Treating women as objects: What does this mean?

Post Reply New Topic

I hope you will understand, first of all, that by asking this question I'm taking female criticism very seriously and giving it consideration in my day-to-day actions. It will be nice if I can make ends meet with the opposite sex so that neither of us will be angry with the other.

"Treating women as objects," "sex objects," and "sexualizing women" are all vague and scary phrases to me. It doesn't give me any exact impression of what it is that you (women) don't want me to do. Sure, you can give specific examples, and that's fine. What I really want is to understand the meanings of these phrases and possibly come to a conclusion about what makes these acts what they are.

I don't want you to be too mad, but lately I've been a little paranoid about this. From my point of view, it seems like you might be stigmatizing men who are less able to achieve an actual relationship and rely instead on other resources to fulfill their desires in the absence of a live partner. You are free to tell me however you feel about this, though I hope you'll give some consideration to my feelings on this issue.

Thank you for asking such an important question, MikeH106. And as you read through the answers here, remember the women know, and the men that answer only know what they have been taught, either by however they get their information, or how they interpret their personal experiences.

Here is mine!

When her physical body is all you connect with, and you couldn't care less about her emotions, mind, feelings thoughts and opinions, hopes and dreams , her peopleness, then you are seeing her as an sexual object there to satisfy your physical needs.

When she is there just to cook and clean, launder and shop and keep your house functioning and culture or relationship makes any sexual feeling abhorrent to you, and her emotions, mind, feelings thoughts and opinions, hopes and dreams , her peopleness isn't considered necessary to the relationship, then she is an object to you.

So I guess, if you could pay her as a professional sex worker, housekeeper, care taker and feel the same way as if you were dating, married or some parental relationship with her then you are using her as an object. Like a washing machine or a dishwasher.

I hope you get great answers, MikeH106. what a great question!

Merle

It's a generalized term that means some men tend to treat women only as a means for sex.
-They date them only to sleep with them.
-They look at them only to gaze at their boobs instead of their face.
-They don't care what they have to say, they are only interested in getting laid

In other words, everything they say and do has the ultimate goal of having sex with them. That can be hurtful to a woman.

With that said, it shouldn't make a guy scared to talk to women. It's natural for a guy to want sex but if a guy is sincere and means what he says, listens to the woman, tries to give her what she needs, that's a step in the right direction. If you make her feel like a princess, she will give you everything she can.

Does that help?

You can see women portrayed as objects every day on television commercials when they are presented as adornments to a male and are not distinguished as apart from other trappings of success like a cool car. The very phrase "wine,women and song" irks me but I pretty much don't go on about it. Wine and song are not human souls. I say that knowing some women play right into it. There's a line in an old song-" You take Debbie, I'll take Sue, roll them over and it's all the same to you." So many people have listened to this systemic de-humanization that they don't notice it anymore. Thank you for asking MikeH106.

I think this is a difficult thing do differentiate for an aspie, since most aspies have some trouble recognizing other people in general as people. It has to do with being able to connect on a human level.. which is kinda the problem that brings us all to WP to begin with. Probably a lot of aspie guys are totally mystified by this since people in general are such a difficult interaction. There's a main point I'm trying to make here but it's just not quite coming out right.. Like Merle said, it's about seeing her "peopleness." *sigh* I guess this is something only an aspie could have quite this much trouble putting into words.. or even conceptualizing.

It seems as though many see women as a gender only and forget they are people. This can be so even if they treat women quite well and have a good opinion of them. They think of them as woman first, person second (if ever). A few see women as mysterious, special beings, not people, and also forget the diversity there, making broad generalizations.

Last edited by outlier on 11 Jul 2009, 12:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thank you for your responses so far.

I just want to remark that I've rejected my diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome due partly to the fact that all its DSM criteria are opinionated. I also feel somewhat on the defensive about a remark that people with AS have more trouble noticing what 'treating women like objects' amounts to. In fact, it would hurt my feelings if I were just told, "It's something you don't know how to do well."

But I hope you will continue to share your thoughts. I really want to learn more about what women like and don't like to see in men.

Edit: Made a few changes.

I just had a look at the Wikipedia article on sexual objectification. The main theme appears to be the 'separation' of the mind and personality from the body and its sex organs. What I'm curious to know is: how do you make the judgment that this separation has been attempted?

Say a woman is depicted on television in highly revealing clothing. Sure, she's on TV, and she's wearing next-to-nothing, but who's to say her mind and personality have disappeared from the scene? Can't she be herself, and be sexual at the same time?

