Objectification at the Olympics

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] -96 points-95 points-94 points 13 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]SageInTheSuburbs 75 points76 points77 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Candsas -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm confused here. I'm assuming the community agrees with you and disagrees with Hipster_Bruinbear because of the amount of upvotes/downvotes you both have and am sincerely trying to understand. I know what Hipster_Bruinbear is talking about, there were videos posted with titles like "The only reason I watch the Olympics" with women doing participating in their sport but the main concentration was the woman's body and the sexual gratification of those watching this woman.

So you are saying the slowing down and obvious concentration of the women athletes bodies as they prepped and performed at their sport coupled with discussion of their bodies in a sexual nature and ignoring their actual sport all together is simply sexuality and should be embraced but the Jezebel's article about the men's swimming team is objectification? Or do you feel both are ok and we should embrace all forms of receiving sexual gratification from these athletes, male and female? Thank you for your time, I feel I am out of the loop on this one.

[–]Neurotikitty 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]nanomagnetic 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]kidmonsters 13 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

You do realize that the Olympic Games used to be performed naked, right? I'm not defending objectification in any sense, I'm just saying, the entire point of the Olympics was the celebration of the human body.

[–]Doctor_Loggins 28 points29 points30 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Sacrosanction 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]logic11 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TalesAbound15 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jhnhines 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 66 points67 points68 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ma99ie 20 points21 points22 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]gege33 20 points21 points22 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]muchachomalo 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetpal 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]broken_cogwheel 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aikidi 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mordicaii 34 points35 points36 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron 176 points177 points178 points 13 years ago (239 children) | Copy Link

[–]Clauderoughly 155 points156 points157 points 13 years ago (227 children) | Copy Link

[–]WatchYourTone 102 points103 points104 points 13 years ago (219 children) | Copy Link

[–]Clauderoughly 37 points38 points39 points 13 years ago (210 children) | Copy Link

[–]zayg 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]drockers 14 points15 points16 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Coleridge12 23 points24 points25 points 13 years ago (61 children) | Copy Link

[+]Clauderoughly -12 points-11 points-10 points 13 years ago (60 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (59 children) | Copy Link

[–]Clauderoughly 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (58 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grapeban 29 points30 points31 points 13 years ago (48 children) | Copy Link

Actually the reason we have the term "cis" is to distinguish between people who are cis and people who are trans, ie people whose gender matches their sex and people whose gender does not.

Without "cis" we end up with a situation where you have "people" and then you have "trans people", which has the implication that trans people are somehow something other than "normal" people. It feeds into the idea that, say, trans women are not "real" women, or that trans men are somehow less than "real" men.

A helpful comparison is if we had "black people" but white people were just called "people". So you would have to say things like, "In the past, black people were slaves to people." Do you see why that would be problematic?

Also, being cis is not "acting the way you were born to act". No-one is born to act anyway, but more to the point, a trans person is acting exactly how they were "born to act", since their gender does not match their sex, they are fixing their sex so as to match up with their gender. They are acting their gender, rather than pretending to be cis in order to act their sex.

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (32 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Grapeban4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]srasmus43 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chavelah -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]valeriekeefe2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Grapeban1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"Male men and female women" is a useless term, since, hey, guess what, I'm a trans woman and a "female woman". Because I'm every bit as female and... er, woman as you. I'm not a "male who has had their genitals surgically mutilated", I'm a woman who was unfortunately born with a body that doesn't quite match and the only reason that's a problem is because of bigots in society.

That's why "cis" is necesarry, because it puts cis people on a level playing field with trans people, it makes you equal to us and allows us to finally start being considered just as much our gender as you are.

Yes, you're a woman. As am I. The modifier "cis" is needed when we wish to distinguish you from I in terms of transsexuality.

You're offended by being called "cis"? Why, because it drags you into our "sociopolitical clusterfuck"? Well, that "sociopolitical clusterfuck" is my life, and it gets a lot worse than just being called "cis".

