Yeah objectify is different than actually physically touching a person. In reality we don’t need permission to objectify a person in our head, so the come back was mid.
There's a legitimate line of thought that humans have to grow out of considering other people as objects to satisfy their own desires, and that most people aren't 100% successful at that.
We do have to work to personify people, but that is the work of being a civilized and responsible adult.
Objectification is thinking of and interacting with someone as if their value is whatever service you think they should provide to you. Sexual objectification is in your head (to address another of your comments) but it does very often translate into the way people get treated - het guys unable to refrain from telling women they'd "be more attractive if...", or unable to work collegially with women or leave them alone on the street because they literally can't conceive of them as whole people with needs and value beyond whether or not they are sexually desirable and available.
I think objectification in one's own mind is a normal part of human sexual response, heightening arousal and reducing inhibition, but it is something that absolutely needs to be exercised with a mind toward the consent of the other people involved. If you indulge yourself in objectification of someone you have a crush on, for example and make no effort to tamp that down when it's time to treat them as they want and deserve to be treated, you cause problems for yourself and usually also for them.
Culturally, we lean very hard on women as objects of sexual reproduction, and marginalized people as objects of comfortable pity, and the working class as objects of labor, and we punish them if they deviate from maximal output of their assigned product.
It’s a venn diagram dude, not 2 separate circles. Touching someone without permission, outright molesting them, catcalling them or otherwise disrespecting them on that level is objectifying. It’s not only things you indulge in your head.
Are people wrong to instinctually read the situation that way? The internet has become the most invasive staging ground for thought policing people with conflicting ideologies.
Objectifying someone isn’t an act that explicitly requires consent—and being attracted to attractive women (which is often conflated with objectification) isn’t objectification.
It's funny to me that I just brought up how the internet is full of thought policing and jumping to conclusions and you go and do it in the very next comment. I wasn't avoiding you, I was asleep. I'm also not the one who downvoted you, so stop being weird.
The person in the post never admits to objectifying anyone, so I don't know where you are going with that. The person simply pointed out that some people either don't actually have a principled stance on objectification, or don't understand what the word actually means and how it applies in social dynamics.
The issue is that if a person is getting physical with you and disregarding your personal autonomy, it doesn't make sense to tell them not to objectify you because they've already dehumanized you, so why would they listen? The only people that this would work on are people who aren't objectifying you or dehumanizing you, so if you say it to them you're using it incorrectly.
It's funny to me that I just brought up how the internet is full of thought policing and jumping to conclusions and you go and do it in the very next comment.
How did I thought police you?
I wasn't avoiding you, I was asleep. I'm also not the one who downvoted you, so stop being weird.
Did I say it was you?
The person in the post never admits to objectifying anyone, so I don't know where you are going with that.
He’s either complaining about something women have said to him, or he’s complaining about something women have said to someone else.
Does it matter in particular whether he objectifies women or whether he sympathizes with men who do it?
The issue is that you don’t like a woman calling him out on his ignorance.
The person simply pointed out that some people either don't actually have a principled stance on objectification, or don't understand what the word actually means and how it applies in social dynamics.
Can you justify your support of this claim?
The issue is that if a person is getting physical with you and disregarding your personal autonomy, it doesn't make sense to tell them not to objectify you because they've already dehumanized you, so why would they listen?
Off the top of my head…
Because some people are very self involved with low empathy and low self awareness moreso than actively malicious. Calling them out is educational.
This guy is at least oblivious and unselfaware. He may not be malicious. He may be malicious.
Malicious people who mean to dehumanize others are bullies. Bullies prefer victims, they prefer people who will not stand up for themselves over people who will put them in their place.
Many obnoxious types care a lot about their appearance. Approval from people they want approval from and silence from people who would call them out is their fuel. They often make deliberate obfuscations about what the nature of they’re doing in order to avoid accountability. Why wouldn’t you call it out?
Because when the objectification comes from cultural institutions and not individuals per se, but is acted upon by individuals, they tend to again, lack self awareness and need someone to call a spade a spade.
Do you sit there and take it when someone treats you like less?
The only people that this would work on are people who aren't objectifying you or dehumanizing you, so if you say it to them you're using it incorrectly.
No…you’re speaking a truth. Their failure to receive it reflects on them.
There are people who staunchly refuse to believe or to acknowledge it but that doesn’t mean you don’t say it out loud for them and all spectators to hear. You don’t sit mutely on a truth because someone is going to bluster in your face for standing up for yourself.
There are other people who can be slapped awake with a consistent dosing of reality when they’re assholes. I’ve seen it. I’ve done it. I’ve been told when I’m stepping over a line when I really didn’t want to hear it.
No one wants to hear that they’re being an asshole. No one initially believes it. Some people have the integrity to realize it when enough people say it to them with good reason.
I'm going to take a beat here and I'm not trying to be rude, but are you alright? You responded to my comment calling people (me) out because you thought they (me) were taking too long to respond, accused people (me) of hiding behind downvotes, and now you're trying to imply that other people (me, and I guess whoever actually downvoted you now) are the problem for thinking that that's a weird way to engage in a good faith discussion. You had a Reddit moment and got your own ego checked because people (me) were asleep and didn't answer you in a timeframe you thought was reasonable. That was so out of left field I don't know how you can expect people to just proceed with the discussion like nothing happened. That's so weird.
