Feminists, Please Explain to me this.

[Geniasis]

Women will say anything to play the victim. Contradictions be damned.

That is what this whole "objectification" shtick is about, making womyn women the victims to validate either A) Personal beauty insecurity. And/Or B) Man-hate.

Bitches be crazy, amirite?

Besides, women don't need to play the victim. Not with posts like this that drive people away from whatever vagina-fearing position you're espousing.

[Crabulonia]

But if the media is either telling women to cover up or show some flesh, society receives these changes, and these changes are implemented by various societal and "moral" pressures; does free will ever exist?

I mean this in more than just the feminist point of women being indoctrinated into various dress senses, does anybody really make up their own mind? All of us are influenced by the media in some way or another. Our political viewpoints are influenced by the newspapers we're subjected to, the conversations we're surrounded by. Our musical tastes are influenced heavily by who we hear as a child, what the crowd is listening to (or not listening to).

I'm not saying it's right that we're impacted like this, in fact I quite like the freedom of freer clothing, I much prefer a kilt to trousers - it's why i love going to weddings - but can anybody think of anyway around these conditionings?

[Ifreann]

Women will say anything to play the victim. Contradictions be damned.

That is what this whole "objectification" shtick is about, making womyn women the victims to validate either A) Personal beauty insecurity. And/Or B) Man-hate.

Not sure if serious?

Gawd, stop trying to play the victim, DI.

[Dumb Ideologies]

^ this. It's rejection of the idea that females are simply objects of attraction to males, which pervades society so much. We want to be able to dress however we like without being forced a certain way by society. And the same should go with males too, as notwithstanding there is a compulsion for males to be a certain way for society too, it's just less so because society is generally more patriarchal than matriarchal.

Bullshit.

Women are totally free to dress however they like. Wear long skirts, short pants, danty tank tops, or leather jackets. Women are often "encouraged" to express themselves however they please, in a feminine OR masculine manner and that they have no obligation to dress however men want them too.

Meanwhile, if a man should EVER try clothing that is remotely considered feminine, such as a skirt, they will be labeled by women and men alike as less then a "True" man, whatever the fuck that is. Even being remotely emasculate will get you called a "Sissy"

I don't think it can reasonably be disputed that girls are still treated as sex objects by much of the media and the advertising industry. The second part of what you say is definitely true, though, and plenty of third wave feminism, especially that influenced by queer theory, has a lot to say about this.

[Dakini]

Personally, I have no issue with women wearing whatever they goddamn well please. I'll bitch and moan if it doesn't fit them (I don't need to see anyone try to cram themselves into something four sizes too small, I know clothes shopping is hard and larger numbers can feel depressing, but just go with it) or be really confused when I see girls walking down the street wearing tiny dresses in the middle of January (I live in Canada, it gets cold) without a coat because they want to save on coat check (granted, men will be walking around in t-shirts and jeans so they're often not doing that much better).

In advertising, there are more sexist things than just women's attire (like, for instance, the whole bit where women are usually still shown cleaning every goddamn thing [unless it's "so easy a man can do it", which is also sexist and born of the same thing as the other commercials]). Although in some cases women are totally just being objectified and appear like sex objects. Usually because she is a model or a backup dancer or whatever requires her to wear nothing and shake her ass.

Meanwhile, if a man should EVER try clothing that is remotely considered feminine, such as a skirt, they will be labeled by women and men alike as less then a "True" man, whatever the fuck that is. Even being remotely emasculate will get you called a "Sissy"

Dude, if my bf wore a skirt, that would be so goddamn hot.

Also, I'm generally cool with men wearing "girly" things. I think that would be awesome in general.

[Jinos]

Bullshit.

Women are totally free to dress however they like. Wear long skirts, short pants, danty tank tops, or leather jackets. Women are often "encouraged" to express themselves however they please, in a feminine OR masculine manner and that they have no obligation to dress however men want them too.

