My feminism tends to be an interesting point of discussion with my roommates, who just generally do not understand it at all and sometimes poke fun at it.
One point that we always get stuck on is objectification. Being in a dorm room full of girls, the conversation goes to guys a lot - guys that we like from tv shows, what we think is attractive . . . what guy my roommate thinks has a nice butt. Whenever this happens, one of them brings up the argument, "Aren't we objectifying men right now? If we can objectify men like this, why can't they objectify women?"
I have never known how to respond to this.
So: Am I being a "bad feminist" by having these conversations? Is "objectifying men" like this bad? Or is this a different situation from what we usually mean by "objectifying women"?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Objectifying Men?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/17673
Such a question is predicated on the false notion that women and men are on an equal playing field. We're not. Talking about a guy's body or looks is hardly objectifying him, because there is no system in place that allows women to think of men as anything less than human. That's not so with women. When men objectify women, we're left open to harassment, sexual assault, abuse, and rape. That is the power men are afforded that women are not. That is patriarchy.
Men are perfectly capable of being objectified, and in fat are objectified on a regular basis. Do keep in mind that objectification does not only refer to reducing a person to their body parts in a sexual way or for sexual purposes - objectification can occur whenever a person is, for whatever purposes, dehumanized and treated as a tool rather than an autonomous individual. The military-industrial complex and corporations both objectify the hell out of men all the time, reducing them to cannon-fodder or moving parts in a machine.
But either way, we're talking about sexual objectification here, so whatever. Either way, I don't really see this as a good thing. I mean, pros and cons. Cons - reinforces the idea that good looks are very important (as or more important than things like personality, ethics, etc.), gives men the impression that women don't think that kind of talk is bothersome at all. Pros - Makes for nice filler conversation? I don't know. Not that women shouldn't be talking about men in a sexual manner, but if there's a way to do that without reducing men to sex objects (and I do believe there is), then why not just do that? What's the downside there?
I think that all bodies are objectified, male and female, which is a consequence of many social factors. The female body and as a result, women, are subject to a different and more burdensome kind of objectification than men.
That's my opinion. I think there's a really great essay by Sandra Bartky on this called "Foucault, femininity, and the modernization of patriarchal power".
I think it's about outcomes. Yes, we're all objectified, but women's life chances are more restricted by their objectification. It's not a power-neutral process.
There's a difference between discussing what one appreciates about human bodies/individuals and expecting to have control over that body or dehuminizing the individual. That is where I draw the line. And many times objectification, especially in magazines and other media for men, place women in poses where they are not individuals in agency (and we could totally pull this thread off topic with a discussion on that, but let's not!)
I look forward to the ensuing discussion in the comments!
sexism, like racism, is more than simply "objectifying" a person(s). while i know many disagree with this school of thought, im of the opinion that sexism is objectification and possession of the power and privilege to act on it. so, men sitting around discussing a particular woman's breasts is not the same as women sitting around discussing a mans butt. if the man in question found out about the conversation, he (probably) does not have to fear he will be, for example, sexually assaulted because the women feel they are entitled to the butt in question. but a woman, upon hearing that some men sit up at night discussing her body, may fear she would be harmed. and if she were harmed, perhaps the police wouldnt believe her - they might even treat her like SHE is the criminal: she wanted it, she was wearing a skirt, shes lying, she was drunk, etc, etc. sexism is about power dynamics. in our society, it is clear who holds that power and privilege. so, no, i dont think women discussing a mans body is the same as men discussing a womans body.
First, I disagree with the whole premise that women can't objectify men because of this power imbalance. It seems like just a sneaky way to justify women doing whatever they want while restricting men.
However to your point - I don't really get your story. First off, who is to say the man wouldn't have this fear and who is to say the women would? but more importantly, if the woman is actually attacked, isn't it at that point that it becomes a crime and something that needs to be addressed? Simply talking appreciatingly about someone's appearance is not a crime not should it be. And assuming that such a person is one who is capable of and actually would attack is a pretty big stereotype that makes me very uncomfortable.
Despite the patriachy and all it creates, that still doesn't justify women putting themselves about men in my opinion.