[–]chavelah0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Grapeban2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chavelah-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Grapeban3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chavelah-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Grapeban3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chavelah-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Grapeban2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chavelah0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Grapeban2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RebeccaRed1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chavelah0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]timetogo134 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

No, and it's ignorance like this that is hurting the movement. Cis specifically means non-trans. Biological males who are men are cis. Biological females who are women are cis. Biological males who are gay are cis, as are biological females who are gay. Biological males who are women are trans, as are biological women who are men. A gay biological male who is a woman (and therefore also a lesbian) is not cis. A gay biological female who is a man (and therefore also a gay) is not cis.

Again, cis just means "not trans."

Cis privilege is every privilege that we have from not being trans and is enjoyed by almost all human beings, whether homo or heterosexual, but not by all. The fact that you (I'm assuming you aren't trans of course) will very likely never have to worry about telling a sexual partner your sex (as it will almost certainly be obvious) and risk being killed for doing so is cis privilege.

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the idea.

[–]lasertits69 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]timetogo1342 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lasertits690 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]timetogo1345 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Fair enough. I was defining it in a way that would be practical to those reading this. When they go on tumblr, when they talk to social justice advocates and trans people, and when they see it here on reddit they will now know what all those people are saying when they say "cis" or "cis privilege". Sort of like how when 99% of people say "homo" they mean gay, not the exact definition of it. So were I to say "hetero specifically means not-gay" that would be, if not totally correct, far more useful for most people.

That's why I included the examples, because what is most helpful to someone trying to understand the day to day usage of the term is to know why someone would be called cis.

That being said, a more complete answer would include the information you have provided, so thank you for that.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]HolyCounsel 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ENTP -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ENTP -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Polluxi 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lati0s 17 points18 points19 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Polluxi 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]glassuser 15 points16 points17 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Clauderoughly 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]timetogo134 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Clauderoughly 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 19 points20 points21 points 13 years ago (130 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gingor 34 points35 points36 points 13 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]valeriekeefe 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ENTP 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+]SSJAmes -10 points-9 points-8 points 13 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ENTP 15 points16 points17 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]poubelle 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]SSJAmes -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]poubelle4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SSJAmes1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]poubelle2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]blackkevinDUNK 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RebeccaRed 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]southernasshole 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ruderabbit -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nuovo_donna 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Generally when I meet people who aren't g/l/b they identify as straight. As little as 20-30 years ago, many if not most people wouldn't have done so. There was no need to call themselves such a silly made up word. By doing so they would be giving false legitimacy to fruits. They'd have declared that advocating the usage of such a word verged on sanctimony. They were simply put, normal.

We've since come to understand that gay is one of nature's variants. It occurs now and has always occurred. It isn't aberrant and it neither can be reversed nor should it, so describing it as abnormal is at best inexact and only becomes exact if you state definitively, The portion of the bell curve I'm considering only comprises people on the heterosexual center of the sexual preference bell curve (Kinsey level 0 people).

People have adopted quite well to referring to themselves as straight vs normal. In fact using your criteria, It's no longer normal to think of yourself or to call yourself normal simply because you happen to be heterosexual. Thank god for minor social progress, because at the risk of invoking Godwin, we know what can happen when the majority decide that the abnormal need to be dealt with.

The situation is completely analogous for trans people. While it may be accurate to say that the Std Deviation is mathematically higher on the bell curve of gender identity in humans. We still are by definition contained under the umbrella of that normal curve.

We're as normal as you are.

edit:

we have to protect their feelings from reality.

This has far less to do with the reality of the situation than you might like to imagine, and this is why I made the completely apt analogy to lgb people. Abnormal people are discriminated against, this is a time proven fact. As the degree to which a person is thought to be abnormal decreases, the degree to which that person is treated with respect, regard, and equality increases. Unless you're a person who thinks we should be treated with disrespect, disregard, and discriminated against, then you would do well to realize this fact. If you are that person, then fuck you :)

[–]lasertits69 36 points37 points38 points 13 years ago (47 children) | Copy Link

It means normal.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Cis means 'On the same side of'. In gender studies, it refers to one's gender identity being 'on the same side of' their physical parts. ex a cis male is a person with a penis who identifies as a man.

