/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2442679]

I believe men and women should have equal social, economic, and political rights, but I don't consider myself a feminist. One of the main reasons is that I often disagree with feminists about what constitutes obstacles for this kind of equality. In particular, I've gathered that I'm supposed to be very angry about the sexual objectification of women, and yet no one can tell me what this concept means. Saying that sexual objectification entails treating someone as a sexual object is obviously unhelpful.

Perhaps the key to this concept lies in the distinction between objects and subjects: Sexual objectification, it might be argued, takes place when you regard a person as a mere instrument of sexual desire, lacking any feelings and subjective consciousness. Taken as an evaluative concept with a negative charge, however, this seems far too strong.

Cont.

[Anonymous No.2442680]

After all, when I see an extremely attractive woman walking down the street, I may have certain sexual desires towards her and not pay any attention to her feelings, subjective consciousness, or intellectual capabilities at all. But I'm obviously not doing anything wrong here. Likewise, when people engage in one night stands, they might also have no interest in their partner's feelings, subjective consciousness, or intellectual capabilities.

One could refine this analysis and claim that I'm only sexually objectifying the woman in question if I do not care about her feelings, subjective consciousness, or intellectual capabilities at all, but this is on the other hand far too weak. It seems safe to say that most men who visit prostitutes do care about their feelings, subjective consciousness, and intellectual capabilities to *some* degree, yet most feminists would say that their practices are sexually objectifying.

Care to help?

[Anonymous No.2442682]

Why not do a google search for sexual objectification?

[Anonymous No.2442685]

>>2442682

Because the various accounts that turn up suffer from problems similar to those brought up above.

[Anonymous No.2442689]

>>2442685
So coming here, you want a sexist, misogynist, misanthropist, depressive, fuckwit bias on the subject.

[Anonymous No.2442699]

>>2442689

No, I merely wanted a discussion.

[Anonymous No.2442702]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_capital

Is there a gender difference in strength of sex drive?
http://www.csom.umn.edu/assets/71520.pdf

Sexual Economics: Sex as a Female Resource for Social Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions
http://www.csom.umn.edu/Assets/71503.pdf

Cultural Suppression of Female Sexuality
http://www.femininebeauty info/suppression.pdf

Female polygyny
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1000202
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2743334
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v41/n1/abs/ng0109-8.html

In the history of mankind as a species, some hundreds of thousands of years, 40% of men have successfully passed their genes to future generations, whereas 80% of women did. Today's human population is descended from twice as many women as men. This is statistical, scientific, genetic proof that women function as sexual selectors, and men evolved risk-taking and ambition behaviours to compete for mating rights. The study was conducted by Michael F. Hammer. A lecture on the implications:
http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

Esther Vilar's seminal work on the concept that women enjoy a parasitic relationship with men.
http://www.naturalthinker.net/trl/texts/Vilar,Esther/ManipulatedMan.html The text itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Esther_Vilar&oldid=442296393 Synopsis.
http://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/vilar.html A preview.

Female characters are defined more by their passive attributes and their emotional responses; male characters more by their actions. This is why male protagonists are preferred in fiction, by both women and men.
http://www.onfiction.ca/2011/02/actor-and-observed-man-and-woman.html

[Anonymous No.2442703]

Culture sees men as expendable blank slates, whose self-sufficiency is their own responsibility, and who must prove themselves worthy of accolade or interest. Conversely, women are inherently valuable, but typically function as inert commodities or motivation for male actors. The TVtropes links serve as quantitative evidence that this basic dichotomy proliferates the culture, to the point that it can be casually and humorously catalogued.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GenderDynamicsIndex
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MenAreTheExpendableGender

"Without the higher powers of the imagination and reason, no eminent success can be gained in many subjects. These latter faculties, as well as the former, will have been developed in man, partly through sexual selection,- that is, through the contest of rival males, and partly through natural selection,- from success in the general struggle for life; and as in both cases the struggle will have been during maturity, the characters gained will have been transmitted more fully to the male than to the female offspring. It accords in a striking manner with this view of the modification and re-inforcement of many of our mental faculties by sexual selection, that, firstly, they notoriously undergo a considerable change at puberty, and, secondly, that eunuchs remain throughout life inferior in these same qualities. Thus man has ultimately become superior to woman. It is, indeed, fortunate that the law of the equal transmission of characters to both sexes prevails with mammals; otherwise it is probable that man would have become as superior in mental endowment to woman, as the peacock is in ornamental plumage to the peahen."
Charles Darwin

[Anonymous No.2442705]

>>2442703
>>2442702

Ummm, this has nothing to do with this thread. Please go away.

[Anonymous No.2442706]

well who gives a fuck what women think?

[Anonymous No.2442718]

There comes a time in every woman's life when she realizes that her beloved man who she wants to love and desire only her is imagining himself fucking other women on a regular basis.

He tells her this: they don't mean anything to me. They are just a tool. You are more. You are everything, they mean nothing and it is completely different to masturbate to porn. They are not real people to me, they are a fantasy. I will not stop because it is normal and healthy and okay.

And she is disturbed by this. 'How can you view another human being as just a tool? How can you still mindlessly want this even when you have love and devotion?'

And if you think about it, it is pretty disturbing.

Now, if men said, 'I like to think about being in love and having this other woman in my life and that's why I look at porn', women wouldn't think men objectified them.

Women simply can't wrap their head around a man's desire to fuck a woman who he knows nothing about and does not want to get to know.

Women CANNOT understand this.

Don't give me that BUT WOMEN MASTURBATE AND WOMEN THINK GUYS ARE ATTRACTIVE! bullshit. No. They look at an 'attractive' guy and imagine their future with them right down to the wedding and making babies. THAT'S their fantasy. Same things with masturbation and one night stands. It's a story in their head, even if it never comes to be.

They cannot comprehend mindless masturbation/attraction. And it disturbs them. Throw in insecurity and you have one angry feminist.

[x No.2442719]

To the OP: I sincerely believe that you're on the right track.

However, rather than negate the aspects of the "sexual object" that would make them a complete human being, I see more evidence of victimization

through

these aspects of a person: making said "object" not only feel devalued compared to their peers but robbed of self worth as well.

'Hell of a run-on sentence, I know! However, this might be something to look into. Also, look into forms of victimization due to sexual aspects: transgendered/ing, young men in presence of more mature women, Bisexuals in the gay community, etc.!

It's not so much about disempowerment, as it is about preventing the person from re-empowering themselves thereafter. One who has lost a battle he/she engaged in is a fool, for a moment. One who is destroyed by a war they had no part of is is haunted and enslaved for quite longer a time.

[Anonymous No.2442771]

>>2442718

There's a kernel of truth to this. Not the wedding stuff, but the part about women not quite understanding how men's brains can separate out the physical aspects of a person.

[Anonymous No.2442784]

Girl in pic is gorgeous

[Anonymous No.2442792]

Yeah of course it's okay to be attracted to women. Just don't be a dick to them. Avoid the ones that are petty and manipulative. Problem solved.

And prostitution wouldn't be a shitty practice if most of them weren't slaves to an abusive pimp, kidnapped, put on drugs, sold across borders and, often, led into this position in the first place by an abusive family. Some men who patron them have a little respect for them but many just do it to see their semen splash on a face. We do live in a patriarchy, even if that word has been spoiled by feminists who shriek incoherently.

Nice girl in your OP by the way.

[Anonymous No.2442808]

Amazing. Now let me supply the general "adequate person" template made out of your post, OP.

>I believe all humans should have equal social, economic, and political rights, but I don't consider myself any sort of -ist. One of the main reasons is that I often disagree with -istsabout what constitutes obstacles for this kind of equality. In particular, I've gathered that I'm supposed to be very angry about the -ist agenda, and yet no one can tell me what this concept means. Saying that -ist agenda entails treating someone as a victim is obviously unhelpful.

There. True in every case.

[Anonymous No.2442835]

Bring back patriarchy.

[Anonymous No.2442849]

>>2442835

When did it leave?

[Anonymous No.2442853]

>>2442849

Did you miss the entire post–war era, Rip van Dickhead?

[Anonymous No.2442856]

>>2442853

Men still have de-facto privilege so I dunno what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.2442859]

>>2442702
>http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm
Clever.

If a woman became a queen of the world, she'd have 10-12 children at most, jsut like if she was a beggar. If a man became a king of the world, he could have hundreds upon hundreds of children. Therefore, men are more motivated to bigger acheivement, even though intellectual and physical capabilities are the same. Therefore, more men have acheived positions of honour, power and salary than women.

This is clever. It could be true.

