Examples of media from the last 5 years where women are objectified

Yer Da sells Avon

From a male perspective, it's all a bit insulting. I wasn't going to buy that product, but I now will because they've sprawled a half-naked woman across it. I buy Lynx not because I want to smell like a teenage boy, but because smelling like a teenage boy will definitely make women want to have sex with me. I'm not going to watch Formula 1 anymore because the absence of women in bikinis makes my penis flaccid. Who, in their right mind, would want to watch cars going around in circles without a hard-on? The two go hand-in-hand (as it were).

Anyway, that's all I have to say on the matter. After all this talk of women, I'm off for a ****.

Junkyard Tom

Stop crying.

Koala Sunshine

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

It's about relevance If Georgia Salpa (or any woman) is in a bikini to promote bikinis, or fake tan or waxing then it's not objectification because it's relevant. If it's to sell scratch cards, promote a bar or sell chocolate, then she's being used as a prop, because her being in a bikini is irrelevant to the item.

Also have you ever seen a lynx ad? Bounties of beautiful women there to be acquired by the bloke who douses himself in way too much cheap deodorant

And what's wrong with that? The company gets increased sales and Georgia Salpa gets some easy cash through her own free choice. #bodilyautonomy #righttochoose

Heres Johnny

The women in the ad trying to pull the man's towel from him are clearly rapists. He's resisting them and they persist. No means no ladies.

Where do I complain??

As for objectifying women, don't feed the feminist trolls. Most of them are fat enough as it is.

The J Stands for Jay

strandroad wrote: »

Seriously you never see women treated as accessories? Like one can't present a car at a trade show unless there is a "hostess" draped over it, or a phone without cute girls playing with them? One can't sell Magnum ice cream unless there's a woman giving oral to the ice cream and making I'm coming faces? Never see models undressing to pose with raffle tickets, tuna noodles or a set of tools?
I find it hard to believe!

I find that these days, I see a lot less women being objectivised. A lot of it is probably due to not watching live TV anymore (Netflix and recording stuff) and the Indo seem to have stopped the bikini pics to launch any new product (don't judge me, it's the only paper that's free in the office).

I've only ever been to one car trade show and I don't remember there being any hostesses draped over the cars. Is that something that's died off too? I'd say women featuring in phone adds went out with Nokia. The adds these days are all about the specs.

Heres Johnny

I just saw a woman have an orgasm eating Haagen Dass ice cream. Gorgeous she was. Looked like she was giving the spoon a blowjob too. Great ad.

Ooh I'd love to objectify her!!

Triceratops Ballet

Koala Sunshine wrote:

And what's wrong with that? The company gets increased sales and Georgia Salpa gets some easy cash through her own free choice. #bodilyautonomy #righttochoose

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, she has the right to earn a living however she chooses, doesn't mean it's not objectification.

The whole sex sells thing imo is more insulting to the consumer, the idea that people will only be interested in stuff if there's a scantily clad model of either gender is very dated, and is thankfully dying out.

splinter65

tigger123 wrote: »

Plus anytime anything is announced in the newspapers (particularly the Indo or the tabloids) there's usually a pair of rented honeys with a cardboard cut out of a slogan standing next to a CEO or industry big wig.

But the rented honeys weren’t frogmarched down to grafton street, they do it for a living.

Annasopra

professore wrote: »

No I don't actually, I just want to see what people consider objectification of women that is apparently so widespread, but yet I can't see it, and I'm a man so it should be obvious to me.

I see lots of women deliberately objectifying themselves for personal gain (Miley Cyrus for example) and men do this too but can't think of many for women in mainstream media where women are objectified.

You have stuff like lap dancing clubs and such like but they aren't mainstream and there's female alternatives to these.

So because it happens in tabloids it doesnt exist according to you. Weird.

Annasopra

strandroad wrote: »

Seriously you never see women treated as accessories? Like one can't present a car at a trade show unless there is a "hostess" draped over it, or a phone without cute girls playing with them? One can't sell Magnum ice cream unless there's a woman giving oral to the ice cream and making I'm coming faces? Never see models undressing to pose with raffle tickets, tuna noodles or a set of tools?
I find it hard to believe!

