Feminism

@ taion
Well if we're going to completely boil down objectification to merely 'disregard their feelings' then almost everything in life can be interpreted as objectification. Assume someone wants to go to the movies without actually thinking of whether they want to go? Objectification. Assuming someone likes your shirt? Objectification. You yourself just broadened objectification to 'not thinking at all'. So we're now having pretty much every single action on the planet can possibly be objectification.

By your own broad definition, you just accidentally objectified me, because you assumed I don't know objectification is a theory. I do. I have a bachelors of science in psychology. So congratulations. Having a definition that broad so that it could potentially cover every human interaction makes the definition almost obsolete in my opinion.

I know objectification exists. I simply stated that honking a horn isn't definitively objectification. Could it be objectification? Possibly, but that doesn't mean it automatically is or that there's proof for that action. People keep wanting to turn this into a huge broad discussion on objectification in general.

It's not.

It's a conversation about whether the specific action of a person honking their horn at someone is objectification.

My issue with this current conversation is with people acting like their opinion on this narrow issue is more factual or based in reality than those with a differing opinion on it. As far as I know, the specific action of honking your horn has not been researched in terms of objectification. We're all stating what we believe.

@ CallusedSilk

so you're saying that even having conditions to explain objectification better than me, you don't see any objectification in a guy honking a horn at a random woman on the street?

Trying it on a different angle, what evidence do you have that a guy honking or whistling to a woman on the street is treating her as a human being with feelings and history (as opposed to an object)?

@ taion
I said that I do with your definition, since it covers almost everything. I also pointed out how you, going by your own definition objectified me in this conversation about objectification.

It doesn't have to have an emotional reasoning at all. The fact of the matter is that neither of us has evidence for or against the guy subconsciously thinking anything when he honks. That's my entire point. Your 'evidence' is just stuff you believe. They're assumptions and I'm not going to throw around assumptions about some hypothetical man honking his horn.

@ CallusedSilk

"subconscious mind" is a concept psychological science got rid of about 50 years ago, so I'm not talking about subconscious thinking.

You must know that thoughts and behavior are interconnected and that certain behaviors are direct products of certain patterns of thought. If a man thinks of a women as objects (if it's part of his core beliefs, for example), he'll act accordingly. I don't really need to make any assumption.

@ taion
Then you missed the entire discussion where dru kept bringing up how it's in the subconscious that men are seeing women as objects.

Yes, thoughts and behavior are interconnected. However, you're still making an assumption that the idea of a woman being an object is part of their thoughts or core beliefs. You're then taking that assumption to color his actions.

@ CallusedSilk
I'll have to disagree with her then, because "subconscious mind" and "subconscious thoughts" don't exist.

Then again, I'll suggest you to search in scientific databases for "theory of objectification". There you'll find loads of scientific researches showing evidences that sexual objectification is a core belief of men.

@ taion
Wow. All men? So asexual men? Homosexual men? Bisexual men? Trans men? Every single man on the entire goddamn planet and not a single one of them can be anything other than a jerk that objectifies sexually? What science did those studies use to declare this little tidbit?

@ CallusedSilk

You claimed you have a bachelor of science in psychology, so I'm sure you know the process of generalization in scientific research and also how scientific databases work and what sort of studies they index, so I don't feel like I need to answer any of these questions in this thread.

@ taion
I know that not all studies are handled well, and that statistical significance plays a part. I know that with something as badly defined as objectification, I'm not sure how you'd even quantify your results. I also know that if you're so certain of men always having a core belief being objectification?

Well, then we might as well say the entire human race has objectification as a core value, because how can men just all be the same, but women be just wondrous angels?

@ CallusedSilk
I feel like I'm being redundant here, but I believe you also know that all scientific works contain a detailed description of its premises (including a better delimitation of the concept "objectification" than mine), methodology adopted, of how it was conducted and how results have been analysed, so it's possible to verify if any mistake or bias occurred. And I believe any person with a bachelor degree in science has the ability to judge it for themselves.

CallusedSilk:

@ taion
Well, then we might as well say the entire human race has objectification as a core value, because how can men just all be the same, but women be just wondrous angels?

Women socially learn to be submissive and accept objectification as natural, so in a certain extent I think it's also a core belief of women.
Maybe there's a lost African tribe that is an exception to the rule.

