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

[Metaphor]

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'.

Viewing it simply, one would think that the answer is yes.

One would think that. Unless one has double standards. And of course one will spend the rest of the article justifying those double standards. Won't one?

Because if we define sexual objectification as seeing people as no more than the sum of their parts and what those parts can do for us sexually, then yes, of course women can objectify men.

And yet, the article doesn't end there.

After all, there are women out there who “use” men for sex with little regard to their feelings, personalities, or desires, just as men do to women.

And this recent ad from Kraft is just one example of a new trend in advertising known as “hunkvertising.”

Obviously these men — the ones being used for sex and the ones laid out in all their naked glory for the viewing pleasure of us ladies — are being objectified, right?

Unfortunately, it’s not as simple as that.

Yes, it is that simple. And what does the word 'unfortunately' mean?

...

Often, male objectification is done in the form of tongue-in-cheek references to ads that have objectified women for centuries.

So, tongue in cheek objectification isn't real objectification?

And even if it’s a man being objectified in an ad, he is usually shown in full form with complete awareness of his presence, unlike women who are often shown with heads missing or from the back, effectively dehumanizing them.

I don't know how anyone in a print ad can be show to have 'complete awareness', or how that makes a difference. Or indeed where the empirical evidence is behind this assertion.

Objectified men in ads seem to be saying, “Come hither; look what I can give you,” while objectified women seem to be saying, “This is yours for the taking.”

Is that what they seem to be saying? Methinks the author is projecting.

Even if a man is objectified on occasion, it is not the same thing as living within its oppressive structure day in and day out.

It’s akin to white people saying that reverse racism exists: It just doesn’t — because white people have never experienced systematic, centuries-long oppression like people of color have.

No person of colour has experienced centuries long oppression.

And men haven’t experienced systematic, centuries-long objectification like women have.

No woman has experienced centuries long objectification.

Is it possible for men to feel affronted or even demeaned when women comment on their chiseled chest, six-pack abs, or large penis? Of course. Just like it’s possible for a white man to feel offended when a black woman calls him a cracker.

But those instances are not nearly as common, nor do they contribute to a larger system of oppression like sexism or racism. If we refer to those insults as oppressive, then we’re reducing system-wide, institutionalized objectification and racism to petty, interpersonal slights.

Even if that were true, it does not change the moral character of the people uttering the insult.

Not only is sexual objectification part of the status quo, it also plays a role in the underlying current of misogyny that courses through our society.

Misogyny is defined in many dictionaries as the “hatred of women,” but it’s much more complex than that. It’s dehumanizing.

Misogyny denies that women have thoughts, feelings, and rights. It robs them of everything that makes us human.

And when we reduce women to the sum of her parts — that’s misogyny. We are effectively saying that her thoughts, feelings, and opinions don’t matter. All that matters is her body.

When we use her for sexual purposes only and cast her aside, we are dismissing her worth as a person.

This simply does not happen to men — at least, not at the same level. Because there’s no system of oppression in place for men like there is for women.

Again, that’s not to say that women can’t use men to satisfy their sexual needs only.

But it falls more under the realm of awkwardness and less under the umbrella of objectification and oppression.

***

So is it possible for women to objectify men?

Possibly — at the micro, interpersonal level.

But since sexual objectification is so intertwined within our culture and within misogyny, it would be a falsehood to say that it occurs against men at the same level that it does against women.

In the end, all arguing, “Hey, women objectify men, too!” does is distract from the real problem — deeply ingrained, misogynistic, sexual oppression against women.

So, here's the rub: women can objectify men because it doesn't matter to men as a whole. The context is different.

I think this works out for me. I'm not a woman but I love looking at hot men in sexual ways. But I'm allowed to, because there is no history of gay men oppressing other men. Have I got that right?

 

[Rhea]

I didn't click on the link but the parts you quoted are really confusing.

The author seems to be saying;

nonsense nonsense nonsense ending with something that makes some sense but has nothing to do with what was written above.

I'm thinking, "can men be objectified?" yes. Is it bad? Yes. Does it bleed over into other areas of society? Not very much, since it is not exactly pervasive. Does that make it not-bad? No, it's still bad; bad for men and also bad for women when it happens to anyone, including men, so women have a real reason to care about combating the bad.

I don't find that article makes a compelling case at all. I agree that it comes off as a petulant double standard.

