Examples of media from the last 5 years where women are objectified

professore

This was brought up in a thread earlier of the rampant objectification of women in the media and it got me thinking that I couldn't think of a single example - outside music artists who objectify themselves deliberately, or women who do it to appear sexy to other women, e.g. The fashion industry.

Then got to thinking maybe it's me and can't see it. Anyone care to enlighten me?

kneemos

Link.

professore

professore wrote: »

This was brought up in a thread earlier of the rampant objectification of women in the media and it got me thinking that I couldn't think of a single example - outside music artists who objectify themselves deliberately, or women who do it to appear sexy to other women, e.g. The fashion industry.

Then got to thinking maybe it's me and can't see it. Anyone care to enlighten me?

and then someone replied with a whole ton of links already
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106138649&postcount=57

why did you make a new thread about it after you got an answer

Ajsoprano

In the daily mail of a woman has a divorce it will comment in the picture something like

CROP OF THE TOPS,
she flashed her taut midrif while defiantly puffing on a cigarette

LEGS FOR DAYS
She flashed her endless pins while going to meet her solicitor

WORKING UP A SWEAT
She worked on her hard body at the gym

Not sure if it’s what you are looking for

tigger123

LEGS-IT!

Donald Trump

Ah Jaysus.
This is all very terrible.

It's a subject close to my own very Presidential heart. If someone could send me the links to some photos of the offending material, I would be very grateful....For research purposes of course

tigger123

Plus anytime anything is announced in the newspapers (particularly the Indo or the tabloids) there's usually a pair of rented honeys with a cardboard cut out of a slogan standing next to a CEO or industry big wig.

Koala Sunshine

professore wrote: »

This was brought up in a thread earlier of the rampant objectification of women in the media and it got me thinking that I couldn't think of a single example - outside music artists who objectify themselves deliberately, or women who do it to appear sexy to other women, e.g. The fashion industry.

Then got to thinking maybe it's me and can't see it. Anyone care to enlighten me?

First step is to agree on what "objectifaction" actually means. Second step is to decide if there is anything wrong with it.

pleas advice

gametes






....(sex cells)

tigger123

Koala Sunshine wrote: »

First step is to agree on what "objectifaction" actually means. Second step is to decide if there is anything wrong with it.

Treating someone as an object (and therefore not a person).

Try_harder

Legsit

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/28/europe/daily-mail-brexit-sturgeon-may/index.html

Try_harder

Human Rights Lawyer Amal Clooney

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/fashion/2017/mar/13/amal-clooney-maternity-wardrobe-media-human-rights-lawyer-appearance-sexism-mermaid-hair

Koala Sunshine

tigger123 wrote: »

Treating someone as an object (and therefore not a person).

How does one treat someone as an object? For example, is using someone as a goalpost objectification?

tigger123

Koala Sunshine wrote: »

How does one treat someone as an object? For example, is using someone as a goalpost objectification?

Mind. Blown.

strandroad

tigger123 wrote: »

Plus anytime anything is announced in the newspapers (particularly the Indo or the tabloids) there's usually a pair of rented honeys with a cardboard cut out of a slogan standing next to a CEO or industry big wig.

These goosebumped bikini girls promoting anything and everything in the morning Metro! Usually photographed in St Stephen's Green or Grand Canal Dock for some reason. Metro is now dead, not sure if it's still a thing in the dailies?

In general, magazine ads with writhing, panting women; you don't see ads with men sporting their orgasm face, do you...

dxhound2005

Human goal post.

tigger123

strandroad wrote: »

These goosebumped bikini girls promoting anything and everything in the morning Metro! Usually photographed in St Stephen's Green or Grand Canal Dock for some reason. Metro is now dead, not sure if it's still a thing in the dailies?

I don't think it was/is just confined to the Metro. Still see it fairly regularly, less so in recent years though.

The_Valeyard

So, whose going to objectify me?

