dreamcake1mo
Mistral
- Joined
- May 12, 2022
- Posts
- 2,080
- Reputation
- 2,965
An interesting observation I have made is about the term "objectifying." Which is basically used to describe a phenomenon where a man reduces a woman to the status of an object. This usage suggests a specific context, namely, the male gaze towards women.
In other words, It is evident that the concept of objectification is frequently discussed with a particular narrative in mind.
However, a closer examination reveals that the prevailing narratives surrounding objectification, especially those underscoring the one-sided nature of those claims. They are not only oversimplified, also driven by evil motives. There is evidence these narratives not only misrepresent facts, but could also propagated with a specific agenda.
Objects aren't valued for their appearance but for their function. The idea that a object exists without value based on function is absurd.
The definitions available online contribute to a skewed perception, implying that women are disproportionately objectified. This interpretation is often framed as a critique rather than an objective analysis of the term's definition.
Here's an example
This is but one example how information and definitions are suggested to affect one group more than the other. In this case, by adding note comments underneath official definitions that claim "typically done under--, or, by -----", they suggest women are disproportionally objectified. They even to go as far as say "sexism in language is an offensive reminder of the way culture sees women". As if to say, sexism is not just a objective definition, but also the forms of sexism in regards to the group afflicted in my note about my opinion about the culture.
Do you see how absurd this is?
In the case of disproportioned sexism, the core logic behind the definition of objectification is under the impression that we humans only define objects as a thing to see, and not utilize.
I say this because if this idea were not true, spaces which echo this disproportion would have no choice but to discuss the objectifying done against men as well.
First, men don't just want to "look" at women. They want to have sex with them. This does not discredit my claims, as of course men who look at women only as a sex- to have sex with is objectifying, right? So what about the men who are looked at, with their height and muscles, as someone who's likely to be resource heavy, or able to protect and provide, Are these both not examples of objectifying through sex (male or women appearance) exclusively tied to popular/static function (sex, provide/protect)?
Studies have shown that women's attraction to men often correlates with their career status and resources, whereas men exhibit a broader range of preferences, showing less emphasis on a woman's career or social standing. This indicates that women's preferences can be more narrowly defined by specific attributes, while men tend to be more flexible in their criteria. This means men are more receptive of multiple dynamics of women, while less women are accepting of multiple dynamics of men.
Objectification involves not just the superficial attraction of "body and gender" like how men do, but a deeper evaluation of their perceived function or utility. Whether this involves viewing someone as a sex object or a resource provider, the core issue remains the reduction of individuals to mere functions rather than acknowledging their full humanity.
My point is obviously that seeing man as a provider and protector can also be objectifying, since you see their main function is to provide resources like some sort of walking ATM machine or wallet.
Lets say you had a robot. If the said robot/object doesn't do its task properly, you start to see no use of it and try to find another robot/object which will do said task. In the case of men being objectified, the men's main task is to provide resources, if he doesn't do that women find quite fast a reason to search for another. Hypergamy theory and psychological studies on women's behavior support this observation, particularly among younger women.
Moreover, if a woman marries/dates/befriends a man based on his potential for success, work ethic, or personality, then leaves him due to an inability to meet these expectations, is this not a form of objectification as well? Here, the man is valued primarily for his utility, rather than for his intrinsic qualities, or his unique existence and unlikely probability. Thus, reducing him to a means to an end.
In other words, It is evident that the concept of objectification is frequently discussed with a particular narrative in mind.
However, a closer examination reveals that the prevailing narratives surrounding objectification, especially those underscoring the one-sided nature of those claims. They are not only oversimplified, also driven by evil motives. There is evidence these narratives not only misrepresent facts, but could also propagated with a specific agenda.
Objects aren't valued for their appearance but for their function. The idea that a object exists without value based on function is absurd.
The definitions available online contribute to a skewed perception, implying that women are disproportionately objectified. This interpretation is often framed as a critique rather than an objective analysis of the term's definition.
Here's an example
This is but one example how information and definitions are suggested to affect one group more than the other. In this case, by adding note comments underneath official definitions that claim "typically done under--, or, by -----", they suggest women are disproportionally objectified. They even to go as far as say "sexism in language is an offensive reminder of the way culture sees women". As if to say, sexism is not just a objective definition, but also the forms of sexism in regards to the group afflicted in my note about my opinion about the culture.
Do you see how absurd this is?
In the case of disproportioned sexism, the core logic behind the definition of objectification is under the impression that we humans only define objects as a thing to see, and not utilize.
I say this because if this idea were not true, spaces which echo this disproportion would have no choice but to discuss the objectifying done against men as well.
First, men don't just want to "look" at women. They want to have sex with them. This does not discredit my claims, as of course men who look at women only as a sex- to have sex with is objectifying, right? So what about the men who are looked at, with their height and muscles, as someone who's likely to be resource heavy, or able to protect and provide, Are these both not examples of objectifying through sex (male or women appearance) exclusively tied to popular/static function (sex, provide/protect)?
Studies have shown that women's attraction to men often correlates with their career status and resources, whereas men exhibit a broader range of preferences, showing less emphasis on a woman's career or social standing. This indicates that women's preferences can be more narrowly defined by specific attributes, while men tend to be more flexible in their criteria. This means men are more receptive of multiple dynamics of women, while less women are accepting of multiple dynamics of men.
Objectification involves not just the superficial attraction of "body and gender" like how men do, but a deeper evaluation of their perceived function or utility. Whether this involves viewing someone as a sex object or a resource provider, the core issue remains the reduction of individuals to mere functions rather than acknowledging their full humanity.
My point is obviously that seeing man as a provider and protector can also be objectifying, since you see their main function is to provide resources like some sort of walking ATM machine or wallet.
Lets say you had a robot. If the said robot/object doesn't do its task properly, you start to see no use of it and try to find another robot/object which will do said task. In the case of men being objectified, the men's main task is to provide resources, if he doesn't do that women find quite fast a reason to search for another. Hypergamy theory and psychological studies on women's behavior support this observation, particularly among younger women.
Moreover, if a woman marries/dates/befriends a man based on his potential for success, work ethic, or personality, then leaves him due to an inability to meet these expectations, is this not a form of objectification as well? Here, the man is valued primarily for his utility, rather than for his intrinsic qualities, or his unique existence and unlikely probability. Thus, reducing him to a means to an end.
Last edited:
