Objectification sucks

[Bonobo]

But it really isn't just about sex.

[blackspade]

1. Its about fetishizing power.

[1000words]

2. Indeed

[Bonobo]

3. I think it is about utilizing people.

And I said it sucks in the title, but actually I think it is completely unavoidable.

People are individuals and learn to find what they need.

The see others as separate from themselves and naturally categorize them according to their usefulness to serving their own needs.

Cynical? I guess so. But largely true EVEN when attempts are made to "balance the sheets".

The point of this OP really is to say that pretending that objectification is only something that relates to how women are viewed as sex objects is extremely myopic.

[gollygee]

4. You are totally not getting this

There are various ways of being objectified, and I can see the argument that men are objectified when in the army. But women are sexually objectified *always* and if they're in the army, they're objectified in the way you're talking about AND sexually objectified.

And if men stop being in the military, they stop facing the kind of objectification you're talking about, but for women it's constant no matter the profession.

[The Straight Story]

6. I think what folks are not getting is

Men and women find each other attracted to each other.

Some believe certain things are 'sexier' than other things.

Desiring someone of either the same or opposite sex does not mean you only see them that way. It does not mean you look at a photo and rush off to 'whack-off' over it as a certain group here insists only us men do.

I can look at and appreciate a woman on the cover of SI no matter what she is wearing - Just because one likes the looks of a person does not mean they only see them, and all women, as their personal sex toys.

If you see this pic, do you suddenly have the desire to touch yourself and think all men are just objects?



If I told you that is all you see wouldn't you get a little offended. Especially if all I did was spend my time telling you every chance I got that you hate men and only see them as a way to get off?

People like to look at others. People like beautiful things. I don't have any problem realizing that the guy in the cover pic there is going to be looked at more than myself were I on the cover. I don't think everyone who enjoys it is shallow and just wants to screw everything that moves. I don't think they don't appreciate many others in the world for many other reasons.

When you see men as nothing more than sexist pigs who want to bang everything and care about nothing more than sex than I don't think the problem is with the men but how you apply your beliefs to them all.


Here is a simple test:

Let's look at two pics and see how they are seen ---






What I see in this two pics are beautiful works of art. As someone who has spent a lot of time in cemeteries taking photos I appreciate them. Angels offer comfort and hope (of course I only feel that way because I hate women and think they all do or that is all they can do, or something like that I am sure).

Here is how a few others would see them:

1. Notice how men are using these statues to show women as weaker. Crying or lamenting.

2. See how these female angels aren't wearing glasses or are overweight at all? They do not represent all women angels.

3. The one angel is kneeling in prayer - to a male god. This is how men want women to be - kneeling and subservient.

4. She is holding flowers. Why don't we see all male angels holding them? Because women are seen as weaker and the flowers represent that.

5. Notice how big and prominent the wings are? They are the breasts of angels (notice her breasts are not evident at all but that is made up for by dd wings).

One could go on and on - but when every image you see is just a way to tell everyone that it is an image of oppression it gets a little mute after awhile.

We get it. Men should not like to look at women and everything we do in life is geared to having sex with them and keeping them down.

[gollygee]

8. Sex is great. The problem isn't sex.

The problem is women almost always being shown as sexual objects rather than sexual subjects. And yes, it is so frequent and ingrained that people think when we talk about sexual objectification we're talking about sex in general.

It seems to me like it's less an issue in people's real life relationships (except some unhealthy ones) and more about what's shown in the media.

In those statues, I'd say the angels are subjects. They are acting rather than acted upon. They are the subjects of the statues. And they certainly aren't sexual objects.

[The Straight Story]

14. Well, thanks for a decent response

I agree the media over does it, both for men and women, in how they portray them (generally speaking in how they are shown and yes, more so sexually with women).

Personally, I don't like stereotypes across the board - from here on DU where anyone who owns a gun is portrayed as a humper who wants to kill and has a small penis to Asians as nerdy and good at math.

The problem here on DU is not that we don't all know the media is made up of a bunch jerks and socially speaking would be good of they changed their tactics - but it is with the constant barrage of being told all we care about is jerking off to pictures, that we don't can't look at an image and just like for reasons that we aren't capable of, etc.

There is also context. I like to watch Supernatural. It's a show about two brothers. There is plenty of stuff in it we could all spend our time complaining about, from the aforementioned Asian stereotypes (Kevin Tran) to women who dress in a not so subtle way to stereotypes about southerners. But also plenty of that not happening. From Feilica Day (whose character has changed names on the show so I used her real name) to Bobby Singer and many others on the show we see fairly normal and interesting people. One could over analyze the whole show and find reasons to change it, while others can simply watch it and enjoy it.

