TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Media is a field which is predominately female, does this mean women are more to blame for the objectification of women than men are?

YourImag1nat1on

August 13, 2015
102 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://imgur.com/Fsi1P7A
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Media is a field which is predominately female, does this mean women are more to blame for the objectification of women than men are?
Author

YourImag1nat1on

Upvotes 102
Comments 29
Date August 13, 2015 1:53 PM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3gulgx/media_is_a_field_which_is_predominately_female/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/media-is-a-field-which-is-predominately-female.973396
https://theredarchive.com/post/973396
Top posts by YourImag1nat1on

Kimberly Jackson, was charged with being drunk in public and released on bond after having sex with unconscious boyfriend

76 upvotes
September 14, 2015
/r/MensRights

MRA should start a movement called SheForHe, but then we would be labeled as misogynist pigs for saying that women should do something for men. x-Post to r/ShowerThoughts

75 upvotes
August 8, 2015
/r/MensRights

How is the fact that there is no organization called "UNMen" not a bigger deal?

9 upvotes
August 15, 2015
/r/MensRights

Interesting post about studies that determine the role of clothing choice on rape?

0 upvotes
August 25, 2015
/r/MensRights

Am i going crazy?

0 upvotes
August 8, 2015
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–][deleted] 33 points34 points35 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No. You can't place the blame on all women for something that women in media do. That would be the same as feminists painting all men as potential violent rapists.

[–]Fastbreak99 19 points20 points21 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Upvoted for the record, but he does have a point in that it does not make sense to blame MEN in a field dominated by women, which is a common feminist argument vis-à-vis media and objectification of women.

[–]hugolp 13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Objectification is bullshit. Its a stupid concept.

Humans feel attracted to the body of other humans. If we didn't humanity would not exists. We can also feel attracted to other things once we meet the person, but there is absolutely nothing wrong in feeling attracted to a body. It's the normal state of being human. If you don't you should consult with your doctor and/or psychologist.

Let me repeat this: You should feel sexually attracted to the body of other people. If you don't something is wrong or very different than the big majority in you.

Creating the idea of objectification and then painting in bad light is just a way for the feminist bishops to demonize male sexuality. A man should never feel ashamed of being attracted to a female just because of her body. Its the healthy normal state of any man.

[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points 10 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

There is nothing natural to reducing a human body to sexualized body parts to link sexual stimulation to a product .

Its a propaganda technique developed by Signond Freuds nephew .

[–]hugolp 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

So using something humans like to attract attention and create a positive sensation is not natural at all? It is precisely the fact that it is completely natural why it can be used for advertisement so effectively.

People feel sexually aroused with some body parts, people like to feel sexually aroused, and advertisement uses it. It is not a plot of The Patriarchy(TM), its how we are.

If you have a thing against advertisement, then its a different issue. And sex is not the only natural inclination they use. Food, beautiful people, richness, etc... all is used in advertisement. Should we forbid food companies showing people eating their products with delight because its "objectifying" eating? If you have an issue with the ethics and limits of advertisement, it should be discussed as such. But its not a plot of The Patriarchy(TM) to marginalize women, its just advertisers using anything we humans like to sell more. If you are going to criticize that, why the obsession with sex and with female sex in particular?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I'd more look at it like exploiting a natural principle for unnatural ends. Why not just suck all the air out of a viewer's home until they press 'BUY'? Any number of natural principles can be exploited. Identifying the principle and saying "Oh it's a natural thing' is really only half the spadework. If people want to fabricate some fallacy to justify their manipulation, so be it. You'd be better off boning up on Bernays.

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Its exploitation of human sexuality , for advertising purposes .

They take a human, reduce them to one dimensional sexuality, and the link it to a product to manipulate people ie. reduce a full human to a sexual object.

[–]hugolp 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Adverstisment often focus on one or few ideas to send a clear message. Why this obsession only when they do with sexuality (to the point of calling it exploitation)?

I don't understand why it bothers you so much that they use sexuality but not for example the desire to get rich or to have a family or whatever.

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The other examples you gave were not people, therefore they are not humans being objectified and reduced to sexual objected.

I don't understand why it bothers you so much

It doesn't bother me, this appears to be bothering you .

