Objectification occurs when a woman is seen only as a body, body parts, or for her sexual function. She becomes a thing, not a person, good for viewing, touching, groping, owning. Sexual objectification of women drives oppression, systemic sexism, sexual harassment, and violence against women. But a novel form of feminism called sex-positive feminism believes that for women to truly be free and empowered, they must be unashamedly sexual.
But how, exactly, does it empower women if the only way they can get society to listen to the “thoughts in their heads” is by displaying them on their naked bodies?
Men and women are distinct creations with unique perspectives and complementary strengths. For instance, women release more of the hormone oxytocin in their system than men do. This has the effect of enabling bonding between humans, especially between couples and between mothers and children. Women are also more verbally communicative than men. It is differences like these that allow women to contribute in unique and powerful ways in society, in the workplace, but most of all, in the family.
Studies indicate that women and girls who engage in sports and dance have greater body image and body appreciation. The irony here is that dance, which can help women see that their bodies are useful in non-sexual ways, is used by Marissa & The Heartbreakers to instill self-objectification. Studies also indicate daughters are positively influenced when mothers use television and movie viewing as teaching opportunities. Also, the sexualization of young girls that comes with media exposure can be offset by religious mothers. Moms, what you do and what you say makes a difference in how your daughters view themselves!
Attorney and journalist, David French, wrote recently about how “powerful private actors are increasingly punitive against even mainstream political positions they dislike.” This has resulted in individuals feeling less free. SPLC labels have a chilling effect on free speech and impact organizations where it hurts most – the pocketbook. Companies such as Amazon and PayPal cite the SPLC’s lists when deciding whether organizations will be allowed to benefit from donation programs, and mainstream media such as CNN and the Washington Post further legitimize them by referencing SPLC’s “hate watch” designations. It is no secret that the SPLC just wants to see organizations with whom they disagree ostracized and shuttered.
However, the twentieth century saw the focus of feminism turn from fighting for women to fighting against family. With the emersion of radical feminism, feminist theory blamed marriage and family life for creating sex roles that perpetuate the oppression of women. Consider these quotes from early twentieth century feminists: the family is “simply an institution for the more complete subjugation and enslavement of women and children;” marriage is “an institution which robs a woman of her individuality and reduces her to that of a prostitute;” motherhood “is a calamity to be avoided” at all costs; and “The family goes back to the age of savagery while the state belongs to the age of civilization.”
Their thinking was, and is, that men have an unfair biological advantage in the workplace. Therefore, in order for women to rise to their highest potential, they need to be free to have sex without the consequence of childbearing, and free to engage in the workplace without the burden of family. This is a decidedly male-centric worldview. How exactly does it advance the place of women and womanhood, who still overwhelmingly value marriage and motherhood, if, in order to find equality in society, they must refashion themselves in the image of non-childbearing men?
While monitoring a virtual parallel event [at the U.N.] titled: “Diversity as a Driver: LGBTQI inclusion in feminist and social movements,” a UFI staff member participated in the Q&A by placing her question in the chat section. Rather than respond to Kristen’s question, the event organizers berated her and then removed her from the Zoom event, completely. Kristen’s question? “How do you define a woman?” Seems this is a fair question to ask during a conference that is centered on women’s rights – and Kristen’s expulsion was not an isolated incident. A pro-life ally from another organization had a similar experience when she drew attention to the fact that sex-selective abortion discriminates against girls. As a consequence, organizers revoked this woman’s access to all remaining CSW events.
Sex-positive feminism often embraces legalized prostitution (non-exploitive sex-work – as if there can really be such a thing), pornography (as long as it isn’t violent), and casual sex (after all, a sex life is important even if you don’t have time for committed relationships). Sex-positive feminism believes in the de-stigmatizing of women sleeping around – what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. The problem with all this positivity is that in the end it reduces women, yet again, to sex objects. The sad reality is that young girls have gotten the message.
When sex is just something you buy, it’s no longer about companionship, commitment, and love.
In an interview with Hollywood Life, the group’s leader Marissa Heart explained, “We have the opportunity on World of Dance to express ourselves and inspire other women to be unapologetic, to be fearless, and to empower one another and to be unapologetic about it.” As fierce and noble as her words may sound, the only hearts Marissa’s brand of fearlessness breaks are those of women who fall for the lie that sexually objectifying themselves is somehow empowering.
Objectification occurs when a woman is seen only as a body, body parts, or for her sexual function. She becomes a thing, not a person, good for viewing, touching, groping, owning. Sexual objectification of women drives oppression, systemic sexism, sexual harassment, and violence against women. But a novel form of feminism called sex-positive feminism believes that for women to truly be free and empowered, they must be unashamedly sexual.