Femenist theory

Is the "male gaze" a real problem in our society? Is sexual objectification not the result of unavoidable biological mechanisms? Are gender roles good or bad for a society? Im just looking dor opinions of people more informed about femenist philosphy than I am

Other urls found in this thread:

nytimes.com/2016/11/05/us/harvard-mens-soccer-team-scouting-report.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>Is the "male gaze" a real problem in our society? Is sexual objectification not the result of unavoidable biological mechanisms?

Well its either that, burkas, or blinders. All male only and female only towns and cities, only to communicate via the internet and dating sites, to then attempt to meet in safe spaces.

>Is the "male gaze" a real problem in our society?
Yes, it leads to sexual reproduction. Our society has a lot to learn about that, unlike some OTHER societies I could mention.

>Is the "male gaze" a real problem in our society?
For some, sure.

>Is sexual objectification not the result of unavoidable biological mechanisms?
Not really

>Are gender roles good or bad for a society?
Spookiest sentence I've ever read

> Im just looking dor opinions of people more informed about femenist philosphy than I am

You won't find that here. This is /pol9k/ central

not many people on this board actually have sexism on line with /pol/ tier sexism. the problem is that its a social taboo to say anything nice about female authors because the vocal minority of pol escapees will viciously attack you. so its probably better to just not talk about it as it never ends up being constructive. unless youre shitting on woolf then its ok

this.
just look at middlemarch man

>shitting on woolf
>being this much of a pleb

My thoughts on the male gaze is this:

If you see a girl and can't help but look because she embodies everything you'd want in a spouse, ok take a look.

But if you look at every female that enters your line of sight and think "i'd fuck that", you are a pig

So yeah, depends on the attitude

why does Veeky Forums exist if nobody ever uses it

>not loving Woolf

wew

>so its probably better to just not talk about it
that's beyond stupid, I hope you realize it

All women are mere holes. They are worthless and shouldn't be seen as anything but masturbatory props that you can project your fantasies upon and then discard at will.

They are barely conscious and are at about the cognitive level of a dog or a small child.

They need a strong disciplinary authority figure to discipline them to serve his needs.

>flat,800x800,075,f.u5[1].jpg

You dont seem to understand what male gaze refers to. Its the idea media is male centric and mostly portray women as objects of desire.

Also, theres literally nothing wrong with being sexually attracted to most of the women you see. You think sometimes its ok, but too much is bad? That doesnt make sense

>women as objects of desire

That's what I referring to, like how certain men can embody male gaze in the way they behave, by how they look at women

>portray women as objects of desire.
This is bad, because it might lead to sexual reproduction. As opposed to the pottery classes and tarot readings that have replaced sex in some OTHER societies I could mention.

>mostly portray women as objects of desire.

But many women benefit from this, like models and porn stars and strippers. And if woman did not want their divine geometry to be oogled they could dress more conservatively, though I understand it may be difficult or impossible to flatten luscious humps, thus, the burka.

Marveling at a womans face and/or body is marveling at the beauty of nature, celebrating and enjoying a work of art, to receive aesthetic pleasure.

>Is the "male gaze" a real problem in our society?
No, it won't affect any of your relationships as a man or as a woman, unless you are a woman who only associates with scum, which is your own damn fault anyway.
>Is sexual objectification not the result of unavoidable biological mechanisms?
Unavoidable no. But partially the result of biological mechanisms yes.
>Are gender roles good or bad for a society?
Spooky shit man. But yes, to an extent. The different genders have very different biological functions so it makes sense that they would play slightly different roles in society. However, anyone capable of qualifying for a job or what have you should be able to do it, as anything else tends to be a net loss for society.

The thing that does the most damage in terms of "sexual objectification" and shit isn't the so-called "male gaze" (oh no, an animated character in a videogame is wearing tight pants! The sexism!) but the ads and the like targeted at women. I know many very attractive women (without makeup) who refuse to leave the house without makeup on. If that isn't a sign of some sort of deep-seated psychological problem then I don't know what is. But otherwise, in the real world, no normal woman cares that there are sexy women in movies because they're too busy watching the sexy men in movies.

>like models and porn stars and strippers.

I dont know if it would help to add, the make up, bikini, high heel, jewelry, calender industries

The way I've had it described by a female friend is that "it's as though they're eating you with their eyes," and secretly I thought, yeah that's about right, while outwardly expressing sympathy. It was sincere I think. It can't be nice to be leered at any time you're out.

