I know Samhita posted about this study, but this headline scares me: Bikinis Make Men See Women as Objects, Scans Confirm
Sexy women in bikinis really do inspire some men to see them as objects, according to a new study of male behavior.Brain scans revealed that when men are shown pictures of scantily clad women, the region of the brain associated with tool use lights up.
Men were also more likely to associate images of sexualized women with first-person action verbs such as "I push, I grasp, I handle," said lead researcher Susan Fiske, a psychologist at Princeton University.
Eek.
Okay, so some men see women as objects - I think we all know that. But is it really the bikini's or - more to the point - the bikini-wearer's fault? Because that's what the headline seems to be saying to me. The last time I checked a bikini couldn't make a man do anything.
The study, on the other hand, seems to be pretty interesting (though also terrifying).
Most of the men best remembered headless photographs of women in bikinis, even if they'd only seen the image for two-tenths of a second, Fiske reported this weekend in Chicago during the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.And the men who scored higher as "hostile sexists"--those who view women as controlling and invaders of male space--didn't show brain activity that indicates they saw the women in bikinis as humans with thoughts and intentions.
Ughhhh. I'm really ready for this week to be over.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: National Geographic: Bikinis inspire objectification.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12068
What's terrifying about the study? Do you mean the findings of the study?
It would be more accurate to title the NG article Bikinis Make Men More Likely to See Women as Objects, but I think the issue here is that they didn't want to make the headline too cumbersome. That's a widespread mainstream media problem; they are always willing to sacrifice accuracy for... well, just about anything. They did use qualifiers in the article itself, like "some men" and "more likely to associate [bikinis with action verbs]".
I think the point she's making is that while men see a bikini as an excuse to objectify women, the study reports that not as the doing of the man in question, but of the bikini. It removes responsibility for the men's actions entirely. and because, as Jessica points out, the bikini is just a piece of cloth with no inherent influence on anyones thought processes, this turns into a blame-the-woman-wearing-the-bikini situation. The wording treats sexist attitudes as if they can't be helped, thus women become responsible for COVERING UP or risking the unavoidable objectification that comes from bikinis. The language fits in with the victim blaming that often takes place after sexual assault or battery, when women are so often actually treated like objects.
You do realize that not all attitudes are conscious? That's why they looked at what happens in the brain. That why there are things like implicit associations tests, etc.
Besides, have you read the actual study to talk so confidently about what it reports and how? I looked for a link on Dr. Fiske's website, but I don't think it's been published yet.
First of all, you can't be held responsible for every chemical reaction that goes on in your body. Second of all, the function of science is to study phenomena, not assign responsibility. And no one is implying that just because things are the way they are, that's the way it has to be.
I think that we have a right to be cautious of scientific findings that potentially conflict with our feminist values, even if the findings do not directly contradict feminism. This science itself doesn't really seem to be value-free and objective. From reading how it is portrayed in the CNN article, and also direct quotations from the researchers themselves in that article, I see a couple things about these studies that set off warning bells for me:
1. Their discussion of these results:
"In fact, it's a byproduct of human evolution, experts say. The first male humans had an incentive to seek fertile women as the means of spreading their genes." -- I don't know if primeval men would have (subconsciously) made the connection between "sexy bikini babe" and "fertility"; that seems to be an artifact unique to our contemporary chauvanist-heteronormative values. One thing we would have to be cautious of when reading a study like this is whether the images are only of women whom OUR society has determined to be beautiful, i.e. busty white women. If they actually included heavy-set women, women of color, etc., then I MIGHT be more willing to accept their idea that "heterosexual men are just looking for a healthy women with broad birthin' hips, which happens to be manifested today as sexy bikini babes." If not, then it would seem that the researchers are letting their values slip into their "scientific interpretations". Further, even the fact that they are implying a connection between evolutionary neurobiology and these women embedded in our modern-day context of VALUES is a warning sign.