Say I glance at a woman and notice an attractive quality, just for a few seconds. Have I treated her as an object if I look at the wrong place? If so, how have I separated the rest of her personality from her body in my decision? Even if I glance, I know all along that she has a personality -- I respect that.

I don't mean to offend anyone. I just want to understand if and why any of my day-to-day actions are instances of objectification.

Its OK to recognize an attractive quality in a person (woman, man or other). But the way you can tell if you are treating the person as an "object" would be what you focus on when you get to know her. If all you focus on or like is her body (or just certain parts of it) or what she can do for you (sexually, household work, providing money, etc.) than you have a problem. A single glance and recognizing an attractive quality is just human nature (for the sexual I would assume). As long as you can see who she is and like her personality, and have that (her personality, dreams, etc.) be the most important thing, than I think you are fine.

Good question (I wish more men/teenage guys would ask that) !

Many books and articles have been written trying to figure out where to draw the line when a woman is depicted sexually on TV or in movies. It comes up all the time in movie reviews, too. Reviews of the latest Transformers movie have come to the conclusion that Megan Fox is indeed being objectified in pretty much every single scene she appears in. But the equally sexual depiction of Angelina Jolie in the Tomb Raider movies don't objectify her (not in my opinion or reviews I read) because she was the protagonist with a fully realized personality and not just a pretty thing bouncing along like in Transformers. Sometimes it's an easy call (Transformers) but sometimes it's a tough call. I would say one way to tell in movies or TV is to see if the character played by the sexy woman is an actual person or just something for the hero to make quips at and have sex with (or attempt to, depending on whether it's PG13 or R).

In your own personal life? Noticing sexiness/attractiveness isn't objectification. Objectification happens when you see the woman as more of an object than a fellow human. If she's a person you find attractive, that's not objectifying. But if you mentally put her in some sort of category (like "shallow but hot, I'd do her"), that's objectifying.

Clear as mud. Other posters spelled it out better. I just thought I'd throw in a couple movie examples since that has so many examples of both objectifying and not objectifying. A woman being sexual on her own terms is not objectified. (Angelina Jolie in the Tomb Raider movies.) A woman who is just there for men to drool over and has no say in her own sexuality is being objectified. (Megan Fox in Transformers.)

To me it means being with a woman only for her body or to have sex with and you aren't with her because you like who she is. Men will just be with the woman and they won't care how she feels or what she thinks because all they care about is her body and her looks and sex, nothing else. I think my ex saw me as an object because he talked about sex a lot and said things like "We need to pop that cherry" "Dillon wants to go inside you." (Dillon was the name of his penis) and he beg me to have sex but thank god I never gave in and when I told him I didn't want to have sex for a while because it was too hot outside and I don't like sticky skin so I want to wait till it cools down outside, he went right to his computer and spent his whole time on it ever since. That's an example there of treating women like an object.


So just be with a woman for her, not for sex or for her body or for her looks. If you enjoy being with her because you like how she treats you and how she respects you, you like her personbality, and you enjoy being with her, you aren't treating her like an object.

Here's a somewhat Kantian way of looking at it:

Treating women as objects: treating women as a means to an end (treating women a certain way in order to get things out of it like sex, happiness, and/or bragging rights)
Not treating women as objects: treating women as ends in themselves (showing good will to women for its own sake)

I thinks the traits of not considering a women has a person and not considering feelings is in part the fault of Political correctness that springs the rights movenment this is also the way of many people of ethnicty or creed,or illness. That was opressed,in the way that in the middle ages after the schism people on both sides each other has either a cathoic or a protestant and did not think of them as people only some to be crushed or contest.This same thing can be seen in america regarding african-american that we think of them as african americans before seeing them has people because we are trying not to offend them but in the process we offend them.It diffrent regarding women because for men they are object to sexual desire.I hope this explains it to at least how I understand it.This is problem that goes throughout human history so could very well factor into the human condition instead of a cultural problem.I hope I didn't offend anyone or break rules by typing the word Sexual.

It means using them for your own instant gratification and very little else.

are you suggesting that everything was just fine until political correctness came along and ruined it all?

Merle

No I am saying that the people are too set on what make us all different rather than the fact that there people with feelings and deserved to be treated as people and that politcal correctness only amplified this fixation on differance rather than realizing were all people and thus all equal.Though culture does play a factor has media geared towards men show sex has a goal to be atained rather than a natrual means of reproduction and the physical way to indiviuals show there love and trust in each other. I hope that one day all humans will put figure out that we are human before we are anything else to be equal and united hopefully in the future that will come to pass.

Alright, here's another interpretation:

Are you willing to clarify? What type of behavior does this amount to?