From our perspective it's just the mechanics of being a strait male. Can't speak for all of us but in my case the impulse to leer is pretty intense. I have to work consciously to overcome it, but at the same time I think why the fuck should I have to?

But if the goal of society is to create the maximum amount of well-being for the maximum number of people, then it's in the general interest to try to overcome it.

meh, id rather enjoy myself by looking which is physically harmless

>Physically
Key word there

there is no obligation to make others feel comfortable, and if there is, women break it all the time

>But many women benefit from this, like models and porn stars and strippers.
Yes, and also women of the female variety.

When's the last time you saw a female beggar?

no one curr

>I know many very attractive women (without makeup) who refuse to leave the house without makeup on. If that isn't a sign of some sort of deep-seated psychological problem then I don't know what is.
How do you know its not a natural psychological drive? Many species have a gender that goes out of the way to be attractive to the other gender, while the other gender simply picks and chooses

that's because shelters favor women

>When's the last time you saw a female beggar?
I work in downtown seattle and they are just as common as male beggars

If we forbade women to speak, we would enter a golden age as a species. Women are literally wired to break down any society they are a part of and sexism is the cure for that.

More damning evidence of male oppression.

But I doubt attractive women, so burdened by the male gaze, get to that point in the first place. They are one conversation away from staying at a strange man's place.

No obligation for sure. It's just likely the right thing to be wanting to do. Empathy is important, man. Put yourself in their situation. I've gone out with a female relative and I've seen the looks guys give her, and I've seen her reaction to it.

>women break it all the time
Rings true but what exactly do you mean?

>I've gone out with a female relative and I've seen the looks guys give her,

How does she not understand that she is beautiful yet? If you are beautiful, admirers of beauty are going to admire the beauty that beholds their eyes. If dogs, and birds, and squirrels look at her is she uncomfortable, or is the point that they are not as ugly creatures as the men whom she objects to?

She thinks, omg, even that hideous disgusting guy thinks im beautiful, that may imply that he would desire to have sex with me, that is disgusting, he does not deserve to think about desiring to have sex with me, or deserve to gain any pleasure from observing my beauty

Imagine if you were a baby chicklet walking around a swamp of alligators, it would feel as you may as well were being eaten.

Imagine being pure aesthetic beauty, pure fertile divine proportions womanity, imagine being encircled by 10 grotesque literal disgusting monster creeps, rotting teeth, discolored jagged porous odorous soreous faces, what little hair unkempt, breath bad enough to make onions cry, all licking their lips and moving toward you like frankenstein (s monster!), we could understand how no rational reasonable sensible individual would want to be in such a situation.

b-but im practically brad pitt, she cant mind me

Look at whatever you want and be a free man.

>How does she not understand that she is beautiful yet?
I'm sure when you get leers that tidbit comes quite quickly. Look, I'm not going to presume to know what their internal logic is, like over here, but if I had to take a crack at it I'd say there is no logic, more of a gut feeling than the sort of judgement "this guy is ugly and he does not deserve me," we all dread. (Though I'm sure if 90s-era Brad Pitt were to drool over a girl it'd be a different story.) The ogler to the oglee is the relationship between predator and prey. Knowing you're being undressed, imagined fucked on all fours. Shit like that.

And let's not pretend it's just a chaste admiration of beauty, though I know there can be moments of that.

>I've gone out with a female relative and I've seen the looks guys give her
Same, it even made me feel uncomfortable. It's okay to look at people, but all the guys who gazed at her moved their head and surveyed her so boldly, slightly grinning or giving creepy looks. It's okay to look at people, just don't be that obvious and inconsiderate like some degenerate pervert.

I worked a construction job for a couple years and the guys I worked with would ogle anything within vision that remotely resembled a female, I found it hilarious at first and it started rubbing off on me a little bit. It was never threatening or aggressive in any way, nobody catcalled or made any approaches, none of us would even consider doing that. Sometimes girls were aware that we worked there and would purposefully come by dressed in promiscuous clothes and chat with us or walk by several times very obviously, I assume because they liked the attention, which was cool. I can understand how women get upset sometimes because of stuff like that, but it's totally dependent on the situation. In a public space where people are going to be walking around and interacting, you can't really get upset at some dude casually staring at you, especially if you're showing a lot of skin or cleavage or something. Don't dress like that in public if you are uncomfortable with people looking at you.

As for it being biological, yea absolutely. There's a reason that those construction workers ogled girls more than any other men I've seen, because they had more testosterone than any other men I've seen, except maybe men in the military.

