What are our thoughts on the objectification of women?

a-man-from-earth · 2022-01-18T07:53:07+00:00

This post got reported for rule 1 violation. This is indeed not directly a male issue, tho we often get accused of doing this.

It sparked a decent discussion, so I'm going to let it stand.

Maldevinine · 2022-01-17T09:19:22+00:00

Objectification is not some horrific evil. It's just a natural result of the number of people that you have to deal with on a daily basis.

Do you really care about the hopes and dreams of the person who serves you coffee in the morning? Or are they just an object that you put money into and get coffee out of? Is the bus driver a person with their own desires, or are they just a thing that you put money into and that takes you places?

We simply don't have the processing capacity to deal with every individual we encounter as a fully-realised human being. People we don't know well are just collections of stereotypes and objects based on their major features and how we interact with them.

So yes, women get objectified. Men also get objectified. Being objectified isn't evil, so long as the person doing it is prepared to move beyond it if they actually get to know the person.

RockmanXX · 2022-01-17T13:09:16+00:00

Feminists often(but not always) use "Objectification" as a synonym for De-Humanization. There's no good reason to use it, feminists have created words that are vaguely defined on purpose, so that they can use it to mean whatever they want to at the moment. For ex:Patriarchy is sometimes a culture, sometimes its an institution, sometimes its men being in charge of the ruling class and sometimes its belief system.

In real terms, what does it mean for average straight man

As far as i understand, Feminists seem to consider Male Sexuality itself as dehumanizing in&of itself. To an average person, Men being attracted to Women is normal&healthy, but to a feminist, that's a man "dehumanizing" a Woman in his mind. Forget prostitutes, Feminists call Men simply looking at sexy pictures of cartoon Women "Objectification", this has nothing to do with any real life women. Feminists consider Male Sexuality in isolation as predatory&dehumanizing.

bottleblank · 2022-01-17T14:34:33+00:00

I don't think it's a meaningful word (and I would include terms such as "male gaze" in the same category) when taking into account the context of human sexuality and the biological norms of heterosexual relationships.

Why should it be weird or creepy or demeaning or intrinsically dehumanising to be appreciated as attractive? Men and women both do this, to each other, because - news flash: we find each other attractive, that's the very foundation of the continuation of our species.

Yes, I understand that treating somebody like a piece of meat is unhealthy, problematic, disrespectful, but that specific behaviour often isn't narrowly defined as being what "objectification" actually means. All too often it's used as a catch-all for "men finding women attractive and allowing that to be known via some gesture or vocalisation which was received as inappropriate".

If a man were to stare at a woman, impolite though that may be, I don't think it can reasonably be assumed that he believes that she is a walking sex doll and would want or appreciate nothing about her other than her looks, her body, her sexuality. That's the first thing we see of another human being and naturally it's what we start basing our decisions on, when it comes to attraction. But it doesn't necessarily mean it's the only thing we would want from being with that women, or that she is only a receptacle for our wayward genitals.

A few others have mentioned adult entertainment, such as strippers, prostitutes, or porn stars. This inches marginally closer to the real meaning of objectification, but if it's genuinely the choice of those adult entertainment or sex workers to exploit their bodies in that way then I believe that's their decision, not yours, mine, or any of her fellow women, to make. A man may not have chosen to be sent down a mine, abusing his health and physicality to carve chunks of rock and valuable minerals or fuel from inside it, but he understands that work is effort and he requires money on which to live. Is this any different from those women opting for a career in using their bodies to obtain money to live on? I don't think so. I think it's exploiting different aspects of the human body in exchange for a wage, which we have decided is the way in which our society works, and if it's expected that we rent our bodies out for their mental or physical effort (sometimes at the risk of damage to our health) then I don't consider adult entertainment or sex work to be substantially different from any other job (with the caveat that it should be the full and conscious decision of the actor or sex worker to take up that role, and that appropriate healthcare and safety measures should be included).

