Girls are growing up thinking that how they look is more important than how they feel

[Simulacrum]

What "feminist theory"? I'm simply describing my experience and the way I see these things. I didn't even know what "feminist" was when I first realized that it is the females that are seen as "sexy" sex most of the time. You people here, probably, have listened to Anita Sarkeesian too much, that you now see everyone talking about female objectification as thinking like her.

You realized they were the sexy sex to you, yes. Then you started hearing about how this was a bad thing that happens much more to women than to men and that men should feel bad about it because it harms the people it happens to. This is the "feminist theory"; that's what those claims are based on.

For one, I don't see objectification as something wrong/bad in itself. It is just the way our culture works. People who say that "objectification leads to rape culture" are inane. A harmful side effect it has, however, is it separates genders even more than they are already separated in our society. It is hard to talk about equality, when we have different genders objectified differently, both in how they are objectified and how often they are objectified. But then, I don't know what can be done about it either. Apparently, introducing censorship to try to unify objectification of both genders is a crazy idea that will lead nowhere. I suppose we should just give it time: as we come closer and closer to true equality, the differences in objectification will slowly disappear eventually. But I don't think fighting objectification itself would make any sense at all. To solve a problem permanently, one should deal with the cause, not the consequences.

Indeed, you don't see objectification as something wrong/bad, you just thinks it has harmful side effects... which is the same thing. And also it's disrespectful. And it disregards them as a person... and you think people who objectify women dehumanize them to the point where they just see them as "walking sex toys"... and also men need to be conditioned out of it if they think this way... but you totally don't think it's something "wrong/bad". Somehow I don't believe you.

You also say more things that lead me to believe that your claims about not being influenced by feminist ideology are less than honest. Like how you're left at "unease" by talk about sex; upset about being sexually objectified; think that a woman is "out of her mind" if she brags about her boyfriend's dicks; porn leaves a sour taste in your mouth... these, and the above, are all signs of someone who has deeply taken to heart a perverse, sex-negative feminist views about the world.

But if it's any comfort, you're not the only person who feels this way, for sure. There are tons of sex-negative feminists out there who all agree with you! Apparently, you've gone through your whole life absorbing their ideology without even realizing it. My advice is to seek out a community of them. Enjoy the presence of those similar to you.

Yes, but cultural and societal conditioning long term has the ability to override obsolete primal instincts. For example, one could argue that xenophobia is natural for humans, because it was paramount for survival of small tribes in the ancient times - but nowadays it is obsolete, we live in a different world, and cultural conditioning led to millions of people in the world not being xenophobic in the slightest. Thousands years of evolution might very well be overwritten by 100 years of cultural conditioning, as long as the new program makes much sense in the context of modern society. Unfortunately, I don't think many people fighting "evil objectification" actually understand the reasons behind it and why/how it should/can be changed.

Right... just like all that social conditioning turned everyone in the medieval world straight as a die... or are you saying that it actually pretty alright to be gay back in those days? Castration wasn't that bad? Getting burned alive for it was kind of a bummer but not that much of a deterrent? Geeze, I wonder what prescriptions you'd support if you didn't think that was enough to socially condition people out of their obsolete primal instincts even after being applied for hundreds of years...

[May90]

Given the fact that there are still gay men despite society predominately preparing young boys for a heterosexual life style, I think it's fairly obvious there are limits to social conditioning.

If you are gay, you are gay.

If I like slender women with perky boobs and butt, I like sle ... too much info? :P

PS: Just because I want to fuck attractive women doesn't mean I stop seeing them as people. Those 2 concepts aren't mutually exclusive.

Of course there are limits; if there were none, then I think humanity would be a very short-lived species. I do think however that a lot more things than commonly believed can be changed by conditioning, especially one lasting many generations. I do not have any data to back up this claim, but I am almost 100% sure that in societies more accepting towards LGBT community more LGBT members tend to exist.

And no, I've never claimed that you cannot see women as attractive sexually and see them as people at the same time. Some people can't though.