Sam and Dean seem to have a lot of 'sex appeal' and are often dressed in nice suits, sometimes you see them half naked, women seem to like them and guys want to be them. It's a story. And personally I am more interested in all the cool stuff that goes on in it than the all of the other noise and I wouldn't tell people who watch it they are sexist/racist/etc because they liked watching it.

There is no issue saying sexism exists. It becomes a problem here when everything turns into 'you agree with me on every analysis I have or your hate women and see them as nothing more than an object'. If I said all the women who didn't agree with my analysis hated men I would be laughed at and seen as simple minded. Yet people throw around the word misogyny easily.

People do like to look at 'sexy' people, from men like the pic I posted to SI swimsuits - it does not mean either of them hate the other *or* just want to use the other for just sex and nothing more. Lusting after someone you see as 'sexy' is what people are talking about when they say 'it is natural'. Sex is natural, liking it is, and having a preference of what you find that fits that definition is natural as well. Some people think they are above feeling any of that. So they shame people who admit they find someone attractive and tell them they shouldn't.

[gollygee]

15. Liking sex is natural

responding to the swimsuit issue is natural.

The swimsuit issue IS objectifying though, and posting it in GD is way off topic and inappropriate. There was no political issue with it, other than that it objectifies women, but that wasn't the reason it was posted. People are posting sexually objectifying stuff at this point to troll DU feminists, particularly HOF. So it's also disruptive.

[The Straight Story]

17. See, here is where I see another problem

I can generally agree with your synopsis but two things stand out.

The SI issue can certainly be called objectifying but, as noted, can also be seen as natural. It is when you are told that you felt something natural makes you a hater/bad person that folks seem to balk at (ie, shaming).

Secondly, motivation. I have been lambasted for posting crime articles that involve women (I read a lot of crime stories online, many come in from twitter/reddit/fark). I am posting them to 'make women look bad'. I don't know how that works because to me a bad person is a bad one. And it is not just me that is accused of doing it. So telling folks why they posted things is simply deflecting from the story and turning it around to use it to bash a person.

Regardless of why the SI thing was posted the problem was in the replies. You and I can seem to have just a fine conversation on a hot issue here about sexism - and I think we agree pretty much on core issues. Perhaps the reason why is neither of us is accusing the other of hating/shaming/disregarding/etc. We may not fully agree on every little jot and tittle but we look at an issue in a logical manner.

The trolling of a few comes in because of their method of reacting and discussing. At some point you realize you are not able to have a simple conversation because it all comes down to how terrible you are, you a misogynist who needs education, you don't care, you just like to mark your territory and whack off. At some point you get that there won't be an intelligent conversation and it is just anger and emotion behind the posts and you will always be the enemy no matter what you say.

Many have said this over and over and over in threads. It is not what is being said but the way in which it is that they have the problem with. Many folks are on the side of women and these issues, but they are not on the side of some of the people who post about them.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. "when every image you see is just a way to tell everyone that it is an image of oppression"

In my thread asking whether or not it was appropriate for women to wear make-up I was asking what did NOT constitute/lend itself to objectification as far as women seeking to make themselves attractive. It was met with a tremendous amount of pushback from the usual suspects. The message I took away from that was the definition was to remain subjective, open and fluid. I said as much more than once in my thread.

As a society we would never tolerate laws written in such a manner because the potential for arbitrary, self-promoting abuse by the authorities would be too great. One social injustice cannot remedy another.

[gollygee]

12. You think sexual attractiveness or wanting to be attractive = objectification

Woman wants to wear makeup to look nice = subject.

Someone tells woman to wear makeup so she will look nice= object.

It's right in the grammar of it. It isn't about prettiness or wanting to look pretty.

The issue is whether a woman is the subject or the object. If a woman likes how she looks in makeup, she can wear makeup. It isn't about sexuality, or attractiveness. It's about whether she wants it or whether it's expected of her. (See how "she" is the subject in one case and the object in another.)

Now there is an argument that the media tells women to wear makeup to look nice and so women are being objectified by the expectation to wear makeup, and if a woman feels like she has to then I'd agree, but most women I know don't wear makeup and suffer no penalty for it, and I'm not sure that the expectation actually exists. I don't like in a big city so maybe it's an expectation in some settings? I see a bit of a gray area so I understand the question, but a woman making a video like that is less likely to feel expected to wear makeup and more likely to simply want to wear makeup in her video.

Laws do recognize what sexual harassment is and do find that sexually objectifying material in a workplace can create a hostile atmosphere for women.

[Bonobo]

19. Everyone is the star of their own movie.

Star = subject

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. "You think sexual attractiveness or wanting to be attractive = objectification"

No, I don't. Like the OP of this thread I'm trying to get those who are pushing the objectification canard to define their terms by applying their current set of terms to situations outside their current slate of grievances to see if the principles still hold true.