Meanwhile, if a man should EVER try clothing that is remotely considered feminine, such as a skirt, they will be labeled by women and men alike as less then a "True" man, whatever the fuck that is. Even being remotely emasculate will get you called a "Sissy"

I don't think it can reasonably be disputed that girls are still treated as sex objects by much of the media and the advertising industry. The second part of what you say is definitely true, though, and plenty of third wave feminism, especially that influenced by queer theory, has a lot to say about this.

Men are treated as sex objects in the media all the same.

Or are you going to tell me THIS

is not trying to sell sexy to teenage girls?

edit: There is nothing sexist about the media trying to sell sex. Because you know what? Sex sells. And the media sells men all the same as women because men are just as sexy in the eyes of women as women to men.

[Parhe]

I do support the claim of old women, as they are one of the groups most marginalized. And I do notice what you mean about on advertisement, it is much more prevalent in things such as shows and news. But, unlike some others I personally know, I believe this problem has a lot of fault in both men and women, as women usually by choice(I am not sure, maybe some are forced to or something?) choose to dress in such ways, which I find really crude.

It's difficult. When people actively buy into an image sold to them it's a really tricky business to work out whether to regard it as free choice and expression or the product of ideology. A bit of both, certainly, but the proportions? Hard to be objective on these things.

that is true. Part of the reason may be cause by what they are exposed to and see around them. In the same sense, is it really free choice or because of ideology and what people see, that smoking is becoming less common, or that underage drinking is increasing? I'm not arguing with the point you have made, it is valid and I agree very much on the issue of ideology affecting the "choices" made by both men and women.

[Parhe]

Bullshit.

Women are totally free to dress however they like. Wear long skirts, short pants, danty tank tops, or leather jackets. Women are often "encouraged" to express themselves however they please, in a feminine OR masculine manner and that they have no obligation to dress however men want them too.

Meanwhile, if a man should EVER try clothing that is remotely considered feminine, such as a skirt, they will be labeled by women and men alike as less then a "True" man, whatever the fuck that is. Even being remotely emasculate will get you called a "Sissy"

I don't think it can reasonably be disputed that girls are still treated as sex objects by much of the media and the advertising industry. The second part of what you say is definitely true, though, and plenty of third wave feminism, especially that influenced by queer theory, has a lot to say about this.

And that is the point of feminism. Its to make the world fair for both men and women, If you ask me, the word is really misleading sometimes, some people connect feminism to female supremacy.

[Dumb Ideologies]

I don't think it can reasonably be disputed that girls are still treated as sex objects by much of the media and the advertising industry. The second part of what you say is definitely true, though, and plenty of third wave feminism, especially that influenced by queer theory, has a lot to say about this.

Men are treated as sex objects in the media all the same.

Or are you going to tell me THIS

is not trying to sell sexy to teenage girls?

Yes, but not to the same degree and not to the same regularity on TV, newspapers etc. Gender roles fuck everyone over. In different ways depending on age, race and a whole lot of other variables. I addressed the female side of it because that's what the OP asked about. I have considerable sympathy with the intensity of your feeling in terms of pressures on men who step outside the boundaries labelled as 'acceptable'. In some ways it's worse for women, some ways it's worse for men.

[Forsakia]

I don't think it can reasonably be disputed that girls are still treated as sex objects by much of the media and the advertising industry. The second part of what you say is definitely true, though, and plenty of third wave feminism, especially that influenced by queer theory, has a lot to say about this.

And that is the point of feminism. Its to make the world fair for both men and women, If you ask me, the word is really misleading sometimes, some people connect feminism to female supremacy.

Feminism is a rather large and complicated thing with a lot of different flavours.

[Dakini]

Men are treated as sex objects in the media all the same.

Or are you going to tell me THIS

is not trying to sell sexy to teenage girls?

Yes, but not to the same degree and not to the same regularity on TV, newspapers etc. Gender roles fuck everyone over. In different ways depending on age, race and a whole lot of other variables. I addressed the female side of it because that's what the OP asked about. I have considerable sympathy with the intensity of your feeling in terms of pressures on men who step outside the boundaries labelled as 'acceptable'. In some ways it's worse for women, some ways it's worse for men.

