Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
    I'm a feminist, and objectification of anyone pisses me off. Male or female.

    The thing that annoys me about the American Apparel advert though, is that she's not wearing any underwear. Why? Who the Hell lies around wearing a jumper and make up but no underwear?
    I'm always at it (less the make-up!)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I reject the concept of objectification. At the very least I think it's badly named because I think sexual attractiveness is inherently a property of a person and not an object. So I completely reject the idea that you're treating someone like an object by focussing on their sexual attractiveness, even if it's purely physical. That doesn't mean I think it's acceptable to do that in every situation though.

    As for ads like in the OP, I don't really care. If anything, I encourage them. If men get pictures of scantily clad ladies to look at, it's only fair women get the equivalent.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    Feminists, and radical feminists in-particular, are quick to call people fascists without realizing that they themselves have become fascists.
    That goes without saying, which is why I had a big rant on another thread about modern liberals being intolerant hypocrites.


    (Original post by PoGo HoPz)
    My ideal girl, that's who. :drool:
    That was a rather sexist remark! :eek:

    (Original post by Psyk)
    As for ads like in the OP, I don't really care. If anything, I encourage them. If men get pictures of scantily clad ladies to look at, it's only fair women get the equivalent.
    You could also say that if women are allowed to complain then it's only fair that men get the equivalent. I agree, I'm not hugely bothered by the adverts themselves, more the hypocrisy of it and the fact that feminists who complain of objectification only focus on female objectification.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Women just like to whine...In time you just learn to blank it out and ignore it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I think about this every time I see David Beckham's unfeasibly large package on the H&M underwear adverts.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    You could also say that if women are allowed to complain then it's only fair that men get the equivalent. I agree, I'm not hugely bothered by the adverts themselves, more the hypocrisy of it and the fact that feminists who complain of objectification only focus on female objectification.
    They don't, you know. Many target male objectification as well. Most feminists are quick to point out that patriarchy harms men just as much. The entire discourses forces both sexes and all genders into certain modes of behaviour which are not necessarily as natural as they appear. For instance, male objectification emphasises big muscles and "manliness" as exhibited through cocky smiles, that gleam n the eye, etc. The vast majority of men are not like that, so the objectification harms them as much as it does women.

    The issue you have is that you have not read enough feminist literature to actually know what they say. Feminists tackle male issues where they can, but they actively state that only male feminists can tackle male issues, because only males can truly appreciate how the discourse oppresses them. Female feminists realise that they cannot be the voice for men, just like men cannot be the voice for women.

    Hell, they are even realising now that they cannot be the voice for some homogenous group called "women".

    That said, the reason they lay emphasis on female issues is because they are more pressing; women are the majority of feminists and by tackling one set of issues, they hope to show everyone the ways in which they are oppressed and how to fight it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    The issue you have is that you have not read enough feminist literature to actually know what they say. Feminists tackle male issues where they can, but they actively state that only male feminists can tackle male issues, because only males can truly appreciate how the discourse oppresses them. Female feminists realise that they cannot be the voice for men, just like men cannot be the voice for women.
    Wouldn't that make them a masculinist rather than a feminist? The name "feminism" suggest that it's coming at it from a female's point of view, so if a man is tackling issues that affect men, then it's not really feminism.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    They don't, you know.
    Bull ****.

    Many target male objectification as well. Most feminists are quick to point out that patriarchy harms men just as much. The entire discourses forces both sexes and all genders into certain modes of behaviour which are not necessarily as natural as they appear. For instance, male objectification emphasises big muscles and "manliness" as exhibited through cocky smiles, that gleam n the eye, etc. The vast majority of men are not like that, so the objectification harms them as much as it does women.
    So it's men's fault for being objectified? What about female magazines which portray men in that fashion, or loose women? Don't blame me for painting an unrealistic image of the average men when it's plastered in just about every issue of Heat or Gossip.

    The issue you have is that you have not read enough feminist literature to actually know what they say. Feminists tackle male issues where they can, but they actively state that only male feminists can tackle male issues, because only males can truly appreciate how the discourse oppresses them. Female feminists realise that they cannot be the voice for men, just like men cannot be the voice for women.
    No they don't, feminists now don't give two ****s about men's interest. Just look at that rally against Men's Rights groups. Modern feminism is a self-interested, hypocritical load of *******s that has no purpose to serve other than screaming 'SEXISM' in the faces of anyone who disagrees with them. If feminists truly cared about equality they'd be egalitarian.

    Hell, they are even realising now that they cannot be the voice for some homogenous group called "women".

