Thoughts About Sex and Sexism, Spawned by a “Sexist” Advertisement

By Daniel Miessler on June 9th, 2008: Tagged as Sex

I have a bit of cognitive dissonance right now on the topic of sexism. What, for example, makes this ad sexist vs. sexual? Or, what makes any ad sexist vs. sexual? Is it a lack of equality? Is that what we are to believe?

Is it any implication that men are looking at women as sexual animals? Are we as a society attempting to claim that sexuality is about, or should be about, equality?

Maybe I used to watch too many nature shows, but when I see apes and monkeys and lions and tigers having sex, I see them participating in the power exchange. It’s a control game. It’s a domination game.

So, as a study of nature would predict, we as humans play it too. And I don’t think that’s wrong. What’s wrong is not realizing that we as humans are both animals and thinkers at the same time. We have, for the sake of this argument, two levels.

We’re simple, primal beings with tendencies towards aggression and sexuality — both of which give us pleasure — and we’re also highly advanced problem solvers who understand the need for social justice.

We need to accept the fact that we’re not going to extinguish our animal side any time soon, and that attempting to do so is likely to cause more harm than good. The goal should simply be to clearly define the line between the primal and logical. A fragrance ad with a plane full of bimbos should be accepted as good fun for men, just as a similar ad full of men should be for women.

As an example, women portrayed as attractive bimbos shouldn’t imply that women can’t be physicists any more than men portrayed as lumberjacks should imply men can’t be surgeons. Women understand that men have ranges spanning the primal and intellectual, and men should understand that women have those very same ranges.

To put it another way, we accept women viewing men as sex objects because we know they also respect men as more than that. It’s the same for viewing women as sex objects. A man, or a society, that understands that women can span both should not be scolded for appreciating the primal dimension.

Once we as a society grasp this we will be able to accept both bimbo advertisements and female lawyers with equal ease.

–

On a final note, “Bimbos and Lumberjacks” would be a great band name.:

  • Guest

    Just one note – men and women don’t have the same ranges, or at least, the distribution over those ranges is different for each gender. There are more males at both the lower and the higher end, in general.

  • GBM

    Just one note – men and women don’t have the same ranges, or at least, the distribution over those ranges is different for each gender. There are more males at both the lower and the higher end, in general.

  • Darren

    I’m sorry but did you just say that women respect men?

  • Darren

    I’m sorry but did you just say that women respect men?

  • http://blog.evula.net/Shenlon Shenlon

    So, if I understand you, what you’re advocating is that women and men have a dual understanding of each other: sex objects sometimes, respectable citizens and real people other times. If I understand you, this is necessary for equality.

    This would be great, but I think it’s far easier for women to think that way than for men to do so. I’m not saying it’s not possible, but most men tend to be naturally shallow, and have one track minds. Having a dual idea of women would be quite difficult. The female mind is much better at thinking of things that way.

  • http://blog.evula.net/Shenlon Shenlon

    So, if I understand you, what you’re advocating is that women and men have a dual understanding of each other: sex objects sometimes, respectable citizens and real people other times. If I understand you, this is necessary for equality.

    This would be great, but I think it’s far easier for women to think that way than for men to do so. I’m not saying it’s not possible, but most men tend to be naturally shallow, and have one track minds. Having a dual idea of women would be quite difficult. The female mind is much better at thinking of things that way.

  • interloper

    @Shenlon,

    I’m assuming you are a woman, please disregard this post if it is not so.

    “This would be great, but I think it’s far easier for women to think that way than for men to do so. I’m not saying it’s not possible, but most men tend to be naturally shallow, and have one track minds. Having a dual idea of women would be quite difficult. The female mind is much better at thinking of things that way.”

    If you are a woman yourself, aren’t you painting all men with the same brush by these lines (a one-track opinion, if I may?) ? This rather weakens your argument that women are deep thinkers and are capable of making the right distinctions.

  • interloper

    @Shenlon,

    I’m assuming you are a woman, please disregard this post if it is not so.

    “This would be great, but I think it’s far easier for women to think that way than for men to do so. I’m not saying it’s not possible, but most men tend to be naturally shallow, and have one track minds. Having a dual idea of women would be quite difficult. The female mind is much better at thinking of things that way.”

    If you are a woman yourself, aren’t you painting all men with the same brush by these lines (a one-track opinion, if I may?) ? This rather weakens your argument that women are deep thinkers and are capable of making the right distinctions.


Top

Popular

Information Security / Technology

Politics

Philosophy & Religion

Technology & Science

Culture & Society

Miscellaneous

Arguments

Projects

Collections

Twitter

What I'm Reading

Favorite Books and Essays

Top Blog Categories

Inputs