NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, so I am having an argument with a friend on the topic of whether or not Men objectify women more than women objectify men. I told her that she is being a sexist for generalizing all men, saying that all they care about in women are their looks. So what do you think? Do men really objectify women more than women objectify men?

Neither of the two things you are talking about have anything to do with each other.

also, your sig is distracting and huge.

also, your sig is distracting and huge.

Naughty girl. ;)

I don't think you have a female friend. Enjoy your NSG.

I think they both do it the same.

Most women want guys who are buffed up and have a "huge package" and will tend to their every whim, while wearing a banana hammock that show off their "huge package" (they could just be socking).

Most men want women who have breast so huge that the women will most likely have back problems later on in life, and have a big ass and who are looser than a pole smeared with KY Jelly.

*nods and ducks*

It's pretty equal though it is more apparent when men do it because men have been doing it for longer. Women have centuries of catching up to do. Is this sexist? No, I don't think so. Only because women were forced to be submissive do I say that it is more obvious because we know the various ways and can spot when a man is doing it to a woman.

It's kind of like reverse racism; ie: you're a white person and you're facing a person of colour and they let off a slur and act aggressive, all while you think they're just being very unreasonable; not able to recognise racism.

Okay, so I am having an argument with a friend on the topic of whether or not Men objectify women more than women objectify men. I told her that she is being a sexist for generalizing all men, saying that all they care about in women are their looks. So what do you think? Do men really objectify women more than women objectify men?I'd say that men do so more openly, so its quite possible that women objectify as much or more than men, only no one ever hears about it...

Okay, so I am having an argument with a friend on the topic of whether or not Men objectify women more than women objectify men. I told her that she is being a sexist for generalizing all men, saying that all they care about in women are their looks. So what do you think? Do men really objectify women more than women objectify men?

Merg...it's hard to say because i'm not everyone i can't really speak for everyone but generally men do objectify women more partly because there's more half naked women on TV than men, but i haven't counted them yet. But women can also do the same, to be honest i really don't know, but probably men, but only just, maybe 30 years ago i would definately have said men, i'm not so sure now at least in Western countries, in many poorer nations women have less rights e.g. almost any middle-eastern country.

I'd say they do it the same, but in different ways - perhaps as others said, it's more obvious when men do it.

its a silly argument. there is no way to objectively measure objectification.

its a silly argument. there is no way to objectively measure objectification.And this is meant to set it apart from the other arguments on NSG how exactly? :p

its a silly argument. there is no way to objectively measure objectification.

I agree with comrade Ashmoria. What one may consider "objectification" the other may consider "attention".

...Not all attention is good though.

In terms of "classical" objectification...whatever that is...I suppose men may have a higher tendancy to do so than women, historically anyway.

*Am a dude, btw*

its a silly argument. there is no way to objectively measure objectification.

what we need is an objective objectification objectifier!

I agree with comrade Ashmoria. What one may consider "objectification" the other may consider "attention".

...Not all attention is good though.

In terms of "classical" objectification...whatever that is...I suppose men may have a higher tendancy to do so than women, historically anyway.

*Am a dude, btw*

im not really sure what qualifies as objectification. is it really not a kind of objectification when a woman lives in a dream world where some man loves her and values her opinion when in reality he is an asshole who only wants to get into her pants?

im not really sure what qualifies as objectification. is it really not a kind of objectification when a woman lives in a dream world where some man loves her and values her opinion when in reality he is an asshole who only wants to get into her pants?Nah, that would be romantization. Objectification would be when you ignore all possible qualities besides the physical ones.

If we're talking stereotypes here it goes like this: the women see the men as big wads of cash. So, I suppose that makes them more objectifying since wads of cash are inanimate objects, but most men don't want to have sex with inanimate objects...

im not really sure what qualifies as objectification.

Nor do I, hence our dilema.

is it really not a kind of objectification when a woman lives in a dream world where some man loves her and values her opinion when in reality he is an asshole who only wants to get into her pants?

