Suseonline. If I were to walk a mile in your shoes? I'd be a mile further away and probably crippled for life. Boom boom.
As for objectifying women?
Can't beat nature and what am.
Men will always find attractive women attractive; that is why good looking gals feature so prominently in various deodorant ads and what have you.
[Moreover, nobody is twisting their arm!]
Not only do the products not work as intended, or like some sort of chick magnet, but rather have the opposite affect, with some very effeminate males being the ones with the twitchy noses.
( Oh la la la, I say darling, you smell divine.)
In fact these very products cover up the very pheromones we mere men need to attract a truly compatible baby making partner!
At the end of the day, those things that elicit a great big belly laugh, is what we all take notice of, and by definition, sell the most products.
As a father with two daughters, who I value more than my life!
I am first among equals for true equality, and completely demolished glass ceilings.
What I am not in favor of, is replacing the old boys club with a control freak feminazi one!
Life wasn't meant to be taken too seriously, nor I suggest, a patent control freak/nutter, who wants to live in a world without men?
If she is serious, how would she raise all the boys! Boom boom.
Cheers, Rhrosty.

Yes I agree with what you are saying Rhosty.
I am absolutely not advocating for a world without men at all.

I just wish we could have more of a happy medium between a world according to pre 1960's old boys, and the more militant feminist groups.

As for the sexist adverts, maybe I am just upset there aren't more ads showcasing goodlooking young men ....like the 'Old Spice' ads :)

Cheers,
Suse.

Suse

‘I just wish we could have more of a happy medium between a world according to pre 1960's old boys, and the more militant feminist groups.’

Oh, for goodness sake! ‘Militant feminists’ do not exist. In fact, they've NEVER existed.

The ‘militant feminist’ trope has always been a ploy to marginalise feminist thought from mainstream discourse. This is typical of the psychological warfare used against all dissidents everywhere, right throughout history.

Why don’t you start looking more at the vicious behaviours and toxic outpourings of ANTI-feminist groups? They are far more threatening, combative and aggressive (i.e. 'militant') than even the most radical of feminists could ever hope to be.

Yet their behaviour is hardly ever even scrutinised by the mainstream, let alone condemned – as it should be.

Rhrosty

There is no definitive proof that men are biologically ‘wired’ to look at women.

There is, however, plenty of evidence that both men and women are culturally conditioned from the cradle to view women as objects to be looked at – a cultural syndrome that keeps women in a permanently inferior power position.

Unfortunately, those who have written about this have been conveniently maligned and demonised as ‘militant feminists’. This is necessary in order to ensure that hardly anyone will read or listen to what they have to say.

And thus, we can all continue perving at, lusting after and objectifying women to our hearts content - and exploit them to sell lots of stuff we don't need - oblivious to how toxic this behaviour is for both men and women.

Killarney:
“There is, however, plenty of evidence that both men and women are culturally conditioned from the cradle to view women as objects to be looked at – a cultural syndrome that keeps women in a permanently inferior power position.”

Oh, for goodness sake!

Everything is an object – name one thing that is not an object. Everything that can be seen with a pair of eyes is an object to be looked at. We are not culturally conditioned to use our eyes it is perfectly natural and does not need conditioning. We look at things – thousands of things every day. Some things are more attractive to our eyes than other things. A beautiful woman is more attractive to look at than a child with a severed head in his grasp. We look simply because it is pleasurable to look.

The only thing we know about most of the people we see in any one day is how they look. We don’t have the time or inclination to stop and get to know people on any deeper level. Just because a man looks at a woman it does not follow that he has an inclination to know any more about her. It certainly does not mean he wants anymore intimacy. The only way you can say with certainty that he wants that is when he makes a move to create that.

Women might like to think they are being desired by every man that looks at them but unless you can prove that to be the case in regard to any particular man then you must be accused of distorting the truth for some revengeful agenda. Could you prove in a court that a man who looked at you wanted anything more than simply to look at you

LOL, Killarney the radical feminist directing gynocentric Suseonline.

Here, I will throw this article into the mix for opinions from both, and on just some of 'those' questions that have thrown radical feminists for decades, well back into the last Millenium. Vexed questions such as is a lesbian who undergoes gender reassignment surgery to become a man really a man and if so is s/he (?!, radfems might advise) a despicable turncoat to the cause? Can a man who becomes a women use the womens public toilets and so on.

"What Is a Woman?
The dispute between radical feminism and transgenderism.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/04/woman-2

The feminists' argument could take a while, it has taken the best part of a century so far.

In Oz, there are government departments where lesbians who become men remain welcome in the womens toilets, but men who become women cannot and are relegated to the 'unisex' disabled toilets. The stance of the feminists apparently.

Who is paying for the feminist chin-wagging talk fests and feminist lobbying, that is the question that concerns taxpayers. There are priorities that go begging, such as hospital beds, for those taxes taken from the exasperated Aussie taxpayer.

On the beach

Do you have to work hard at self-parody or were you just born that way?

I managed to get through about four paragraphs of that New Yorker article you linked to, before having to give up. I've come across lots of straw-feminist crap in my time but ... toilets and transsexuals? Oh, please.

It's just so obvious that the journalist was briefed to write yet another article about acrimonious disputes between infuriated feminists faced with all kinds of existential angst about their increasing irrelevance ... or something to that effect. As the well-worn MSM anti-feminist script goes.

And one cannot get more orthodox MSM than the New Yorker, can one?