Modern Feminism is Necessary

Thanks, soda. So like I said, I'll argue against your points and then bring up my own.Sexual ObjectificationLet me start out by saying humans are sexual creatures. We are attracted to people of the opposite (or occasionally same) sex. A man looking at you in a sexual way, or a woman looking at a man in a sexual way (yes, women can think of men in a sexual way too) is a.) not a bad thing, and b.) not sexist, nor something we need to fight against.With all that being said, I noticed your points aren't really about men or women looking at each other simply in a sexual way, so thanks for that. However, you go on to say that by using attractive PEOPLE in ads, it promotes the dehumanization of women. So I have a couple things to say about this. First of all, there are many ads that use an attractive man (sometimes just in his underwear) to sell a product. Here is a pretty good example of that: Although there are more ads that contain scantily-clad women over men, it's silly to deny that there are also ads that "sexualize" men in order to sell their products. So this means, by your own logic, that all humans are just dehumanizing each other, as we use male and female bodies to sell products.I have a couple things to say about this: 1.) How does this affect you? I'm looking at the ad beside this text right now, and I think to myself "huh, I wonder if that Air Freshener is any good." What I don't think is "huh, this ad is over-sexualizing the male body and is dehumanizing this man by using his body as nothing more than an object and something to look at." And even if I did think that... it's not affecting me. It's obviously his choice to participate in this ad, and I'm sure he's quite happy with it - he's able to show off his body, get some attention, get some money, and become somewhat popular. The company hiring this guy isn't "dehumanizing" him by paying him money to model beside an air freshener to catch the eyes of women. They aren't saying "you're less than a human because you're attractive and use your attractiveness to get attention and sell products." Anyway, the same situation, but with a woman, doesn't affect you. It's her choice to look pretty to sell something. And if it does affect you, I'd like to know how.2.) The word "objectification" needs to go. An object is not something you have sex with. I wouldn't have sex with a lamp. I wouldn't have sex with a guitar. I wouldn't have sex with a chapstick (unless I was drunk). By saying you're "objectifying" them is actually discouraging people from joining fields like modeling, acting, etc. And the first objective of feminism was to empower women and let them know they can do whatever they want with their lives? As long as it isn't "looking attractive," you can do what you want. On top of that, this isn't going to change how I view women. People won't see a Carl's Jr. ad(amazing burgers by the way), and think "wow, those hot women are holding Burgers! I value women as less than men now! I now only see women as something to have sex with!" ...This wouldn't (and doesn't) happen.My other point is regarding nipples. Check out the graph below. Areas in green represent places that completely allow women to go topless. Orange is relaxed laws, and it's illegal for women to be topless in red areas [1]. So, this shows that in 100% of Canada, and more than 90% of America, it is not illegal for women to be topless. Although there is that small 10% in America, there is a pretty good argument behind the reason female breasts are frowned upon being shown in public: sexual stimulation. Studies have shown that the female nipple lights up and reacts with the same area of the brain as the clitoris does [2]. So this means that the female breasts are technically a sexual organ. So we have two options; treat the breasts the same as any other sexual organ and cover them up, or fight to uncover the clitoris as well, as it shares a common function with the nipples. If you believe the nipples should be free, so should the clit.So let's sum this up real quick. Men and women are both sexualized in TV, as humans are sexual creatures. It's up to the person offering their body to make a decision regarding how they make their money, it's not up to you. "Objectification" just doesn't work, as nobody (not many people, anyway) wants to have sex with an object. And the female nipples are equivalent to the clitoris, so covering them up isn't "unfair," but it is "sexualizing," as they are sexual organs. ...Which isn't a bad thing. Where I live, I've seen maybe two topless women at public beaches in my whole life.Slut ShamingThis is another situation that actually also affects men. Men are called players (and other terms I can't use here) for sleeping with many women. It's generally frowned upon for anyone to sleep with a lot of different people. With that