If people are not objects, how can looking at an object translate to how I treat people?
Either I'm projecting the idea of "sexy woman" onto a drawing, thus anthropomorphing the drawing, or I'm treating the actual woman as a "sexual object", whatever that's supposed to mean.
Regardless, I'm supposedly conflating women and objects which results in the problem being discussed. If I don't then there's no problem because I treat the two differently.
So it's apparent that people can be treated as objects, even if they aren't, and there's no reason a woman can't treat herself as an object, as is the case here.
Notice how they complain when the object is more attractive then them. It’s not about agency, as by that same argument the grumpy ugly woman character meant to deny “male gaze” is equally being objectified by women in their spite. It’s a hilariously stupid argument that essentially boils down to anything female must be designed by females and forced to be ugly because men bad. Feminists truly are the worst as everything ultimately comes down to their obsession with hating men.
The feminist perspective is that the battle of the sexes is a zero-sum game; oppress or be oppressed. Summed up as:
For women to win, men must lose.
Therefore the feminist will conclude:
Anything that increases male agency (for instance: access to attractive fictional women) decreases female agency and (as such) must be opposed.
Q.E.D.
I fleshed out argument here. Basically, they're dressing up the art as a person who needs to be 'respected' because of competition against women's presumed monopoly on hetrosexual men's attention. The feminist is trying to 'protect' the fictional woman's 'agency' to keep her from competing with the Sisterhood. If the woman in question weren't fictional, then a back-biting catfight would start.
Why don't you ask her why she's being jealous about fictional women?
That is why 50 shades of grey was the biggest best seller under women and even spawned a movie. Also wasn't the plot of that book just borderline rape?
So this is why women have to be ugly and fat. From a business standpoint it makes sense to have an attractive woman in something that men will consume. Similar if if produced a daytime cooking show with a large audience of stay at home moms and all things being equal I’d pick an attractive male chef over a blading overweight one.
Movies / series which target women follow the same logic. And they are influencial as fuck.
Keep in mind though that this is moving away from the "gaze" as in seeing and moves into the "gaze" as how a man behaves in the media - in a way that women (who the char was written for) find attractive.
You can drop Cavill wanting to have less sex scenes / nude scenes in Witcher and how media (mainly female writers) shit on him for that.
Ask her if it's okay, then, if they 3D scan a sexy model specifically consenting to be sexualised in-game. What now, dipshit- does the character have agency or is a woman not allowed to sexualise her own likeness?
'because the fictional character does not have agency' is not an argument you can make without destroying the argument that female characters should have agency within a story. You can't have it both ways. Either character agency matters, or it doesn't. You can just pick and choose for the sake of winning an argument when convenient.
I'll tell you why it's empowering for Nikki Minaj, Cardi B, and Lizzo to be disgusting whores on stage. It's because they're black, and the media class don't want anything better out of black women. They want black women gyrating in clubs and riding every badboy dick they see to pump out the next generation of fatherless criminals. The media class - Jewish - wants this because it lets them play blacks and whites against eachother while distracting attention away from themselves.
And if that sounds like white supremacy talking, I was paraphrasing Malcolm X, just before they murdered him for ceasing to be useful and becoming a problem.
Lara Croft can't be an objectification because Lara Croft is an object. She's trying, in typical woman fashion, to humanize an object, like a doll or stuffed animal. Saying sexy characters objectify women is the same as saying dildos objectify men.
The fact that real women have agency is what allows them to objectify themselves; by focusing their entire being down to one aspect (in this case, sex appeal), they remove their agency and become, to people consooming that aspect, an object.
I would argue that this is exemplified across celebrity culture. Famous people, maybe exclusively, become famous for a specific aspect of themselves, which objectifies them in the eyes of people. Fans then rehumanize them, but through projection of their own desires, rather than reality. This is why fans get so personally upset when their favourite celebrity does or says something they don't expect; the object is not behaving as imagined and it breaks the illusion.