[Anonymous No.2442861]

I see objectification as the standardisation of the measures of the female (and also male) body, the notion that women (and also men) are always sexually active without regards to their psychology, as well the hypersexualization and misapprehension of others' behavior that this may cause in individuals which are socially isolated.

What you see on /tv/, the Summer Glau and Allison Brie threads are a backlash against this mechanical, 90-60-90 perception of female sexual attractiveness.

[Anonymous No.2442864]

>>2442856

de facto privilege ≠ patriarchy

And such "privilege" is hardly evident in cases like family court, college admissions (hell, education in general), and even the workforce in the under–thirty generation.

[Anonymous No.2442867]

>>2442859

>physical capabilities are the same

[Anonymous No.2442868]

>>2442864
>de facto privilege ≠ patriarchy
It's like saying that de facto power doesn't equal power. Come on.

[Anonymous No.2442871]

>>2442867
Really, they are. Physical standards are lower, but how in the world does that prove actually diminished capabilities? People in sports are fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.2442872]

Women don't have a fucking clue how to run a country, why should they have a vote?

[Anonymous No.2442873]

>>2442868

Did you know that differences in social status does not equal aristocracy?

Are you really this stupid, or just trolling?

[Anonymous No.2442874]

>>2442872
>Women don't have a fucking clue how to run a country, why should they have a vote?
Neither do men, but that's not the question. Most men, although incapable, WOULD go and lead a whole country, while most women wouldn't even think of it.

[Anonymous No.2442876]

>>2442871

[Anonymous No.2442877]

>>2442873
>Did you know that differences in social status does not equal aristocracy?
Did you know that patriarchy has nothing to do with aristocracy?

[Anonymous No.2442879]

>>2442877

It's an analogy you moron.

[Anonymous No.2442880]

>>2442876
You're advocating a case of effect proving the cause.

[Anonymous No.2442884]

>>2442882

Wow, gender studies classes really do lower IQ.

[Anonymous No.2442888]

>>2442884
Seriously, what analogy?

[Anonymous No.2442893]

>>2442877
>Did you know that patriarchy has nothing to do with aristocracy?

I would say it does. Anthropologists claim matriarchal societies were more egalitarian than patriarchal ones, and valor in combat and "personal honor" are definite phallocentric values.

>>2442872
Pub talk on MY /lit/? I think you should go to a pub if you want to talk this demeaningly.

[Anonymous No.2442897]

>>2442808
Yup. That's just being a supporter of the progress of civilization. Of course, you could argue that it borders on nihilism, but either way I think it's better to look at someone based on what potential worth they have to the human race.

[Anonymous No.2442901]

>>2442888

I'll only write this out for you because I'm feeling extra benevolent today.

You equivocated my argument:

De–facto privilege ≠ Patriarchy

With:

De–facto power ≠ Power

Which is completely irrelevant, because it isn't what I said, so I decided to give you an analogy to my initial argument to tip you off to your idiocy.

I'll spell it out, SAT style for you:

Patriarchy : Male Privilege :: Aristocracy : Class

Since you equated my initial argument to your stupid tautology, I gave you an equivalent argument that might show you how idiotic it was.

Anyhow, as /lit/ is apparently being even stupider than normal this morning, I'm out.

[Anonymous No.2442902]

>>2442893
>I would say it does. Anthropologists claim matriarchal societies were more egalitarian than patriarchal ones
Any hints on where to look for such studies? I know digging for links could be a pain, but any names off the top of your head?

[Anonymous No.2442908]

>>2442901
In other words, you thought that I said something stupid and irrelevant... and retaliated with something even more stupid and even less relevant to prove your point?

Seriously?

[Anonymous No.2442911]

>>2442902
Levi-Strauss? Radcliffe-Brown? Not completely sure, but I've read it before during my studies.

[Anonymous No.2442913]

>>2442911
Okay then, thanks.

[Anonymous No.2442914]

Are you niggers really saying that no girl ever looks at a guy and thinks "I'd love to fuck him", just based on how he looks.

lol yeah right

[Anonymous No.2442915]

>>2442914
>Are you niggers really saying that no girl ever looks at a guy and thinks "I'd love to fuck him", just based on how he looks.
Nobody's saying that. Women are just as sexual and polygamous as men.

[Anonymous No.2442940]

>>2442915
>women
>polygamous
no

[Anonymous No.2442941]

>>2442940
Read up on it. It's the current consensus among anthropologists. And I said "anthropologists", not "feminists" or "philosophers".