Self-Analysis: The Objectified Woman and I

First, what spawned this train of thoughts:

A while ago, I read a whole buttload of Escapist articles concerning objectification of women in video games. What struck me was the division between how male and female authors addressed the problem. The female authors were, in general, arguing that there should be more non-sexualized women in video games, to give female players someone to identify with that wasn't a man. The men, on the other hand, were generally arguing that, to even the score, there should be more sexualized male characters. In this case, I think the female authors are in the right, and the male authors were sort of missing the point - but it spawned a semi-related train of thoughts in my mind.

The full train of thoughts is quite long, as these things tend to be, and there's no way for me to write down my full reasoning in a concise manner, but here's the gist of it:

Jean-Paul Sartre argued that human interaction, by necessity, involves a degree of objectifying. We can't always perceive the full scope of humanity in everyone in our surroundings, so there is a need to objectify, to simplify. The cashier at a supermarket is a good example: Of course, if you start a conversation with her, you'll find out that she's a human being with as much depth as anyone else, but most of the time, we regard her as a bit player: A minor NPC, without any real humanity - much like the ever-present Vendor guys in computer games. (Sartre was a cynic, so his argument was actually that objectification is the only possible mode of human interaction, but I sorta disagree with that. Nonetheless.)

Sartre further argued that to be on the wrong end of this objectifying process isn't very pleasant. We don't want to be treated as objects by other people, we want them to see the way we truly are - rich, complex human beings. Ultimately, we don't want to be judged. This is what led him to coin the famous phrase "Hell is other people".

Now, who objectifies whom obviously becomes a question of power. It is convenient for me to objectify you, but it is unpleasant for you to be objectified. The obvious solution is clearly for us both to treat each other as human beings and not do any objectifyin' of any sort. Unfortunately this is sort of a Prisoners' Dilemma situation. You can treat me with all the respect you want, and I can still be a total dickhead and treat you like a vending machine/microwave/sex toy/whatever.

The second-best solution would be for both of us to objectify each other - this is what ties back into the male authors' solution to the Girls In Videogames problem. It's not a good solution, but it's at least a solution - both you and me have to endure some discomfort, but at least the situation is fair. Unfortunately, this is a bit of an unrealistic solution. We don't like being objectified, so we will try to do stuff to prove our humanity, our agency - and if given power, we can enforce this humanity, this agency, over people. Such power can be established bluntly, e.g. through violence, or subtly - consider the stereotypical seductress. Often objectified in the media, certainly, but in reality she is very clearly exerting power over and objectifying her target, having no genuine interest in him as a person; merely turning him into an instrument of her will. [I apologize for the gender role and heteronormativity here, but you get my point].

In videogames, this hierarchy is clear. A guy who is offended by being put in the tight pants of a sexy bishounen can just go back to playing God of War; a girl who is offended by being squeezed into a minimal bikini can... play God of War, I guess. But you've heard these arguments before.

Nonetheless, sexuality and intimacy are pretty complicated subjects. There's a lot of objectifying and a lot of vulnerability being thrown around, and a deep amount of trust and respect needed to pull it off. It isn't strange that we would want to objectify people in the contest of sex. We want to look, we want to touch, we want to judge - but we're afraid of being looked at, of being touched, and most of all, of being judged. So we pretend that there isn't a person with his or her own thoughts doing all the looking and touching.

And here's what I'm actually getting at, namely some self-psychoanalysis: This is probably the reason why I was so afraid of women for much of my youth. I was afraid of the female agency - afraid of being reduced to something less than I was*. I think, despite what our macho culture claims, that many, many other men are afraid of this as well.

The prospect that a woman would think "I don't care who he is, I want to screw him" might superficially seem pleasant to the stereotypical man, but here's the catch: Men are used to being the subject in a sexual situation. The man who behaves like the Hollywood man is thinking through a filter in which he is the actor, and the woman doesn't really want to use him, she wants to be used by him.

The thought that it could be the other way around never even enters Hollywood Guy's mind. If someone tries to convince him of it, he would just grin and say that it's mutual.

But sometimes it isn't. Sometimes a woman really is in power. And to be confronted with the thought that all your ideas and dreams and hopes are insubstantial - that all that really matters about you can be reduced to one tiny, insignificant detail like how much money you make or what you have between your legs - that is a deeply disturbing thought, no matter what you happen to have there.

----

*Just to be clear here: Was I, as a teenage boy, afraid that women would only be interested in me for sex? No. Not strictly speaking. But I was afraid that women would see me as something less than a person. It's not so much which object you're being reduced to as it is the fact that you're not being seen for what you are.