Objectifying women is bad, but the more accurate way to say it is 'commodifying' women right?

Objectifying women is bad, but the more accurate way to say it is 'commodifying' women right?

I mean, there is a clear difference between me drawing or buying into an ideal of something, in comparison to forcing the means of production to produce an ideal version of a woman and then selling it for profit

Attached: 4e265b191ba0e4c38944141df568263f43e3dba2.png (2048x2048, 1.59M)

Other urls found in this thread:


Take the Mazdak-pill. Women need to be collectizived and made communally available along with land. This will reduce much strife in society

sign me up

Women don't exist

Attached: CI_Lacan2.jpg (821x919, 191.88K)

Taking the Mazdak-pill will defeat hypergamy and assign women back to their natural role. Feminism is bourgeois

How about we just crush capitalism and worry about the trifling shit after? If you want a waifu pillow, order one, if you don't, don't.

Objectifying anyone is bad. It's not just women. It's kids and men too.
Only if that's what's happening in stead.

Yeah, but I wouldn't call either of those "objectifying" or "commodifying."

Objectifying someone is reducing them to a mere object
e.g. only caring about a woman's body to the exclusion of her as a person

Commodifying someone is reducing them to a commodity, whether that involves objectification or not
e.g. selling pictures of a woman's tits is commodification with objectification
e.g. selling yourself for your services/labor is commodifying yourself but not reducing you to an object since commodities aren't synonymous with objects. Your abilities, your capacity to do labor is what's important, and an object doesn't have that.

Drawing or buying into an ideal of something would be idealizing not objectifying
e.g. comparing a woman to some standard in your head of what a woman should be (not necessarily objectifying - this could involve personality traits not just physical ones).

Forcing the means of production to produce an ideal version of a woman and then selling it for profit would be an effect of commodification rather than the totality of commodification itself. That would also include the marketing done to shape this ideal, which is going to be based on things like whatever arbitrary traits the capitalist is able to produce ("lowering standards" in a sense) and also whatever the capitalist is unable to produce but a "less ideal" version has (nominally "raising standards").

it's Woman does not exist, not women don't exist
la femme n'existe pas

Shut up woman

Attached: 331-3317857_view-samegoogleiqdbsaucenao-dab-dabbing-pepe.png (820x983, 143.84K)

bad baby boy wont get my smelly pussy

The idea of the objectification of women is based in Kant's shitty puritan Christianity. I don't care about it.

Good post


They already are under capitalism
- Memefesto

This clears up a lot thanks

lmao that was really in GoT? that show really went off the rails

If women can be proles, they can be revolutionaries. Anyone who reduces their efforts or agency is attacking potential or active revolutionary agents and is thus the enemy.
If you disagree you are solely working in the interests of the bourgeoisie.

The overwhelming majority of what libs and feminists call 'objectification' are just natural expressions of attraction.

As equal tribe members and leaders of Matriarchal primitive communist hunter/gather tribes. Based woke user realizing marriage and separate male/female laws were invented by the development of property rights and the need to pass property so state and dialectical forces decided women should become the property of Men.

I know you are trolling, but
is incredibly disingenuous handwaving. If anything females have an inherent advantage when it comes to inheritance, as maternity is 100% certain while paternity is less so, currently in the west around 90% or lower. This causes severe intra-gender competition where the majority of males is always at risk of investing their resources in the spawn of attractive, pumping & dumping males and they in turn are appropriating the resources of the less attractive for themselves and their offspring by impregnating females but not raising the resulting offspring.
It is not uprising how this evolutionary reality in conjunction with property lead to males vastly preferring to transfer their resources to offspring of female partners were they believe the risk of infidelity to be the lowest, such as females who stay at home and do not mingle with other males, in particular attractive ones with higher social standing and even more so without supervision. The “feminist/trusting men” were/are just cucks who were more likely to raise and strengthen the offspring of a pumper & dumpers so their traits were increasingly replaced by those of the latter.
Now before you claim I “rob females of agency”, they are no less vicious or responsible for this development. Some of them chose to not enter an “oppressive” relationship that lowered her opportunity to get creampied by an attractive, high social standing male while getting other men to invest in the raising of the offspring which is just as much hers as her offspring with the cuck would be but has better chances at survival and reproduction because the male descendants are more likely to pump & dump like the father. A female will always balance between the desire social support including in terms of money but not only on the one hand and on the other the selfish biological want to be inseminated by the best sperm possible in terms of what has the best chance of producing offspring that is highly successful, particularly sexually so that her genes can be spread along with his’. Welfare for single moms and general “social support” in the form of transfer of resources from the unattractive males to these mothers and therefore to the attractive males and their spawn makes females more selective when it comes to picking sex partners and fuels hypergamy.

If so, why did he cuck Georges Bataille?
Checkmate, psychoanalysts.

Attached: georges-bataille.jpeg (250x335, 20.72K)

Human beings are only psychologically capable of caring about a small number of people, 130 tops if you're a social genius. There is literally nothing wrong with being sexually attracted to someone you otherwise don't give a fuck about. "Objectification" is bourg nonsense.

I don't think that's the point. You can't help but get get a boner from what you find arousing, but you can still recognize that the other person is an independent being with a past, a future and their own will. Jack off while thinking about them all you want, but if you can only distinguish people into the two categories of "friends who I care about and respect" and "objects made of meat and bone that talk." then you're kinda fucked in the head. Even today, with the vapid fucking media shoved down everyone's ear and eye holes, I see how it's sometimes easy to look at some people as being no more than thoughtless drones, but that's not their fault, and they likely do have some original, perhaps, even somewhat insightful thoughts that you simply are not privy to.

Women objectify themselves all the time, across all eras. I fail to see why this is even an issue.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (720x303, 145.16K)

Didn't zizek wrote an article on how women should be allowed to objetify themselves or something?

gib bad poosy

But that's a false dichotomy, like only 2% of the population divides humanity like that. This idea that guys who watch porn somehow hate or are indirectly abusing women because they don't see them as people is nonsense made up by salty feminists in the 60s. If anything porn has become less objectifying because amateurs on reddit (or even 8ch, looking at you /cuteboys/) can interact with their fapping audience. People screaming about objectification are being chicken littles: complaining about a problem that barely even exists.

Attached: shota demon face.jpg (303x297, 22.74K)

You are literally, LITERALLY incapable of caring about the vast majority of the human population. You might care about humans or the human population on an iideological level, but you are fundamentally incapable of allowing their feelings or their thoughts or individuality or whatever from entering your mind. If you live in a city, the people you pass on the street might as well be paintings on the wall. They might have their own lives, their own little worlds, whatever poetry you might want to frame it in, but to you they might as well be paintings on the wall. If some stranger is butthurt that I don't care about them - I literally cannot - then that's their problem, not a social issue, because it's impossible to correct.


it would make sense if these people were complaining about, like, not treating people with the rights they deserve, but that's not the complaint levied with "objectification". The definition seems to be not respecting someone's life or their feelings. What the fuck does THAT matter? So someone should be obligated to start giving a fuck about the life of someone they think is hot? If someone is this sensitive, they'd be shaken to their fucking cores if they ever realized most people they pass on the street barely register them as background noise in their lives, they're just an obstacle to avoid on the sidewalk. Oh, the horror!