nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Dank Janniels

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

And now Im hungry!!

suicide_circus

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

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:

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!

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

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!

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.

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.

_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

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

Mr. CooL ICE

I'm always getting objectified

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 ... ?

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.

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.

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

The_Valeyard

So, whose going to objectify me?

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.

dxhound2005

Human goal post.