The gender balance here lends some weight to the Marxist/frankfurt school explanation: sexual objectification and commodity fetishism go hand-in-hand. I think they're on to something but perhaps its broader than capitalist processes of commodification, marketing, mass media, etc.; perhaps objectification increases as communication and social interactions becomes more mediated, a relentless trend in our "globalizing" world.
For example, surely the internet has had a big impact on these trends -- not just through the ubiquity of pornographic imagery but its impact on communication and self-representation -- consider the huge popularity among adolescents (of all genders) for sites like hotornot and facethejury where kids willingly and competitively objectify themselves (not to mention of course dating sites).
personally, i find these transformations disturbing but not necessarily bad; i guess in this regard i'm more donna haraway than adorno.
-- adam
On 9/17/05, Miles Jackson <cqmv at pdx.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005, Marvin Gandall wrote:
>
> > My wife brought the item to my attention. A much more muted and benign form
> > of self-objectification is the tendency of many progressive feminists to wear
> > lipstick, perfume, and dye their hair. Now I will quickly put on my helmet,
> > because whenever Walker (yes, her first name) and I have chided left-wing
> > women friends about this, the brickbats have quickly rained down on us. But
> > in cyberspace, I feel safer, and it is an interesting question, no? And maybe
> > one to pose to Ms. Levy.
>
> Yeah, this is interesting: what is, in practical terms, the difference
> between Carmen Electra and my tastefully adorned colleagues in the English
> department? I guess I draw the opposite conclusion, though: if most women
> adorn themselves to be an object of admiration or desire, is there a
> problem? (I'm not sure what Marvin is advocating here: we all wear
> unisex gray Mao jumpsuits?)
>
> Moreover, the implicit dichotomy between the objectified woman
> and the man doing the objectification is misleading: men too are
> increasingly objectified, and dress and act to appeal to others. (--Seen
> a Bowflex ad lately?) Just as we have breast augmentation in women,
> we have baldness "treatment" in men. Just as we have Paris Hilton
> getting fame from overt sexuality, we have Snoop Dog.
>
> There's a strange Victorian undercurrent here: it's more or less assumed
> that women do not sexually objectify men, and men do not dress or act to
> provoke that objectification. Without taking women's capacity
> for sexual objectification of men into account, it's pretty fucking hard
> to account for the fame of Brad Pitt, isn't it? (--And my wife is
> quite the construction worker about, of all meatheads, the Rock: "cut
> me off a hunk of that!")
>
> I agree that it's not symmetrical--for instance, women still spend more
> time on personal appearance than men do, according to daily self-reports.
> However, given the obvious profits produced by "image making" commodities
> like surgery, exercise equipment, diet programs, fashionable clothing,
> jewelry, etc., I think it's pretty predictable that both men and women
> will become increasingly "objectified" in a capitalist society as
> they purchase and are enticed to purchase these commodities.
>
> Miles
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>