Plenty of voices weighed into my thread saying women had been socially conditioned to wear make-up in order to enhance their physical appeal; so apparently I successfully anticipated some of the ideas motivating the SI brouhaha. In and of themselves those voices must hold a dim view of all the respondents who said they wore make-up by choice.

The issue is whether a woman is the subject or the object. If a woman likes how she looks in makeup, she can wear makeup. It isn't about sexuality, or attractiveness. It's about whether she wants it or whether it's expected of her.

And yet the chorus continues to proclaim its condemnation of Kate Upton and her fellow models as well as SI. Ms. Upton puts make-up on and takes clothes off for the express purpose of making herself as attractive as possible. SI pays her and other models considerable sums of money as an investment counting on the models' attractiveness to -- well -- attract people. This is considered egregious enough that it is proposed that public outcry be brought to bear end the annual display.

Some women will enhance their sexual attractiveness to gain advantage in other aspects of life, i.e. job interviews. Are they not feeding the objectification of women? I would argue they are, but if we hold them to the proposed SI standard then they too must cease and desist. But how do we gauge the motives of a women applying cherry red lipstick?

Our argument is not that it is OK to objectify women. Our argument is that the term is being applied with so little care or forethought that if those seeking action against SI succeed that the short term victory will be lost as the long term effects stifle even the most innocent of conversations and the nebulous nature of the charge allows it to be abused, not for justice, but caprice.

[Orrex]

40. Could you clarify something?

Woman wants to wear makeup to look nice = subject.

Someone tells woman to wear makeup so she will look nice= object.

Obviously it's a question of agency, and I can't see how anyone can dispute your basic formulation, but what happens when the formulation is less basic? For instance:

Man prefers women who adhere to a certain style of appearance.

Woman alters her appearance to align with that man's preference.

Is this objectification? No one is denying the woman agency, and the man is not telling her to do anything, but in electing to transform herself in this way, is the woman making herself an object? And, if so, is the man to blame?


When you call for a pizza, do you take the time to get to know the man who takes your order? Do you realize him as a fully formed human being with hopes and dreams and memories and emotions, and does this inform your behavior during the ordering process, or do you interact with him within the context of the transaction? When you picked up the phone to call, did you plan gain an appreciation of the pizza guy's individuality and personal sovereignty, or was he simply a means to an end (i.e., the acquisition of pizza)?

Is this objectification? If not, then why not?


None of this is an excuse for violence or harassment, of course. It's simply an acknowledgement that objectification is a spectrum phenomenon and that we all tailor our appreciation of other people based on context and experience.

[In_The_Wind]

21. Excellent post.

[RBStevens]

41. Excellent post. Well said.

I'd also add that no one wants any of their children to be objectified in any way, especially in a way that endangers their life on a daily basis. That's kind of a no brainer.

The last time I checked it was mostly men in control of deciding what, where,when and how wars would be waged. Moms never have had much of a say in the matter.

[NuclearDem]

5. So, women get objectified, it's evolutionary programming and the market...

Men get objectified, and it sucks?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. The OP is gauging whether or not those who are protesting the loudest about female objectification

will apply the same standard for men.

[NuclearDem]

9. It's all the same. Stupid gender roles cut both ways.

That some will make evo-psych and market excuses for women while decrying it happening to men is the problem.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. The OP isn't making an excuse for one while decrying the other.

The OP is calling the equality bluff through a sarcastic and somewhat mocking device.

[NuclearDem]

16. Equality bluff?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

26. Yes, "equality bluff."

Are you willing to apply your own proposed standards equally without regard to gender or circumstance?

[NuclearDem]

29. Of course I do. Anyone who claims I do otherwise is wrong.

[boston bean]

20. The better question is what is the OP's standard?

For it was he who said that it was biological and innate for men to treat women like objects.

There was no one, NO ONE, who was arguing against that framing that thinks any objectification is AOK.

This OP is a strawman, a derailment. Accusing some of being for objectification, because they argued vociferously against it, is really twisting it, wouldn't you say?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. "For it was he who said that it was biological and innate for men to treat women like objects."

Forsooth! For it was she who replied:

He said it was biological and innate for men to be sexually attracted to women. You took it upon yourself to label that objectification. It is akin to the OP claiming 2 + 2 = 4 and then someone coming along and declaring 4 to be a misogynist number in order to condemn the OP for promoting sexist equations.

[boston bean]

23. His/that post was in response to threads dealing with objectification.

No where was sexual attraction being discussed.

If anyone decided to conflate the two it was he. And he stood by it. Oh yes, he did.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

27. I believe the point of contention is the definition of objectification.

I would suggest attraction is an antecedent to objectification. No one ever sexually objectified someone they found to unattractive and those who lack attractiveness don't enjoy the advantages attractive people enjoy.

[boston bean]

28. this is just too funny.

thanks for making the case about objectification.

