Books, Uncategorized

Do We Objectify Women?

Just me, and this boots! :*
Just me, and this boots!

Women are sex objects. I do not know why it is wrong to “objectify” women. If a publisher uses my intelligence to make money, is he “objectifying” me? But any writer would love to claim that it is his brains that did it for him. If a writer is—and even expected to be—proud of his high IQ, why do feminists expect women to be ashamed of their bodies? Both are innate and fairly stable over one’s lifetime. If someone shares an article of mine on Twitter saying, “OMG! Shanu’s brilliant article.”, I won’t lash out against them for granting people a glimpse into my brain. I don’t think feminists understand the implications of their claims. As Murray Rothbard once observed:

“One motif now permeating the entire movement is a strident opposition to men treating women as “sex objects.” This supposedly demeaning, debasing, and exploitative treatment extends from pornography to beauty contests, to advertisements of pretty models using a product, all the way to wolf whistles and admiring glances at girls in miniskirts. But surely the attack on women as “sex objects” is simply an attack on sex, period, or rather, on hetero-sex. These new monsters of the female gender are out to destroy the lovely and age-old custom—delighted in by normal women the world over—of women dressing to attract men and succeeding at this pleasant task. What a dull and dreary world these termagants would impose upon us! A world where all girls look like unkempt wrestlers, where beauty and attractiveness have been replaced by ugliness and “unisex,” where delightful femininity has been abolished on behalf of raucous, aggressive, and masculine feminism.

Jealousy of pretty and attractive girls does, in fact, lie close to the heart of this ugly movement. One point that should be noted, for example, in the alleged economic discrimination against women: the fantastic upward mobility, as well as high incomes, available to the strikingly pretty girl. The Women’s Libs may claim that models are exploited, but if we consider the enormous pay that the models enjoy—as well as their access to the glamorous life—and compare it with their opportunity cost foregone in other occupations such as waitress or typist—the charge of exploitation is laughable indeed.

Male models, whose income and opportunities are far lower than those of females, might well envy the privileged female position! Furthermore, the potential for upward mobility for pretty, lower-class girls is enormous, infinitely more so than for lower-class men: we might cite Bobo Rockefeller and Gregg Sherwood Dodge (a former pin-up model who married the multimillionaire scion of the Dodge family) as merely conspicuous examples. But these cases, far from counting as an argument against them, arouse the female liberationists to still greater fury, since one of their real complaints is against those more attractive girls who by virtue of their attractiveness have been more successful in the inevitable competition for men—a competition that must exist whatever the form of government or society (provided, of course, that it remains heterosexual).

Woman as “sex objects”? Of course they are sex objects and, praise the Lord, they always will be. (Just as men, of course, are sex objects to women.) As for the wolf whistles, it is impossible for any meaningful relationship to be established on the street or by looking at ads, and so in these roles women properly remain solely as sex objects. When deeper relationships are established between men and women, they each become more than sex objects to each other; they each hopefully become love objects as well. It would seem banal even to bother mentioning this, but in today’s increasingly degenerate intellectual climate no simple truths can any longer be taken for granted.

Contrast to the strident women’s liberationists the charming letter in the New York Sunday Times  by Susan L. Peck, commenting on the Brownmiller article. After asserting that she, for one, welcomes male admiration, Mrs. Peck states that “To some this might sound square, but I do not harbor a mad, vindictive desire to see my already hardworking, responsible husband doing the household ironing.”

After decrying the female maladjustment exhibited in the “liberation movement,” Mrs. Peck  oncludes: “I, for one, adore men and I’d rather see than be one!” Hooray and hopefully Mrs. Peck speaks for the silent majority of American womanhood.

Professor Leonard P. Liggio has brought to my attention two vitally important points in explaining why the women’s lib agitation has emerged at this time from within the New Left. The first is that the New Left women were wont to sleep promiscuously with the males in the movement and found to their shock and dismay that they were not being treated as more than mere “sex objects.” In short, after lacking the selfrespect to treat themselves as more than sex objects, these New Left women found to their dismay that the men were treating them precisely as they regarded themselves! Instead of realizing that their own promiscuous behavior was at the root of the problem, these women bitterly blamed the men, and Women’s Liberation was born.”


  1. Revelations

    You are the stupidiest writer I’ve ever seen. What a hypocrite you are! I would spit on your face if I could, for writing this. You are such a disgrace for the writing community itself to write the first line. This shows the way how you see women. Let’s project your mom as a *** object to experiment whether your judgements remain the same. Then you will know why objectification of women is a deadly marketing holocaust. I repeat, you are not a decent man but a filthiest disgrace alive.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *