censorship vs. moral stand

[rivendellrose]

So, a short time ago there was apparently a group in my university's business school who decided that, as a class project to create, market, and sell a product, they would make a "Women of the UW" calendar. Swimsuits and such, understand. Although the official story is now that the U Bookstore removed them because of issues regarding the Business School logo or some-such, I got the impression (perhaps mistaken, I admit - you know how these things go) that they were removed at least in part due to customer complaint.

To be honest, when I heard they'd been removed, I was thrilled. Not because I have any trouble with beefcake/cheesecake/what-have-you, but because I sure as hell don't want that kind of thing associated with my alma mater. I don't like the idea of my university being associated with something that seems to imply that beauty is the best way for a woman to be impressive or interesting. I find that kind of thing frustrating and offensive, not because it exists, but because it's coming from a supposedly academic institution. Specifically the institution that I graduated from.

However.

I also recognize that this is exactly the kind of argument that any number of conservatives might make about, say, a gay awareness rally or something like that being held on campus, in the name of the university. Or a pro-abortion rally. Or anything like that. "It reflects badly on our university."

I was not one of the voices asking for the calendar to be removed (although I admit that I felt disgusted when I found it on our shelves, and I made it perfectly clear after it had been removed that I agreed with the decision). But I wonder - where's the line between 'standing up' and censorship? Is there a line? Or is it just a matter of perspective?

I should go to bed.

Comments

[stormkpr.livejournal.com]

I know what you mean. It's definitely a tough one.

Sometimes for me, I've taken the stance that the problem this type of calendar is that they are always of women and rarely of men. Like, part of why I find it a twinge offensive is because it's always women who are being objectified this way. And yeah, I wouldn't actively work to get the calendars banned. And I definitely see what you mean about censorship. It's just that why do we rarely ever see men used this way? (Rhetorical question - LOL!)

I don't think I'm being too articulate right now, but hopefully this makes a bit of sense.

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

The thing about men got brought up at the store yesterday (a couple of us were talking about the hoopla surrounding this whole thing), and the reason stated for not using men, too, was apparently either "we thought about it, it wouldn't sell," or "we wanted some of the guys to do it, but none of them wanted to." Which... I have no idea where my coworker was getting this. But still.

[arcane.livejournal.com]

It was reported in the SeattlePi the other day. It was purely about money--the creators behind it did market research and concluded a calendar with men wouldn't sell. I don't think it has anything to do with guys not wanting to do it. I would say that more guys on the whole would be willing to do a calendar like this.

[stormkpr.livejournal.com]

I think it gets back more to the fact that our society is just not used to sexualized/objectifying images of men. Such images are out there but men's bodies aren't displayed and hyper-sexualized in the media anywhere near to the extent that women's bodies are.

Such images of women are so commonplace and so standard that it's not surprising that there was plenty of interest in a female calendar like this.

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

Exactly. We can see a pile of female students in bikinis, implying that the 'best' of our university is women who look good in skimpy clothing, but god forbid somebody imply that the same could be done of the men. Screw that.

[narsilion.livejournal.com]

But what about all the fireman and police men that do calenders each year?
I agree that generally speaking it is usually women, but I have definitely seen men in them too.

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

True enough. My point is, I doubt we'd catch a bunch of male business students thinking that they should do a calendar like this as a final project.

[lokapala.livejournal.com]

I'd say - matter of perspective. Like the classic thing of good vs evil, or the boundaries of one's freedom. What is moral stand to fundamentalists is censorship to you, and vice versa =)

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

That's kind of where I ended up, which is an icky feeling. I hate censorship (and, to be fair, I don't think I would have said the same thing if it was a book - books are different. Books are, as far as I'm concerned, inviolate. I can disagree with them, but the idea of pulling them from the shelves because I find them offensive... I wouldn't go that far). So it frustrates the hell out of me to realize that there's no difference between what the "other side" does and what I do.

...Incidentally, your icon is adorable. ♥

[lokapala.livejournal.com]

...You do realise that you called 'adorable' my sarcastic-bitch!Lilah icon, don't you? Oh, well =)

On to the subject: I read other comments and realized that I don't really get the concept of 'objectification'. Cultural differences thing, probably. Intellectually, I understand what you're talking about, but I can't see why it's such a problem. It's normal for the males of the species to pay more attention to the 'view', so to say. That's how they're wired. You do not really want every man on the planet to get to know you well enough to appreciate your intellect and your sterling personality along with your boobs, it would be too time consuming and it would mean that you'd get to know them personally too - in many cases, not a joyful prospect, is it?