Laughing alone with salad?

https://www.thehairpin.com/2011/01/women-laughing-alone-with-salad/

professore

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

So because it happens in tabloids it doesnt exist according to you. Weird.

The tabloids are full of crap of all sorts.

Let's look at the front page of the Daily Mail this morning :

Meghan's hug for homeless charity founder a day after her secret visits to Grenfell victims were revealed: 'Emotional' Harry's girl embraces volunteer who is 'deeply inspired' by the royal-to-be

- Royal crap.

'A betrayal and a disastrous mistake': Defiant Boris warns Theresa May she CANNOT let Britain stay shackled to the EU as he draws his red lines on Brexit

- right wing propoganda

Married Paddy McGuinness looks downcast as he emerges after being pictured arm in arm with Nicole Appleton... as All Saints star unfollows him on social media and 'flees her home'

- Scummy man cheats on his wife.

PICTURE EXCLUSIVE: Has she found love again? Single Jennifer Garner walks arm-in-arm with mystery man in Los Angeles...after divorce from Ben Affleck

Some celebrity I never heard of walks with some guy they don't even know

Hello boys: Kelly Brook, 38, leaves little to the imagination in cleavage-baring red one-piece as she poses for stunning Valentine's Day lingerie shoot

Oooh ooh ... a woman being objectified .... oh wait, she posed for this herself so it doesn't count. The photoshoot is oddly disturbing ....

Yeah so it doesn't count. If you enjoy reading that stuff you are beyond help.

Triceratops Ballet

I think a lot of people don't know what objectification means

Triceratops Ballet

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I think a lot of people don't know what objectification means

I'm one of them. Oh, I think I know what it means. I looked at it in a few dictionaries for reference...

TBH I've heard so many accusations by females as to something objectifying them or other women, that it seems to include just about anything.

There's no clear accepted idea of what it means. At least, I haven't been able to find one that covers all those claims.

professore

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I think a lot of people don't know what objectification means

I think it's something feminists have made up to shame men and make them feel bad about themselves. It's not a real thing. You can't separate sexuality from a person. If you emphasize that side of yourself then that's how people are going to see you. Simple as that.

I had a meeting several years ago with a young attractive female sales rep. She wore such a low cut top I could see part of her nipples. I was actually interested in her service before I met her but after 5 seconds of that I decided that her service must be no good if she feels the need to dress like that to sell it. Also felt annoyed that she thought she could somehow trick me with her sexuality. I can only assume it worked on other men or she wouldn't have done it. Ugh.

It completely put me off listening to anything she had to say if she had such a poor idea of what was appropriate. I would never show up with shorts or a bare top for a meeting like that. In a bar late in the evening I would have had a different view.

I ended the meeting after a few minutes because I found it extremely uncomfortable. Is that objectification?

Triceratops Ballet

professore wrote: »

I think it's something feminists have made up to shame men and make them feel bad about themselves. It's not a real thing. You can't separate sexuality from a person. If you emphasize that side of yourself then that's how people are going to see you. Simple as that.

I had a meeting several years ago with a young attractive female sales rep. She wore such a low cut top I could see part of her nipples. I was actually interested in her service before I met her but after 5 seconds of that I decided that her service must be no good if she feels the need to dress like that to sell it. Also felt annoyed that she thought she could somehow trick me with her sexuality. I can only assume it worked on other men or she wouldn't have done it. Ugh.

It completely put me off listening to anything she had to say if she had such a poor idea of what was appropriate. I would never show up with shorts or a bare top for a meeting like that. In a bar late in the evening I would have had a different view.

I ended the meeting after a few minutes because I found it extremely uncomfortable. Is that objectification?

Objectification is treating a person like an object, a prop, a thing. It is the opposite of personification.
It's not something feminists made up! christ! all people can be objectified.

seamus

Well this backfired horrendously for the OP.

professore

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Objectification is treating a person like an object, a prop, a thing. It is the opposite of personification.
It's not something feminists made up! christ! all people can be objectified.

Well of course it exists ... but not in the way it's commonly presented. Everyone objectifies everyone all the time in one way or another. Unless you have a window into someone's head you make assumptions about them which at least some of them will be completely false.

That guy or girl who thinks X is the most wonderful person in the world - that's objectification too. In fact this is a lot more common in everyday life than sexual objectification.

suicide_circus

“likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control"

Timothy 2:9-10

Triceratops Ballet

professore wrote: »

Well of course it exists ... but not in the way it's commonly presented. Everyone objectifies everyone all the time in one way or another. Unless you have a window into someone's head you make assumptions about them which at least some of them will be completely false.

That guy or girl who thinks X is the most wonderful person in the world - that's objectification too. In fact this is a lot more common in everyday life than sexual objectification.

What way is it commonly presented?

Objectification is a word with a specific meaning. A half naked woman or man splayed across the bonnet of a car is being objectified. They are being used as a prop. The rights and wrongs of it are irrelevant, it is objectification.

Your example is also hypocritical, you think it's ok for Kelly Brook to allow herself to be objectified by posing for photos in her underwear, but you judged the saleswoman you met who (in your opinion) objectified herself to make the sale.

Triceratops Ballet

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

What way is it commonly presented?

Objectification is a word with a specific meaning. A half naked woman or man splayed across the bonnet of a car is being objectified. They are being used as a prop. The rights and wrongs of it are irrelevant, it is objectification.

Okay, so they're both objectification. I can understand that.

But this "The rights and wrongs of it are irrelevant". Apart from identifying that it is objectification, how do you determine if it is positive or negative objectification?

Do you mean that all objectification is negative?

Where does personal objectification come into this? Where the person objectifies themselves for <insert> purpose or personal benefits...

Koala Sunshine

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, she has the right to earn a living however she chooses, doesn't mean it's not objectification.

The whole sex sells thing imo is more insulting to the consumer, the idea that people will only be interested in stuff if there's a scantily clad model of either gender is very dated, and is thankfully dying out.

I have never heard anyone say people will only be interested in stuff if there is a scantily clad model. It clearly helps many businesses increase their sales.

Triceratops Ballet

Deleted User wrote: »

But this "The rights and wrongs of it are irrelevant". Apart from identifying that it is objectification, how do you determine if it is positive or negative objectification?

Do you mean that all objectification is negative?

TBH I don't know, I can't think of any instances or examples of positive objectification though. I think when people are objectified extensively it becomes easier, both for others and for themselves to think of them as less worthy or worthwhile, and I don't think that's positive.

Deleted User wrote: »

Where does personal objectification come into this? Where the person objectifies themselves for <insert> purpose or personal benefits...

Again I don't know, so I think everyone has a right to earn a living and if they chose want to make money by modelling (which let's face it is the ultimate objectification, you're essentially a walking clothes hanger, and come to think of it linking back to your earlier question it's probably the most neutral form of objectification there is) or stripping then that's their right and prerogative, but I do wonder, if this makes it easier to objectify others. Like for example the topless dudes at abercrombie, right they look good, they like looking good and they can make money doing it. Fine, but does the constant presence of these buff topless guys, contribute to self esteem issues of their peers or guys younger than them. So while the objectification might have little to no impact on the person who choses to objectify themselves, it may contribute to the wider objectification of people like them.

I think it's a really interesting time as advertising is starting to speak to men in the same way as it always has to women, and possibly as a result there's a greater crisis of confidence in younger dudes, thinking they have to be jacked and go to the gym all the time and if they don't have x body girls won't like them.

Triceratops Ballet

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

TBH I don't know, I can't think of any instances or examples of positive objectification though.

Really? Surely positive objectification is when you're gaining benefits because of your appearance? Isn't that part of the reason why people dress certain ways when going out on a date, a job interview, etc.

Again I don't know, so I think everyone has a right to earn a living and if they chose want to make money by modelling (which let's face it is the ultimate objectification, you're essentially a walking clothes hanger, and come to think of it linking back to your earlier question it's probably the most neutral form of objectification there is) or stripping then that's their right and prerogative, but I do wonder, if this makes it easier to objectify others.

In reality, I wonder if anyone can remove objectification. It seems like an automatic human condition. We tend to judge everything based on it's appearance.

Like for example the topless dudes at abercrombie, right they look good, they like looking good and they can make money doing it. Fine, but does the constant presence of these buff topless guys, contribute to self esteem issues of their peers or guys younger than them.