Of course, being cis is the 'normal' state in that it is more common than being trans. But, normal and abnormal have broader implications than just siding with the majority and siding against it. So, we replace normal/abnormal with more specific terms that better communicate their meanings. 'Trans man' means a person who IDs as a man but their body is 'on the other side' [has a vagina].

Example: "That man is trans" vs "that man is abnormal"....The first one means that that man has a vagina while the second one means that that man is not a perfect example of the majority.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

Since such a small percentage of people identify as transsexual/gender, why are the vast majority of people given a word to differentiate them from the minority?

Personally, I don't care what people choose to call themselves, but it seems odd that, like Demonspawn said, the >95% are defined by the <5%.

There are plenty of disorders that a tiny minority of people have (for example, downs syndrome), but we do not label the majority of people without those disorders with some specific term to differentiate them from that small minority. Note that I'm not trying to equate transsexuality to a debilitating mental disorder, it's purely for example. We don't say that the vast majority of people are something that means "not Goth" either, for example, because a minority of people identify as Goths.

Also, an open question to anyone reading this: Is feminism compatible with transsexuality?

[–]DebasedAndRebased 18 points19 points20 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExceptionToTheRule 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I guess it was a silly question, I do understand why the distinction is useful. "Cis-sex" and "cis-gender" are such ugly terms though, couldn't someone have thought of something that sounds better?

But yes, I'm a feminist and a transsexual and so is my boyfriend.

Isn't one of the fundamental axioms of feminism is that men and women are inherently no different beyond their physical differences, and that they are only made different through social conditioning. Some schools in Sweden have even started to avoid using gendered pronouns around the children, because the feminist sentiment there is so strong. Doesn't the existence of transsexuals directly contradict this principle? A physically male individual raised as a man may identify as a woman, or a physically female individual raised as a woman may identify as a man.

The existence of transsexuals seems to suggest that gender is innate, and not a product of social conditioning; surely this must lead to inconvenient questions for feminists? If gender is innate, if there are inherent differences between the male and female mind, then perhaps there really are things that men are better at than women, and things that women are better at than men? Perhaps there is an innate reason why significantly more men pursue STEM subjects at university, and why significantly more women pursue just about every other subject?

[–]ExceptionToTheRule 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The fundamental Axiom is feminism is that men and women should be treated no differently and I believe the schools in sweden have stopped using them to cater to other gender identities. That isn't to say there is no difference, but its like two over lapping bell curve, sure men trend towards one thing and women another, but there are men and women at both ends of the spectrum, you shouldn't try to place people in a box like that, just let them do whatever they're going to do and discover what they're good at.

Sex is innate, gender is at least partly social(clothing, mannerisms, etc) When someone is a transsexual its because the brain sex does not match the rest of the persons sex. So in essence a typically female brain in a typically male body. There are things that men are usually more adept at, but its by no means a rule you can stand by. I think thats pretty well proven to be honest.

Again being transsexual is more about the map of your body that your brain has, being out of line, then social roles or gender roles. Although as I said I believe there is an innate difference between men and women, but there are plenty of men who are great cooks and stuff and women who are great scientists so we shouldn't discriminate or use sex or gender as a way to determine what jobs people should do.

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The fundamental Axiom is feminism is that men and women should be treated no differently and I believe the schools in sweden have stopped using them to cater to other gender identities. That isn't to say there is no difference, but its like two over lapping bell curve, sure men trend towards one thing and women another, but there are men and women at both ends of the spectrum, you shouldn't try to place people in a box like that, just let them do whatever they're going to do and discover what they're good at.