~

You straw manned literally everything I've said. I'm not going to even address your points. You are pretty much like "feminazi upside down", which is ironic.

[Alefnir]

I'll say it again; what's wrong with objectification? We are objects. We have physical and sexual presence, why it it considered 'lesser' compared to intellect or ability? A good physique takes effort to maintain just like a good mind and a well-honed skill. Men and women should be proud to be objectified; to be shown that their sex is considered appealing to the opposite sex. There are lots of things I like about Christianity (Platonism, technically- it goes back a while), but mortification of the flesh isn't one of them and somehow it's survived even in our thoroughly secular society.

[Vynny]

Never quite understood the term "white knighting." Standing up for someone who is being mistreated is a form of basic human decency.

How are they being mistreated? Did someone force those women to model for the ads that they're in? Did someone force the models to look as good as they do? How about for male models and celebrities? You don't get a body like Hugh Jackman's or Channing Tatum by sitting on your ass all day, it takes insane amounts of work and discipline to achieve such results ( http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/muta...kout-plan.html ), but you don't see men emulating this even though almost all of the information is available to them and they get the same all star good looking celebs and models paraded in front of them every single day, so why is that? Well there may be an easy answer, women might be psychologically pre-disposed to wanting to look good. I mean even before mass media was out there women were pre-occupied with looks, and we have evidence of crude forms of makeup existing in ancient civilizations all across the world before images of beautiful women were blasted across the air waves for all to see. I mean are you seriously going to say that the Ancient Egyptians, Ancient Chinese, and Ancient Greeks all used makeup independent of each others influence without some basic psychological predisposition driving all of these ancient women to artificially enhance their beauty? What I'm trying to say is that it seems women want to look beautiful, and yes, they get down on themselves when they don't or maybe even can't achieve the ideal look, but removing the examples of what they strive for won't take away their seemingly innate instinct to strive for beauty, so we should instead teach our daughters to be comfortable with themselves and even inform them of how ludicrous it is to strive for such impossible perfections, so that they know that celebrity beauty comes at a steep cost which is not easily paid in order to try and dissuade them from these destructive attitudes.

- - - Updated - - -

what end of who's ass did you pull that out of?

it's demonstrably true that women have no direct agency in whether or not men objectify women, for the same reason women have no direct agency in whether or not the bark grows on the outside of a tree.
putting the onus on women to not get objectified by men is like putting the onus on street vendors to not get blown up by suicide bombers - you're targeting the wrong group of people to say "hey, you should stop doing that" to.

What he's saying is that you're denying the agency of the women who are prioritizing their looks over their feelings. So the women doing these risky and potentially damaging procedures to get a thigh gap or puff up their lips have free will, they have their own agency as human beings and choose to do these things. This might be a shock to you, but billions of women don't bother with trying to look like the models on tv because they understand that it's an impossibly high bar just like how billions of men don't work their asses off trying to get ripped like Hugh Jackman or Channing Tatum. Hell, I wonder if most people in Hollywood would do what they do to look as good as they do if there wasn't millions of dollars in it for them, it's just ridiculous the amount of effort they put into it. Also, think about it this way, feminazi's who actually WORK to not conform to any conventions of beauty are making it so men don't objectify them through their own agency



No one is gonna objectify her any day of the week, so mission accomplished . . . I guess.

But in all seriousness the people we're saying "hey, you should stop doing that" to are the women who are jeopardizing their health and well being in order to try and achieve an impossible standard of beauty the same way we would tell a person with sickle cell trait "hey, you should stop doing that" if they kept trying to train in order to do a triathlon which would literally kill them. The people who are idealized by others are not to blame for those who foolishly pursue them with reckless abandon and end up hurting themselves in the process, nor are the ideals themselves that the person embodies to blame either. War heroes are not to blame for men foolishly rushing to their deaths in trying to follow in their footsteps, and super models are not to blame for women foolishly endangering themselves while trying to emulate them either, the people who set unrealistic goals and lose perspective of what is possible are to blame for their own fall from grace when it inevitably happens.

