Comments on: Nouns, not adjectives: Caroline Heldman and young women’s self-objectification

By: Mid-Week Recommended Reading « don’t ya wish your girlfriend was smart like me?

Mon, 05 May 2008 09:32:27 +0000

[…] Hugo writes about a interesting sounding article I’ll have to get a hold of on self-objectification. […]

By: emely

emely — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:47:57 +0000

Hugo, I have been reading your post on the effects of self-objectification on women and it reminded me of another post, dealing with the subject.
Porn Part 6: Stockholm Syndrome
http://rageagainstthemanchine.com/2008/04/23/pornpart6
Her porn series and the entire blog are very good too.
Hope you enjoy it and would like to hear your opinion.

By: Emily

Emily — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:16:39 +0000

When I read this, I think about how I hope to parent. I grew up in a family that decidedly de-emphasized appearance, and I think in many ways that was good for me. I knew that my parents valued my intellect a million times more than my appearance, my entire life. I wonder about the balance. My father had active distain for all things “fashion” (he wasn’t one to pontificate or openly criticize the fashionable, but you could just tell that he felt it was unimportat - a detraction rather than enhancement to his interest in a person) - I wonder if it’s possible to get the good of self esteem not based on appearance, without being actively distainful of lipstick, perfume, “fashion,” etc.

By: kate.d.

kate.d. — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:57:25 +0000

i read berger in a visual studies grad school course - one that had a definitive feminist slant - and i often come back to that kernel, “men look at women. women watch themselves being looked at.” and while of course “things have changed” since berger wrote it, the quote is a very helpful consolidation of what can be, at times, an overwhelmingly complicated idea.

By: djw

djw — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:56:43 +0000

Great post.

I read Berger in a philosophy of social science class, rather than Gender studies. I’m not sure it get read much these days, which is too bad. When I get around to designing a liberal arts college curriculum, it’ll be one of a handful of books required for all students.

By: Hugo Schwyzer

Hugo Schwyzer — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:47:28 +0000

Thanks, JW; it’s common in gender studies to talk about “performativity” in several different ways, and I acknowledge that when we use it to mean “as a performance” we change its original meaning.

Luis, I agree with you it’s an odd study — perhaps Heldman will provide a link or citation so we can see what was really happening…

By: JW

JW — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:39:24 +0000

I need to renew my Ms. sub. Thanks for the timely reminder. One point, though; as a theatre academic, I need to offer a correction: in the phrase “[Hilton’s] sexuality is largely performative,” you’re mis-using the term “performative” to mean “only a performance” or “void of meaning or substance.” This is exactly NOT what “performative” means. To simplify it for the sake of comment length, “performative” means the *opposite* of “performance” (an external show, a facade, etc.): it refers to a speech-act (if we’re pulling from Austin) or an act/behavior that is in fact effective–it has meaning, it changes things. Hilton’s sexy posturing is a performance, it is NOT performative (unless one were to make the case that it makes her feel/behave in other ways, which I don’t think you’re doing here).

By: Luis

Luis — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:12:13 +0000

While the “swimsuits and sweaters” study sure connects with my prejudices, I can’t think of how many things are wrong with it. It is TERRIBLY non-naturalistic to wear swimsuits to class. The better thing to do would be cognitive priming — just one question might do it: “What don’t you like about your body”?