Objectifying Women was once Bad but now may be Good according to a Yale Professor

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 8th, 2013

Week in Review

Objectifying women is bad.  For it dehumanizes a woman.  Makes her a thing.  And not a person.  Then again, some are now saying that objectifying women actually humanizes them.  For when we see women in pornography we ascribe them feelings.  Feel empathy for them as they writhe in sexual ecstasy.  And feel compassion for them as they end a sex scene in the classic porn ending.  Which is why men watch pornography, I guess.  To feel closer to these women.  And lament that they can’t ask them how they feel.  And what they’re thinking.  At least according to a Yale professor (see New York Times Op-Ed Finds the Upside to Objectifying Women. What a Relief. by Amanda Hess posted 12/3/2013 on Slate).

What do we think about when we think about naked people? In the New York Times this weekend, Yale psychology professor Paul Bloom says that it’s time to rethink the theory of objectification. The feminist argument is that when people are depicted in sexualized contexts, “the objectifier (typically a man) thinks of the target of his desire (typically a woman) as a mere thing, lacking autonomy, individuality and subjective experience.” Bloom argues that the objectification process is actually more complicated: While focusing on people’s bodies as opposed to their minds does decrease our perceptions of their ability “to act, plan and exert self-control,” he writes, it can actually increase our perceptions of their capacity to “feel pain, pleasure and emotions.” When we look at people in a sexual context (or catch a peek at them without their clothes on), we’re less likely to ascribe them agency, but we’re more likely to ascribe them feelings. That could actually inspire greater empathy toward the objectified party—a silver lining to the focus on flesh…

To Bloom, the findings are hopeful. “Part of the effect of nudity that our study found is morally positive—it’s usually a good thing to be more attuned to someone else’s ability to experience,” he writes. Bloom’s interpretation of human psychology could even make us feel less bad about ourselves for watching porn. “It’s not literally true that women in pornography are thought of as inanimate and unfeeling objects; if they were, then they would just as effectively be depicted as unconscious or unresponsive, as opposed to (as is more often the case) aroused and compliant,” he writes. Looking at naked people can “trigger disgust, fear, and hatred,” Bloom says, but it can also “elicit empathy and compassion.”

Interestingly, the same week this article appeared this article was published (see ‘She wanted to be a superstar’: Never-before-seen photographs of Linda Lovelace, aged 24, reveal her attempts at becoming ‘a legitimate actress’ by Sadie Whitelocks posted 12/4/2013 on the Daily Mail).

Despite the two movies making her a household name, Lovelace later spoke out against pornography in speeches to universities and governments.

‘When you see the movie Deep Throat, you are watching me being raped,’ she boldly stated in a 1986 official inquiry into the sex industry. ‘It is a crime that movie is still showing. There was a gun to my head the entire time.’

For her old friends in the business, though, she was labeled a traitor; they sneeringly coined the term ‘Linda Syndrome’ to describe former porn stars who later try to disown their seedy careers.

The exhibition’s photographs reveal, even before Lovelace made Deep Throat II, that she was keen to get out of the adult entertainment industry.

If you’re unfamiliar with the film Deep Throat you can look it up on IMDB or Wikipedia or some other online source.  Suffice it to say that this movie objectified Linda Susan Boreman (who was Linda Lovelace).  And then some.  Sadly she passed away in 2002 after a serious auto accident at the age of 53.

Boreman would probably not have agreed with this Yale professor.  Of course, she might have done so only because she wanted to disown her seedy career in the adult entertainment industry that objectified her.  But it does beg the question why is Yale studying naked women?  A bastion of liberalism.  And feminism.  I mean, this is the kind of thing you would expect to read in Playboy.  Not in a paper from an Ivy League university.  Then again Playboy has a special relationship with the Ivy League.  Putting out a few pictorial specials objectifying women of the Ivy League.  Maybe they’re planning a return to Yale.  And this is just to make the coeds comfortable in shedding their clothes in front of the camera.  So we can study their nude bodies.  Feel empathy for them.  And compassion.  As we study their nakedness.  For socio-scientific purposes, of course.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Left is using the Washington Navy Yard Shooting to Revive the Gun Control Debate

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 19th, 2013

Politics 101

Gun Crimes often involve an Anti-Social Gamer who lacks Empathy for their Victims

There was another terrible thing that happened.  Depending on where you get your news from you might have gotten one of two general headlines.  You either saw/heard something along the lines of “Another failure in our mental health system leaves dangerous man among the public—kills 12 at the Washington Navy Yard.”  Or you saw/heard something like “AR-15 assault rifle responsible for yet another senseless massacre—people demand comprehensive gun control legislation.”

