Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is  a well-written and convincingly argued paper that should be ready for publication with modest revision.  The authors explore objectification from a number of theoretical, philosophical, and sociological perspectives in order to rebut certain simplistic and essentializing strains of thought within radical feminism on the nature of objectification and prostitution.  Below are a small number of relatively minor critiques:

 

I did not understand the use of sex/work, particularly when it required reading a lengthy footnote that was also confusingly written.  The term appears in the introduction and then vanishes for the rest of the paper where sex work is used instead.  I did not see what was added and it started the paper off in a confusing manner.  I would suggest dropping it, or at least having a section in the text explaining this.  But even then, the choice to disregard and use the common parlance of “sex work” and “sex worker” later doesn’t cohere.  It was an odd choice to lead with this term, do so insistently, and then not actually center it in the analysis.

A small correction in footnote ii: the author’s name is Bindel not Binden.

I was not sure what was gained by cutesy metapunctuation like “(ab)uses)”.  The academic fad for this sort of winking wordplay seems to be at an end.  I found it distracting and not to illuminate the argument.

What are the author’s qualifications to do research in New Orleans?  How many days were they there?  How many people did they interview formally and informally?  Most importantly, why is that an appropriate field site to put in dialogue with Brazil where they are clearly more established as long-time experts?

 

Why is the methods section so small and added as an afterthought as the last paragraph of this article?  The methods section should be moved to the beginning, just after the introduction. Should be more transparent and include information on numbers, lengths of time, subjectivity, nature of participant observation, etc.

 

I wanted to see more engagement with some of the classic feminist works on objectification that aren’t about prostitution or pornography. For example, Laura Mulvey and a whole generation of Lacanian feminists interested in psychoanalysis have wrestled with this issue.  This also influenced many black female feminists such as Jennifer Nash (The Black Body in Ecstasy, Black Feminism Reimagined, etc.) and Mireille Miller-Young and Ariane Cruz to think through some of the more sex negative strains of black feminism in their own work on pornography and sex work.  This would give more diverse perspectives within feminist treatments of objectification.

 

A more thorough treatment of Harvard Law Professor Janet Halley’s work on “Governance Feminism” should be included.  She is probably the primary person writing on the issues relevant here and a vocal critic of Mackinnon, Dworkin, abolitionism, and carceral frameworks. I was surprised not to see her discussed here.

 

I’d also suggest Alan Soble’s “Dehumanization, Objectification, Illusion” chapter at a minimum from Pornography, Sex and Feminism.  Soble offers an explicitly anti-Kantian critique of objectification and argues that Kant is sadly mistaken in his assumptions about human “dignity.”  Soble’s take is very different than other “pro-sex feminists” in arguing that objectification and dehumanization are harmless, and indeed, are often the whole point, but that moreover we as humans have no inherent right against it.  It’s a much more polemical and interesting strain of thought that what the authors are presenting here, so I think it would be interesting to insert it into the analysis.

A more proper conclusion should be added at the end of the paper. 

 

I think overall this paper could certainly be used in classes, cited by many scholars across a range of fields, and is of a high enough quality to be published with the small adjustments and incorporations above made.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Here are our responses to your critiques! We hope we have managed to answer them!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, an interesting paper. Although this research study does not claim universal representation, the findings may be of significance to practice preventive levels. That said, I see several areas of need for improving the manuscript:

• Methods:

Procedures, analysis methods and instruments are not described. Authors should clearly indicate the central research question. What was the main purpose or goal of the study? What was the theoretical model that served to guide Authors research questions? In the methodology section, I can see a lack of attention to the development of themes in the data. It would be beneficial to include how the themes emerge, strengthen, diminish, truncate, etc.

• Participants:

Authors described population but fail to describe sample and sampling procedures.

• Literature :

Selection of sources and literature representative for the research subject, although most of the cited items were published by 2010. It would be worth referring to more recent literature. 

• Data

Line 54-56:The data used in this manuscript are quite old. It would be worth to explain why Authors decide to use and publish the data after 17 years? 

• Results:

The results are not clearly presented. Lacks synthesis and lacks logical organization.

Future directions, implications, and limitations are missing.

Author Response

Here are our responses to your critiques! We hope we have managed to answer them!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I accept all changes that have been made by the authors following my comments and suggestions.