General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: For those women who think objectifying women as sex objects is OK [View all]KitSileya
(4,035 posts)but when it is only the form that is portrayed, and mostly in specific poses/with specific garb, it helps form our view of women. We are more likely to see pictures of half-naked/naked women than men, we are more likely to see half-naked/naked pictures of women than of women doing stuff, women of every profession are more likely to have their looks and their clothes commented upon than men, in articles, for example. The female form is beautiful - but it isn't displayed in a vacuum. When women say that to display the female form in certain venues (such as on political discussion boards) contribute to a cultural view of women as only worth as much as their looks, it isn't saying that women are ugly. Tumbulu asked women who thought that objectifying women as sex objects was ok why they thought that objectifying women was ok, if they thought it supported equality in the market place and in the work place. Tumbulu said nothing about these women being gender traitors - those are your words.
My pointing out the art was to make the point, as I said, that female artists and sculptors seem to have a greater chance of getting into a museum if they got a nude painted of themselves by a male artist, than by having their own art displayed. Do you think that may be contributing factor to female artists painting female nudes? After all, according to the National Museum of women in the arts, 51% of all visual artists are female, but only 5% of artists on display in museums are women, and only 1/3 of gallery representation is women. Do you think there's commercial pressure at work here when it comes to appreciating the beauty of the female form?