@ taion
I also know that not all psychology journals are equal. Bias will always occur in a study, since bias is everywhere. The goal is to minimize it. Also, can you stop listing my degree back to me like you think I'm full of shit or something? I'm not sure if you mean for it come off that way, but it's really starting to get on my nerves.

Right, of course, that whole argument, because in an effort to combat generalizations about our gender, we should generalize as much as possible.

Listen, if you want to seek out a damaging and evil reasoning for every single act there is in the world? Good luck, but that's an unhappy life you're saddling yourself with. The data, when it comes to interpreting submissiveness in women is incredibly biased, almost as much as the willingness to just pin every single man, regardless of sexuality, as a monster that will objectify sexually.

I don't think we'll ever agree, and topics like this? Stuff like this is why I can't commit to calling myself a feminist. If we're really about equality, then why put so much of an emphasis about how damaged and evil men are? I mean, that seems to be the central theme of this particular debate, right? Men are base creatures that just can't help help themselves, right? Well, good news is that saying stuff like that isn't technically sexist. After all, the literature gives us all an out since men have the power right? Men have the power and so demonizing the entire gender isn't sexist. I mean, it's bigoted, but it's not sexist, right?

@ CallusedSilk
EDIT: I just realized I was like extra late to the conversation where I left it, so this was in reference to your comment that street harassment does not mean they're objectifying women.

Okay, let me interject here because I think it's important to read on some studies that have actually concluded that men view women as objects when they think of them as attractive or "sexually" dressed (could we possibly fall more into the male gaze than this?):

Quote

Women are more likely to be picked apart by the brain and seen as parts rather than a whole, according to research published online June 29 in the European Journal of Social Psychology. Men, on the other hand, are processed as a whole rather than the sum of their parts... When viewing female images, participants were better at recognizing individual parts than they were matching whole-body photographs to the originals. The opposite was true for male images: People were better at recognizing a guy as a whole than they were his individual parts.

Gervais, on this experiment, found out that women also view other women through individual parts. This is the internalization of the beliefs and social norms of a society that views and portrays women as objects there only for the male gaze. source.

Quote

...when men high in sexism viewed pictures of sexually dressed women. These pictures did not activate the mPFC for sexist males. This suggests that these men's brains did not perceive these women as fully human. This study is consistent with the work of University of Padova researchers. They found that when women were dressed sexually (compared to when they weren't), people implicitly associated them more with animals.

Other research has found that merely focusing on a woman's appearance (fully dressed) is enough for people (men and women) to dehumanize a woman. Specifically, we found that people assign female targets less "human nature traits" when focus is on their appearance. These traits are perceived by humans to separate people from machines, automata and objects.

Another study found that these women are seen as less moral (sincere, trusting) and less emotionally warm (likable, warm).

These findings are also consistent with a wide range of work showing that objectified women are perceived as less competent.

source.

I mean, what is "sexually dressed"? The term is so subjective that anything from short-shorts to jeans could be considered "sexually dressed" because this is heavily based on the gaze of those who are seeing the images, in this case, men. So yes, street harassment has a lot to do with male entitlement and male gaze and not a lot to do with just liking someone.

@ sobre mi cadaver
"...when men high in sexism viewed pictures of sexually dressed women."

By the study's own wording, they seem to have separated men into varying levels of sexism. Although neither link you sent gave the criteria for the testing of sexism. Also, neither have a link to the full article, but are both websites interpreting the results of a study. I personally would need to read the entire article, not a blog about an article.

The blog and website do make it seem like the study had an decent amount of participants in it, although they were all undergraduate level students. My wonder then would be does age have anything to do with it? After all, it's frequently said that the age range they tested are in their sexual prime. Arguably that could have a difference in how they view other human beings. Maybe the results would come out the same in different age groups and maybe it would be different. It'd be an interesting idea to study. It'd also be interesting to see if gender beyond just man and woman would have a difference on it. Since that seems to be ignored a lot. Do trans men and trans women react the same way to those images as men and women do? Do people with fluid gender react like either of the dominant genders? What happens when someone's homosexual or bisexual?

Objects only there for male gaze. Jesus, I could start my own drinking game from the amount of times I've seen that phrase in this discussion. Let's go with the sexual angle, since everybody seems to have sex on their mind. Finding someone attractive. In your opinion, is it ever physically possible to find someone physically attractive without objectifying them? Is there a way to look at someone and think that they have a healthy body or a great smile or great hair or anything without seeing them as an object? Because if that's not possible, then congrats. It's not society, it's our goddamn DNA. Unless you're asexual, which I notice most of these studies seem to completely ignore asexuals, we are sexual creatures. We are biologically and evolutionarily driven to seek out a mate. At least, the ones of us that aren't asexual.

