Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

1

“WHO ARE YOU, WHO AM I?” Does a psychologist need philosophy to better understand the sexual abuse of minors?

100%

Kusz E.

The Person and the Challenges. The Journal of Theology, Education, Canon Law and Social Studies Inspired by Pope John Paul II

|

2022

|

tom 12

|

nr 1

213-236

EN

This article attempts to look at the issue of sexual abuse from an anthropological point of view because the attempts by various scholarly disciplines to describe and analyze the phenomenon of sexual abuse, including attempts to identify causes and effects, do not provide clear answers to the question of the nature of what happen in sexual abuse. The first steps of the analysis show the need for a philosophical reflection, and point to the directions of such a reflection which can help to understand that the harm inflicted on a young victim by sexual abuse consists in a damage at the “core of the person,” of his own subjectivity, of his own “self.” It is an “anthropological harm or damage” resulting from “becoming an object” for the abuser. It interrupts the process of becoming an autonomous subject who understand himself and is able to enter in a dialogical relationship with others. The gist of the damage of child sexual abuse remains hidden behind the tangible long-term effects. These effects are often insurmountable during the victim’s lifetime. It indicates that we are dealing with damage to “who I am” – damage to the being of a sexually abused person. So, the person harmed in this way knows neither who I am – the person who experienced this harm, nor who you are – the perpetrator who harmed him and, in a sense, who the other is in general. Understanding the “anthropological harm” inflicted by sexual abuse clearly shows the challenge of the process of transitioning from the experience of “becoming an object” to discovering and rebuilding one’s own subjectivity, one’s own self, without denying the harm. Anthropological reflection concerns also the person of the perpetrator, who turned out to be the “bearer of evil.” Here, we have questions about intentionality, about responsibility for one’s actions, but also about the whole misery of a human being who, by objectifying another person, probably reduces himself to an object. Also, in the case of the perpetrator, understanding the process of becoming a perpetrator may help in the process of his resocialization, that is, the process of restoring his experience of his being as a free person open to meeting the other “you” who must not harmed.

2

“WHO ARE YOU, WHO AM I?” Does a psychologist need philosophy to better understand the sexual abuse of minors?

100%

Kusz E.

The Person and the Challenges. The Journal of Theology, Education, Canon Law and Social Studies Inspired by Pope John Paul II

|

2022

|

tom 12

|

nr 1

213-236

EN

This article attempts to look at the issue of sexual abuse from an anthropological point of view because the attempts by various scholarly disciplines to describe and analyze the phenomenon of sexual abuse, including attempts to identify causes and effects, do not provide clear answers to the question of the nature of what happen in sexual abuse. The first steps of the analysis show the need for a philosophical reflection, and point to the directions of such a reflection which can help to understand that the harm inflicted on a young victim by sexual abuse consists in a damage at the “core of the person,” of his own subjectivity, of his own “self.” It is an “anthropological harm or damage” resulting from “becoming an object” for the abuser. It interrupts the process of becoming an autonomous subject who understand himself and is able to enter in a dialogical relationship with others. The gist of the damage of child sexual abuse remains hidden behind the tangible long-term effects. These effects are often insurmountable during the victim’s lifetime. It indicates that we are dealing with damage to “who I am” – damage to the being of a sexually abused person. So, the person harmed in this way knows neither who I am – the person who experienced this harm, nor who you are – the perpetrator who harmed him and, in a sense, who the other is in general. Understanding the “anthropological harm” inflicted by sexual abuse clearly shows the challenge of the process of transitioning from the experience of “becoming an object” to discovering and rebuilding one’s own subjectivity, one’s own self, without denying the harm. Anthropological reflection concerns also the person of the perpetrator, who turned out to be the “bearer of evil.” Here, we have questions about intentionality, about responsibility for one’s actions, but also about the whole misery of a human being who, by objectifying another person, probably reduces himself to an object. Also, in the case of the perpetrator, understanding the process of becoming a perpetrator may help in the process of his resocialization, that is, the process of restoring his experience of his being as a free person open to meeting the other “you” who must not harmed.

3

“How Dirty Boys Get Clean” – on sexual objectification of women in advertising before and after #metoo era

63%

Matysiak A.

Językoznawstwo

|

2024

|

tom 20

|

nr 1

235-256

PL

Sposób przedstawiania kobiet w branży reklamowej stanowi temat gorącej debaty od przeszło czterech dekad. Reklamodawcy na całym świecie są konsekwentnie oskarżani o utrwalanie niewłaściwych i poniżających stereotypów kobiet, dotyczących między innymi ich ciał oraz narzucania im przypisanych ról w społeczeństwie zdominowanym przez mężczyzn. Chociaż w ostatnich latach świadomość społeczna na temat takich szkodliwych praktyk wzrasta wraz z pojawieniem się ruchu #metoo, a także dzięki niektórym znanym markom promującym koncepcję wzmocnienia pozycji kobiet – do znaczącego postępu w kierunku przedstawiania kobiet w sposób szanujący ich godność i unikający sprowadzania ich do obiektów seksualnych nadal jeszcze czeka nas długa droga. Głównym celem niniejszego artykułu jest analiza reprezentacji kobiet w wybranych reklamach na przestrzeni dwóch minionych dekad oraz próba ustalenia czy – a jeśli tak, to w jaki sposób i w jakim stopniu – w ostatnich latach nastąpiły jakiekolwiek zmiany w tym aspekcie. Ponadto artykuł ma na celu przedyskutowanie możliwych implikacji seksualizacji we współczesnej reklamie, ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem potencjalnego przejścia od uprzedmiotowienia seksualnego do subiektywizacji seksualnej.

EN

The portrayal of women in the advertising industry has been a topic of ongoing debate for over four decades. Advertisers worldwide have been consistently accused of perpetuating inappropriate and degrading stereotypes of women, including their bodies and their perceived roles in a male-dominated society. Although recent years have seen increased public awareness of such harmful practices, with #metoo movement and some prominent brands promoting the concept of women’s empowerment, significant progress towards portraying women in a manner that respects their dignity and avoids reducing them to sexual objects still remains rather elusive. The primary objective of this paper is to analyse the representation of women in selected printed advertisements from the past two decades of advertising and determine whether there has been any significant shift in recent years. Additionally, the paper seeks to examine the possible implications of sexual objectification in contemporary advertising, with a particular focus on the potential transition from sexual objectification to sexual subjectification.

4

What’s Wrong with the (White) Female Nude?

63%

Lavallee Z.

Estetyka i Krytyka

|

2016

|

nr 2(41)

77-98

EN

In “What’s Wrong with the (Female) Nude?” A. W. Eaton argues that the female nude in Western art promotes sexually objectifying, heteronormative erotic taste, and thereby has insidious effects on gender equality. In this response, I reject the claim that sexual objectification is a phenomenon that can be generalized across the experiences of all women. In particular, I argue that Eaton’s thesis is based on the experiences of women who are white, and does not pay adequate attention to the lives of nonwhite women. This act of exclusion undermines the generality of Eaton’s thesis, and exposes a more general bias in discussions of female representations in art. Different kinds of bodies have been subjected to different kinds of objectifying construal, and the ethics of nudity in art must be extended to take such variation into account.