Everyday Feminism: Women can objectify men on the 'micro' level, but it doesn't matter.

[dismal]

Feminist writers have a tough job. I don't envy the people trying to justify a movement to reduce inequalities in society. People like the idea of equality in theory, but nobody really wants to be on the side that has to pay reparations.

I'm curious. To whom are reparations payable, why are they morally justified, and who should pay them?

Well I, for one, have many female ancestors in my family tree. And all of them, as far as I am aware, had sex with a male of the species at least once and were saddled with a child as a result. Surely this entitles me to some cash.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

so the right thing is being done but for the wrong reason so it doesn't count?

It explains why it's the only female-dominated field where it happens.

Also, I'd like to see resident feminists' response to the idea that "if men do not pose in manner considered sexy for women, then women shouldn't either".

what are you talking about?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The problem isn't objectification. The problem is dehumanization. Human bodies are objects. They are, will, and should be seen as objects. There is nothing wrong with porn, models, strippers, etc. We just need to remember that along with the human body comes a person, and the person matters more than the body in most contexts.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You bring up the obkjectification of a Cindy Crawford, but the objectification of a Jane Doe rape victim. Why? How many supermodels are there in a year? How many rape victims?
which is more likely to happen to woman in her life, being a supermodel or being a rape victim?

Are you equating objectification with rape? That would be like equating consumerism with theft.

 

[laughing dog]

This might come as a surprise to you, but men do get hiring preferences in female dominated fields like elementary education.

To hear it from female teachers in classrooms, that is not done to satisfy men's career ambitions, but to provide nurturing male role models to children who don't have them at home. It's for the children's sake, not men's sake, and has nothing to do with addressing some perceived injustice against aspiring male teachers.

Probably because there is no perceived injustice against aspiring male teachers.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

so the right thing is being done but for the wrong reason so it doesn't count?

It explains why it's the only female-dominated field where it happens.

What about nursing?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

You bring up the obkjectification of a Cindy Crawford, but the objectification of a Jane Doe rape victim. Why? How many supermodels are there in a year? How many rape victims?
which is more likely to happen to woman in her life, being a supermodel or being a rape victim?

Are you equating objectification with rape?

No, I'm not. That would be you.

That would be like equating consumerism with theft.

No, it wouldn't.

And the questions go unanswered.

Quel surprise.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

A woman is more likely to be raped than to become a supermodel. What is your point?

 

[laughing dog]

A woman is more likely to be raped than to become a supermodel. What is your point?

Feel the force, padewan SJW. Let the force flow through you. You are almost there.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/07/men-objectified-by-women/

Can women objectify men?

That’s a question that gets asked a lot in feminist circles. And the answer isn’t always easy.

The answer is very easy. It's 'yes'.

INDEED. My wife does that to me all the time, usually when comparing notes with her friends, ranking their husbands/boyfriends/boytoys in order of hotness and/or fuckability (those are apparently not the same things )

And yes, women do that too. I was both amused and dismayed to discover this, especially once I understood that a man's personality, habits, skills and temperament are basically just software features and likewise objectified.

THAT, actually, is the key difference between men and women. Men only objectivity women based on appearances. A woman can reduce EVERYTHING about a man down to a set of comparable qualities.

I think this works out for me. I'm not a woman but I love looking at hot men in sexual ways.

Men in general seem to be ambivalent to women's complaints of objectification. I've suspected for a long time that the main reason for this is that men secretly wish women would be as easily impressed with us as we are with them. But no, we've also got to demonstrate confidence, competence, emotional stability, financial prowess, empathy/sensitivity, strength of character, AND we also have to have "good hair," whatever the fuck that means.

I don't mind being objectified by women. I just wish the judges weren't so picky.

 

[Metaphor]

What has been the historical consequence of the objectification of women? Of men? And who orchestrated and benefitted from this objectification?

It's not clear to me what 'objectification' did historically, or how you would measure it.

You bring up the obkjectification of a Cindy Crawford, but the objectification of a Jane Doe rape victim. Why? How many supermodels are there in a year? How many rape victims?
which is more likely to happen to woman in her life, being a supermodel or being a rape victim?

Tread lightly, Athena. You appear to be linking looking at Crawford as a sexual object and rape, but we all know rape has nothing to do with sex, right?

But let's take things to their conclusion: what if all this objectification really does increase rape? How much culpability should Crawford shoulder, being one of the most successful suppliers of objectification material? I presume that the rapist is still as responsible as before, but perhaps some lesser charge for Crawford herself?

I get what you are saying. And objectification of a particular individual can prove quite lucrative for that individual. No one is arguing it can't. But phenomena when view in the aggregate can be seen quite differently than when view in a single case. When i was six, my Gramma had a sycamore tree in her backyard. One summer day i could have looked at that tree and only that tree and by limiting my view to that tree, never seen the forest fire behind it.

