You see all the time people like Anita talking about "objectification of women."
What does that mean, exactly? As a heterosexual male, I'm hardwired to find women attractive, right? Does the objectification come from me seeing a random cute girl out on the street and admiring her beauty? To me, that seems pretty innocuous and frankly, part of what being a man is.
Or is the objectification from men ONLY thinking of women as sexual objects? Who does that, though?
What exactly IS this objectification that so many feminists talk about?
>>55446424
>feminism uses poorly defined phrases that rely 100% on emotional appeals
Funny enough, you just answered yourself. You just want to believe there's a rational answer so you can't accept it.
>>55446498
Oh trust me, I know women can be irrational. What I want, however, is someone to actually come up with a clear definition of what objectification is because as far as I can tell, no feminist ever has.
None of it seems to be based on rationale and more of, "I don't like this, change it!"
>>55446587
Your missing the point. There isn't a clear definition. Never has been.
>Women want important shit changed on a whim that might break everything to feel better about themselves for five minutes.
Yes. Pretty much.
Can I /thread now??
>>55446424
It's a bullshit mind game that feminists play on women they're recruiting into their cult. They give them some spiel about subjects and objects, and it sounds smart so they buy into it, but it's really just a means to confuse them about reason, logic, and objectivity.
>>55446707
>>55446859
Ok, but does objectification exist?
>>55447015
Well, son, you're just going to have to fire up that brain and reading comprehension and read what we told you.
>>55446424 (OP)
Wow ... she looks just like Anita P. Ness. How ironic.
>>55446424
It's like the buzzwordifying of men. Patriarchy, rape culture, objectification of women are all symptoms of buzzwordifying of men as if men weren't real and profound persons with feelings and aspirations.
Doesn't it mean viewing woman as thing rather than woman as being
>>55447478
I think it's an attempt to convey their being is more than a vehicle for sex.
I dunno. I don't really care. It's overused and misunderstood
>>55447015
>objectification exist?
No, not really. It's a concept, but it's about putting women on the spot where in the foreground are ideals about sexuality, but it's a sublimation where the emotional appeal is used to reinforce one logical fallacy after another.
>>55446424
It's funny because she objectivity herself in order to gain capital
So she is literally preaching about giving her money to talk about her being given money as wrong
>>55446424
As I read it, objectification in general means treating a person as a means to an end, not as an end in itself. Very Kantian.
In case of women, this likely means seeing a woman simply as a tool to achieve sexual gratification.
>>55447894
You give the feminists way too much credit, Vladimir. If you go and listen to what they're talking about, they're taking the arbitrary grammar rules about subjects and objects in sentence structure they learned in elementary school and making them out to be some universal constant about the interactions of men and women. Feminism is a cult of sophistry, nothing more.
>>55446424
>What exactly IS this objectification that so many feminists talk about?
It's the fact that, in order to become successful, women must first become physically attractive to men.
>>55448130
Successful in what way? There are plenty of successful career women who are not very good-looking to say the least.
>>55446424
>"objectification of women."
ayyy buzzwords
>>55448468
Random thought, if you're a good looking woman you probably didn't need to learn the necessary life skills to get by. Makes it harder to become really successful. Some do which is great for them, I'm just saying.
It's like how some rich kids turn into fuck-ups. Having life on easy mode is great, but you have to have the discipline to still learn how to adult. Or at least have strong figures in your life to guide you through things.
Whatever, idc that much. Back to work
>>55448468
There are many fields in which all of the top women are good looking. News reporters are a good example. Not that there aren't handsome male news reporters, but there are a lot of downright ugly ones, because they are the most knowledgeable guys.
But for a woman to have a successful career being a reporter, especially in sports, she has to be absolutely beautiful.
It's sad but there aren't many women good looking enough to objectify so I think they won
She ust uses meaningless smart sounding buzzwords to incite the anger of weak beta en, and women who want to feel empowered for the sake of gabbling up them shekels.
You'll hear an she her more and more on bleeding heart liberal sites for both being a 'hero' and a 'hack'
>>55446424
Probably the tendency of mem to break women up into components: tits, ass and face. Also when men see an image of a sexy woman, the parts of the brain that become active are the same parts of the brain that respond to images of tools (wrenches, hammers).
>>55446424
"Women aren't objects"
Jesus Christ!
Then they are sentient fields of energy!
That is A-mazing!
>>55446424
Every single time they say it, they use this retarded example:
>subjects act, while objects are acted upon
That's their definition. But of course it doesn't make any fucking sense.
>>55446424
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-objectification/
>>55447894
>>55448058
Looks like Vladimir was right. Sarkeesian is a sophist, all right, but not necessarily feminists in general.
>Immanuel Kant's views on sexual objectification have been particularly influential for contemporary feminist discussions on this topic. Kant thought that sexuality is extremely problematic when exercised outside the context of monogamous marriage, arguing that in such instances it leads to objectification.
>>55446424
It's basically just a buzzword women use to get what they want.
They hold sex as their power and their right.
Everything that interferes with that is "objectifying women".
>They're even trying to ban "sexbots" here in Canada with that shit.
>>55446424
Want to know what it is?
UTTER NONE SENSE and TRASH. Not logic, how do you combat it? Do not buy into it, do not recognize their arguments, do not legitimize them.
Why feminism?
>>55445116
This is why. Destroys civil society and family structure.
>>55446424
>What does that mean, exactly? As a heterosexual male, I'm hardwired to find women attractive, right? Does the objectification come from me seeing a random cute girl out on the street and admiring her beauty? To me, that seems pretty innocuous and frankly, part of what being a man is.
It means the Jews turned sex trafficking into a thing after they destroyed marriages and families in the United States and now women are forced to fend for themselves and be treated as commodities instead of treated like human beings like they were treated prior to the feminist revolution.
On a related note, I see "male power fantasy" a lot, but what would a female power fantasy be like? Is it something like pic related?
>>55456522
>but what would a female power fantasy be like?
Atlas shrugged
Not every woman is a feminist, and they don't all benefit from feminism.
>>55446424
It's the result of a female inferiority complex reinforced by male perceptions of their ability and the natural consequences of these things socially.
Women who aren't worthless are almost always respected by men and it makes them even more desirable. The ones crying about objectification and all that shit are the worthless and the myriads with low self esteem who think they're worthless.
