Part a:
We live in a world of objects. Once, a long time ago, there were fewer objects than people, today we are drowning in them. And not only the quantity plays here, also in terms of quality. Everything is objects, people too, relationships too, everything is objectified.
We know Rousseau’s sentence: “man to man wolf”, today, in the twenty-first century, we can perhaps say: “man to man – object”. And object to object – alienation.
Living with objects is easy, firstly the object makes it easier for us and secondly it is easy to take care of it, you need some technical knowledge and when it is assimilated – handling the object is easy.
Not only do we live in a world of objects, but we are flooded with them, every week new objects knock on our door: and it is so tempting to fall prey to the whimsical charm, to believe that the objects will bring us closer to a comfortable and easy life, maybe even a happier one.
The attitude towards objects, today, is also not what it used to be; Once an object was with you and for you for a long time, sometimes for life, sometimes passed from generation to generation. Today the use of objects is short-lived, and most objects are even disposable: use and throw away. There is no time to form an emotional connection with an object, you used it, you finished it, you threw it away. And you are free for the next disposable object.
And the arbitrary control is wider and more comprehensive than can be grasped in a superficial review. For example, musicians in an orchestra are objectified through the instrument they play, and through the part of their body that manipulates it. That is, they are on the verge of objecting to the organ that their body admires. As above, a large part of the workers, they are objectified by virtue of the identification of their profession and livelihood with one object in which they specialize, whether it is an opera singer (whose ‘object’ is his voice), a bus driver, a turbine operator at an electric company, or a baker at a mafia , a gardener in a garden, or a dental technician in a laboratory. They are recognized and rewarded not because of who they are, not because of their being, not because of their state of being, but because of their arbitrary skill.
In fact we are a ‘state’ under occupation, the selfish mentality has taken over us.
And so much so, that we are close to forgetting how to be without (objects), how to be one with the other, not like one with an object, but like ‘I am with you’ (dialogue of ‘I am you’, is a term of the philosopher Martin Buber).
(Interesting, in this context, is also the term: ‘therapist’ for a psychologist, or ‘therapist’, for a practitioner of complementary medicine. People are not treated, objects are treated, people are treated).
Do we remember how to treat others? To relate out of affinity and not out of alienation?
And not handle, operate, rotate, pull, push, hold, grab, drop. All these are done to objects not to human beings.
But these things and all kinds of things can be done to people who are obsessed with things that are not done to people who have a mind, soul and feelings.
And in the whole matter of objectification, there is a matter of focus.
The whole person, who has a soul, feelings and the existence of an inner life – will not be treated as an object. Only when it is disassembled into parts (mechanical, operational) does objectification begin. Disassembly first and only then the objectification. And how does the focus matter belong here? Well, when you look at a person, you can look at them as kidney stones, (usually in the upper third of the body). Whereas the objectifying gaze is ‘locked’ on parts of the whole. (This mostly happens with the sexual gaze that is ‘stuck’ in the sexual parts with the high stimulation factor).
Now, not only does the objectifying gaze break and divide man, it divides him into parts. The more complete a person is, i.e. developed and full of his being, soul and consciousness – the less tendency he will have to divide the wholeness of others into fragmented parts. And what does this mean? The undeveloped, emotionally immature person – does not treat the other person as a living and complete being in himself, but wants to take advantage of attractive and useful parts of the other person, for his own needs.
Part II’:
There is no area or part of humans that is more objectified than sexuality. And more precisely – mainly women’s sexuality. Men, apparently, objectify female sexuality more than the opposite. But not only, as we will see later.
And in general men are more creatures of objects than women, women are more creatures of relationships. Men are knowledgeable about objects (technical aids, cars, etc.), women are knowledgeable about relationships, engagements and relationships (between humans and in relation to humans).
And back to sexuality. Through the eyes of male desire, women are seen as objects of sexuality. And the object must be handled, sometimes acquired, shaken, touched, grasped, grasped, held, and benefited from.
And women don’t really know how to accept the fact of their objectification. On the one hand, they ‘want you, desire you’. On the other hand, ‘this desire and desire is not in me as a human being, not in me as a human being, not even in me as a complete individual, not even in me as a woman – but in mechanical parts that are part of the physical part of me, parts that can be manipulated and from which pleasure can be derived’.
They are torn. On the one hand, they are attracted to men, want to create relationships with them – emotional, mental, sexual. On the other hand, ‘they want me to take advantage of me, and not even me, but mechanical parts of my body’. ‘And I often feel thrown aside, like a can of drink after the drink has been sipped from it.’