I don't quite get that though. I'm male, 192cm tall and quite thin. I look at the muscular guys in advertisements and I feel absolutely no connection with them except for our gender. I've had conversations with other men about this, and it seems to be a common perspective. It's like going to the gym or beach, everyone else is toned & beautiful, but you're pasty white and skinny... Sure, it would be nice to have that kind of body, but ultimately it means nothing because I've never had it before, and not particularly interested in working to obtain it.

So while the objectification might have little to no impact on the person who choses to objectify themselves, it may contribute to the wider objectification of people like them.

It would seem to me that people like them wouldn't be affected by it (since they themselves are unaffected). It would be the people who are unlike them that might be affected. But then it comes down to other peoples insecurities beyond your own control. no?

I think it's a really interesting time as advertising is starting to speak to men in the same way as it always has to women, and possibly as a result there's a greater crisis of confidence in younger dudes, thinking they have to be jacked and go to the gym all the time and if they don't have x body girls won't like them.

Lol. Those kinds of messages were being sent in advertising 30 years ago, since society itself was sending those messages. Trust me. As a skinny and fairly weak man, I've been exposed to quite a bit social expectation of what a "real" man is supposed to be like. Men have been on the receiving end of objectification as long as women. The difference being that there's a greater emphasis on sensual objectification for women (I don't think its really a sexual thing).

kylith

professore wrote: »

I had a meeting several years ago with a young attractive female sales rep. She wore such a low cut top I could see part of her nipples. I was actually interested in her service before I met her but after 5 seconds of that I decided that her service must be no good if she feels the need to dress like that to sell it. Also felt annoyed that she thought she could somehow trick me with her sexuality. I can only assume it worked on other men or she wouldn't have done it. Ugh.

It completely put me off listening to anything she had to say if she had such a poor idea of what was appropriate. I would never show up with shorts or a bare top for a meeting like that. In a bar late in the evening I would have had a different view.

I ended the meeting after a few minutes because I found it extremely uncomfortable. Is that objectification?

I’d question what has happened in that young woman’s life that has taught her that the best way she can get ahead in life is with her breasts hanging out. It may be that this ‘objectification’ of herself is behaviour she has learned through past experience. It certainly isn’t the behaviour of someone who has learned that she makes more sales by dressing in a shirt.

When it comes to objectification I think the most telling examples come with female politicians and other women in positions of power such as US judges. The conversation revolves around what they look like rather than their ability to do the job, in a way that men are never spoken about. In situations like that it’s made clear that for a sizeable number of people a woman’s worth is defined by her attractiveness rather than her competence.

kylith

kylith wrote: »

When it comes to objectification I think the most telling examples come with female politicians and other women in positions of power such as US judges. The conversation revolves around what they look like rather than their ability to do the job, in a way that men are never spoken about. In situations like that it’s made clear that for a sizeable number of people a woman’s worth is defined by her attractiveness rather than her competence.

Sure, I can definitely see that... however, it seems that most of that is coming from media that targets a female purchasing base. Oh, sure there are quite a few men who would consider women that way, but men don't have anything like the gossip magazine industry which is aimed at taking apart women in rather suggestive terms and discussing their appearance. Women's magazines like Vogue or such, also tend to do it quite a bit, all the while complaining about men doing it.

The problem I find with the objectification of women in the media is that heaps of it are driven by women themselves. There is very little demand for women or female niche industries to stop doing it.

kylith

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sure, I can definitely see that... however, it seems that most of that is coming from media that targets a female purchasing base. Oh, sure there are quite a few men who would consider women that way, but men don't have anything like the gossip magazine industry which is aimed at taking apart women in rather suggestive terms and discussing their appearance. Women's magazines like Vogue or such, also tend to do it quite a bit, all the while complaining about men doing it.

The problem I find with the objectification of women in the media is that heaps of it are driven by women themselves. There is very little demand for women or female niche industries to stop doing it.

We’re you not on message boards when Merkle became leader? It is FAR from just the media at this.

I’ll have to reply to the rest later, in Work atm.

Koala Sunshine

kylith wrote: »

I’d question what has happened in that young woman’s life that has taught her that the best way she can get ahead in life is with her breasts hanging out. It may be that this ‘objectification’ of herself is behaviour she has learned through past experience. It certainly isn’t the behaviour of someone who has learned that she makes more sales by dressing in a shirt.

When it comes to objectification I think the most telling examples come with female politicians and other women in positions of power such as US judges. The conversation revolves around what they look like rather than their ability to do the job, in a way that men are never spoken about. In situations like that it’s made clear that for a sizeable number of people a woman’s worth is defined by her attractiveness rather than her competence.

So nobody talks about how Donal Trump looks or how Brian Cowen looked during his tenure as Taoiseach?

Maybe a womam dresses that way because she enjoys the attention she gets and finds she has more power and influence when she dresses like that.

professore

kylith wrote: »

When it comes to objectification I think the most telling examples come with female politicians and other women in positions of power such as US judges. The conversation revolves around what they look like rather than their ability to do the job, in a way that men are never spoken about. In situations like that it’s made clear that for a sizeable number of people a woman’s worth is defined by her attractiveness rather than her competence.

It's female journalists and chat show hosts that make this conversation revolve around what they look like !!!! No men I know care in the slightest what a judge looks like - unless she wore a clown outfit or had her breasts hanging out - then it might suggest some issues with her competence. We're only interested in what the verdict of a case is and if she did a good job or not, what the facts of the case were etc.

Perhaps if she was exceptionally pretty we might notice - but that's hardly objectification.

Why do women think men are the ones driving this? We're not!!!!

Koala Sunshine

At the end of the day people should be free tp objectify whoever they want. If Bob views Dave as a useful goalpost then he is entitled to view him as a goalpost. Dave however is under no obligation to be a goalpost.

lawred2

I love sexy people

MagicIRL

Advertising preys on insecurity and feeds on emotion. Sometimes one, sometimes both. Make someone feel inadequate and make someone feel that your product is the solution to that inadequacy.

Even the “counter”-advertisements that appear to rally for the cause are trying to harness emotion to sell. Take Boots for example. They ran an ad campaign a while back about using “real” (as opposed to the fake stereotypical models?) women in adverts with “real” bodies (as opposed to the fake read: skinny bodies on a typical model).

Boots couldn’t give a fúck about “real” women with “real” bodies. They just want you to buy their products. By getting people to feel like they are making a difference by taking a stand they can captialise and maximize their profits.

Nothing will change when it's so damned effective. Even the new trend of "online outrage" is a god-send to Advertising agencies. The amount of exposure they get as a result just makes their job easier. Just look at Hunky Dorys when they slapped youngwans in their underwear onto the side of Dublin Bus to promote rugby or something - hardly anyone noticed until "the internet blew up" and "twitter responded" :rolleyes: to the whole campaign. I doubt Hunky Dory's ever had such a successful advertisement.

professore

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't quite get that though. I'm male, 192cm tall and quite thin. I look at the muscular guys in advertisements and I feel absolutely no connection with them except for our gender. I've had conversations with other men about this, and it seems to be a common perspective. It's like going to the gym or beach, everyone else is toned & beautiful, but you're pasty white and skinny... Sure, it would be nice to have that kind of body, but ultimately it means nothing because I've never had it before, and not particularly interested in working to obtain it.

This is interesting too. I've never been skinny, 6' tall and played sports when I was younger, and keep in reasonable shape to this day. I feel I look OK for an old guy.

I have the frame for the abbed body but to get that I would need to put myself through a ridiculous regime of fasting and brutal training. Here's a guy that did it in "only" 2 years : https://www.startgainingmomentum.com/ripped-2-years/

I can only imagine what it would be like for someone who is very skinny or very heavy - or the wrong body shape. So it's then steroids to get that look.

Then say you do work to get that body - sacrificing your life goals, friends and career to single mindedly pursue physical perfection.

Now suddenly women are more interested in you. You are still the same person - but now you are being objectified. You are going to get some quality women that way. What an empty way to live.

professore

Koala Sunshine wrote: »

At the end of the day people should be free tp objectify whoever they want. If Bob views Dave as a useful goalpost then he is entitled to view him as a goalpost. Dave however is under no obligation to be a goalpost.

Aha but if Dave identifies as a goalpost then Bob has to call him a goalpost, even if he secretly thinks he is a teapot.

professore

lawred2 wrote: »

I love sexy people

How you doin? :cool:

Widdershins

I don't know...Donald Trump and Justin Trudeau's appearance seems to be of interest to lots of people. There's a thread on my FB rating the looks of each successive Romanian presidents.