2. Their methodology: “The participants, 21 heterosexual male undergraduates at Princeton, took questionnaires to determine whether they harbor "benevolent" sexism, which includes the belief that a woman's place is in the home, or hostile sexism, a more adversarial viewpoint which includes the belief that women attempt to dominate men.” – “Benevolent” and “hostile” are two very value-laden terms, and further, we should be suspicious of such an oxymoronic phrase as benevolent sexism. As a feminist, I think that the belief that women’s place is in the home is itself very hostile and oppressive: it actively opposes the idea of women being mobile in society, and wants to limit their rights, i.e. oppress them. That phrase can only come from a chauvanist’s perspective (his/her values), because “benevolent” implies intentions, as in “well, I don’t intend to oppress women, I just benevolently want what’s best for them [without asking them] and what’s best is that they stay in the home.” Or worse, benevolent may even imply an objective good, as in a benevolent person; in which case, they are implying that there is such a thing as good and bad sexism (to put it simply). The researchers are letting their values slip into their study (or at least their presentation of it) and we should be slow to accept their results.
Yes, these are filtered through the media, but they are also quotations from the researchers themselves. Yes, it’s Science and supposedly objective, but we are allowed to at least try to read into how they phrase things if it seems problematic, because Science isn’t always value-free. So although we shouldn’t immediately throw this research out, we don’t necessarily need to withhold our judgment of this study until we see the actual published material; we can and should be skeptical. I’m not trying to say in this short post that Science is anti-feminist (though if you’re interested in expanding your mind in that direction, try reading Sandra Harding or Lynn Nelson). All I’m saying is that we can’t take a study like this at objective face value, and we have a right to and in fact SHOULD be skeptical of studies that either seem to be influenced by anti-feminist values or could be used to justify anti-feminist values, i.e. take the blame away from men that objectify women and place it on inanimate bikinis or the women themselves. In other words, just because the researchers aren’t explicitly saying “that’s the way things have to be” doesn’t mean that other people (anti-feminists) won’t. And whether those other people do or not depends, in part, on whether the researchers phrase their findings/methodology in a discourse infested with anti-feminist values. This last part is particularly important, because how many people do you think would actually go through the trouble of reading the actual study instead of just articles about it?
The problem we're looking at isn't necessarily the science, but the scientists themselves; and they do have some anti-feminist values in their research and in how they portray that research to the public at large.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/02/19/women.bikinis.objects/index.html
Wait, their sample size was 21? And all were Princeton undergrads? It's utterly ridiculous to generalize to "men" from that. The conclusions that the researchers posit from their data are fairly meaningless at this point -- what needs to happen next is that this data needs to be shown to be replicatable before any questions about the conclusions' validity (and there are lots of questions about that) can be addressed.
A HUGE part of science is exactly what a lot of us are doing here -- critiquing a study. Even if something does get through peer-review, that doesn't at all mean that what it concludes is "true." It means that it's now time for the broader scientific community to take a look at it.
It's standard practice to discuss preliminary findings and solicit feedback from fellow scientists before attempting to publish research.
Oh, I certainly know that -- I'm a mathematician. I was just saying it was way too early for the mainstream press to be publishing this as if it were established fact.
I think that we have a right to be cautious of scientific findings that potentially conflict with our feminist values
Yeah, and creationists have a right to be cautious of scientific findings that potentially conflict with their creationist values. However, it doesn't mean they understand those findings or are able to look at them without being heavily biased against them.
In fact, it's a byproduct of human evolution, experts say.
Yeah, some unidentified "experts" say that, according to CNN. Not Fiske.
“Benevolent” and “hostile” are two very value-laden terms, and further, we should be suspicious of such an oxymoronic phrase as benevolent sexism.
This terminology is part of the Ambivalent Sexism Theory. It doesn't imply that sexism is benevolent in any form, it's used to differentiate between subjectively positive (in the sexist's opinion) beliefs such as "women are more nurturing", "women are the fair sex", "men should open doors for women or pay for dates", and hostile beliefs like "women are basically walking uteri with no brain who want to take over wearing the pants in the house". Benevolent and hostile sexism are not mutually exclusive; quite to the contrary. It takes into account not the values of the researchers, but the values of sexists. If you think the values of sexists are not supposed to be taken into account, how are they supposed to be studied? You could also get in touch with Dr. Fiske and Dr. Glick, who developed this terminology, and offer some terms you think are better.