You probably can guess that the left-leaning media ran the AR-15 headline.  Who blames guns for all gun-violence.  Never the people pulling the triggers.  Whereas the media without a political agenda will have noted the failure in our mental health system as a greater concern for the safety of Americans.  As all of the gun massacres the left points to as proof that we need comprehensive gun control legislation have a common denominator.  The shooters all suffered from mental health issues.

Adam Lanza suffered from some personality disorder (perhaps Asperger disorder).  He was anti-social and played violent video games alone in the basement.  His disorder may have left him unable to feel empathy for other people.  That and the world of gaming where he killed over and over may have allowed him to feel nothing as he gunned down 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  Someone should have institutionalized Lambert.  For he was the danger.  Not the guns.  He chose the gun because that’s what he used in his video games.  But if there was no gun available he may have done something else.  For he was a smart kid.  An honors student.  And he was 20 years old.  He could have used a car to run people down like in one of those video games.

In the Worst of Gun Crimes the Left focuses on the Guns and not the Mentally Unsound Shooters

Before Sandy Hook a mentally disturbed James Holms killed 12 and wounded some 70 more in the 2012 Aurora theater shooting.  Before that a mentally disturbed Jared Loughner killed 6 and wounded 12 in a Tucson supermarket parking lot (2011).  Before that a mentally disturbed Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 and wounded 17 at Virginia Tech (2007).  All of these shooters had some serious mental health issues.  Some had been treated.  Some should have been treated.  And they probably should all have been institutionalized before their shootings.

But they weren’t.  In fact, some parents today are at their wits’ end when they have a family member that may be a danger to the general public.  But there’s nothing they can do.  For today you can’t just institutionalize people like we once did.  Because of civil liberties.  Which is a good thing.  To those who may have been wrongly institutionalized.  But it leaves those that should be out on the street.  Where they must first do something to be committed.  Like Sandy Hook, Aurora, Tucson, Virginia Tech, etc.  Then and only then can we remove these people from our streets.

Yet in the worst of these gun crimes the left focuses on the guns.  Not the shooters.  It’s not the people pulling the triggers.  But the triggers.  And they claim that if we remove the triggers we’ll remove this crime. Despite these mentally unsound people still being on the streets.  Who are in most cases very smart people.  And highly educated.  Who could probably figure out a way to get a gun if we had repealed the Second Amendment.  Or think of some other creative way to kill their innocent victims.

The Left blamed the AR-15 for the Washington Navy Yard Shooting instead of our Failed Mental Health System

So why does the left do this?  Well, because they want to take away our guns.  Why?  One can only guess.  They are generally anti-capitalists and would like to turn the United States into a more socialist country.  Like they’ve done with our health care.  Does the left want to do more than just make America a social democracy?  Other countries that had a political party/leader that went on to oppress their people often started by taking away people’s guns.  Because if they didn’t the people may just fight back.  And the last thing any dictator wants is a civil war like there is currently in Syria.

Is this why the left wants to take away our guns?  Who knows.  But it makes one wonder.  Especially when we see they can barely contain their glee whenever another mentally unsound person goes on a shooting spree.  So they can revive the gun control debate.  Which they have to revive as the polls clearly show the American people don’t put repealing the Second Amendment high on their wish list.  No, what they want is a better economy.  A job.  A safer world to live in where they don’t have to worry about their kids getting hurt or killed by an improvised explosive device while attending a marathon.  But the left focuses on the guns.

