used by men, in her books Woman Hating (1974) and Pornography: Men Possessing Women (1979) and more recently her essay on Landscape of the Ordinary: Violence Against Women (2003) in which she argues objectification as the right at the heart of Laura now classic essay, “injury discrimination” (p.30). Mulvey’s Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema (2006), demonstrates ways in which female characters on screen are constructed as objects to be looked at through the male gaze. Wright and Tokunaga (2015) argue the link between the consumption of media images which objectify women and the likelihood this has of supporting men to have a violent attitude towards women (p.2). Similarly Stankiewicz and Rosselli’s research argues a possible consequence of media imagery presenting women as sex objects and victims as something which could lead to the of sexual “trivialization (2008, p. 581). violence” Feminist discourse has argued that the objectification of women can be understood in a multitude of ways (McHugh, 2007, p.87). Views of key thinkers in this area such as Dworkin and MacKinnon, have their foundations in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant who saw objectification as the of a person to the level of “reduction an object for p.339, 2007). One strand that runs through use” (Papadaki, discussions of objectification is that it functions, as McHugh explains, as a form of gender oppression (2007 p.87) which she describes as the experience in which an outside force limits arranges or constrains an individual (p.89). This is a point that I relate directly to aspects of the dance works discussed here, in which I have observed the frequent occurrence of movements that, in words McHugh’s “limit, arrange and female characters. Objectification can also been seen constrain” (p.89) when women are viewed in reductive terms as embodying particular traits, for example as McHugh points out, nurturing (p.87, 2007). Objectification through the
used by men, in her books Woman Hating (1974) and Pornography: Men Possessing Women (1979) and more recently her essay on Landscape of the Ordinary: Violence Against Women (2003) in which she argues objectification as the “injury right at the heart of discrimination” (p.30). Laura Mulvey’s now classic essay, Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema (2006), demonstrates ways in which female characters on screen are constructed as objects to be looked at through the male gaze. Wright and Tokunaga (2015) argue the link between the consumption of media images which objectify women and the likelihood this has of supporting men to have a violent attitude towards women (p.2). Similarly Stankiewicz and Rosselli’s research argues a possible consequence of media imagery presenting women as sex objects and victims as something which could lead to the “trivialization of sexual violence” (2008, p. 581). Feminist discourse has argued that the objectification of women can be understood in a multitude of ways (McHugh, 2007, p.87). Views of key thinkers in this area such as Dworkin and MacKinnon, have their foundations in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant who saw objectification as the “reduction of a person to the level of an object for use” (Papadaki, p.339, 2007). One strand that runs through discussions of objectification is that it functions, as McHugh explains, as a form of gender oppression (2007 p.87) which she describes as the experience in which an outside force limits arranges or constrains an individual (p.89). This is a point that I relate directly to aspects of the dance works discussed here, in which I have observed the frequent occurrence of movements that, in McHugh’s words “limit, arrange and constrain” (p.89) female characters. Objectification can also been seen when women are viewed in reductive terms as embodying particular traits, for example as McHugh points out, nurturing (p.87, 2007). Objectification through the