Additionally, and arguably in conflict to what I've said above, I do think it's exploitation for companies to use images and videos of attractive people (quite often women) to emotionally manipulate the buying public to consume whatever it is they wish to sell. I respect the right of the women who sell their image to those companies, who choose roles in advertising, even those who perform as booth babes at conventions, but I don't think anybody can argue that it's not an attempt to abuse human desire to coerce people into buying things, or to feel a particular way which will encourage them to consume. That may be objectifying to women, but I don't think it's reasonable or responsible to ignore the impacts on those who view those adverts, be they women who believe they must look like that or (particularly single) men who are bombarded with reminders that they should aspire to be with somebody who looks like that.

VincentPhil · 2022-01-17T14:52:01+00:00

That debate is typical "false consciousness" preaching. The idea that what we do is not as important as "the spirit" according to which we do it. The people objecting to "women's objectification" will have no problem with chippendales, male prostitues or absurd body standards for men, because the "spirit" is not the same.

True debates about dignity are not about how we think, but what we actually do. What is important isn't wether strip tease or prostitution or porn are "objectifying" but whether the people doing it are under duress. Whether they actually have a choice and are treated with respect and autonomy, or not.

The new bigots are finding new words to condemn the very same things the old bigots condemned: "depravity".

LettuceBeGrateful · 2022-01-17T16:10:41+00:00

Objectification has to happen to some degree

I think this depends on how you define objectification. Sexualizing women is okay and natural, and it's often conflated with objectification to shame men for their natural desire. But objectifying someone without their consent is bad, full stop.

Things like strip clubs are on a boundary, because while it might encourage objectification, there's also consent from all parties involved, so the debate becomes whether we should allow consenting adults to engage in activity that might carry social (but not legal or physical) harm.

This question reminds me of the F1 grid girls being removed. Some people said it was a victory for women because the grid girls taught audiences to treat women as side pieces, but the women who lost their jobs said they lost a career that gave them a sisterhood and a sense of empowerment.

BitsAndBobs304 · 2022-01-17T15:11:42+00:00

It doesnt mean anything. The concept doesn't mske sense

BannanasAreEvil · 2022-01-17T17:28:50+00:00

Are we not all already objects ourselves?

What I mean is as humans, can or do we do things or make choices that in turn make us higher valued objects for others? You've heard the phrase "make yourself the object of his desires" or "hit the gym, delete Facebook" etc etc. We consciously and subconsciously turn ourselves into objects every single day, be it sexual or otherwise.

We wake up and choose what we wear every single day, that choice no matter how insignificant, is made to express something. Even if it wasn't to attract a sexual partner it was used to convey something about oneself and in conveying "whatever" it is basically making us an object to be viewed upon.

We exist and therefore we are objects, the definition of the word is as follows:

a material thing that can be seen and touched.

By its definition the fact that we merely exist makes us an object, what we do in our existence has a direct impact on how valuable of an "object" we make ourselves to be. We cannot objectify things, everything that exists in a tangible way is an object and objects can be acted upon. It gets murky when we know this, and thus make choices to make ourselves a valuable object to others.

When Steven does that extra rep at the gym, he is doing so to make himself a more valuable object, either for himself or someone else. When Jessica puts on yoga pants she is choosing to make herself a more valuable object to herself or someone else. Now Steve can take it further, he can rise up at his place of employment, earn more income. He can drive a fancy car, take up a hobby that appeals to others as "worthwhile" and in doing so he is increasing his "worth" and we only apply the idea of "worth" to objects.

In essence, the idea that "objectification" is somehow wrong or immoral or whatever is basically denying the existence of people as tangible things. We will always be objects and we each make choices to make our value either higher or lower but it never is zero.

In the end, we each make choices that increase our ability to be "objectified" by others. Being objectified is not itself wrong, since as stated before we are merely objects at the base level. Yet one has to wonder, at what point do we stop complaining about people "objectifying" others and instead look inward and ask "am I making choices to be more objectified in the first place?"

Another neat idea, being hit or someone wanting to hit another person is also objectifying them. As they are being viewed as something to be acted upon and you act upon objects.

BloomingBrains · 2022-01-18T03:41:03+00:00

To "objectify" someone seems, linguistically, to imply you are treating them like an object. In other words, disregarding their will. So this could really be anything from starring at breasts to violent rape. It's kind of a vague term. Under this term, almost everything we consider to be bad would count as objectification. Even stealing, murder, etc.

