As if they are pieces of meat waiting to be devoured. As if they are responsible for their appeal -- and should hide it. They are being described as food and therefore the object of men's desire.

Othello doesn't want to ruin or taint her purity and innocence that she sees, but knows he has to take her light. And he acknowledges that even Prometheus cannot bring back that inner light she has. It shows that he sees through her objectification and beauty and sees her invaluable light.

• He says, it is the cause, it is the cause, signifying he is holding on to reason (which is introduced by Iago), instead of following his heart. It shows yet again that reason betrays the true nature of humanity -- and yet we are blinded thinking rejecting passion is the way to retain civility, and thus, humanity.

Shows that objectification and generalization happens both ways

That "perfect woman" or deserving woman will not do her job properly -- a woman must be imperfect to be a woman?

Compared to a donkey

The diction is yet again paralleled to the military aspect that he just mentioned -- he is still a soldier, still a warlord, still someone that wins battles -- not an equal in love ?

Like a puppet, he imposes his own senses, perception as her own

Shows that she is nothing as an individual but solely as an asset to both-- who she recognizes herself as is completely solely based on her roles in men's life.

Seen as a source of entertainment, of tragedy, Desdemona loves him for his suffering and tragedy -- of his foreignness and surprise? She pities him for having endured all that. As a play

Her father considers her dead because she has shown a side of her that doesn't fit in his stereotypical thinking -- she has shown dynamism, less of an object and more of a person.

These are all the characteristics they value in her, like a new car.

Dehumanization and picturing the relationship as a horrid rape and beastiality between Desdemona and Othello, capturing the Social Identity Theory at its finest.

Evidence to show that, explicitly, no matter what she says or does, he has excluded her reason and fixed his mind on one solution: to kill her, to be rid of her. Shows the stubbornness of the mind and his view of her still as an object. Manhood/chivalry = Isolated and stubborn choices.

The comparison of Black people to beastly beings, such as horses. It nearly shows a predatory danger for Desdemona like getting eaten up by wolves. He describes a human loving relationship as an animalistic dynamic

Demonstrates yet again the objectification and erasing of dimensions of Moors.. just like women.

A kind of juxtaposition between the "womanly" / "witch-like" Michael Cassio and the "chivalrous" and "honest" man Iago (as seen by him), showing the perception of men and women.

Demonstrates the view of women as two-dimensional tools with specific and sole uses for men, who cannot take or assume any other role that men may.

• for: scientific naturalism - critique, scientific naturalism - phenomenology, consciousness - objectification of, SELF-consciousness

• comment

  • Good observation that is quite salient to the hard problem of consciousness. Language can be used to describe any observable pattern.
  • Our own bodies are an observable pattern. As we associate our consciousness with our body, It is a small step to observe our own consciousness. SELF-consciousness is what allows us to be observer and observed at different times.

• Comment

• The lack of reverence for other living beings is evident in modernity's transactional view of nature.

• The word "natural resource" betrays modernity's objectification of nature.
• From this perspective, nature is for humans to exploit

The author of this editorial claims that there is moral value in using the emissions made by a human body over the course of its lifetime in determining if one should be given life. Making a departure from natural selection, and from sexual attraction and ignoring maternal instinct and cultural familial practices and norms. He proposes that the act of being alive can be measured in its impact upon others who will share the future climate them and since the impact is not 0 then there must be an upper limit of "too many". Immorally, he does not include a measure of "too few" and does not make any mention of the problems society has with exponential population decline. Such as Japan currently selling more adult than infant diapers as their population collapses because of too few children. In fact there is no mention of generational replacement or reproduction rate. Just a simplistic measure of a human impact upon the environment with the entirety of positive impact deleted, omitted, ignored completely. There is in fact no moral high ground in maintaining or promoting the idea that human life has no positive value to the earth. Failing to see ones own value or the value of human life as a whole, rejecting the desire to help human kind survive and prosper and reducing human beings to objects with emissions and no positive output potential is morally reprehensible and not a scientifically sound conclusion, given the observable facts. Among them, that every human being alive on the planet today, standing shoulder to shoulder, would not fill the area of los angeles, and setting aside one acre of our best land for every human being on earth would require an area no arger than texas. There is no scientific basis for concluding there are too many people or that the future humans would benefit from lower population. it is a common error, in the media today, where the impact on climate is evaluated out of the context of all other scilences where positive impacts and negative impacts of human life are observable. Such as biological sciences or earth sciences. it is true, that if we lived on a gas giant, where the only element of the planetary ecosystem was the climate, then such an evaluation of our "carbon footprint" would be meaningful. but since we have a planet with oceans dryland and predators and dangerous conditions, it is morrally reprehensible to suggest our population not maximize its potential to survive to see the future so many are trying to protect by literally throwing their babies out with the bathwater. It is impossible to contribute to the well-being of human life in editorial if you do not have a love of human life. My heart goes out to anyone who takes this article seriously. You do not have to limit your fertility to help humankind survive.

!- critical insight for : existentialism, existence of objects - color is perfect example to demonstrate that what we experience and construct in our body is not what exists as a property of the object

This sort of objectification seems very similar to the type of erasure that Poland is doing with the Holocaust as they begin honoring Poles who helped Jews while simultaneously ignoring Poland's part in collaborating with the Nazis in creating the Holocaust.

How can we as a society and humanity add more care to these sorts of acts so as not to continue erasing the harm and better heal past wrongs?

Cross reference: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/29/opinion/holocaust-poland-europe.html and https://hyp.is/hrsb9oIOEey8sEObTYhk0A/www.nytimes.com/2022/01/29/opinion/holocaust-poland-europe.html

This deserves to be delved into more deeply. This sounds like a bizarre stop on the creation of institutional racism.

How do these sorts of abstraction hurt the move towards equality?

Throughout the multiple texts, utilized human-parts place specified bodies within social constructions, given limits of autonomy dependent on close monitoring by superiors. Kirkup and Schiebinger reflect on the Womxn’s breasts dictating the taxonomy of humans as mammalia--”a study of breasts." We see this era uplifted the sacredness of milk and the role of women’s reproduction, whilst stationing them closer to “beasts” than men, and assigning women to domesticity.

Breasts as parts, natural tools embedded in the female body, parallels the seemingly hopeful outlook on this developing Cyborg body’s own parts, but these parts remain observed and reduced to science--a socially constructed pyramid falsely dubbed as standardized and empirical--determining the value and humanity of minorities. The parts of the female and POC body do not grant the bearer their autonomy, but rather outside scrutiny and oversight.

We established mid 20th-century authors dubbed living beings as very complex machines, and question "are humans machines?"--can we break down the human/machine boundary by referring the symbol of breasts as also a mechanized part? I feel through Haraway's Cyborg we can, as rough as it feels to conceptualize breasts as another gear/customization.

can the soul ever become an abstract object? Interesting word choice.

One cannot but help of the objectification of women here.

Women should not be objectified regardless of what the "built environment" is. We have the ability to influence our "built environment" so let's do it in a way that helps to evolve it.