 

[bigfield]

It is an exercise in semantics designed to justify the author's own gynocentric bias.

Like the nonsensical notions that blacks cannot be racist towards whites and women cannot be sexist towards men, etc.

 

[Unbeatable]

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.

 

[Metaphor]

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?

 

[Togo]

Meh, the problem is that there are two parts to objectification. Is it dehumanising and offensive? Sure. 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.

That's also why there's a political split here. Right-wingers tend to emphasise personal responsibility a lot more than the left, and thus tend to see descrimination as person A harming person B. Thus any action taken must be absolutely equal at the individual level, and focusing on helping groups that suffer the most is inherently unequal, and thus morally wrong. Left-wingers tend to focus on group responsibility, and thus tend to see descrimination as group A harming group B. Thus any action that produces an unequal set of outcomes is inherenetly unequal, and thus morally wrong. So when men treated poorly as a group, fewer people care. Not because they secretly hate men, but because the treatment they have received does less damage to them, both individually and as a group, then the same treatment would do if applied to woman.

Obviously that's not always the case - descrimination against individuals is always a problem - but in the case of 'hunkvertising', you'd need a lot more of it out there to change the way in which men are treated as individuals, than you would if the poster featured women in a comparable role.

That's also why coming into work with a hangover is taken more seriously if you're operating heavy machinery than if you're doing a desk job or stacking shelves. It's not that people secretly hate machinery operators or want to conspire against them to make them suffer, while shelf-stackers are blessed and can do no wrong. It's because being hung over while operating a heavy machine is more likely to cause someone harm.

 

[Metaphor]

Meh, the problem is that there are two parts to objectification. Is it dehumanising and offensive? Sure.

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.

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?

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?

That's also why there's a political split here. Right-wingers tend to emphasise personal responsibility a lot more than the left, and thus tend to see descrimination as person A harming person B. Thus any action taken must be absolutely equal at the individual level, and focusing on helping groups that suffer the most is inherently unequal, and thus morally wrong. Left-wingers tend to focus on group responsibility, and thus tend to see descrimination as group A harming group B. Thus any action that produces an unequal set of outcomes is inherenetly unequal, and thus morally wrong. So when men treated poorly as a group, fewer people care. Not because they secretly hate men, but because the treatment they have received does less damage to them, both individually and as a group, then the same treatment would do if applied to woman.

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?

Obviously that's not always the case - descrimination against individuals is always a problem - but in the case of 'hunkvertising', you'd need a lot more of it out there to change the way in which men are treated as individuals, than you would if the poster featured women in a comparable role.

That's also why coming into work with a hangover is taken more seriously if you're operating heavy machinery than if you're doing a desk job or stacking shelves. It's not that people secretly hate machinery operators or want to conspire against them to make them suffer, while shelf-stackers are blessed and can do no wrong. It's because being hung over while operating a heavy machine is more likely to cause someone harm.

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?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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.

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?

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?

That's also why there's a political split here. Right-wingers tend to emphasise personal responsibility a lot more than the left, and thus tend to see descrimination as person A harming person B. Thus any action taken must be absolutely equal at the individual level, and focusing on helping groups that suffer the most is inherently unequal, and thus morally wrong. Left-wingers tend to focus on group responsibility, and thus tend to see descrimination as group A harming group B. Thus any action that produces an unequal set of outcomes is inherenetly unequal, and thus morally wrong. So when men treated poorly as a group, fewer people care. Not because they secretly hate men, but because the treatment they have received does less damage to them, both individually and as a group, then the same treatment would do if applied to woman.

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?

Obviously that's not always the case - descrimination against individuals is always a problem - but in the case of 'hunkvertising', you'd need a lot more of it out there to change the way in which men are treated as individuals, than you would if the poster featured women in a comparable role.

That's also why coming into work with a hangover is taken more seriously if you're operating heavy machinery than if you're doing a desk job or stacking shelves. It's not that people secretly hate machinery operators or want to conspire against them to make them suffer, while shelf-stackers are blessed and can do no wrong. It's because being hung over while operating a heavy machine is more likely to cause someone harm.

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?

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

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.

 

[Draconis]

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?

Perhaps "reparations" is the wrong word. The feminists have made a lot of demands on society and it has to be said they have been quite well indulged by political parties chasing the female vote (would anyone expect them to do otherwise?) It's just that a point of resistance may well be upon us where votes can be lost as well as gained. So in order to gain proper equality, some deals need to be done - we'll have this benefit if we give up something else. I'm hoping the era of demands and unbridled indulgence is coming to an end.

