Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Of course it matters. But it doesn't happen on anywhere near the same scale for men as it does for women, and it doesn't cripple men in the same way it does women.
    Fine, if you're that keen for a counter argument. Your assumption is that it cripples women, is this women as a whole or those individuals who choose to model?

    Because you feel it demeans you, you assume it demeans all women all and try to have it banned. This is probably not so much because of the the modelling itself, but in your paranoid mind you see it as positioning women below men (no pun inteded).

    The fact that it was defeated heavily just shows what a minority people who agree with you are. Thank god for that, otherwise we'd have more Harriet Harman's who are open about their sexual prejudices.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shortarse1)
    Fine, if you're that keen for a counter argument. Your assumption is that it cripples women, is this women as a whole or those individuals who choose to model?

    Because you feel it demeans you, you assume it demeans all women all and try to have it banned. This is probably not so much because of the the modelling itself, but in your paranoid mind you see it as positioning women below men (no pun inteded).

    The fact that it was defeated heavily just shows what a minority people who agree with you are. Thank god for that, otherwise we'd have more Harriet Harman's who are open about their sexual prejudices.
    That comment wasn't about page 3 or pornography, it was about objectification of women in general- which does to an extent cripple our gender in general.

    Besides, I don't think anything should be 'banned'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    That comment wasn't about page 3 or pornography, it was about objectification of women in general- which does to an extent cripple our gender in general.

    Besides, I don't think anything should be 'banned'.
    missyidontthinkanything.

    stop saying that as an excuse. and stop answering with different versions of the same ********. "cripple our gender in general" - he just made a valid point about just because you think it cripples your gender does not mean all women believe this nor that it is true.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    missyidontthinkanything.

    stop saying that as an excuse. and stop answering with different versions of the same ********. "cripple our gender in general" - he just made a valid point about just because you think it cripples your gender does not mean all women believe this nor that it is true.
    What are you still doing here *****ing away, I thought you bailed out pages ago.

    I'll answer any comments or questions on my posts, but not from you. I lost interest in anything you had to say when you started trolling.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Once again missygeorgia puts her fingers in her ears and shouts loudly under the pretence of rudeness in order to avoid the fact that her argument is beyond awful. I don't doubt she will have the whole thread on ignore if you lot carry on like this. :teehee:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    What are you still doing here *****ing away, I thought you bailed out pages ago.

    I'll answer any comments or questions on my posts, but not from you. I lost interest in anything you had to say when you started trolling.
    I did not ask you to answer my posts, but that of the others.

    can you not read? "he just made a valid point".

    quite embarassing for someone apparently studying English Literature.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    I did not ask you to answer my posts, but that of the others.

    can you not read? "he just made a valid point".

    quite embarassing for someone apparently studying English Literature.
    If he wants an explanation for something he can ask for it, or someone else can who hasn't been trolling for most of the thread. I have no interest in debating with you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    If he wants an explanation for something he can ask for it, or someone else can who hasn't been trolling for most of the thread. I have no interest in debating with you.
    Explanation?

    You could not explain anything to anyone. I hope for your own sake you are putting up an act since its only the internet. If not, I am truly worried about the shape of this country if people like you go to university and "study".
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    I'm not entirely sure what your point is. I would completely agree that in a lot of cases men are in need of help and support where women aren't. What's your point? This has next to nothing to do with objectification. I see no evidence whatsoever that high suicide rates in males have anything to do with their bodies being seen as commodities. You are really reaching here.
    Sorry if I was unclear. You said that while "of course it matters" that because it doesn't happen on the same scale, or doesn't have the same "crippling" effect.... (you did explictly say anything, but I presume you meant that womens issues should continue to be the most in need of attention.)
    I was trying to demonstrate that because men have the secondary problem of expressing shame or any emotions being a cultural taboo, while pressure may not be as widespread, it has its impact increased in each individual case. I then drew a link to the disproportionately very high male teenage suicide rate, which has had next to no research into it, and next to no media coverage. I'm trying to show you two things. While there may be more women feeling pressure, there are less women killing themselves over it and related issues, so comparing the "scale" of the problem is crass. Secondly that womens issues have had so much media coverage, in the areas of help for body image related depression/anorexia they now have a gender superiority. Its not equal.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    That comment wasn't about page 3 or pornography, it was about objectification of women in general- which does to an extent cripple our gender in general.

    Besides, I don't think anything should be 'banned'.
    So you're not in support of the now defeated motion?