Society strongly tends to disempower women was a class, but there are men with no power over women, and women with power over men. My boss is a woman, to say I have power over her and therefore I'm the one capable of evil because of my gender is ridiculous. She doesn't but she could reward or punish male employees for unfair and gendered reasons the same as any male boss could female employees. Women aren't always helpless, powerless victims in every single relationship with men.
sexism, like racism, is more than simply "objectifying" a person(s). while i know many disagree with this school of thought, im of the opinion that sexism is objectification and possession of the power and privilege to act on it. so, men sitting around discussing a particular woman's breasts is not the same as women sitting around discussing a mans butt. if the man in question found out about the conversation, he (probably) does not have to fear he will be, for example, sexually assaulted because the women feel they are entitled to the butt in question. but a woman, upon hearing that some men sit up at night discussing her body, may fear she would be harmed. and if she were harmed, perhaps the police wouldnt believe her - they might even treat her like SHE is the criminal: she wanted it, she was wearing a skirt, shes lying, she was drunk, etc, etc. sexism is about power dynamics. in our society, it is clear who holds that power and privilege. so, no, i dont think women discussing a mans body is the same as men discussing a womans body
By approving of women to vocally evaluate the bodyparts of men while at the same time disapprove of men evaluating the bodyparts of women in exactly the same way and nothing more, you're doing a huge favor to the anti-feminists of the world who have got into their heads that feminism isn't about equality, after all. You might as well suggest that female-on-male violence is more OK than male-on-female violence, even while at the same time arguing that they're both detrimental to society. Keep up in the same way and we'll be back to the middle-ages by the end of this generation.
Objectifying anyone is bad.
Maybe what I am about to say might be biased, BUT...
Women are so objectified--permeating our culture to such an extent that I cannot drive down the street without seeing T-and-A on billboards and pop music is all "get down on the floor b**ch" EVERYWHERE WOMEN ARE SEX OBJECTS EVERYWHERE. It is impossible that you are capable of objectifying males anywhere near to the complete societal brainwash of the objectification of females. So personally, I don't see any problem with girl dorm roommates talking within the confines of their circle about leonardo dicaprio's hotbod. I am not totally sure that even IS sexual objectification. What would it be like if men were oppressed? In a matriarchy, would rape-kits be tested and childabusers locked away? Who knows--EQUAL PAY?? I can only imagine. Don't feel bad for checking a guy's tight ass, just don't become a megastar and get a recorddeal for a catchy tune in which the chorus proclaims "men are inferior." Anyway it seems only fair---and that is what feminism is all about.
IMO, there is a difference between sexualizing and objectifying, and this applies for both men and women. It's possible to admire the sexiness of either a man or a woman without reducing them to the sum of their body parts.
That said, I don't think the standards for objectifying are any different for men than they are for women. Examine the way you're talking about these people honestly and ask yourself if you are reducing these people to nothing more than cute faces or hot asses. If you are, cut it out. Objectifying people is never cool regardless of what gender they are.
Um, I would 100% say that it is absolutely objectifying men in the 100% exactly the same way that men do it to women. That part of your post is easy.
The hard part (for me) is whether or not this is a problem. Because although most feminists will tell you objectification is bad and wrong and so is this, not all agree. I am one of those who am not totally sold on the issue of objectification, at least not in the black and white terms that some feminists put it into. I checkout guys alot. all the time. And I love looking at hot guys in magazines, tv, etc. For me I do'nt even do this consciously, it's just part of who I am and my sexuality. I have tried to stop at times but I always end up catching myself doing it anyways. But here's the thing - I don't want to stop. I enjoy admiring attractive men. In fact it's one of the best parts of life in my opinion. It's fun and it brings me alot of happiness. But I often feel guilty about it because in feminist terms I shouldn't really be doing this.
However in all the books I've read and conversations I"ve participated in on the subject, I have never ever yet read or seen a completely satisifcatory answer of what is objectification and what is attraction (and thus ok). I have seen people give definitions but they are not always consistent and they all have inherent problems. Eg: some people say it's all based on intent. But how can you know the intent of someone? I don't even know my own intent half the time. Some say it depends if you consider the person a real person or just an object. But what if I do consider them a real person, and am even friends them and actively like them for their mind and personality... yet I still check them out whenever I get the chance. Is that objectification?
