the girl who cried objectification

[Shaeroden]

this is an excerpt from my blog i've been sitting on for a while

preface: i will be using the terms “man” and “woman” in a general sense, though i understand that there are some exceptions, just like a horse by definition has 4 legs, but sometimes they are born with 3, however that doesn’t make that animal not-a-horse. so please, contain your exceptions until the end.

theory: the use of the word “objectification” (labeling) is a woman’s way of saying she feels uncomfortable in the face of the fact that a man is sexually attracted to her, or another woman. but instead of being honest about her own discomfort, she uses the term “objectification” to turn the blame on the man. just like how a priest uses the term “sin” to turn the blame on other people when his prophecies and predictions don’t come true. the words “sin” and “objectification” are nearly identical in practice because neither are rationally defined by an external method, and instead are used to absorb anything that the user feels uncomfortable in response to, and then masquerades this as a universally applicable concept, not a personal preference.

there is, of course, nothing wrong with being uncomfortable. i encourage everyone to speak up about things that make them uncomfortable, with the understanding that your discomfort does not generate an obligation in other people to cater to it.

what is wrong, however, is lying. claims of objectification are dishonest, because objectification is not defined by any objective standard, just like pejoratives. since there are no objective standards for detecting objectification, any claims of objectification are dishonest because no proof is possible until there are objective and testable hypothesis for determining the presence of objectification. for a better explanation of why it is a lie, see my article about the dishonesty of pejoratives.

so if claims of objectification are dishonest, what is the incentive for their use? here is a utilitarian cost-benefit analysis:

benefits:
1. causes man to feel moral dilemma over being attracted to a woman, thus pausing his pursuit. if he is a good man, he will take a while to process this moral dilemma, or he may disregard the claim, because he does not know what is meant by objectification.
2. woman eliminates what she believes to be the source of her discomfort in the short term.
3. woman discovers a short-term degree of power to mitigate the amount of attention she receives.

costs:
1. a good man will continue to be confused about whether or not his own attraction is objectification or not, possibly causing long-term harm to other romantic investments.
2. man associates the confusion with the woman, instead of the foggy concept of objectification.
3. the woman drives away good men who can detect this strategy. after this strategy is foiled, she must either invest in a new social group or a new strategy for mitigating male attention.

what are your thoughs?  

do you have anything to add or correct?

[Mister Mister]

I would also add that this is only half the picture.  Women are objectified based on their fertility, but men are objectified based on their utility, what they can DO for a woman.  The other part of it that people miss, is that objectification of women doesn't hurt the woman.  How many men have doted on a really hot woman, done many things for her, only to find months later, when the hormones wear off, that they are in a co-dependent relationship with someone they hate?

[Mister Mister]

I'm confused whether you're saying that entering into the codependent relationship was actually advantageous to the woman, but not the man? Or some other point I'm missing. Are men hurt by objectification based on utility? I don't know the answer; I'm curious to explore your thoughts on the subject.

 

Hrmmm, I guess I'm just saying it depends.  People can play this to their advantage, or they can suffer from it.   Also depends on if you look at the short-term or the long-term.  Relationships can be exploitative of either a man or a woman, but exploitative relationships are bad for everyone ultimately.  Of course the important thing is that we are honest about these things, and learning the science is incredibly liberating, instead of shaming one another with cries of "objectification".

 

What Stef has argued, which I think makes the most sense to me, is that we should choose partners based on virtue and compatible values, but of course the woman's fertility and the man's resources are going to be important factors.  But in the end, fucking a "10" gets old, and marrying a rich guy can't buy you happiness.  So really the issue is not about "objectification", but more about overcoming and seeing past the primitive biological urges, and building families on philosophical standards.