    That said, the reason they lay emphasis on female issues is because they are more pressing; women are the majority of feminists and by tackling one set of issues, they hope to show everyone the ways in which they are oppressed and how to fight it.
    Emphasis extends to ignore anything male related. Feminists nowadays don't give a **** about male rights in the aspects of child custody, positive discrimination cases and the rare incidences of male rape. All they care about is power for women, nothing more, nothing less. And they have the cheek to call others fascists when they do anything to stop their opponents from speaking.

    Oh and cheers for the neg btw.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    Wouldn't that make them a masculinist rather than a feminist? The name "feminism" suggest that it's coming at it from a female's point of view, so if a man is tackling issues that affect men, then it's not really feminism.
    No. This is a problem with the name that people who don't really read up on the literature find confusing. Personally, I would rather they changed the name, but feminism is an egalitarian movement with emphasis on gender equality. They argue that men and women cannot be equal until they are equal in all areas, which incudes tackling male issues. Attempting to separate the groups into "masculinist" or "feminist" just seeks to muddy the waters and discredit feminism as a movement, thoug I realise you were probably not trying to do that.


    (Original post by Kiss)
    Bull ****. .
    Given you don't seem to have read much by feminists outside of blogs and opinion pieces, I don't think you are in much of a position to comment.


    (Original post by Kiss)
    So it's men's fault for being objectified? What about female magazines which portray men in that fashion, or loose women? Don't blame me for painting an unrealistic image of the average men when it's plastered in just about every issue of Heat or Gossip. .
    Where did I say it was "men's fault"? That is an impressive strawman. Nless, of course, you got confused by the term "male objectification", by which I simply meant the objectification of males.

    It is no one's fault. Discourse is never that simple and patriarchy is simply a discourse that favours men in power relations, but specifically a certain type of man. Discourses mould us and our opinions, but st the same time they are moulded by us, so no one is really to blame for its existence, but as we can see the effects of the discourse, not fighting it is something we can blame people for.


    (Original post by Kiss)
    No they don't, feminists now don't give two ****s about men's interest. Just look at that rally against Men's Rights groups. Modern feminism is a self-interested, hypocritical load of *******s that has no purpose to serve other than screaming 'SEXISM' in the faces of anyone who disagrees with them. If feminists truly cared about equality they'd be egalitarian. .
    They are egalitarian. :facepalm2: The movement has evolved since the days it was a platform solely for women's rights. And whilst there are many who go overboard or are misandrists, they are usually denounced by the wider feminist community.

    And of course many wil rally against Men's Rights groups, because they view them simply as vehicles to maintain straight male privilege in the world. Many feminists, however, will support such groups, because they recognise there are areas where men are oppressed or under-prvilieged compared to women. Feminism is not sme homogenous movement where everyone thinks the same. Please stop treating them like they are.


    (Original post by Kiss)
    Emphasis extends to ignore anything male related. Feminists nowadays don't give a **** about male rights in the aspects of child custody, positive discrimination cases and the rare incidences of male rape. All they care about is power for women, nothing more, nothing less. And they have the cheek to call others fascists when they do anything to stop their opponents from speaking. .
    Have you got any proof of these accusations? I personally know feminists who tackle those issues. You can go on tumblr and find others. You could do some actual research and see what academic feminists discuss. It is nowhere near as black and white as you show. Especially because by tacklng many of those issues you have just mentioned, they will improve the position of women at the same time.


    (Original post by Kiss)
    Oh and cheers for the neg btw.
    You deserve it, so you are welcome.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    No. This is a problem with the name that people who don't really read up on the literature find confusing. Personally, I would rather they changed the name, but feminism is an egalitarian movement with emphasis on gender equality. They argue that men and women cannot be equal until they are equal in all areas, which incudes tackling male issues. Attempting to separate the groups into "masculinist" or "feminist" just seeks to muddy the waters and discredit feminism as a movement, thoug I realise you were probably not trying to do that.

    Then why do you bother calling it the 'feminist' movement then? That only implies a difference.


    Where did I say it was "men's fault"? That is an impressive strawman. Nless, of course, you got confused by the term "male objectification", by which I simply meant the objectification of males.
    You referred to patriarchy as the cause ergo you mean men.

    They are egalitarian. :facepalm2: The movement has evolved since the days it was a platform solely for women's rights. And whilst there are many who go overboard or are misandrists, they are usually denounced by the wider feminist community.
    No, they advocate equality to everyone who is a minority whist maintaining a view that attempts to marginalise male positions on the basis of meeting quotas and standards.

    I doubt that highly since feminists rally under the banner of 'women', not men. It's perfectly acceptable to hate men when you're a feminist but God-forbid you disagree with them and you are automatically a misogynist.

    And of course many wil rally against Men's Rights groups, because they view them simply as vehicles to maintain straight male privilege in the world. Many feminists, however, will support such groups, because they recognise there are areas where men are oppressed or under-prvilieged compared to women. Feminism is not sme homogenous movement where everyone thinks the same. Please stop treating them like they are.