The problem we're looking at isn't necessarily the science, but the scientists themselves; and they do have some anti-feminist values in their research and in how they portray that research to the public at large.
I suggest you let Dr. Fiske know about her anti-feminist values. I'm sure she'll have a good laugh.
I’m not trying to pick a fight here, and I’m new to the blogosphere so I don’t really know the proper etiquette; but it doesn’t seem you really gave reasons for why you disagree with me, and I don’t think you necessarily understand what I was trying to say. But your second point was informative. (I especially appreciated the condescension, which is always conducive to healthy, mature dialogue.)
Feminist values are different from creationist values: one is political, the other faith (to put it crudely). I'd like to think that, as feminists, we're fighting for more than just the right to learn about Adam and Eve; we're fighting for justice and equality among humans. Historically, Science has been incredibly influenced and even dependent upon both types of values, and others; but I'll just stick with political, because that's my main problem with this study/article.
To illustrate: a couple decades ago, “health experts” ran tests on all male subjects to determine the signs of a heart attack in humans. They chose all men because they felt that their results might be skewed by third-variable “womanly” things, and they wanted consistent results. As it turned out, the signs of heart attack are quite different for women. And as a result of their published findings, a lot of women were misdiagnosed and died from heart attack. NOW we say that that was bad science, that it was too guided by ignorant values, that we are so much better now. But 1) it was perfectly justified science at the time, and they felt they were following the scientific method perfectly, and 2) it was the feminists who questioned these findings, and not necessarily other peer reviewers. Why did it take someone else’s values to overcome the values of these scientists? Yes, they were able to refute these “scientific” claims with “better” science, but it was the presence of feminist values that inspired that challenge in the first place. Values can influence both "good" and "bad" science, and sometimes that clash is essential for both scientific and political/cultural progress (think about how both forms of progress are intertwined in this case...)
Another illustration: open any sex-ed text book from even a few years ago, and you’ll see that the ovum is described using terms that connote passivity, while the sperm is described as active/forceful. Why? Maybe because scientists were reverting to standard assumptions informed by our cultural views of women as passive and men as assertive. So they didn’t bother to look beyond what they saw with a microscope: a sperm penetrating an egg, end of story..."we've seen this before". But now scientists are learning that the egg actually does a lot in the fertilization process. Scientists operate with a selective attention, and in this case the notion that the egg is active just wasn't on their radar. The point is that science often operates on metaphors and assumptions that draw from cultural values. Again, the two are intertwined, and when you only focus on one and not the other, you might miss something.
Some of these problems associated with “value-infested” science can be avoided if we keep in mind that science is in some ways fallible – that things change in light of new evidence, etc. Unfortunately, that’s not the way many people view science. We live in a society in which government policy and even many people's daily lives are informed by scientific studies; many lay people take science to be the final word. And that’s not necessarily the scientists’ fault, but they should be aware of their power, aware of the fact that they are embedded in a matrix of cultural values, aware of how they are presenting these (fallible) ideas in reference to those values. By the same token, in order for us lay people (especially those of us who understand that science has been wrong in the past) to guard ourselves against science that seems to be either informed by or expressed in terms that could be politically dangerous or scientifically inaccurate, we should be open to feminist values that challenge such “scientfic” claims. So when I see things like this article and study that together have implications for men taking (or abdicating) responsibility for sexist actions, I’m going to hear warning bells and start questioning both the science itself and how it is presented, i.e. the scientists and media.
to paraphrase: 'bikinis don't objectify people, people objectify people!' ok i'm really punchy and so ready for this week to be over as well.
It looks like a very interesting study with very problematic press coverage.
