3 ms·

He's not treating the women as people, he's treating them as objects. The reason it would make her feel uncomfortable is because he would probably look at her

He's not treating the women as people, he's treating them as objects. The reason it would make her feel uncomfortable is because he would probably look at her the same way, because objectifying isn't something you just turn on and turn off. Also, it's not really a topic you should bring up at work.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
stcredzero 10y ago
objectifying isn't something you just turn on and turn off. You can't. Objectification isn't a sin. It isn't inherently evil. Much like stereotyping, it's an epiphenomenon of our finite human brains. We naturally tend to jump to conclusions and take mental shortcuts from external signifiers. (Stereotyping.) We naturally process our goal seeking in terms of instrumental causes and effects, and we sometimes forget to take into account the subjective experience of other people in our plans. (Objectification.) This is why cultures have manners that encourage active mental compensations for the deficiencies of our brains. Are these manners as received from tradition perfect? No. There needs to be some further iteration. But I would contend that taking brand new stances of vilification and shaming will be just as toxic and problematic as such stances were in the past. Not defending any actions in the article. I just want to straighten out the way people process these concepts: Objectification and stereotyping are information processing problems, not moral ones. They are not sins!
- foldr 10y ago
  Either you think it's ok to sexually objectify women in the workplace or you don't. I think your comment is basically a long-winded way of saying that you're ok with it, but you could have just said so without all the patronizing verbiage and pseudoscience. It makes no sense whatsoever to think about sexual objectification in terms of "information processing". If men can understand other men as more than purely sexual beings, then they can do the same with women. I hardly think that taking the non-sexual aspects of any particular woman into account is going to lead to some kind of information overload.
  - stcredzero 10y ago
    Either you think it's ok to sexually objectify women in the workplace or you don't. False dichotomy. Fallacy. I think there is a certain range of behavior that's toxic. We would probably largely agree on what that is. However, no one who actually understands cognitive and social psychology would say that people can actually never objectify, no more than any expert would reasonably expect a person to never stereotype. I think your comment is basically a long-winded way of saying that you're ok with it I think your comment is a prime example of the toxicity that results from people thinking of such things as a sin. Also, nice job projecting fictional thoughts and ideas on someone with scant evidence. (Exactly what is your evidence?) without all the patronizing verbiage and pseudoscience. Please provide a quote as to where I patronized anyone. As far as I an tell, you are simply offended at my suggestion that objectification isn't a sin. (As opposed to a potentially toxic side effect of the way humans process information and goals.) Surprisingly and quite troubling, your primary focus seems to be to ensure such a thing is seen as a moral issue. (Thanks for being obvious about it.)
    - foldr 10y ago
      We're talking about sexual objectification of women specifically, not some kind of generic "objectification". So I don't think most of what you're saying is really relevant to the topic. If you can provide citations showing that significant numbers of cognitive scientists and social psychologists regard the sexual objectification of women as inevitable, then let's see them.
      - stcredzero 10y ago
        We're talking about sexual objectification of women specifically, not some kind of generic "objectification". So I don't think most of what you're saying is really relevant to the topic Generic objectification is the underlying mechanism, and the specific referent in my comments. My whole point is that the underlying mechanism is morally neutral. (Objectification as formulated by feminist scholars is largely pseudoscience, and requires the addition of an arbitrary gender direction to make ideological sense.) regard the sexual objectification of women as inevitable Did you honestly think I was taking the position that the sexual objectification of women is inevitable? You are the one primarily using the words "sexual" and "inevitable." Please provide a quote where I say something to this effect. It would seem you are engaging in a tactic of tacking on adjectives to what another is saying. (Nice strawman fallacy.) This analogy works well: Objectification is certainly avoidable, in much the same way that hitting a pedestrian is. Willfully objectifying someone is harmful and morally objectionable in much the same way that purposely hitting a pedestrian is. In much the same way, objectification can happen incidentally in contexts that are badly engineered. The correct approach is to change the environment in ways that minimize the possibility of incidents. Likewise, automatically ascribing a moral position in such cases makes as little sense as automatically assuming a moral stance on the part of someone in an auto accident. More information is needed beyond the mere incident to be able to say anything about morality. (Thought about in this way, the various formulations of avoidance of certain topics in the workplace makes eminent sense.) The addition of a the moral stance seems particularly useful in terms of the use of such accusations as a power grab. The purpose is to enable vilification of people based on subjective standards. Really, the equivalent of "You're either for us or against us" should raise hackles in any humanist and liberal worthy of the name. It was unconvincing to me when George W. Bush used it as a silencing tactic to his opponents, and it hasn't developed any more substance since.
gnicholas 10y ago
> Also, it's not really a topic you should bring up at work. FWIW, he didn't bring this up at work, and my reading of your comment implies that he did/would. She doesn't work with this guy, and she doesn't suggest that he said this in a work-related context. If everyone's suitability as a colleague were judged by what they said outside of work, I imagine that most of us would fare poorly.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

