RedWorker
7th August 2015, 01:46
Some products openly advertise themselves through sexualized pictures of women in order to get more profit.
The thing is, some products also display themselves through sexualized pictures of men in order to get more profit.
Ah, but of course, we know that the latter case is a minority.
Furthermore, we know that the former case is a symptom of sexism. Sexism is not down to individual interactions, rather it is a system which should be materially analyzed and which has its base in the collective social, political, economical, etc. power of men and the oppression of the female identity in general. This system also causes some problems that affect men, but every time, such problems have their base on their oppression of the female, the woman as a whole, in the collective oppressive system structured by the power of men.
We can prove that this system exists itself in a totality - but could we prove that a specific instance of sexism is sexist? Not one bit. We could brand one business as sexist in our heads because it advertised itself through a picture of a sexualized woman, the next thing we know it could be having a man posing sexually in their next commercial.
Ah, but it is the fact that she (the model) is a woman changes everything! That she is a woman, by default, means nothing. But the fact that she is a woman is the core of sexism! The fact that we know that this is nothing but a SPECIFIC display of the oppressive system, and that is why she IS a woman, THAT changes everything. She is a woman and this MEANS NOTHING, but at the same time she IS a woman and this CHANGES EVERYTHING.
Did you lose yourself yet?
Liberals, and those with a bourgeois and idealist understanding of sexism and feminism, will come to us and argue: "But you see, it is a woman who has decided to pose as a model. It is her freedom to pose as a model, and this is the core of everything."
We communists, materialists and feminists would reply: "Yes, she is a woman, and she decided to pose, but does sexism go down to these individual interactions? We have not one bit of moralism in us. Each individual, and by extension each woman, has the freedom to pose however they want, to participate in whatever campaigns they want. But the fact is that your beloved woman, who as an individual is entirely irrelevant, and in fact on an individual level her quality of being a woman is irrelevant, is taking part on a advertisement campaign which does not exist on an individual level but which is based on the collective structure of patriarchy, which is observable through a materialist analysis. It is not the individual display of a sexualized woman that we have a problem with. As a matter of fact, sexualization and objectification cannot exist on an individual level. These concepts are talking about a system."
In other words, perhaps 99% of advertisements sexualize women, and 1% of them sexualize men. But:
1) Sexualization is only relevant as a totality. Men are not sexualized. Women are. There may be a specific sexual display of man, but this does not form the basis for collective sexualization and objectification, which are really existing structures.
2) The sexualization of a woman has a sexist character. The sexualization of a man can have a sexist character, too, but this sexist character will always be based in the structure of patriarchy. The sexualization of a man may be sexist in that "men are strong". We could argue that this stereotype could have destructive side effects against men, but we know that it has its basis in the patriarchy.
But we can never prove that ONE of these advertisements sexualizing women comes from a sexist background. We can prove that AS A TOTALITY they come from a sexist background. We cannot prove that a specific one is sexist, indeed this is impossible within our framework.
But there are actions, some of which could be said to originate from a (at least ostensibly) feminist background (and others from moralism) that take up their problem with a specific advertisement campaigns.
For example, in the UK there was an advertisement which included a low-weight woman, labelled 'underweight' by some.
A campaign against that advertisement was led under the banner of 'feminism'. And, the result was entirely counter-productive: the company gained tons of publicity from the feminists' campaign about it. There were tons of people (including many women) commenting in social media: "I am going to buy their products now because I believe in freedom of speech" etc. etc.
So, this action could be criticized on two points.
First, the result was obviously entirely counter-productive.
Second, it is akin to reformism. It is the notion that by struggling against one expression of sexism we can eliminate sexism as a whole.
The utter failure of the campaign against that advertisement soon became obvious and indisputable to all.
If a man says to a woman, "go back to the kitchen" we can say that this, individually, is sexist. As far as most advertisement campaigns are regarded, though, we can only understand them as sexist in a totality, and we can't prove they are sexist individually - only a few advertisement campaigns are openly sexist on an individual level.
So, I pose the following question:
Should feminism not be oriented as a struggle against the totality instead of the individual expressions of sexism, except when these individual expressions are sexist by themselves?
With what other things (not only advertisement campaigns) or feminist actions is this problem apparent?
Furthermore, would this orientation not result in changes that concern an extent much deeper than that described in this post, and that call into question the philosophical base of certain strains of feminism, as well as their strategy and tactics? What would it entail?
What conclusions should feminists take from all of this?
As a matter of fact: I believe, partly as a result of that which was written above and what was written above entails in a context and to an extent much deeper than was described, that sexism is not "the oppression of man by woman" but rather a system which has its basis into a existing patriarchy which must be understood through a materialist understanding, and that to reduce this to terms of 'men' and 'women' misses the point. In one sentence: Marx argued in a note that capitalists are only the expression, the faces, the representatives of capital, and that workers are only the expression of labor. I would argue that men and women are only representatives of the system of patriarchy.
A sexism which in reality has its expression in that women have to endure it and in which man's experience is limited to the occasional side effect in which he can't complain about the violence of a woman because others would laugh at him (and this has its basis in that "men are strong and women are weak", thus still anti-women principles!), but that can only be truly understood by considering what I have said in the above paragraph - if my arguments are correct.
