Why feminism is both sex positive but also sex negative and thus all the talk about objectification even though women do it themselves but it's ok when do it.

I found this comment on a other subreddit that I feel succinctly summarizes why Feminism is against stuff like fanservice in movies or video games claiming muh objectification when it appeals to men but is all for it when it applies to women or supports only fans but hates the men who fund it all or support only fans but hates sexy women in video games and movies.

Liberalism is a primarily feminine force. As such, its interests are the interests of women. Sex is the thing that they care about the most, and any posture it takes on a sexual topic will be for the purpose of maximizing their ability to hook up with attractive men and maximally restricting or eliminating the existence of non-attractive men. And that posture will be extreme.

Women view straight men who play video games as unattractive, as a whole, and assume things that appeal to straight men in video games exist because these men can't get laid. Women hold non-attractive men in hatred and scorn, and hate to be reminded, even obliquely, that non-attractive men an existence beyond the role of a sexless worker bee. Anything that would appeal to a straight man in a video game is therefore met with disgust, as it reminds them that unattractive exist as sexual entities. Consider the rules about not asking out a woman at the gym, the store, the street, or work. We know these rules do not apply to attractive men. The purpose of these rules are to keep non-attractive men invisible. Because to women, they are. When you hear a woman say "There are no guys at [place]," they are communicating that there are no attractive men, but they really do mean "no guys," because they actually literally cannot see unattractive men. It doesn't process. Their brains don't track them. There's a prepper concept called "Gray man." Every unattractive man is a gray man to straight women.

However, sexual things in video games that appeal to them are ok, their sexuality Good and Cool. They want to maximizing that. That's why there's no concept of "female gaze" and objectification of men is considered empowering. The ideology serves the interest, not the other way around.

+

Well, no, not exactly. Corpos definitely seized the opportunity to benefit; families with two incomes can spend more, so they can simply raise the price of everything. Labor is cheaper if there's more of it, so they can pay everyone a little less and still be able to charge more.

But women in the workforce isn't a result of scheming corpos. It too has its roots in maximizing women's ability to sleep with attractive men without consequence.The traits that women naturally find attractive in men don't always overlap with what makes a man a good long-term partner. With a woman earning wages, she does not need to choose her sexual partners as carefully, because the financial consequences of poor selection is gone. This means that women need not be trapped in abusive marriages, which is good, but really it's so they can sleep with a tall, exciting man regardless of his ability or willingness to work to support her.

What do you think?