I think it all hinges on how you define "objectification" and on whether it is something practiced exclusively by men ....

I believe that one of the key reasons why a man will hate women is because of the power they seem to hold over him as sexual objects of desire. — _db

A man who can be thusly overpowered isn't much of a man, then.

Oh sure, women can objectify, though that doesn't necessarily mean that objectification is natural. These women are female but living within the confines of a male-dominated culture, and they take on social roles that are manufactured by men for men. The question is: would these women objectify if they did not grow up in patriarchy? For that matter, would men objectify if they grew up outside of patriarchy?

I take objectification to mean the fixation/fetishization of the parts of a person's body and the ignoring of the person to whom this body belongs. Objectifying women == perceiving her as meat to be fucked in whatever way.

Personally, i have to beat them off with a stick; but I don't actually hate women at all. :cool:

@Tobias @Benkei

Please....if I go to bat I will likely get tossed out of here. :shade:

Personally, i have to beat them off with a stick; but I don't actually hate women at all. :cool: — unenlightened

My mentor, my sage, you are the essence of a gentleman. :flower:

The reason why people hate one another are myriad. One I've witnessed first hand is envy. To some men, women coast through life. They don't appear to have to handle real hardship. Courtship seems easy when men approach them all the time. Women are allowed to act a certain way that men cannot.

Of course, this is usually a narrow view based more on the man themselves than the women. This hate and anger can also easily manifest itself with other men. If I had to guess why women are abused more, it is because they are physically weaker, and hormonally less prone to direct confrontation. Women are unable to win, or let men win more in direct conflicts. I don't think its necessarily that men don't get into as many direct conflicts, its that most men are unwilling to let the other side win. Because victories are not easy, and defeat stings much more in a hard fought loss, men are less willing to directly confront other men who show they would not be easy.

I take objectification to mean the fixation/fetishization of the parts of a person's body and the ignoring of the person to whom this body belongs. Objectifying women == perceiving her as meat to be fucked in whatever way. — _db

Is someone teaching this to males??? If so, show me to your leader... :angry:

Oh sure, women can objectify, though that doesn't necessarily mean that objectification is natural. — _db

Well, I think animals in general have an innate tendency to regard other animals as objects to (1) fuck, (2) eat, or (3) run away from. :smile:

Of course, one could put a Marxist-Feminist spin on it if one really wanted to, but I for one am not particularly convinced, to be honest ....

Is this projection, or does some poll or study suggest any of this is true?

I believe that one of the key reasons why a man will hate women is because of the power they seem to hold over him as sexual objects of desire. A woman can make a man want (to possess) her and yet also deny him access to her, thereby frustrating his desire. Women are perceived to be intentionally taunting men with their bodies, like a carrot on a stick, and men resent this. Hence why men often see sex as a form of conquest, in which a woman is finally dominated and put in her place. Sex is a form of revenge for these men. However, this very thing that men hate women for doing to them (manipulating their sexual desires) is itself often a form of revenge on men by women, who resent men for objectifying them. — _db

This gets my vote as the creepiest post of the year.

Yeah it is creepy for sure

I mean, do you disagree?

Of course, this is usually a narrow view based more on the man themselves than the women. — Philosophim

:up:

I don't think we should be wasting our time on such a reductionist view on gender relations.

What alternative views do you suggest?

I do disagree. By virtue of physics, a woman cannot make a man want to do anything, let alone possess her.

What?

I believe that one of the key reasons why a man will hate women is because of the power they seem to hold over him as sexual objects of desire. — _db

Sometimes, in order to commit or threaten violence against someone a perpetrator needs to first be persuaded that the victim deserves it. They are said to have "asked for it", as the saying goes, as if a violent act against another person is a kind of polite concession. The instinct for justice is so strong that the perpetrator cannot live with himself having committed such a wrong. So women in general, or one woman in particular, are first given the blame to carry. When she has learned to shoulder that with patience she is given the punishment, either in terms of continual resentment and implied aggression or in actual violence. The roots of violence in the psyche of the perpetrator are thereby ignored, all attention now focussing on the victim and what she "must have done" to provoke the response. This is all neatly summed up in the expression 'victim-blaming'.