Anyways I'm getting off topic, but the point I want to make is that it isn't always so easy to say whether this is ok or not. Obviously as humans we are sexual and we find certain others pleasing to the eye. This is totally normal. The question you need to answer is whether or not you are ok with it, keeping in mind that the more you objectify men the less you can complain about men objectifying women. Now you may decide you're ok with men objectifying women, especially if in doing so it means you're allowed to objectify men. That's pretty much the position I hold. Or you may decide that getting rid of objectifying women is so important to you that you yourself can't in good conscience do the same thing to men else it negates your position. It's a complex issue and likely your feelings on it will change over time as you grow as a person and a feminist, so good luck!
I think the orthodox position would be that women can not objectify men in the same way that men can women, because the patriarchy gives men the power to objectify women in more harmful and oppressive ways. On the other hand, double standards are generally wrong, and no gender should get a free pass on bad behavior.
That said, we all have someone we find attractive and there is nothing wrong with expressing that attraction in a respectful manner. The problem is when it is expressed in a manner that implies that those physical attributes are all that the person is good for. Would you feel comfortable with a boy talking about you the way you talk about him? If yes, you're OK.
There is a lot of cultural subtext and stereotypes here. If Joe says Jane has a nice ass, we may assume that's all he cares about, because men are such sexual animals, don't you know. If Jane says the same about Joe, we may assume that can't possibly be all she's interested in, because women are really so prim and prudent. Of course both stereotypes are wrong. What really matters is whether people are treating each other with respect, or not.
You might like to change that condition slightly to "Would you feel comfortable with a boy you don't find attractive talking about you the way you talk about him? If yes, you're OK."
(italics is my bit)
Too often, I hear people say, 'Well, I'd be ok if s/he thought about me like that,' without grasping that the person they are thinking of in this way may not like them.
Ok, I really want to read the other comments to this post, but since it has been a couple of hours without a reply, I thought I'd try and write something to get the ball rolling. I'm going to do a poor job though, so hopefully others will pick apart this post and we can have a discussion.
Personally, I do think objectification is wrong whether it is women or men who are doing it. However, I'm a cis-gendered male who is attracted to things other than physical appearance. I've not yet been interested in anyone because of the way they look. I gather others have a different experience. If you find physical traits attractive then, I would think, it's healthy to talk about those things with your friends, to acknowledge them, etc. So, I don't know exactly where the line is there.
Because we live in a patriarchy, objectification of women and men have disproportionate consequences. Objectification feeds into beauty standards, and the relative value of those standards. Traditionally Men have been valued for things other than their appearance, so they have been less affected. Though, I've heard of a study that showed women were increasingly superficial when it comes to men as they attained proportionally more wealth. I don't think that's the whole point though. It's rude and disrespectful to consider someone's body for your own pleasure if they haven't decided to share it with you (in which case it's your joint pleasure you should be considering anyway).
I don't think there's anything wrong with talking about what you think is attractive....the more interesting bits is *why* you think certain things are attractive. i.e. why are taller guys more attractive? What's going on there?
You don't have to apologize for your attraction, but it's good to at least know what's going on--what our society values so we can try to combat it.
Personally though, I feel objectification--the true problem of it--isn't just your poster of RPatz on the wall--it's the constant using of the sexy female image as a product that's a problem. i.e. porn, selling beer, PITA
Not to be a total jerk, but in my experience, girls may objectify guys, but at the end of the day they want to take him home and love him whereas men are encouraged to control/throwaway women.
"Not to be a total jerk, but in my experience, girls may objectify guys, but at the end of the day they want to take him home and love him whereas men are encouraged to control/throwaway women."
O RLY?
But both of those things you said are stereotypes that feminists are fighting against. Women can just use men for sex too without any desire to "love him", and men can certainly want to love women.
It is objectifying men. Saying "but men like it" (not saying you say this but I'm making a point here) is not a valid argument because not every hetero man wants the sexual attention of every woman. And of course, no one should be objectified.
I guess the *safe* choice would be to think and not say these things or discuss anyone else's body without their permission and even then that can get murky.