So guys ogle girls, girls imagine fantasy romance tales starring random guys they liked (that would be objectifying too, no?), that's how our psyche works. Why is that a problem?

And to be on the safe side, I hope it's clear that I do not mean to offend =)

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

Of course. Because Lilah is adorable, particularly when she's being a snarky bitch. ;)

...it would be too time consuming and it would mean that you'd get to know them personally too - in many cases, not a joyful prospect, is it?

You make a good point there. I'm not really well-qualified to explain the whole objectification argument, so I'll just stick wtih saying that objectification does indeed work both ways, but that it gets tied into all sorts of historically and socially sensitive issues of oppression with women. I know some folks who could probably give you better explanations/arguments if you're curious. The short story as I understand it is that because of the traditional power structure, objectification of women is dangerous, tending to lead to a feeling that that's all women are good for.

Hopefully that makes some degree of sense and doesn't sound too pedantic or soap-box-y.

[lokapala.livejournal.com]

No soapboxes in sight =)

And yes, if you have some interesting links on the subject handy, I'm curious =) I never get around to research it properly because, frankly, we have more painful social problems around here...

[arcane.livejournal.com]

I think the difference is objectification versus basic human rights. By the way, the U-Bookstore making the decision to not carry it is not censorship; the U-Bookstore is exercising their consumer right to not carry a product.

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

Totally with you on that part. The censorship analysis comes entirely out of my own feelings on the matter.

[gardnercastle.livejournal.com]

I know, it's a fine line. And who gets to decide what's right? To my mind, though, the concept of opposing the objectifying calendar and allowing gay pride are the same: you are showing your respect for the rights, feelings, and treatment of specific classes of people--women and gay people. I don't believe that "men who want to look at erotic pictures of women" is really a class of people whose rights are being abridged, or at least that should be given the same weight as women who are degraded by this widespread treatment in our society. It's sort of like the smoking debate. While I feel some sympathy for smokers and the hoops they must now jump through, public smoking actually does cause harm to others--as does the widespread objectification of women, or the suppression of gay pride activities.

So, to me, these are not opposing issues.

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

That's the way I've been looking at it, too... although that argument is somewhat problematized by the fact that association with the university is what's bothering me, not the bikinis. It seemed (I didn't look closely) like a fairly tasteful little calendar, but I still don't think that... argh.

I don't even know what I think anymore, honestly. I'm getting all tied up in "stupid business school, can't they come up with anything even slightly less degrading to sell?" which is not a particularly useful or noble way of regarding the situation. *Growls*

[gardnercastle.livejournal.com]

Ha, I just had another thought, after reading the comments to this entry and reflecting on one of the points in the entry itself.

I know one type of calendar of university men that would have sold. Why didn't they market such a calendar to gay men? The fact that they wouldn't even consider a concept like this makes their defense of their subject matter even more questionable. Perhaps part of the problem, in addition to homophobia on the part of some of the potential models, would have been that the models themselves might have felt that they were putting themselves at risk by so public an exposure. Which raises a whole other slew of issues...and makes me wonder more what the women who posed in that calendar were thinking.

Even if they had made a male calendar of any sort, justifying the objectification of one group of people by "equally" objectifying another is not a solution. And the problems associated with the objectification of women are far more pernicious.

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

Perhaps part of the problem, in addition to homophobia on the part of some of the potential models, would have been that the models themselves might have felt that they were putting themselves at risk by so public an exposure.

See, that's another gripe. So, men feel that it's okay that they don't want to be ogled by some gross old gay guy, but believe me when I say that the one customer I dealt with who was looking for this calendar... creepy old bastard who gave me the wiggins like nobody's business. Even before he opened his mouth and asked for the calendar.

Yesterday, on one of the main streets between my house and the university, I got hooted at by a car full of college-age guys. I was wearing capri jeans and a t-shirt. Believe me, I'm still trying to work out how this was thrilling enough for those morons that they felt the need to be obnoxious. And the worst thing? Still culturally trained enough to think that on some level it was a good thing. *Beats head on desk*