    Men are objectified just as much, have you not seen the release of any film involving a midly attractive actor, and the sheer number of fan girls screaming for him just because he's cute?

    Twilight is a good example.

    Women objectify men just as much, if not more than men but we're less subtle, and we don't muck about making crappy vampire films as an excuse to make the object loose it shirt.

    It's the classic boy/girl thing, boys go to the shop and get what they need, girls know what they need but still wander about doing god knows what in the mean time. It's the traits of our genders.

    To conclude: Everyone objectifies, stop all this "we" when talking about women in general as many won't agree, and don't. Also, stop acting as if women as being kept down because men find them attractive.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shortarse1)
    So you're not in support of the now defeated motion?

    Men are objectified just as much, have you not seen the release of any film involving a midly attractive actor, and the sheer number of fan girls screaming for him just because he's cute?

    Twilight is a good example.

    Women objectify men just as much, if not more than men but we're less subtle, and we don't muck about making crappy vampire films as an excuse to make the object loose it shirt.

    It's the classic boy/girl thing, boys go to the shop and get what they need, girls know what they need but still wander about doing god knows what in the mean time. It's the traits of our genders.

    To conclude: Everyone objectifies, stop all this "we" when talking about women in general as many won't agree, and don't. Also, stop acting as if women as being kept down because men find them attractive.
    This.

    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    I'm not entirely sure what your point is. I would completely agree that in a lot of cases men are in need of help and support where women aren't. What's your point? This has next to nothing to do with objectification. I see no evidence whatsoever that high suicide rates in males have anything to do with their bodies being seen as commodities. You are really reaching here.
    That's because there's no evidence/the same evidence FOR BOTH SEXES. You are also making baseless arguments.

    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Of course it matters. But it doesn't happen on anywhere near the same scale for men as it does for women, and it doesn't cripple men in the same way it does women.
    Really? I see just as many magazines/adverts etc which include male models, and I know a lot of guys who go to the gym and whatnot because they see having that sort of body as a necessity for attracting women.

    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    I don't see the ultimate goal in being in a relationship as sex at all. It's an important aspect of being in a relationship, but not the ultimate goal. Maybe it is for you, but it isn't for everyone.
    You may not like it, but millions of years of evolution has moved shagging pretty high on the priorities list of the human subconscious mind :p: Men crave sex because our subconscious tells us to go out and impregnate women. Women crave sex because their subconscious tells them to go out and get pregnant. You can't fight your biology.


    (Original post by Shortarse1)
    I agree. BAN ALL PICTURES AND MAKE MODELLING ILLEGAL!
    Of course, it doesn't matter if men's bodies are seen as a commodity, because they're sexist pigs.
    £50 to whoever can take down the website of the LSE feminist society and replace it with a banner proclaiming this :p:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jxhn)
    Sorry if I was unclear. You said that while "of course it matters" that because it doesn't happen on the same scale, or doesn't have the same "crippling" effect.... (you did explictly say anything, but I presume you meant that womens issues should continue to be the most in need of attention.)
    I was trying to demonstrate that because men have the secondary problem of expressing shame or any emotions being a cultural taboo, while pressure may not be as widespread, it has its impact increased in each individual case. I then drew a link to the disproportionately very high male teenage suicide rate, which has had next to no research into it, and next to no media coverage. I'm trying to show you two things. While there may be more women feeling pressure, there are less women killing themselves over it and related issues, so comparing the "scale" of the problem is crass. Secondly that womens issues have had so much media coverage, in the areas of help for body image related depression/anorexia they now have a gender superiority. Its not equal.
    I totally agree that there are areas where men need to be given support which women don't, and that these need to be dealt with. I'm a feminist but of course I care about when bad things happen to men, or men are victims of sexism or sidelining.

    I do however believe that when it comes to sexual objectification women are certainly the primary victims. You brought up anorexia and eating disorders- and while there may not be a lot of support for male victims, we have to bear in mind that over 90% of people with eating disorders are women. If you consider that it might explain why most coverage on eating disorders is focused on women.

    If there is a lack of support for men with eating disorders (it's not something I know much about) that's wrong, and that needs to be dealt with- but what I think is much wider and much harder to deal with is the deeply ingrained, hugely prevalent attitude towards women's bodies that might contribute to the widespreadness of eating problems.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shortarse1)
    So you're not in support of the now defeated motion?

    Men are objectified just as much, have you not seen the release of any film involving a midly attractive actor, and the sheer number of fan girls screaming for him just because he's cute?

    Twilight is a good example.

