Are women objects?

deepthrill · 2014-01-27T20:21:23+00:00

Now that you've edited your OP, I'm happy to answer it.

If you are dating a girl and she says that, the reason it is a shit test is because she is essentially asking you to validate her. She is screaming "when I ask you to, please tell me that I am worthy!"

When you do and reward that behavior, you are saying "oh you are so special and I will tell you that whenever you want on a whim!"

If she does actually have a lot of values and is secure, she should know she has more value and this wouldn't even be brought up. This question to me implies that she is insecure and is asking for him to validate her.

namae_nanka · 2014-01-27T20:13:07+00:00

If you primarily laugh with your friends instead of sharing every other emotion, are your friends laughter objects?

The problem with your question, besides of course its sheer ridiculousness, is its direct contradiction to the other complaint of feminism where men don't see certain types of women as sex objects, viz. old, fat, unkempt and plain downright ugly.

how does that not imply that women aren't people

More importantly, if women aren't people then who are, and if women should be people then who they should be?

And so, at the hard inner core of the Women’s Liberation Movement lies a bitter, extremely neurotic if not psychotic, man-hating lesbianism. The quintessence of the New Feminism is revealed.

Is this spirit confined to a few extremists? Is it unfair to tar the whole movement with the brush of the Lesbian Rampant? I’m afraid not. For example, one motif now permeating the entire movement is a strident opposition to men treating women as "sex objects."

-Against Women's Lib by Murrary Rothbard

Originally published as "The Great Women's Liberation Issue: Setting It Straight" in The Individualist, May 1970

It's amusing to read from the POV of someone who was there at the beginning of this ludicrousness and frightening that it has gone on for so long.

In all this welter of verbiage, not one article, not one book, not one program has dared to present the opposition case. The injustice of this one-sided tidal wave should be evident. Not only is it evident, but the lack of published opposition negates one of the major charges of the women’s lib forces: that the society and economy are groaning under a monolithic male "sexist" tyranny. If the men are running the show, how is it that they do not even presume to print or present anyone from the other side?

Yet the "oppressors" remain strangely silent, which leads one to suspect, as we will develop further below, that perhaps the "oppression" is on the other side.

heh.

[deleted] · 2014-01-27T18:52:14+00:00

[permanently deleted]

MissCherryPi · 2014-01-27T19:44:18+00:00

Yes.

Women are sex objects, and men are success objects.

Spartacus321 · 2014-01-27T19:10:09+00:00

I think the point is that if a woman is saying that but is sleeping around with people who clearly are only there for the sex, then the phrase "you only want me for my pussy" is just a way for a woman to say that she's offended that men see her that way, while being that way in reality.

Basically, I think what TRP is saying here is that if a woman has more value than her pussy, she should show that value or not be surprised when men come to her for sex.

[deleted] · 2014-01-27T20:40:51+00:00

[permanently deleted]

sh1v · 2014-01-27T19:40:28+00:00

It is a shit test though. First off everyone is an object. Even your brain is part of objective reality and composed of the same chemicals and energy as everything else

Second off, to shame someone for appreciating the female body implies they have some obligation to appreciate her mind as well. In reality no one is entitled to appreciation of any kind, male or female. Basically just a baseless shaming tactic to try and compel worship from those around you.

soulcakeduck · 2014-01-27T19:51:55+00:00

Certainly TRP often makes the case that women are moral "objects," incapable of moral agency and instead only acted upon. For example a moderator, explaining why women are so lacking in virtues:

I disagree. Biologically, women have always used hypoagency to effect their survival. Women are biologically objects, whereas men are biologically agents.

Similar arguments resurface regularly around the manosphere, like AVFM arguing women have no moral agency likely because of evolution.

Women, it is apparent now, lack an ethical sense. They are without the capacity for moral agency.

Because women possess lesser average physical strength than man, biological control over sexual access means that characteristics of selfishness and manipulation provide reproductive and survival advantages to women that they don’t to men. A selfish or manipulative man may enjoy advantage to himself, but this doesn’t confer survival advantage to a group he is part of. By contrast a selfish and manipulative woman of reproductive age, because she is biological centre of the family unit affords herself and her offspring a survival and reproductive advantage.

Seen from an evolutionary perspective, the characteristics labeled by modern psychology as antisocial personality disorders are inherited behavioural traits which in pre-technological societies afforded women significant reproductive and survival advantages. However, in a modern culture of plentiful food, shelter and resources, these behavioural characteristics don’t simply disappear.

Beyond the moral objectification, physical objectification rears up sometimes too, like this moderator endorsed explanation that women have no value (to specific men) beyond their pussy.

Shenmue654 · 2014-01-28T15:21:39+00:00

Quote: "Now, women get the free pass when it comes to objectifying men because the things that are attractive to her are as much resource based as they are physical. C- physical attractive males of wealth or status will still yield an abundance of A+ physically attractive females."

And I've never been exactly thrilled with that particular "free pass," either. It seems abundantly obvious to me that men are objectified quite often themselves, although its purest form is not as evident in American culture as it is in one's head.

I don't think people should receive a free pass at objectifying either sex, especially not when they're most prone to doing it. Or at least, they shouldn't have the right to do it outside of the confines of their own head unless BOTH parties agree not to shame one another about it. The problem here doesn't seem to be men and women, but holding the opposite sex to a different standard than oneself.

weredoomedbutohwell · 2014-05-11T17:42:21+00:00

They are, thats why you dont hear nearly enough about women pursuing men, cause were people not toys.

Title	Are women objects?
Author	MissCherryPi
Upvotes	4
Comments	129
Date	January 27, 2014 6:39 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1war6a/are_women_objects/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/are-women-objects.286300 https://theredarchive.com/post/286300

Comments