Yes, you certainly do write a lot of words... but here's the issue: it seems to me like you don't understand the arguments you're making. You're putting things together, but they're not cohesive and either distort or outright deny the context or meaning behind them.
Let's begin by breaking down this discussion.
Not at all. It's more that any discussion of the objectification of fictional characters will inevitably lead to claims of an author objectifying their own creation. At the point you've reached that claim, you've hit the rhetorical limit of the discussion (because this claim could always be seen as true, and it's an extreme reduction of the discussion that assume agency where none exists) - think of it like Godwin's Law for objectification discussion. When you hit this point, the discussion has outlived its usefulness.
First, making a Godwin's law argument about criticisms relating to objectification is ridiculous. You're already starting off on a bad footing by making a claim that the discussion has degenerated to such a degree. It hasn't.
As such, it would be best for objectification discussions to concern themselves with the purely fictional world (is Lara Croft being objectified by the other characters?) or with the purely real world (is the author contributing to negative behavior by creating a character which does not go far enough in presenting the illusion of autonomy?), but avoid confusing the two. For instance, the author dresses this fictional character in sexy clothes, thereby removing her autonomy. That's no good because a fictional character has no autonomy (in the real world) to remove. Don't cross the streams, is all I'm saying.
We've already had this discussion. Objectification is relative, not static. It is also not just about the fictional worlds, and it can never be, simply because of the relative status objectification relies on. That is, without a point of comparison, there can be no objectification. Art doesn't exist in a vacuum.
You're also too laser focused on character autonomy, and acting as if it's the only thing related to objectification. The previous framework you presented does not approach the problem from just one angle. This is why I stated you were being reductive. What you're doing here is also being reductive.
Personally, I'd just like to see people treat objectification as a more complicated subject. Feminist theory is hardly in agreement on this issue, and a lot of feminist literature either promotes objectification or denies that it is a purely negative thing. Alan Soble says there is no negative objectification that needs to be taken into moral account, and suggests there is nothing wrong with pornography for this reason. Leslie Green says that objectification is admissible, only if we respect their integrity as agents with their own purposes. She says, "we must treat others as instruments, for we need their skills, their company, and their bodies—in fact, there is little that we social creatures can do on our own, and so little that is fulfilling". Martha Nussbaum, the writer who came up with the seven criteria for objectification I wrote in my previous post and who disagrees with Leslie Green, wrote, "some features of objectification… may in fact in some circumstances… be even wonderful features of sexual life". She felt that objectification was only wrong in places where equality, respect, and consent are absent. In fact, she's got quite a lot of material in which she specifically claims that sexual objectification is good - that two lovers can reduce each other to tools of pleasure - so long as that's not all they do.
I think most would like to treat objectification as a complicated subject - but for most here? We're still at the starting line, arguing every other day with some new dipshit who has "ideas" about why objectification is great or acceptable or whatever.
You mention Alan Soble - let me ask you, do you really think you should take a person who wrote a book like this seriously?
In this unabashed defense of pornography from a utilitarian-hedonist perspective, philosopher Alan Soble strongly rebuts both feminist and conservative critics. Soble demonstrates that neither conservative nor feminist critics of pornography show much acquaintance with the genre they criticize. This suggests that purely political motives underlie their critiques instead of reasoned, objective arguments based on thorough empirical research.
It might also be worth thinking about how using this person, who makes such claims, makes your argument look.
Leslie Green doesn't seem to be talking about objectification in the quote you've provided, she is talking about the instrumentality of individuals and how they can contribute and build one another up - and that in fact it is difficult to do things alone, and not terribly fulfilling if we do. That is, she is discussing the purpose we serve with regards to other people in our day to day lives. Nussbaum, based on the quote, is stating that
some features of objectification might be admissible, not that objectification
itself is admissible. And even then, only in
some circumstances. Before I even discuss that quote more, I'd need to know more about the context in which that quote is presented (and given that it's incomplete I'd want to know what the full quote is).
I don't think you're interpreting the quote correctly if you believe she's making an argument that sexual objectification is an acceptable practice. But rather that, again, some features of objectification serve a purpose in our sexual encounters with others. What's more, she seems to be making the argument with regards to real people, and not media (unless she is making claims about media - again, context).
If Nussbaum believes that objectification is wrong in places where equality, respect and consent are absent... then I have some bad news for you, because that's pretty much everywhere, at almost all times for women, in spaces both public and private. We do not live in a world where these realities are ever-present, or even typically present, in day to day life.
This thread takes the stance that objectification is a pure negative, and even to argue against this claim is tantamount to sexism (that's a paddlin'). However, feminist literature is allowed to disagree with this stance without being called sexist and there's a lot of illuminating, interesting works there that, I think, present a more nuanced and realistic viewpoint of human sexuality and interaction. It's worth remembering that the feminist movement is anything but a monolithic belief system that all are in agreement with - and where it disagrees most is where the most productive discussion can be had. But, we have to be allowed the chance to disagree without the fear of banishment.
We do not take objectification as a pure negative, we take objectification as a negative in the contexts in which we present objectification. Feminism is not monolithic of course, and you are allowed to argue that there may be flaws in the current understanding - but here's the thing: feminist literature spends a lot more time taking on the nuance than is likely realistic for a forum discussion. More pointedly, feminist literature also addresses historical issues to tackle problems, including past works, case studies, longitudinal studies, and other forms of research. You have not done any new research that presents significant flaws in the current discourse. And while you might be able to do that, hell you might even be able to do that by gathering opinions from people on
this very forum, but you're going to need a lot of evidence to rebuke more than a century of literature that presents the problem with lots of context and nuance. At least, certainly more than you're currently presenting.
Lara Croft's character can have autonomy, but by definition, she's a bunch of textured polygons with several hundred lines of code that translate player input into in game behavior. If you don't touch the controller, she doesn't move. I'm saying that you can have a good discussion about Lara Croft as a character, but if you are talking about Lara Croft as a tool for the player's amusement... well, of course she is.
Once again, being reductive and focusing entirely on autonomy based on control, rather than the context in which those controls are presented. Let me put it another way - just because we control the character, doesn't mean we can do whatever we want. The creator controls what autonomy a character has - what actions a character can take - and as such, presents the character within a limited possibility space.
From my perspective, it looks more like I'm trying to have an actual discussion. I mean, I wrote lots of words, backed up my arguments, quoted relevant material, directly addressed specific points brought up by fellow posters, clarified my position, listened and responded to others... I think more threads could use this sort of distraction.
Yes, you wrote a lot of words. But you didn't back up your arguments, you misinterpreted and then misapplied the arguments of others, and your relevant quotes do not present the arguments accurately or in context. Additionally, your arguments are reductive, solipsistic and overly focused on one aspect of a much broader discussion.
