Through continuing to develop my feminist writings, I have often found myself referring to the women in the artwork as objects that are solely for the male’s purpose. However after repeatedly using the words ‘object’ and ‘objectification’ in my work, it came to my attention that I never really understood to the full extent the words overall meanings. In Papadaki’s Feminist Perspectives on Objectification I was able to investigate the social implications of women being objectified and explore feminists’ outcomes on why women are regarded as objects. Immanuel Kant’s concept of objectification argues that ‘due to men’s consumption of pornography, women as a group are reduced to the status of mere tools for men’s purpose’ (Papadaki, 2012). Whereas feminists such as ‘Bartky and Bordo have argued that women are objectified through being excessively pre-occupied with their appearance’ (Papadaki, 2012).
For Kant objectification involves the lowering of a person, through treating them as if they are an object of possession and use. He feels being in a relationship before monogamous marriage runs the risk of allowing the male to dominate the relationship and perform sexual activities, that can lead to the loss or sacrifice of humanity, entitling them to be ‘reduced to a thing, a mere sexual instrument’ (Papadaki, 2012) in which they are lowered to ‘a thing on which other satisfies their appetite’ (Papadaki, 2012), other being in this case man. Referring to it as feeding their appetite labels man with animalistic qualities, in which I make reference to in my own textual responses to Henry Matisse’s artwork.
Contradictory to Kant it has been pointed that feminists Bartky and Bordo, believe women are objectified more so through their appearance than man as a needs to keep up with societies norms of feminine appearance. As Jennifer Saul reiterates in the text; ‘in order to gain social acceptability women are under constant pressure to ‘correct’ their bodies and appearance more generally, [to] make them conform to the ideals of feminine appearance of the time’ (Papadki, 2012). Other feminists have argued that through being so pre-occupied with their looks ‘women treat themselves as objects to be decorated and gazed upon’ (Papadaki, 2012) by the male eye, and that even though they feel they are doing so to gain confidence in themselves they are in fact objectifying themselves to please others. The constant pressure to fit into society is posed everywhere in the media and inserted into us all through using what is known by Katz & Lazersfeld’s’ Hypodermic Needle Theory, suggesting it is not just men to blame for female objectification, and because of this ‘women’s constant preoccupation with appearance has come to be regarded as something natural and voluntary.. something women have internalised.’ (Papadaki, 2012). Bartky believes it is therefore difficult for women to free themselves from their objectification and will always be regarded as an object for the pleasure and usage of others.
Works Cited:
Papadaki, E. (2012) Feminist Perceptions on Objectification. [online] Stanford. Available from: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-objectification/[Accessed 2 May 2014]