Thursday, 7 May 2015

Sexual Objectification - A Tool of the Feminist Patriarchy

Objectification, much like feminism, means whatever a feminist wants it to mean in order to win their argument du jour. Feminists jump at the chance to have these types of so-called 'debates', because everything they employ in order to justify their position is based solely in the realm of abstract theories, science denialism, and subjective perceptions or opinions, like their so-called sexual objectification theory, so that real facts, evidence and logic can be thrown out the window in order to believe that they have indeed won the debate in some sort of logical sense.

Sexual objectification is actually nothing more than low self-esteem couched in feminist-speak. Sexual objectification is basically described by feminists as when men view women only as sexual objects – as others with no individuality or personality. Basically it's when men see and treat women solely as machines, commodities, or objects.

However, the one thing that many feminists fail to realize is that the only ones who are indeed sexually objectifying women, aside from the minuscule percentage of men who may suffer from real diagnosed clinical psychopathy, are the feminists themselves.

Feminists call it self-objectification, which is explained here in 'Sexual Objectification of Women: Advances to Theory Research':

http://www.apa.org/education/ce/sexual-objectification.pdf

In other words, women compare themselves to things like images in media, for example, that depict beautiful women and then internalize those images as how they ought to look. They begin telling themselves that they are not good enough in comparison to other women, which then lowers their self-esteem, heightens their negative self-talk, and leads them to become more prone to negative psychological problems.

This is not Sexual Objectification, this is low self-esteem.

In the following two diagrams, one from the 'Sexual Objectification of Women: Advances to Theory Research', and the other from the 'SEA's Model of Self Esteem' by James J. Messina, Ph.D, shows us how Sexual Objectification Theory follows the same basic path as low self-esteem.

( Diagram from Sexual Objectification of Women: Advances to Theory Research)



(Diagram from the 'SEA's Model of Self Esteem' by James J. Messina, Ph.D)


As you can see, Sexual Objectification Theory is just feminist-speak for low self-esteem which is not a gendered issue, and can effect anyone at any time for a variety of different reasons. The psychological and mental health problems, which can manifest either directly or indirectly from low self-esteem, are not uncommon for anyone who experiences constant low self-esteem and the usual negative self-talk associated with it.

This is nothing new to the medical community, nor is it unique to women or feminism only. Men experience these same problems, but because they are men, they cannot be sexually objectified, as Every Day Feminism explains:

http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/07/men-objectified-by-women/

According to Every Day Feminism, men do not face oppression, and since sexual objectification is oppression, and misogyny, which is exclusive to women, men therefor cannot be sexually objectified. This is of course complete nonsense, and feminists know it, as Every Day Feminism continues to explain:

http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/07/men-objectified-by-women/

Either it can happen to men or it can't – you cannot say 'well it sort of, kind of, can happen to men, but it's not the same as when it happens to women, so we're just going to say it doesn't happen and yell squirrel'.

The truth is that, if feminists admitted that men can be sexually objectified, it would take all the attention away from women which would then mean that their whole theory of sexual objectification falls apart, since the whole theory is based on the premise that it happens to women only. It would no longer be a 'special' or 'unique' gendered problem - it would just be a problem we all could face no matter our gender.

Feminists also insist that men are prone to, what they term, 'toxic masculinity' - a product of the evil patriarchy - which allows feminists to frame men as the oppressors, who are oddly also a part of that same evil patriarchy that oppresses them, not the oppressed. Does your head hurt yet from the ridiculous inconsistency of it all? 

It would make the theory of sexual objectification, and all their other woman-only theories, as valuable as a piece of old toilet paper if they came out and admitted that men can be sexual objects too – that men can be oppressed as well.

This is all of course granting that sexual objectification is actually a 'thing'. In reality it is just feminist-speak for low self-esteem, which we know that everyone is susceptible to, no matter our gender. But framing it and presenting it in feminist theory allows feminists to exclude men, paint them as the oppressors, and place women in the role of victim.

The only reason feminists have created this idea of sexual objectification is merely to perpetuate their much needed victim mentality and status. It is pure propaganda which frames all women as helpless victims, and men as the evil oppressors - a common theme for feminists.

If feminists are experiencing sexual objectification which then leads to a state of self-objectifying, as their sexual objectification theory posits, then they are actually admitting that they are the ones oppressing themselves. It's not the men, but rather, as I stated earlier, their own perceptions of themselves in comparison to other women whom they deem prettier or sexier that objectifies them. They feel inferior, less attractive, less worthy, and so they fall into a state of low self-esteem and negative self-talk. They are essentially their own oppressors, no one else.


(Link)

So when you hear a feminist say that they are being sexually objectified, know that they are more than likely to be suffering from quite a bit of low self-esteem and negative self-talk. And when they say that something is sexually objectifying, what they are actually saying is 'get that pretty girl out of my face so I don't have to be reminded how much I actually hate myself”.

It angers me that feminists think they can cover up very real problems like that of low self-esteem and negative self-talk, which can indeed lead to serious psychological problems, with something like sexual objectification. Sexual Objectification Theory does nothing to help anyone who actually suffers from those problems. Instead of telling women to go get some therapy or real help for these problems – you know, empowering women to help themselves - they blame others and demand that society be responsible for women instead of the women themselves. It's this same entitled and privileged attitude that I have spoken about before – everyone else is responsible for my happiness and well-being, not me – it's the complete abdication of any personal responsibility.

Things like sexual objectification theory don't empower women in any way. It infantilizes and demeans all women, and implies that men are more capable of dealing with life and their own problems than women. It actually implies that men are much better equipped mentally to navigate through life than women are, since men clearly do not or cannot suffer from things like sexual objectification. It implies that women are inferior to men. It implies that things like Sexual Objectification Theory are in fact a tool of the patriarchy, since it oppresses women, dis-empowers them, and places them in a state that is inferior to men. If things like Sexual Objectification Theory are real, then reality is that feminism is the source of patriarchy.

If I believed in conspiracy theories I'd say that feminism created the 'disease' of patriarchy, claimed to have 'cures' for it with things like sexual objectification theory knowing that it would not 'cure' anything, but rather create more 'diseases' of the patriarchy, offer up more ineffective 'cures' for those 'diseases', go back and blame the main 'disease' of patriarchy for all those 'cures' not working, and continue to sell it's snake oil for a 'disease' they themselves invented. But that couldn't be true, could it? Well? Could it? Or am I just being a crazy conspiracy nut?


Written by Kristina Hansen
*** No re-prints without permission