What feminists really mean is "sexualization" and then they conflate these two as if they are the one and the same, when they are not. It is possible to sexualize someone but not objectify that person. Every guy that saw an attractive woman but didn't do anything bad to her is "guilty" of sexualizing her, but not objectifying her. Sexualization occurs in the mind and might correlate to, but doesn't always cause, actual behavior. So being against sexualization is really just being pro-thoughtcrime and against completely natural urges that women engage in too (though arguably, only to a lesser extent). It's essentially the same thing as medieval christian beliefs that women are "temptresses" only instead of demonizing the women for causing it, modern feminists demonize the men for thinking it.

do you think its morally wrong to go to a strip club? use prostitutes?

Only if the strippers and prostitutes are being forced into that work against their will. If they chose to do it, it's not objectifying them to patronize their business, anymore than you are "objectifying" a barista you don't really want to chat to because you're in a rush and just really want some coffee.

The problem is that most feminists talk about objectification in cultural terms with phrases like "the male gaze". For example, sexy female superhero art in comic books. That really grinds my gears because they are totally ignoring the fact that male superheroes are just as sexualized too. "But oh, it's a male power fantasy." And being a sexy badass isn't a power fantasy for women? Remove the badass part and there are plenty of women who are simply derive a lot of empowerment from being desirable in real life. How is it objectifying them if they want to do it? Another example: pornstars. Unless its some shady underground shit, they get paid to do what they're doing, they enjoy it, etc. No one is being objectified. Even less so when they're complaining about fictional characters, like showing a panty shot or something in some show. Yeah, I'm sure that 2D drawing who doesn't exist and doesn't have any feelings because she's not a real person feels really offended right now. What a tragedy.

That said, it is more than legitimate to complain about things like men groping women, making rude comments, starring at breasts, etc. But these things are not being done by the average guy, and they aren't indicative of some kind of broad social problem caused by porn, strip clubs, prostitutes, and sexy art. If anything, men are the real victims of those things because they are literally businesses designed to exploit biological urges. And ironically its the feminists who are dividing the sexes even further, creating more lonely men, and making those services more profitable.

SuspicousEggSmell · 2022-01-17T08:20:56+00:00

I dunno if it’s necessarily something that this group would have any particular collective feelings on. My personal feelings on prostitution and strippers aside, I think as long as it’s two or however many adults with full agency it’s fine. I do think objectification is a legitimate issue many women face, but it’s obviously nuanced and very context dependent, and I don’t think accessing sex workers is really where the issue lies generally.

Whether or not it’s something to be tackled from a Men’s Rights perspective, I’m not sure. I don’t really think we have anything to add on that front, but perhaps others will prove me wrong

Radiance969 · 2022-01-18T05:55:06+00:00

I think it's real. The problem is only female objectification is discussed and not male. Women treat men as walking ATMs and dildos and nobody cares.

into_circuitry · 2022-01-17T14:55:03+00:00

It's wrong.

Quit_social_media · 2022-01-20T01:19:58+00:00

It's something that happens naturally on some level. The animal kingdom for instance is based upon it. Think of birds and how extravagant colours and dancing they do to impress mates. Magnificent stags with beautiful large antlers and lions with impressive manes. Your pet dog certainly isn't riding that other dog hard over a wonderful personality.

Problems can begin to arise if people only ever think of people as just objects and never as three dimensional people. But realistically I don't think that happens as much as feminists lead everyone to believe. For instance, if a stripper doing a dance suddenly cries, I'm willing to bet most people will snap out of their horny needs to attend to her emotional needs as ask if she is okay.

ferrocarrilusa · 2022-01-20T14:40:00+00:00

I don't like people who push moral judgment on those who go to strip clubs or watch porn. After all some women find it liberating, and part of why they are considered vices is because of paternalistic ideals.

On the other hand, I think it's wrong to make unwanted advances on anyone. Which is not to say that I think catcalling on the street should be unlawful, but frowned upon.

TheSnesLord · 2022-01-21T01:10:40+00:00

"objectification" is not valid. It is just an excuse that feminists and women use to get rid of attractive/sexy women in media because it's making them jealous and bitter. And also to take something away from men out of spite. It's also happening in Western video games as well.