‘If I don’t highlight my sexuality as an attractive commodity – maybe men won’t be attracted to me, and I need men, on the other hand I feel humiliated when parts of me are used as objects to produce pleasure.’
So about sexuality and sexual attraction, what about relationships and relationships?
Well, men (not all, some of them) have difficulty in this transition from casual contact with parts of the woman’s body, to human, deep, personal, intimate and full relationships.
In relationships, usually, men are less savvy, (it’s also more complex). Then either the attitude in the relationship is practical, what needs to be done – is done. And in the best case, in the worst case – almost no relationship. Doing things together, doing things for each other, but relationships?
Of course, what is shown here is exaggerated and becomes almost grotesque. Clearly, many men are not like that, and there are rumors that a new breed of men has arrived. And he’s really not like that.
But first, the point of focus here is principled and not practical, things at the level of principle. And secondly, the focus here is less on men and more on women, whose treatment of them as objects, sexual and in general – leaves them with enormous frustration.
And among the women who are less emotionally mature or developed in their personality – there is, perhaps, more adaptation to the situation – trying to embody the role of the bearer of the sexual objects. But this still does not mean that within their content there is no dissatisfaction and incompleteness in relation to this use
And can aggression enter here? Well, we often direct aggression towards objects. They, in their inability to resist, in their passivity, absorb the jolt, the blow, the shot, the break. Whether it’s a chair that is lifted up and thrown to the ground again with force, closing a door with a bang that shakes the hinges and jambs, or a punch to the wall, a kick to a car tire, and more. An object can be harmed, it can even be destroyed, it does not feel, it does not suffer. Does the rapist feel the same way about the objectified rapist? Denial of the right to feel pain and protest?
The beginning of the beginning of murder, of any kind, is the object. It is possible to murder a person mainly when the would-be murderer ‘takes’ the human image from him. Because if he doesn’t do that, he will be too much like him, and then identify with him, feel his pain, etc., and then: ‘What happens to him probably also happens to me, and murdering him is murdering someone like me.’
Part C:
The women go through a process of ‘dehumanization’, similar, but different, to the process an enemy goes through in war – he is not a human being like me and therefore it is permissible to hurt him. Or slaves and servants – they are so low that they are not even human, ‘they don’t feel, their pain is not like ours…’ and when it comes to animals the ‘dehumanization’ reaches particularly repulsive heights of human abasement. Here the humans suckle them almost to death (geese), kill them with severe torture (chicks, male roosters), crowd them in small cages (chickens), do horrible experiments on them and much more. They are immortalized as objects according to the type of food (object) they will serve us (meat or their products: eggs, milk, cheese, etc.).
And when in dehumanization it is ‘permitted’ to murder, then it is also permissible to transgress another commandment that is forbidden in the Ten Commandments, to lie. This is the ninth commandment and there it is written a little differently, in the context of false testimony: ‘You shall not answer your neighbor to a lie’.
An object is used, and if it is not allowed to use it, it is sometimes necessary to deny it, to deceive, to make different claims. From studies on lies that men tell to women and women to men, it turns out that the amount of lies that men tell to women far exceeds the opposite amount. In the book 101 Lies Men Tell Women by Dr. Dori Hollander, she teaches about the sneaky ways and methods men put these lies into action.
For demonstration, here are only the first 60 lies (from the book).
Quite a few men promise more than they intend to keep regarding the development of the relationship (his goal, often, is her as an object and not her as a partner in a harmonious and mutual relationship).
Part D:
and sexuality to objectification in our lives in general – to objectification of parents. It starts with babies who need a sitter, a feeding table, a nursing breast, etc. But it doesn’t end there. Even after that, when the feelings start to enter the picture, the baby continues to express the feelings of affection and devotion towards him through different expressions and movements (of course, everything at this stage is done on a completely instinctive level).
And more, later, (if the child, who is now an adult, has not gone through a process of maturation, internal growth) – then the parent’s concern, assets and pockets come into the picture and the image of the parent as a relatable and relatable person can remain blurred. (And the parent who is in desperate need of warm, loving and above all humane treatment from his spouse – willingly gives out objects and money, in the forlorn hope that this will result in a little personal and intimate treatment and consideration from his spouse).
The parents are usually the ones who are concerned about their children… their treatment of their parents as human beings with souls and feelings who need connection and not just needing (on their part) – is flawed. At the beginning, the neediness (the neediness, the neediness of the need for treatment) is from the baby or the child towards the parent. But as the parent matures and grows old, and the child becomes an adult, so the need of the parent for his loins begins. This is mainly an emotional neediness, a need for relationship and consideration on the part of the adult child. As long as the parent is healthy the need is not a physical need but only and mainly a mental need; ‘May he be with me’, ‘may he be close to me’, ‘may there be mental intimacy between us’, ‘may we be able to talk, be talked to’. But the attitude of those who come out of their waists to them as objects/things that satisfy physical needs mainly – continues.
Smooth’:
And back to objectifying women. Time does not stand still in relation to the objectification of women. Once upon a time (even still in the sixties of the last century) the female curves still emphasized the ‘objects/sexual organs’ in a woman that have the highest stimulation factor, today a strange thing is happening; The woman’s body as a body or as a collection of sexual organs/objects with sexual use – is becoming flat, thin and long. There are almost no prominent extraneous organs. What it means? Have we come back to the ability to get rid of the approach to a woman as carrying sexual objects (objects) in her body? There is a big puzzle here. Because we probably know that today the attitude towards women is more alienated and more arbitrary than ever before (for example, models are called hangers-on). The runway models walk with an expressionless face, with lifeless and lively mechanical movements, and in a pose lacking personal characteristics – an object for all intents and purposes. What happened here is that once there was another woman and she had sex parts with a sexual attraction factor. Today the entire female body has become an object.
It is like the transition from worshiping idols to worshiping the heavenly God. Today the rashness ‘jumped a level’. How is it necessary to search for and use the woman’s sexual objects, the whole of her has become an object, an object whose sexual attraction is found in cold aesthetics; Just as today, objects such as furniture, apartments, houses, are less warm and personal and lack design uniqueness and are more functional and cold – so is the attitude towards women as a sexual object; Not interested in your stuff. All of you – an object. ‘And the more you embody an object in a body without distinction, cold, distant and uncharacterized – so, we men’, he is attracted to you more.
(And you have to understand, it’s not that the man’s attitude has changed from treating parts of her body to treating her as a whole, no, now her whole body has become an objectified part of a herd of women without a personal identity).
‘The more anonymous, anonymous and foreign you are – the more I will be attracted to you, because as I get to know the person in your body, the level of my attraction decreases, and the closer I am to you mentally, the attraction will continue to decrease even more.’ It’s just that you are a foreign object, lacking a personal, human characteristic: a unique character, personality, face, expression, personal way of walking – I can continue with you.’
That is done in their organs and the missing that misses the person in them.
And can aggression enter here? Well, we often direct aggression towards objects. They, in their inability to resist, in their passivity, absorb the jolt, the blow, the shot, the break. Whether it’s a chair that is lifted up and thrown to the ground again with force, closing a door with a bang that shakes the hinges and jambs, or a punch to the wall, a kick to a car tire, and more. An object can be harmed, it can even be destroyed, it does not feel, it does not suffer. Does the rapist feel the same way about the objectified rapist? Denial of the right to feel pain and protest?
The beginning of the beginning of murder, of any kind, is the object. It is possible to murder a person mainly when the would-be murderer ‘takes’ the human image from him. Because if he doesn’t do that, he will be too much like him, and then identify with him, feel his pain, etc., and then: ‘What happens to him probably also happens to me, and murdering him is murdering someone like me.’
Part C:
The women go through a process of ‘dehumanization’, similar, but different, to the process an enemy goes through in war – he is not a human being like me and therefore it is permissible to hurt him. Or slaves and servants – they are so low that they are not even human, ‘they don’t feel, their pain is not like ours…’ and when it comes to animals the ‘dehumanization’ reaches particularly repulsive heights of human abasement. Here the humans suckle them almost to death (geese), kill them with severe torture (chicks, male roosters), crowd them in small cages (chickens), do horrible experiments on them and much more. They are immortalized as objects according to the type of food (object) they will serve us (meat or their products: eggs, milk, cheese, etc.).
And when in dehumanization it is ‘permitted’ to murder, then it is also permissible to transgress another commandment that is forbidden in the Ten Commandments, to lie. This is the ninth commandment and there it is written a little differently, in the context of false testimony: ‘You shall not answer your neighbor to a lie’.