That's something I can agree with, but from my personal experience with feminists they seem to say one thing and do another. That's what feminists say they believe, but they only ever seem to decry unequal treatment if it disadvantages women. They strongly support getting women into traditionally male-orientated areas (e.g. STEM), without simultaneously setting up the necessary structures to allow men to enter fields that they are currently facing difficulties entering (e.g. care and pre-college teaching). They leave men high and dry, with no purpose or direction, after pulling the rug from under everybody's feet and providing a safety net that only catches women. Men just have to "shut up and deal with it" with no support structure in place to help them deal with somewhat radical changes in a constructive way. Also, doesn't the seemingly strict focus on gender binaries exclude trans men, trans women and genderqueer individuals (is that the correct term?)? Perhaps I have simply been unlucky and not interacted enough with the right kind of feminists, or perhaps the right kind of feminists need to be more vocal and drown out the ramblings of the wrong kind. Perhaps I simply do not fully understand what they really stand for, but I'm going to remain sceptical for now.

Sex is innate, gender is at least partly social(clothing, mannerisms, etc) When someone is a transsexual its because the brain sex does not match the rest of the persons sex. So in essence a typically female brain in a typically male body. There are things that men are usually more adept at, but its by no means a rule you can stand by. I think thats pretty well proven to be honest.

Again being transsexual is more about the map of your body that your brain has, being out of line, then social roles or gender roles. Although as I said I believe there is an innate difference between men and women, but there are plenty of men who are great cooks and stuff and women who are great scientists so we shouldn't discriminate or use sex or gender as a way to determine what jobs people should do.

I'm not ashamed/embarrassed to admit that I don't really understand transsexuality and the issues that transsexual individuals face. I would like to learn and understand more, though. I think part of the reason that this thread turned out the way it did (with discussions about "normality" and why the term "cis" even exists), is because that a lot of people don't really understand what the issues are (due to a lack of exposure in general), and in r/MR most peoples' exposure to terms involving "cis" has been some unreasonable radical telling them that their opinion is utterly invalid because they have "straight white cis man privilege". Again, of course, I agree that people should be free to pursue what they want to pursue, and not what they're told they should pursue because of arbitrary and largely (if not entirely) irrelevant physical characteristics.

[–]ExceptionToTheRule2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That's something I can agree with, but from my personal experience with feminists they seem to say one thing and do another. That's what feminists say they believe, but they only ever seem to decry unequal treatment if it disadvantages women. They strongly support getting women into traditionally male-orientated areas (e.g. STEM), without simultaneously setting up the necessary structures to allow men to enter fields that they are currently facing difficulties entering (e.g. care and pre-college teaching). They leave men high and dry, with no purpose or direction, after pulling the rug from under everybody's feet and providing a safety net that only catches women. Men just have to "shut up and deal with it" with no support structure in place to help them deal with somewhat radical changes in a constructive way. Also, doesn't the seemingly strict focus on gender binaries exclude trans men, trans women and genderqueer individuals (is that the correct term?)? Perhaps I have simply been unlucky and not interacted enough with the right kind of feminists, or perhaps the right kind of feminists need to be more vocal and drown out the ramblings of the wrong kind. Perhaps I simply do not fully understand what they really stand for, but I'm going to remain sceptical for now.

I think you need to call out people who you see doing something wrong. A gender binary does harm gender varient people like Genderqueer people and other transsexuals, but it has its uses sadly.

I'm not ashamed/embarrassed to admit that I don't really understand transsexuality and the issues that transsexual individuals face. I would like to learn and understand more, though. I think part of the reason that this thread turned out the way it did (with discussions about "normality" and why the term "cis" even exists), is because that a lot of people don't really understand what the issues are (due to a lack of exposure in general), and in r/MR most peoples' exposure to terms involving "cis" has been some unreasonable radical telling them that their opinion is utterly invalid because they have "straight white cis man privilege". Again, of course, I agree that people should be free to pursue what they want to pursue, and not what they're told they should pursue because of arbitrary and largely (if not entirely) irrelevant physical characteristics.

