If we are dominated by a media that sexually objectifies women and shows them as something to be acted upon then it should not come as a shock that over 1 billion women on this planet today have survived rape and violence.
I work as a Chef. It is a new thing. I was a bartender but I got sacked a few weeks ago because well, honestly I don’t give a shit about getting people drunk. I got a job the next day at a Café, they only had work in the kitchen so like someone who stupidly did five years of art school with dreams of becoming the next Ai WeiWei, I took what I could get. I have worked hospo for 8 years so for those who have never worked hospo, Chefs can sometimes be angry, moody and generally pretty sexist.
My job entails making food and plating up and apparently listening to my head chef’s commentary as he reduces women who walk into the café, to parts of their bodies with his words. Nearly no young women is safe. He graphically describes what he would like to do with her breasts, her ass… her legs. It is an ongoing commentary on lips, hips, boobs; body parts. It usually sounds like this, “look at her fucking ass, I’d own that,” “Fuck look at that one [referring to a woman who has just walked into the café] look at those legs, I bet they would look good in the air,” “look at those tits they are massive, I could motorboat the shit out of them”. I could go on but I think you get the point.
The other day my Head Chef told me he believes “rape happens so much in Australia [where I currently live] because of Multiculturalism… it is those Indian’s, those Muslims” said as if it was the absolute truth. You have to give it to the guy; he really knows how to simultaneously racially stigmatise two cultures while dribbling a sexist diatribe all at the same time.
There is irony to be found in what my Head Chef said in relation to blaming two cultures for the violence women face today. For example he, a white middle aged and middle-class man, (not Indian or Muslim) uses graphic sexually objectifying language to describe women. I doubt he views it in this way in fact he believes he is complimenting them and as women we should just be glad we got any attention at all, right? What he is really doing is using language that separates women from their whole being; their personalities and complex emotions as human beings and reduces them to separate body parts in a process of dehumanisation. Reinforcing a culture that values women for what they look like, not for their intelligence or what they achieve, a culture that teaches young girls the only currency of value they have are their bodies.
Just in case anyone is confused about what sexual objectification is or just have no idea what I am talking about, “[sexual objectification is] the viewing of people solely as de-personalised objects of desire instead of individuals with complex desires/plans of their own.” If you are still unsure, walk out of your house right now to the closest junction or street where billboards litter the sky to see just one example and admire the asses, legs and breasts separated from their bodies to sell you shit like cars, drinks and menswear. To summarise, a “part” stands in for the “whole” [body].
Sometimes sexually objectifying material simply promotes violence against women, such as this Dolce and Gabbana ad campaign which could be interpreted as a gang rape about to happen.
Now I know what some of you are thinking, “but men are objectified in the media and in society to!” yes they are and it is NOT cool to objectify ANYONE. However overwhelmingly it is disproportionate to women as Laci Green, a blogger on sexuality states, “96% of all sexually objectifying images are of women’s bodies.”
When my Head Chef graphically describes what he would like to do with certain parts of a women’s body, he is feeding into a dominant media that writes a global cultural narrative that constantly dehumanises and sexually objectifies women.
One of the major problems with a media that sexual objectifications women, is it creates a dominant culture where rape and sexual assault is not taken seriously as Dr Caroline Heldmen expresses, “…sexually objectified women are dehumanized by others and seen as less competent and less worthy of empathy by both men and women. Furthermore, exposure to images of sexually objectified women causes male viewers to be more tolerant of sexual harassment and rape myths.” Objectifying material helps to enable rape culture and allows people, like my Head Chef to think it is TOTALLY ok and normal to commentate and use sexual language in relation to a women’s body parts like it is somehow, his god given right too.
If we are dominated by a media that sexually objectifies women and shows them as something to be acted upon then it should not come as a shock that over 1 billion women on this planet today have survived rape and violence.