An object is used, and if it is not allowed to use it, it is sometimes necessary to deny it, to deceive, to make different claims. From studies on lies that men tell to women and women to men, it turns out that the amount of lies that men tell to women far exceeds the opposite amount. In the book 101 Lies Men Tell Women by Dr. Dori Hollander, she teaches about the sneaky ways and methods men put these lies into action.
For demonstration, here are only the first 60 lies (from the book).
Quite a few men promise more than they intend to keep regarding the development of the relationship (his goal, often, is her as an object and not her as a partner in a harmonious and mutual relationship).
Part D:
and sexuality to objectification in our lives in general – to objectification of parents. It starts with babies who need a sitter, a feeding table, a nursing breast, etc. But it doesn’t end there. Even after that, when the feelings start to enter the picture, the baby continues to express the feelings of affection and devotion towards him through different expressions and movements (of course, everything at this stage is done on a completely instinctive level).
And more, later, (if the child, who is now an adult, has not gone through a process of maturation, internal growth) – then the parent’s concern, assets and pockets come into the picture and the image of the parent as a relatable and relatable person can remain blurred. (And the parent who is in desperate need of warm, loving and above all humane treatment from his spouse – willingly gives out objects and money, in the forlorn hope that this will result in a little personal and intimate treatment and consideration from his spouse).
The parents are usually the ones who are concerned about their children… their treatment of their parents as human beings with souls and feelings who need connection and not just needing (on their part) – is flawed. At the beginning, the neediness (the neediness, the neediness of the need for treatment) is from the baby or the child towards the parent. But as the parent matures and grows old, and the child becomes an adult, so the need of the parent for his loins begins. This is mainly an emotional neediness, a need for relationship and consideration on the part of the adult child. As long as the parent is healthy the need is not a physical need but only and mainly a mental need; ‘May he be with me’, ‘may he be close to me’, ‘may there be mental intimacy between us’, ‘may we be able to talk, be talked to’. But the attitude of those who come out of their waists to them as objects/things that satisfy physical needs mainly – continues.
Smooth’:
And back to objectifying women. Time does not stand still in relation to the objectification of women. Once upon a time (even still in the sixties of the last century) the female curves still emphasized the ‘objects/sexual organs’ in a woman that have the highest stimulation factor, today a strange thing is happening; The woman’s body as a body or as a collection of sexual organs/objects with sexual use – is becoming flat, thin and long. There are almost no noticeable extraneous organs. What it means? Have we come back to the ability to get rid of the approach to a woman as carrying sexual objects (objects) in her body? There is a big puzzle here. Because we probably know that today the attitude towards women is more alienated and more arbitrary than ever before (for example, models are called hangers-on). The runway models walk with an expressionless face, with lifeless and lively mechanical movements, and in a pose lacking personal characteristics – an object for all intents and purposes. What happened here is that once there was another woman and she had sex parts with a sexual attraction factor. Today the entire female body has become an object.
It is like the transition from worshiping idols to worshiping the heavenly God. Today the rashness ‘jumped a level’. How is it necessary to search for and use the woman’s sexual objects, the whole of her has become an object, an object whose sexual attraction is found in cold aesthetics; Just as today, objects such as furniture, apartments, houses, are less warm and personal and lack design uniqueness and are more functional and cold – so is the attitude towards women as a sexual object; Not interested in your stuff. All of you – an object. ‘And the more you embody an object in a body without distinction, cold, distant and uncharacterized – so, we men’, he is attracted to you more.
(And you have to understand, it’s not that the man’s attitude has changed from treating parts of her body to treating her as a whole, no, now her whole body has become an objectified part of a herd of women without a personal identity).
‘The more anonymous, anonymous and foreign you are – the more I will be attracted to you, because as I get to know the person in your body, the level of my attraction decreases, and the closer I am to you mentally, the attraction will continue to decrease even more.’ Only that you are a foreign object, lacking personal, human characteristics: a unique character, personality, face, expression, etc
Being born a woman is my awful tragedy… Yes, my consuming desire to mingle with road crews, sailors and soldiers, bar room regulars–to be a part of a scene, anonymous, listening, recording–all is spoiled by the fact that I am a girl, a female always in danger of assault and battery. My consuming interest in men and their lives is often misconstrued as a desire to seduce them, or as an invitation to intimacy. Yet, God, I want to talk to everybody I can as deeply as I can. I want to be able to sleep in an open field, to travel west, to walk freely at night…
-Sylvia Plath
Gabriel