Gender roles are good and bad. For both genders. There are positives and negatives to being male or female, and they are biologically different so they should be treated like they're different, up to a point. Obviously denying women rights is wrong, but ignoring obvious biological differences in an attempt to make everyone equal is stupid. We're equal, but we're not the same. I find it annoying when feminists cherry pick all of the minuscule benefits to being a man and ignore all of the detriments. There are clear human rights issues with regard to sexes (particularly in places like the middle east and Africa) and then there's trivialities.

>sex is bad because men are absolutely repulsive
More proof that feminism is a lesbian conspiracy, as if we didn't have enough.

As an anti-feminist, I think we can all agree that blue collar people are shitty human beings.

Well, the lesbians probably want nothing more than to wear dungarees and play pool with these guys, but that's because they're congenitally contrary.

>I think we can all agree that blue collar people are shitty human beings

Nah no way. That's a shitty stereotype. There may be a lot of shitty blue collar guys who ruin the image for the rest, but most of them are good people, albeit dumb people. For the most part they're just just ignorant if anything, but with good intentions.
I kind of admire them, they live simple lives with simple problems and take part in life's simple pleasures. I'm definitely not cut from the same cloth, but I respect most of them

Leave your basement please

So it sounds like you weren't really a "looker" before working there, is that right?

Some of them are really fucking smart albeit not in the traditional, test-measurable way. I worked with this guy who I'd say had "social genius." The quickness with which he'd pick up on the slightest social cues and shoot back a reply, witty often, always left me amazed. Plus these guys have a bunch of sports shit memorized and I have the theory that they're just as smart as people we classically call smart, but the difference being that they place all their mental resources in trivial things that they just happen to be interested in. If they happened to have that same interest in say philosophy or physics, topics generally considered "smart", then they'd be too.

Oh I definitely was a "looker" before that, it was just how unapologetic they were about it

Also I agree with your second point. In fact I felt pretty stupid when I first started working my construction job, relative to one of the other guys in particular. He had a very sharp wit and absolutely blew me away with the amount of knowledge he had about motors, vehicles, engines, and any type of mechanical "hands on" work. He could just look under the hood of a tractor or bobcat when it wasn't working and figure out how to fix it even if he had never worked with it before. Did the same thing all the time with really simple shit as well. For example I was having trouble unbolting a stripped insert that kept these two support poles together, and he found a smaller pipe to put around the handle of a ratchet for more leverage and wedged the other ratchet against a surface while he kicked it loose. Was constantly doing little things like that which don't seem all that difficult to come up with in retrospect, but consistently thinking of similar stuff like that in the moment whenever we had a problem was pretty impressive. It's a unique type of practical knowledge, it started rubbing off on me after a while

>but all the guys who gazed at her moved their head and surveyed her so boldly, slightly grinning or giving creepy looks. It's okay to look at people, just don't be that obvious and inconsiderate like some degenerate pervert.
as usual, most men are repulsive to women so they do not like it, but they fear more the lack of attention

English society is so fucking repressed it's considered impolite to even signal that someone's sexually attractive.
Latin countries don't have this problem because they aren't all autistic faggots.
Feminism is just puritanism with "just because I'm naked doesn't mean I should be sexualized you disgusting pervert" thrown in.

>"just because I'm naked doesn't mean I should be sexualized you disgusting pervert" thrown in

kek. I definitely agree with this. There's been an insidious campaign to demonize male sexuality in the West. Some girls now are so sheltered that to them being approached by a guy and asked out or chatted-up is a minor trauma. "Creepy" is the word often used (and by the way, when did "creepy" acquire this sexual connotation that I don't remember it always having?).

Absolutely. And they've usually got a good moral core, or are generally "good" people. They'll help you out if you need it, and call you out on something if it's bs. And what's more, place any of us in a job like theirs and we'd be shit at it.

Well pic related is pretty creepy though

>mfw this is actually true

women are just really skilled manipulators

Good god. What an appropriate jpeg title.

it is natural for men like you to crave the validation of their existence and get depressed if they fail to feel relevant, responsible, dutiful.
The best way for a man to cater his need for approval is to serve some woman (and some of her children) through emotional&financial support, which he sees as ''a childish useless submissive woman'' [or whore and he feels betrayed by her]
Men are pleased to contribute to someone else life, to support their family.