I found this: "And the men who scored higher as "hostile sexists"--those who view women as controlling and invaders of male space--didn't show brain activity that indicates they saw the women in bikinis as humans with thoughts and intentions." very interesting. It basically confirms what feminists have been saying for decades, that there is a positive correlation between seeing women as non-human fuck objects, and misogynistic thoughts and actions. I'm surprised they even allowed that point to be made in pop coverage! Of course, in the CNN version of the article they also waxed poetic about how this was really due to viewing women in terms of fertility and mate selection (gag me), and it's really innate so don't worry if you're a misogynist scumbag you just can't help yourself!
so is this a male issue or human issue. do women likewise see men as objects when shown pictures of them. and wouldn't the study be more effective if done with real people, not pictures. i wonder who funded the study.
The article said no such study has been done with women, but that's an interesting question.
"The last time I checked a bikini couldn't make a man do anything."
The data suggests otherwise. But this shouldn't be surprising. Sensory input triggers responses. Some responses are more benign than others. I'm sure you wouldn't find it surprising if perfumes were said to cause an involuntary response, why would visual inputs doing so seem controversial?
It is well established that certain colors cause autonomic changes in heart rate and general respiration; and that those changes vary measurably between genders.
a bikini is a piece of cloth, and I know many men that would be insulted by the assertion that their brain activity would be influenced by some intrinsic property of a bikini.
The study's use of the bikini is arbitrary; it could have focused on any sexualized image of a woman's body. To talk about the reaction as a natural reaction in men (as in an unavoidable reaction for these men) and to place the blame on the bikini is to place the blame on women that wear bikinis (or other "sexy" garments) when men treat them like objects.
Involuntary responses can be conditioned in or conditioned out in some instances. I'm not arguing that these are not conditioned responses, but rather that at the time of testing the measured responses were involuntary.
your knowing someone who would be insulted by the insinuation is hardly scientific refutation of the findings. quite a few people were and continue to be insulted by evolutionary science's findings in the origins of our species. Their feelings are not relevant to the science.
The data itself does not draw conclusions about objectification either, it says that when shown certain images there is a trend in the subjects toward specific brain activity.
Words like "objectification" and "blame" are editorializing and reckless in this context. If the construct is valid then the data provided is also valid. Science cares not one iota if you like the findings, or if the findings fit with your idea of what should or should not be.
No, the data does not suggest otherwise. What the data suggests is that men's brains react to depictions of scantily-clad women differently than they react to depictions of fully-clothed women: Their brains react as though they are looking at objects rather than people, and the empathy turns off.
I suspect that sexist conditioning, including constant sexualization of girls and women in popular culture, is what "makes" men's brains react differently to pictures of women in bikinis. To frame it as something the bikinis themselves are doing is irresponsible and misleading.
Sorry for this, but yea, what a hell of a week. I'm part of an atheist comm on LJ, and I guess I expected open mindedness, but after a post about feminism (o no, not THAT!) I'm pretty disillusioned. Being an atheist is a huge part of who I am, and I've just been told that women naturally like house cleaning and that thinking rape isn't natural is deluded of me.
Headline should have been more along the lines of "Society Encourages Objectification of Women in Bikinis."
Oh god, I read that entry on LJ and I just wanted to bang my head against a wall.
I think it would be interesting to see how long the stimulus (seeing a bikini-clad woman) last. If it ends every shortly after the picture is removed (seconds, perhaps), then the ramifications of the study are different than if seeing a bikini clad woman causes men to view women as tools for the rest of the day..
Also, the pictures of bikini clad women were flashed for a short time, as little as 2/10 of a second... If the picture show for for a longer time peroid, say a few minutes or longer... do guys get bored and stop responding? If that is the case, then the threat of pin-up calanders (which was a point of discussion in the article) is not the same....
see, as was previously stated about this study-it's not super great science first off, and second off, they see random sexy pictures-it's a bit of a stretch from that to all bikini's-I'd be really interested to see if the same result held true for a girlfriend/wife/mother/etc in a bikini.
