Let's discuss the "Feminist" concept of the so called "objectification theory".

63daddy · 2024-02-08T16:04:52+00:00

I think:

People are objects. Object: “a thing, person, or matter to which thought or action is directed”. (1). So, it’s obviously flawed to blame people for looking at people as if they are objects, when in fact people are objects.
Related, sight is a strong sense. We use it to look at the things around us and assess those things. Is it something positive or a threat? Is it attractive to us? This includes people and whether we think they are threatening, attractive, etc. It makes no sense to criticize this.
Women use this to their advantage. Women don’t spend hours on make up, hair, fashion, how they walk, etc so they to avoid attention, they do it to receive attention.
So it’s not really about receiving attention, it’s about receiving unwanted attention. Well, sorry, it doesn’t work that way. We have no right to receive attention from some people but not others.

WhereProgressIsMade · 2024-02-08T15:49:48+00:00

It's way too broad of a concept to have much use. In too many cases when someone says something like "men objectify women" you could swap out the word objectify for something like, "the natural and normal way men experience sexual attraction toward women."

According to the wikipedia entry, an infant or toddler is objectified under bullet 2.

Denial of autonomy – treating the person as lacking in autonomy or self-determination

An employee meets the criteria of 1 and 4.

Instrumentality – treating the person as a tool for another's purposes
Fungibility – treating the person as interchangeable with (other) object

Reading further, then you find out: well, just kidding. Maybe these bullets apply or not, depending on if we want them to or not.

Any reasonable attempt to be unbiased and it's pretty easy to see women often objectify men too. Men feeling like they're just an ATM is a trope after all.

Models and frameworks often have exceptions when you're trying to generalize things. In science, when a new model comes out that fits the data better and is better able to make predictions, the old usually gets rightly tossed out. E.g. we no longer use models of the solar system with the sun and planets all orbiting the Earth.

A better model is to understand attraction as something that is unconscious and can't be chosen. All you can do is harbor it or ignore it. What triggers it tends to be very different in men vs women. For men, it's mostly an hourglass figure, youth, and beauty. For women it's hitting at least one (preferably more) in the categories of looks, athleticism, mastery, power, and status.

Imho the primary way things go morally wrong is when deceit is used in the attraction game. E.g., a guy convinces a women to sleep with him with hints or promises of a LTR being a possibility when he knows from the start he's not interested. Or a single mother tricks a guy into thinking she's attracted to him to convince him to marry her just because she wants help with bills and kids. Or you have women admitting they only accepted an offer for a date just to get a free meal.

Maybe there are other ways it can go wrong too, but that's the main one that comes to mind.

J2501 · 2024-02-08T16:15:23+00:00

Any time a woman accuses me of objectifying her, I simply tell her I am not of a philosophy which encourages adherents to morally judge inanimate objects. In other words: if I didn't consider you sentient, I wouldn't judge you, or hold you accountable, for your actions.

Huffers1010 · 2024-02-08T20:00:37+00:00

It's one of a group of terms ("lived experience," "my truth," "made to feel," "coming from a place of") which are intended to lend weight to something very vague and poorly-defined. It's sophistry. Mostly it's a more flowery way to say "I didn't like the way that guy looked at me."

Like a lot of academic language, there are completely reasonable interpretations of objectification theory which are mostly useful in a degree-level discussion of sociology. Many of these terms are widely misused by people who don't really understand the background to it.

In the end the response is straightforward: short of harassment, anyone is allowed to look at (or indeed to objectify) anyone in any manner for any reason, and if someone doesn't like that happening, the only available sanction is to avoid interaction with the individual.

Chupadedo · 2024-02-09T03:57:53+00:00

Sexualization just means sexual attraction, and without it, there wouldn't be reproduction. Insisting that it disappears is just ignoring how life works.

Acousmetre78 · 2024-02-08T16:44:07+00:00

The male gaze has been used to trap us and turn us into sacks of sperm and lving wallets for females. They then flip this around and call me pigs for looking. It's all biology. You cannot separate the male gaze from the man. It's in our dna and the species wouldn't procreate of men didn't look.

Its hateful to place this burden on a person merely for being born a male. It would be like making women cover their bodies or making menstruation shameful or illegal.

"Men look women are looked at" -John Berger

itsakon · 2024-02-09T05:58:29+00:00

Objectification is not inherently part of dehumanization.

Calling something “theory” doesn’t make it real.

Session-Special · 2024-02-09T15:08:57+00:00

When looking at the citing - you first should understand the person presenting the issue, in in the case of the Journals look at group. In this case I will look at Nussbaum

Martha Nussbaum - is not a person whom studies the person, nor the social constructs of society. Her training is the law. . . allow that to sink in. She looks at ancient roman and greek philosophy. While on the veneer that looks very learned what is she really looking at? ancient male pre Christian society. A pretty thin layer to the whole of humanity, and a small shred that has changed with western cultural views. Its this thin veneer that she uses to attack modern society in general. The ahh don't you see men used to (ancient roman, to circa 1500) ....hence the general patriarchy BS.

While we may think she is a younger person let me remind you - she is a true child of the 60's. With all the issues that come from it. . . and then look at the subject of which she works. Odd when you look at her accolades and note not one comes from assisting vets, men, nor a centered group. No all of them are from far left leaning ideals. So her thoughts will come from left leaning columns. Her sand box as it where is only from those sources. Once you understand that then you can approach the subject of this theory. This persons focus is to affect/effect the overton window .

Which frankly they have done a good job with. However understand this is done by taking very small slices of truth threads as it were. Taking them from out of context, and arranging them in a pattern to make sense to their vision.

so to make a blanket statement - of women being looked at as an object would be in fact be true to a small standard. This statement is then turned towards men- and then that is where this is not true.

Great Queens of Europe commissioned people to paint them - so did they view themselves as an object. Most would answer no. What about the statues and the ancient artworks of Greece or roman - again we know nothing of who commissioned them, but what we do know is that were people of high importance in the structure of society at that time. What if we were to roll that view of artwork forward to today? Should we ignore the front cover of say Belle Magazine? Vogue? or other woman's magazines that "celebrate" the female form? Are they just an object then - most would say no. However in the blanket statement they would be lying to themselves. What about the art for lesbians - does that in fact create an object of the female form?

No - I think "perspective" of M. Nussbaum when looked at in total is really old. does not look at the complete picture and ignores the western culture that we live in today.

I think I have pulled at the threads in this tapestry enough to allow others to due their work on the rest of it - good day.

RoyalDog57 · 2024-02-08T21:42:29+00:00

All I have to say, is men don't commit suicide more, they only die by it more. This is because men in general choose more lethal options. Now the debate is over whether men choose it because they don't want to leave an option of living (in worse mental health) or just because of subtle biological differences.

Title	Let's discuss the "Feminist" concept of the so called "objectification theory".
Author	Nelo999
Upvotes	80
Comments	27
Date	February 8, 2024 3:14 PM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1alxxrd/lets_discuss_the_feminist_concept_of_the_so/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/lets-discuss-the-feminist-concept-of-the-so-called.1244900 https://theredarchive.com/post/1244900

Comments