    Women objectify men just as much, if not more than men but we're less subtle, and we don't muck about making crappy vampire films as an excuse to make the object loose it shirt.

    It's the classic boy/girl thing, boys go to the shop and get what they need, girls know what they need but still wander about doing god knows what in the mean time. It's the traits of our genders.

    To conclude: Everyone objectifies, stop all this "we" when talking about women in general as many won't agree, and don't. Also, stop acting as if women as being kept down because men find them attractive.
    I would be in support of trying to persuade the University to stop selling material like that, yeah. The term 'banning' is very misleading- nobody is 'banning' anything. My SU boycotts Coke products for similar reasons and nobody complains that 'Coke is banned'- like many people have pointed out on this thread, if someone wants to buy The Sun/Coke they're going to buy it from the shop down the road. However, I don't think it's appropriate for an institution such as a University to be selling products with unethical implications. I wouldn't want to force the students to stop reading whatever they want to read. That's not the issue, for me.

    With the Twilight example- fans definitely are not obsessed with Robert Pattinson/'Edward' just because he's cute. While that is part of it, it's majorly his character in the book/film that brings on the craziness. Pattinson isn't reduced to a sex object at all- if anything fans have created this huge imaginary character for him. Objectification is a world apart from simply finding someone sexy, wanting to have sex with them or liking how they look.


    It's the classic boy/girl thing, boys go to the shop and get what they need, girls know what they need but still wander about doing god knows what in the mean time. It's the traits of our genders.
    Regarding this somewhat crass summarisation of the differences between the sexes - 'gender traits' aren't really an excuse for anything. The majority of gender traits are simply the qualities that society creates for men and women and are not inherent.

    To conclude: Everyone objectifies, stop all this "we" when talking about women in general as many won't agree, and don't. Also, stop acting as if women as being kept down because men find them attractive
    I know many women don't agree, I don't really think that affects my argument. I'm not trying to pretend that I have the whole of my gender in concurrence with me.

    And, like I said, finding someone sexy/attractive/wanting to have sex with them is very different from sexual objectification.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TShadow383)
    This.


    That's because there's no evidence/the same evidence FOR BOTH SEXES. You are also making baseless arguments.


    Really? I see just as many magazines/adverts etc which include male models, and I know a lot of guys who go to the gym and whatnot because they see having that sort of body as a necessity for attracting women.


    You may not like it, but millions of years of evolution has moved shagging pretty high on the priorities list of the human subconscious mind :p: Men crave sex because our subconscious tells us to go out and impregnate women. Women crave sex because their subconscious tells them to go out and get pregnant. You can't fight your biology.



    £50 to whoever can take down the website of the LSE feminist society and replace it with a banner proclaiming this :p:
    Regarding the sex thing- you seem to be mistaking sexual objectification for sex in general. I have no problem with sex, people being sexually attracted to women, people wanting to have sex with women. You're right, men and women both want sex, and there's nothing wrong with that. What I do have a problem with is when a woman, or women in general, are reduced to sex objects or masturbation tools. I have a problem with the attitude in our society- not held by everyone, of course, but that's widely promoted in the media and is held by a lot of men- not all, but many- that women are good for sex and not much else.

    There's no way for me to prove that objectification of women in the media is more prevalent than that of men; I would have thought it was blatant, but apparently not. This whole thread is about 'page three', which I would have thought was evidence enough. The Sun is the highest selling newspaper in the country, and every day on the third page there's a topless girl- there is no equivalent whatsover for this regarding the objectification of men.

    During the Olympics you could frequently open such newspapers and on one side of the spread would be details of the male athletes and their abilities, and on the other side something like 'top 10 best looking female athletes'. That stuff is just so common in the media. The number of times I've seen an article in the daily fail about the top 10 sexiest female politicians- the same thing just doesn't happen on the same scale for men. While the looks of male athletes and politicians are often commented on, it's not to the same degree, and they're never reduced to their looks in the same way women are.

    Another example is beauty pageants- predominantly men judging females' bodies. There really is no equivilent for men.

