Why don't women objectify men the same way?

LOL, I bet it did!

Maybe you're right. I used to get cat-called when out walking my dog. A few times I turned around and marched right over to the men doing it. Having my dog with me made all the difference. its amazing how meek and apologetic they became when I brought my dog within snapping distance. I would only ever go over to say that i fine it bothersome to be cat-called. Politely and in their language (which always shocked them). I wanted to rehumanise myself to them. I never got abuse from them. Dog might have had something to do with it

Agree with Basil. Also if you do challenge cat calls etc because they make you feel uncomfortable you can be almost certain that the cat call will immediately escalate to abuse, not an apology, for the reasons Basil states.

NL I think all uninvited intrusion into women's space and time has an undercurrent of violence, because men only do it to women or to men they are prepared to perpetrate violence against (such as yelling racial abuse).

Normal men don't shout at women from their vans or anywhere else. It is always the misogynists, the ones who want to assert their privilege and remind us that we have no right to go about our lives without being reminded that we're there to give them boners. They know they can use the permanent threat of violence, even if they are not intending to use it against us themselves, to issue the cat-calls without being challenged.

I'm not sure that 'nice arse' necessarily carries with it a threat of violence. When shouted out of a white van I don't fear for my safety. What it does do is remind women of their bodies, their physical appearance being a service to others for appreciation. Women bodies are not something we inhabit, to live in as vehicles to get about with but are for others to look at.

I despise being cat-called because it draws me out of myself and makes me suddenly consider myself as I appear to others, but because I feel unsafw. And because it's a rude intrusion into my attention. When I lived in an Asian country I used to get cat called ALL the time. The young guys just wanted to make the Caucasian woman look their way. My (then) husband (Asian) had no concept of what that was like for me. It wasn't until my SIL was out and about with me that anyone understood the relentless intrusion. She actually marched up to a teen and shouted at him at how rude be was being. He was so ashamed and apologised. It was great. I love her for that.

Mind you, when I returned to that country with my now DH
(also caucasian) we both got cat-called all day long, so it's not just a sexist thing.

Also what hasn't been touched on yet is the undercurrent of violence in men's objectification of women.

When men yell "nice arse!" at us from their cars, or hiss at us under their breath in the street, that's objectification. It goes hand in hand with the unacknowledged threat of violence. One of the reasons women don't answer back, is because they don't know whether the result of challenging the objectification, will be violence. Men don't have that problem when women are "objectifying" them. Women very rarely yell "compliments" (or harassment if you prefer) at random men in the street. And if they did, men might be surprised, outraged, or pleased by it, but I very much doubt they'd be afraid. Because women yelling at men in the street, isn't a reminder to men that they're only there on sufferance and have no right to be there without a female owner escort.

im quite capable of objectifying many hot guys, but dont have any real desire to get with guys that don't have the whole package, personality wise, no matter how hot they are.

I think for women in general there is much less incentive to objectify since we are conditioned to feel we need so much from a man so we need to see the whole person, wheras a man is supposed to be self sufficient, so a woman is just an extra

I should have put a wink next to my Fabio comment.

Should there be zero objecting?or are we still in 'two wrongs' ie gay men and women objectified men 'make a right' territory

"If we truly want equality behaving and making comments we'd (rightly) complain about, shouldn't be made"

But who is "we"? How do you know that the women making those objectifying comments to men are the same women who object to being objectified by men?

They do, look at the frankly embarrassing comments made on britains got talent at the magician. It was awful and pleads to get him to take his top off. It was disgusting and embarrassing. If we truly want equality behaving and making comments we'd (rightly) complain about, shouldn't be made

Yeah, right.

Fabio?

Mango this fear of women being sexually attracted to forbidden males was, I believe, the big thing that led to the banning of Lady Chatterly's Lover. It made too many men's hair stand on end, the thought that their womenfolk (wives and daughters) could actually lust after a bit of rough, such as the gardener (just as many would themselves have been doing, in carrying on with maids, nannies etc). Promoting women as the more moral, more monogamous, better behaved sex suits a lot of men.

During the obscenity trial it was actually worded 'would you want your wives, your maids to read this'. In other words, don't let women know about this!

Nice post Mango.

Haven't RTFT but isn't that like asking why didn't black people enslave white people back in the day? Extreme analogy sure but, it's about who has the power in society at the time.

