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

kylith

professore wrote: »

I had a meeting several years ago with a young attractive female sales rep. She wore such a low cut top I could see part of her nipples. I was actually interested in her service before I met her but after 5 seconds of that I decided that her service must be no good if she feels the need to dress like that to sell it. Also felt annoyed that she thought she could somehow trick me with her sexuality. I can only assume it worked on other men or she wouldn't have done it. Ugh.

It completely put me off listening to anything she had to say if she had such a poor idea of what was appropriate. I would never show up with shorts or a bare top for a meeting like that. In a bar late in the evening I would have had a different view.

I ended the meeting after a few minutes because I found it extremely uncomfortable. Is that objectification?

I’d question what has happened in that young woman’s life that has taught her that the best way she can get ahead in life is with her breasts hanging out. It may be that this ‘objectification’ of herself is behaviour she has learned through past experience. It certainly isn’t the behaviour of someone who has learned that she makes more sales by dressing in a shirt.

When it comes to objectification I think the most telling examples come with female politicians and other women in positions of power such as US judges. The conversation revolves around what they look like rather than their ability to do the job, in a way that men are never spoken about. In situations like that it’s made clear that for a sizeable number of people a woman’s worth is defined by her attractiveness rather than her competence.

[Deleted User]

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

TBH I don't know, I can't think of any instances or examples of positive objectification though.

Really? Surely positive objectification is when you're gaining benefits because of your appearance? Isn't that part of the reason why people dress certain ways when going out on a date, a job interview, etc.

Again I don't know, so I think everyone has a right to earn a living and if they chose want to make money by modelling (which let's face it is the ultimate objectification, you're essentially a walking clothes hanger, and come to think of it linking back to your earlier question it's probably the most neutral form of objectification there is) or stripping then that's their right and prerogative, but I do wonder, if this makes it easier to objectify others.

In reality, I wonder if anyone can remove objectification. It seems like an automatic human condition. We tend to judge everything based on it's appearance.

Like for example the topless dudes at abercrombie, right they look good, they like looking good and they can make money doing it. Fine, but does the constant presence of these buff topless guys, contribute to self esteem issues of their peers or guys younger than them.

I don't quite get that though. I'm male, 192cm tall and quite thin. I look at the muscular guys in advertisements and I feel absolutely no connection with them except for our gender. I've had conversations with other men about this, and it seems to be a common perspective. It's like going to the gym or beach, everyone else is toned & beautiful, but you're pasty white and skinny... Sure, it would be nice to have that kind of body, but ultimately it means nothing because I've never had it before, and not particularly interested in working to obtain it.

So while the objectification might have little to no impact on the person who choses to objectify themselves, it may contribute to the wider objectification of people like them.

It would seem to me that people like them wouldn't be affected by it (since they themselves are unaffected). It would be the people who are unlike them that might be affected. But then it comes down to other peoples insecurities beyond your own control. no?

I think it's a really interesting time as advertising is starting to speak to men in the same way as it always has to women, and possibly as a result there's a greater crisis of confidence in younger dudes, thinking they have to be jacked and go to the gym all the time and if they don't have x body girls won't like them.

Lol. Those kinds of messages were being sent in advertising 30 years ago, since society itself was sending those messages. Trust me. As a skinny and fairly weak man, I've been exposed to quite a bit social expectation of what a "real" man is supposed to be like. Men have been on the receiving end of objectification as long as women. The difference being that there's a greater emphasis on sensual objectification for women (I don't think its really a sexual thing).

Triceratops Ballet

Deleted User wrote: »

But this "The rights and wrongs of it are irrelevant". Apart from identifying that it is objectification, how do you determine if it is positive or negative objectification?

Do you mean that all objectification is negative?

TBH I don't know, I can't think of any instances or examples of positive objectification though. I think when people are objectified extensively it becomes easier, both for others and for themselves to think of them as less worthy or worthwhile, and I don't think that's positive.

Deleted User wrote: »

Where does personal objectification come into this? Where the person objectifies themselves for <insert> purpose or personal benefits...

Again I don't know, so I think everyone has a right to earn a living and if they chose want to make money by modelling (which let's face it is the ultimate objectification, you're essentially a walking clothes hanger, and come to think of it linking back to your earlier question it's probably the most neutral form of objectification there is) or stripping then that's their right and prerogative, but I do wonder, if this makes it easier to objectify others. Like for example the topless dudes at abercrombie, right they look good, they like looking good and they can make money doing it. Fine, but does the constant presence of these buff topless guys, contribute to self esteem issues of their peers or guys younger than them. So while the objectification might have little to no impact on the person who choses to objectify themselves, it may contribute to the wider objectification of people like them.