First of all, can we not call it street harassment? I say that, because for better or worse, street harassment covers a multitude of behaviors. We are specifically discussing one behavior. No one seems to want to stay on topic and I'm about ready to rip my own goddamn hair out. We're discussing whether we can without a doubt know that honking is a sign that a man is turning a woman into an object. That is the discussion.

At this point I'm just pissed off that somehow in a discussion with people who are supposed to be all for equality and treating everyone correctly, I've felt worse about myself than I have talking to most of the men in my life. That shouldn't happen.

Not a guy, but I figured I would drop the truth bomb anyway. This is a collection of statements written by men's rights activists which expose the truth of the world. Also, Hope Solo got off easy.

I need men’s rights because if she changes her mind the next morning, I could go to jail for 7 years;

I need men’s rights because when I was the victim of abuse nobody believed me;

I need men’s rights because I am less likely to go to college, and if I do, I will make less money than my female contemporaries.

I need men’s rights because the president of the United States sees the shrinking number of men in colleges across America as “a great success”;

I need men’s rights because people question if I am a predator when I am in the presence of young children , even my own.

I need men’s rights because a man’s appearance, height, and weight has a greater affect on his income than it does for a woman;

I need men’s rights because saying “it’s impossible to discriminate against men in our society” allows people to discriminate against me with impunity.

I need men’s rights because traditional masculine characteristics should be seen as virtues not flaws;

I need men’s rights because the likelihood of my death coming by suicide is four times higher than it is for women, though I receive little support.

I need men’s rights because it is not considered bigoted or sexist to deny me a male safe space at my college by those who have possessed their own safe spaces for decades;

I need men’s rights because it is assumed that a meeting of men in a male safe space is automatically going to devolve into hateful sexism and violence;

I need men’s rights because broad gender-wide slurs against men are socially accepted;

I need men’s rights because my life, career, reputation and connection with my family can be easily destroyed by a single, false and anonymously whispered accusation.

I need men’s rights because when women stumble and fail in life, the blame rests on society, but when men stumble it is their fault;

I need men’s rights because in my physically demanding career, I am expected to do more work for “equal” pay;

I need men’s rights because it is fine to call me a “dick”, a “cock”, or a “prick” on the street or on television; a woman must never be called a “cunt”;

I need men’s rights because talk-shows think it’s funny if I am wounded or sexually mutilated by a woman;

I need men’s rights because while the rape of a woman is properly regarded as a crime, the rape of a man is funny;

I need men’s rights because mutilation of male infants is considered normal – and those arguing for the protection of male infants from mutilation are regularly slandered as anti-semites and bigots;

I need men’s rights because my sexuality is routinely characterized as violent pathology, rather than as a natural part of my human identity;

I need men's rights because genital mutilation is the status quo for men and ONLY women are protected from that form of non-consensual violent assault.

I need men's rights because I am afraid of being attacked by groups of men coming to the rescue of women WHO START physical confrontations with me.

I need men’s rights because the police assume I am at fault if I am assaulted by a woman;

I need men’s rights because people think it is irresponsible to have me work around children;

I need men’s rights because I have the right to the same sexual sovereignty given to women;

I need men’s rights because I believe that the feminist idea that a woman in the United States is equally oppressed as a woman in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia in cruel and insulting;

I need men’s rights because I should not be ashamed of my sexuality;

I need men’s rights because women who find me unattractive will shame me, and can call me creepy for politely interacting with them, and they will be praised for this cruelty;

I need men’s rights because when I was sexually harassed by several drunk women twice my age, everyone at the party thought it was funny;

I need men’s rights because my size and strength is commonly used to pretend that I am violent, which I am not;

I need men’s rights because if I am small or weak it doesn't mean I have a Napoleon complex;

I need men’s rights because the type of car I drive or that I don't own a car, and that I go to work on a bicycle does not give you the right to shame me or belittle me;

I need men’s rights because I have the right to associate with other men.

I need men's rights because I should have the freedom of speech and thought to disagree with mainstream feminism and not have my social media account suspended for expressing my views.