Recently, in New Zealand a case simular to the “Roast Busters” has been reported, two boys have been convicted for the rape of a young girl. As reported by the New Zealand Herald, the two boys raped an underage girl who could not give informed consent because she had been drinking (there was NO mention if the young men had been consuming alcohol, but there hardly ever is in relation to “alcohol related rapes”) after both boys were done taking turns raping her, other people at the party came in with their phones and videoed themselves touching her. Both the boys thought their actions were not rape because they were not violent towards the young girl. They could not grasp that rape in itself is violence no matter “how” you rape someone. As Dr McGregor said in the New Zealand Herald,
“Most men would be appalled at these sorts of attitudes and behaviour which show a total disrespect towards girls and women. But why do these young men have these misogynistic beliefs that girls are their playthings? And why did those boys come into the room with the cellphones, instead of … stopping what was going on? It’s a wider culture which makes them think these appalling attitudes are acceptable,”
Dr McGregor is right, most men would be appalled at this behaviour, and this article you are reading is not an attempt to humiliate men and young boys or tell them everything they are doing is wrong. I wrote it so more men and women question the unspoken beliefs around them – we need a strong counter-culture and to become architects of our own worlds; our own humanity. It is time to demolish archaic paradigms so we can build new ones which respect women, teach what sexual consent means and do not dehumanise women, globally.
Fantastic article Chloe. and props for your debut on TDB.
True true.. but there is something primeval driving males as well, a mere fraction of a second in evolutionary terms doesn’t change that. Sexual equality in this era is still a veneer smeared over millions of years of evolution.
To paraphrase: “Guys can’t help being vicious, grabby and entitled about female human beings. It’s EVOLUTION.”
Somebody please hit that buzzer so this guy can try again?!
That’s not what he said.
Admitting the evolutionary basis of male sexual aggression is not the same as condoning it. It’s just recognising the reality of what we have to deal with if we want to curtail it.
You committed the “ought from is” fallacy. Please don’t.
That’s how I read it too
Ancient writings show that thousands of years ago, in the so-called birth place of civilisation, women were actually treated better than they are today. Being priests in the then dominant religion, treated with respect and having a say the governance of the society.
Keep hearing throughout my life humans are intelligent, too much to ask for intelligent reasoning to over-ride primeval urges?
If we all were deeply burdened by some primeval drive, I’m pretty sure we would all still be living up trees, however human history has proven otherwise.
Understanding and improving the human consciousness advances humanity instead of the excuse of dwelling on and surrendering to the primeval.
WTF? you think sexual equality is a new phenomenon? The Celts had a power structure where both men and women had equal access to both religious and political power ,as did the Etruscan, Egyptian and Sumerian civilizations. All the evidence gathered so far for pre- historic ( stone age humans) indicates shared labour and decision making structures between both sexes. You think humans would have survived if one sex had all the power? Gawd we breed ’em thick these days.
I reckon it is more a hangover from old middle eastern religions which pretty much the whole world has been influenced by, including Christianity.
If what you say is true (and for the record, I do not believe it is) and men are driven by something primeval which forces them to sexually objectify women, and sexually abuse and rape them, then surely we should not be leaving men in positions of responsibility and power?
If men are that weak and prone to being overwhelmed by primeval urges then they are unsuitable to be CEO’s, politicians, leaders of business, etc.
We should swap the balance around; women should dominate these positions.
Or… maybe men are actually better than that. Maybe they’re not driven by primeval urges. Maybe they’re actually civilisied intelligent human beings quite capable of seeing women not as body parts or playthings, but as whole human beings.
And maybe we need to ditch the line of argument that men are driven in any way whatsoever by primeval urges. Because dude, you can’t have it both ways.
I assume you mean the urge to procreate and ensure the survival of our genes, David. Can we then take it that homosexuality is an aberration and something unnatural, or is an overcoming of primal urges? I can see more than a few problems with your reasoning, even allowing for the flawed history pointed to by Draco.
My guess is more that we’re taught to think about women in the way so many of us still do, and that we can get over it. We have the power to change ourselves, as we have the power to change society. I work with women of all ages and many nationalities. The shape of their body parts is totally irrelevant to our work. I don’t think I’m particularly evolved, but I do know what’s important in a given situation. The idiot head chef should stick to chicken breasts and thighs and forget about ogling his customers.
Excellent debut – a good evaluation of the cultural dimension of this issue and the tacit encouragement of outdated attitudes which we find deliberately embedded in advertising.