    I am aware it isn't a homogenous movement as no two people think exactly alike, hence why you're arguing with me. I've already distinguished before the modern feminist ethos that rides upon the political saddle of political correctness in order to achieve a pointless goal.

    Have you got any proof of these accusations? I personally know feminists who tackle those issues. You can go on tumblr and find others. You could do some actual research and see what academic feminists discuss. It is nowhere near as black and white as you show. Especially because by tacklng many of those issues you have just mentioned, they will improve the position of women at the same time.
    I personally know feminists who don't. You can also go on tumblr and find countless others.

    Having read Germaine Greer's Female Eunuch and various other texts including the likes of Majorie Garber, I think you're not in a position to make a rather misinformed statement about someone you've never met.


    You deserve it, so you are welcome.
    Likewise. I enjoy negging morons whenever I have the chance
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    Then why do you bother calling it the 'feminist' movement then? That only implies a difference.
    Because it grew out of the feminist movement for women's rights? They don't see the need to change the name.


    (Original post by Kiss)
    You referred to patriarchy as the cause ergo you mean men.
    Um, no. Patriarchy is the name of a discourse which supports straight male privilege. That doesn't necessarily assign blame to men as women contribute to the patriarchy as much as men do.

    No wonder you have such a twisted view of feminism if you define patriarchy like that.


    (Original post by Kiss)
    No, they advocate equality to everyone who is a minority whist maintaining a view that attempts to marginalise male positions on the basis of meeting quotas and standards.
    Not really. Many feminists fight against quotas as they realise the damange they do to the movement. Others views quotas as the on,y way to prove to people that women are equally suitable. It comes from research which suggests that with two equally good applicants, with nothing to decide between them, the male applicant will be chosen over the female one (or the white over the black) because of inherent bias whoch supports male privilege, even if it is a female doing the choosing.

    And in the end, minorities are more oppressed than straight, white males. Tey need more advocates. That doesn't mean male issues are ignored, they just aren't as important to the movement right now.


    (Original post by Kiss)
    I doubt that highly since feminists rally under the banner of 'women', not men. It's perfectly acceptable to hate men when you're a feminist but God-forbid you disagree with them and you are automatically a misogynist.
    Actually it is not acceptable to hate men, except amongst the extremists.

    And yes, they rally under the banner of "women", because women are still worse off than men. Again, that doesn't mean they ignore men or actively hate them.


    (Original post by Kiss)
    I am aware it isn't a homogenous movement as no two people think exactly alike, hence why you're arguing with me. I've already distinguished before the modern feminist ethos that rides upon the political saddle of political correctness in order to achieve a pointless goal.
    But you haven't distinguished any modern feminist ethos. You havea referenced no one, quoted no one, shown n examples. All you have done is made sweeping assertions about a movement.

    Modern feminists are more egalitarian than before.


    (Original post by Kiss)
    I personally know feminists who don't. You can also go on tumblr and find countless others.
    Of course, and you will notice that the come under a lot of flac for being so extreme.


    (Original post by Kiss)
    Having read Germaine Greer's Female Eunuch and various other texts including the likes of Majorie Garber, I think you're not in a position to make a rather misinformed statement about someone you've never met.
    Ah yes, I suppose if I read only missives from the Taliban, I would assume all Muslims are extremists too. Likewise, if I were taking Greer as my model for feminism, I would think like you. Thank the gods, I don't. She is highly criticised within the movement, you know, for going too far.


    (Original post by Kiss)
    Likewise. I enjoy negging morons whenever I have the chance
    So you admit you are a moron? Fair enough.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I don't know about objectification (I did lol at that bingo advert when I saw it on a bus the other day), but the academic/establishment gender discourse is ridiculously oversimplified, and in many forms is essentially just a misandric diatribe.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    No. This is a problem with the name that people who don't really read up on the literature find confusing. Personally, I would rather they changed the name, but feminism is an egalitarian movement with emphasis on gender equality. They argue that men and women cannot be equal until they are equal in all areas, which incudes tackling male issues. Attempting to separate the groups into "masculinist" or "feminist" just seeks to muddy the waters and discredit feminism as a movement, thoug I realise you were probably not trying to do that.
    Kind of ironic that the name of the movement is a prime example of the sort of thing it aims to eliminate. The very name of it discredits it.

    (Original post by Hylean)
    Because it grew out of the feminist movement for women's rights? They don't see the need to change the name.
    If they don't see the need to change the name then they clearly don't understand what their own movement is about.