Why women are a good way to feel relevant? Because women love to be provided for and each woman will always find a man ready to please her.
[for most men, the best feeling of feeling real is when the girl moans from your cock in her pussy, or for the most impotent, their tongue in the pussy]

THe problem for men is that they are disposable in the eyes of each woman, since all men wish to serve the few women who talk to them.
Men must thus invent several ways to please women, invention and creativity which strengthen their feeling of being worthy, relevant, in touch with reality.
Men are too impotent to find other way to feel real.
Once that the a woman replaces a man by another provider, the man gets very upset and depressed.
THis leads men to think that they are better than women, stronger, smarter and that they must built a life outside women. Some men manage to indeed built an empire, but they will always loose it for some women.
Women give meaning to men and betas, no matter how successful outside women, will always give up everything for some relationship with some woman who claim to fancy them.

So many replys in this troll thread, what the fuck is this reddit hahahah

Couldn't you bitches just get a productive hobby?

The problem of the male gaze is really more about context.

Woman don't want to be objectified when they are, for example, giving a lecture, reading the news, doing their shopping, trying to explain something. Etc

It's the feeling that nothing matters but how attractive they are to men that bothers women., not the fact men are attracted to them.

And sure some women won't care, and will even exploit it, but anybody with any feelings of dignity who cares about other things will find it uncomfortable.

In her essay she's talking about the male gaze in cinema, it's not readily apparent that you can extend that concept to talk about the real world.

lol no women have dignity at all, they're are nothing but whores

You cant respond to a criticism of sexism with more sexism, dumbass.

>It's the feeling that nothing matters but how attractive they are to men that bothers women

But that is true to some extent. A man really doesn't care if a woman has a PhD in philosophy, or is a nurse, as long as she loves him and is loyal.

Which is why you see female secretaries marrying the CEO of a company, but you never see it the other way around.

Men see the physical aspects of women more easily, that's true, but a woman really has the final say in everything related to sex, or sexualization, because they are the pathway to procreation.

The fact that magazines exist that show scantily clad women, is a problem with women, not men. Everyone knows men want to see nude women, but it wouldn't happen if women refused to do it.

sexism is true, though, take the redpill

That very conveniently absolves all men.

Women are to blame for everything, though. Ever since they got the vote the West has crumpled and the white man is being genocided

But that is exactly the problem, it's dehumanising and horrible to have your existence reduced to tits and ass.

>Is the "male gaze" a real problem in our society?
yes
>Is sexual objectification not the result of unavoidable biological mechanisms?
it has material basis but it is not
>Are gender roles good or bad for a society?
genders per se are bad

i think the main problem with Veeky Forums is the individualism and the lack of empathy of its users, most /pol/tards are just middle class white straight (kek) males, they don't give a fuck about any other human being except themselves

Every time
Is this pasta?

Give me one good reason why I should give a shit about women, non-whites, and degenerates?

>That very conveniently absolves all men.

Well in this context men aren't at fault.

The fact that women are find the sexually lusting gaze of a man uncomfortable is a problem within the individual woman's psyche, not a problem with the man's gaze, because that gaze has existed for 100 million years and we're still here.

>But that is exactly the problem, it's dehumanising and horrible to have your existence reduced to tits and ass.

But apparently it isn't, because women gleefully and willfully reduce themselves to that all the time by participating in arenas of life where that is the whole point.

don't cut yourself on that edge

Not. An. Argument

you fail to understang that the gaze of a man is percieved by most women as a will to rape them

>you fail to understang that the gaze of a man is percieved by most women as a will to rape them

I don't think that's true.

>le /pol/ retard roleplaying

>uses buzzwords
>pretend arguments
lole

I think your post is serious.

But if you think right-wing ideology is a selfish idea you couldn't be more wrong. Right-wing thinking always puts society above the individual.

Progressivism is a war against the nature of man(kind). It has its roots in the disgust of the self. It's an attempt to place oneself above others. It's hubristic and degenerate. it tries to divide society in more and more pieces, it wants every individual to become its own nation. it wants to create a multi-ethnic, pluralistic society, anti-authoritarian people made of measure.

I do think it'd be better for the human race if all /pol/ users were shot.

it's quite funny that everyone tacitly knows that the first thing a man thinks about when he sees a woman is whether he'd fuck her or not but when confronted with this fact we consider it abhorrent
see:
nytimes.com/2016/11/05/us/harvard-mens-soccer-team-scouting-report.html
don't think any amount of cultural brainwashing could change it either

Why do you people think Ted was a right winger? He complains about the left in his manifesto, but the kind of primitivism he's promoting is a very anarchist kind of primitivism.

>Right-wing thinking always puts society above the individual.
Why do all modern people who see themselves as right-wing think that climate change is a hoax?

