--except of course (I concur) that we shouldn't leer at or ogle people, or stare at their boobs or their crotches when we're talking to them. On the other hand, if you think that leering at people or ogling them (or staring at their boobs or crotches when you should be politely looking them in the eye) is transforming them into "objects," you are not only an idiot, you are a very confused idiot--like those extremely stupid people who actually believe that there is in any sense, real or metaphoric, such a thing as a "patriarchy."
And yes, you might infer from this that, in general, I don't like women and see no reason whatever for including them in the conversation.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home