I would argue that it's easy for us to separate objects and people until people start acting like objects while expecting to be treated as people.
I swear, there is a particular strain of faggotry found in modern leftists, especially the young ones, where their brains simply cannot parse the distinction between fiction and reality. Or like, they can’t engage with the two differently, which is incredibly unhealthy.
OK, now apply that argument to women's romance novels. That dude is being forced to act out your fantasies - but the problem any good feminist has is not the behavior, because they don't care, they have no standards.
You are trying to assert agency on a thing that does not exist in our reality, go to an asylum and quit trying to excuse yourself on why you are a whore
Who are the people setting the standard as to what constitutes "sexy" and what doesn't? What is the difference between a woman voluntarily subjecting her "work" to those standards vs an artist voluntarily subjecting their work to those standards?
A woman treating herself as an object is clearly empowering, because it advances female agency.
A hetrosexual man enjoying a portrayal of a woman as a sexual object is clearly problematic, because men should not be allowed to satisfy themselves with fictional women. That would prevent those men from being subservient to an actual woman, potentially reducing female agency by reducing the amount of male attention and resources they receive.
Everything being argued by the feminist can be expressed in terms of women's agency and domination of male attention and resources. In the eye of hypergamy, there is no contradiction or limitation: only women rationalizing an ever-greater share of male resources in a zero-sum game.
Well, that looks like a ResetEra post, so of course whoever wrote it is 1) retarded and 2) a pedophile.
If people are not objects, how can looking at an object translate to how I treat people?
Either I'm projecting the idea of "sexy woman" onto a drawing, thus anthropomorphing the drawing, or I'm treating the actual woman as a "sexual object", whatever that's supposed to mean.
Regardless, I'm supposedly conflating women and objects which results in the problem being discussed. If I don't then there's no problem because I treat the two differently.
So it's apparent that people can be treated as objects, even if they aren't, and there's no reason a woman can't treat herself as an object, as is the case here.
Lol if these mental patients had thier way, drawing a naked woman would legitimately be considered rape.
Notice how they complain when the object is more attractive then them. It’s not about agency, as by that same argument the grumpy ugly woman character meant to deny “male gaze” is equally being objectified by women in their spite. It’s a hilariously stupid argument that essentially boils down to anything female must be designed by females and forced to be ugly because men bad. Feminists truly are the worst as everything ultimately comes down to their obsession with hating men.
Two feminist axioms:
Per feminism (and hypergamy):
The feminist perspective is that the battle of the sexes is a zero-sum game; oppress or be oppressed. Summed up as:
Therefore the feminist will conclude:
Anything that increases male agency (for instance: access to attractive fictional women) decreases female agency and (as such) must be opposed.
Q.E.D.
I fleshed out argument here. Basically, they're dressing up the art as a person who needs to be 'respected' because of competition against women's presumed monopoly on hetrosexual men's attention. The feminist is trying to 'protect' the fictional woman's 'agency' to keep her from competing with the Sisterhood. If the woman in question weren't fictional, then a back-biting catfight would start.
Why don't you ask her why she's being jealous about fictional women?
What does she say about movies for a female audience with shirtless guys or romance novels with muscular men on the cover?
That is why 50 shades of grey was the biggest best seller under women and even spawned a movie. Also wasn't the plot of that book just borderline rape?
The only thing "Borderline" about that book is the borderline personality disorder of all the characters, and many of the readers.
Well I know that the readers are complete psycho's as mor than half of them follow the MSM no question asked.
So this is why women have to be ugly and fat. From a business standpoint it makes sense to have an attractive woman in something that men will consume. Similar if if produced a daytime cooking show with a large audience of stay at home moms and all things being equal I’d pick an attractive male chef over a blading overweight one.