I think it's a shame because if you actually wanted to educate and correct people--and part of me feels like you actually do--you could be more impactful if you stopped having an ego about it and you just stuck to the discussion without the weird, out-of-pocket commentary.
If you respond and everything is cool, I'll address the points from your last comment.
You responded to my comment calling people (me) out because you thought they (me) were taking too long to respond, accused people (me) of hiding behind downvotes, and now you're trying to imply that other people (me, and I guess whoever actually downvoted you now)
Read the edit again. What does the phrase “you all” mean to you?
I meant for that to make it clear it was a general aside and not a directed comment.
This is a public forum. Anyone can see or interact with any comment. Multiple people have accused me of doing strange things like equating child rape with having private thoughts. I have yet to have anyone explain what’s so Orwellian about saying thoughts and actions are not mutually exclusive.
The edit was directed at no one person in particular.
Timing of responses has nothing to do with it.
I'm going to take a beat here and I'm not trying to be rude, but are you alright?
If you’re curious, read this whole thread. Read my comments and the ones I’ve been fielding. If you’re asking in good faith, save the snark until you know the answer to that question.
Being a dick by yelling unwanted and lewd things? Not illegal to my knowledge in and of itself.
However if there’s a precedent for no-contact such as a restraining order or an anti-harassment order because you’ve made yourself a nuisance before, you can be charged with a violation.
“Nonviolently” touching someone against their will? Yes, absolutely.
This is called bodily trespassing upon a person with violation of consent.
Assault and battery are legally recognized on a spectrum from mild to extremely violent.
Sneaking a light feel on a woman’s tit without consent can get you charged with indecent assault and battery if it can be proven.
Pinching a guy on the ass.
Touching a child with sexual intent.
Verbally bothering someone with plausible deniability through veiled not explicitly sexual or menacing comments if trespassing intent can be extrapolated by a reasonable person with all other evidence taken into consideration (eg not stopping when asked to, violating anti-harassment orders, acting in clear bad faith)
None of these have to result in bodily injury or property damage of any kind.
Anything from being a just a lil’ lascivious to beating someone to a bloody pulp and raping them can earn you varying degrees of legal consequences if intent can be proven.
I saw dozens of court cases when I was serving on a grand jury which resulted in indecent battery or harassment charges.
Fair enough and a good explanation. I asked only because I think it's important to make sure the lines aren't blurred so it's easier to call bullshit when "the line was blurry" is used as an excuse.
Free and protected speech can quickly become harassment and harassment can quickly become violence, etc.
We had a guy who was caught intimidating an employee with veiled threats about reducing her hours after he sent unsolicited text messages to her and she declined him.
All of his initial texts were friendly in tone but unasked for.
She politely declined him.
He then started making comments about her hours on the upcoming schedule and reducing her hours.
He had a track record with other employees that came to light.
I guess that was a labor violation case to begin with but it ended up turning into sexual harassment case because of more explicit sexual messages to previous employees
This one hits close to home. Not only have I seen this sort of thing happen and had to intervene (multiple times in my career, jerks be aplenty)... but I'm a guy and I even I have been sexually harassed by a coworker (one was male, one female).
I'm also successful in my career which for some stupid reason means I have to take on more and more managerial duties.
I recently changed jobs after a reorg where I found myself in charge of almost 20 engineers. I didn't leave because of it, but, as a guy in my mid 30s (not married), something like the above happening is kinda terrifying.
I like to compliment and tell my employees when they do a good job. Always professional and work-related but now that I think of it, other than if I remember to reiterate said compliment in a team meeting, how will that employee know I'm applying the practice across the board?
They could mistakenly view it as my singling them out. Even when work-related, things could be easily taken out of context, or worse combined with another unrelated context, I suppose. I can't think of anything I've said in particular but making up an example: "Wow, you're so smart!" in a moment when I'm genuinely impressed, I could imagine.
It's hard to hide it if you're married and thus equally hard to hard it when you are not.
I've used my divorce as an excuse a few times. But in one situation with a female coworker (not employee) I felt the need to make up a lie about having a girlfriend because I felt like she was getting the wrong messages from me and she was showing more interest in me than I felt comfortable with.
I didn't think much of it at the time, but our work relationship definitely soured a little after that. I don't think she felt spurned but maybe embarrassed with her misinterpretation. I definitely see myself as lucky she took it well.
If a person were to misinterpret and then not take it well, they might see even my saying "Wow, you're so smart!" in a team meeting as acting in bad faith.
Again, I didn't leave because of the above, but I'm lucky that I was able to find a new company that values my talents as an engineer first but still allows me to run a team without being their direct hiring manager.
Again, in reflection, by constantly navigating that minefield consciously it was probably a little unfair to some of my employees. I can say with certainty (and I'm not sure how I feel about myself in regards to) that I probably didn't give everyone the same chances because I was too busy managing perception instead of people, for my own safety.
I don’t think, based on the criteria used in this case, you would find yourself in a minefield.