And the moral of the story is: Sexism hurts everyone.

[Allrule]

The media--largely run by men--telling women what is acceptable dress and what will make them moral/desirable/proper is sexist. Women choosing for themselves what they want to wear--whether it's floor-length skirts, string bikinis or jeans and t-shirts--is the exercise of free will.

It's really not difficult to understand. Telling all women they have to be homemakers is sexist. What if I want to be a scientist? Telling all women they have to be scientists is sexist. What if I want to be a baker? Choosing your own profession is an exercise of free will.

THIS!

[Jinos]

Yes, but not to the same degree and not to the same regularity on TV, newspapers etc.

And you were able to measure this?

Because frankly, that just sounds like a big 'ol opinion.

In some ways it's worse for women, some ways it's worse for men.

At least you're willing to say as much.

Many of the feminists I have the displeasure of interacting with seem adamant on their refusal to believe sexism against men even exists. Or that, if it exists, is a "product of sexism against women" and therefor...not unwarranted, I suppose is the implication?

[Geniasis]

Yes, but not to the same degree and not to the same regularity on TV, newspapers etc.

And you were able to measure this?

Because frankly, that just sounds like a big 'ol opinion.

In some ways it's worse for women, some ways it's worse for men.

At least you're willing to say as much.

Many of the feminists I have the displeasure of interacting with seem adamant on their refusal to believe sexism against men even exists. Or that, if it exists, is a "product of sexism against women" and therefor...not unwarranted, I suppose is the implication?

Nope. It's true that most sexism against men is a product of sexism against women (the example you gave, of men wearing women's clothing is because womanly things are associated with being weak and inferior and thus shameful for the superior man to do, etc.) but that doesn't make it warranted. Rather, the implication is that rather than treat this particular symptom, if you attack the root problem (sexism against women) you end up solving that problem as well in the process.

[The Congregationists]

It's difficult. When people actively buy into an image sold to them it's a really tricky business to work out whether to regard it as free choice and expression or the product of ideology. A bit of both, certainly, but the proportions? Hard to be objective on these things.

A more vexing question, DI, is if it's a "product of ideology" as you put it, what do you do about it? Do you somehow "forbid", or at least condemn, in the name of freedom, people from 'buying into' the image that is sold to them? If so, is your stance really any better?

Suppose that based on concerns about sexuality and objectification in advertising, the use of sexual images in advertising were banned. Suppose we went further and as a society, condemned the sale of sexually charged clothing to women. Let's say the wearing of miniskirts, bras, lace nylons or whatever was routinely condemned and denounced as "sexist" and "objectifying", or even as an extreme option, banned all together? Suppose we likewise condemned men for noticing sexually attractive women.

Will we have acheived any kind of sexual equality or women's liberation in doing this?

I think not. I think our well intended concerns over "objectification" are also potentially dangerous. I think this could backfire and end up re-producing a very Victorian, or Middle Eastern flavor of sexual politics in which it is considered necessary to protect a pure and fragile notion of femininity from a debased and animalistic male sexuality. If, in the name of not being "sex objects" women are forbidden, criticised or stigmatised for dressing in a sexually suggestive manner, than I'd say feminism has defeated its own purpose and many archaic notions about sex and gender are reinforced rather than subverted.

[Conserative Morality]

Taking no medicine when sick is not good.

Taking every medication known to man when sick is not good.

The opposite of a bad thing is not necessarily a good thing.

[Aeronos]

^ this. It's rejection of the idea that females are simply objects of attraction to males, which pervades society so much. We want to be able to dress however we like without being forced a certain way by society. And the same should go with males too, as notwithstanding there is a compulsion for males to be a certain way for society too, it's just less so because society is generally more patriarchal than matriarchal.

Bullshit.