Would you agree that the exploitation of the female form, aesthetically and sexually, is probably more common in the U.S. today, than say, Saudi Arabia? Do you think Saudi Arabia has healthier attitudes towards women than the U.S.? Do you think Saudi Arabia has fewer rapes per woman than the U.S.?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

What has been the historical consequence of the objectification of women?

There is the objectification of "women" and the objectification of "the female body." These are related but altogether different phenomena.

My belief is that men who objectify women have a much more comprehensive approach to it; they are thinking of women as things that serve a specific utility in their lives, as home makers, baby makers, assistant financial planners and errand-runners. This is the objectification that originally drove the institution of marriage, where the bride is basically a piece of property that is exchanged from one family to another, where women and girls spend most of their lives being prepared FOR marriage because making a good wife to your husband is at least as important to your family (so you fetch a good price) as it is to your husband.

In modern times, on the other hand, we have somehow evolved to objectify -- and even obsessively admire -- the female form. Almost all things related to sexuality and sensuality are wrapped up in femininity and most of the activity in the fashion industry specifically catering to women seeking to decorate their bodies in ever more creative ways ranging from subtle and classy to downright raunchy. It isn't so much the reduction of women to sex objects as the reduction of the female body to a biological fashion accessory. Diets, supplements and gym memberships all cater to this same basic concept: if you're not happy with your body (or hair color, or eye color), you might as well change it.

The historical result of the objectification of women is patriarchy and misogyny (see "Saudi Arabia"). The historical result of the objectification of the female body is a growing legacy of eating disorders, inferiority complexes and other pathologies experienced by girls in their more sensitive years. The former involves men callously dominating the lives of women often with little regard for their safety or happiness; the latter involves women slowly driving themselves insane with unrealistic standards of beauty and perfection.

YMMV.

which is more likely to happen to woman in her life, being a supermodel or being a rape victim?

That's kind of a false comparison: becoming a supermodel actually requires a significant amount of training and experience. Becoming a rape victim only requires the presence of a rapist.

I get what you are saying. And objectification of a particular individual can prove quite lucrative for that individual. No one is arguing it can't. But phenomena when view in the aggregate can be seen quite differently than when view in a single case.

Right, but the aggregation of "objectification of the female form" doesn't add up to the OPPRESSION of women on a massive scale, not without other contributing factors.

To use your own analogy: there could be alot more trees back there behind that one sycamore, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's a forest there.

 

[Toni]

Why is the answer 'sure'?

Models -- of all types but let's take fashion models -- have a very specific job: it's to look good while being human coathangers for clothes. They're not there to provide stimulating conversation, they're there as objects to be adorned, for which they are generally amply compensated. I suspect that the average fashion model does not feel dehumanised and offended by being looked at, even being looked at sexually.

Actually, the model's job is to sell the look they are modeling. Some models are well compensated. Many are abused and abuse their own bodies to meet impossible expectations. Most models are very young. So young that there has been a movement to impose limits on how young a model can be.

Those impossible standards, and a system that is ripe for and rife with abuse apply also to male models, who get to deal with all the negative consequences that the female models do.

But I guess if they are only teenagers and get paid, it's all ok.

Does it cause real damage to the way people are treated? Well, that seems to depend on what gender you are. That's why people are more concerned about white people objectifiying blacks, or men objectifying women, than by the reverse. Because woman are more likely to actually be dismissed as eye-candy than men are, and suffer as a result, and the only concern we have about portraying woman as sex objects is the extent to which this is actually likely to happen.

So what would a feminist say to a female fashion model? That she is complicit and co-conspirator in the vast machinery of objectification. Does the female fashion model have culpability for the objectification she has enabled by renting out her body to fashion?

Not all feminists are the same nor do they all have the same beliefs or have the same level of dogmatism. Most feminists would see female fashion models as being exploited or at least potentially being exploited and taking part in an exploitative industry. As victims.

And what would the feminist say to the male fashion model? Presumably, since his work does not lead to men being dismissed, he is free to continue to ply his trade without chastisement?

This feminist would see male models as also being exploited, at least potentially.

But how do you know how much damage (if any) is done to someone as an individual because they're objectified? How much damage was done to Cindy Crawford as the highest paid model of the 1990s? Was her financial compensation enough to overcome this damage? If not, why not, and why did she continue to allow herself to be objectified? Does Ms Crawford bare personal responsibility for being a co-conspirator and co-enabler of the objectification of women, and the consequent damage done to women as a whole? If not, why not?

As an adult woman well into middle age, Ms. Crawford is capable of deciding for herself whether the compensation she received and still receives for her work as a model is adequate compensation for whatever damage she might have suffered.

Ms.Crawford, of course, is an extreme example. Very few models achieve her level of success, or enjoy a career as long or lucrative.