I have to say that since the study's author is going around to the popular press publicizing her study (along with her guesses and musings on the topic) before actually publishing her data, that her conclusions should be considered highly suspect as far as being derived from a well designed experiment and objective data set.
But assuming for the sake of conversation/discussion that the experiment was well designed and the results objectively obtained, then sure - it's true that "a bikini couldn't make a man do anything."....with the emphasis on "do". The men didn't actually physically do anything in response to the images, they just lay there and had their brain activity measured. As Logrus pointed out above, the brain reacts to all kinds of sensory stimuli.
Also, in regards to the headless pictures, if there's a face in a picture to look at, people will generally spend a relatively long time looking at it trying to asses the emotional state of the subject and such things - if then asked to remember if the person was wearing a watch, there'd be a much lower chance that they'd remember compared to a picture where there was no face to look at.
I think it's an interesting idea to look at the brain function of people who are more sexist than others - but if the experimenters showed men (de-humanized) headless pictures of bikini clad women, and concluded that men view women in bikini's as de-humanized, you gotta wonder if they're conducting science or politics.
her conclusions should be considered highly suspect as far as being derived from a well designed experiment and objective data set
Why yes, social psychologists from Princeton specializing in stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination are a confirmed bunch of charlatans .
/sarcasm
You're saying the researcher is from Princeton so what they say must be true?
No, I'm calling your bullshit for deciding her conclusions are highly suspect before even reading the study. How are you qualified to determine that?
- The researcher chose to go the route of provocative headlines in the popular media without publishing the data....why?
- And with what is known of the research so far, based on what the researcher has said to the media, the study design doesn't seem capable of supporting the conclusions being drawn.
That's what I'm criticizing.
You're right, I haven't seen the study data. Infact, no one has because she hasn't published it (who knows how much she presented at AAAS - it's not listed there in any form - again...why?)
I'm with you on the idea that to discuss the research meaningfully the data should be reviewed and properly published as a scientific study.
The researcher chose to go the route of provocative headlines in the popular media without publishing the data....why?
Again, this is relevant to the methodology and the data how? Besides, what makes you think she explicitly chose to go that route? It seems equally (if not more) plausible that popular media sent a bunch of reporters to the AAAS meeting to see if there is anything out of which they can make a juicy article which will resonate with their readership.
who knows how much she presented at AAAS - it's not listed there in any form - again...why?
Well, of course, if you can't find it there, it must not be listed... It's not at all possible that it is listed, but you just didn't know how to look.
This isn't the abstract of the study.
It's an abstract of the topics she said she would be covering during her presentation
....I think that since it was sent in before hand so that attendies could plan their itineraries, and isn't a summary of what she actually talked about - is the reason why it doesn't mention the research that lead to all the splashy headlines.
Where did I say it was the abstract of the study? You said what she presented at AAAS was not listed on the AAAS website "in any form". That is certainly not true.
Sorry, I think you misunderstood me. I didn't mean to imply there was doubt as to whether or not she presented at AAAS. I was saying that there's no information there about this study or her presentation of it.
The abstract you're referencing was listed for the purpose of attendees planning their itineraries, so it was likely listed several weeks before the actual presentation.
There's nothing in this abstract about the study. Referring to it simply highlights the fact that even at the AAAS website for the 2009 conference where she presented, there's no information on the study.
Yeah, because the process of peer review is totally meaningless...
How do you know how far along it is?
I'm not sure why you're being sarcastic. Psychology experiments should always be treated with skepticism because the brain is a rather poorly understood organ. Doubly so when the subject of the study is socially provocative and your results reinforce popular preconceptions. When on top of this the results are going through the media before the study comes out, it doesn't look good. Credentials or not, the researchers should absolutely get a lot of scrutiny.
the researchers should absolutely get a lot of scrutiny
Oh, I agree. Let's wait till the study is published and read it, kay? I don't know about you, but judging research by the coverage it gets in popular media is not my usual modus operandi. Neither is dismissing it simply because it gets coverage in the popular media.