    Anyway, I could give these examples forever, but my point is, we really have to think analytically about whether there is an actual male equivilent to the objectification of women that is so massive in our society. We shouldn't downplay or ignore the massive crapness of the objectification of women that happens in our society.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    missy, why are you so sure that men can't separate the media portrayal of women and that of the reality of women?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meowmeowmutiny)
    missy, why are you so sure that men can't separate the media portrayal of women and that of the reality of women?
    I'm not. And please quote me if you reply to me
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    I would be in support of trying to persuade the University to stop selling material like that, yeah. The term 'banning' is very misleading- nobody is 'banning' anything. My SU boycotts Coke products for similar reasons and nobody complains that 'Coke is banned'- like many people have pointed out on this thread, if someone wants to buy The Sun/Coke they're going to buy it from the shop down the road. However, I don't think it's appropriate for an institution such as a University to be selling products with unethical implications. I wouldn't want to force the students to stop reading whatever they want to read. That's not the issue, for me.

    With the Twilight example- fans definitely are not obsessed with Robert Pattinson/'Edward' just because he's cute. While that is part of it, it's majorly his character in the book/film that brings on the craziness. Pattinson isn't reduced to a sex object at all- if anything fans have created this huge imaginary character for him. Objectification is a world apart from simply finding someone sexy, wanting to have sex with them or liking how they look.



    Regarding this somewhat crass summarisation of the differences between the sexes - 'gender traits' aren't really an excuse for anything. The majority of gender traits are simply the qualities that society creates for men and women and are not inherent.



    I know many women don't agree, I don't really think that affects my argument. I'm not trying to pretend that I have the whole of my gender in concurrence with me.

    And, like I said, finding someone sexy/attractive/wanting to have sex with them is very different from sexual objectification.
    Which is why the girls I know only went to see the film because of the lack of shirts on the men.

    Pursuading a place not to see it is as good as wanting it banned, but if you want those publications removed, make sure every womans magazine is removed and only Educational material is supplied within the shop. I'm sure that will make you popular.

    I'd complain if it boycotted Coke, they need to grow up a bit, it's not their decision to what students buy, and there is a demand for it. They are inflicting their views on others. For crying out loud, it's a drink.

    I suppose you're the sort of person who believes society is using the colour 'pink' to suppress women.

    Nor are your aguments really that credible, you've made some crass assumptions as well.

    You are acting as if you are the protector of women, and by trying to restrict what is legal from being sold because you believe it to be unethical, I think you at least need a majority of support. Which you don't have.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    I totally agree that there are areas where men need to be given support which women don't, and that these need to be dealt with. I'm a feminist but of course I care about when bad things happen to men, or men are victims of sexism or sidelining.

    I do however believe that when it comes to sexual objectification women are certainly the primary victims. You brought up anorexia and eating disorders- and while there may not be a lot of support for male victims, we have to bear in mind that over 90% of people with eating disorders are women. If you consider that it might explain why most coverage on eating disorders is focused on women.

    If there is a lack of support for men with eating disorders (it's not something I know much about) that's wrong, and that needs to be dealt with- but what I think is much wider and much harder to deal with is the deeply ingrained, hugely prevalent attitude towards women's bodies that might contribute to the widespreadness of eating problems.

    you mentioned "objectification" and "90%" in the same sentence - yet yesterday you told me statistics are useless on the subject of objectification.

    and you are now saying "might contribute" - you are already backtracking.

    slipping my dear.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    I'm not.
    and that renders your entire argument useless - as I have repeatedly tried to tell you.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shortarse1)
    Which is why the girls I know only went to see the film because of the lack of shirts on the men.

    Pursuading a place not to see it is as good as wanting it banned, but if you want those publications removed, make sure every womans magazine is removed and only Educational material is supplied within the shop. I'm sure that will make you popular.

    I'd complain if it boycotted Coke, they need to grow up a bit, it's not their decision to what students buy, and there is a demand for it. They are inflicting their views on others. For crying out loud, it's a drink.

    I suppose you're the sort of person who believes society is using the colour 'pink' to suppress women.

    Nor are your aguments really that credible, you've made some crass assumptions as well.

    You are acting as if you are the protector of women, and by trying to restrict what is legal from being sold because you believe it to be unethical, I think you at least need a majority of support. Which you don't have.
    Deciding not to sell something isn't 'inflicting your views on someone else', honestly. If your local newsagents stopped selling hula hoops would you launch a protest? Just as people are allowed to buy what they like, retailers are allowed to sell what they'd like- but both have responsibilities, and I would urge both retailers and consumers to be responsible about the things they buy and sell. Then again, your throwaway claim that Coke is 'just a drink' reveals all I really need to know about your stance on human rights and ethics.

    I'm not trying to restrict anything from being sold, actually. I think you're mistaking me for a member of the feminist group at LSE. My point is that, I would be behind their motion. I don't think I need 'at least a majority of support' to have that view, do I?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 17, 2010
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
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.