Oh goody another study to tell us something we already know.
It may seem obvious that men perceive women in sexy bathing suits as objects, but now there’s science to back it up, one which used 21 heterosexual male undergraduates at Princeton as the standard bearer. That this “study” was actually presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science is what is surprising, but there’s no doubt in my mind there was a preordained conclusion.
As I understand it photographs make brains react in a variety of ways but unless a brain is still developing, as with young men viewing pornography before they’ve an understanding of what a female is, and have learned to know females as human beings, it does not cause certain actions to take place. Photography effects on emotion are not typically longstanding, and certainly not strong enough to overcome environment, words, or lifelong education. So why are we studying reactions to pictures?
The research, conducted by Princeton psychology professor Susan Fiske, Mina Cikara GS and Stanford psychology professor Jennifer Eberhardt, was performed on 21 undergraduate male students at the University who identified themselves as heterosexual. Fiske’s team used an MRI machine to scan the brains of the students while they viewed a series of photographs of men and women, some of whom were fully clothed and others of whom wore only swimsuits.
The pictures of bikini-clad women activated brain regions associated with objects or “things you manipulate with your hands,” Fiske said. The students also remembered the photos of the half-naked women better than they did any of the others, she added, noting that the subjects remembered the bodies, not the faces, most clearly. Fiske said the results indicated that some men may objectify or dehumanize partially clothed women, though further research is needed to confirm these findings.
This study is useful for not a thing besides being able to say “nah, nah, I told you so”. And though it may help to make some take more serious the issue of young males viewing pornography on the web, something we already know seriously skews their view of women, but other than that do you really think most work places have pictures of half clothed women hanging around? Does looking at a still picture elicit the same response as looking at living breathing humans? Does looking at a girl in a bikini cause someone to go home and treat their girlfriend like a power tool if they weren’t already treating her like a power tool? Does this study solve the issue of media and sexualizing little girls, or parents buying their ten year olds thongs, make-up and bustiers?
“This research appears to provide evidence of a more hardwired, less socially constructed tendency to objectify women, which will make eradicating the problem that much harder.”
Ya, well replacing parts of the brain isn’t that easy just yet. It seems we are up against something called “what human beings are made of” here. Do you think this was funded by some organization which hopes to cash in on their “brain part replacement therapy”?
Please no further research. I know what I know.
title thanks to Paul Simon, I Know What I Know
It appears they could think of nothing better to do than perform expensive MRIs and look at that Sports Illustrated issue.
actonbell’s last blog post..It Was Twenty Years Ago Today…
It would be different if they were actually going to cut out pieces of their brain to …uh.. alleviate the problem but they are not.
It is worth it to know what these things do to “developing brains”, and if the changes this kind of viewing has on “developing brains” is permanent, as the only use for studies like this is to find out at which point something which may end up permanent becomes preventable, but this is not even close to being a study of that depth, magnitude or significance.
Burp.
There is no end to the stupidity or self interest of the people who manage the funds for research at most universities. Between studies which prove things we already know, and studies which prove nothing, the money is gone.
jacob’s last blog post..Tiger to Return
There was money…wait…
Men will be men and boys will be boys, but why is it that I never get asked to do these types of studies??? It’s just not fair…
Seriously, tho… study sounds about as scientifically sound as the ones which seek to determine whether underwire bras cause breast cancer.
No, seriously!
sauerkraut’s last blog post..Robert Getz, dead.
Men will be men is sort of a crock of crap but it doesn’t excuse this pathetic excuse for research.
I know what you know too. I wish they’d do research on things which really matter. Research, especially in the social sciences, is motivated by the agenda of those doing the research. From the little bit I can gather about that study it followed that same pattern.
I have never heard that Paul Simon song. Thanks.
Almost has an “I know what you did last summer” tone to it.…
It’s an awesome song it is my pleasure to introduce you to it.
Ugh. The department of useless research…Paul Simon opened the newly renovated Beacon Theater last weekend. Had I still been living there.…but we couldn’t get tickets. Would have been wonderful
pia’s last blog post..Hey Daddy
It is pretty sad where the money is spent considering OC out at the U of Hawaii could better spend the money to help us in the future.
I enjoy looking at women in bathing suits in real life. I don’t know the difference between the affects on the brain of photos from real life people but I am sure there are differences. Good for those who do the studies, bad for us, maybe with the economy being so poor we will have to put up with less of these useless studies.
g’s last blog post..What I’m Reading and Buying
I doubt it.
I don’t self promote but I think they should better spend their research dollars studying the psychology of the wall street banker class and those who speak for them. See my last post with the vid — just for a quick link you might be interested in.
i agree, and there is not much to say when I agree, when I disagree I don’t have much to say because I hate arguing. in this case I don’t have to argue because i agree. There are some things which in the scheme of things aren’t really important because they do not prove cause and cause is what you want to prove if you are going to try to change behavior. Like you said this only proves that if you removed a certain part of certain men’s brains they would no longer think of women as power tools when looking at pictures of them in bikinis.
john’s last blog post..Check this Out
ha, I just saw that and twittered it, gotta go dig up some heat now.
I think they conduct this sort of research to give bloggers ammo for their daily posts. Maybe, if men are looking at women in swimsuits as objects, it isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Guys like me have seen their fair share of women who make it apparent that they believe they are gorgeous – the kind that expect us to grovel at their feet, whose beauty is so paramount that consideration for others just isn’t necessary. If I look at a woman like that and my brain registers her as an object, like a table or a sofa, it’s probably because her level of intelligence is comparable. The better looking a woman is, the more suspicious I am!
Qupid’s last blog post..Tips for Writing a Love Poem
I wish it were so. It looks to me they had a point they wanted to prove and chose a rather lazy way to prove it, a way which benefits no one and doesn’t further science one bit.
not fair that you closed comments on one of the most insightful thought provoking posts you have ever written
pia’s last blog post..Hey Daddy
I’m sorry about that, it was a busy weekend.
It’s a pain when you close comments I agree.
I agree on the nyu thing wtf — that whole thing looked more disorganized than my younger sisters bedroom and that is pretty bad.
The research thing, it is wasteful but there is an entertainment factor.
casey’s last blog post..Bristol Palin on Abstinence
Not even entertaining. Irksome.
How the hell did they find 21 heterosexual men at Princeton?
Doug’s last blog post..The Reformation of Wolfshausen
I just come here for the articles. Honest.
Bone’s last blog post..Ssss-aaaa-ffff-eeee-tttt-yyyy Blog
The part that irks me the most is the jump from having touch sensory brain feeds to ‘obviously this is objectifying’… maybe it’s something more carnal — like desire to touch someone and possibly engage in intercourse. So to test this theory, we’d probably have to involve females looking at males. And males looking at males. And females looking at females. Because that’s how science works. And since when are 21-year old university students a good control? Didn’t we learn anything with Freuds sampling of 20 – 24 year old Swedish Women? QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK
–J
Justin (Oats)’s last blog post..Bullets and Batteries: The Trail of the Dead