Is paying attention to appearance really objectification? If that's all that's ever taken into account, maybe, but in most examples I've seen,its just *sometimes* focused on.

suicide_circus

Does a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body extend to being sexy for money? If not, where is the cut off point for women's bodily autonomy? Answers on a postcard please.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

_Dara_

suicide_circus wrote: »

Does a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body extend to being sexy for money? If not, where is the cut off point for women's bodily autonomy? Answers on a postcard please.

Most women outside of the more extreme feminists seem agree with the above. I know I'm OK with it. I think a woman posing beside a new brand of Campbell's Soup or whatever looks daft but they're welcome to look as daft as they like.

Triceratops Ballet

Deleted User wrote: »

Really? Surely positive objectification is when you're gaining benefits because of your appearance? Isn't that part of the reason why people dress certain ways when going out on a date, a job interview, etc.

In reality, I wonder if anyone can remove objectification. It seems like an automatic human condition. We tend to judge everything based on it's appearance.

Is that not conflating objectification with something else, ie viewing someone as an object, with judging them based on their appearance.

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't quite get that though. I'm male, 192cm tall and quite thin. I look at the muscular guys in advertisements and I feel absolutely no connection with them except for our gender. I've had conversations with other men about this, and it seems to be a common perspective. It's like going to the gym or beach, everyone else is toned & beautiful, but you're pasty white and skinny... Sure, it would be nice to have that kind of body, but ultimately it means nothing because I've never had it before, and not particularly interested in working to obtain it.

Nor do I but I'm an adult I'm able to separate my appearance from my worth (after years of not being able to) That doesn't mean it doesn't have an impact on young people constantly bombarded with those images

Deleted User wrote: »

Lol. Those kinds of messages were being sent in advertising 30 years ago, since society itself was sending those messages. Trust me. As a skinny and fairly weak man, I've been exposed to quite a bit social expectation of what a "real" man is supposed to be like. Men have been on the receiving end of objectification as long as women. The difference being that there's a greater emphasis on sensual objectification for women (I don't think its really a sexual thing).

The messaging is changing tho, there's recently been foundation ads with men in them, it's a subtle shift from "this is what a man is, tall dark and handsome" to "this is how you're not like that guy, dye your hair, cover those bags under your eyes and get to the gym"

I feel all of this is just wide of the point tho because judging people on their appearances, isn't the same as objectifying them

Koala Sunshine

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Is that not conflating objectification with something else, ie viewing someone as an object, with judging them based on their appearance.



Nor do I but I'm an adult I'm able to separate my appearance from my worth (after years of not being able to) That doesn't mean it doesn't have an impact on young people constantly bombarded with those images



The messaging is changing tho, there's recently been foundation ads with men in them, it's a subtle shift from "this is what a man is, tall dark and handsome" to "this is how you're not like that guy, dye your hair, cover those bags under your eyes and get to the gym"

I feel all of this is just wide of the point tho because judging people on their appearances, isn't the same as objectifying them

I sense what this comes down to for those women who decry "objectification" is a fear that they don't look good enough or a response to the pain of not looking good enough.

For men who decry "objectification" of women, I think it stems from the fact they are unable to compete with other men for beautiful women. Basically what they are doing is taking their ball home. Deep down they are bitter that they can't attract those women who are "objectified".

_Dara_

Koala Sunshine wrote: »

I sense what this comes down to for those women who decry "objectification" is a fear that they don't look good enough or a response to the pain of not looking good enough.

For men who decry "objectification" of women, I think it stems from the fact they are unable to compete with other men for beautiful women. Basically what they are doing is taking their ball home. Deep down they are bitter that they can't attract those women who are "objectified".

It's a neat theory. Neat but glib.

Triceratops Ballet

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Is that not conflating objectification with something else, ie viewing someone as an object, with judging them based on their appearance.

I guess this is the distinction that confuses me. I can't get my head around the idea that they're different.

Nor do I but I'm an adult I'm able to separate my appearance from my worth (after years of not being able to) That doesn't mean it doesn't have an impact on young people constantly bombarded with those images

And yet, the majority of criticism seems to be coming from adults on behalf of young people.

