Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminists need to stop saying objectification is bad...

53 replies

QuentinSummers · 13/09/2017 10:12

Rant coming up! About this article www.playboy.com/articles/trans-objectification

It's trans related so please click away if you don't want to discuss a trans take on feminism.

Apparently The message that being considered as a “sex-having and desiring” (how the author defines objectification) individual is universally negative is mostly based in the experiences of white, cis, thin, able-bodied people who have regular, and often too much, experience with sexual objectification.

I really don't think street harassment and cat calling are confined to "white, cis, thin, able bodied people".

In a feminist future, we stop saying that all objectification is categorically bad. In a feminist future, all trans people, people of size, people of color, and people with different abilities have the chance to get the types (if any) of objectification that we crave.
Feminism has bigger fish to fry than trying to force people to objectify trans people when they don't want to. I also hugely object to lumping "people of colour", "people of size" and "people of different abilities" into a huge amorphous blob that the author considers unattractive. Leave other "people's" experiences out of it.
But wait.....people do want to objectify this trans person but they are in denial People are often so scared of their desire for me that they avert their eyes. They can’t so much as look at me without fearing that their “deviant” desire for me will be revealed to the world (is it just me or is this a bit rapey, along the lines of "you know you want it?)

This whole article seems to me to epitomize AGP as the author is basically complaining no-one fancies them as much as they fancy themselves. They even say Trans people never get the sexual attention that we deserve. We are so hot, so sexy, so beautiful. We are skilled, compassionate, ferocious lovers.

I can't believe anyone pays for this kind of bilge. Imagine sitting in a lecture with this person going on about why, if objectification is so bad, why do they want it? QED, feminists have got it all wrong, objectification is good.

OP posts:
Datun · 13/09/2017 10:28

I had to stop reading it halfway through. What a creep.

Same old, same old, though.

Man can't get the sex he feels entitled to. He objectifies women all his life, and can't understand why, when he identifies as one, he can't get a shag.

I don't know if he's gay or straight. But either way, he has eliminated 99% of his potential dating pool. Straight women want a straight man, lesbians want a woman, Straight men want a woman and gay men aren't interested in a man who thinks he's a woman.

The other 1% probably aren't interested in a delusion narcissist.

But yeah, he's just like a woman.

valeinoyikbuno · 13/09/2017 10:24

So the author thinks that "objectification" means "considering someone desirable for the purpose of sexual congress"?

sadly you can't argue with stupid.

If I may quote Inigo Montoya 'you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means'

thecatfromjapan · 13/09/2017 10:20

It's funny how similar it is to the post-feminist spiel ("Being a feminist now means that we are OK to say we want to look lovely and get male attention,) that was thrown at women in the early 90s.

I think it's amazing how this particular discourse has a cycle and comes attached to a seeming "time to update feminism" discourse.

It's also interesting in that it lays bare the desire - which is to be the object of male desire - at the root of the politics. It's not really the same as a revolutionary or feminist political desire, is it? So it makes quite explicit the differences between the objectives of this particular political trajectory and a feminist trajectory.