being said, I agree that people should be able to sleep with as many people as they want, however feminism isn't going to do anything about mean people. There will always be a name that people will come up with for someone that they disagree with. If I call Mike a "dick," am I suggesting penises are bad? If someone calls you a slut for sleeping with a lot of people, you ignore them, as they're a mean person and will find something else to call you anyway, and go on with your day. Feminism isn't going to magically stop all the mean people from existing. If they don't chastise one of your behaviors, they'll chastise another."A man's virginity is seen as nothing, a woman's virginity has extreme importance to her." And you find a way to twist this into "women are oppressed"? It's scientifically proven that (I don't want to get into detail) if not stimulated correctly, it does hurt the first time a girl has sex [3]. To ensure they have a good time and aren't hurt (physically or emotionally), it's recommended that girls take pride in the person they lose it to. It's not only more emotionally meaningful to women than men [4], it's more uncomfortable/painful.So, to sum this bit up, we see that men and women are both "slut shamed," by being called mean words for having sex. We also see that these are just words, and to take offence to these words is silly. Society as a whole doesn't believe it's bad to have sex with many people, and the media sure doesn't promote against it. It's just a few people that are mean to begin with who will call you out on anything anyway.Double StandardsI'm actually not quite sure where you get this idea that people think women who are in positions of power are looked at as pushy or bitchy. Almost every TV show or movie or book I read, a woman who is in power pretty much kicks the hell out of all the guys. Hell, most women in most media are portrayed as better than men. What I mean by this, especially in action movies, sure there are more men than women, however the women jump in, guns blazing, showing up the men, saying some cheesy "let the girls play now" line to make the men look weak, etc. Bosses being called bitchy or annoying or anything happens to both men and women. There just isn't a gender-exclusive word for men. With that being said, there are plenty of negative gender-exclusive words for men. And again, I have to reiterate my point that women in the media, whether in positions of authority or not, are often looked at as badass and able to show up the men. In fact, it's often men who are portrayed as clumsy, stupid, weak, etc.To quickly add one more thing to this, that whole "ban bossy" campaign that was going around a while ago was absolute rubbish. If being called a mean word deters you from entering a career path you want, maybe you weren't really fit out for that career to begin with. Someone who gives up after being called a bad word (happens to everybody) probably wouldn't have been that beneficial anyway. Alright, I don't want to take up too much space, so I'm jumping in to why I think feminism is a bad thing. I'm going to skip the fact that the wage gap is a myth and show that feminism spreads lies and is dangerous to women.Victim BlamingThis whole idea of "slut shaming" and "victim blaming" suggests that women should wear what they want, do what they want, and act how they want, and in the end not expect any negative repercussions. Now I agree that it would be fabulous to live in a crime-free world, but that is unrealistic and currently is not the case, so it is smart and safe for men and women to take precautions while walking around alone, or in general. To suggest that women should be able to do what they want and not suffer consequences is asking for special treatment, as well as superiority. There aren't "theft walks" with people saying we should be able to wear what we want and not fear getting mugged. Same goes for other forms of crimes (that surprisingly primarily effect men). Feminists are only asking for *more* rights when it benefits women. This is not a positive/equal thing.Feminism Spreads LiesLike I said earlier with the wage gap, there are "statistics" that feminists present as fact, that aren't actually fact. Primarily the "1 in 5 women are raped" nonsense. Not only are almost all of these "statistics" taken from surveys [5], and not factually based with evidence at all, they scare the hell out of girls. Apparently 1 in 3 women are sexually assaulted. This puts fear into young girls and women in order to "show how oppressed they are." Although I agree there is a problem in developing countries, this doesn't reflect North America at all.Anyway, no more space, so thanks.Sources[1] http://gotopless.org...[2] http://www.livescience.com... [3] http://goaskalice.columbia.edu...[4] http://www.womenshealthmag.com...[5] http://www.washingtonexaminer.com...