I think it's a really interesting time as advertising is starting to speak to men in the same way as it always has to women, and possibly as a result there's a greater crisis of confidence in younger dudes, thinking they have to be jacked and go to the gym all the time and if they don't have x body girls won't like them.

Koala Sunshine

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, she has the right to earn a living however she chooses, doesn't mean it's not objectification.

The whole sex sells thing imo is more insulting to the consumer, the idea that people will only be interested in stuff if there's a scantily clad model of either gender is very dated, and is thankfully dying out.

I have never heard anyone say people will only be interested in stuff if there is a scantily clad model. It clearly helps many businesses increase their sales.

[Deleted User]

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

What way is it commonly presented?

Objectification is a word with a specific meaning. A half naked woman or man splayed across the bonnet of a car is being objectified. They are being used as a prop. The rights and wrongs of it are irrelevant, it is objectification.

Okay, so they're both objectification. I can understand that.

But this "The rights and wrongs of it are irrelevant". Apart from identifying that it is objectification, how do you determine if it is positive or negative objectification?

Do you mean that all objectification is negative?

Where does personal objectification come into this? Where the person objectifies themselves for <insert> purpose or personal benefits...

Triceratops Ballet

professore wrote: »

Well of course it exists ... but not in the way it's commonly presented. Everyone objectifies everyone all the time in one way or another. Unless you have a window into someone's head you make assumptions about them which at least some of them will be completely false.

That guy or girl who thinks X is the most wonderful person in the world - that's objectification too. In fact this is a lot more common in everyday life than sexual objectification.

What way is it commonly presented?

Objectification is a word with a specific meaning. A half naked woman or man splayed across the bonnet of a car is being objectified. They are being used as a prop. The rights and wrongs of it are irrelevant, it is objectification.

Your example is also hypocritical, you think it's ok for Kelly Brook to allow herself to be objectified by posing for photos in her underwear, but you judged the saleswoman you met who (in your opinion) objectified herself to make the sale.

suicide_circus

“likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control"

Timothy 2:9-10

professore

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Objectification is treating a person like an object, a prop, a thing. It is the opposite of personification.
It's not something feminists made up! christ! all people can be objectified.

Well of course it exists ... but not in the way it's commonly presented. Everyone objectifies everyone all the time in one way or another. Unless you have a window into someone's head you make assumptions about them which at least some of them will be completely false.

That guy or girl who thinks X is the most wonderful person in the world - that's objectification too. In fact this is a lot more common in everyday life than sexual objectification.

seamus

Well this backfired horrendously for the OP.

Triceratops Ballet

professore wrote: »

I think it's something feminists have made up to shame men and make them feel bad about themselves. It's not a real thing. You can't separate sexuality from a person. If you emphasize that side of yourself then that's how people are going to see you. Simple as that.

I had a meeting several years ago with a young attractive female sales rep. She wore such a low cut top I could see part of her nipples. I was actually interested in her service before I met her but after 5 seconds of that I decided that her service must be no good if she feels the need to dress like that to sell it. Also felt annoyed that she thought she could somehow trick me with her sexuality. I can only assume it worked on other men or she wouldn't have done it. Ugh.

It completely put me off listening to anything she had to say if she had such a poor idea of what was appropriate. I would never show up with shorts or a bare top for a meeting like that. In a bar late in the evening I would have had a different view.

I ended the meeting after a few minutes because I found it extremely uncomfortable. Is that objectification?

Objectification is treating a person like an object, a prop, a thing. It is the opposite of personification.
It's not something feminists made up! christ! all people can be objectified.

professore

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I think a lot of people don't know what objectification means

I think it's something feminists have made up to shame men and make them feel bad about themselves. It's not a real thing. You can't separate sexuality from a person. If you emphasize that side of yourself then that's how people are going to see you. Simple as that.

I had a meeting several years ago with a young attractive female sales rep. She wore such a low cut top I could see part of her nipples. I was actually interested in her service before I met her but after 5 seconds of that I decided that her service must be no good if she feels the need to dress like that to sell it. Also felt annoyed that she thought she could somehow trick me with her sexuality. I can only assume it worked on other men or she wouldn't have done it. Ugh.

It completely put me off listening to anything she had to say if she had such a poor idea of what was appropriate. I would never show up with shorts or a bare top for a meeting like that. In a bar late in the evening I would have had a different view.

I ended the meeting after a few minutes because I found it extremely uncomfortable. Is that objectification?