Standard answer: because men are not culturally oppressed in the same fashion as women, the "female gaze" is not equivalent to the "male gaze." The men that you are objectifying are not damaged by your acts because there is not a social framework that reinforces the necessity of male beauty, nor is there a general understanding that male worth is based on appearance.
More nuanced answer: while the above is absolutely true, it both ignores the individual ramifications of objectification (that is to say that though men as a class may not suffer from the beauty standard, individual men may) and the fact that this objectification reinforces an underlying social structure that places undue importance on physical attractiveness, and this general reinforcement is likely to contribute to the oppression of both men and women.
Short answers: Yes, it is "objectifying." No, it isn't the same as objectifying women. Yes, it's still probably not a real great thing to do.
But how do you know if the men they discussed would be offended by such a discussion of them?
What if it makes him uncomfortable? Annoyed, frustrated, angry, upset, hurt?
You don't know and more than likely neither do they if they haven't told the men they discuss what and that they discuss their bodies amongst each other.
It doesn't sound like you're disagreeing with me here. As I said, yes it is objectifying.
Ok. Remind me to start objectifying women the instant when the world develops a general understanding that female worth is not based on appearance. To verify that insant isn't going to be easy, though.
Many people have pointed out the power differences in society to say that women objectifying men is not bad.
I will take it in the other direction. Women objectifying men is bad, but due to social conditions, not as bad when men objectify women.
The objectification lead themselves naturally to idealizations and unrealistically standards which leads to insecurity on behalf of the people that cannot obtain those unrealistic standards.
A small example... I am somewhat lucky I am reasonably tall (6'0). I have been in conversations with women who said of someone "I can't believe he was trying to flirt with me, he is only like 2 inches taller than me."
(and I have read women on feministing say tall women are prejudice against, that is why no one dates them... but really, that a knife that cuts both ways).
Also, if you take a position (objectification) you have to be on guard against hypocrisy. You may complain that social conditions are different for men and women... that is just a way to minimize your own hypocrisy and to hold men to a higher standard than you are willing to hold yourself.
I am inclined to agree with Steven on this one.
Many of you have stated that women and men objectifying the opposite gender is not a comparable offense. Now, I think there's something to be said for that line of thought, though I would argue that it's not so cut and dried. But regardless, you are talking about large-scale interactions of amorphous social classes in hypotheical settings. But in individual settings, really, the situations are similar. Both men and women are encouraged to discuss the opposite sex, and there is significant peer pressure, social conditioning, etc. that contributes to it. We all know it. And, if you as an individual are unwilling or unable to resist/encourage the objectification of men, it seems pretty fucking hypocritical to then turn around and condemn *individual* men for not- as Steven said- holding themselves to a higher standard than you are willing to hold yourself.
All I am really seeing here is a convoluted attempt to fully exonerate Erin for objectifying men while still maintaining the status quo position that *men objectifying women* is wrong.
While you all may be correct (or not, it's irrelevent) in breaking down large-scale cultural frameworks, on an individual basis, how do you looking complaining about men's sexism and sexual objectification when you participate- or at least do not condemn- the same behavior from women?
I'll tell you: not good. And the vast majority of non-feminist or uninformed people will recognize this.
Why bother? Women will continue to objectify men (discuss their body parts) when talking to each other, and men will do the same.
Here's the part I've had trouble understanding; should people just never talk about sex? Sex is a huge part of the human experience, unless of course you are asexual, but that's another thing entirely. Anyway, humans are most definately sexual beings, and, well, we think about sex. I can say for sure I do, all evidence says that my fellow men do, and unless the women I know are just exceptions, women think about sex at least as much as we do! And we don't just think about sex, we think about sex with people; because typically that's how it's done, dontcha know. Sex takes up massive amounts of our hard drive, if you pardon the pun.
So why do we feminists and pro-feminists treat it with such fear? It has shades of fundamentalist religious attitudes protraying sex as this terrifying destroyer of civiliazation when really it's just human nature. Girls giggle and pine over hot celebraties, guys inform one another that, yes, they would most definately hit that (because I've seen the term confused on this site before, it has nothing to do with abuse, it means "Yes, I would have sex with that person") and if you happen to have a social group that freely mixes free-thinking men and women the topic of conversation will go to sex. It's reality, it's kinda how it works. Sex is one of our baseline drives. Everyone talks about food, because we need food. Why shouldn't people talk about sex?
