Joe Perez is a writer striving to take Integral approaches to issues in ordinary life, culture, politics, sexuality, and spirituality. A graduate of Harvard University and The Divinity School at the University of Chicago, his books are 
(Integral Books, 2007) and 
(Lulu, 2006). 
She objectifies men
Thursday, July 3rd, 2008Natalia Antanova writes “I Obectify Men” on Feministe:
I know this doesn’t sound terribly progressive of me, but I think some objectification is healthy, whether one is male or female. I believe that both male and female desire should have a place in our discourse - which is why so much of my professional work is dedicated to football and footballers and footballers’ legs. It is all quite serious. Stop smirking.
I do think that because of power differentials, objectification of women more readily becomes a springboard for abuse, and worse. But I do think that there is a genuinely OK way of expressing one’s appreciation for someone else’s physical body and/or persona (and hell, a beautiful mind can be just as sexy). And I want more women to be comfortable with expressing their views on men and women that they find attractive, and even be superficial about it.
These conversations can be dangerous. Desire can be dangerous. But a world in which we do not have these conversations would be too sterile for my taste. Too many times, I run up against the notion that it is somehow “undignified” for a woman to participate, to be too sexual, and too frank, or allow herself a moment of shallowness; I hear people say that she is merely “lowering herself” to the status of men (I’ve seen that on feminist blogs as well as other types of blogs). But I disagree wholeheartedly. I think it all depends on context.
I’m interested to know what you all think about this.
What do I think of this? She’s right. She doesn’t sound very “progressive” at all. Thank goodness. Progressivism’s overly simplistic, inhumane, moralistic victimology makes it an embarrassing ideology at times, and it’s a good thing that many actual progressives don’t actually hold rigidly to the strict ideals. What Natlia sounds like, actually, is something like a progressive who realizes that her own feminism seems to contradict her own intuitions, a deeply felt sense of goodness regarding one’s own pleasure and desire, and a recognition that sexual hunger seems paradoxically both uplifting (”okay”) and debasing (”superficial”). In short, this writer expresses a longing for a post-feminist affirmation of bodily desire and a yearning for freedom from the subjugation of desire to political correctness … and a longing for a post-postmodern affirmation of both superficiality and depth. She sounds like a proto-Integralist.
I share Natalia’s desire for a discourse that boldly proclaims that it’s okay to be human, and to have both shallowness and depth. And I wish that more women and men who call themselves progressive would recognize that their ideology seems so constraining because it is so constraining, so disconnected from the body and its undemocratic nature, disconnected also from Spirit and its holarchies.
Affirm footballers’ legs! And affirm footballers’ athletic grace and fierce determination in pursuit of human excellence! And affirm their beauty as subjects-in-themselves and objects-for-us … and as the subject/objects beyond subect/object distinction, perfect mirrors of Spirit in this moment, this kick, this jump, this little prick of awakening to the arising moment.
Sphere: Related Content