I think the reason is historical. Historically, women have been denied property rights that (some) men have enjoyed. Historically, it's been regarded as legitimate for (some) men to acquire property, or to aim to do so, and women have been treated as part of this property. Therefore, (some) men have been encouraged to feel entitled culturally, and sometimes legally, to 'collect' women as property - as wives, concubines, mistresses, prostitutes, etc.
This has created cultures where men could openly compare and contrast women's bodies in ways similar to ways in which people might examine and evaluate other forms of property (land, livestock, foodstuffs, clothing, etc.), and accordingly, the physical qualities of women have sometimes been seen to denote the status of those women's keepers (husband, pimp, punter, etc.).

Historically, women haven't enjoyed this 'privilege' in the same way that men have. Where women haven't enjoyed full property ownership rights, there hasn't been the opportunity for them to show off or compare their property in the same way (some) men could do. Nor have there been cultures and industries built up around women doing this in the same way that men who were wealthy enough could do (e.g. arts, pornography, related adornment, etc.).

And since, in these sorts of cultural and legal climates (i.e. where generally women didn't enjoy full property rights), many women provided for themselves by association with property owning men - (many of whom would have been no oil paintings!), it wouldn't have been practical or expedient for such women to express sexual interest in, say, the local farmhand, builders, etc., whose physical characteristics might have been far more attractive then those of the 'provider'. (Not that a load of male anxiety about the possibility of women's attraction to 'forbidden' males, usually from less economically privileged social groups hasn't existed. Consider white man's anxiety about the sexual prowess of African male slaves, etc.)

So, the idea that 'most' men are intrinsically attracted to women on the basis of particular physical traits developed, but the same presumption didn't apply regarding women's attraction to men - well maybe its possibility was acknowledged (see slave e.g. above), but it was a source of anxiety (or sometimes niche pornography), rather then generally and widely celebrated in the same way that 'the male gaze' and cultures, industries, philosophies, etc. based around the objectification of women were.... Women were seen simply to require a provider.

The idea's since been supported with reference to science (as posters have pointed out above) - e.g. the basis that men's reproductive capacity lasts longer than women's, therefore it's natural for older men to ogle younger women, but unnatural for older women to express sexual desire, that men are entitled to many female sexual partners, etc., etc....

Pretty much verbatim what Curwen said, the amount of personal upkeep my daughters circle of male friends put into themselves is mind numbing. In my generation an old fashioned father might have felt inclined to tell a young suitor (like I was then) to pull his socks up and comb his hair. I would never say that myself, even if I thought it, thats my daughters province to judge. Not that I could anyway, even if I wanted too, compared to young men these days I look like the tramp.

Even on Mumsnet we have seen plenty of Objectification. Whole threads on Benedict C and I remember a thread about the Terry Wogan bulge. If you go to a male strip review they are sold out every weekend be it hen parties, birthday parties, divorce parties (the last one I went to). We claim it is only the men who objectify but the number of my friends who have pictures of topless firemen on their facebook pages is larger than a small handful. We claim we see it as funny or just getting our back on our hubbies but I do wonder just how true that sort of statement is.

Dervel, I am a man in my 40's. I have no idea how old you are, but I'd agree with your comments re my generation and general appearance upkeep. My teenage son's generation, however, is a different kettle of fish. Ten different kinds of shower gel, twenty shampoos and enough hair products to sink a battleship. Then there is the gym, the grooming of body hair - when was the last time anyone saw a young bloke with a hairy chest? - and two hours preparation time before venturing out.

In my day, we lived in a hole in t'road! But tell the kids today, and they won't bloody believe ye

X post wirh Dervel.

I think there is conflating here of what men and women find attractive and the people they have a realistic chance of getting into a relationship with.

Obviously the type of man that most women find attractive they have almost no chance of actually dating, so they make dating decisions on other grounds.

Of course a lot of men make very little effort to appear attractive to women, and that presumably is to do with inequality.

Is it possible that that disparity of presentation causes an imbalance? I mean after all if a greater of percentage of women work on their appearance men can afford to be choosier, but the percentage of men who work on their looks being comparatively so small women have little choice but make compromises?

I wonder how many that arent attracted to men on looks grew up in traditional families so need men more to support them.