    I don't really think feminism is a single movement any more. You might consider it to be an egalitarian movement that is equally about men's right as it is women's. But I bet there are plenty of people who call themselves feminists who disagree.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I think we can see these two types of adverts differently - one uses a model to show clothes, and the other uses models as eye candy. Wherever someone draws their line, they must agree that the clothing advert is no worse/less acceptable than the gambling one.

    Might it be interesting to note that all the mentioned adverts are actually aimed at women, and assuming they aren't marketing fails, would suggest that women buyers like objectifying people of both genders? Sales of women's magazines would also suggest women buyers like seeing other women caught in compromising/embarrassing situations too.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    The Huffington Post recently posted about adverts which objectify women, and here is one example:



    Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013...#slide=2320826


    Now why is that more objectifying and unrealistic than this picture?



    I've seen this advert everywhere, on buses, on the internet, on billboard. Yet nobody has mentioned that that men could find it offensive.

    And it really makes me wonder if feminists would ever stop and consider that men are objectified just as women are on a daily basis.

    Having to see it everywhere can lower self-esteem when it is an unrealistic and unattainable physical form for your average guy. Women complain about the necessity for different sized models yet I haven't seen them bat an eye when it comes to the mental wellbeing of men on the topic of body image.


    So, guys: Do you find this image offensive and sexist for the aforementioned reasons? And girls, do you think that men deserve to have different models of different shapes in a way which is comparable to the way women have now got 'curvy' models?
    I'm a bit drugged up right now (there's a prescription, for the record), so I apologise if I fail to comprehend something here or what-have-you, but anyway:

    I think you're making a bit of a Two Wrongs Make A Right fallacy. I agree with you that the case with men being objectified and the effects of that are bad, perhaps even worse in some cases, however that doesn't mean that objectification of women is therefore not an issue.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Oh dear. So much hatred for the feminist movement! Haha, anyway... I deem them both offensive. And I'm not just saying that.

    Men do get a lot of pressure put on them due to sexism, i.e. the expectation of providing for the women/children, being a coward if you don't react aggressively when provoked, the constant brainwashing to be a sperm transport system and not much else because we all know you're either professors or mindless sex machines! You're taught not to show much emotion ('boys don't cry'), if you do you're a failure ...and the list goes on and ooooonnnnn. HOWEVER, feminism is the movement that brought all this to my attention... and I would guess the same is true for a lot of people. So you can thank it for that at least

    I'm sure not all feminists are concerned with men's rights issues. Maybe they are still in that 'OMG EVERYTHING WITH A PENIS IS OPPRESSING ME' phase. I had one. Then realised it doesn't work like that.

    And yes, the fact it's called 'feminism' is misleading. But it is. There we go.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    So, guys: Do you find this image offensive and sexist for the aforementioned reasons?
    I believe guys being 'ripped' is sexist imagery. It helps reinforce that men are required to require masculine features as an ideal. If guys want to get ripped after seeing 300 in the cinema then that's their choice. A greater issue of sexism towards men, for me at least, is conscription because of infantry roles in the military worldwide are nearly always male specific.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    I'm a bit drugged up right now (there's a prescription, for the record), so I apologise if I fail to comprehend something here or what-have-you, but anyway:

    I think you're making a bit of a Two Wrongs Make A Right fallacy. I agree with you that the case with men being objectified and the effects of that are bad, perhaps even worse in some cases, however that doesn't mean that objectification of women is therefore not an issue.
    It's not two wrongs make a right. Say you thought the AA advert was a 5/10 on the badness/objectifying scale, and it ought to be banned, so you complain about it. You then see the gambling advert, which most would argue is worse and more objectifying (at least the model was modelling the clothes for sale, I don't see what purpose the men pointing serves other than eye candy), and at the very least is no less unacceptable, so is a 5+/10. Ought you not to complain about the gambling advert as well? Anyone who complains about the clothes but not the gambling advert is effectively complaining about the less bad one, but not the worse one - a double standard, and I think we all know why they hold it.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Surely the woman and the men were paid to do those adverts. If they are willing to be objectified for money who are we to stop them?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    It's not two wrongs make a right. Say you thought the AA advert was a 5/10 on the badness/objectifying scale, and it ought to be banned, so you complain about it. You then see the gambling advert, which most would argue is worse and more objectifying (at least the model was modelling the clothes for sale, I don't see what purpose the men pointing serves other than eye candy), and at the very least is no less unacceptable, so is a 5+/10. Ought you not to complain about the gambling advert as well? Anyone who complains about the clothes but not the gambling advert is effectively complaining about the less bad one, but not the worse one - a double standard, and I think we all know why they hold it.
    I agree with you that both are bad. The thing is that it just because something just as bad or worse is going on, doesn't mean the thing in question is something we should not care about. If it were a case that we had to have one or the other, then it would be a perfectly reasonable argument, but that isn't the case.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.