I need men’s rights because if I am assaulted by my spouse, and I attempt to seek help, I risk arrest, imprisonment and life-long censure – even if I do not defend myself, and even if I am seriously injured while she is untouched;

I need men’s rights because I earned my accomplishments; they were not given to me by a fictitious masculine conspiracy;

I need men’s rights because I have a right to be a father for my own children;

I need men’s rights because, as a man, I am much more likely to be physically assaulted than a woman;

I need men’s rights because I will be chastised as a coward, and a failed man if I do not sacrifice my life to save a woman in a time of crisis;

I need men’s rights because laws exist that demand harsher penalties for men for the same crime;

I need men’s rights because I have no lobbying voice in congress;

I need men’s rights because, as a man, I am more than 9 times more likely to be killed at work than a woman;

I need men’s rights because I am more likely to die young, and much less money is being spent on my health problems;

I need men’s rights because, if I am killed in an accident, people will care less than if a woman or a child is killed. News readers make this clear every time they utter the phrase “women and children”;

I need men’s rights because society believes that my life is worth less than a woman’s;

I need the men’s rights movement, because I am a human being.
And finally, I need the men’s rights movement, because when I attempt to address any of these issues, my co-workers, my government, my media, my peers, my family, and the larger society do not take me seriously, unlike the feminist monument that get's billions in funding from corporations, grants, and donors.

I need Men's rights because I am a part of a rising Men's rights movement for which I am condemned as a either a fool, a monster, or that I hate all women – simply for claiming my humanity.

@ My Eternal Trivium
That's the truest thing. All of it. I agree with feminism that women should be treated equally, but where women are treated badly in some ways, men are treated badly in others. We're all treated badly. We're all human. Humans aren't machines, we're not socially ready for equality.

@ My Eternal Trivium
This is the feminism thread. Please create a men's rights thread instead of forcing men's rights into a feminist space

@ kopfmusik
Men are not oppressed. Being treated badly "sometimes" is not the same as systematic oppression, which women face and men do not.

@ dru is beautiful.
At the risk of starting another argument with you, I'm going to jump in on this. To start off, I'm going to make this very clear. Do I agree with everything on the 'men's rights' list? Absolutely not. In fact the 'I need men’s rights because I have no lobbying voice in congress' at first made me laugh so hard I fell over. Unless that person is a trans man or a gay man, they probably have a voice in congress. That being said, gay and trans men do count as men so it can actually be applied if you're looking at more than cis men. On the list though, I do think the wording on a lot of them is bad or just inaccurate.

However, if feminism is supposed to be equality, then at some point other genders beyond cis women are going to become part of the discussion. It's also something that can be discussed if enough feminists feel that it deserves consideration. Just because you personally don't see it as part of the feminist agenda doesn't mean no one else does.

Also, please, I get that you feel strongly about this subject, but the people you're talking to feel strongly as well. Putting quotations around the word sometimes makes it look like you think men are never treated badly. That may not have been your intention at all, and I apologize if I misinterpreted you. You can argue that men never have systematic discrimination, and that's fine. That's your right. Personally, I just don't see why feminism can't be about all genders having equality. cis women, cis men, trans women, trans men, gender neutral, and everything in between.

@ CallusedSilk
Men can be in oppresses groups but men are not oppressed as a whole. We agree there. It cannot be ignore that the poster child for privilege is a whte cisgendered heterosexual male though which means men aren't oppressed.

The user did not frame their discussion in terms of feminism and what it can do to help men. It was framed solely as needing men's rights which doesn't fall into the definition of feminism.

By all means, let's discuss how the patriarchy hurts men but let's frame it in tr discussion of feminism because men's rights is a separate issue.

Additionally I quoted sometimes in reference to the above user's usage of the term some ways because I thought they said sometimes too. It was a mistake but you're reading things into it that were not intended.

@ dru is beautiful.
To be fair, a lot of the things we've discussed haven't been framed as what we can do to help women. They've specifically been framed as what's wrong with the world, and then ending it at that. So technically 'how it can be helped' isn't necessary for the discussion to occur.

After all, you yourself replied to the posting with pretty much 'go somewhere else' rather than 'frame your thoughts differently'. Not everyone words everything perfectly, and when kopfmusik did just flat out talk about inequality in both men and women as the starting point, not men's rights, you dismissed that as an angle entirely.