Bashing a respected scientist just because you don't like the way a popular mag phrased its article strikes me as not completely rational or well thought out.
It is not unusual for the media to report on studies that have not yet made it into scholarly journals. There are many reasons this can happen and all are equally dull. Sadly, no researcher chooses the headlines that can be associated with his or her work in the popular press. Inaccurate science reporting often causes teeth gnashing.
It sure is frustrating that Fiske and her colleagues' report of their work is not out yet. I hope it is in press. I'm on tenterhooks. I'm guessing it's perfectly cromulent.
Please stop picking of Fiske. Fiske has total cred. Not just 'cause she's from Princeton or whatever. Check out the first 2 pages of this chapter in a popular psych. of women textbook: http://books.google.com/books?id=sG0jbQKYHHcC&pg=PA205&lpg=PA205&dq=mary+e+kite+kay+deaux+elizabeth+l+haines&source=bl&ots=8MnoEMV5yk&sig=P5berGbnTbY5Jp5MmaRg5Rg0L_o&hl=en&ei=fm2fSbX4GYqhtwfg78SODQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA205,M1
Thanks to the folks who stood up for science upthread and down. It pains me to see people pick on it. Science is imperfect, kind of homely, and awkward at parties, but it's one of the more accurate games we've got going.
Thought scans reveal that when I hear about men who are "hostile sexists" and don't think of women as real humans with thoughts or intentions, the region of my brain associated with thinking some people are total fucking tools lights up.
Ditto. And the area associated with 'chimp noises, feces throwing, fighting, biting and violence' light up in mine. Thats where I go.
The conclusion to this study should have been:
When sexist men see a women in a bikini, they start to act like tools.
I'm sorry, I know this probably isn't appropriate, but I just know someone on here could use this! My friend who owns a soap shop, gave me a %15 off coupon from Chicago's first feminist sex shop, Early to Bed. Anyone live in Chicago?
The most powerful tool in cognitive neuroscience is the assessment of individuals who suffer neural lesions. An area lighting up on an fMRI scan during a behavioral task is meanlingless in and of itself. The main takeaway point is that cognitive activity is not localized. Although there is regional specialization, human cognition is the product of distributed neural activity in the brain.
Language is the classic example. In children language has contributions from both hemispheres (which is why children who have undergone a hemispherectomy for epilepsy are not rendered aphasic) whereas in adults language has more significant contributions from the dominant perisylvian cortices (ie. Brocas and Wernickes).
The neural region that has been extensively studied is an area called IT wherein lies the fusiform gyrus. This region lights up in both hemispheres when we recognize a familiar face. It has also been confirmed that when damaged, a patient cannot recognize familiar faces ie. a condition called prosopagnosia. Now does this mean that when these gyri light up after seeing a face of Obama, that all knowledge of Obama resides in Obama neurons? No. Also these areas also light up when an individual recognizes familiar objects eg. when a surgeon recognizes familiar surgical instruments, then the fusiform gyri light up on an fMRI scan. It would be wrong to conclude that Obama is therefore like a surgical tool ie. an “object.”
My concern is that Dr. Fiske is rehashing the outdated concept of phrenology by implying that the area that lights up (typically for inanimate objects eg. tools) when a man looks at a woman in a bikini is where sexual objectification takes place.
The regions that lit up in Fiske’s study were in the anterior temporal lobe which are involved in the categorization of inanimate objects (eg. tools). In patients who have suffered herpes simplex encephalitis, these regions are damaged and such object categorization and recognition are impaired. In one such patient I participated in managing, he harassed female physicians and support staff with sexist comments and inappropriate behaviors (ie. masturbating). He still treated women as objects!!!!!
My point is that various social ills such as racism or sexism cannot be localized to discrete cerebral cortical regions.
To elaborate on this matter I would encourage you all to read the works of prominent feminist neuroscientists and philosophers such as Dr. Susan Greenfield or Dr. Patricia Churchland.