As they were still looking for potential shooters at the Washington Navy Yard the left was already reporting that it was yet another gun-crime made with that hated of all assault rifles.  The dreaded AR-15.  Everyone on the left was reporting this with glee.  Hoping to revive the talk about comprehensive gun control.  There was only one problem.  This mentally disturbed person did not use an AR-15.  He used a type of weapon Vice President Joe Biden recommended women get instead of a handgun for their personal protection.  A shotgun.  Even though they got the facts wrong it didn’t change the narrative.  The left blamed the AR-15 anyway and called for an assault rifle ban.  Without a word about our failed mental health system.  That allows mentally unsound people to wander among us where they can do great harm.  Because locking up mentally unsound people pays no political dividends.  While allowing them to remain on the street does.  Especially if they get their hands on an AR-15.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Brutal Knife Attack in Britain demonstrates Fallacy in Gun Control Argument

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 27th, 2013

Week in Review

The political left blames an epidemic of gun violence on law-abiding people owning guns.  Creating a gun culture in the United States.  Where any kid can go out and buy an assault rifle without a background check.  They say this is the reason why people are walking into grade schools, universities, movie theaters and high schools, shooting unarmed people.  It’s the guns.  Not a failure of our mental health system.  Where the political left has made it more difficult to commit someone who is a danger to themselves or to the public.  And they don’t blame violent videogames.  Or societal decay.  Where people have little empathy for others.  Which is why they can spend hours killing people in videogames.  Or walk into a room full of innocent and unarmed people and start shooting them.

According to the left none of this would happen if only we got rid of our guns.  Like Britain did.  Where even the cops don’t carry guns.  Making for a peaceful and loving society.  Where the people would rather link their arms together and sing Kum Ba Yah than harm another living soul (see Pictured: The horrific arsenal of kitchen knives used by 20-strong gang to hack teenage boy to death in front of commuters at Victoria Station by Leon Watson and Amanda Williams posted 4/26/2013 on the Daily Mail).

The 15-year-old had his life cut short at Victoria station in central London when he was chased and killed by the gang of youths.

Detective Chief Inspector John McFarlane yesterday blamed the ‘blitz attack’ on Facebook and Blackberry’s messenger service which allowed his killers to organise themselves.

He said the teenagers had lost touch with reality because of violent computer games.

He told the Times: ‘You’ve got people playing computer games where they’re shooting and stabbing people. Where is the real world for them? There is a blurring between the real world and this false computer world…’

Sofyen [Belamouaddenw] was stabbed nine times in the body and suffered wounds to his heart, a lung and major blood vessels…

The attack was the horrific end of a minor confrontation the day before in the fast-food area of Victoria mainline station between pupils from the two schools, in which a youth received a bloodied nose…

Sofyen died after being chased by about 20 pupils across the Terminus Way concourse and into the Underground station.

A youth led the charge with a Samurai sword. Others were armed with a flick knife and a Swiss army knife, machetes and screwdrivers.

Apparently guns aren’t the only thing that cause people to kill other people.  If these people were in Chicago they would have used handguns.  And one wonders if they had no handguns in Chicago would they use knives?  Like they do in Britain?  Probably.  For not having guns didn’t stop these people from killing this 15-year old boy.

Obviously with an attack this brutal there is a societal decay in Britain just as there is in the United States.  People are somehow losing their empathy for other people.  And have no problem in harming them.  Or even killing them.  And if it isn’t guns causing this what is?  Is it coming from playing videogames?  Perhaps.  Either from that or from watching movies.  Television.  Or from listening to rap music that glorifies violence.  They’re learning it somewhere.  For no one is born that way.

If horrific acts of violence can occur even without guns then gun control is not the answer.  Guns are only a tool a sick or depraved person chooses for his or her heinous act.  If a gun isn’t available they’ll just pick up a knife.  Or some other weapon.  We need to determine what is causing this societal decay.  So we can address the root cause of this rise in violence.  Is it a breakdown of the family?  The lack of a father figure in these kids’ lives?  Abortion?  Which teaches kids there are no consequences in life.  And there is little value to human life.  Or is it Liberalism itself?  Which attacks conservatism.  Our faith.  And our traditions.  Leaving our kids to grow up in a world void of a moral authority instructing them to be good.  So they end up being bad.  For doing whatever you want is more fun than sticking to the straight and narrow.

