A question that is doing the rounds in feminist circles nowadays is that do men get objectified just like women do, especially with feminism clearly addressing issues of misogyny and traditional patriarchy. The answer is yes.
Sexual objectification can be defined as the the viewing of human beings as a sum total of their body parts with no regard to their personalities or feelings.
Sexual objectification has made one person the subject and another person the object. In heterosexual relationships man is the subject and woman the object.
Sexual objectification gives one person the freedom to choose what they want sexually and another person to live upto their standards.
Sexual objectification in our culture
Sexual objectification has a status quo attached to it, which has always made woman the subject and this thinking is so deeply ingrained in our culture that items songs and sexual nudity with scantily clad actresses has been used to sell movies to a male audience or female models have been presented as objects to sell products used by men. The target here is the sensuality of a man who will be attracted to the female objectification and will buy the product.
Bollywood has successfully objectified women in movies, by making its women actors expose their midriffs, cleavages and legs which had garish impolite lyrics that was offensive and had pornographic undertones to it . Most women actors, as opposed to the era of seventies and eighties are things put on the screen, to be devoured by the eyes and the senses of a sexually repressed clan of men. This feminists argue has contributed to a generation of men who consider women as things they can devour on. Indeed sexual objectification of women runs the advertising industry and has sold thousands of products by effectively dehumanizing women.
Even in everyday life, girls are asked to cover up to avoid distracting their male friends which the people on authority think will create unsafe circumstances for the girls and can't be controlled by imposing stricter rules or gender conditioning.
Objectification and catering to the male gaze
They say if one day women were to turn the tables on men, the world will turn upside down.
Yesterday was another experience. Yesterday while walking into the MGF Metropolitan mall, Gurgaon, I saw an almost nude cutout of a man, in a checked pair of shorts adorning the advertising board. Usually, what I see are blonde models selling a brand of fragrance or a shy Indian model selling an Indian brand of clothing. This ad left me thinking as to can men be objectified?
Cuts outs of human beings whether men or women with attention zooming in on their body parts is problematic in public places which are often also visited by young children. This may lead them to be introduced to sexual objectification at a young age which may harm them psychologically and emotionally.
A few days ago as I was walking into a gurgaon mall I saw huge billboard with a semi-nude picture of a man in a checked pair of shorts. The gigantic hoarding reminded me of another poster I had seen in Mumbai of a young model selling lingerie.
The difference between both the posters perhaps is that some women may say it's ok to objectify men because men don't live to cater and please to the female gaze while women do, which can be defined as how much male attention she receives and how much men want to fuck her. It would be true to say that men haven't experienced systemic objectification like women who live within a suppressive social structure where everyday is a tough call.
Martha Nussbaum (1995, 257) 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 objectifier's 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;
violability: the treatment of a person as lacking in boundary-integrity;
ownership: the treatment of a person as something that is owned by another (can be bought or sold);
denial of subjectivity: the treatment of a person as something whose experiences and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account.
Rae Langton (2009, 228–229) has added three more features to Nussbaum's list:
reduction to body: the treatment of a person as identified with their body, or body parts;
reduction to appearance: the treatment of a person primarily in terms of how they look, or how they appear to the senses;
silencing: the treatment of a person as if they are silent, lacking the capacity to speak.
Is sexual objectification of human beings, whether man or woman can be called fair?
Misogyny can be defined as the hatred of women but over the years, it has robbed the woman of her thoughts, feelings and rights that she should enjoy as a human being. Misogyny has belittled a woman stooping down to such levels that her opinions aren't important anymore.
Media outlets have run down on men for their appearances by displaying their nude bodies to feed a business model, it hasn't been used against them in their professional sphere or deny them a promotion. If Deepika Padukone had lambasted a leading daily for talking about her cleavage, then isn't it equally disturbing when half-nude pictures of John Abraham or Milind Soman are displayed on hoardings or newspapers calling them "greek gods" and "hotties"? Brands like old spice, Amul Macho and Fair and Lovely have hypersexualized men to sell their products, but hey we were ok with it, since this didn't rob men of their humanity or agency.
Objectifying any human body isn't progress, man or woman. This is not the kind of equality we are vying for. Indulging in male eye candy can be called retaliation against the misogynistic hatred and inhuman objectification of women especially in popular culture. Who can forget the demeaning songs in Bollywood like "Mere photo ko sine se yaar chipka de zara fevicol se" or "Sheela ki jawani" which didn't carry the storyline of a movie but had to be inserted distastefully to cater to the male gaze. The actresses who danced to these songs did it with their consent but it has brought a indelible dent in the fight against sexual objectification of women and their body parts.
This may not be the case with male objectification which doesn't deny them choices or can be called reverse sexism.
Sexual objectification is intertwined in our culture and it would be unfair to say that men have to face it as much as women. But when we have to talk of equal opportunity gender equality objectification is not the solution.
When women objectify men it displays a disturbing pattern of sexist behaviour by strengthening the ideals of masculinity which have led to the objectification and explicit abuse of women by the media. This has thus led to a climate of oppressive inequality. Thus turning the tables on men is not the solution if we have to achieve fairness and justness academically, socially, economically and sexually. Repaying evil for evil is thoughtless and unjustified since human bodies whether that of a man or woman have rights that get robbed of, if they are objectified and never will it lead us even to the neighbourhood of equal playing field.