And to make it worse, women objectify men as well, and do it via double standards. For example they kick up a stink about bikini contests but at the same time drooling over Chris Hemsworth shirtless.

McGauth925 · 2022-02-28T04:36:08+00:00

As OP stated, some objectification is necessary and natural. And, most women will support any other woman who is using her sexual attractiveness to get what she wants. So, it's ok if women use their sexuality, but not ok for men to be attracted to women, because that's all about objectification. Thus strippers are fine, but the men who enjoy them aren't. Even though it's fine for women to enjoy male strippers. Hypocrisy.

IOW, it's mostly a way for women, and especially feminists, to say that men are inherently bad. It's BS.

politicsthrowaway230 · 2022-01-17T12:32:04+00:00

Viewing someone as a sex object without their consent/mutual understanding is bad no matter the gender. It is a gender equality issue that effects both men and women and just falls under treating others with respect. But in any relationship, at some point, you will see your partner as a means for sex, even if it's just acute in moments of excitement, it's not really as blanket as "objectification bad".

> use prostitutes?

If they are trafficked, definitely not. And I'd feel bad if they were in poverty doing it as a last resort. If these two things are no object, I don't think there's any issue using sex workers. This objection is nothing to do with objectification but rather if you are taking advantage of them.

>do you think its morally wrong to go to a strip club?

Similar to the above, it depends on their work conditions. If they're the kind serving wealthy customers, say, (I understand these are a small minority, but for the sake of argument) no issue. People should not be forced to ascribe some emotional value to sex. Some people only want to have sex in committed relationships, others are fine having sex with people who they have met hours before. Not my place to cast judgement on either. If someone wants to sell sex and someone wants to buy it, you shouldn't stop them because of some strange moralistic quibble. (certain branches of radical feminism are very insistent on telling women how they should think/feel about sex)

> if so, because of objectification?

I guess viewing prostitutes as a service is objectification. Does it matter? As above, we associate with a lot of people as a means to an end. It is essentially voluntary on their part, (again, barring trafficking or poverty) by offering sex services they are turning themselves into a kind of product.

Though far less intimate, a cleaner, builder or technician is similar. (obviously with the emotional component removed these feel far different, but the concept of turning yourself into a product is the same) Really they're just a number you call to get something done. We can't have deep personal connections to everyone, sometimes they just need to do something for us, and I don't see a problem with that. (arguably this is even independent of capitalism)

The discussion on prostitutes is over-gendered anyway, though they're a minority when looking at percentages, (15, 20%? can't really remember) it still translates to a significant raw number (millions) of men that are excluded. And leftism is supposed to be the thing that hones in on these minority percentages that are brushed over, and you still need to reconcile how male prostitutes fit in.

Algiz56 · 2022-01-18T10:34:01+00:00

Objectification is okay, where it is okay. Say in the evening at a bar.

Strip bars are morally okay, because girls get payed for it. And they mostly go there to work on their own account.

Prostitution is less clear thing, though. But anyway we can't fight it, so weay just let it slip through. There is male prostitution too, so things are pretty equally bad here.

However, objectification at work or in academia is bad idea. Because the goal of presence should be, ideally, work or study.

Nothing wrong to ask out an attractive single colleague after work time, however. And nothing bad in office affairs per se, if they do not influence your working behavior.

Zinziberruderalis · 2022-01-18T19:29:06+00:00

or else couples/sex would just never happen

You say that like it would be a bad thing.

I've never seen a definition of objectification that made sense. In research practice it is operationalized as a man looked at a woman's erogenous zones.

skellious · 2022-01-19T17:16:30+00:00

Objectification as a concept is strange. I have never once thought of a person as an object. They are in a separate category to inanimate things.

Title	What are our thoughts on the objectification of women?
Author	rochesterslim
Upvotes	22
Comments	40
Date	January 17, 2022 7:43 AM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/s5ycsi/what_are_our_thoughts_on_the_objectification_of/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/what-are-our-thoughts-on-the-objectification-of.1097102 https://theredarchive.com/post/1097102

Comments