I think the problem isn't the objectification, because it's inevitable. Unless you are asexual, you objectify people. You can call it something else, and everyone will because it's an ugly way of looking at things, but we do. Telling yourself it's ok because you are a woman but it's not ok for men because of power structures or what-have-you is just rationalizing a structure that doesn't fit reality and I think it might be a holdover of the Valerie Solanas/Dworkin days where men were actual villians, demeaned and demonized for being born with a Y chromosome.
Instead, shouldn't we be thinking about defusing the power structure so that everyone can objectify each other equally rather than trying to force men to believe that thinking about sex is evil? I think that we might get better results that way.
Oh, and by the way, women are not alone feeling intimidated when men start talking about sex. It actually goes the other way too; when the girls start talking about men, men feel nervously like we're being put under a microscope. It's not exclusively a gender thing, and it feels very much like a "all womans are the the victems of mans!" statement.
You keep using that word (objectify). I do not think it means what you think it means.
Great post! You pretty m;uch summed up alot of what I've been feeling all these years whenever this topic comes up. Thanks
I've never found "my broad demographic group lacks privilege!" to be a very impressive excuse for objectively bad behavior. Everyone needs to grow up and practice what we preach. If isolating and idolizing (or criticizing) bodies to the exclusion of entire people is wrong, then it's wrong.
The response to that should typically include something about how the master's tools won't dismantle his house.
You should point out that if men talk back at women for cat calls, women don't gang up and assault/rape them, while men do engage in violence when women talk back to catcalls form men.
As women, your dorm mates don't have that history and threat of violence to wield against the men when they make these comments.
In the end your dorm mates can't really objectify men because the men never internalize the comments as objectification as a normal part of being in our society, while women do.
Even if they think they have a point, you don't find equality by making trades. You can't trade rights, even the right to not be harassed.
For the people who believe that objectification of women is bad and dangerous and shouldn't be done, but believe that the objectification of men by women is fine because women don't have the institutional power to cause harm to the men that they objectify, I ask: what if he patriarchy was finally dismantled? Would objectification of men or women be okay then? If the answer is no, then it's not okay to objectify men.
I agree with Kandela: Because we live in a patriarchy, objectification of women and men have disproportionate consequences.
Definitely true. No doubt. But that doesn't make a bad behavior okay just because it is aimed toward men.
Anyway, I also agree with some other commenters that say that there's nothing to feel bad about if you aren't reducing these men to their body parts. That's when it's considered objectification, in my opinion.
I also love what Athenia said- to be aware of why you're attracted to what/whom you are attracted to. I especially love the height example. I am still trying to figure out if my attraction to tall men is based on some strange notion that more height in males = more "manliness" or something. I don't want my attraction to height to be a result of deep-rooted gender-based beauty ideals or standards, ya know?
Just out of curiousity - why does it matter so much why you are attracted to something? How is denying yourself something you like helping the world or advancing the feminist cause?
I think it's part of human nature to notice that which we are attracted to. I think this spans genders and sexual orientations too. To me though, objectification comes into play not when you say "So-and-so has a nice ass", but when you begin to dehumanize them, or feel entitled to their attentions simply because you find them attractive, or reduce them to their physical attractiveness and nothing more.
Although it's true that the objectification of women is much more ubiquitous and has many more harmful real-world consequences than the objectification of men, I don't think that really excuses any of it.
Recently, some of the terrible problems and sexism that women have had to face since...oh...the beginning of time or so...have started to become problems for men. For example, a lot of men have started to have body image issues. Or the rise of the concept of the "cougar" (predatory older people tricking the young and naive into bed isn't just for men anymore). And men have started to be objectified. There are some people who will paint this as a win. I'm not one of those people. Although there is something that is vindictively satisfying about saying "HA, now you have some idea of what we go through," I think we have to answer to a higher goal here. Taking the sexism that has been leveled at us and throwing it back at men isn't "getting equal," and it isn't "getting even." It's stooping to their level, and it's justifying sending 10 times the sexism back our way. When Cosmo, for example, includes their section of "guys without their shirts," men (and women blinded by the patriarchy, for that matter) know about it and only see that objectification can go both ways, so Playboy and Maxim must be in the right. Of course, with a more careful look you notice that nude or partially nude men tend to be posed in positions of power and strength whereas the women tend to be posed as submissive. The men's photos allow the subjects to retain a sense of dignity and a sense of self which women just don't. And of course, for every example of the objectification of men, there are probably 10 (or more) examples of the objectification of women. So the situation is still far from equal, but trust me...the patriarchy won't see it that way. It'll just legitimize further crimes against women.