this very thing that men hate women for doing to them (manipulating their sexual desires) is itself often a form of revenge on men by women.....women take revenge on men by frustrating the sexual desires of men -> — _db

"Being sexually attractive and unavailable" is here framed as a wrong perpetrated by a woman against a man, as if failing to make ourselves sexually available to all who desire us is a dereliction of duty. The implied duty is to make one's body available on demand. The consequence of failure to comply is that

-> men take revenge on women by raping them — _db

I think the OP accurately tracks the thought process of victim-blaming and justification of rape but seems worryingly uncritical of it.

I think the OP accurately tracks the thought process of victim-blaming and justification of rape but seems worryingly uncritical of it. — Cuthbert

In what way do I seem uncritical of it? The purpose of this post was to expose and discuss the bullshit rape culture and women hate that men participate in and perpetuate.

Excellent post, btw.

Men objectify women -> women resent this objectification -> women take revenge on men by frustrating the sexual desires of men -> men resent this frustration -> men take revenge on women by raping them, or raping surrogates via porn. — _db

That assumes a whole lot of intentionality. I doubt such intentionality is there at all.

Sometimes, in order to commit or threaten violence against someone a perpetrator needs to first be persuaded that the victim deserves it. They are said to have "asked for it", as the saying goes, as if a violent act against another person is a kind of polite concession. The instinct for justice is so strong that the perpetrator cannot live with himself having committed such a wrong. — Cuthbert

Indeed, in criminology this is called rationalization of criminal behavior by the perpetrator

The roots of violence in the psyche of the perpetrator are thereby ignored, all attention now focussing on the victim and what she "must have done" to provoke the response. This is all neatly summed up in the expression 'victim-blaming'. — Cuthbert

What is worrying too is that this gaze tends to become internalized. Even for the person being oppressed by violence it becomes a way to sustain the illusion of control by 'blaming' your own behavior. It gives the victim an illusory restoration of control and influence. The wickedness of (sexual) violence also lays in the feelings of self doubt it provokes in the victim. It renders them powerless and self blame is a psychological mechanism to restore the illusion of control.

That assumes a whole lot of intentionality. I doubt such intentionality is there at all. — Tobias

I doubt it's overtly conscious, but I would say it is likely that this or similar thought processes are going on subconsciously, and we occasionally get glimmers of them when we think about the reasons behind sexual anti-social behavior.

In Intercourse, Andrea Dworkin remarks:

For women, according to the killer/husband, virginity is the highest state, an ideal; and a fall from viriginity is a fall into trivialization, into being used as a thing; one dresses up to be the thing; one does not have a full humanity but must conform to the rituals and conventions of debasement as a sexual object. But the reduction of humanity into being an object for sex carries with it the power to dominate men because men want the object and the sex. The rage against women as a group is particularly located here: women manipulate men by manipulating man's sexual desire; these trivial, mediocre things (women) have real power over men through sex.

[...]

This dominance of men by women is experienced by the men as real - emotionally real, sexually real, psychologically real; it emerges as the reason for the wrath of the misogynist.

[...]

[the killer/husband[ sees that powerlessness generates revenge, and revenge is what women accomplish in the sensuality he experiences as their dominance, his powerlessness.

[...]

'so it is with women: [...] 'Ah, you want us to be merely objects of sensuality - all right, as objects of sensuality we will enslave you.' — Dworkin, "Intercourse"

What Dworkin says here is basically what I outlined in the initial post of this thread.

i have to beat them off with a stick — unenlightened

:lol: Lucky you!

What I find interesting is how the logic of (some kinds of) misogyny work(s).

---

Ms. Penny (a woman), Mrs. Carr (a woman), Dame Lena (another woman) treat me badly. I hurt, it's not justified, in fact it's completely gratuitous - the insults, the beatings, etc. :smile:

THEREFORE

All women are bad.