Cis exists for the same reason as the word asian exists, You don't say, Black, white, latino and normal colored people. Cis just means, not trans, I don't see why its a big deal.

I will say that being a straight white cis male, tends to give you certain experiences in life that other races or genders are not afforded. So when they speak of privilage they're taking about the fact that you were never threated with death simply for being white, or talked down to because you're a man, etc.

I would really recommend you read up on transsexuality and its causes, though wikipedia or places like /r/asktransgender

[–]stopaclock1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwawaydirl 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JRutterbush 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PleasureFlames 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]valeriekeefe 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]valeriekeefe 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lasertits69 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Since such a small percentage of people identify as transsexual/gender, why are the vast majority of people given a word to differentiate them from the minority? Personally, I don't care what people choose to call themselves, but it seems odd that, like Demonspawn said, the >95% are defined by the <5%.

Truth. I think that by saying cisgender they are pointing out that Transgender is just a different prefix. Linguistically I think it makes sense because gender is a concept and one person's gender may be cis or trans. Its not that we are "gendered" and they are "Transgendered". We are "cisgendered" and they are "transgendered".

Trace disorders is a bad example. Cis and trans are prefixes and can be interchanged. And not everyone has a disorder while everyone does have a gender/sexuality and they can be either cis or trans. A better example is race. Everyone has a race so there is a word describing each one. The majority are not just called "people".

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]republitard 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OffensiveConfronter -5 points-4 points-3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]logic11 -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]DebasedAndRebased 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]logic11 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lasertits69 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]valeriekeefe 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

... the term cis has become so laden with bullshit that it should disappear from all discourse forever.It's used predominantly as a pejorative against heterosexual white males...

It's so awesome to hear that. Maybe you should show the radfems your data because they claim that we never say that cis men have cis privilege, just cis women.

PS If you want to bet me $100 that I can find ten instances of that claim online in the next 24 hours, I'd take the bet, and spend the winnings on delicious sushi.

Cis-gendered comes from a radical misunderstanding of gender and the importance of gender.

Cis-gendered comes from a radical misunderstanding about the fact that cisgender is an adjective and not a verb, but I digress. We actually do have to talk about these things until we get action on them.

Cis feminists, for example, may talk a good game, but in Canada, trans people live under the same government-mandated control of bodily autonomy that cis uteri used to be under before Regina v. Morgentaler.

They haven't done jack shit about the 170,000 + women who can't do with their bodies what they please because too many cis feminists treat trans women like honourary women. We're the femboi auxilliary to them.

You guys owe it to your actual concern about sexism to be better than that.

Seriously, just finished reading Why Men Earn More. And every time there's cissexism on a men's rights page, Warren Farrell stoically cries a tear into a glass of merlot.

...

Welp, that last bit's goin' on my tumblr feed.

[–]logic11 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Alright, I give you that... I am not part of the trans community (and admit to having my own issues around the idea of sex with a trans person, although that is the only limit I would place on a trans person personally... it's my hangup and I own that). I have only run into the term cis in concert with the term privilege, which is a completely bullshit argument by the way. Not that privilege doesn't exist, but from the point of argumentation pointing it out is actually worse than useless, since it creates an adversarial atmosphere when the person may (or may not) have a point, and that should be evaluated on it's own merits.

I will however admit that from the perspective of a trans person what I said was kind of dickish, and wasn't actually aimed at that community, but at the overly PC concern trolls out there. My apologies.

[–]valeriekeefe 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, to some extent one has to recognize how these dynamics exist. Part of the problem is that the connotation of privilege is often, "Something someone has that they don't deserve." But most privileges, like cis privilege, for example, revolve around having something everything should have as a natural right. Everyone should have their gender identity accepted, everyone should have the right to equitable treatment by the justice system, everyone should be treated as though their safety is important, etc.

And yes, almost everyone holds privilege, and almost everyone is oppressed (including most straight, cis, males). And it's the failure of privilege theory to try to speak to turning a privilege into an entitlement at times that derails the movement.

