It really pisses me off when MRAs kick off about how men are objectified by women in the media and in cultural imagery. The enforcement of masculinity and the Spartan, athletic physique is a product of the circle-jerk mentality ingrained within the patriarchy of our society. Men who are so in love with their own masculinity and the perfect male form that they create completely idealised goals and standards for men to meet in order to align themselves with what patriarchy dictates as being masculine. Stop pointing the blame at feminists because it is not women who objectify men; men objectify men through a completely narcissistic relationship with their own bodies.
Who has the male objectification rebuttle macro on hand?
I’m guessing that means you don’t actually have a rebuttal?
so we’re ignoring the fact that mass produced romance novels are a really poor attempt to fabricate female sexual fantasies in order for men to make money? I can almost guarantee that the artist on the right was probably a guy and, although the author probably was female the book is does not fully depict female sexuality of fantasy. It’s just cheap crap that men sell to women to try and tell them that to be submissive is the ultimate fantasy, when it’s probably not the case for many women as is just a way for men to maintain that women are resigned to a submissive role generally.
heard it hear folks! a women dominated industry selling entirely to women is an agent of the patriarchy!
it’s not like women have agency or anything!
the way that patriarchy operates makes the industry complicit with it’s damaging social hegemony, it doesn’t necessarily mean people are actively attempting to maintain and enforce it. although, i would really question you stating that the publishing and literature industries are female dominated considering their is still a massage gap between how men and women are payed in the industry.
The romance novel industry is the MOST lucrative section of the publishing industry! women are making more than men! women selling their fantasies to women is patriarchy and bad! What people want in the bedroom is EXACTLY what they want out in the world!
Please go on
and explain why
is actually homoerotic.
(oh, and it’s a female artist for the romance cover)
- Romance novels are lucrative because they are marketed to appeal to the masses. However, this mass is a target audience that has lived their entire lives in a patriarchy that dictates that women are to be submissive, If you are taught that black is actually white and taught that white is your favourite colour then someone selling black t-shirts is going to make a lot of money (if you understand my analogy)
‘women’s preferences are wrong and the fault of men, because I say so’
- Woman are not earning more than men in this industry, there is still an immense gender gap in terms of salary and power.
looked for that, could only find women making more.
Where are you hearing that men are?
- Men are selling these fantasies to women; women are being told how to conduct themselves sexually
women are selling them to women.
- The fact that these novels tell women that their sexual/romantic role is ultimately a submissive one is an extension of the message presented by society to women from a very very young age. eg. big strong boy, cute little girl.
the fact that you have never read a romance novel is apparent.
- I don’t know where your homoerotic point come from. My initial argument was not based around the eroticising of the male body by other men, rather it’s glorification and thereby objectification. Masculine = big/beefy/muscular/athelic = GOOD.
Can I get a woman to sound off on how they like beefy guys? I feel like I’m talking to a post.
- The artist was most likely commissioned to create the cover-art by the publishers which are most likely male when considering the disparity in gender representation in the industry.
and they had no artistic freedom what so ever. remember: women have no agency, and saying that women have no agency is progressive if you phrase it right.
You take everything I say completely out of context or present it in an exaggerated format and it’s not helpful or constructive to this debate.
I didn’t say women’s preferences are “wrong” I said the submissive role is a position taught to and conditioned in women by society from infancy.Yes some women might enjoy being submissive in the bedroom (just as many men do) but the fact that it is the primary sexual role for women that society presents is problematic.
Here’s are two articles that I’m able to provide to back-up my argument that women are not fairly represented or payed within the publishing industry:
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/research/gender_pay_gap_briefing_paper2.pdf (though this article does not have “Publishing” as a specific sub-category, it falls into others listed here)
The fact that I’ve never read a romance novel is irrelevant, we’re not discussing literature here, we’re discussing how publishing works in complicity with patriarchy.
Sure some women might like beefy guys (just as some men do) but it’s problematic that this is considered the only “approved” target of attraction; just as it is extremely problematic that young boys are taught from a young age what woman they should find attractive by society and patriarchy’s standards.
I said that the artist was probably commissioned meaning she A) had to accurately depict the content of the book which I have already argued as being a by-product of the conditioned and continuously re-enforced “submissive” role B) was told what to design by the publisher and given a brief.