I hate ALL women i.e. I'm now a misogynist.

---

Is this a statistical argument, with Ms. Penny, Mrs. Carr, and Dame Lena being my sample?

I believe that one of the key reasons why a man will hate women is because of the power they seem to hold over him as sexual objects of desire. A woman can make a man want (to possess) her and yet also deny him access to her, thereby frustrating his desire. Women are perceived to be intentionally taunting men with their bodies, like a carrot on a stick, and men resent this. Hence why men often see sex as a form of conquest, in which a woman is finally dominated and put in her place. Sex is a form of revenge for these men. However, this very thing that men hate women for doing to them (manipulating their sexual desires) is itself often a form of revenge on men by women, who resent men for objectifying them. — _db

The main delusions here are that a man is the central, rational subject of a chaotic reality - and women have subjective intention ONLY in relation to him. This assumption gives the false impression that a woman’s actions are determined in a necessary relation to men. Men who delude themselves that their own intentions are entirely rational, maintain this delusion by projecting all their fears and desires onto the world as external ‘forces’ against his rationality. A man acts on his reasoning, but a woman acts on her relation to a man’s desires? Nope. It is too common a misconception that a woman chooses (or should choose) her action, clothing, etc as a direct and intentional response to the fears and desires of the men around her. So when a woman acts contrary to his desires, or fails to allay his fears, she presents as a chaotic force to be subdued by his efforts.

Is it too much to recognise that both men and women act on AFFECT, translated from reasoning and inclusive of fears and desires? The fact that a woman may be sufficiently self-aware to NOT feel the need to appear rationally unaffected does not give men permission to do so - a man’s fears or desires are NOT a woman’s manipulation, responsibility, or fault. His inability or unwillingness to reason amidst his own fears or desires has nothing at all to do with women.

It is too common a misconception that a woman chooses (or should choose) her action, clothing, etc as a direct and intentional response to the fears and desires of the men around her. So when a woman acts contrary to his desires, or fails to allay his fears, she presents as a chaotic force to be subdued by his efforts. — Possibility

Yeah it's an all-too-common phenomenon that women are physically abused by men for not conforming to the expectations projected upon them by men. If you don't see women as people with intentions of their own then when they seem to express these intentions, they must be violently put back in their place.

The fact that a woman may be sufficiently self-aware to NOT feel the need to appear rationally unaffected does not give men permission to do so — Possibility

Sorry, I didn't follow this, can you explain a bit more?

His inability or unwillingness to reason amidst his own fears or desires has nothing at all to do with women — Possibility

:up:

Refer to Bill Burr on reasons to hit a woman (comedy but it does highlight a problem). Is it naive to assume it is all about sexual domination as women can, and do, objectify men just as much as men objectify women - physically, dues to social status and intellect too.

Women are equally as delusional too when it comes to projecting their desires on others. Anyone who has been in a relationship knows this is not really about men or women it is about some people having certain expectations and then being met with reality.

I remember someone talking a while back (maybe a good few years ago now?) about romanticism being a blight on modern sensibilities. Romance in the terms of ‘knight in shining armour’ and the ‘happily ever after’ mindset. I didn’t agree with it over all but there were some good points to consider that may have had an adverse effect on western society at large.

I my personal experience of outside of western spheres of influence there is a much more pragmatic attitude towards marriage and relationships. In one way (I admit) it seems more archaic to me, but in others I can see that there are bonuses.

Refer to Bill Burr on reasons to hit a woman (comedy but it does highlight a problem). Is it naive to assume it is all about sexual domination as women can, and do, objectify men just as much as men objectify women - physically, dues to social status and intellect too. — I like sushi

That's like saying it is naive to assume it is all about racist white supremacy because there are some black people who hate white people. :yawn:

That Bill Burr "comedy" was stupid and depended entirely on a strawman. Is his point - and is it your point - that battered women are complicit in being battered? "Now I'm not saying the man should have hit her buuuuuuuut she had it coming...wHy cAnT wE aSk AnY qUeStiOns????" I mean come on that's just bullshit.