Let this thread be about sexual objectification as advanced by feminists. Read before responding.
Sexual objectification, as defined by many feminists, is the viewing of people solely as depersonalized objects of desire instead of as individuals with complex personalities and desires/plans of their own.
As stated there isn't much of a problem with the definition or its implementation in principle, but rather with it being put into practice. Everything from magazines featuring women's bodies to gazing at a woman in person walking down the street are cited by proponents of the above definition as supporting evidence. Such people appear to view any interaction of a male to a female as degrading because it is failing to take into account the full appreciation of a woman's whole humanity: her hopes, her fears, her aspirations, her ambitions, her regrets -- everything that makes that woman who she is, according to such people, must be central to the interaction and completely fleshed out. This is how equality is defined.
If someone looks at a female and appreciates her visually, one is failing to take into account all of the above qualities. This is oppression, as they see it. Their attitude is an unrealistic and highly ludicrous demand of social interaction both interpersonally and at the level of society. None of us go throughout our lives regarding every single human we encounter in this way. It isn't as though such feminists engage in deep, philosophical conversation with the cashier at Walgreens or Albertsons lest they risk objectifying them for not taking into account their entire humanity, as opposed to simply using them for the service of getting their things checked out. (Presumably they use the self checkout on moral grounds.)
Advancing this attitude, which is becoming pervasive amongst young women today, is harmful. It distracts us from real victimization and harmful attitudes toward women by casting a net so wide as to nearly encompass all men, their sexuality and human interaction.
___
Sexual objectification, as defined by many feminists, is the viewing of people solely as depersonalized objects of desire instead of as individuals with complex personalities and desires/plans of their own.
As stated there isn't much of a problem with the definition or its implementation in principle, but rather with it being put into practice. Everything from magazines featuring women's bodies to gazing at a woman in person walking down the street are cited by proponents of the above definition as supporting evidence. Such people appear to view any interaction of a male to a female as degrading because it is failing to take into account the full appreciation of a woman's whole humanity: her hopes, her fears, her aspirations, her ambitions, her regrets -- everything that makes that woman who she is, according to such people, must be central to the interaction and completely fleshed out. This is how equality is defined.
If someone looks at a female and appreciates her visually, one is failing to take into account all of the above qualities. This is oppression, as they see it. Their attitude is an unrealistic and highly ludicrous demand of social interaction both interpersonally and at the level of society. None of us go throughout our lives regarding every single human we encounter in this way. It isn't as though such feminists engage in deep, philosophical conversation with the cashier at Walgreens or Albertsons lest they risk objectifying them for not taking into account their entire humanity, as opposed to simply using them for the service of getting their things checked out. (Presumably they use the self checkout on moral grounds.)
Advancing this attitude, which is becoming pervasive amongst young women today, is harmful. It distracts us from real victimization and harmful attitudes toward women by casting a net so wide as to nearly encompass all men, their sexuality and human interaction.
