Search Results

Introduction Women and animals – are both subjected to objectification as a common system of oppression.The sexual objectification of women has been challenged in the last two decades with increasing global awareness. But ‘breasts’, ‘legs’, and ‘thighs' are coveted in more than just women. Women are ‘chicks’ and ‘birds’. Using women's bodies to sell products, giving women animal names, and the sexualization of girls and women are ways in which females are demeaned and objectified in society. For example, women can be judged or rated based on breast size or shape, turning them into sexual objects for the male gaze. Women look, too, which can lead to self-objectification and the body shaming of other women. Women as Animals Women are portrayed as beings that can be tamed or subdued when they are depicted as animals. Pictures like this imply that women require dominance or subordination. If a woman does not conform to the stereotype of a "acceptable" woman, she may be referred to as an animal or in other demeaning ways throughout history. Despite the belief of many that we no longer do so, this belief is maintained in common terminology and slang. For instance, a strong lady is referred to as a "bitch," which is another word for a female dog. We refer to girl battles as "catfights," and the weapons of choice are the girls' "claws" or nails. A "cougar" is a predatory older woman who is after a younger male. Yet, not all animal references are intended to be offensive. The British slang for an attractive young woman is “bird” or “pigeon”. Greek Mythology Greek mythology contains a number of themes in which women are represented as beasts, animals, or men-killers. Medusa comes in first. Once upon a time, Medusa was admired for her beauty. According to some tales, Athena was envious of Medusa's beauty since she served as a priestess at the temple of Athena. Her vow of virginity was broken, according to other traditions, when she fell in love with Poseidon, the sea god. Then Athena changed Medusa into the recognisable creature we know today. Her skin is covered in scales, she has scaled hair, and her stare has the power to turn any man to stone. Among the other mythical female animals are mermaids, sirens, and harpies. Harpies: Once supposed to be lovely maidens with golden wings, harpies have now undergone a transformation in appearance, appearing as ugly animals with wings and birds with the heads of maidens. They are there to commit theft. For the gods, they steal food and humans. Every time a person or precious thing vanished, Harpies were said to be to blame. Sirens: According to Greek mythology, sirens are stunning creatures that resemble half women and half animals. They sing stunning tunes that make people feel sleepy. They would become disoriented and typically pass away from hunger. Several legends depict sirens as sisters who seduced sailors into drowning. Similar tales have also referred to mermaids as sirens. The phrase "Just another piece of flesh" is also used to compare women to animals. In some horrifying ways, women are used as an example of animals in Peta's most recent campaigns against animal abuse: The purpose of these tools is to draw the reader's attention and to be humorous, but it is still unclear why women are used and why they are portrayed in such a sexualized manner in these particular commercials. The most straightforward explanation is that, like animals, gorgeous women might occasionally be viewed as "simply a piece of meat." Hence, this nebulous justification supports sexual objectification of women and the use of violence against them as a marketing tactic. The “B” Word Throughout history, "bitch" has been used to mean a variety of things. In the 15th century CE, it started to be used as a pejorative name for women despite originally being used to describe a female dog. It compared women to female dogs in heat. With the publishing of "The Bitch Manifesto" by Joreen Freeman in 1969, or by performance artist Bitch and "Pussy Manifesto," feminists in the 20th century tried to redefine "bitch" as a term of empowerment. Nonetheless, the word is still used to denigrate women. Some people attempt to cast the "B" word in a favorable light, while others do it in a more unfavorable manner.

Sure, it's true that images of strong, attractive guys holding cigarettes with a woman's immaculately manicured hand thrown over his shoulder have always been used to demonstrate how cool and attractive a man is. But, the objectification of women is actually woven into the very fabric of our society (sorry, guys). even the recent bombs at a renowned female concert in the UK. The following day, the news media accused her of intentionally drawing young people to her concert with her racy attire and being a negative role model. Women are utilised as commodities, sometimes just parts of them, other times their entire bodies, always "sexy" and what the culture wants us to think is the most attractive. Women are compared to inanimate objects or used as a replacement for them. Red carpet appearances are all about what people are wearing, not what they were in or how well they did. Men will frequently refer to women as being overweight, unattractive, or offensive in arguments rather than discussing their points of view. Women are almost taught from birth that our looks is the most significant quality we possess and that attracting a man's attention is essential. Dehumanization of women as a possession; if you drive a nice automobile or have good beard trimmers, women will come running to you because they can't help it. This contributes significantly to men's sex entitlement and the rape culture's view of women as property to be possessed and used as sexual objects. Men are undoubtedly beautiful to both women and men, and yes, you can find photographs of half-naked males everywhere, but as another response here points out, we're talking about generations of women who have been treated more like possessions and objects of desire than actual persons. Women are also designated as the sexuality's gatekeepers because we all know that men are incapable of self-control (sarcasm there). So if they wear attractive clothing, they are whores; if they wear conservative clothing, they are cold. When they engage in sexual activity, they undermine society's moral fabric, and when they refrain from doing so, they prevent males from meeting their basic needs. It is quite tiring to go through everything because there are so many levels, and I do believe that things