View Single Post
Old 11-21-2014, 10:47 AM   #366
Raad
'sup
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Posts: 1,535
Rep Power: 14 Raad karmablade
Re: The (new) Fail/Win Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by _Hez_ View Post
Men have had a very similar line they've had to walk carefully along throughout history -- looking good without looking like you're trying to look good. In roman times if you removed too much hair or wore makeup it was seen as effeminate, these days you'd be called a faggot or a metrosexual. Not much has changed, really.
That's true, there exists social values on what a man should be. But this is not at all related to sexual objectification of men. This is a paradox resulting from female values being related to beauty but at the same time femininity is devalued. So if the male wants to be beautiful in which case he must take on traditionally feminine values (smoothness, objectification of the self, vanity etc) but at the same time he must assert his masculinity somehow. Straying to far on either side of the spectrum he will either be called a sissy or a faggot or on the other hand he will simply not be deemed beautiful in which case he can demonstrate his value (https://33.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l...wm58o1_400.gif) in some other way (while this option is much more limited to women). So yeah, again this is not upheld by a systematic sexual objectification of men (which would have to be necessary for your initial point to be valid) but by a language that devalues femininity. If we were talking about women calling male nurses faggots in hospitals I'd get your point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by _Hez_ View Post
Think of all the handsome pop stars from the 90's like Enrique Iglesias, Lenny Kravitz or Peter Andre, who all made conscious decisions (or at least their management did) to go shirtless and make sexy video clips like Niki Minaj does. You think they would've got ahead if they just wore cardigans in every video clip?
Again, their sexual objectification does not relate to any relevant historical or social context. I mean, do you understand why Dave Chappelle can paint his face white but why blackface is offensive? This is (kinda) the same thing.

I'm not actually arguing that we force pop stars to put clothes on or that we should burn this shirt or whatever. I'm just arguing about how sexual objectification of women relates to sexism and gender inequality in general. Words, cultural expressions etc don't exist independently in some kind of vacuum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by _Hez_ View Post
Yes, expressing indifference to an ugly shirt with half-naked chicks on it is surely a slipper slope to nazism.
That's not what I said :)
Raad is offline   Reply With Quote