Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
History of Feminism
In reply to the discussion: An example of junk science re: objectification. [View all]redqueen
(115,164 posts)32. I guess that writer at iO9 had no problem seizing onto the evo psych angle.
To their credit, and to my surprise, writers at HuffPo did a much better job, despite the researchers best efforts to spin her research toward idiocy with boneheaded, patriarchy-coddlng comments like the following.
"It's both men and women doing this to women," Gervais said. "So don't blame the men here."
From HuffPo:
There could be evolutionary reasons that men and women process female bodies differently, Gervais said, but because both genders do it, "the media is probably a prime suspect."
Gee, really? Do you think?
So after going through all these rhetorical gymnastics to try to imply there's some merit to the evo psych bullshit theory she's just reinforced, we find out she hasn't actually been living under a rock as far as sociology and women's studies are concerned. Not completely. She seems to stick that "probably" in there to remind us how objective she is... reminescent of the way the media does when they pretend dems and repubs are equally guilty, or that there's a debate about global warming, or evolution. The theories linking widespread objectification in media and the altered perception of women and girls... along with the harmful effects of it... have been around for decades, and the overwhelming majority of studies confirm it.
"Women's bodies and their body parts are used to sell all sorts of products, but we are now for everyday, ordinary women, processing them in a similar way," she said.
Now? Yeah, I take back what I said about that rock.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
35 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
" you sound like a climate-change denier?"" I am being thoroughly civil here." ah, no.
seabeyond
Jul 2012
#14
you have made it clear since it made "peer-reviewed academic journal" it is valid.
seabeyond
Jul 2012
#15
totally amazing tying evo babble to this when from the day girls and boys are born they are taught
seabeyond
Jul 2012
#11
there is plenty of documentation that challenges this. you obviously did not read any of it. to me,
seabeyond
Jul 2012
#23
unilaterally attack Evolutionary Psychology is to deny that there is any part of human behaviour
seabeyond
Jul 2012
#25
i can say the same right back at you. so why bother? i have no desire to converse with a person
seabeyond
Jul 2012
#27
I am also having trouble seeing any assertion about natural behavior or evo-psych
MadrasT
Jul 2012
#4
evo babble dismisses all of history for the first moment in time. they ignore conditioning, nurture,
seabeyond
Jul 2012
#16
see... this is exactly the crap i am talking about. you define it thru this period of time
seabeyond
Jul 2012
#29
there are many explanations about the issues with evo psych. here are 6 major, not even the minor
seabeyond
Jul 2012
#21
this would be a never ending process we do with women. but hell, lets not consider
seabeyond
Jul 2012
#31