Billy86

bluewolf wrote: »

and then someone replied with a whole ton of links already
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106138649&postcount=57

why did you make a new thread about it after you got an answer

The D&G ad is Robin Thicke type creepy alright, but to be fair a lot of them strike me as sexualisation more than anything (though there definitely are double standards in there too). Obviously there's a crossover/grey area between the two, but the below could just as easily be said to be objectifying of men.

Also a bit of an aside, but while women get it worse for sexual objectification on the whole in the advertising world, there is also the stereotype of 'idiot men' that pervades a whole tonne of these ads. Whatever sells, I guess is the attitude.









http://newnation.sg/wp-content/uploads/shirtlessmanabercrombieandfitch.jpg

Probably NSFW: http://objectificationofads.weebly.com/uploads/1/1/0/2/11027132/689864850.jpg?389

Also probably NSFW: https://i.pinimg.com/736x/54/c2/15/54c215309fd1c7c82863fe3c9c514712.jpg

Also very probably NSFW: http://tsminteractive.com/files/2012/03/stefano-pinto-naked-yogurt-ad.jpg

professore

bluewolf wrote: »

and then someone replied with a whole ton of links already
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106138649&postcount=57

why did you make a new thread about it after you got an answer

I didn't see that as I posted the question this morning.

professore

Those ads are all aimed at women? So how is that objectification?

The tabloid stuff yeah but they are crap anyway and I never read tabloids. They are an odd mix of sex stories and puritanism in monisyllables.

tigger123

professore wrote: »

Those ads are all aimed at women? So how is that objectification?

The tabloid stuff yeah but they are crap anyway and I never read tabloids. They are an odd mix of sex stories and puritanism in monisyllables.

I'm confused. You asked for examples of women being objectified in the media, no? People gave you examples ... ?

Mr. CooL ICE

I'm always getting objectified

professore

tigger123 wrote: »

I'm confused. You asked for examples of women being objectified in the media, no? People gave you examples ... ?

They aren't good examples? A woman's lumberjack shirt? Some kind of fancy fashion designer brand aimed at women? These are the same for mens products? Next thing it will be a box of of tights.

Unless I misunderstood surely they need to display women as sex objects - like the infamous diet coke ads did for men. Or the way that 50 shades guy is portrayed. Or an old James Bond trailer or carry on film . Examples like that. Not normal advertising or advertising aimed at women that most men would only see in women's magazines at the dentist.

The tabloid thing may have a point, but page 3 is long gone, so it's all stupid phrases now.

The place I most see it is daughters of our friends posing on Facebook - and in some cases their mothers - that's the most in your face objectification I see in daily life. And that's voluntary presumably.

professore

The way Prince Harry is treated. That's objectification. He's not a rather plain looking ginger bloke with a posh accent, he's a Prince and therefore the object of hordes of women worldwide. That's my understanding of objectification. Treating someone as an object rather than a person.

tigger123

professore wrote: »

The way Prince Harry is treated. That's objectification. He's not a rather plain looking ginger bloke with a posh accent, he's a Prince and therefore the object of hordes of women worldwide. That's my understanding of objectification. Treating someone as an object rather than a person.

Sounds like you want to talk about the objectification of men, rather than objectification of women?

Wibbs

If anyone reckons throughout media and culture that women aren't sexualised, physically scrutinised* and objectified much more often and from an earlier age than men needs their head read. Or their eyes tested. The odd eejit with steroid enhanced pecs on show is the minority by a long shot.

This is nothing to do with the gobsheenery of the "gender war" sh1te either. I see feminism as a busted flush and consider the majority of media feminists so full of poo that they could pass good muster as mobile sewer treatment plants. But the plain fact is women are objectified so much more.



*Not just by men either. IMHO the most pernicious of that sh1te shows up in media aimed at and usually produced by women.

tigger123

Also, I'd say those women want to marry Prince Harry, become a princess, and live in a palace. I'm pretty sure that's not objectification.

professore

tigger123 wrote: »

Sounds like you want to talk about the objectification of men, rather than objectification of women?