And the ultimate end-game is the sexualisation and normalisation of sexualised children, as I wrote in a couple of my very first blogposts;
http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/sign-of-a-sick-society/
http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/hey-people-leave-our-kids-alone/
Anyway, excellent post, Chloe. We need more of these for consciousness-raising!
You are wrong.
Our society is saturated with pornography and media that objectifies women on a scale unimaginable to a person living in the 1970s. Pornography for such a person would likely have been limited to magazines such as Playboy or Penthouse, and pornographic films inaccessible unless he lived in a large city. Advertisements he would see would be demure by today’s standards.
Yet, if such a person were still alive, pretty much any imaginable (or unimaginable) form of pornography would be available to him at the touch of a button, in high definition, even on his telephone. Our society has spent the last 20 years being saturated with pornography to the extent that a staggering proportion of web traffic is constituted by pornographic material.
Yet where is the massive increase in sexual assault predicted by such luminaries as Catharine MacKinnon? It never materialised. In fact, sex crimes have declined during this time.
Now, I have no idea why that is, and of course it’s possible that pornography might be objectionable for other reasons, but the old media studies argument that sexual objectification in media causes sexual violence has been rendered risible by recent history, much as the predicted rash of “super predators” never materialised in the 1990s. It’s a complete stinker of an argument and should have been consigned to the dustbin years ago, yet feminism appears unable to move on.
You need another argument. Fortunately, there are many available. The disrespect or “group libel” arguments are still pretty good.
What I think is interesting is a phenomenon in Japan where growing numbers of younger people from both genders are disinterested with sex and relationships, a phenomenon which is apparently gaining ground in many developed countries.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/20/young-people-japan-stopped-having-sex
Economic and cultural conditions are among many factors believed to influence the phenomenon.
It would be interesting to know to what degree this phenomenon exists in New Zealand, I for one can attest to such a phenomenon occurring in my family for decades. My parents gave birth to my siblings and me over three generational periods; Baby boomers, Generation X and Generation Y. From six children only one has offspring. The male members in particular have no interest in relationships or sex. Indeed the family name is at risk of extinction as I’m the youngest to carry it and firmly have no interest in a relationship or sex. I think my father may be a bit upset over the thought of the family name disappearing. It’s also interesting to note that my parents are possibly wealthier than all their children combined.
Considering the recent recession and high unemployment rates, particularly in youth, I also wonder to what degree youth in the developed world are reclusive like the Japanese hikikomori phenomenon, especially in New Zealand, with conservative elements that stigmatise the unemployed.
Considering the mass proliferation of sexually objectifying media as we’re bombarded by it from practically every media outlet, it may ultimately have the opposite effect and many may be desensitised to its suggestive nature.
Considering in the developed world birth rates and fertility are low, crime rates declining, depression increasing and sexual dysfunction increasing as evidenced by the range of products one is exposed to in advertising, society or indeed humanity maybe evolving to another level of consciousness. Indeed since global neoliberal reforms in the Eighties many of these changes arose or increased, what impact that will have ultimately on this economic model remains to be seen. Who knows? The sexist and racist chef in this column may be one of a dying breed?
@ Tom,
Nonsense. In fact, sexual assaults have risen;
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/overall-crime-rates-down-sex-offending-up-5594202
My question to you why you’re attempting to minimise this problem and argue it away?
Perhaps you don’t think it’s a problem because you’re not directly affected?
Frank, you give statistics for a year. One year. Please show us the statistics from the period from 1970-2010 which support your argument. I agree with Tom, and I doubt you can.
>> My question to you why you’re attempting to minimise this problem and argue it away? <<
Translation: I disagree with your analysis, and btw because you disagreed with the feminist, you're defending rape.
Classy, Frank.
I think people who want to find the real causes of rape need to stop looking for easy answers and resorting to tired cliches.
Danyl,
The info I provided addressed a simple statement from Tom.
If you want further stats yourself, don’t let me stop you.
And pray tell, what “easy answers and cliches” are you referring to?
Indeed, what is your point?
And why the defensiveness?
1. I don’t know – ACTUALLY DON’T KNOW – a woman who hasn’t been sexually assaulted, harassed, raped or attacked. Not even one.