Movies / series which target women follow the same logic. And they are influencial as fuck. Keep in mind though that this is moving away from the "gaze" as in seeing and moves into the "gaze" as how a man behaves in the media - in a way that women (who the char was written for) find attractive.
You can drop Cavill wanting to have less sex scenes / nude scenes in Witcher and how media (mainly female writers) shit on him for that.
I don’t know if that’s the excuse but I know there will be an excuse, excuses are all feminists have.
One benefits a woman (putting aside the self-destructive effect of being a public whore) whereas the other potentially benefits a man.
Feminism is female narcissism wearing the skin of equality.
Ask her if it's okay, then, if they 3D scan a sexy model specifically consenting to be sexualised in-game. What now, dipshit- does the character have agency or is a woman not allowed to sexualise her own likeness?
'because the fictional character does not have agency' is not an argument you can make without destroying the argument that female characters should have agency within a story. You can't have it both ways. Either character agency matters, or it doesn't. You can just pick and choose for the sake of winning an argument when convenient.
I'll tell you why it's empowering for Nikki Minaj, Cardi B, and Lizzo to be disgusting whores on stage. It's because they're black, and the media class don't want anything better out of black women. They want black women gyrating in clubs and riding every badboy dick they see to pump out the next generation of fatherless criminals. The media class - Jewish - wants this because it lets them play blacks and whites against eachother while distracting attention away from themselves.
And if that sounds like white supremacy talking, I was paraphrasing Malcolm X, just before they murdered him for ceasing to be useful and becoming a problem.
Lara Croft can't be an objectification because Lara Croft is an object. She's trying, in typical woman fashion, to humanize an object, like a doll or stuffed animal. Saying sexy characters objectify women is the same as saying dildos objectify men.
The fact that real women have agency is what allows them to objectify themselves; by focusing their entire being down to one aspect (in this case, sex appeal), they remove their agency and become, to people consooming that aspect, an object.
I would argue that this is exemplified across celebrity culture. Famous people, maybe exclusively, become famous for a specific aspect of themselves, which objectifies them in the eyes of people. Fans then rehumanize them, but through projection of their own desires, rather than reality. This is why fans get so personally upset when their favourite celebrity does or says something they don't expect; the object is not behaving as imagined and it breaks the illusion.
I would argue that it's easy for us to separate objects and people until people start acting like objects while expecting to be treated as people.
I swear, there is a particular strain of faggotry found in modern leftists, especially the young ones, where their brains simply cannot parse the distinction between fiction and reality. Or like, they can’t engage with the two differently, which is incredibly unhealthy.
Fictional characters have no agency.
They do what their creators want.
We have to assume that they too want whatever it is they're saying/doing.
"No fate for what we make."
Okay, let's play that game.
Take the extremely fit bare chested men off romance novels.
Like 2% of all guys can ever look that way anyway.
Give the guy a beer gut and man boobs. Pictures like that exist only for a sexual gaze, after all.
...
OK, now apply that argument to women's romance novels. That dude is being forced to act out your fantasies - but the problem any good feminist has is not the behavior, because they don't care, they have no standards.
The problem is the man.
You are trying to assert agency on a thing that does not exist in our reality, go to an asylum and quit trying to excuse yourself on why you are a whore
Who are the people setting the standard as to what constitutes "sexy" and what doesn't? What is the difference between a woman voluntarily subjecting her "work" to those standards vs an artist voluntarily subjecting their work to those standards?
A woman treating herself as an object is clearly empowering, because it advances female agency.
A hetrosexual man enjoying a portrayal of a woman as a sexual object is clearly problematic, because men should not be allowed to satisfy themselves with fictional women. That would prevent those men from being subservient to an actual woman, potentially reducing female agency by reducing the amount of male attention and resources they receive.
Everything being argued by the feminist can be expressed in terms of women's agency and domination of male attention and resources. In the eye of hypergamy, there is no contradiction or limitation: only women rationalizing an ever-greater share of male resources in a zero-sum game.