stcredzero 10y ago

objectifying isn't something you just turn on and turn off. You can't. Objectification isn't a sin. It isn't inherently evil. Much like stereotyping, it's an epiphenomenon of our finite human brains. We naturally tend to jump to conclusions and take mental shortcuts from external signifiers. (Stereotyping.) We naturally process our goal seeking in terms of instrumental causes and effects, and we sometimes forget to take into account the subjective experience of other people in our plans. (Objectification.) This is why cultures have manners that encourage active mental compensations for the deficiencies of our brains. Are these manners as received from tradition perfect? No. There needs to be some further iteration. But I would contend that taking brand new stances of vilification and shaming will be just as toxic and problematic as such stances were in the past. Not defending any actions in the article. I just want to straighten out the way people process these concepts: Objectification and stereotyping are information processing problems, not moral ones. They are not sins!

foldr 10y ago
Either you think it's ok to sexually objectify women in the workplace or you don't. I think your comment is basically a long-winded way of saying that you're ok with it, but you could have just said so without all the patronizing verbiage and pseudoscience. It makes no sense whatsoever to think about sexual objectification in terms of "information processing". If men can understand other men as more than purely sexual beings, then they can do the same with women. I hardly think that taking the non-sexual aspects of any particular woman into account is going to lead to some kind of information overload.
- stcredzero 10y ago
  Either you think it's ok to sexually objectify women in the workplace or you don't. False dichotomy. Fallacy. I think there is a certain range of behavior that's toxic. We would probably largely agree on what that is. However, no one who actually understands cognitive and social psychology would say that people can actually never objectify, no more than any expert would reasonably expect a person to never stereotype. I think your comment is basically a long-winded way of saying that you're ok with it I think your comment is a prime example of the toxicity that results from people thinking of such things as a sin. Also, nice job projecting fictional thoughts and ideas on someone with scant evidence. (Exactly what is your evidence?) without all the patronizing verbiage and pseudoscience. Please provide a quote as to where I patronized anyone. As far as I an tell, you are simply offended at my suggestion that objectification isn't a sin. (As opposed to a potentially toxic side effect of the way humans process information and goals.) Surprisingly and quite troubling, your primary focus seems to be to ensure such a thing is seen as a moral issue. (Thanks for being obvious about it.)
  - foldr 10y ago
    We're talking about sexual objectification of women specifically, not some kind of generic "objectification". So I don't think most of what you're saying is really relevant to the topic. If you can provide citations showing that significant numbers of cognitive scientists and social psychologists regard the sexual objectification of women as inevitable, then let's see them.
    - stcredzero 10y ago
      We're talking about sexual objectification of women specifically, not some kind of generic "objectification". So I don't think most of what you're saying is really relevant to the topic Generic objectification is the underlying mechanism, and the specific referent in my comments. My whole point is that the underlying mechanism is morally neutral. (Objectification as formulated by feminist scholars is largely pseudoscience, and requires the addition of an arbitrary gender direction to make ideological sense.) regard the sexual objectification of women as inevitable Did you honestly think I was taking the position that the sexual objectification of women is inevitable? You are the one primarily using the words "sexual" and "inevitable." Please provide a quote where I say something to this effect. It would seem you are engaging in a tactic of tacking on adjectives to what another is saying. (Nice strawman fallacy.) This analogy works well: Objectification is certainly avoidable, in much the same way that hitting a pedestrian is. Willfully objectifying someone is harmful and morally objectionable in much the same way that purposely hitting a pedestrian is. In much the same way, objectification can happen incidentally in contexts that are badly engineered. The correct approach is to change the environment in ways that minimize the possibility of incidents. Likewise, automatically ascribing a moral position in such cases makes as little sense as automatically assuming a moral stance on the part of someone in an auto accident. More information is needed beyond the mere incident to be able to say anything about morality. (Thought about in this way, the various formulations of avoidance of certain topics in the workplace makes eminent sense.) The addition of a the moral stance seems particularly useful in terms of the use of such accusations as a power grab. The purpose is to enable vilification of people based on subjective standards. Really, the equivalent of "You're either for us or against us" should raise hackles in any humanist and liberal worthy of the name. It was unconvincing to me when George W. Bush used it as a silencing tactic to his opponents, and it hasn't developed any more substance since.

gnicholas 10y ago

> Also, it's not really a topic you should bring up at work. FWIW, he didn't bring this up at work, and my reading of your comment implies that he did/would. She doesn't work with this guy, and she doesn't suggest that he said this in a work-related context. If everyone's suitability as a colleague were judged by what they said outside of work, I imagine that most of us would fare poorly.