The left blames conservatives for a gun culture that creates gun violence.  While it is far more likely that it is the left’s relentless assault on our faith and traditions causing the societal decay that allows someone to more easily harm another living soul.  So perhaps instead of gun control we should be legislating against liberals.  Preventing their harmful influence on the general public.  That results in acts of violence.  For these people aren’t born this way.  They’re learning this behavior from liberals.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT108: “The political elite has exploited women ever since they gave them the franchise to vote.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 9th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

The Civil War feminized Men and gave us the Nanny State and the Progressive Movement

In all some 2-3 million men left their homes to fight in the Civil War.  Leaving mothers to raise their children on their own.  With Christian love and nurturing.  Especially the boys.  Whose fathers their mothers dearly missed.  And lived in fear that they would fall in battle.  So they smothered these boys with love and affection.  Made them feel special.  The center of the world.  The Civil War would claim some 630,000 lives.  A lot of them young fathers.  Who left their sons no father.  Only a loving and doting mother to raise them.  A mother who hated war.  And despised manly displays of aggression that led to that god-awful war.  Something they would protect their boys from.  Instead filling them with kindness and sensitivity.  Teaching them not to meet aggression with aggression.  But with understanding.  Empathy.  Kindness.  And if someone strikes them to simply turn the other cheek.  Like the good Christians they were.  Because manly displays of behavior led to nothing but trouble.  And war.

The Republicans won the Civil War.  And freed the slaves from their Democrat masters.  Giving them the franchise to vote.  And they, of course, voted for their liberators.  The Republican Party.  Anxious to keep this vast new Republican voting bloc voting for them the Republicans quickly passed the Fifteenth Amendment (1869), giving the freed slaves the Constitutional right to vote.  Forever.  And they did.  While the Union Army was still in the South after the Civil War to enforce the peace.  And protect the newly freed black population.  But after Custer’s Last Stand where the Sioux and Cheyenne decimated Custer’s army, that army was needed out West.  And when it left the South so did the security of black Republican voters.  So they stopped voting.  And the Democrats restored things the way they were before the war.  Only without the institution of slavery.

So the Civil War provided a couple of powerful lessons.  First of all, if a war kills enough men their sons will grow up feminized.  Taking on some characteristics of the fairer sex.  And shunning their more masculine traits.  Also, enfranchising a large group of the population can help you win elections.  These two lessons came together in the Progressive movement the late 19th and early 20th century.  When these fatherless sons grew up and entered politics.  And changed the nature of government.  No longer the limited government of our Founding Fathers.  But a larger and more active government to mother us.  A lesson Woodward Wilson was slow to learn.  As he opposed women’s suffrage until protesters made him change his mind.  Which may have played a part in the Progressives losing the 1920 election.  The Nineteenth Amendment being ratified just months before the elections.  Lucky for us he was slow in changing his mind.  For had he embraced women’s suffrage his party may have been rewarded at the polls by a lot of happy women.  Instead they voted for a Return to Normalcy with Warren G. Harding.  Who followed the advice of Andrew Mellon and cut taxes.  Igniting economic activity.  Giving us one of the greatest decades in U.S. history.  The Roaring Twenties.  Where limited government and free market capitalism modernized the world.  But it wouldn’t last.  For the heavy hand of government interfered with those free markets by the end of the decade.  Giving us the Great Depression.

As Women Empowered themselves with the Birth Control Pill they made Men Very, Very Happy

FDR exploded the size of government with his New Deal.  It was not JFK’s “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”  Instead it was what can our new big-ass government do for you?  How can we now mother you?  And how can we get you to vote for us?  So we can continue our orgy of spending.  And the women’s vote no doubt helped.  Many of who were mothers.  With mothering instincts.  Who wanted to help and take care of people.  Who endorsed FDR’s policies.  The product of those feminized Progressive men.  Who worked diligently to change limited government into the nanny state.  To fill government with understanding.  Empathy.  And kindness.  Creating a new aristocratic class in the process.  Allowing these feminized men to achieve great levels of power and wealth.  Doing whatever they want.  Because they felt special.  The center of the world.  And superior.

The New Deal programs failed to pull the country out of the Great Depression.  World War II came around to do that.  Causing another generation to suffer through another horrible war.  This time putting some 13 million Americans into uniform.  Leaving a lot of mothers to raise their children.  Alone.  Raising them with a nurturing Christian love.  Especially their sons.  Whose fathers their mothers dearly missed.  And lived in fear that they would fall in battle.  So they smothered their sons with love and affection.  Made them feel special.  The center of the world.  To ease the fear and dread of the war.  Which killed some 400,000.  And wounded a million more.  A lot of them young fathers.  Leaving more sons with no father in their lives.  Only a mother who hated war.  And would raise their sons to hate war, too.  To love, instead, peace.  To be filled with feelings of kindness and sensitivity.  And to resist their manly urges.  Feminizing another generation of men.