I see it in many ways as being analogous to playing professional football: few who try out win spots on teams. They are well compensated in some respects but face a tremendous amount of physical and mental punishment to earn money for the owners and advertisers. I see it as exploitative. The biggest differences are (off the top of my head) that pro football players are typically older than professional models and are (as far as I know) less likely to be subjected to sexual abuse. But they're still written into a certain kind of box, seen as being meat with no brains, subjected to numerous stereotypes.

I would not want anyone I care about to engage in either industry but that is based upon me believing that the work is damaging: physically, emotionally, mentally. Some lucky few are successful and get out with a nice chunk of change to set them up for life or at least to help launch them into a new life. But an awful lot more are just used and tossed away.

I don't think people should be treated that way.

Do you think it would be a desirable society that would outlaw (or at least admonish consumers of) heterosexual porn as degrading to women, but would have nothing to say about the consumption of gay male porn? Am I just lucky that women do not feature in my preferences, but heterosexual men are shit outta luck, because the porn they prefer objectifies women, and that causes more harm than objectifying men?

You realize that there is porn that caters to heterosexual women, right? And gay women?

A lot of porn is pretty exploitative of the actors who perform in it. I am against exploitation.

I realize that not all porn exploits the actors performing and that not all porn necessarily causes skewed viewpoints of sex, sexuality, relationships, women and/or men. But some does. And that is where and why I have a problem with porn.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Anti feminists will always have the same problem with whatever examples they dream up to make their point. Regardless of the gender of the victim or the victor immediately involved in a given scenario, the particular action or situation will always take place inside an environment designed, developed, implemented and ultimately controlled by men for the benefit of at least a particular group of men. That is what patriarchy means, that men run shit, not that men can never be victims of shit. White supremacy doesnt mean that there will be no poor white people or rich black people, only the higher up the socio-political-economic ladder you go, the whiter the population gets and that the system is setup to make sure that will be the case. FDR can run the executive branch for a time from a wheelchair, but the House, the Senate, and the SCOTUS in control with an FDR will always be a majority of walking people. Social hierarchies have proven over human history to be pyramids not funnels. The top always gets smaller and it is not an accident.

 

[fromderinside]

Anti feminists will always have the same problem with whatever examples they dream up to make their point. Regardless of the gender of the victim or the victor immediately involved in a given scenario, the particular action or situation will always take place inside an environment designed, developed, implemented and ultimately controlled by men for the benefit of at least a particular group of men. That is what patriarchy means, that men run shit, not that men can never be victims of shit. White supremacy doesnt mean that there will be no poor white people or rich black people, only the higher up the socio-political-economic ladder you go, the whiter the population gets and that the system is setup to make sure that will be the case. FDR can run the executive branch for a time from a wheelchair, but the House, the Senate, and the SCOTUS in control with an FDR will always be a majority of walking people. Social hierarchies have proven over human history to be pyramids not funnels. The top always gets smaller and it is not an accident.

Objectify. Put men in suits. Signals authority and power. Put women in push up bras and tight shape focusing dresses signals pussy.

Come on. The field is owned by men which they consider to be the object. Check suits again if confused.

Not a feminist, just being objective.

 

[bigfield]

To hear it from female teachers in classrooms, that is not done to satisfy men's career ambitions, but to provide nurturing male role models to children who don't have them at home. It's for the children's sake, not men's sake, and has nothing to do with addressing some perceived injustice against aspiring male teachers.

Probably because there is no perceived injustice against aspiring male teachers.

Hence my wording.

 

[laughing dog]

Probably because there is no perceived injustice against aspiring male teachers.

Hence my wording.

So your point was....?

 

[Toni]

It's not clear to me what 'objectification' did historically, or how you would measure it.

You bring up the obkjectification of a Cindy Crawford, but the objectification of a Jane Doe rape victim. Why? How many supermodels are there in a year? How many rape victims?
which is more likely to happen to woman in her life, being a supermodel or being a rape victim?

Tread lightly, Athena. You appear to be linking looking at Crawford as a sexual object and rape, but we all know rape has nothing to do with sex, right?

But let's take things to their conclusion: what if all this objectification really does increase rape? How much culpability should Crawford shoulder, being one of the most successful suppliers of objectification material? I presume that the rapist is still as responsible as before, but perhaps some lesser charge for Crawford herself?

I get what you are saying. And objectification of a particular individual can prove quite lucrative for that individual. No one is arguing it can't. But phenomena when view in the aggregate can be seen quite differently than when view in a single case. When i was six, my Gramma had a sycamore tree in her backyard. One summer day i could have looked at that tree and only that tree and by limiting my view to that tree, never seen the forest fire behind it.

Would you agree that the exploitation of the female form, aesthetically and sexually, is probably more common in the U.S. today, than say, Saudi Arabia? Do you think Saudi Arabia has healthier attitudes towards women than the U.S.? Do you think Saudi Arabia has fewer rapes per woman than the U.S.?