Im simply trying to explain the meaning things that related to the mra / gender debate .

but not for example the desire to get rich

Wealth is not going to complain about being objectified , its already an object .

or to have a family or whatever.

Human families show full humans, experiencing full human emotions, they are not reduced to objects .

If you want to debate these issues, try to understand what they are first .

You realise MRA's have long complained about men being objectified as success objects and atms?

There is nothing wrong and nothing that effects mens rights when women do the same about sexual objectification .

[–]hugolp 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Stop claiming I don't understand and answer to what I'm saying, not something you made up. I don't care whether you consider something an object or not, its just a methaphore anyway. My question is why do you have a problem with sex being used for advertisement to the point of calling it exploration but not with anything else?

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I was just pointing out that sexual objectification happens in many of these ads , and that its not a naturally occurring thing, its a psychological manipulation tactic used by corporations .

My question is why do you have a problem with sex being used for advertisement to the point of calling it exploration but not with anything else?

We aren't talking about sex, we are talking about objectification (I dont think you know this topic, and have just heard the buzzword and now argue about , sex and objectification are two different things).

I don't have a problem with objectification of women in advertising, (other than it patronizes men and insults our intelligence) because I'm not a feminist .

I'm concerned with mra related issues .

Mra's object to the men as bumbling idiots trope and other misandry advertising , we also object to men being objectified as atms etc and other mra stuff .

Seems like you have no clue about that, and instead object to feminists objecting to objectifying women .

Your other examples ... you asked me why using wealth isn't objectification , wealth is not a human , so there is no group of wealth advocates that are going to object .

Im sorry getting more accurate information about mra and feminist related things is triggering for you.

[–]Ithinknotttt -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

It is one thing to dehumanize a person, but to objectifying them is momentary and a victimless crime. You can't tell people to stop sexualizing or objectifying something because some people do so in a poor manner. You're engineering social etiquette for the sake of a few people affected by the actions of idiots. Keep your thought crimes to yourself.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Mra;s complain about men being objectified as disposable, success and atm objects.

Feminists complain about women being objectified as sex objects.

Just because its feminsts doing it, doesnt mean you automatically have to waste energy being against it .

[–]Ithinknotttt 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I don't care about objectification as long as there is a diversity to it. There is nothing wrong with being objectified by another person. What is wrong is dehumanizing people on a personal level. If you are in media, a photo, a magazine, a movie, etc you have objectified yourself, literally. When you create pathways to your being and images of yourself without the context of who you are you objectify yourself. Social media is built around objectification.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

They are complaining about the media dehumanizing women as sex objects , and that's fine .

We have no skin in that .

We are concerned with ways men are objectified

[–]Ithinknotttt 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I'm not. Men are represented on many shows in many different ways and body types. There is nothing wring with objectifying men or anyone for that matter. As long as your objectification does not lead to poor actions you are in the right.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

MRA'S object to men being objectified as success objects and reduced to bumbling idiots .

At least we used to when we actually knew more about what we are talking about .

[–]Ithinknotttt 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

No the problem with that is that men faced those extremes and no middle ground.That is negative.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You don't really know what you are talking about do you?

How long are you an mra?

A year or less I'd guess , so you don't really know about the mens movement .

Farrell, a foundational mens rights thinker was talking about the objectification of men as success and disposable objects and the objectification of women as sex objects decades ago, so were we before this swj outrage shite took over and we grew exponentially and the over all knowledge of the issues dropped .

Have you read Farrell?

[–]xNOM 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

HR is also heavily female. Are they responsible for the "wage gap?"

[–]Targren 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Data source?

[–]YourImag1nat1on[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I found the graphic on http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/08/why-are-there-so-many-women-in-pr/375693/

Which says the data was collected from http://www.bls.gov/home.htm

[–]redditorriot -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Can you find the exact source data link from there, please (it's a huge database)? Always best to post sources in your OPs.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No .

[–]BorisIvanovich 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Where are they seeing majority male reporters? Outside of radio I've never been in a newsroom under 70% women.

[–]GunOfSod 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

No, because women in the media are the product of a patriarchal system, a system which is being constantly reinforced

...

by the media.

[–]JayBopara 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This could be a contributing factor in the common ad trope showing smart women and dumb men.

[–]Tmomp 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Would be useful to include numbers of viewers and readers.

[–]Imnotmrabut 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

YES!

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter