- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Apparently the fetish continues. Just because you've decided it is now a symbol of something positive, doesn't mean you aren't still reducing Michelle to a piece of meat and a caricature of her race.
What is the difference between highlighting and reducing? Is it impermissible to acknowledge any part of a body for fear of subjugating the whole? Since when is sexual preference the same as sexual objectification? If I'm attracted to a certain shape of ass or thigh or breast, how does that suggest I've reduced a woman's worth to a single feature? Why can I not appreciate her multitude of fine qualities while reserving my own tastes?
The world will be a better place when people can get past focusing of physical appearance and instead look to the ideas and actions of the person. "Not by the shape of her ass, but by the content of her character" - to paraphrase a famous expert on the subject of equality
Why must the two be mutually exclusive? Why can't I admire the tensile strength of a woman's mind as well as the shapely parabola of her ass?
Why do those who argue against reductionism seem to me to be the ones doing the reducing?