Women are totally free to dress however they like. Wear long skirts, short pants, danty tank tops, or leather jackets. Women are often "encouraged" to express themselves however they please, in a feminine OR masculine manner and that they have no obligation to dress however men want them too.

Meanwhile, if a man should EVER try clothing that is remotely considered feminine, such as a skirt, they will be labeled by women and men alike as less then a "True" man, whatever the fuck that is. Even being remotely emasculate will get you called a "Sissy"

You have a point. I guess it's two different kinds of sexism; objectification on one hand, and conservation on another. It's probably the same reason discrimination against male->female transgendered folk is significantly disproportionately higher, both in prevalence and strength, than the other way round... :\

[Czardas]

And the media sells men all the same as women

Well, it doesn't, really. Not "the same." Women are still presented as sex objects much more frequently than men are -- indeed, women who are not sexual objects are extremely rare. On average I'd say that about 95% of the women you'll see on TV are sexually objectified -- the number's probably closer to half for men, even less taking into account that a lot of media from the last fifty years or so is still in circulation. Moreover, straight men react much more negatively to sexy men than straight women do to sexy women.

The media's treatment of men who don't fit the rugged, emotionally clueless, individualist manly stereotype is much more similar to the media's treatment of women who don't fit the closer-to-earth sex object stereotype: mockery or invisibility. I know you're going to cite a few examples to the contrary, someone always does -- but tbh, the existence of exceptions doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of portrayals are like that. Indeed, the fact that you can think of exceptions, rather than needing to think of examples of my thesis, is a telling sign.

Society tries to force people into certain gender roles and that is typically what feminists criticise, rather than what exactly those gender roles are.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Yes, but not to the same degree and not to the same regularity on TV, newspapers etc.

And you were able to measure this?

Because frankly, that just sounds like a big 'ol opinion.

As a regular reader of newspapers and from looking at magazine stands etc. I think it's a fairly safe statement. And please turn down the simmering hostility just one notch? The stretched twig of peace I'm trying to hold out is near melting point here.

In some ways it's worse for women, some ways it's worse for men.

At least you're willing to say as much.

Many of the feminists I have the displeasure of interacting with seem adamant on their refusal to believe sexism against men even exists. Or that, if it exists, is a "product of sexism against women" and therefor...not unwarranted, I suppose is the implication?

Second-wave feminists, probably. Did a lot of good in their time, now a bit too caught up in "men are the enemy" to accept a lot of interesting theoretical ideas. The new generation/third-wave of feminists (where I'd put myself, and not just because many of the second-wavers would probably kick me to death if given half a chance) are a lot better on this sort of thing. It's more about 'gender' as a thing than just being 'about women'.

[Jinos]

And you were able to measure this?

Because frankly, that just sounds like a big 'ol opinion.




At least you're willing to say as much.

Many of the feminists I have the displeasure of interacting with seem adamant on their refusal to believe sexism against men even exists. Or that, if it exists, is a "product of sexism against women" and therefor...not unwarranted, I suppose is the implication?

Nope. It's true that most sexism against men is a product of sexism against women (the example you gave, of men wearing women's clothing is because womanly things are associated with being weak and inferior and thus shameful for the superior man to do, etc.) but that doesn't make it warranted. Rather, the implication is that rather than treat this particular symptom, if you attack the root problem (sexism against women) you end up solving that problem as well in the process.

Wrong. Double Wrong.

The stereotype is that men who wear feminine clothing are emasculate. Femininity is not associated with weakness, inferiority, or shame. Just ask any woman who wears a skirt and powders her nose. Men who try to be feminine are considered weak because they don't conform to their gender stereotype. It's a sexism perpetrated by men and women alike, against men, and has nothing to do with sexism against women.

And, attacking sexism against women does nothing to fight sexism against men. In fact, neglecting men's rights in its entirety only leads further toward more sexism perpetrated against men. As, evidence by the American court system, which has for decades, been bolstering women's, particularly wives rights, by Congressional legislation. Which has dually, due to neglect on the part of politicians and judges, created an atmosphere in which men are considered, by default, aggressors, abusers, and criminals, compared to women. It has cultivated a justice system which disproportionately punishes men for the same crimes a woman would commit, and often assume that marriage problems are a man's fault.