No I don't actually, I just want to see what people consider objectification of women that is apparently so widespread, but yet I can't see it, and I'm a man so it should be obvious to me.

I see lots of women deliberately objectifying themselves for personal gain (Miley Cyrus for example) and men do this too but can't think of many for women in mainstream media where women are objectified.

You have stuff like lap dancing clubs and such like but they aren't mainstream and there's female alternatives to these.

_Dara_

professore wrote: »

This was brought up in a thread earlier of the rampant objectification of women in the media and it got me thinking that I couldn't think of a single example - outside music artists who objectify themselves deliberately, or women who do it to appear sexy to other women, e.g. The fashion industry.

Then got to thinking maybe it's me and can't see it. Anyone care to enlighten me?

Hey! You scut! I replied, maaaan, I repliiiied.

To be honest though, it kinda seems like no example will be good enough for you. Just read Wibbs’ post upthread there, I’m far too lazy to restate it in a different way.

professore

Wibbs wrote: »

If anyone reckons throughout media and culture that women aren't sexualised, physically scrutinised* and objectified much more often and from an earlier age than men needs their head read. Or their eyes tested. The odd eejit with steroid enhanced pecs on show is the minority by a long shot.

This is nothing to do with the gobsheenery of the "gender war" sh1te either. I see feminism as a busted flush and consider the majority of media feminists so full of poo that they could pass good muster as mobile sewer treatment plants. But the plain fact is women are objectified so much more.



*Not just by men either. IMHO the most pernicious of that sh1te shows up in media aimed at and usually produced by women.

I actually think it's mainly women driving it, not men. Does anyone seriously think men find the duck face, 5 inches thick makeup, stripper heels or butt implants attractive? I certainly don't and never have.

I don't think the average guy goes round scrutinising women with a microscope at all. He just likes some and doesn't like others. It's apparently a pickup technique that men have to be taught to "neg" women as it doesn't come naturally to them, only to assholes.

professore

_Dara_ wrote: »

Hey! You scut! I replied, maaaan, I repliiiied.

To be honest though, it kinda seems like no example will be good enough for you. Just read Wibbs’ post upthread there, I’m far too lazy to restate it in a different way.

Sorry I didn't see it

I'm not trying to be difficult, I just think it's not acceptable in 2018, and it's women who are fixated on displaying themselves a certain way.

There are clear issues still like that charity party in London recently, but in the mainstream it doesn't happen unless it's a woman doing it herself.

Dank Janniels

strandroad wrote: »

These goosebumped bikini girls promoting anything and everything in the morning Metro! Usually photographed in St Stephen's Green or Grand Canal Dock for some reason. Metro is now dead, not sure if it's still a thing in the dailies?

In general, magazine ads with writhing, panting women; you don't see ads with men sporting their orgasm face, do you...

That mag in the Sindo used to be desperate for this, think there was some promo for half price lamb in Dunnes or sumthing and there was a photo of Georgia Salpa in her knickers bside Nevin Maguire with a rack of lamb on a serving plate down Grafton steet!

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

*Not just by men either. IMHO the most pernicious of that sh1te shows up in media aimed at and usually produced by women.

This is the part I don't quite get though. I look at Instagram, for example. The whole thing is filled with people posing in all manner of dress/undress for applause or money. They're doing it to themselves. Sure, men are looking at the pictures, and thinking they're sexy, but so too are the women. However, it's somehow different when a woman sees another woman as being sexy. Her sexual preference isn't important in terms of objectification (straight women finding it sexy or attractive isn't important either), it's just that somehow there are cultural differences that don't cross the gender divide.

It's the same with the advertising examples given in the other thread. The poster who provided them said that men were barely objectified (unless we referred to the old coke ad), but most of the photos provided which objectified women, had men in them too, either partially undressed with muscular bodies or in a rather stylish suit (but still fitting a certain image of attractiveness).

