According to Wikipedia: "Objectification . . . means treating a person as a commodity or an object, without regard to their personality or dignity."

This may be a legitimate concept, but how it's used often reflects the logical leaps made in feminist reasoning.

Based on this definition, engaging in rape or sexual assault is objectification. You are engaging in sexual conduct with another person without regard for their consent. The other person is your sex object to fuck at will. Owning slaves is objectification. You force other people to work whether they want to or not. The person is your work object. A required element is seeing people as something merely for your use and whose free will, dignity, and preferences don't matter.

This is distinct from interacting with someone for a limited purpose. For instance, I go to McDonald's, I interact with this person for the limited purpose of ordering and obtaining food. The person still has free will, dignity, and personal preferences intact. However, at this point I am only interested in the person's food production abilities. This person is not an object and no reasonable person would think otherwise. If I go to my doctor, I do not treat him or her like a "doctor object" because I'm only interested in their doctor abilities.

Only if you necessarily see a person as having no will, dignity, or preferences of his or her own, but as a tool merely for your unilateral use, are you objectifying.

Thinking/talking about a woman's physical attributes is not objectification, it's thinking about the woman in a limited manner. It's the same as how talking only about Diana Taurasi's basketball skills does not turn her into a basketball-player object. Also, going to a strip club is not objectification. You are interacting with the stripper with the limited purpose of getting sexual enjoyment from her body/dancing/interaction. She's no more an object than the McDonald's worker, doctor, or basketball player. The stripper still has free will, preferences, and dignity. For example, if you touch her inappropriately, you will be thrown out of the club.

What turns "limited purpose engagement" into "objectification!1!1!11" is a logical leap that I will explain with a story.

Franny Feminist and Betty Benson are eating lunch at a buffet. They are sitting at a table nearby in view of the buffet itself. The buffet has chicken, fish, and beef available. Franny notices a man get up to go to the buffet. He serves himself some chicken and sits down.

Franny says, "did you see that man at the buffet?"
Betty says, "no."
Franny says "He only took chicken. He must never eat beef or fish. In fact, he must HATE those foods."
"Well," says Betty, "what if he just didn't want beef or fish right now?" Franny starts to become upset at her logic being challenged, "if he liked fish or beef, he would at least have taken a little bit of both!" Betty replies: "Isn't the simpler explanation that he didn't want any fish or beef right now? What excludes this explanation and justifies the conclusion that he never eats, and in fact hates, fish and beef?" Franny starts to turn red: "You know Betty, I am tired of explaining this over and over and over again to people who feel entitled to question my experience. You can sit there and Betty-splain everything to me, but it's not going to work. You can be part of the problem or you can be an ally." Betty sighs and decides to cut her losses, going back to eating her lunch.

Just like in this story, the conclusion that a man who looks at a woman sexually is objectifying her requires (among other things)the logically unsupported conclusion that this is the only facet in which he sees all women as having value. This is derived from the mere fact that he is interacting or thinking or talking about a woman for the limited purpose of sex. Again, there is no support for the other assumptions required to call this objectification. No support exists for the idea that she has no dignity, free will or preferences of her own.

Thus, "objectification" is really just another example of poor reasoning used to demonize men and their sexuality.