Is it possible that young people would have fewer problems if adults stopped telling them that they should have problems from being on the receiving end of those images?

Just curious since this focus on youth issues seems to have blown into a big deal within the last two decades. I don't remember these kinds of issues being commonplace when I was a teenager, and there was just as much advertising going on (although from TV, billboards etc) rather than social media.

Though I don't get why this has to be a gender issue, rather than a criticism of advertising and the media industry... after all, it's them that is pushing the importance of the imagery, and pushing it into our lives.

The messaging is changing tho, there's recently been foundation ads with men in them, it's a subtle shift from "this is what a man is, tall dark and handsome" to "this is how you're not like that guy, dye your hair, cover those bags under your eyes and get to the gym"

Err... perhaps the difference is that now it's advertising/media taking over from the direct social pressure that we used to experience before.

But TBH, there's always been a lot of pressure on boys and young men to develop a certain way if they wanted to be successful with girls, with making friends, etc. If you didn't have the body type, appearance or natural charisma, then it was just bad luck. You're stuck being a nerd and will be passed over. This kind of message is very strong in movies, the media, and social conditioning. I know, because I couldn't conform to the accepted standard and did face difficulties because of it.

Shenshen

I can't really think of a recent example of objectification in ads or in the media right now, but I always was puzzled by the line-up of women applauding racing drivers on their way to the podium. I never understood their purpose of being there, other than to function as decorative background. A bit like living wallpaper.

So that's about the only recent example I can think of, all others would be way older, like those 70s ads were women were being used as furniture.

Triceratops Ballet

Deleted User wrote: »

And yet, the majority of criticism seems to be coming from adults on behalf of young people.

Is it possible that young people would have fewer problems if adults stopped telling them that they should have problems from being on the receiving end of those images?

Just curious since this focus on youth issues seems to have blown into a big deal within the last two decades. I don't remember these kinds of issues being commonplace when I was a teenager, and there was just as much advertising going on (although from TV, billboards etc) rather than social media.

The change from traditional advertising to modern advertising and media, is huge though and I think it's underestimated, social media never stops, kids are always connected now, these messages are constantly in their faces. I've a couple of friends who are teachers, and they're always talking about the change in pressures on kids, how kids are so much more anxious now, where I could just go to my room and close the door and ignore the messages telling me I could be thinner/prettier etc for them it's inescapable and so much more personalised.

Deleted User wrote: »

Though I don't get why this has to be a gender issue, rather than a criticism of advertising and the media industry... after all, it's them that is pushing the importance of the imagery, and pushing it into our lives.

I agree, I don't think it is a gender issue, I've as much of an issue with the objectification of men in advertising, and resorting to stereotypes (gormless man/smug woman, goofy dad/ humourless controlling mom) is lazy and condescending to consumers. Like I said a lot of the overt objectification, is dying out a bit now, you don't often see the bikini brigade out on Grafton St any more because consumers are becoming a bit more sophisticated and it's not as simple as throwing some barely dressed models at something to get pictures in the paper.

Widdershins

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

TBH I don't know, I can't think of any instances or examples of positive objectification though. I think when people are objectified extensively it becomes easier, both for others and for themselves to think of them as less worthy or worthwhile, and I don't think that's positive.



Again I don't know, so I think everyone has a right to earn a living and if they chose want to make money by modelling (which let's face it is the ultimate objectification, you're essentially a walking clothes hanger, and come to think of it linking back to your earlier question it's probably the most neutral form of objectification there is) or stripping then that's their right and prerogative, but I do wonder, if this makes it easier to objectify others. Like for example the topless dudes at abercrombie, right they look good, they like looking good and they can make money doing it. Fine, but does the constant presence of these buff topless guys, contribute to self esteem issues of their peers or guys younger than them. So while the objectification might have little to no impact on the person who choses to objectify themselves, it may contribute to the wider objectification of people like them.

I think it's a really interesting time as advertising is starting to speak to men in the same way as it always has to women, and possibly as a result there's a greater crisis of confidence in younger dudes, thinking they have to be jacked and go to the gym all the time and if they don't have x body girls won't like them.

But it’s one of life’s harsh realities. There will always be better and worse looking people. They need to develop their own self esteem so they aren’t damaged by being confronted with the sight of models.

