Talk:Sexual objectification

message: The article seems to be a clear mix of an article on sexual objectification, and an article on sexual objectification in feminism.  Which article is this suppose to be?  Sexual objectification, as a concept laid-out by Kant, pre-dates feminism (broadly speaking) by around a century and continues on to the present as a topic of philosophical, psychological and sociological discussion.  This is so entirely devoid of feminist approaches, just as the reverse is true.  As an article on sexual objectification within feminism, it gives far too much weight, and contradictory weight at that, to non-feminist approaches.  As an article on sexual objectification, it's highly slanted in favour of feminist ideologies.  The very fact that the section entitled 'Views on Sexual Objectification' is formulated as a disjunct between feminists and social conservatives is a breath taking outcome example of such a muddled approach.  No encyclopedic entry would ever define this subject matter as a disjunct between social conservatives and feminists.  This article should certainly be separated into two articles, one on the topic of sexual objectification (which of course should address Kant, among others fyi) and one on sexual objectification in feminism.  Maxxx12345 (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no expert on this subject matter, however I keep this article bookmarked for research purposes. You could always add a new section on Immanuel Kant and the article might just evolve on its own. WriterWithNoName (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see below, those of us who are expects who note such issues are simply told 'no'.  Kant is a problem of undue weight, regarding a principle he scribed?  Wow.  Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which treats the subject just as I mention, is a problem of reliable sources?  Sexual objectification can't be formatted on wiki, as it is in other encyclopedias, because Kant would be undue weight and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is not a reliable source...  It's amazing lay people openly state things like this, simply amazing. Maxxx12345 (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you are referring to my comment below, I will just note that if you have a problem with the way Wikipedia works, don't edit here. Your POV editing, both as Maxxx12345 and as different IPs, has not gone unnoticed. And as for me being a layperson, you are free to think that, especially since, in my eyes, you are the layperson. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: And, also, be careful not to twist my words in the future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

text: This article is supposed to be about the topic as defined by WP:Reliable sources and as applied with WP:Due weight. WP:Content forking in this case would be a no. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which article is this suppose to be? 

message: Ethanpet113, regarding this edit you made, that's not how WP:Neutrality works on Wikipedia. Also, if you want such a section in this article, find WP:Reliable sources for it and add it. Don't add an empty section. I reverted the empty section (followup comment here). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Men, boys, and self-objectification section 

message: Hi! I added a small section at the beginning of the subsection on objectification theory. This section seemed to be lacking a clear definition of the theory and its consequences, and I thought the section would be better clarified if this was stated first. I'm a student editor, so I'm still new to this process. If anyone has anything to add or anything that needs to be changed about my addition, the advice would be greatly appreciated. Charismatic88 (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to Objectification Theory 

message: according to this source . Is this too primary? I don't have the experience to assess the quality of a journal or study in this field. Can someone point me in the right direction? -- Spacepine (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Spacepine, it's not a quality source. And I wouldn't use it to state the matter in Wikipedia's voice; see WP:YESPOV. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: An academic paper out of Yale is not a quality source? Primary yes... Are you saying that the jouranl is suspect? Spacepine (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Just now saw your comment. I stand by what I stated above. A Psychology Today blog is not a quality source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: @User:Flyer22 Reborn / @User:Flyer22 Frozen (I hope it's okay I pinged you. I'm not sure if replying alone will send a notification to you.) Here  is a link to the study itself, which should be used given that it is pertinent to the topic and peer-reviewed. Given the large amount of sources stating otherwise, it shouldn't be given too much weight though, I would assume. - 92.206.142.146 (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Porn causes animalization, not objectification

message: StarHOG, regarding this, the sources on sexual objectification are usually speaking of boys and men sexually objectifying girls and women. We should not be removing that clarity from the article. That is not how WP:NPOV works. Yes, women also sexually objectify women, but it is not as widespread as boys and men doing it, and the literature is mostly focused on men as the ones who objectify. And, yes, there is talk of women sexually objectifying themselves, but it's commonly traced back to being a result of patriarchy or sex-positive feminism/female empowerment. That men sexually objectify women should not be removed from the "Sexual objectification of women" section any more than both women and gay men being the ones who objectify should be removed the "Sexual objectification of men" section. You removed "male" from the following sentence: "Female sexual objectification by a male involves a woman being viewed primarily as an object of male sexual desire, rather than as a whole person." While I don't mind the removal of "by a male", the "male sexual desire" part should be there, since that is usually what the sexual objectification of women concerns. I will restore it. If you reply to me on this, I ask that you don't WP:Ping me since this article is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: All good points. When I read the article for the first time I felt that the entire article strained to say what sexual objectification was for the lay person reading this encyclopedia. I'm really not trying to downplay the males' role in this, just wanted to present it in a way that acknowledges that it can come from many different sources and genders. You're right about the source material, but it is also our job as editors to paraphrase when the source is not quoted and make a better article. I think the rest of the article needs a lot of trimming, too, but I didn't have time yesterday. My view is that it needs further editing to focus on sexual objectification. I hope you will look at the edits I make today and feel free to build on them with edits of your own. StarHOG (Talk) 14:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: StarHOG, thanks for explaining. Yeah, the article can obviously do with some improvement. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