Now, I do get that women are on the receiving end of far more attention than men, but in many cases, it's attention either encouraged by themselves or by other women. Do men encourage that attention? Sure, we do. It's been known for a rather long time that men respond to that kind of imagery. But it's hardly something particularly driven by men, especially now, after decades of women's rights or womens objections.

And TBH Men are likely discussing what a woman wears or what she looks like, far less than women. It also probably matters far more to the women than it does to the man. I appreciate a beautiful woman or a beautiful image, but I'm hardly drooling all over them with sexual desire.

professore

Dank Janniels wrote: »

That mag in the Sindo used to be desperate for this, think there was some promo for half price lamb in Dunnes or sumthing and there was a photo of Georgia Salpa in her knickers bside Nevin Maguire with a rack of lamb on a serving plate down Grafton steet!

Fair point. Georgia Salpa is just a sexy woman no matter what she wears. Is that objectification? Probably. Is there anything wrong with that? I don't think so.

strandroad

professore wrote: »

No I don't actually, I just want to see what people consider objectification of women that is apparently so widespread, but yet I can't see it, and I'm a man so it should be obvious to me.

Seriously you never see women treated as accessories? Like one can't present a car at a trade show unless there is a "hostess" draped over it, or a phone without cute girls playing with them? One can't sell Magnum ice cream unless there's a woman giving oral to the ice cream and making I'm coming faces? Never see models undressing to pose with raffle tickets, tuna noodles or a set of tools?
I find it hard to believe!

strandroad

professore wrote: »

Fair point. Georgia Salpa is just a sexy woman no matter what she wears. Is that objectification? Probably. Is there anything wrong with that? I don't think so.

If it was so normal we'd be seeing goosebumped ripped lads in Speedos promoting new muesli flavours with Darina Allen down Grafton St too and yet somehow we don't :pac:

suicide_circus

I'm a terrible man for checking out women. Is there a cure?

Dank Janniels

Whoops always thought it had sumthing to do with lamb! My bad!!

And now Im hungry!!

Triceratops Ballet

professore wrote:

Fair point. Georgia Salpa is just a sexy woman no matter what she wears. Is that objectification? Probably. Is there anything wrong with that? I don't think so.

It's about relevance If Georgia Salpa (or any woman) is in a bikini to promote bikinis, or fake tan or waxing then it's not objectification because it's relevant. If it's to sell scratch cards, promote a bar or sell chocolate, then she's being used as a prop, because her being in a bikini is irrelevant to the item.

Also have you ever seen a lynx ad? Bounties of beautiful women there to be acquired by the bloke who douses himself in way too much cheap deodorant

professore

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

It's about relevance If Georgia Salpa (or any woman) is in a bikini to promote bikinis, or fake tan or waxing then it's not objectification because it's relevant. If it's to sell scratch cards, promote a bar or sell chocolate, then she's being used as a prop, because her being in a bikini is irrelevant to the item.

Also have you ever seen a lynx ad? Bounties of beautiful women there to be acquired by the bloke who douses himself in way too much cheap deodorant

The magnum ad, isn't that aimed at women? Men don't get the same almost orgasmic effect from chocolate that I've heard several women say they get.

Selling something? Sure, a pretty woman is going to attract men, but isn't a handsome man going to have the same effect on women? Look at the TUI ad - groups of scantily clad men worshipping a single woman. Why exactly is it different? And why is it an issue? Men and women are generally sexually attracted to each other - Tinder has buried the myth forever of women being more interested in a guys personality.

The Lynx ads are clearly a joke - deliberately over the top satire.

suicide_circus

Men happen to be encased in a strong shell. This quality is utilised by society to carry out certain tasks.

Women happen to be encased in beautiful shells.

professore

suicide_circus wrote: »

Men happen to be encased in a strong shell. This quality is utilised by society to carry out certain tasks.

Women happen to be encased in beautiful shells.