Actually, women are far more exploited in Saudi Arabia than in the US.

 

[Metaphor]

Actually, the model's job is to sell the look they are modeling. Some models are well compensated. Many are abused and abuse their own bodies to meet impossible expectations. Most models are very young. So young that there has been a movement to impose limits on how young a model can be.

Cindy Crawford allowed her own 13 year old daughter to model. Presumably if the industry was so rife with abuse she wouldn't have allowed it.

Those impossible standards, and a system that is ripe for and rife with abuse apply also to male models, who get to deal with all the negative consequences that the female models do.

Airbrushed standards are impossible -- and advertisers who airbrush every single imperfection from any model they use with the explicit message that it's their product that is responsible rather than Photoshop ought to be sued.

But I guess if they are only teenagers and get paid, it's all ok.

Abuse is not okay, but abuse exists in all industries. The shift manager at McDonald's has as much abuse potential over her subordinates. Models typically do better per hour than McDonald's workers, though.

Not all feminists are the same nor do they all have the same beliefs or have the same level of dogmatism. Most feminists would see female fashion models as being exploited or at least potentially being exploited and taking part in an exploitative industry. As victims.

Fashion models are not victims. It's simply absurd to think so. Or if they are victims, the vast majority of all employed people are also victims.

This feminist would see male models as also being exploited, at least potentially.

I go to work every day to get a salary, and unlike some models, I do get out of bed for less than $10,000 a day. Am I being exploited?

I would not want anyone I care about to engage in either industry but that is based upon me believing that the work is damaging: physically, emotionally, mentally. Some lucky few are successful and get out with a nice chunk of change to set them up for life or at least to help launch them into a new life. But an awful lot more are just used and tossed away.

I think almost any job in retail or services is frankly more damaging physically, emotionally, and mentally, but perhaps I'm just too swayed by the number of people who'd love to be models, versus the number of people who'd love to clean toilets.

I don't think people should be treated that way.

A lot of porn is pretty exploitative of the actors who perform in it. I am against exploitation.

I realize that not all porn exploits the actors performing and that not all porn necessarily causes skewed viewpoints of sex, sexuality, relationships, women and/or men. But some does. And that is where and why I have a problem with porn.

What does it mean to exploit a porn model? Is it better or worse to be cleaning toilets or performing in porn?

Or is it just that you can't dismiss an entire industry and each case ought be weighed on its merits?

 

[Metaphor]

It's not clear to me what 'objectification' did historically, or how you would measure it.



Tread lightly, Athena. You appear to be linking looking at Crawford as a sexual object and rape, but we all know rape has nothing to do with sex, right?

But let's take things to their conclusion: what if all this objectification really does increase rape? How much culpability should Crawford shoulder, being one of the most successful suppliers of objectification material? I presume that the rapist is still as responsible as before, but perhaps some lesser charge for Crawford herself?

I get what you are saying. And objectification of a particular individual can prove quite lucrative for that individual. No one is arguing it can't. But phenomena when view in the aggregate can be seen quite differently than when view in a single case. When i was six, my Gramma had a sycamore tree in her backyard. One summer day i could have looked at that tree and only that tree and by limiting my view to that tree, never seen the forest fire behind it.

Would you agree that the exploitation of the female form, aesthetically and sexually, is probably more common in the U.S. today, than say, Saudi Arabia? Do you think Saudi Arabia has healthier attitudes towards women than the U.S.? Do you think Saudi Arabia has fewer rapes per woman than the U.S.?

Actually, women are far more exploited in Saudi Arabia than in the US.

I'm talking about exploitation of the visual form of women, not exploitation in general.

It's exactly my point that women in Saudi Arabia are treated no better (and in fact, much worse) than women in America, and this is despite the fact that Saudi Arabia does not have advertising that 'objectifies' women. (I imagine Saudi advertising excludes women all together, in fact).

- - - Updated - - -

Anti feminists will always have the same problem with whatever examples they dream up to make their point. Regardless of the gender of the victim or the victor immediately involved in a given scenario, the particular action or situation will always take place inside an environment designed, developed, implemented and ultimately controlled by men for the benefit of at least a particular group of men. That is what patriarchy means, that men run shit, not that men can never be victims of shit. White supremacy doesnt mean that there will be no poor white people or rich black people, only the higher up the socio-political-economic ladder you go, the whiter the population gets and that the system is setup to make sure that will be the case. FDR can run the executive branch for a time from a wheelchair, but the House, the Senate, and the SCOTUS in control with an FDR will always be a majority of walking people. Social hierarchies have proven over human history to be pyramids not funnels. The top always gets smaller and it is not an accident.

But I'm not the one saying male models are victims too. I don't think models are victims at all.