Plus...well...there's the golden rule to think about. If you wouldn't want men to reduce you to a faceless, mindless collection of body parts and to talk about you like you're not even human, then don't do it to them. It's just not nice.
Appreciating someone's physical attractiveness is not objectification. Objectification is when you dehumanize them, and conceive of them as a mass (an "object") which exists only for your pleasure.
There are innumerable ways in which Joe could say, "Jane has a nice butt." Some would be objectifying. Others would not. A good deal of the problem is that in our society we (men and women) are taught that objectification is the nature of male appreciation, and men are encouraged to objectify instead of appreciate.
It can sometimes be difficult to tell if a particular instance is objectifying or appreciation. Given that there are numerous industries designed to objectify women, pointing out that there is a large problem is easy. Saying "Playboy is objectifying" is easy. Saying "strip clubs are objectifying" is easy. Going up to an individual man and saying, "How dare you masturbate to that picture you took of her, that's objectification" - maybe not so clear-cut.
here's the thing, it's not like you HAVE to objectify men. and it's not like men HAVE to objectify women. so neither should do it. whether or not it's the same could go on in debate forever. but neither is very nice for the receiving party.
It's not really a black and white issue. Almost all of us are guilty of objectifying someone regardless of our sexuality. We date people we are attracted too. And, while attraction is not skin deep, there is a level of physical attractiveness that our partner must have in order for us to want to have sex with them. So, at it's core, I'm not against people objectification.
However, the objectification of the female body has been taken to an extreme in our culture. Google search almost any notable female (not all women, but I think Erin Andrews is a good example of this) and you'll find image after image of close-ups of her breasts, butt, and other physical assets. Men, for the most part (the popularity of Twilight shows that men can be reduced to their looks as well), are not reduced to their body parts at the same level that women are. And they shouldn't. Extreme levels of objectification has many negative ramifications for women. I shouldn't even have to list all of them.
A little objectification here and there is fine, human, and even fun! Just like a little beer here and there is acceptable and fun. However, if you take beer to an extreme you'll become an alcoholic and hurt the people around you. If you take objectification to the extreme, for any gender, you hurt the people around you. Right now we live in a society that seems to be a female-object-a-holic. We need to bring it down to a healthier level.
I actually wrote a post about this a while back: Equal Objectification is Awesome.
So you can probably guess my thoughts on this.
Finding people attractive is part of human nature. Most people are attracted to other people. That's normal, and suppressing that probably isn't healthy.
Which doesn't mean you have the right to harass anyone because you find them attractive, and it certainly doesn't mean that you're entitled to their attention.
Reducing the male actor to his "butt" is objectifying. Since you are questioning whether or not this is morally acceptable, the reasonable thing to do is accept that it is not.
Some posters have made the argument that women are more harmed from male gaze more then a male from female gaze. While it may GENERALLY be true, by no means does this on ANY level justify doing it to a male. You cannot speak for all women nor all men, as such you cannot begin to assume how it affects them (if you claim you can speak for a group of people please cite your study).
It sickens me that any of you would try and defend such attitudes based only on gender. Don't blindly say Patriarchy to defend your obviously sexist views.
Adult homo sapiens are sexual beings, if you find someone attractive you are going to treat them differently to someone you don't find attractive. It isn't nice, but if you think you can compartmentalise your sexuality or intellectualise it away; your wasting your time. Your fellow feminists won't thank you for your post, for the simple reason that they don't like it when men judge them by their appearance. Yet they do the same to men themselves. They can either abandon their double standards, or tie themselves in knots pretending such a double standard doesn't exist.