These men came of age in the Sixties.  Who said “Make love, not war.”  And did.  Like their mothers taught them.  Well, sort of.  It was the age of free love.  The sexual revolution.  Where men had a lot of sex with lots of different women.  And when they weren’t having sex they were attacking the establishment.  Protesting the Vietnam War.  Capitalism.  Old white men.  Rich people.  Religion.  Pretty much anyone.  And anything.  Filled with rage because they grew up without a daddy.  Blaming the world for that.  (Don’t think so?  Listen to Pink Floyd’s The Wall for a real life example as Roger Waters wrote about growing up without a daddy).  Filled with hate.  Unable to love.  So they just had sex.  Lots and lots of sex.  With a lot of ready and willing sex partners.  Because women in those days weren’t getting married anymore to raise a family.  They were empowering themselves.  Using the new birth control pill to plan when they were going to have a family.  Making these men they were having sex with very, very happy.

Liberals encourage Women to Empower themselves and Explore their Sexuality as long as these Women are not their Daughters

The radicals of the Sixties went on to become university professors in the Seventies.  Continuing their antiestablishment and anti-capitalism ways.  Putting up pictures of Che Guevara up in their classrooms.  Preaching socialism.  And communism.  Teaching political science and journalism and prelaw students how horrible America was.  Itemizing every sin.  But glossing over every achievement.  Attacking religion and morality.  Saying, “Who’s to say what’s right or wrong?”  Encouraging more government spending.  And more government control of the private sector.  To make America the socialist paradise they sang about in the Sixties.  While high.  And to legalize the drugs they used to get high in the Sixties.  Attacking men for marrying women.  Making them nothing more than cooks and housekeepers.  And whores in the bedroom.  Encouraging women to burn their bras and have more consequence-free sex.  Which these university professors enjoyed during the Seventies.  Getting high and having sex with their students.  Doing whatever they want.  Because they felt special.  The center of the world.  And superior.

Life was a party in the Seventies.  And we paid dearly for it.  All our major cites became crime ridden.  Drug use soared.  Violent crime increased.  Including assaults on women.  For we were honoring and cherishing women far less in the Seventies than we used to.  Casual sex was in.  Making women just sex partners.  Again, something the men were really enjoying.  Especially those feminized men that went on into politics.  Who became liberal Democrats.  And feminists.  Protectors of women.  A handy title.  For it made the women look the other way every time these men cheated on their wives.  Or were caught in some sex scandal.  They were really enjoying life.  These men.  Running the government in the Seventies.  And controlling the news networks.  The old-boys club was never better.  But then the economy had to go into the toilet.  And the people finally said enough.  They voted for Ronald Reagan.  A conservative.  Who represented about 40% of the population.   And declared the nanny-state of liberalism a failure.  An ideology held by only 20% (approximately) of the population002E

Of course, the liberals weren’t just going to give up their privileged life.  Controlling all of that tax money.  And having whatever they wanted.  Including all that fun with young women.  They had to come up with some way to get a lot of people who did not agree with their ideology to vote for them.  Or who simply didn’t understand their ideology.  So they courted the youth vote.  Whose interests rarely went beyond the satisfying of their selfish desires.  Those they could so enamor in college.  By being cool.  What with these liberals being so unlike these kids’ parents.  Who said that there is nothing wrong with using drugs.  Or having casual sex with someone’s daughter.  The two things college students can really enjoy.  Especially the sex.  Which the liberals provided for them.  By exploiting these young women.  Showering them with birth control.  Even access to abortion.  Making a woman’s self-worth based on her attractiveness to men.  Or on her ability to sexually satisfy men.  They encourage women to think the sexier they were the better and more popular they would be.  And the happier they would be.  Encouraging them to have fun on spring break.  So what if they end up on some DVD having sexually explicit fun?  As long as they had fun.  And vote Democrat.  Because it’s the Democrats who make sure these young women can have fun.  And feel good about themselves.  By encouraging them to be sex objects for men to enjoy.  Especially those old men in politics.  The feminists.  Who say things like they admire the women’s movement.  Especially from behind.  They encourage these women to ’empower’ themselves and explore their sexuality.  With them.  For fun.  Their self-worth.  And their vote.  And these men don’t care what happens to them once they do.  As long as, of course, they’re not their own daughters. 

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,