"Men don't get objectified"... Then what's this?

AntiFeministMedia · 2012-06-09T01:38:59+00:00

The terms 'sexual objectification', where feminists argue women are only seen as sex objects, along with other terms, such as the feminist definition of 'rape culture' are a real fucking problem when it comes to arguing with feminists (and being understood by the general public).

The MRM needs to have a discussion about this. We need to come to some sort of understanding on this.

Do we appropriate these terms for ourselves, or do we counter them?

Im in two minds.

Do we take these terms for ourselves and apply our own definitions (which after all, are closer to the truth than the feminist definitions), or do we argue against the feminist definitions, then explain whats really happening.

This is a difficult question for the MRM.

I think we should appropriate, or else we let feminists frame the debate, which will only result in confusion for people reading.

We need to get in first, and that means taking these terms for ourselves.

AlexFeiton · 2012-06-09T06:33:35+00:00

I think men are objectified, but the sexual objectification of men is not the problem. Women are treated as sex objects, where their only personal worth derives from their sex appeal, if they have it. (A feminist will accept this definition) Men, on the other hand, are treated as success objects. They are only valued for their capacity to do, to accomplish, to win, to work.

I think this is why things like erectile dysfunction and unemployment are so psychologically crippling for men, while having no observable parallels for women. No unemployed, or low earning, or otherwise unsuccessful man is praised or lauded by society. He is not a real man. Erectile dysfunction is more directly appreciable. A man who can't perform sexually, or can't reach orgasm, is an entirely different thing from a woman in the same situation. The stigma, embarrassment, and deep emotional crisis that it causes are only explicable in terms of the man being ingrained with the idea that he is a success object, and that his worth as a man depends on his ability to perform.

I think this is the biggest objectification problem that men face. And there are countless examples outside of just erectile dysfunction and employment. I want MR's opinion on this.

Yosuke_Hanamura · 2012-06-09T04:10:07+00:00

It doesn't matter! Women have it much, MUCH worse, you sexist pig!

Oh wait, you're female...

GENDER TRAITOR! /s

ownworldman · 2012-06-09T17:38:10+00:00

I have no problems with using sexy pictures of men as an advert material. Just because somebody looks good and his good looks are used, he is not demeaned. If I am skilled musician and my music is used to make money, am I the object? If I am good organizer and employer uses my skills to coordinate construction, am I an object?

BinaryShadow · 2012-06-09T07:05:14+00:00

Tell that to the pervs in r/ladyboners. Oh wait, they aren't perverted, they are sexually empowered!

ZimbaZumba · 2012-06-09T03:16:43+00:00

Feminism is out of control in Australia. It is so bloated with power it will eventually burst, as it is starting to in the Northern Hemisphere.

silverscreemer · 2012-06-09T09:49:10+00:00

Looks to me to be a baker.

wagesj45 · 2012-06-09T11:50:30+00:00

Seems to me there is an entire block of programming everyday on the major networks and a cable channel devoted to objectifying men. Soap operas depict middle aged women gallivanting around with nothing but fashion tycoons and young bad-boy types who all happen to be sexy and willing to jump into bed with said middle aged ladies. Granted, not as much skin, but those rich, sexy fashion barons are definitely objectified, not only for their good looks but for their wealth.

PenisChrist · 2012-06-09T14:03:26+00:00

The truth is that both men and women have long "objectified" one another.

While women are certainly not immune from considering personal appearance in desiring/selecting partners, women also tend to be attracted to a whole assortment of character/lifestyle qualities that could also be called a species of "objectification", in that they don't necessarily exist within any moral context (nor are then first seen as mere satellites of one's actual human substance - if anything, that is left in the background and may/may not become a consideration later.)

So for every man who bothers to "give the time of day" to a woman because she is fair and shows signs of fertility, there is a woman who will do the same with regard to a man because he has high social standing, access to resources, is aggressive, etc.

This doesn't mean that once people get together based on such things, they don't necessarily explore the rest of that person. Some don't, and we call those people especially shallow. But I still think most do.

What unites both genders - however - is that those qualities are quite divorced from many of the things we culturally like to flatter ourselves as valuing. To be fair, we do value them - but they are not the substance of the initial attraction which gives people the chance to know one another to begin with. What further unites them, is that all of these qualities are (of themselves) amoral - they are neither essentially the qualities of a good or bad man or woman.

Hence the spectacle of people lacking wisdom sticking with men who are truly vile human beings, or women who are not really worth the gucci bags they pile up in their closet.

What complicates the matter for both men and women, is the parasitical consumer culture which disfigures and exaggerates reality - leaving neither ever having much peace of mind if they don't unplug from it consciously, and make a point of seeking out those who do likewise. Our economy revolves around the cultivation of false (and often unhealthy/ruinous) desires, and the neglect of humanity's true desire (liberty and creative expression.) Most "fashions" - whether of clothing or in pop culture - are not indigenous expressions of the people. Rather they are attempts to sell something different, as the present economic model we are burdened with relies upon ever increasing consumption. Hence the "disposable society".

edit: added last paragraph

topoi · 2012-06-09T04:20:15+00:00

While feminists have certainly claimed that men are never objectified, this is so obviously false as to be not worth considering. The interesting, reasonable, and plausible claim that they make is that men are objectified with neither the frequency nor intensity that women are.

Studies like this one are good evidence for that claim. Basically, it seems that images of sexualized women are processed by the brain the same way that objects are, whereas men are not.

e: This study should not, of course, be seen as a knock-down argument for the objectification of women. The data is, however, hard to explain otherwise. There doesn't seem to be a fitness-related mechanism that would do this work.

2012-06-09T06:06:41+00:00

There is one detail in the topic of objectification, which also explains why male strippers are far less common and popular than female strippers: Being objectified - or stripping - is a subservient role. Females generally do not fantasize of males in subservient roles. Male strippers and those "YOU men" represent a retaliation fantasy, not a sex fantasy.

If you want to find the equivalent of objectified males, take romance novels. The men in them are status and success objects, and set "unattainable standards" for men - the very same problem that female objectifications are accused of.

Title	"Men don't get objectified"... Then what's this?
Author	sonja_newcombe
Upvotes	104
Comments	30
Date	June 8, 2012 10:22 PM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/usagb/men_dont_get_objectified_then_whats_this/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/men-dont-get-objectified-then-whats-this.1020149 https://theredarchive.com/post/1020149

Comments