[NuclearDem]

30. "No one ever sexually objectified someone they found to unattractive"

Measuring someone on the basis of whether they sexually excite you or not is objectification.

[boston bean]

31. Sexual attraction is personal

Are you stating there is only one type of person one ought to find sexually attractive?

Oh and PS, just because you find someone sexually attractive, does not give you free reign to objectify them.

[NuclearDem]

32. Not at all.

My point was that objectification doesn't only apply to someone another considers attractive, and putting someone down as unattractive sexually objectifies that person as well.

[boston bean]

33. Objectification is not the personal of what men find attractive.

Objectification means treating a person as a thing, without regard to their dignity.

[NuclearDem]

34. I think that's what I was trying to say.

I worded it badly trying to put it in the context of what I was replying to.

[boston bean]

35. No worries.

One thing for damn sure, objectification of females is not biological, nor is it innate.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

36. This is where you and BB fail to appreciate when we start from common ground.

No one here is arguing that it is OK to deny anyone of their humanity, regardless of the reason -- sexual attractiveness, race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, etc. People are people are people, first and always.

However, what we are saying is that attractiveness is innate and biological. Attractiveness conveys advantage to those who are attractive and disadvantage to those who do not enjoy it. That is a fact. It's not a pleasant fact but it remains a fact.

Yet, finding someone attractive in and of itself is NOT objectification, it is a reflex. Nonetheless, attractiveness (or lack thereof) is not a license to treat someone differently.

To buttress this point untold numbers of men encounter women every day that they find attractive and yet they manage to interact with these women with dignity, professionalism and equality.

Since that is the case it reveals there is a line between attractiveness and objectification even though objectification is predicated upon attractiveness. Think of it as a categorical prospect: all horses are animals but not all animals are horses.

That being the case how do we draw the line that must be crossed before we accuse someone of stepping beyond mere attractiveness reflex into actual objectification, i.e. being a horse's ass?

[boston bean]

37. What one finds attractive can also be cultural.

It is a personal preference I suppose that is none of my business. There may be a biological component to it. But it's not always biological. Much of it can be cultural.

What you seem to assume is that everyone has the same preferences and that negates objectification.

Media dictating what is best for women, ie how large or small breast should be, color of hair, waist size, leg length, is totally based on what one finds physically. Leaving the mind, brain, and actual person out of it.

It is harmful on a greater level than your spouse or significant other finding you hotter than hot hot hot.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

38. "What you seem to assume is that everyone has the same preferences and that negates objectification.

I'm at a loss to see how you could come to that conclusion.

Media dictating what is best for women...

If it's bad then don't be that guy.

[RBStevens]

42. So all the men in the military like those pictured above

are sexually attractive to the Pentagon or POTUS?

If sexual attraction is necessary for objectification then this must be true in order for the op to hold water.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

43. Do you seriously think that is the argument being made? Seriously?

Okay. Sorry I didn't specifically delineate between sexual objectification and the objectification of soldiers as instruments of foreign policy and war in each instance of the term. My bad. I gave the entire audience far too much credit.

[RBStevens]

44. No but I was mostly talking about the op

because it seems that there is a lot of blurring of lines about just what is objectification. The op says men in the military are being objectified (and I agree on one level) but then you are talking about sexual objectification and I thought I'd mash it up to make a point.

My bad that I didn't make my point more clear.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

45. The OP is an argument by analogy.

Objectification, to my mind, is depriving a person of their essential humanity. The modality of objectification can assume many varieties, i.e. sexual orientation, religion, use as cannon fodder, sexual aggression, etc.

[RBStevens]

46. Maybe you are not aware

that this the op is basically a cross-post from the men's group?

But yes I understand what you are saying.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

47. What would be the relevance of the fact it was cross-posted from the men's group?

Honest question.

[RBStevens]

48. Has/had a different title there and the context

to me anyway is much different than appears here.

[Bonobo]

13. Read #3 nt

[NuclearDem]

18. And for what it's worth, I don't disagree with you that objectification is bad.

And as I've discussed recently with another Men's Group regular, these stupid gender roles are outdated and do more harm than good.

But it's a strawman to insinuate that feminists don't care about what happens to men because of them. I can't speak specifically for everyone in HOF, but the regular posters don't hate men or want them to suffer. From what I've seen, minority advocacy groups tend to get irritated when people in the majority, well-meaning as they may be, show up and try to make their movements about them.

Feminism isn't about men, but from my point of view and my experience with the movement, it's one that ultimately benefits men by tearing down gender roles. And I say that as a survivor of three suicide attempts, alcoholism, and PTSD as a result of OEF who refused treatment for the longest time for fear of being seen as weak or unmanly.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

39. exactly. and thank you for your testimony.

[PowerToThePeople]

24. Toy Soldiers. eom