[Deleted]

Is this really a question? Of course women are taught that their looks are important. These very forums are filled with men who talk about looks and little else. Also some comments from the peanut gallery about how women over 30 are over the hill.

When women have been indoctrinated into obliterating everything that men ever required from them or respected about them over the past two waves of effeminism, it's funny how you only have sex and kids left that men could want from them. It's not like they could actually provide a man with anything else at this point.

[Deleted]

When women have been indoctrinated into obliterating everything that men ever required from them or respected about them over the past two waves of effeminism, it's funny how you only have sex and kids left that men could want from them. It's not like they could actually provide a man with anything else at this point.

I know this might sound surprising coming from me but this works the other way around also: men used to have a clear role as providers for and leaders of family units, this is obviously no longer so.

When you strip away the co-dependence that family structure created and maintained for almost all of human civilisation, there isn't much left that men and women need from each other.

The new paradigm is actually that both women and men only provide each other with beauty/sex, and children.

We may need to adapt our institutions to this new paradigm, but over time I think we will all realise that men are much better suited to it than women.

[Hyve]

Men & Women have both been given a list of 'social requirements' in order to fit in. I don't feel that Women suffer more from it then Men.

[phillys]

people have always valued attractiveness to pretty high degrees. Nothing new. Just part of being human, really. I know of archaeological evidence going back to at least 75,000 years confirming this back then. Before that? Who knows? Anyway, societies that value having a good-looking body also tend to value health, athleticism and intellect, so it's not usually completely 1 dimensional. I'd say our own society is pretty laid-back, all things considered. Very sad that there are some willing to die to try to look good, but it's hardly a majority, unlike only centuries ago. Those corsets and hooped skirts, arsenic and lead make-up, all sorts of body modifications - human history has pretty much seen it all. If anything needs attention, it's probably plastic surgeons. They're pretty unscrupulous at times. That, and anal retentives insisting that people look "presentable" and "respectable" etc isn't much of a help. I don't think it's advertising that's a problem. More that people who are on TV or something to talk about something, be it astrophysics, politics, biology or whatever are often judged or even mocked for how they dress or look. I think that's the wrong message being sent right there. I'd say that's way more of a concern than having ideal-looking people or good-looking people being "objectified" by showing off they look good. Nothing wrong with that.

[Deleted]

I think it is more so, "Women are growing up thinking that how they look is more important than who they are"

It's more than just about feelings, but their entire personality can be overlooked based on the way they look. Whether it is that the woman is a deplorable human being, but she looks good, so people like her (example: Kim Kardashian). Or that she is an amazingly awesome person, but is looked down on because she doesn't look so good.

Women lacking a personality is more about them being pretty than anything else; don't have to strive for smarts or accomplish anything real by yourself.

[Blayze]

How you appear to others is the most important part of your personality.
The Halo Effect means the better you look--appearance, perception of your life, whatever--the more likely people are to treat you better and even give you free stuff.

But feels before reals, yo.

[Ahovv]

"...than how they feel"

That implies the same bullshit self-esteem concept that has grown people into selfish idiots who can't see the big picture. It's one thing to say one probably shouldn't care as much about their appearance as they currently do. But it's completely off base to reinforce this notion of self-esteem.

[Charge me Doctor]

lol @ ads. It's fucking ads. They can't even comply with the real product and you ask for this? pff

[Yarathir]

I'm sure that if I let myself go, as a man. Let my nails grow, let my hair grow without ever cutting or cleaning it, get as fat as possible without being immobilized and grow a neckbeard as well as a lovely backbush, my life will be swell. Women will flock to me, and job offers will be thrown at me at a rate that it'll hurt my head.

Because I'm a male, and only women have standards of beauty and hygiene pushed upon them. Men can be as ugly, stinky and obese as possible and end up with 10/10 girlfriends and wives.