Both men and women both say women are more esthetically pleasing to look at.

professore

I guess my point is that there is a whole narrative around women being objectified and why it happens and that it's somehow different if women do it to men and I think most of it is just plain wrong. It's much more just human nature, and of we all accepted that and got on with our lives we would all be a lot happier, and not lose our minds when a woman displays herself in a sexual way.

professore

Dank Janniels wrote: »

Whoops always thought it had sumthing to do with lamb! My bad!!

And now Im hungry!!

That is blatant use of sex to sell something. No idea what though.

suicide_circus

Should we take down all the pictures of naked ladies in the national gallery?

professore

strandroad wrote: »

If it was so normal we'd be seeing goosebumped ripped lads in Speedos promoting new muesli flavours with Darina Allen down Grafton St too and yet somehow we don't :pac:

You mean something like this

https://youtu.be/4B50Rs4gvNY

Triceratops Ballet

professore wrote:

The magnum ad, isn't that aimed at women? Men don't get the same almost orgasmic effect from chocolate that I've heard several women say they get.

The woman in a magnum ad isn't what's being sold as sexy and desirable its the ice cream. It's not about her looks they want women to want to have the same pleasurable experience as this woman has when she has a magnum.

professore wrote:

Selling something? Sure, a pretty woman is going to attract men, but isn't a handsome man going to have the same effect on women? Look at the TUI ad - groups of scantily clad men worshipping a single woman. Why exactly is it different?

It's not different. I never said it was. You asked for examples of women being objectified in the media, you have been provided with them.
The lynx ad uses sexy women to sell mens smelly stuff, like it or not, the women are actually irrelevant to the product, it's a brand decision to advertise it as "wear this and get girls" it's not satire (what is it even satire of?)

If you want to talk about the objectification of men v women thats a different conversation.

professore

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

The lynx ad uses sexy women to sell mens smelly stuff, like it or not, the women are actually irrelevant to the product, it's a brand decision to advertise it as "wear this and get girls" it's not satire (what is it even satire of?)

It's satire of the idea that using deodorant will cause women to flock to you. Even if you are a skinny geek. This was a trope of 1960s and early 1970s advertising. How they "flock" to the guy is patently ridiculous. Its only superstar celebrities get that sort of attention from women. Everyone knows that.

If he was some ripped Greek god then we would be expected to take it at face value.

To me thus is blatantly obvious as satire, I guess women are meant to take all these ads at face value, that if you wear the right dress or lipstick the world will worship you? Men generally don't think like that.

Outlaw Pete

I think the objectification of men largely goes under the radar for most people as they have been brought up with no real sustained complaints about it but when I was a teen (in the late 80's to early 90's) I certainly felt pressured to meet an ideal and I think most young lads my age did. Not that it's something guys will really talk about as well, to talk about feeling inadequate is not considered manly, and that would just add to the any feels of inadequacy that you guys already feel when it comes to their appearance.

For guys I guess it's always been the tall, dark and handsome stereotype that is there as the ideal and it's not just commercials and movies where this is presented to young men but real life makes it pretty clear also that this is how real men should look. Vast majority of guys that are used in adverts or to attract more female viewers generally adhere to that ideal also......................











Personally I think it is stupid to try and make some kind of competition out of which gender is more objectified than the other as I feel both genders have always been objectified, just in somewhat different ways, and if anything the only thing that is changing is that those ways are now becoming more similar now that traditional gender roles are changing and so advertisers can now target women in the ways they used to target men.

What really bugs me though is how rather than some people having an issue with objectification as a whole, they only seem bothered by it when it affects their gender and see no problem at all even actively engaging in it themselves when it goes the other way. That to me shows that these people aren't really bothered about objectification at all, but are using it in and sanctimonious and sly way of attempting to control men. As that is what the end result is if these people get their way. There goal, of course, is for there to be less and less female objectification, but yet they themselves are more than happy to continue to engage it. Hypocrites and I hope people see them as such and of course what their real motives are.


https://twitter.com/cosmopolitan/status/502964688544862208?lang=en
https://twitter.com/cosmopolitan/status/761762687940370432?lang=en

professore

That first fella never worked a scythe in his life.