First of all, the entire second paragraph there is borderline incoherent. But to address what I can make out: First up is a bait and switch. Going from "Having a attractive woman in fiction is evil" to "all women in fiction are subservient to men" and hoping you don't notice. Make them defend the actual point. Why is having an attractive woman in fiction bad? And why is having an attractive MAN in fiction NOT bad? The response to that question is 100% going to be thinly disguised hypocrisy. Chris Hemsworth is a good example: He appears shirtless in how many Marvel movies? Basically all of them? And in the most recent one, apparently he gets completely stripped against his will while the female heroes look on in interest and refuse to help, in a scene that's played for comedy. Imagine the genders reversed on that one. And he basically played an attractive bimbo in the super-feminist ghostbusters movie, who was hired in the movie because of his looks. The whole "It's a power fantasy for men" you're likely to hear is just an evidence-free assertion that boils down to "It's okay when we do it".
Second, "objectification". That's always been a stupid argument that relies on the listener being cowed into submission and not requiring terms to be defined. Women ARE objects. They have mass and take up space. Allowing them weak terms that change in definition to whatever is convenient at the time is not how you have an honest argument. As for "Women are sex objects", well, then why do they keep getting dialogue? Porn doesn't need dialogue. So if women are speaking, they're being treated as people.
Their role as dolls
Again, dolls don't talk. If you can't make your argument without using most of your words wrong, then maybe your argument sucks.
Sexualized women in games are bad because fictional characters dont have agency, so therefore these sexy female characters were made by men for the pleasure of other men.
That's what fictional characters are. Fictional men don't have agency either, because they also don't exist. All fictional characters are invented for the pleasure of the reader. This argument is retarded.
it is harmful to society and women,
Prove it.
and it also makes men see women as objects
Prove it. Also, see first paragraph above.
things like onlyfans, rap videos (like cardi b and nicki minaj), modeling, and social media
As you correctly identify, their position here contradicts their position above. That's because their position above is a lie. Their ACTUAL position is "Women are good, men are bad", and in particular "Female sexuality is good, male sexuality is dangerous and rapey", and they work backwards from that core belief to invent arguments to satisfy it. Their contradictory arguments suddenly fall perfectly into line if you instead imagine them asking the simple question: Who benefits? When a camwhore can pay her rent off broken simps so desperate for a female relationship they think they have one with a woman who they're paying online, it's easy to see who is benefiting: The woman who's getting paid, and it's about female sexuality, so it's "good". Female rappers selling their body? Again, it's a woman who benefits using female sexuality, therefore good. Modeling, social media, all the same. Now for the negative examples: Instead of a naked woman on onlyfans, a man draws a picture of the same woman. Who benefits? Well, it's a man getting paid, so it's bad, and if there's no woman involved, it must not be female sexuality, it must be for those dirty disgusting men to look at, therefore male sexuality, therefore bad. Or even if nobody is getting paid, if there's a man out there who might be happy, well, male sexuality is evil and bad and basically rape, so it's still bad. Hence the people upset that stable diffusion can generate pictures of attractive woman (and they're going to great efforts to stop that from happening in future versions): if a man out there is being made happy and a woman isn't benefiting from it financially, then it's unacceptable.
cultivation theory (the things you see around you (like media) affect how you see certain groups).
When every commercial with a married couple has a bumbling man and a long-suffering woman, when all of Star Wars and fiction in general is turned into one giant "Stupid men outdone by perfect woman" story, when men are basically driven out of the entire teaching profession, it's weird how all of a sudden none of that matters. Also, start counting how often men run risks to their life to protect women in media (or even better, real life), versus the opposite, and then ask yourself who's really being told that their gender is worth less than the other.
male gaze
Men looking at women is basically rape? Does this even need a counter-argument? Anyway, apply the Chris Hemmsworth argument if necessary.
First of all, the entire second paragraph there is borderline incoherent. But to address what I can make out: First up is a bait and switch. Going from "Having a attractive woman in fiction is evil" to "all women in fiction are subservient to men" and hoping you don't notice. Make them defend the actual point. Why is having an attractive woman in fiction bad? And why is having an attractive MAN in fiction NOT bad? The response to that question is 100% going to be thinly disguised hypocrisy. Chris Hemsworth is a good example: He appears shirtless in how many Marvel movies? Basically all of them? And in the most recent one, apparently he gets completely stripped against his will while the female heroes look on in interest and refuse to help, in a scene that's played for comedy. Imagine the genders reversed on that one. And he basically played an attractive bimbo in the super-feminist ghostbusters movie, who was hired in the movie because of his looks. The whole "It's a power fantasy for men" you're likely to hear is just an evidence-free assertion that boils down to "It's okay when we do it".
Second, "objectification". That's always been a stupid argument that relies on the listener being cowed into submission and not requiring terms to be defined. Women ARE objects. They have mass and take up space. Allowing them weak terms that change in definition to whatever is convenient at the time is not how you have an honest argument. As for "Women are sex objects", well, then why do they keep getting dialogue? Porn doesn't need dialogue. So if women are speaking, they're being treated as people.
Again, dolls don't talk. If you can't make your argument without using most of your words wrong, then maybe your argument sucks.
That's what fictional characters are. Fictional men don't have agency either, because they also don't exist. All fictional characters are invented for the pleasure of the reader. This argument is retarded.
Prove it.
Prove it. Also, see first paragraph above.
As you correctly identify, their position here contradicts their position above. That's because their position above is a lie. Their ACTUAL position is "Women are good, men are bad", and in particular "Female sexuality is good, male sexuality is dangerous and rapey", and they work backwards from that core belief to invent arguments to satisfy it. Their contradictory arguments suddenly fall perfectly into line if you instead imagine them asking the simple question: Who benefits? When a camwhore can pay her rent off broken simps so desperate for a female relationship they think they have one with a woman who they're paying online, it's easy to see who is benefiting: The woman who's getting paid, and it's about female sexuality, so it's "good". Female rappers selling their body? Again, it's a woman who benefits using female sexuality, therefore good. Modeling, social media, all the same. Now for the negative examples: Instead of a naked woman on onlyfans, a man draws a picture of the same woman. Who benefits? Well, it's a man getting paid, so it's bad, and if there's no woman involved, it must not be female sexuality, it must be for those dirty disgusting men to look at, therefore male sexuality, therefore bad. Or even if nobody is getting paid, if there's a man out there who might be happy, well, male sexuality is evil and bad and basically rape, so it's still bad. Hence the people upset that stable diffusion can generate pictures of attractive woman (and they're going to great efforts to stop that from happening in future versions): if a man out there is being made happy and a woman isn't benefiting from it financially, then it's unacceptable.
When every commercial with a married couple has a bumbling man and a long-suffering woman, when all of Star Wars and fiction in general is turned into one giant "Stupid men outdone by perfect woman" story, when men are basically driven out of the entire teaching profession, it's weird how all of a sudden none of that matters. Also, start counting how often men run risks to their life to protect women in media (or even better, real life), versus the opposite, and then ask yourself who's really being told that their gender is worth less than the other.
Men looking at women is basically rape? Does this even need a counter-argument? Anyway, apply the Chris Hemmsworth argument if necessary.