But this is a failure of rhetoric, not analysis, I'd maintain.

[–]logic111 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -7 points-6 points-5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mechakingghidorah -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]nekosune 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]valeriekeefe 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lasertits69 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]lasertits69 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]mogleyNW 13 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

I think it was probably your example. I know that's the part I feel is a bit fallacious.

Example: "That man is trans" vs "that man is abnormal"....The first one means that that man has a vagina while the second one means that that man is not a perfect example of the majority

According to the way you explained it (to which I agree for the most part), the second would mean that the man does not conform to the majority. Normalcy doesn't demand superiority or perfectness, neither does the opposite. The passive-aggressiveness of your last last ten words or so is pretty lame.

[–]lasertits69 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mogleyNW3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lasertits692 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SageInTheSuburbs 42 points43 points44 points 13 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[–]Edgarthefish 37 points38 points39 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Edgarthefish 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ENTP 18 points19 points20 points 13 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]jianadaren1 13 points14 points15 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]jianadaren1 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Teeth is a poor example. Teeth could probably be considered a negatively distributed population variable. Most people have ok teeth and a small minority have terrible teeth. It's like feet- most people have a functional quantity of feet (2) and a small minority are disadvantaged.

A better example would be something that is normally distributed, like grades.

"She has abnormal grades."

Without more you don't know if she's a terrible, or a brilliant student. You only know that she's not average.

I guess my conclusion is that negatively distributed things (in terms of desirability) have a negative connotation with the word "abnormal" (like number of feet). Normally distributed things are neutral (grades). Positively distributed things have positive connotations (like income). Traits that are punished for non-conformity (like driving speed) may be distributed in all kinds of ways in terms of the actual trait, but are negatively distributed in terms of desirability (because all conformists are viewed neutrally/positively and non-conformists are viewed negatively- there are no hyper-conformists). Similiarly, traits that are rewarded for diversity (although I can't think of an example; even things that are traditionally prized as being diverse like genetic makeup don't really qualify because benefit is not achieved by being as different as possible from the norm- if that were the case then we'd really be really into platypuses or something...)

Perhaps with respect to this discussion, heteronormative behaviour is normal, and there is only direction to deviate from it (you can't be super-or-hyper-hetero). So insofar as there is prejudice with respect to non-heteronormative behaviour, then abnormal will have a negative connotation in that context. But the problem isn't the word "abnormal"- the problem is prejudicial attitudes towards alternative sex and gender orientations.

[–]ENTP 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]jianadaren1 -6 points-5 points-4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Dylanthulhu 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Curebores 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Curebores -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ENTP0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Curebores1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ENTP-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]isleepinahammock 13 points14 points15 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Kaza999 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]isleepinahammock 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nuovo_donna 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sp8der -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]valeriekeefe 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]piggnutt 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]CDClock 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alexi_Strife1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]EvilPundit -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sp8der -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bubbascrub 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FuchsiaGauge 16 points17 points18 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]valeriekeefe 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]valeriekeefe 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ENTP 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]nlakes 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]valeriekeefe 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]piggnutt 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ENTP -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]ENTP -8 points-7 points-6 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]truthman2000 -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ENTP 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]truthman2000-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alexi_Strife -5 points-4 points-3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Alexi_Strife -11 points-10 points-9 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]valeriekeefe 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Curebores -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Curebores 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]catsfive3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Volcris 14 points15 points16 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]HANDlCAPPERGENERAL 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I googled it and found this, I'm confused.

2013

enjoying the lengthy summer provided by President Obama’s Funky Fresh Commission on Anthropogenic Climate Adjustment for the Betterment of American Society

thinking about planting some seeds

go to the garden supply section of my local corner store (because we must always buy local)

pick up a packet of seeds for all colors of the visible spectrum, and a couple of the infrared and ultraviolet wavelengths, just to be safe

get on my fixed gear bike and start pedalling home, flagellating the entire way as penance for anyone who is differently-abled or tetrapodal-phobic

get home, head to my backyard

tie a bandana around my head, have my spade and watering can with me

plunge my shovel into the peaty earth

hear a shudder and groan as spirits rise from the crack in the earth I have created

‘FOOLISH MAN,’ booms a voice that seems to come at me from all sides,’ DO YOU NOT REALIZE THAT YOU HAVE RAPED ME, MOTHER EARTH?’

