Male Objectification II

[Borachio]

There's an entirely different set of pressures put on men regarding appearance and behaviour. See also: Patriarchy hurts men too.

This.

 

[Traitorfish]

In economics a commodity is simply something that is undifferentiated, so that it can be bought and sold at an exchange without the need to look at the products, because they're all the same. Like oil, or steel slabs, or soybean sacks.

Yes, but it is not always used that narrowly. Holy King's comment was sociological, rather than economic, and should be read as such.

 

[Arwon]

This.

REalised I didn't actually answer the original post: it's not really objectification which is the issue. Being framed as passive objects is not really part of those pressures and expectations.

 

[Borachio]

Elucidate please.

 

[luiz]

Yes, but it is not always used that narrowly. Holy King's comment was sociological, rather than economic, and should be read as such.

In that case I don't see why use the term commodity instead of merchandise or product.

-------------------

I disagree with those who said that objectification of men and women are much different on today's world. 50 years ago, sure. In the past men were expected to be rich and women to be pretty. A fat or bald man was not looked down upon as long he had some money. Today rich men spend a fortune in order not to be bald or fat. Society does not regard a poor but good looking and athletic man as a loser, in fact he is probably less "discriminated" than the fat bold rich guy.

The expectations for men and women today are remarkably similar. We're both expected to be good looking and fit. If that's objectifying people, we're both being objectified.

 

[Traitorfish]

Elucidate please.

"Objectification" means being constructed as an object, that is, something lacking in agency or meaningful subjectivity. Men might beautify themselves in some way or another, as they have done since time immemorial- the social prohibition on overt male beautification only really dates to the early 19th century- but this is rarely, if ever, associated with a denial of subjectivity, while it's far from unheard of women to have their subjectivity denied without the barest expectation of beautification. Nobody would suppose for a minute that because the Compte de Fru Fru was decked out in the powderiest of wigs and the laciest of waistcoats that he was not possessed of agency, nor would we expect a soor-faced Wee Freer to be an enthusiastic feminist simply because he regards made-up women with hostility.

Both a burqa and a microbikini may express female objectification, or they may not hint at anything of the sort. Cultural context is entirely crucial.

In that case I don't see why use the term commodity instead of merchandise or product.

Because those carry more specific meanings than was meant by "commodity", in this sense, and would be unsuited to the point which he was trying to make.

 

[G-Max]

TF seems more concerned with philosophy, epistemology, and semantics than usual...

 

[Arwon]

Elucidate please.

What TF said.

By and large, I'd say men have behaviours and roles expected of them moreso than appearance. And men are very seldom reduced to their bodies or their appearance or particularly their capacity to provide titilation or pleasure through those things, the way women in our culture often are.

One could also argue that given the emphasis on role and behaviour, men get judged and policed a lot more when they deviate from those things, than on apparance grounds.

 

[G-Max]

And men are very seldom reduced to their bodies or their appearance or particularly their capacity to provide titilation or pleasure through those things, the way women in our culture often are

I'm guessing you haven't seen as many Calvin Klein ads as I have.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

I'm guessing you haven't seen as many Calvin Klein ads as I have.

Oh come on . The artistry of those adds trumps any bulges .

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm guessing you haven't seen as many Calvin Klein ads as I have.

I think it's stretching things to say that the Western conception of masculinity can be inferred in its entirety from Calvin Klein ads.

 

[Disgustipated]

Of course not, sports is the greatest definition of masculinity, and also things like professional wrestling (that's not a sport ). Most guys in Calvin Klein ads are probably gay anyways.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

There's an entirely different set of pressures put on men regarding appearance and behaviour. See also: Patriarchy hurts men too.

I think this post is entirely correct, although I would never use the term "patriarchy", as that connotes to me some active group of "patriarchs" that are oppressing men and women alike for the fun of it. I think it's more of a passive thing. But I digress. (and quickly too!)

All you have to do is take a look at what's expected of men and of women. Men are expected to be strong, probably play a sport or two, and of course hide their emotions. Women are expected to be pretty, probably stay at home, and of course reveal their emotions. It hurts both sides, really.

And that's why we need to tear down societal constructs.

 

[luiz]

I think this post is entirely correct, although I would never use the term "patriarchy", as that connotes to me some active group of "patriarchs" that are oppressing men and women alike for the fun of it. I think it's more of a passive thing. But I digress. (and quickly too!)

All you have to do is take a look at what's expected of men and of women. Men are expected to be strong, probably play a sport or two, and of course hide their emotions. Women are expected to be pretty, probably stay at home, and of course reveal their emotions. It hurts both sides, really.

And that's why we need to tear down societal constructs.

Even if you remove all social pressures I think it's safe to say men would still practice more sports and women would still be more concerned about being pretty.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Even if you remove all social pressures I think it's safe to say men would still practice more sports and women would still be more concerned about being pretty.

So? Let 'em do that. But you shouldn't be belittled if you don't do either one. And say what you will about the male culture in America, you ARE belittled if you admit to not playing (or watching) a sport.

 

[G-Max]

I think it's stretching things to say that the Western conception of masculinity can be inferred in its entirety from Calvin Klein ads.

I could say the same thing about women and Victoria's Secret. What's your point?

Men are expected to be strong, probably play a sport or two, and of course hide their emotions. Women are expected to be pretty, probably stay at home, and of course reveal their emotions.

Since when? I mean aside from the part about women revealing their emotions, which is a problem that men have been trying to solve for thousands of years.

So? Let 'em do that. But you shouldn't be belittled if you don't do either one. And say what you will about the male culture in America, you ARE belittled if you admit to not playing (or watching) a sport.

Maybe in Spokane, but not in California.






Okay, I wouldn't know firsthand because I'm a Sharks fan.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think this post is entirely correct, although I would never use the term "patriarchy", as that connotes to me some active group of "patriarchs" that are oppressing men and women alike for the fun of it.

Only if you read it literally, which would imply that you take similarly issue with terms such as "pornography", "architect" or "engineering".

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Only if you read it literally, which would imply that you take similarly issue with terms such as "pornography", "architect" or "engineering".

Ah, come now. It was only a bit of pedantry. And I'm not pedantic about EVERYTHING.

 

[G-Max]

Random objectification:


Link to video.

 

[Traitorfish]

How so?