Yes the man here in this case really doesn't give a damn about the woman, only the body. But in this situation the woman isn't helping much.
She is diluted. But the real fault lies with the man, who is a special breed of men known as Prickus maximus, or the Gigantic Prick.

I don't think you have a female friend. Enjoy your NSG.

*giggles*

im not really sure what qualifies as objectification. is it really not a kind of objectification when a woman lives in a dream world where some man loves her and values her opinion when in reality he is an asshole who only wants to get into her pants?

Hmm, I think the objectification the OP talks about is this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification).

Sexual objectification is objectification of a person. That is, seeing them as a sexual object, and emphasizing their sexual attributes and physical attractiveness, while de-emphasizing their existence as a living person with emotions and feelings of their own.

In which case the objectification you give as an example wouldn't really fit the definition because the woman in your case emphasizes the supposed feelings of her husband instead of his sexual attributes (although you could argue his supposed feelings for her are his sexual attributes, but that would only lead to confusion :().

Since I'm not the OP, I could be entirely wrong though.

I don't know if men do it more or not, but as a man, I know it's more socially expected of men to do it. We're more or less told that we should be, from media, friends, etc. Even though women might do it just as much (maybe even in retaliation?), it's definitely a common thing in men.

Not sure how to phrase that, it's not an easy thing to talk about, but I hope that works.

I don't know if men do it more or not, but as a man, I know it's more socially expected of men to do it. We're more or less told that we should be, from media, friends, etc. Even though women might do it just as much (maybe even in retaliation?), it's definitely a common thing in men.

Not sure how to phrase that, it's not an easy thing to talk about, but I hope that works.

good point.:)

Okay, so I am having an argument with a friend on the topic of whether or not Men objectify women more than women objectify men. I told her that she is being a sexist for generalizing all men, saying that all they care about in women are their looks. So what do you think? Do men really objectify women more than women objectify men?

I think objectification is equal.

One thing to consider is that men are more visually stimulated... this makes it appear that men objectify more... but it is a reaction of the brain, not men being concerned with making women into objects.

It's how nature works, yes there is objectification... yes women do it too.

No one whines that women emotify men (by trying too hard to create deep relationships with men that aren't interested or whatnot.)

Naughty girl. ;)

She's objectifying Zilam? Sweeeeeeeeeeeeet.

most men don't want to have sex with inanimate objects...Speak for your- ... hey, are you stereotyping males in a objectification thread?

I don't think you have a female friend. Enjoy your NSG.

It's funny 'cause it's so true.

No one whines that women emotify men (by trying too hard to create deep relationships with men that aren't interested or whatnot.)I suspect if we dig a little around here, we'd find a few.

what we need is an objective objectification objectifier!
I nominate that squatter guy who's been making the rounds a lot of late ... Jhahannam
S/he seems pretty level.
Or Lunatic Golfballs.

its a silly argument. there is no way to objectively measure objectification.

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/Thread.jpg

I don't know if men do it more or not, but as a man, I know it's more socially expected of men to do it. We're more or less told that we should be, from media, friends, etc. Even though women might do it just as much (maybe even in retaliation?), it's definitely a common thing in men.

Not sure how to phrase that, it's not an easy thing to talk about, but I hope that works.

I agree, its not that us males do it more, it is simply more social expected. I objectify women, but I dont say it out loud... (That way they dont slap you!)

I'd say that men do so more openly, so its quite possible that women objectify as much or more than men, only no one ever hears about it...

I was gonna say that...

its a silly argument. there is no way to objectively measure objectification.

...and that...

If we're talking stereotypes here it goes like this: the women see the men as big wads of cash. So, I suppose that makes them more objectifying since wads of cash are inanimate objects, but most men don't want to have sex with inanimate objects...

...and that.

It might be a different kind of objectification, more along the lines of romanticizing or projective idealizing. That latter idea is best summed up by Bill Hicks' routine called "Pussywhipped Satan". Bill opined that if Satan ever walked the Earth, there'd be a certain segment of women who would go after the ultimate "bad boy" in order to reform him and make him over.