are changing, even though I believe they are moving very slowly. An essential development is the recognition of women's sexuality. The men who are pointing out men in books and other places obviously don't understand the concept of objectification because, while there may be a hit picture of a guy, there is also an entire book describing the character—who is probably dark and brooding—and his backstory, as well as how awesome he is in bed. It is more than just a pair of abs next to a prosecco bottle. This isn’t an individual phenomenon. It’s a complete social construct Humans are sexual creatures. with hardly any unique outliers. Everybody has a sexual need. All of us are sexual. Everyone expresses it differently, and our own sexuality has a direct impact on how we view the sexuality of others. As a result, men and women are not fundamentally different. I think, at least. "Man sexuality" and "woman sexuality" do not exist. I think that the patterns we observe are socially constructed and supported by society. We end up with the notion that women do not have sexual agency and men do not have sexual control in a society where males are dominant and have sexual agency and women are sexual objects to be acted upon. For thousands of years, we have all been subjected to and perpetuated this regrettable and wholly inaccurate stereotype. Thousands. It is so commonplace. According to this misconception, men's sexual aggression is caused by the fact that women exist. Do some men genuinely act sexually violently? Sure. Individual differences. But, these men have been brainwashed to believe they have no control and that the reason they feel and act this way is because of women. This is (or was until recently) a practical method of exerting control. Men can control themselves if they can control the women. Women become the scapegoats for issues when we are unable to fully manage them, which happens naturally when you try to force individuals. Since men are reluctant to change, it is simpler to sexualize women and hold them responsible for the actions of men. Media giving women a tough time Although both genders are sexualized in real life, the media has a bias towards sexualizing women, and the rare occasions that we witness sexualizing men, it is still directed at men, as in "how to pull more chicks." The Sex-act and how to increase it appeal to our most basic desires to reproduce or simply have a little "activity." One must acknowledge that there are significantly more options offered to women in an effort to increase their attractiveness to men, including size, colour, and the amount of what is exposed (Corr! Observe those ankles!) Men's clothing has very socially constrained options, and the woefully out-of-date suit and tie is simply plain dull and robotic. It appears that "work wear," as in a trade-based uniform, is the only meaningful trend for males. It almost seems as though males are supposed to hide any sign of sexuality. The advertising demographic for women has not advanced from the 1950s, when women controlled the home and the husband was the 9–5 wage earner. Women have a much wider selection of evening wear options since they are still sexualized for the advantage of males. Prior to being targeted by razor manufacturers in an effort to increase blade sales, women never shaved any regions of their bodies. The model for the Mona Lisa had hairy armpits and legs, you can bet. Women shaving off their eyebrows at the time was merely a weird fashion trend. I'm not sure why, though. However, men are beginning to be sexualised in the same way Advertising is now beginning to sexualize guys in the same way that it has done to women by oversaturating the market with unattainable ideals. Again, having a hairy chest was formerly considered attractive. Men are now waxing their backs, chests, and other regions that I won't go into here. We're talking about a sector that, until quite recently, was dominated by men. When Ita Buttrose was able to take over the leadership of a women's magazine (Cleo—1972), she changed the Australian media. She had been competing in the industry on an equal footing with males up until that point, so creating this magazine was a big accomplishment for someone without the support of "equal rights" organizations. The center-folds were neither titillating nor erotic, and the majority of the men that were chosen had quite standard physiques. Unlike trashy publications like Cosmo, Cleo aimed to speak directly to women's difficulties in a brazen and irreverent way. Writings about the period of the month were frank and honest without reservation (much like the majority of my Quora answers). It was bringing common women out of the shadows and into the open, not sexualizing males. Today, publications like Men's Health and Hot promote unreasonable expectations for the ordinary man to achieve while simultaneously sexualizing males in a similar way to how women have been in the past. Sex is a commodity that historically has been sold by men. In the modern world, such sex can be homophobic or outright gay. In the animal kingdom, the male is typically aggressively sexualized to entice a female partner, as seen, for example, in peacocks with their stunning variety of colourful feathers as opposed to the rather plain-looking peahen. All of the croaking by frogs is done by the males to entice a female. Ultrasonic mosquito repellents imitate the high-pitched sound that even male mosquitoes make to lure female mates in an effort to deter impregnated females from biting. Quite why the patriarchal system inverted sexualization, I can’t properly explain, but I don’t like seeing women in ridiculously high heels because it’s a short term danger to the ankles and a long term danger to posture in general. As far as the sexualization of men is concerned, I would rather have an ‘average’ body in jeans and t-shirt. The contemporary trend toward gym-junkie doesn’t work for me either. I think you will find that the unrealistic objectification of both sexes is going to be the next phase in Western society. I'm not sure why the patriarchal system inverted sexualization, but I don't like seeing women wearing very high heels since they put their ankles at risk in the short term and their posture in the long run. In terms of sexualization of men, I would like to have an "average" body wearing jeans and a t-shirt. I also don't like the current tendency towards gym-junkies. The unrealistic objectification of both sexes will, in my opinion, be the next stage in Western culture.