And while it was all and right to focus on solving the sexism against women in domestic relationships that was enforced through courts. A distinct LACK of attention on men's rights created a court of sexism against men.

[Dempublicents1]

Many of the feminists I have the displeasure of interacting with seem adamant on their refusal to believe sexism against men even exists. Or that, if it exists, is a "product of sexism against women" and therefor...not unwarranted, I suppose is the implication?

It has nothing to do with warranted or unwarranted. It is simply a statement on how these attitudes are connected. Sexism, by definition, affects everybody. But many examples of sexism against men who choose to step outside accepted gender roles are attitudes that come from the perception that women are inferior. Men who choose to dress "like women" receive poor treatment because they are seen as doing something beneath them - being like women.

[Conserative Morality]

It has nothing to do with warranted or unwarranted. It is simply a statement on how these attitudes are connected. Sexism, by definition, affects everybody. But many examples of sexism against men who choose to step outside accepted gender roles are attitudes that come from the perception that women are inferior. Men who choose to dress "like women" receive poor treatment because they are seen as doing something beneath them - being like women.

In that case, certainly. But all sexism against men is not *wholly* rooted in sexism against women. It may not be as widespread, but it is still there.

[Geniasis]

Wrong. Double Wrong.

The stereotype is that men who wear feminine clothing are emasculate. Femininity is not associated with weakness, inferiority, or shame. Just ask any woman who wears a skirt and powders her nose. Men who try to be feminine are considered weak because they don't conform to their gender stereotype. It's a sexism perpetrated by men and women alike, against men, and has nothing to do with sexism against women.

And, attacking sexism against women does nothing to fight sexism against men. In fact, neglecting men's rights in its entirety only leads further toward more sexism perpetrated against men. As, evidence by the American court system, which has for decades, been bolstering women's, particularly wives rights, by Congressional legislation. Which has dually, due to neglect on the part of politicians and judges, created an atmosphere in which men are considered, by default, aggressors, abusers, and criminals, compared to women. It has cultivated a justice system which disproportionately punishes men for the same crimes a woman would commit, and often assume that marriage problems are a man's fault.

And while it was all and right to focus on solving the sexism against women in domestic relationships that was enforced through courts. A distinct LACK of attention on men's rights created a court of sexism against men.

Well, at least you had the courtesy to start off by telling me that your post was wrong.

*le sigh*

[The Parkus Empire]

Women show a lot more skin than men do in popular media, indicating that they're a lot more objectified sexually. The whole skirt thing was done to mask the shape of women's legs, which pants won't do. In other words, there's more to a woman's wardrobe than a skirt and a bikini, such as what men normally where.

[Czardas]

Bullshit.

Women are totally free to dress however they like. Wear long skirts, short pants, danty tank tops, or leather jackets. Women are often "encouraged" to express themselves however they please, in a feminine OR masculine manner and that they have no obligation to dress however men want them too.

Meanwhile, if a man should EVER try clothing that is remotely considered feminine, such as a skirt, they will be labeled by women and men alike as less then a "True" man, whatever the fuck that is. Even being remotely emasculate will get you called a "Sissy"

You have a point. I guess it's two different kinds of sexism; objectification on one hand, and conservation on another. It's probably the same reason discrimination against male->female transgendered folk is significantly disproportionately higher, both in prevalence and strength, than the other way round... :\

That's really more to do with homophobia -- which is less a fear of homosexuals and more a fear of being thought of as homosexual. Feeling attracted to someone you think of as a male makes a homophobic man -- and homophobia in that form is really much more common than most people are willing to let on -- probably causes a sense of being betrayed by one's own body which is quite unpleasant and, ironically, pretty close to what transgender people feel like all the time. I honestly have no idea why men do this, probably something about viewing other men as competition for mates or whatever, it's been ages since I picked up a biology textbook.