Bill: What? You're datng Satan?
Woman: Yeah, he's got a cute butt!
Bill: But he's Satan!
Woman: You don't know him like I do.
Bill: But he's the Prince of Darkness!
Woman: I can change him.

Three weeks later, we'd run across Satan mowing the lawn on a Saturday afternoon.

I don't know if that's objectification, but it's certainly as much of a stereotypical female trait as ogling and leering is for men. I'm not saying it's better or worse, I'm just saying that some stereotypes exist for a reason.

Can anybody please explain to me what objectifying actually means in this context?

Can anybody please explain to me what objectifying actually means in this context?

Didn't someone post the Wiki-nition in this thread?

Didn't someone post the Wiki-nition in this thread?

Ah, found it.
Nope, still doesn't make sense... Humans are sexual beings. What's wrong with acknowledging that? Claiming that it's wrong to see anybody as a sexually attractive and nothing else is like claiming it's wrong to see a footballer as a sporty person and nothing else...

I don't think you have a female friend. Enjoy your NSG.
This.

I'm not sure ethier gender actually does this at all.

I mean I can of course see a good looking woman and think cor! But I'm thinking about sex with her, at that moment in time. I'm not objectifiieing her as a sexual object, just thinking what it would be like.

I'd say that men do so more openly, so its quite possible that women objectify as much or more than men, only no one ever hears about it...

I think it goes both ways about equally but it's less noticeable when women do it, presumably because the social stigma of objectifying people tends to land on the guys. My wife and I were watching TV and saw a commercial for Domino's Pizza:

Husband: I've ordered the pizza. We have 30 minutes. What should we do in the meantime :: grin grin wink wink ::

Wife: Ok sure... but what would we do with the other 28 minutes?

Husband :: pout pout ::

Which is freaking hilarious... But if a similar commercial were made ragging on the wife's bedroom performance, controversey would follow. I know it's not exactly the same thing, but it's the best example I could think of.

Okay, so I am having an argument with a friend on the topic of whether or not Men objectify women more than women objectify men. I told her that she is being a sexist for generalizing all men, saying that all they care about in women are their looks. So what do you think? Do men really objectify women more than women objectify men?

(definition taken from dictionary.com)
Objectify-verb-To present or regard as an object

Why is this even a girls vs guys topic? People in general objectifies each others in any form of relationship. We guess, we demand, we expect, and we sacrifice in the name of others for our own selfish emotional gains all the time. After all

How often do people ask before we make assumptions of each others?

But if we want to look at only the male vs female element of things. Every person fantasize about their "perfect mate". To say this is morally wrong is to condemn the entire human race. I however believe men tends to be lean toward "perfect look" while woman have many other demands such as money, car, unconditional love and care, unconditional appreciation for her sacrifice, etc. By the end of the day? No she's not a sexist. It will be ridiculous to say that look isn't a factor when looking at anyone, never mind a men toward a women. What she do need to realize is that every person in the world, both men and women, fantasize about their unmet needs.

What it seems is being compared is a sort of 'worst case scenario' for men and women and then attempting to make a decision on how bad those cases are. As has been pointed out, this is kind of a pointless exercise-but the reason is because it misses the point.

It's not about compiling and 'average' man or woman and assigning them their level of objectification, or the 'worst' and measuring how far each gender goes, but rather what gender has the disproportionate power to impose or institutionalize that kind of objectification. You're likely to find women who think of men as nothing more than dong transporting devices, but the key is that they do not have as much power to normalize, institutionalize, or impose that as their male counterparts.

That we may do it more or less is academic-we can make excuses for it, try and find women with similar attitudes and try and say, "See? Just as bad!" But what matters is the imprint that it can have on the collective conscience.

The second mistake is to assume it's all on you. I think this is where the defensiveness comes from that fuels these topics. Just because 'men' have more power to impose that kind of objectification doesn't mean all men are pornographers who secretly want women barefoot and pregnant and are just pretending to be otherwise to be polite. You might be a decent cat, in fact you probably are. It's the overall thats being discussed, not you specifically.