Original link
Sexual objectification can be defined as the the viewing of human beings as a sum total of their body parts with no regard to their personalities or feelings.
Sexual objectification has made one person the subject and another person the object. In heterosexual relationships man is the subject and woman the object.
Sexual objectification gives one person the freedom to choose what they want sexually and another person to live upto their standards.
Sexual objectification in our culture
Sexual objectification has a status quo attached to it, which has always made woman the subject and this thinking is so deeply ingrained in our culture that items songs and sexual nudity with scantily clad actresses has been used to sell movies to a male audience or female models have been presented as objects to sell products used by men. The target here is the sensuality of a man who will be attracted to the female objectification and will buy the product.
Bollywood has successfully objectified women in movies, by making its women actors expose their midriffs, cleavages and legs which had garish impolite lyrics that was offensive and had pornographic undertones to it . Most women actors, as opposed to the era of seventies and eighties are things put on the screen, to be devoured by the eyes and the senses of a sexually repressed clan of men. This feminists argue has contributed to a generation of men who consider women as things they can devour on. Indeed sexual objectification of women runs the advertising industry and has sold thousands of products by effectively dehumanizing women.
Even in everyday life, girls are asked to cover up to avoid distracting their male friends which the people on authority think will create unsafe circumstances for the girls and can't be controlled by imposing stricter rules or gender conditioning.
Objectification and catering to the male gaze
They say if one day women were to turn the tables on men, the world will turn upside down.
Yesterday was another experience. Yesterday while walking into the MGF Metropolitan mall, Gurgaon, I saw an almost nude cutout of a man, in a checked pair of shorts adorning the advertising board. Usually, what I see are blonde models selling a brand of fragrance or a shy Indian model selling an Indian brand of clothing. This ad left me thinking as to can men be objectified?
Cuts outs of human beings whether men or women with attention zooming in on their body parts is problematic in public places which are often also visited by young children. This may lead them to be introduced to sexual objectification at a young age which may harm them psychologically and emotionally.
A few days ago as I was walking into a gurgaon mall I saw huge billboard with a semi-nude picture of a man in a checked pair of shorts. The gigantic hoarding reminded me of another poster I had seen in Mumbai of a young model selling lingerie.
The difference between both the posters perhaps is that some women may say it's ok to objectify men because men don't live to cater and please to the female gaze while women do, which can be defined as how much male attention she receives and how much men want to fuck her. It would be true to say that men haven't experienced systemic objectification like women who live within a suppressive social structure where everyday is a tough call.
Martha Nussbaum (1995, 257) 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 objectifier's 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;
violability: the treatment of a person as lacking in boundary-integrity;
ownership: the treatment of a person as something that is owned by another (can be bought or sold);
denial of subjectivity: the treatment of a person as something whose experiences and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account.
Rae Langton (2009, 228–229) has added three more features to Nussbaum's list:
reduction to body: the treatment of a person as identified with their body, or body parts;
reduction to appearance: the treatment of a person primarily in terms of how they look, or how they appear to the senses;
silencing: the treatment of a person as if they are silent, lacking the capacity to speak.
Is sexual objectification of human beings, whether man or woman can be called fair?
Misogyny can be defined as the hatred of women but over the years, it has robbed the woman of her thoughts, feelings and rights that she should enjoy as a human being. Misogyny has belittled a woman stooping down to such levels that her opinions aren't important anymore.
Media outlets have run down on men for their appearances by displaying their nude bodies to feed a business model, it hasn't been used against them in their professional sphere or deny them a promotion. If Deepika Padukone had lambasted a leading daily for talking about her cleavage, then isn't it equally disturbing when half-nude pictures of John Abraham or Milind Soman are displayed on hoardings or newspapers calling them "greek gods" and "hotties"? Brands like old spice, Amul Macho and Fair and Lovely have hypersexualized men to sell their products, but hey we were ok with it, since this didn't rob men of their humanity or agency.
Objectifying any human body isn't progress, man or woman. This is not the kind of equality we are vying for. Indulging in male eye candy can be called retaliation against the misogynistic hatred and inhuman objectification of women especially in popular culture. Who can forget the demeaning songs in Bollywood like "Mere photo ko sine se yaar chipka de zara fevicol se" or "Sheela ki jawani" which didn't carry the storyline of a movie but had to be inserted distastefully to cater to the male gaze. The actresses who danced to these songs did it with their consent but it has brought a indelible dent in the fight against sexual objectification of women and their body parts.
This may not be the case with male objectification which doesn't deny them choices or can be called reverse sexism.
Sexual objectification is intertwined in our culture and it would be unfair to say that men have to face it as much as women. But when we have to talk of equal opportunity gender equality objectification is not the solution.
When women objectify men it displays a disturbing pattern of sexist behaviour by strengthening the ideals of masculinity which have led to the objectification and explicit abuse of women by the media. This has thus led to a climate of oppressive inequality. Thus turning the tables on men is not the solution if we have to achieve fairness and justness academically, socially, economically and sexually. Repaying evil for evil is thoughtless and unjustified since human bodies whether that of a man or woman have rights that get robbed of, if they are objectified and never will it lead us even to the neighbourhood of equal playing field.
Original link
Sign in to leave a comment.