I'm sure there'll be no calls of "fat, fedora-tipping, basement-dwelling, gnat-dicked, gross loser virgin neckbeard." by the very same particular group that amusingly enough will also be supporting this campaign with heartfelt passion and belief that it is legitimate.

[Deleted]

So whats wrong with that exactly? Isn't that how it's always been.

It has, because ugly and obnoxious girls were the only ones that even had a possibility of being left out of the mating game, unlike some 80% of men.

And it's wrong because effeminism trains everyone to be effeminate, also known as bitchy and helpless.

[Hiricine]

How you look IS more important than how you feel. Feelings are a reaction to perception, they are important, but real things are more important. If you're ugly then you should feel ugly, though you might feel good about yourself anyways if you have other redeeming qualities.

I'm taking this in the context about "how you feel about how you look". The issue isn't really that people care about how they look, its the crazy perfectionism that people have with regard to it. But telling a fat girl that she should feel beautiful is simply getting her to lie to herself. Looks aren't everything, but its not like they don't exist.

[Deleted]

I know this might sound surprising coming from me but this works the other way around also: men used to have a clear role as providers for and leaders of family units, this is obviously no longer so.

When you strip away the co-dependence that family structure created and maintained for almost all of human civilisation, there isn't much left that men and women need from each other.

The new paradigm is actually that both women and men only provide each other with beauty/sex, and children.

We may need to adapt our institutions to this new paradigm, but over time I think we will all realise that men are much better suited to it than women.

Obviously we don't; it's even been made impossible in our economies. A single working adult can't be reasonably expected to bring in enough dosh to raise a family.
Every time I hear a woman brag about working I want to throw up on them - they're practically worthless in the workforce and they suck up wages that could be actually earned by someone. Then you throw in all the bullshit that effeminists made so trivial, like extorting a man for oh so much of what is one of the few things available to men that actually helps to raise their position (I'll just spoil these two, they're are divorce and money respectively).

The sad thing is that absolutely nothing will get done. Everyone will keep fucking and fucking around, get diseases and all the baggage that comes along with loose sex and having zero self-worth. Then all the women will be too old and "liberated" "empowered" "strong" to push out anything but autistic or otherwise defective kids. They'll get pushed into a lifetime of indoctrination which not even the parents can help against, being too busy working to keep things afloat and to consume. They, in all likelihood, will grow up fat and depressed due to not having adults around to prepare real food, practically retarded due to the extra artificial social mores that are forced upon them. Nothing good will come from this.

Don't forget, women used to have their choices restrained for a reason. And before you have a cranial blood vessel burst and turn you into even more of a vegetable, the only reason men could fuck around was because NO ONE HAS EVER CARED ABOUT MEN AND NEVER WILL. They had the exact same choice of "do this to be a respectable member of society".

[Deleted]

I don't see too many half-naked male bodies on the ad boards

Perhaps you don't quite understand what women find sexy? You're looking at the concept of sexual objectification through a male lens, where the woman has to be as nude as possible. Women don't think that way. Nudity isn't the #1 thing for them. The thing is, if women find a certain kind of man sexy, then he's being sexually objectified. That's how it works. Women can find men sexy without those men being nude.

[Acidbaron]

So are guys, marketing has influenced how someone should look for decades now and will continue to do so.

Not sure why you think it's only "girls".

[Independent voter]

I think females are more affected by it, since there's more pressure on us to be young, beautiful and youthful looking.

I agree, I remember reading this article about how male college students in dorms ate $2,000 more in food per year than girls, growing boys and all that. I told a female coworker and she said yes, but parents spend a lot on girls too buying all their fancy clothes and beauty stuff.

[Dontrike]

Hasn't this been the case for decades? The last 10 years has been trying to undo women of all ages to focus on more than just their looks, which has worked to some degree as they are ahead of men in scholarly responsibilities. I guess my point is this really isn't anything new, and really isn't all that different from guys when you see similar ads and commercials for guy stuff.