I look at my rake

it’s covered with blood, my semen, and small planetoid fetuses

I gnash my teeth and tear out my hair, weeping at my foolish, Patriarchy-engendered foolishness

as the CIS Police comes to take me away, an officer, looks at me and spits

Ze takes off my bandana and looks at me with utter disgust

‘So… little whiteboy thought it’d be fun to play Jamestown huh?’

Zir CIS police partner looks from zis wheelchair and laughs

‘That’s a charge of cultural appropriation on top of a Class 3 Rape of Mother Gaea’

Ze grabs my dick, still covered with dirt and little bits of planet

‘Where you’re going… we’re gonna fill you up with all the culture you need…’

UNCHECKED PRIVILEGE: NOT EVEN ONCE

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ShitDickMcCuntFace 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DoktorTeufel 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Volcris 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]gege33 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Clauderoughly 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]fondueguy 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sltkr 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]sltkr 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]harbo 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sltkr 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JCongo 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phallic 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rogersmith25 73 points74 points75 points 13 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

Sport is inherently "objectifying" - you reduce a "complete person" with hopes and dreams and a personality (blah blah blah) down to a piece on a chess board, or an object in a race to be the first over a line. So in that sense, it's really easy to take footage of any female athlete and claim it is objectification.

I say female athlete because any blatant case of male objectification - like when comments are made about male diver's tiny bathing suits - it is argued that it isn't objectification because reasons (usually something about patriarchy, power, and history).

The truth is that "Bodies in Motion", other than a bad title and a questionable soundtrack, is neither sexy nor sexually objectifying. It highlights female athletes participating in a variety of sports - and not just traditionally feminine sports either. Shot Put is shown - which is decidedly unsexy and unfeminine.

Perhaps we should be more like Saudi Arabia and force all of our female athletes to dress "modestly" with hair, arms, and legs covered, lest we mistake them for prostitutes. /s

EDIT: Grammar

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]rogersmith25 -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]konsoquence 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]rogersmith25 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]konsoquence 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]rogersmith25 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]konsoquence 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]getfuckingreal 27 points28 points29 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]killdie 25 points26 points27 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DoktorTeufel 24 points25 points26 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]picopallasi 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]texpundit 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OnlySlightlyBent 15 points16 points17 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thrway_1000 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I've seen many claim that women are less visual than men but, the problem is, the current research shows that women are just as visual as men, possibly more so:

In a 2006 study at McGill University, researchers took on the task of monitoring genital temperatures of men and women subjected to various forms of pornography. Nearly all men responded with arousal within the first 30 seconds of each clip, and the women … well, they responded in the same amount of time. Despite what we have heard about men being like a furnace (instant heat), and women an oven (gradual warming up), both men and women reached their maximum arousal somewhere between 11 to 12 minutes. {Link}

.

Even more compelling were the results of a 2004 study at Northwestern University that also assessed the effect of porn on genital arousal. Mind you, a copy of "Buffy the Vampire Layer" and a lubed-up feedback device isn't most girls' idea of a hot night in. But when the researchers showed gay, lesbian, and straight porn to heterosexual and homosexual women and men, they found that while the men responded more intensely to porn that mirrored their particular gender orientation, the women tended to like it all. Or at least their bodies did. {Link}