Introduction Seeing or treating someone as an object, typically a woman, is known as objectification. The practise of treating a person only as a sexual object is known as sexual objectification. In a broader sense, objectification refers to treating someone like a commodity or an item without taking into account their personality or dignity. Although objectification, a form of dehumanisation, is most frequently studied at the level of a community, it can also relate to an individual's actions. Although both men and women can be sexually objectified, the term is typically used to refer to the objectification of women. It is a key notion in numerous feminist theories and psychological theories that are based on these theories. Several feminists contend that the sexual objectification of women and girls contributes to gender inequity, and numerous psychologists link objectification to a variety of risks to women's physical and mental health. According to research, objectification of men has psychological consequences similar to those on women and can make men feel self-conscious about their bodies. The idea of sexual objectification is debatable, and some feminists and psychologists have asserted that objectification—at least to some extent—is a natural aspect of human sexuality. Martha Nussbaum has identified seven features that are involved in the idea of treating a person as an object: Instrumentality: The treatment of a person as a tool for the objectfiers purposes. Denial of Autonomy: The treatment of a person as lacking in autonomy and self determination. Inertness: The treatment of a person as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity. Fungibility: The treatment of a person as interchangeable with other objects. Ownership: The treatment of a person as something that is owned by another (can be sold and bought by other's) Violability: The treatment of a person as lacking in boundary integrity. Denial of Subjectivity: The treatment of a person as something whose experience and feelings need not be taken into account. Objectification of Women by: Emmanuel Kant, MacKinnon and Dworkin, Bartky, and Haslanger: According to Emmanuel Kant: As soon as a person becomes an object of appetite for another, all moral relationship motives stop working because as an object of appetite for another, a person becomes a thing and can be treated and used as such by everyone. Sexual love turns the loved one into an object of appetite; once that appetite is stilled, the person is cast aside like one casts aside a lemon that has been sucked dry. These scholars also covered a wide range of topics, such as cruelty, injustice, prostitution, concubinage, physical appearance, and many others. According to Haslanger: When it comes to women's sexual objectification by men, the above conditions are: men view and treat women as objects of male sexual desire men desire women to be submissive and object-like and forced to submit. men believe that women are in fact submissive and object-like by nature. Let’s see what scholars have to say: Views on Objectification Although the idea of sexual objectification is crucial to feminist theory, opinions on what exactly defines it and the ethical ramifications of such objectification are very diverse. The idea of physical appeal is problematic in and of itself, according to some feminists like Naomi Wolf, with some extreme feminists opposing any assessment of another person's sexual attractiveness based on physical traits. John Stoltenberg even goes so far as to say that any sexual desire that entails visualising a woman is unjustly objectifying. According to radical feminists, objectification is a key factor in relegating women to the "oppressed sex class" that they refer to. While some feminists perceive the media as objectifying in countries they claim to be patriarchal, they frequently highlight pornography as having a particularly heinous role in men's habitual objectification of women. The television and film industries are frequently accused of normalising the sexual objectification of women by pro-feminist cultural critics like Robert Jensen and Sut Jhally. These critics accuse mass media and advertising of promoting the objectification of women in order to help promote goods and services. According to individualist feminist Wendy McElroy, the term "objectification" of women, which refers to turning them into sexual objects, is useless because, when taken literally, the term "sexual objects" implies nothing because inanimate objects lack sexuality. She goes on to say that because women are both their bodies and their minds and souls, concentrating on just one of these aspects is not "degrading." Criticizing the feminist support Wendy Kaminer, a feminist author, attacked feminist support for anti-pornography laws, contending that such restrictions infantalize women and that pornography does not contribute to sexual assault. She has remarked that despite their severe disagreements on almost everything else, radical feminists frequently join forces with the Christian right to promote these regulations and oppose the portrayal of sex in popular culture. Similar objections have been raised by Nadine Strossen and Nan D. Hunter, two of her ACLU colleagues. According to Strossen, objectification may even satisfy women's own dreams rather from being inherently degrading. Nigel Barber, a psychologist, contends that this focus on the physical attractiveness of people of the other sex (or, in the case of gays and lesbians, those of the same sex) is a natural tendency for men and, to a lesser extent, for women, and that this tendency has often been mistaken for sexism. CONCLUSION There is nothing wrong with acknowledging a person's sexual or, as you pointed out in your case, professional roles (getting things done). Yet, the issue occurs when we view these people only as useful tools. When we sexually objectify people, we turn them into a masturbatory aid. They are only there for your sexual gratification. On the one hand, this minimises people's individuality to one convenience they have for us, which flies in the face of the complexity of human identity. Contrarily, well-known philosophical schools like deontology argue that we should never use another person as a tool to achieve our goals and that people have worth that goes beyond what they can do for us.