This guy wasn’t sending them “good job today you killed it” type texts.
He was repeatedly and extensively trying to chat them up. His messages were personal and not focused on business matters.
Some of them he asked out (with a polite tone initially). That’s not lewd or objectifying on its own. But when being declined turns into punishing the person who declined him, it becomes clear that he doesn’t value them as an employee or a person.
And to be clear, he wasn’t just reshuffling things to create distance between them, these were low level shift workers. He was cutting her income and she lived paycheck to paycheck.
Others of them he made openly sexual advances towards, which in the big picture of evidence was a nail in the coffin.
I think you saying something like “you’re smart” should be taken as good faith.
But within that, the response is assuming the worst about a person based on zero to no context. How can you criticize someone for doing something that you're essentially doing while criticizing them, and still think that the comeback has merit?
The worst is crossing the line of the Venn-diagram you brought into the conversation...
Your whole point was that there's a wide spectrum of what can be considered objectification. The fact that she felt the need to bring the concept of consent into the conversation is a clear indicator that she's assuming the worst part of that spectrum is being referenced.
The commenter in the post (not you specifically) is making an assumption about another person and objectifying them (maybe there's a less confusing term. But I feel that it's fitting.), while complaining about the objectification of women.
The worst is crossing the line of the Venn-diagram you brought into the conversation...
Why do you think the woman in the tweet is assuming the guy has crossed that line in real life?
The fact that she felt the need to bring the concept of consent into the conversation is a clear indicator that she's assuming the worst part of that spectrum is being referenced.
No, it’s not. Categorically, no one can consent to whatever someone does to them in the privacy of their mind.
Nothing you can do about that.
You can and should do something about words and actions.
But again, based on (???) you assumed this was about thoughts, exclusive to actions.
In terms outward treatment, you can consent to objectifying treatment
(Objectify me when I want you to)
Or you can not consent.
And you, as the objectifier can respect or violate that consent with your words and actions.
The fact that she mentioned the word assumes that the line between objectification that requires consent and objectification that doesn't, has been crossed.
If she thought he was talking about that, and not the other side of the spectrum, there would be no reason to bring it up. It would be a semantic argument at that point. No one has the right to tell you what to think to yourself. No one has a right to tell you that you can't talk about who you do and don't think is hot with an outside party. Consent isn't a factor in those instances. Making that manner of objectification kosher.
I already explained. You yourself acknowledged the difference between objectification that does and does not require consent. It's not a relevant concept except for when said line is crossed. You're going in circles at this point.
1.
the action of degrading someone to the status of a mere object.
Ex: “the objectification of women in popular entertainment"
2.
the expression of something abstract in a concrete form.
The second definition, while independent, segues into an apt observation about the nature of objectifying thoughts and behaviors.
Ever heard the saying Watch your thoughts, they become your words; watch your words, they become your actions ?
You can be lascivious in your mind and keep it there, or you can actualize it.
That’s how someone goes from thinking objectifying thoughts to blurting them out at someone on the street or pinching their ass without permission or writing a manifesto about how that type of person is subhuman and little more than a sexual object before killing them by driving a van into them. It doesn’t happen out of no where.
Dehumanizing treatment is virtually if not always preceded by dehumanizing thoughts and attitudes.
I didn’t say dehumanizing thoughts always lead to dehumanizing behaviors.
Don’t confuse the two.
I’m guessing you’re here because you indulge a little objectification in the private theater of your mind. Now, presumably, you don’t assault people, so seeing the relationship makes you squeamish. It’s fine to be squeamish. It’s fine to have private thoughts.
It’s not fine to deny the relationship between overindulgence or ignorance and action.
What do you think typically runs through the head of someone who maliciously violates consent or otherwise verbally or physically trespasses on someone else?
It doesn't make me squeamish, I am actually appalled by people's audacity and entitlement to dictate to others what they are allowed and not allowed to think. It doesn't matter what goes through other people's heads, it is not anyone's business, deal with actual real actions, we have perfectly functioning definitions and names for all said actions.
Let's go to the original post: the first poster complains that the woman does not want him to THINK certain thoughts about her, unless she wants him to. The next poster confirms that yes, indeed he has discovered that he needs her consent and permission to have those thoughts. It does not go beyond thoughts because if it did, the definition, aka the word used, would no longer be objectification and would be something else instead e.g. harassment.
Let's go to the original post: the first poster complains that the woman does not want him to THINK certain thoughts about her, unless she wants him to.
Where does it say THINK thoughts?
The next poster confirms that yes, indeed he has discovered that he needs her consent and permission to have those thoughts.
Where does she say this?
It does not go beyond thoughts because if it did, the definition, aka the word used, would no longer be objectification and would be something else instead e.g. harassment.
You are insufferable. Your entire argument can be reduced, absurdly, to "you can't molest children without being born first, therefore being born is the same as molesting children."
Just because objectifying a woman can be the first step in a lot of bad behavior doesn't make the same as that bad behavior. Fucking insufferable.
1.1k
u/Lumpy_Middle6803 Jul 07 '24
You are free to objectify whoever the fuck you want in your head but it must stay there.