Jessica Rey presents the history of the evolution of the swimsuit including the origins of its design, how it has changed overtime and the post-feminist association of the bikini symbolizing female empowerment. She refers to neuro-scientific studies revealing how male brains react to images of scantily clad women versus images of women deemed modest and what the implications of the results are for women in society.
(Note: As the OP, I disagree with Rey’s approach to putting the onus on women to alter ourselves rather than to alter the male perception of women – brain wiring has plenty to do with socialization and if we worked against the culture that fuels men’s objectification of women, women’s clothing choices would matter far less in terms of how men perceive us and determine how to interact with us).
Wow this is some shit science. So yes when humans - not just men as the op implies - are shown videos that would involve the use of tools, then this specific area of the brain called left anterior supra marginal gyrus shows activity. So that’s really cool right? Know what else this area of the brain is involved in? Reading facial expressions.
just the way her work is worded sounds unscientifically fluffed up. The sad thing is that there IS truth to what she’s saying… sort of… bbut she didn’t hit that nail on the head, so to speak.
If she had cited the fact that men can readily identify parts of a woman’s body even when clipped or viewed upside down or at an angle far faster than they can identify the same images of other men, and faster than women can identify men in the same tests, therefore indicating that men categorize the female body as an object, not a person (something derived from the fact that their instant recognition regardless of placement is only really seen when a person recognizes an object), then she’d have something. But as someone who makes a living off of arousing men to make them dumb and compliant, and who likes to wear skimpy bikinis because *I* feel hot in them, I’m not really here for OP content.
She intentionally left bit and pieces out to make this sound more plausible and severe. Here’s the whole study. http://www.kipnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Sexist-Attitudes-and-Neural1.pdf
And it basically comes down to men are more likely to be aroused when looking at women scantly clad than fully clothed, Go fucking figure. Tax dollars well spent right there. Do the same study for women and compare the two, then there might be something worth discussing.
Bolding mine. Surprise fucking surprise. Extremism and lying by omission.
Like… the need for feminism (*cough*egalitarianismalsorules*cough*) being what it is, it’s really fucking annoying that by and large, whenever someone wants to gain their space on the soap box, they shoot themselves in the foot and damage the movement by being manipulative, biased, and untruthful.
If the whole argument wasn’t compelling enough for your point then you don’t have one. Things are often more middle-of-the-road than all this; life isn’t black and white. There’s plenty of other shit she could have said about men as a social entity.
So I’ve been reading through the actual study trying to make more sense of it, originally trying to find which parts of the brain she is referencing here.( Pretty key thing to leave out.) Found some interesting bits.
"Although men and women were, in general, slightly faster to pair images of sexualized female targets with first-person action verbs (e.g., push) and clothed female targets with third-person action verbs (e.g., pushes) than the inverse"
Big fucking difference there between the studies findings, and what was said.
"The whole-brain deviant-cell contrast demonstrated that passively viewing images of sexualized female targets activated the bilateral fusiform gyrus as well as bilateral inferior frontal regions."
Which are responsible for, processing of color information, face and body recognition, word recognition, within-category identification. Pretty big stretch to claim it’s just for screwdrivers and shit.
I’d call her a liar but I’ve seen too many of these types to be that naive. They’re so deep into their own victim complexes they literally see things differently from the rest of the world.
You did the thing. Yes, good. For science.