 

[Angry Floof]

Yes! Moar dehumanizing objectification of men!

 

[Derec]

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.

The problem is that much feminism is not about equal rights, but as you say, about making men pay, literally and figuratively.

 

[Unbeatable]

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?

These are pointless questions unless you accept the premises that Group A is on the losing side of an inequality, Group B is on the winning side, there's some zero-sum aspect to the inequality(e.g. control over scarce resources, social status), and equality between Groups A and B is your goal.(NOTE: I am not going to try to convince you to accept any of these premises.) You need to have an end goal before any given means such as reparations come into play. From this it follows that reparations are to be paid by B to A. Coming up with moral justifications is the job of the rhetoricist, and must be tailored to the particular psychologies of the audiences one seeks to persuade, since there is no moral truth sitting out in some Platonic reality. There are only feelings inside of people's bodies. Moralistic rhetoric is a tool for use in swaying those feelings towards a given end goal.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

[YOUTUBE]owGykVbfgUE[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Unbeatable]

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

Perhaps "reparations" is the wrong word.

One could also say "make concessions", "relinquish privileges", "give up their advantages", etc. What I'm saying is that equality requires eliminating those inequalities which benefit one group at the expense of another. That means one group will be losing something of value. The challenge to the social reformer is convincing that group that it is not a net loss so that they don't block reform.

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.

The problem is that much feminism is not about equal rights, but as you say, about making men pay, literally and figuratively.

To put it another way, the problem is that much of feminism is about actually helping to improve things for women in the world as it currently exists, which is less convenient than merely giving women rights on paper.

 

[Derec]

One could also say "make concessions", "relinquish privileges", "give up their advantages", etc. What I'm saying is that equality requires eliminating those inequalities which benefit one group at the expense of another. That means one group will be losing something of value. The challenge to the social reformer is convincing that group that it is not a net loss so that they don't block reform.

But what about women giving up privileges that they have in our society?

To put it another way, the problem is that much of feminism is about actually helping to improve things for women in the world as it currently exists, which is less convenient than merely giving women rights on paper.

"Helping to improve things for women" is not necessarily about equality. For example alimony is all about inequality but because it's inequality that benefits women feminists fight to keep it.

There is also this idea in feminism that equality is not about equal rights or opportunities but about women not being <50% in any area of life. More male engineers or scientists? Obvious sexism and women should be given preferential treatment to increase their numbers to at least 50 percent. Of course when women are >50% in any area of life that's just because of their inherent superiority and should not be addressed in any way whatsoever.

There is also this thing, directly linked to objectification, that men should be more like women. Men like to look at attractive women more than women like to look at men so men should cut it out. Or the fact that poses considered sexy for women are considered silly when men do it so obviously those poses are sexist and should be ended.
How It Would Look If Men Posed The Way Female American Apparel Models Do

It is nonsense like that that gives feminism a bad name.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

But what about women giving up privileges that they have in our society?

To put it another way, the problem is that much of feminism is about actually helping to improve things for women in the world as it currently exists, which is less convenient than merely giving women rights on paper.

"Helping to improve things for women" is not necessarily about equality. For example alimony is all about inequality but because it's inequality that benefits women feminists fight to keep it.

There is also this idea in feminism that equality is not about equal rights or opportunities but about women not being <50% in any area of life. More male engineers or scientists? Obvious sexism and women should be given preferential treatment to increase their numbers to at least 50 percent. Of course when women are >50% in any area of life that's just because of their inherent superiority and should not be addressed in any way whatsoever.

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

 

[bigfield]

But what about women giving up privileges that they have in our society?


"Helping to improve things for women" is not necessarily about equality. For example alimony is all about inequality but because it's inequality that benefits women feminists fight to keep it.

There is also this idea in feminism that equality is not about equal rights or opportunities but about women not being 50% in any area of life that's just because of their inherent superiority and should not be addressed in any way whatsoever.

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.

 

[Bronzeage]

I've been objectified by women before, and I can't remember that kind of objectification, when I didn't have a good time. After being used as a labor object by employers, a tax object by the government, a beer object by my bartender, being a sex object is really not that bad.

Use me

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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.

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

 

[Derec]

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".