text: I'm not clear on what you feel needs trimming or where the article deviates from a focus on sexual objectification, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "men" or "males" as the ones who objectify  

message: I feel that this article has a major problem with the message it is trying to convey. It briefly defines what sexual objectification is, then lists places where it can happen (without good examples) and the effects it has on victims (again, with poor examples or strange tangents). If the article is read objectively, from the viewpoint of a wiki-reader that wants to know what sexual objectification is, this article really misses the mark currently. I am engaged in trying to make bold edits to improve the article, and I encourage others to do the same. StarHOG (Talk) 16:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free, of course. I will help when I can or (here on the talk page) address issues I have with parts of the article or edits. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

text: As noted above, I don't see where the article fails to make clear what sexual objectification is. It's not something that needs a Definitions section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article overhaul 

message: Is it just me or is this page heavily biased? Nothing is wrong with putting feminist views here, but would it hurt to put some of the men's opinions here too?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.10.142 (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: We go by WP:Due weight. Have a look at that policy. The literature on sexual objectification‎ is overwhelmingly about the sexual objectification‎ of women. Including more men's opinions is fine as long as it adheres to WP:Due weight. Men's rights views are WP:Fringe. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've felt a little of this in editing the article, especially since there is a section on gay men being objectified. Remember, you're welcome to make bold edits to include some of this as long as it is well-sourced and relevant. StarHOG (Talk) 15:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: A bit Biased?

message: StarHOG, regarding this, this and this? That was WP:Drive-by tagging. They were added without any valid explanation being given for them on this talk page. In the case of these tags, what is WP:Peacock wording in the article? If it's there, it can be easily fixed. Any poor references can be easily removed. And citation style can be easily fixed. These tags will not help a thing. They will just sit there for years. 
On side note: You keep re-adding this even though it keeps being removed. Exactly how does that commentary improve the article? How is this person's commentary WP:Due?
Please don't ping me when you reply. I did not ping you because it's not necessary. Clearly, we're both watching this article/talk page. And I pointed you to this talk page when reverting you. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I didn't really put any thought into the tags themselves. I know I had put some time into this article trying to make it better and it is a real chore, and I think i is far from being really good, so I thought the tags were a good idea to draw editors. But I didn't place the tags or put any thought into them. The Peterson statement and link I think, IMO, was an interesting commentary on self-objectification in a situation we don't really think about - your peers in a work environment. Not all self-objectification is Hooters, beauty contests, and playboy pictures. What do you think? StarHOG (Talk) 18:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the tags, I stand by what I stated above. Regarding that Peterson statement, no, I don't think it's WP:Due. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article tags 

message: This section is not neutral (it even uses the pronoun "we"). Can someone fix this? Kokopelli7309 (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Media" Section in "Sexual Objectification of Men" 

message: It'd be good to see a criticism of this concept included in the article for maintaining NPOV. Chantern15 (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Include Criticism of concept for NPOV 

message: I have eliminated the most outrageous biased sections, but this article still has problems. I will not be surprised if someone with a bias comes back and restores what I have deleted. I think editors should take a look at this.
Island Pelican (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV

message: The third paragraph of this section is not correctly cited, and the first sentence is not necessarily what the citation says. It is also written poorly. Additionally, the section right above it, called "self-objectification" seems like a very short paragraph that can be merged. Captchacatcher (talk) 08:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize if I was supposed to put this at the very bottom... I wasn't sure with all of the Wiki-Education sections. Captchacatcher (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women, girls, and self-objectification 

message: — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACHorwitz (talk • contribs) 18:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment 

message: Due to the numerous complaints and criticisms about this article’s point of view, I am adding an NPOV tag.  As stated above (by someone else, not me) it uncritically states a very broad definition of objectification supported by anti-sex feminists (maybe they take issue with this term but I don’t know what else to call them) and social conservatives, and ignoring the views of sex-positive feminists and other classical liberals. Criticism of the article’s neutrality  is not only common, but basically all this talk page consists of. 
Island Pelican (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: — Assignment last updated by Marimend (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01

message: — Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01

message: — Assignment last updated by Jewelz&Ruby24 (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Music in History Intersectionality and Music