Condoning Male Objectification is Condoning Violence

I found myself a little uneasy in reading Susan Bordo's "Beauty (Re)Discovers the Male Body", a chapter from her book entitled The Male Body: A New Look at Men in Public and in Private. This is the first time I've felt uneasy (in this particular course) with a specific viewpoint of an author, and so I'm particularly interested in the response of my fellow classmates in making Bordo's argument seem more just to me.

~~~~~ 

On page 178, Bordo writes the following - 

Perhaps, too, heterosexual men could learn to be less uncomfortable offering themselves as "sexual objects" if they realized the pleasure women get from it. Getting what you have been most deprived of is the best gift, the most healing gift, the most potentially transforming gift - because it has the capacity to make one more whole. Women have been deprived not so much of the sight of beautiful male bodies as the experience of having the male body offered to us, handed to us on a silver platter, the way female bodies - in the ads, in the movies - are handed to men. 

This is where my unease grew to be undeniable. 

First and foremost, I think it goes without saying that the objectification of men in advertisements and in media is just as healthy for men as it is for women when women's bodies are objectified. Female objectification is detrimental to women in that it creates painfully unrealistic and unattainable beauty standards for women to uphold. In the same way, male objectification holds men to unrealistic and unattainable beauty standards as well, which is equally painful to the esteem and self-understanding of a man.

                                 

But I think there's a larger issue with male objectification, that is oftentimes either ignored or perhaps intentionally condoned. And so next, I'd like to mainly focus on the implications that come with "the experience of having the male body offered" to women. My issue here is this - despite the fact that we, as women, are constantly fighting against the idea proposed by ads and movies - the idea that women's bodies are easily handed to men as if to acknowledge their control, right, and ownership over them - we now condone the opposite situation. Although we acknowledge that men feeling possessive over women's bodies is wrong, we do not acknowledge the same from women in regards to men's bodies. Here, Bordo specifically states that men should be comfortable with being a sexual object knowing that a woman finds pleasure in it. But... would we ever claim that a woman ought to be comfortable with being a sexual object simply because a man finds pleasure in it? No. So where does this double-standard come into play where it appears to be acceptable, as apart of the feminist movement, to condone the objectification of men, but not the objectification of women? What does that say about the feminist understanding of objectification?

 

~~~~~

So while I'm upset by this double-standard, I do feel as if I understand why feminists might find it logical and acceptable to condone the objectification of male bodies in the media; I understand this other side very clearly, which is why I'm so distraught about how to feel in regard to this article. 

I understand that the objectification of men is different than the objectification of women because, for so long, men have had the privilege of not being objectified and because they are rarely objectified throughout their daily routine; objectification is different with men because their objectification is purely through the media. This is to say that the objectification of women is more intense because we are objectified not only through advertisements, movies, and magazines, but also through the people we encounter in our day to day lives -- not to mention the fact that we are objectified through our own political and economical systems. Really then, it should be clear that the objectification of men is more acceptable simply because they experience so much privilege in all aspects of their life, that male objectification in the media will perhaps prove a point and enable them to check the rest of their privilege. 

I also understand this idea from a different perspective - the idea that we "raise our daughters more like sons" but we don't "raise our sons more like our daughters"; I do see truth in the idea that we cannot empower women simply through providing them with access to stereotypically masculine traits, but that we must also provide men with access to stereotypically feminine traits. However... to that, I must ask, why is objectification a feminine trait? Yes, I do suppose objectification is unfortunately so much apart of a women's existence, but still, I'm doubtful to believe that objectifying men will result in some type of empathetic understanding. I mean, really, haven't we learned that two wrongs don't make a right?

In an article written for The Cut, by Kat Stoeffel, Stoeffel discusses the idea behind supporting male objectification very well:

Does [objectifying men] make us hypocrites? By objectifying men, do we undermine our criticism of those who would objectify us? NO. "Not being objectified" is just one of the many advantages of being male. When we selectively revoke this freedom from body scrutiny, we don't do anything to diminish the meaningful economic and reproductive advantages men enjoy. Put it another way: We will stop Dong Watch once there's a female president, zero wage gap, and Swedish-level paid paternal leave; once tampons, birth control, and abortions are all available free and on-demand.

So again, I really do understand where Stoeffel is coming from with this argument. However, I still find myself stuck. 

~~~~~

To me, the bottom line is objectification leads to dehumanization and, regardless of how much privilege you may or may not have, dehumanization is ultimately what leads to violence and violence can happen to anyone, regardless of their privilege. Thus, if we condone the objectification - thus also condoning the dehumanization - of men in return for the objectification and dehumanization that women have so regularly faced, we are also condoning violence. So despite the fact that I can see and understand the perspective that justifies male objectification, I cannot come to terms with the idea that the objectification of men does anything productive in our fight against the war on women's bodies. 

                                

Again, I really posted this because I'm incredibly curious for your opinions -- disagree with me, agree with me, correct me on something, point out something I failed to mention. I'm really stumped on this issue, and I'd love to hear what other people have to say.