Koala Sunshine wrote: » I sense what this comes down to for those women who decry "objectification" is a fear that they don't look good enough or a response to the pain of not looking good enough. For men who decry "objectification" of women, I think it stems from the fact they are unable to compete with other men for beautiful women. Basically what they are doing is taking their ball home. Deep down they are bitter that they can't attract those women who are "objectified".
Triceratops Ballet wrote: » Is that not conflating objectification with something else, ie viewing someone as an object, with judging them based on their appearance.
Nor do I but I'm an adult I'm able to separate my appearance from my worth (after years of not being able to) That doesn't mean it doesn't have an impact on young people constantly bombarded with those images
The messaging is changing tho, there's recently been foundation ads with men in them, it's a subtle shift from "this is what a man is, tall dark and handsome" to "this is how you're not like that guy, dye your hair, cover those bags under your eyes and get to the gym"
Deleted User wrote: » And yet, the majority of criticism seems to be coming from adults on behalf of young people. Is it possible that young people would have fewer problems if adults stopped telling them that they should have problems from being on the receiving end of those images? Just curious since this focus on youth issues seems to have blown into a big deal within the last two decades. I don't remember these kinds of issues being commonplace when I was a teenager, and there was just as much advertising going on (although from TV, billboards etc) rather than social media.
Deleted User wrote: » Though I don't get why this has to be a gender issue, rather than a criticism of advertising and the media industry... after all, it's them that is pushing the importance of the imagery, and pushing it into our lives.
Triceratops Ballet wrote: » 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. 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.
Widdershins wrote: » But it’s one of life’s harsh realities. There will always be better and worse looking people. They need to develop their own self esteem so they aren’t damaged by being confronted with the sight of models.
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.
_Dara_ wrote: » Why are you assuming that anyone who has an issue with it isn't good-looking? Indeed, a lot of models leave the profession because they find it so unfulfilling and sometimes demeaning. I've read so many times about actresses who were models at one point but hated every minute of modelling and didn't even care that it paid well, they just wanted out.
Deleted User wrote: » Strange. I didn't get that from his post. I simply got that people should have their self-esteem or self-image that is independent of other peoples opinions.
_Dara_ wrote: » Why would he or anyone conflate having an issue with objectification with having self-esteem issues? Someone wouldn't have a problem with it if they were the one being objectified or something? I can't really see the logic there.
You never hear groups of lads discussing hot females? Come on.
cantdecide wrote: » This thread is pretty much a waste of time until 2 things are established; what exactly is objectification and what exactly is the harm of it? If it exists and is /puke/ problematic, it exists for both men and women and personally, who cares anyway no more than objectifying a cute puppy to sell loo roll, IMO. note: I have not said it doesn't exist and I haven't said it is or isn't harmless.
_Dara_ wrote: » You never hear groups of lads discussing hot females? Come on.
professore wrote: » Castletownman makes a valid point. Most men wouldn't consider making the kind of sexualised remarks a lot of women casually make in everyday life. It's a complete role reversal where women can talk openly about sex and how hot some guy is and grope away but men are objectifying a woman if they look sideways at her. The old morality used to keep women and to a lesser extent men in check; the new one exclusively keeps men in check. I think there is a big swing back coming soon.
kylith wrote: Rubbish. I have _never_ heard women catcall men in the street the way men do women.
kylith wrote: » Rubbish. I have _never_ heard women catcall men in the street the way men do women.
Koala Sunshine wrote: Murky terms such as "objectification" are great for those who wish to push their agenda while avoiding the need to be logically consistent.
Koala Sunshine wrote: I asked earlier for a definition and someone said "treating someone like an object". I made the facetious comment about people being used as goalposts to deminstrate the definition given was insufficient.
Koala Sunshine wrote: I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees this. We need a precise definition of what objectification actually is.
professore wrote: I haven't heard anyone catcall anyone else in the street for years. Exception was in a northern European city and groups of Muslim teenagers were doing it on a regular basis at my daughters. Am often out and about with her in town and it never happens. Can happen to her late in the evening she says.
Triceratops Ballet wrote: » If it's not treating people like objects then what is it? Op do you know, you started a thread on it?
suicide_circus wrote: » Mating calls are quite prevalent in the animal kingdom
Koala Sunshine wrote: » What does it mean to treat someone like an object?
optogirl wrote: » so is sh**ting on the ground and eating raw meat
cantdecide wrote: » My bins were just collected now. I could hear the noise but didn't rush out to ask them their names and how they're feeling today and life in general or about their hobbies and passions. I just accepted the lads as part of the service of bin collection and not a jot more. I think I just objectified my bin men.