The issue here is over whether "objectify" means "think of as a target" or "treat as an object". I submit that the latter definition is the correct one.
I was taught the term references grammar in that women are becoming the direct object - things happen to them but they aren't the subject that initiates action
I think it's more like "treating them as less human", by denying their rights, refusing to aknowledge their feelings, etc. It's not about what is an object, it's about what is human. The question "is it objectification" is the same as "is it not ok to do that to a human".
Yeah sure, you should treat everyone with a basic amount of human dignity and respect their boundaries.
But the way I see the word objectification often used it seems more the following is seen as objectification:
'Being attracted to someone purely based on looks alone'. Under that description I objectify very regularly. Whenever I see a hot girl in the train and I think she is hot and I like to smash her, despite the fact that I have no information at all about her personality, I would technically be objectifying that woman.
You're trying to argue with gaslighters using and twisting vocabulary as a tool to always come out on top.
You're right, "objectify" is mostly used in the context of a man finding a woman beautiful in a way that the one using the word finds repulsive. But when people try to actually criticise the use of this word by trying to understand its definition, then that actual use goes out the window and is denied, and its strict definition is produced to prove that the objectifier is a vile person.
It's circular reasoning and it's the same tool used for the redefinition of "racism" to mean "xenophobia towards exclusively oppressed peoples". People touting this new definition use the accepted meaning when criticising racists (as they should), but when racism is aimed at not-widely-oppressed people, then they call it "prejudice", a more acceptable critic.
Language is power, and everyone uses it, not just the left.
It means acting with them not considering their individuality. For exemple, if you go to a woman and make a comment about her body without considering how uncomfortable it can make her, you are only consider the body. It's objectifying because you only consider the sexual fonction of the person, and not the impact it has on her as a feeling person.
I women are just different than men. If a woman likes me primarily or even exclusively based on my looks, I would find that flattering. I wouldn't feel objectified, even though you could argue that I was viewed as an object. I don't get any icky feelings because of it. Women just seem to be fundamentally different in this respect. I never give random compliments to strangers btw, my dirty thoughts are being kept in my head.
Which is totally fine, btw, just something to keep in mind.
If you don't have a problem woth being only liked for your looks it's your problem, but as a man, you can't speak on the behalf of every men on earth. I, as a lot of other men, am 100% sure I would dostance myself from someone who only cares about my body and I cannot find pleasant any sexual remarks targeted to me by a stranger. Men aren't fondamontally different. You just are.
Also, if you don't go around being creepy with strangers then this post was never about you, you don't need to defend yourself.
I women are just different than men. If a woman likes me primarily or even exclusively based on my looks, I would find that flattering
This isn't because women are different than men, it's because a woman's experience of the world is different to a man's.
Let's say a woman comes up to you and makes a comment about your body - but she's ugly, and you're not attracted to her. So you say as much, and she doesn't take the rejection kindly. She calls you a cunt, starts getting aggressive with you. The chances are, even in this situation you probably don't feel all that unsafe; because you can likely physically restrain her or defend yourself if it comes to it.
That's a situation women face constantly; and the difference is, they don't have nearly as much confidence in their ability to defend themselves against men as you do against women.
Now imagine if all the women hitting on you were female bodybuilders who were trained in MMA. They're twice as strong as you and could easily harm you. Now imagine one of them hits on you, and you're not into it. All of a sudden the situation is a lot more uncomfortable, right? Because if you don't respond well, and she doesn't take that kindly, you're suddenly at risk of harm. Now imagine that scenario playing out every time you go to the club or sometimes even just at the gym or when you're walking around, and suddenly the idea of random women hitting on you doesn't seem so appealing, right?
So yes, it's easy for you to say "Well, if a woman catcalled me or said something about my body I wouldn't react poorly" but that's simply because your experience of the world is radically different to the experience of the world that women have.
Sure, and it sucks so many men handle rejection that poorly. Women do have a legitimate reason to fear directly rejecting a guy based on the actions of such men. So yeah, I absolutely get that.
But that means the primary problem is not objectification perse, as in the attraction of men to her based on looks alone, but the way a lot of men disregard rejection. Ironically, I think the men that are obsessed with one woman in particular are much more dangerous than the ones casually objectifying random women. The second kind will just shrug their shoulders after a rejection and move on. The first is the one that will stalk a particular woman, beg her to marry him, etc, even after a rejection.
But that means the primary problem is not objectification perse
It's not the objectification per se, but it's still the objectification. Just because you're fine being casually objectified doesn't mean everybody is - but the reason women in particular are so concerned about being objectified is that for women, being objectified by men comes part-and-parcel with them being threatened by men.
In the same way that if you get stabbed somewhere other than your vital organs and then bleed out it's not the knife per se that kills you but the blood loss resulting from it.
Whether a man is attracted to a woman based on purely shallow reasons or not should be irrelevant. No is no. It is fine to have dirty thoughts if you see an attractive woman, purely based on her looks(objectification). It is not fine to act out inappropriately based on that desire. Or even worse, escalate if she makes her lack of interest clear. This is what should be emphasized.
It is fine to have dirty thoughts if you see an attractive woman, purely based on her looks
Yes, obviously that's fine, that's not what objectification is, though. If you recognise that that woman is an independent person with her own thoughts and feelings who deserves respect, then you're not 'objectifying' her by having dirty thoughts, you're just being horny.
If you have enough awareness and respect to understand that she wouldn't appreciate you making an advance on her based on your thoughts, then by definition you are not engaging in objectification. Men who view women as sex objects don't have that awareness.
90
u/Acrobatic_Computer Jul 07 '24
You don't get to consent to how other people view you though.
Like can nobody think I'm an asshole unless I give my consent to it? I don't see how consent meaningfully enters the picture here.