2. Sexual assault and domestic violence stats have RISEN in the last few years.
3. I don’t know what universe you’re living in, but I can only assume you’re a guy who has absolutely no idea what women go through in this country. Absolutely no idea.
Ditto, BoT.
I know two young women; one raped by her own father, and the other by a so-called “friend”. Also a friend of mine who was nearly raped on her first date with a guy…
None were reported to the Police. Embarressment. Shock. Pressure from family and friends. (One of the women had pressure put on her by her church not to press charges. They said it was better to “forgive”.)
Meanwhile, someone below this post writes,
“Thumbs down, because this will not solve anything. Empower women to stand up and to not cooperate in suppression and prostitution, I see too much of it. It is women and true friends that must stand up to these shit men (and fellow women).
Just blaming men and keeping things in the closets will not “revolutionise” anything…”
!!!
Interesting argument. I came across this today: http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2014/02/ten-kiwis-died-for-this.html
It is about the law in Afganistan (I’m guessing there isn’t a hell of a lot of porn around, but then again why would you need it if you had access to your very own child bride that you could abuse at will?). “A new Afghan law will allow men to attack their wives, children and sisters without fear of judicial punishment, undoing years of slow progress in tackling violence in a country plagued by honour killings, forced marriage and vicious domestic abuse.
The small but significant change to Afghanistan’s criminal prosecution code bans relatives of an accused person from testifying against them. Most violence against women in Afghanistan is within the family, so the law – passed by parliament but awaiting the signature of the president, Hamid Karzai – will effectively silence victims as well as most potential witnesses to their suffering.”
Perhaps you are right. It may not be adsporn so much as an attitude which is allowed to dominate. The adsporn could just be reflective of that attitude to begin with but ultimately end up adding detrimental energy by reinforcing and stimulating those attitudes.
Isn’t that interesting, K…
So many people (quite rightly) get angry at the treatment of women in Afghanistan.
But then so many become apologists or ignore sexist behavious/comments here in our own supposedly “more enlightened” society.
We do the sexist thing here in NZ. We just “dress it up” better. So called “humour”. So called “free speech”. So called “saying what we all think”…
But precious little of actually seeing it from the woman’s point of view.
The head chef could benefit from having his forehead applied to the grill for a minute or two. Food and beverage has long had an unsavory culture, worked in it myself as a teen, boss had hands like an octopus and a creepy stare but nothing verbal. Harder to escape in todays precarious high unemployment times.
Even if Chloe recorded some of this sexist blowhards mutterings odds are the owner might see her as the problem anyway. I know the point of the post is way broader than her workplace but it is sexual harassment just being in proximity to that chef. The dominant culture is indeed the problem.
>> The head chef could benefit from having his forehead applied to the grill for a minute or two. <<
Let me get this right. Because this man is heterosexual, and doesn't buy into the neo-Victorian, middle-class taboo about discussing sex openly, it's ok to assualt him, and permanently main him?!? Seriously, WTF!
Lighten up – it’s a comment on a blog said to convey disapproval at his behaviour and clearly not meant to be literal.
The whole blog is about the ‘thinking’…the ‘thinking’ which legitimises the ‘doing’..
I’ve worked in enough kitchens to know what kind of potty mouths can gain their evil little domains there, and someone getting in an ‘accident’ with a grill would be all too easy, so I find your comment slightly dumb.
“Because he is heterosexual”
No. Because he is nasty, and his leering, abusive commentary not only reduces women to holes for his use, but equates to sexual harassment of his colleagues; because he’s not discussing sex but picking apart women, who don’t want and don’t deserve that sort of terrible treatment: because of THIS, a joke was made at his expense.
OH NO WHAT ABOUT HIS RIGHTSSSSSS NOT TO HAVE JOKES MADE AT HIS EXPENSE
Yeah… nah.
You do realise that in your constant efforts to fight against the fight against sexual abuse and rape culture, you look like a total rapist apologist, right??
“Because this man is heterosexual, and doesn’t buy into the neo-Victorian, middle-class taboo about discussing sex openly…”
W.T. F?!
Are you for real Danyl?!
That guy was not “discussing sex openly”! That has to be the dumbest spin on sexism since Key opened his mouth on any issue…
The Chef was not “discussing sex openly”. Quite the reverse, he was objectifying women and making crass remarks about their body parts.
So you think it was “open discussion”, eh?
Really?
So tell us – why didn’t he say those remarks directly to the women concerned?
Keep posting, Danyl. You’re illustrating what’s wrong with attitudes/beliefs that tolerate the objectification and exploitation of women these days.
And his “heterosexuality” has zilch to do with it, by the way.
“You do realise that in your constant efforts to fight against the fight against sexual abuse and rape culture, you look like a total rapist apologist, right??”
BoT, you know that in excusing a call for gross violence against another human being as a “joke”, you look like a total violence apologist, right?
Frank:
“And his “heterosexuality” has zilch to do with it, by the way.”
Welllll, he hardly would have been making lascivious comments about women’s bodies if he was gay, right? Unless of course he’s a deeply repressed homosexual, which could also be an explanation for his behavior.
Oh, and as for:
BoT:
“he’s not discussing sex but picking apart women”
and…
“The Chef was not “discussing sex openly”. Quite the reverse, he was objectifying women and making crass remarks about their body parts.”
Excellent examples of the neo-Victorian, middle-class taboo about discussing sex I was talking about. Man at work talks about how he finds particular women sexually attractive and why, without hiding behind quaint euphemisms like “she seems nice”. Shock! Horror! Read all about it! Get over yourselves.
Euphemisms are about making a statement look better; more acceptable.
“look at her fucking ass, I’d own that”
If this is the clean, better, “nice” version, then what does he really think?
This isn’t about Victorian attitudes to sex. This is about the disgusting male sense of entitlement that leads to rape.
You are, in fact, within that category, which is pretty awful for you.
So Danyl, if I get your implications correct; not treating women as sexual objects for men’s gratification is akin to “Victorian attitudes”?!?!
Y’know, mate… I’ve seen, heard, and read a lot of political stuff in this country, so it’s really hard to surprise me.
Congratulations – you’ve surprised me. But not in a good way.
Hmmm, the more I see that fourth image (four men and one woman), the more disturbing I find it…
Thumbs down, because this will not solve anything. Empower women to stand up and to not cooperate in suppression and prostitution, I see too much of it. It is women and true friends that must stand up to these shit men (and fellow women).
Just blaming men and keeping things in the closets will not “revolutionise” anything. And that is where society stands, and lets them get away with it. AND there are enough women who cooperate and exploit their own gender to make PROFITS!
I agree that your Head Chef’s racist claims are unfounded and ridiculous. I also agree that the use of blatantly sexual imagery to sell totally unrelated products is manipulative and insidious. Such imagery may be appropriate in the sale of sex toys, for example, but this merely points to the double-standard that allows images of women’s buttocks to be used to sell cars in mainstream channels, but refuses to let sex toys be advertized in those same channels.
Has someone else written this ? I’m sorry , I’m too tired to give this a better treatment but I do have to say this ; Negative male attitudes/actions towards women , particularly those involving violence / sexual violence is a mental health issue . Not a sex issue . It’s not sexy to whack the missus or force ones self on a woman . That’s being sociopathic . That’s not being sexual . Sex is consensual , equal and more often than not , fun .
And where is sociopathy manufactured ? In this fucked up , anti human , neoliberal economy / society . That’s where .
paula bennett is , ironically , creating tomorrows Men-Monsters . judy collins will catch them . goony anne tolly will torture them but only after hekia , the smiling piranha perata dulls their minds . ‘ Monsters Inc’ Kiwi style .
Brilliant article Chloe! Looking forward to reading more and the discussion you inspire.
I like what you said Chloe, – this is just the same old patriarchy dressed up in new ways. Yeap you can work, can kinda be treated equal – but you’re not. Women need to face the fact, that the backlash against them has been rather effective – Susan Faludi was right.
On a more positive note, I’m hoping were seeing another wave of feminism – because personally, its overdue.
[…] blog in which I spoke about the damage and impact objectifying language and images have on people I stated , “it is time to demolish archaic paradigms so we can build new ones which respect women” (yeah, […]
Comments are closed.