Thanks for the excellent references! I just checked out a lecture by Dr. Susan Greenfield on youtube called "The neuroscience of creativity". I recommend it to anyone interested in how the brain makes us who we are, and how far we have to go to comprehending exactly what that means.
So you're saying this study could indicate recognition and familiarity with the female form, rather than full-on objectification?
"So you're saying this study could indicate recognition and familiarity with the female form, rather than full-on objectification?"
Absolutely. Those brain regions by themselves have nothing to do with sexual objectification. I would also add that men also objectify fully clad women and I bet many men who go to nude beaches don't. It is sexual desire of another that is stripped of all empathy that leads to objectification. Both empathy and sexual desire are complex emotions which employ multiple cortical, subcortical and brainstem structures. How can all this possibly be visualized on a brain scan?
Cognitive and social neuroscience are at an infant stage. It is way to early to speculate how our brains generate complex feelings of love, friendship, hate, prejudice, etc...
We need to be conscious before we have conscience. Before we tackle the latter, what is the neural basis of consciousness? Your guess is as good as mine.
My guess? If you did the same study on average women, you'd find very similar results. We're *all* socially conditioned to see a woman in a skimpy outfit as a thing.
"Things?" Because the brain centers are associated with tool use, women are "things" (tools)?
How do we usually manipulate tools? With our hands. It doesn't strike me as particularly unlikely that a visual stimulus might provoke a reaction in the manual centers -- in other words, seeing an alluring woman and making an instantaneous association with touching her. (We are talking about stimulus and brain response, not whether it's socially acceptable to act on it.) Interpreting that brain scan to mean that the man regards the woman as a non-human object, the same way he regards, say, a hammer, strikes me as a serious stretch.
Do bikinis have a different purpose, besides being worn to make the female figure look alluring? Women do not wear them to show off their ability to discuss the economic situation in India. I'm not saying that they are bad, but girls wear them to show off their groceries. And people look at the groceries. Big deal.
If a man is wearing a speedo, I am only to assume he is trying to show me his junk.
I wear a speedo because sopping-wet, clinging knee-length trunks are frickin' uncomfortable. They're even worse in the pool than out of it. (And I don't care how stupid it looks on me. Last I checked, I'm not part of the paid entertainment.) That said, once the chlorine has ruined the elastic, I get a new one, because saggy worn-out speedos are rather bad about clinging where they shouldn't. So, no, actually, I'm not trying to show anything to anybody.
This may have been posted before, but it seems to me like this study is showing that sexist men view women in bikinis as objects. it would be interesting to do this study with feminist men.
Good idea
But what if it shows them up as fifth columnists!
The idea that you can simply pull a well-know cultural item (the bikini) out of it's cultural context & history & reintroduce it to test it's affects is laughable. I mean, who thought of this study? It makes no sense from a psychological, biological, or anthropological perspective.
There is a long history of pin up models, half-naked ad models & pornography that has encouraged men to think these women are objects. The bikini is no more specifically to blame than the thong.
To say that the bikini makes men look at women as an object is to blame women for wearing them. You're not allowed to wear one & complain about being objectified, because you brought it on yourself!
(p.s., I didn't read the whole article. Is there a chance that this is one of those where the study is actually about something plausible, but they give it a shocking title to get attention like in every other magazine?)
Can we just agree that since
1) the research has not been published;
2) the popular media is practically synonymous with inaccuracy and misrepresentation;
3) there is no evidence that Dr. Fiske went to the media and not the other way around,
that it's too early to judge the research?