_Dara_

Widdershins wrote: »

But it’s one of life’s harsh realities. There will always be better and worse looking people. They need to develop their own self esteem so they aren’t damaged by being confronted with the sight of models.

Why are you assuming that anyone who has an issue with it isn't good-looking? Indeed, a lot of models leave the profession because they find it so unfulfilling and sometimes demeaning. I've read so many times about actresses who were models at one point but hated every minute of modelling and didn't even care that it paid well, they just wanted out.

Grayson

tigger123 wrote: »

Plus anytime anything is announced in the newspapers (particularly the Indo or the tabloids) there's usually a pair of rented honeys with a cardboard cut out of a slogan standing next to a CEO or industry big wig.

I tried to find a particular page but couldn't. There's a blog somewhere that covers all those adverts. The typical thing is that it's say national sandwich day. So the national sandwich makers get a "celeb" like Tubridy and get him to pose with two models in Stephens Green golding a sandwich. It then manages to make it to page 3 or 4 of the Irish Times.

Apparently thats a particularly Irish thing and you don't see it in most other countries.

seamus

Widdershins wrote: »

But it’s one of life’s harsh realities. There will always be better and worse looking people. They need to develop their own self esteem so they aren’t damaged by being confronted with the sight of models.

It's pretty lofty to assume that people can just go and do this by themselves while being bombarded with messages from massive marketing machines that tell them the opposite.

It's a bit like saying, "People need to just realise that smoking is bad for them and quit". It's far from that simple. This is why smoking advertising is banned.

It's not in the interests of private enterprise for people to "develop their own sense of self-esteem", so they plough massive funding into methods which convince people that their self-esteem is inextricably linked to the things they buy.

This is why society (and governments by extension), need to protect the individual from this kind of manipulation - especially teenagers and young adults - so that they are afforded the space to develop a sense of self-esteem that's not tied to external appearance or the use of products.

_Dara_

_Dara_ wrote: »

Why are you assuming that anyone who has an issue with it isn't good-looking? Indeed, a lot of models leave the profession because they find it so unfulfilling and sometimes demeaning. I've read so many times about actresses who were models at one point but hated every minute of modelling and didn't even care that it paid well, they just wanted out.

Strange. I didn't get that from his post. I simply got that people should have their self-esteem or self-image that is independent of other peoples opinions.

I can't see the current attitude regarding beauty (or objectification) diminishing any time in the future. It seems to be very general criticism (and different depending on the person criticising) that has no real avenues to resolve the problems involved. Social media and technological advances regarding the internet or VR are just going to encourage that kind of focus, so we should be encouraging people to ignore the external pressure and find their own center. To look the way they want rather than worrying about social proof (but to bear the responsibility for making the choice rather than passing it off on to others).

castletownman

I find the whole debate on the objectification of women and the uproar from feminists surrounding it very rich when you consider some of the female-orientated pop culture.

For example, it's women that made the Fifty Shades franchise as successful it is. You can bet your bottom dollar that there wasn't hordes of men queuing to purchase that literary classic, nor indeed was it the fellas idea to bring the OH to watch it in the cinema. It's sure to be sold out this Valentine's weekend. And you just have to look at the leering of Jamie Dornan by grown women every time he is on a promotional event for the movie to see that there is only one gender being objectified there.

Remember a few years ago when one of the Braxton brothers from Home and Away went on a promotional tour to various nightclubs around the country? I'm sure 36 year old Jacinta from Ballyfermot only attended out of appreciation of his acting talents.

Or take Niall Horan or Harry Styles, or even One Direction when they were around. It's well and good having teenage girls screaming at their concerts, but a sizable chunk of women who attend should be mature enough to contain themselves without getting all hot and bothered. A lot of them would jump on them if they had the chance....and their behaviour would never be criticised.

Most popular rugby players among women over the last few years? Kearney brothers, Tommy Bowe, Conor Murray.

Feck it, even hen parties are a lot more lecherous than stag parties. God help being a male stripper at some of them- unless you take pleasure out of a rake of drunken women grabbing hold of you. Men are a lot more "restrained" on a night out, and aren't allowed put their hands on a stripper in a strip club for example.

It's all well and good calling out the wider media for the objectification of women, but in reality women are a lot more "sexualised" than men in a lot of ways.