You'd think you'd need a stable climate for society to work

>believing in human nature
>believing degeneracy isn't based on arbitrary norms
i hope you're enjoying eating from the trashcan of ideology

Maybe controlling your baser instincts is a good thing.

But I don't understand why this is wrong. Women do exactly the same, men are simply more vocal about it amongst themselves.

A woman literally decides within 10 seconds of seeing a man whether or not she could see herself having sex with him, and if you've ever had prolonged encounters with women, you can literally sense that they have done so the moment you walk into a room with strange women.

>stable climate

I'm commie scum and that's a bit spooky m'lad

Is this satire? You are contradicting yourself so much it must be intentional

>all think

Whew lad, gonna need a source there

anarchist primitivism is tribalism, which is what the right wing truly wants in its core. Technology accelerated degeneracy.

I do think it'd be better for the human race if everyone was shot, except the Amish.

did I advocate acting on them?

I am as right-wing as it gets and I believe it's real (but I don't know, of course).

I also think that the only way to get this system stable is first of all to reduce the population, since efficiency and asceticism can only get this far.

>Is the "male gaze" a real problem in our society?
No.
>Is sexual objectification not the result of unavoidable biological mechanisms?
No.
>Are gender roles good or bad for a society?
Good, duh.

>not believing in human nature
>believing like an ancient Egyptian that the brain is just a filler in the cranium

Behaviour and pretty much everything that makes us what we are is good 80%, minimum 50% in the genes, the rest is nurture. To believe there is no human nature is absolutely ridiculous. Is anger a reasonable choice? People in their arrogance like to put themselves above nature, as free-willed agents of reason. But they are not. Another point would be nurture- alas we live in a society where controlled nurture is at a minimum and we just abandon our children to the world and hope the free market will fix them. Freedom is indeed slavery.


>believing degeneracy isn't based on arbitrary norms
What is degenerate and what is not is depending on a measure. Only a society with a goal can also measure it's growth and purity. However the left only measures with coins, which is why the left joke of conservativism is neoconservativism and communism is merely an economic theory/solution. Surely it's easier to measure GDP, but of course you would be able to judge one culture as superior or inferior to another and a lifestyle better than another, if only you dared to do so.

>i hope you're enjoying eating from the trashcan of ideology
Good argument.

feminist theory is interesting because women are capable (usually after men blaze the trail) of critiquing deep constraints on their freedom, and the ways in which they are "othered" and all that shit, but they can only do it from a self-othering stance of bawling like children and guilt-tripping male society into making life easier for them

the kind of woman who seriously recoils from limitations on her freedom from things like "the male gaze" usually isn't the kind of woman who then needs to spend her entire life crying about it like a woman so that men will go "there, there" and fix it for her

if you want to read """"feminism""" from """"feminists""" whose idea of feminism is sitting around male institutions and trying to nag all their male colleagues and men at large like a fucking overbearing mother, by all means read this shit

>Is the "male gaze" a real problem in our society?

Here's a suggestion; find a media form that is aimed at women like, oh, Nylon: fashion mag with a female editor , mainly female staff, and a readership that is overwhelmingly female.
The female editors, photographers, and models are *more likely* to present women in positions that Feminists claim 'prove male gaze' in media that is aimed at women.
Then look at, oh, GQ - these male-led, male-staffed magazines aimed at men are *less likely* to present women in such a way that Feminists would say demonstrates 'male gaze'.
tl;dr - no

that sounds retarded, I would sacrifice a child to hades if it meant I became a hot piece of ass

>most /pol/tards are just middle class white straight (kek) males, they don't give a fuck about any other human being except themselves
You're a racist bigot.
Yes, really - you are judging a group of people negatively based on class, race, and gender.
Scum

>Person glances at a stranger that he will never interact with
>Can only evaluate physical traits
>Mistaking this for reducing a person
'Not interviewing every passerby for their biography' != 'dehumanizing'.

...

>genders per se are bad

The male gaze is an art theory, its talked about in "Ways of seeing".

Used properly it is fairly convincing, Berger is able to show the difference between "the male gaze" at work in art and a male artist painting a naked or even fairly 'sexy' portrait of a woman.

Feminists do not engage with this nuance.

t.someone who doesn't understand the difference between sex and gender

Nothing good on /pol/?

lol boohoo need a safe space?

the problem with the "reverse racism" argument is that saying white men are ignorant and self-interested is not quite the same as saying that black people/muslims/immigrants are subhuman and should be systematically oppressed. does this make sense to you?