Of course men and women objectify each other. The perspective is different, though. Men, in general, use looks as the basis of objectification. Women's bases for objectification are more varied and subtle (resources, personality, etc.) but it's objectification just the same - that is, men and women are using real attributes to support unreal expectations.

Ah, found it.
Nope, still doesn't make sense... Humans are sexual beings. What's wrong with acknowledging that? Claiming that it's wrong to see anybody as a sexually attractive and nothing else is like claiming it's wrong to see a footballer as a sporty person and nothing else...

Uh...that's a bit of a bad analogy. Football is something you choose to do. Sex is something which, for better or worse, we're driven to do. I would claim it to be wrong to assume that a footballer is only interested in football. We're creatures of more than one dimension, even the simplest of us. Like me.

Uh...that's a bit of a bad analogy. Football is something you choose to do. Sex is something which, for better or worse, we're driven to do. I would claim it to be wrong to assume that a footballer is only interested in football. We're creatures of more than one dimension, even the simplest of us. Like me.

Ok, let's see if I can get a better analogy... Imagine a ballet instructor. Any time she meets a new person, the first thing she does is scrutinise their body and movements to figure out if they might make good ballet dancers.
That does not automatically imply that once she's established they'd be hopeless, she would not be interested in them at all. It's just that she loves ballet, and likes instructing, and therefore always hopes to discover new talents.
Better?
I think looking at people and categorising them in one form or another is just human, it's not necessarily negative. We need these categories for ourselves, it doesn't have to affect the people we categorise.

Of course men and women objectify each other. The perspective is different, though. Men, in general, use looks as the basis of objectification. Women's bases for objectification are more varied and subtle (resources, personality, etc.) but it's objectification just the same - that is, men and women are using real attributes to support unreal expectations.

Yes and no.
I've heard from males again and again that on meeting a woman for the first time, the first thing that's being mentally processed is "Would I do her or not?"
I do think it's much the same for women, after all the first thing you have to go by are looks, you only discover personality later on. However, I believe women might be more likely to reverse their first desicion later on when getting to know the person better.

Ok, let's see if I can get a better analogy... Imagine a ballet instructor. Any time she meets a new person, the first thing she does is scrutinise their body and movements to figure out if they might make good ballet dancers.
That does not automatically imply that once she's established they'd be hopeless, she would not be interested in them at all. It's just that she loves ballet, and likes instructing, and therefore always hopes to discover new talents.
Better?
I think looking at people and categorising them in one form or another is just human, it's not necessarily negative. We need these categories for ourselves, it doesn't have to affect the people we categorise.

Again, dancing, especially ballet, is not a primal, instinctual thing. Sex is. You can't make a comparsion between objectification and someone who is educated in their chosen field sizing up potential apprentices.

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/Thread.jpg

Do you have a permit to pass out official Ifreann certification on threads?

Again, dancing, especially ballet, is not a primal, instinctual thing. Sex is. You can't make a comparsion between objectification and someone who is educated in their chosen field sizing up potential apprentices.

Well, in that case it would be even more understandable to see people as potential sexual partners first, wouldn't it?

Okay, so I am having an argument with a friend on the topic of whether or not Men objectify women more than women objectify men. I told her that she is being a sexist for generalizing all men, saying that all they care about in women are their looks. So what do you think? Do men really objectify women more than women objectify men?

Meh. The objectification of women by men is clearly more visible (men control the mass production of culture - cinema, advertising), but listen to many, many women...

the point is: stupid human beings objectify other human beings. Intelligent human beingsdon't objectify other human beings. Brain is the difference, not gonades.

Again, dancing, especially ballet, is not a primal, instinctual thing. Sex is. You can't make a comparsion between objectification and someone who is educated in their chosen field sizing up potential apprentices.

I'd disagree with that. Both making music and dancing seem very primal and instinctive to me.

Well, in that case it would be even more understandable to see people as potential sexual partners first, wouldn't it?

Fair enough.

What are you doing next Friday night? ;)