[–]OnlySlightlyBent 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SSJAmes 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]OnlySlightlyBent 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]underskewer 18 points19 points20 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]soldoutactivist10 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]adelie42 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nwz123 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]acolossalbear 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetpal 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThoughtPorn7241 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]redmau5 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dodehoekspiegel 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]logic11 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Ronda Rousey was on the cover of ESPN's body issue recently. A number of people were incensed by this, and claimed that it was sexual objectification of women. I have several feminist friends who were furious about it. The majority of the photos in the magazine are of men, and there is nothing more or less sexual about the women, or more or less revealing (okay, technically the pictures of men are more revealing, but that's purely because we have not decided to sexualize mens nipples the same we have womens). It pisses me off, because the entire point of the magazine is showing athletes naked and in their physical peak. To say we can't do that with female athletes is to negate their athletic contribution and reduce them down to tits and ass. I did notice that most of the women making this argument were in poor physical condition however.

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]logic11 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]logic11 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]nlakes 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BarelyNerdy 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mkkohls 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]electriophile 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fjellfras 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AeneaLamia 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]pippisyk 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]obscure123456789 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]whatbrighteyes 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]TheLadyEve -14 points-13 points-12 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]LogicalWhiteKnight 13 points14 points15 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]TheLadyEve -6 points-5 points-4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]LogicalWhiteKnight 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheLadyEve 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alexi_Strife -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]dbe -13 points-12 points-11 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sltkr 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Both articles are written by Erin Gloria Ryan.

The screenshot doesn't even do the reality justice. Just two hours after complaining about the objectification of female athletes she publishes an article filled with sexual fantasies about the male athletes, without a hint of criticism. The adjectives “creepy” and “porny” are used to dismiss the comparatively tame NBC video but she sees nothing wrong with using famous men as characters in a gay sexual fantasy.

(Oh, and don't get me started on the hypocrisy of her admitting to subscribing to a weblog which exists solely to post sexy photos of football players with creepy captions like “I just want to crawl in between his legs and take both hands and slowly stroke up his thighs” and “my tongue all over that body everyday, all fucking day long” and such.)

[+][deleted] -7 points-6 points-5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SSJAmes 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]ipeeoncats -16 points-15 points-14 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points21 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]zayg 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lutzj 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]ipeeoncats -16 points-15 points-14 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

As in the point of the articles posted went over my head? No, no, no. I understand that the post is a picture of two unrelated articles, posted on two unaffiliated websites, with two completely different authors, writing their completely different opinions, which they are completely allowed to have. This post juxtaposes two perfectly legitimate opinons against each other. On the right a woman feels that women are objectified. On the left is a gay man writing about the existence of erotic literature.

These views are not contradictory and even if they were they are not held by the same ____ (choose one: Person, host website, commentator)

Hell even more broadly, neither of these are really an assault on anyones rights. It is ok for someone to feel uncomfortable with the level of exposure women's volleyball player's have. It is also ok for those women to wear their uniforms as is so long as the they don't feel exposed and are not being forced to wear those outfits to compete (which they are not). It is also ok for people to idolize and fantasize about olympic athletes having sex. Who are you to control what anyone writes or fantasizes about?

[–]lutzj 14 points15 points16 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The two quoted articles were written by the same person

http://jezebel.com/5932682/fifty-strokes-of-gay-the-wonderfully-weird-world-of-filthy-olympic-swimming-fanfiction

http://jezebel.com/5933302/someone-at-nbc-apparently-approved-this-creepy-porny-video-of-female-olympians

quoting so you can't delete:

As in the point of the articles posted went over my head? No, no, no. I understand that the post is a picture of two unrelated articles, posted on two unaffiliated websites, with two completely different authors, writing their completely different opinions, which they are completely allowed to have. This post juxtaposes two perfectly legitimate opinons against each other. On the right a woman feels that women are objectified. On the left is a gay man writing about the existence of erotic literature.

These views are not contradictory and even if they were they are not held by the same ____ (choose one: Person, host website, commentator)

Title	Objectification at the Olympics
Author	ultrasockpuppet
Upvotes	652
Comments	291
Date	August 12, 2012 11:54 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/y46y6/objectification_at_the_olympics/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/objectification-at-the-olympics.1016004 https://theredarchive.com/post/1016004

Comments