The thing is, some products also display themselves through sexualized pictures of men in order to get more profit.
Ah, but of course, we know that the latter case is a minority.
Furthermore, we know that the former case is a symptom of sexism. Sexism is not down to individual interactions, rather it is a system which should be materially analyzed and which has its base in the collective social, political, economical, etc. power of men and the oppression of the female identity in general. This system also causes some problems that affect men, but every time, such problems have their base on their oppression of the female, the woman as a whole, in the collective oppressive system structured by the power of men.
We can prove that this system exists itself in a totality - but could we prove that a specific instance of sexism is sexist? Not one bit. We could brand one business as sexist in our heads because it advertised itself through a picture of a sexualized woman, the next thing we know it could be having a man posing sexually in their next commercial.
Ah, but it is the fact that she (the model) is a woman changes everything! That she is a woman, by default, means nothing. But the fact that she is a woman is the core of sexism! The fact that we know that this is nothing but a SPECIFIC display of the oppressive system, and that is why she IS a woman, THAT changes everything. She is a woman and this MEANS NOTHING, but at the same time she IS a woman and this CHANGES EVERYTHING.
Did you lose yourself yet?
Liberals, and those with a bourgeois and idealist understanding of sexism and feminism, will come to us and argue: "But you see, it is a woman who has decided to pose as a model. It is her freedom to pose as a model, and this is the core of everything."
We communists, materialists and feminists would reply: "Yes, she is a woman, and she decided to pose, but does sexism go down to these individual interactions? We have not one bit of moralism in us. Each individual, and by extension each woman, has the freedom to pose however they want, to participate in whatever campaigns they want. But the fact is that your beloved woman, who as an individual is entirely irrelevant, and in fact on an individual level her quality of being a woman is irrelevant, is taking part on a advertisement campaign which does not exist on an individual level but which is based on the collective structure of patriarchy, which is observable through a materialist analysis. It is not the individual display of a sexualized woman that we have a problem with. As a matter of fact, sexualization and objectification cannot exist on an individual level. These concepts are talking about a system."
In other words, perhaps 99% of advertisements sexualize women, and 1% of them sexualize men. But:
1) Sexualization is only relevant as a totality. Men are not sexualized. Women are. There may be a specific sexual display of man, but this does not form the basis for collective sexualization and objectification, which are really existing structures.
2) The sexualization of a woman has a sexist character. The sexualization of a man can have a sexist character, too, but this sexist character will always be based in the structure of patriarchy. The sexualization of a man may be sexist in that "men are strong". We could argue that this stereotype could have destructive side effects against men, but we know that it has its basis in the patriarchy.
But we can never prove that ONE of these advertisements sexualizing women comes from a sexist background. We can prove that AS A TOTALITY they come from a sexist background. We cannot prove that a specific one is sexist, indeed this is impossible within our framework.
But there are actions, some of which could be said to originate from a (at least ostensibly) feminist background (and others from moralism) that take up their problem with a specific advertisement campaigns.
For example, in the UK there was an advertisement which included a low-weight woman, labelled 'underweight' by some.
A campaign against that advertisement was led under the banner of 'feminism'. And, the result was entirely counter-productive: the company gained tons of publicity from the feminists' campaign about it. There were tons of people (including many women) commenting in social media: "I am going to buy their products now because I believe in freedom of speech" etc. etc.
So, this action could be criticized on two points.
First, the result was obviously entirely counter-productive.
Second, it is akin to reformism. It is the notion that by struggling against one expression of sexism we can eliminate sexism as a whole.
The utter failure of the campaign against that advertisement soon became obvious and indisputable to all.
If a man says to a woman, "go back to the kitchen" we can say that this, individually, is sexist. As far as most advertisement campaigns are regarded, though, we can only understand them as sexist in a totality, and we can't prove they are sexist individually - only a few advertisement campaigns are openly sexist on an individual level.
So, I pose the following question:
Should feminism not be oriented as a struggle against the totality instead of the individual expressions of sexism, except when these individual expressions are sexist by themselves?
With what other things (not only advertisement campaigns) or feminist actions is this problem apparent?
Furthermore, would this orientation not result in changes that concern an extent much deeper than that described in this post, and that call into question the philosophical base of certain strains of feminism, as well as their strategy and tactics? What would it entail?
What conclusions should feminists take from all of this?
As a matter of fact: I believe, partly as a result of that which was written above and what was written above entails in a context and to an extent much deeper than was described, that sexism is not "the oppression of man by woman" but rather a system which has its basis into a existing patriarchy which must be understood through a materialist understanding, and that to reduce this to terms of 'men' and 'women' misses the point. In one sentence: Marx argued in a note that capitalists are only the expression, the faces, the representatives of capital, and that workers are only the expression of labor. I would argue that men and women are only representatives of the system of patriarchy.
A sexism which in reality has its expression in that women have to endure it and in which man's experience is limited to the occasional side effect in which he can't complain about the violence of a woman because others would laugh at him (and this has its basis in that "men are strong and women are weak", thus still anti-women principles!), but that can only be truly understood by considering what I have said in the above paragraph - if my arguments are correct.