[Deleted User]

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I think a lot of people don't know what objectification means

I'm one of them. Oh, I think I know what it means. I looked at it in a few dictionaries for reference...

TBH I've heard so many accusations by females as to something objectifying them or other women, that it seems to include just about anything.

There's no clear accepted idea of what it means. At least, I haven't been able to find one that covers all those claims.

Triceratops Ballet

I think a lot of people don't know what objectification means

professore

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

So because it happens in tabloids it doesnt exist according to you. Weird.

The tabloids are full of crap of all sorts.

Let's look at the front page of the Daily Mail this morning :

Meghan's hug for homeless charity founder a day after her secret visits to Grenfell victims were revealed: 'Emotional' Harry's girl embraces volunteer who is 'deeply inspired' by the royal-to-be

- Royal crap.

'A betrayal and a disastrous mistake': Defiant Boris warns Theresa May she CANNOT let Britain stay shackled to the EU as he draws his red lines on Brexit

- right wing propoganda

Married Paddy McGuinness looks downcast as he emerges after being pictured arm in arm with Nicole Appleton... as All Saints star unfollows him on social media and 'flees her home'

- Scummy man cheats on his wife.

PICTURE EXCLUSIVE: Has she found love again? Single Jennifer Garner walks arm-in-arm with mystery man in Los Angeles...after divorce from Ben Affleck

Some celebrity I never heard of walks with some guy they don't even know

Hello boys: Kelly Brook, 38, leaves little to the imagination in cleavage-baring red one-piece as she poses for stunning Valentine's Day lingerie shoot

Oooh ooh ... a woman being objectified .... oh wait, she posed for this herself so it doesn't count. The photoshoot is oddly disturbing ....

Yeah so it doesn't count. If you enjoy reading that stuff you are beyond help.

Annasopra

strandroad wrote: »

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!

Laughing alone with salad?

https://www.thehairpin.com/2011/01/women-laughing-alone-with-salad/

Annasopra

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.

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.

So because it happens in tabloids it doesnt exist according to you. Weird.

splinter65

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.

But the rented honeys weren’t frogmarched down to grafton street, they do it for a living.

Triceratops Ballet

Koala Sunshine wrote:

And what's wrong with that? The company gets increased sales and Georgia Salpa gets some easy cash through her own free choice. #bodilyautonomy #righttochoose

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, she has the right to earn a living however she chooses, doesn't mean it's not objectification.

The whole sex sells thing imo is more insulting to the consumer, the idea that people will only be interested in stuff if there's a scantily clad model of either gender is very dated, and is thankfully dying out.

Heres Johnny

I just saw a woman have an orgasm eating Haagen Dass ice cream. Gorgeous she was. Looked like she was giving the spoon a blowjob too. Great ad.

Ooh I'd love to objectify her!!

The J Stands for Jay

strandroad wrote: »

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!

I find that these days, I see a lot less women being objectivised. A lot of it is probably due to not watching live TV anymore (Netflix and recording stuff) and the Indo seem to have stopped the bikini pics to launch any new product (don't judge me, it's the only paper that's free in the office).

I've only ever been to one car trade show and I don't remember there being any hostesses draped over the cars. Is that something that's died off too? I'd say women featuring in phone adds went out with Nokia. The adds these days are all about the specs.

Heres Johnny

The women in the ad trying to pull the man's towel from him are clearly rapists. He's resisting them and they persist. No means no ladies.

Where do I complain??

As for objectifying women, don't feed the feminist trolls. Most of them are fat enough as it is.

Koala Sunshine

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

And what's wrong with that? The company gets increased sales and Georgia Salpa gets some easy cash through her own free choice. #bodilyautonomy #righttochoose

Junkyard Tom

Stop crying.

Yer Da sells Avon

From a male perspective, it's all a bit insulting. I wasn't going to buy that product, but I now will because they've sprawled a half-naked woman across it. I buy Lynx not because I want to smell like a teenage boy, but because smelling like a teenage boy will definitely make women want to have sex with me. I'm not going to watch Formula 1 anymore because the absence of women in bikinis makes my penis flaccid. Who, in their right mind, would want to watch cars going around in circles without a hard-on? The two go hand-in-hand (as it were).

Anyway, that's all I have to say on the matter. After all this talk of women, I'm off for a ****.

professore

That first fella never worked a scythe in his life.

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......................

main-qimg-8bff7734f7b0aa689a304d6f0620f247-c

59d4aff11400001f00492fbb.jpeg?cache=inPR0fRRnC&ops=scalefit_630_noupscale

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

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.

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

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

suicide_circus

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