All we have so far is the abstract:
Title:
Envy Up and Contempt Down: Neural and Emotional Signatures of Social Hierarchies
Authors:
Susan T. Fiske, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ
Co-Authors (if any)
Mina Cikara
Princeton University
Ann Marie Russell
Princeton University
People think and feel about each other along two apparently universal dimensions. Warmth answers “friend or foe?” (intentions). Competence answers “what can you do?” (can the other enact those intentions). These fundamental dimensions drive emotions and behavior, all resulting from social structural relationships of interdependence and status. Most relevant, perceived status confers perceived competence, a ringing endorsement of meritocracy. Our new neural work goes beyond verbal report to document social cognition’s earliest moments. Laboratory and imaging studies focus on low-warmth, allegedly competitive outgroups, differing only in status: (a) low-status, allegedly exploitative outgroups (e.g., undocumented immigrants, homeless people, welfare recipients), who elicit disgust and contempt, and (b) high-status, allegedly exploitative outgroups (e.g., Asians, Jews, minority professionals, career women), who elicit envy and jealousy. Intergroup envy and contempt have consequences.
This isn't the abstract of the study.
It's an abstract of the topics she said she would be covering during her presentation
....I think that since it was sent in before hand so that attendies could plan their itineraries, and isn't a summary of what she actually talked about - is the reason why it doesn't mention the research that lead to all the splashy headlines.
Where did I say it was the abstract of the study? You said what she presented at AAAS was not listed on the AAAS website "in any form". That is certainly not true.
Sorry, I think you misunderstood me. I didn't mean to imply there was doubt as to whether or not she presented at AAAS. I was saying that there's no information there about this study or her presentation of it.
"All we have so far is the abstract"
But then that abstract (of what she was planning to present) mentions nothing of the study. And it was listed for the purpose of attendies planning their itineraries, so it was likely listed several weeks before the actual presentation.
Refering to this "abstract" here simply highlights the fact that even at the AAAS website there's no information on the study.
Is there a reason why the heads were cropped out of the images? Consider that the face is the site of a huge amount of emotional and intellectual communication. That strikes me as a rather conspicuous thing to omit when judging mens' reactions to the women in these pictures as complete human beings. The sensory input just seems...rigged?
The brains of (certain) men, when presented with (extremely brief exposure to) pictures of women where the heads are omitted, react as if the heads weren't there. Er...this is a surprise?
Yes, I know... read the study. I fully agree.
National Geographic is Great!. It got me through many lonely nights as a teenager.
This is a little scary, but not the end of the world. What happens as an immediate, uncontrollable impulse isn't as important as how the person in question acts on it (or even thinks longer and more consciously about it).
Though I do agree that the headline is problematic.
"The last time I checked a bikini couldn't make a man do anything."
How exactly did you go about checking that, the last time?
Oh and not for nothing, but no one seems to be claiming that a bikini can make a man do anything. Seeing a beautiful almost naked woman inspires most men to want to have sex with her. It doesn't "make" us do anything, at least not anything involving voluntary muscles like those controlling hands.
Top Gun inspires men to want to be fighter pilots, it doesn't "make" us enroll in the Navy.
You can't fault the science for conflicting with a social theory, even a feminist theory. This research was done at the biological "hardwiring" level--ie, the lowest level--not higher level cognitive reasoning.
You can if you prefer the Stalinist/Creationist mindset for evaluating evidence.
Time for some chicken-or-egg logic; my nature/nuture radar is going off!
The fact that men's brains indicate that they are thinking that way does not necessarily mean that it is "hardwired."
Is someone is socialized to think a certain way, then there is going to be a neurological correspondence to those thoughts.
I'm not arguing either way, just pointing out that to jump to a conclusion would be a fallacy.
I have a blog entry up about this topic up now if anyone cares to check it out. I teased out some other points about it.
Here's an interesting study:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1828689
fMRI is assessed among participants who lean either democrat or republican. One can readily see a major flaw in the study design. I have yet to meet any individual who is 100% conservative or liberal on all political/cultural dimensions. For example, there are libertarians who are pro-choice and pro-gay marriage who are fiscally conservative and therefore vote republican. What on earth does this study say about them.
I would also add (and this has been echoed by many neuroscientists--see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=fact-or-phrenology) that there is a growing abuse of fMRI data which seem to rehash the outdated pseudoscience of phrenology. The above article was sited in this paper and rightfully criticized.
I hope Dr. Fiske is nuanced in her conclusions when her study is published.