Pynchme ”In contrast, women are valued primarily on whether they are sexy or not”

I would suggest, women are primarily assessed on the values which momentarily predominate in the motivations of the assessor.

Doubtless, women assess other women, just as men assess other men, as much each gender assesses the opposite sex..

Your assertion that women are valued primarily on whether they are “sexy”, presupposes you can actually quantify what is “sexy”.

What I may define as “sexy” might well oppose what you mean by “sexy”

By “sexy” do you mean

“Pretty” or “Sexual” or “Sensual” or “Erotic” or what?

You see, it really is all a matter of subjective assessment.

Unfortunately, in this instance, the increments and measures of "assessment" are filtered, ranked and re-arranged depending upon a lot of other subjective values, derived from qualitative, rather than quantitative, quotients.

What you see as “sexy”, might well appear as “dog” to me and what I assess as “sexy”, to you might seem “unattainable”.

I recall the a well known throwaway line

“what is the difference between a dog and a fox ?”

2 x beer and whisky chasers.

As for “surely we can expect that women be regarded as all that they are – complete humans – and nothing less than that”

I know a lot of men who would be happy if the women in their lives treated them solely as a “sex object”.

How “contrary” are the genders !

Ah well, back to watching reruns of “Men Behaving Badly”

By blaming the media aren't you blaming the messenger? The media, and by that I presume you mean the popular media (tabloid newspapers, some magazines and commercial television), simply give their market what it perceives it wants. It's people who have the "ugly obsession with women's looks". And from where does that arise? From those who profit from it of course. Namely the global body image industry incorporating, among others, the clothing, cosmetics (pharmaceutical) and "diet" (processed foods) industries. Worldwide these vast conglomerates pay the media billions every year to foster this obsession. Perhaps their most debilitating fraud is the contrivance of the so called "perfect" or "ideal" body. Women particularly are suffering from the relentless pursuit of this myth. Low self esteem, stress, depression, eating disorders, financial hardship, relationship breakdown, drug/alcohol abuse, absenteeism even suicide. The "push em up" bra, the "squash it in" underpants or wearing the optically illusory black are a complete fraud! Like a bald man wearing a wig they fool nobody! The only possible solution is body acceptance. Shift the goalposts. Reject the myth of the "perfect" body. As nudists my wife and I often wish we had a dollar for every time a "new chum" has remarked at their first experience of social nudity at the hundreds of resorts and beaches around Australia, "I feel as if an enormous weight has been lifted from my shoulders. Why didn't I do this years ago?".

I was stuck in an unusually queue at Wollies last night and browsed the covers of the rack of womens magazines on display next to the checkout. At the time I was thinking of another thread discussing maternity leave and womens mental health and thinking that concerns about mental health might be better focussed on the messages in the womens magazines.

It was quite staggering just how negative the covers of most of the magazines were. Mostly about women not liking their fat bodies, women with relationship issues, womens psycho ex's, women fueding with former friends, the need for the perfect home etc.

Better stuff can be found in newsagents but it's interesting to see what is apparently popular enough to warrant being at the checkout.

I didn't see any magazines targetting hobby type interests for men or women (no mens magazines at all that I could see although at the time I was in the the store I would guess that 60-70% of customers were male).

I've wondered if the quality magazines are too expensive compared to their trash cousins and thats why the trash is the most accessable.

R0bert

TIBBS “It's people who have the "ugly obsession with women's looks".”

And most of the complainants are women with ugly looks lacking anyone who is remotely "obsessed" with them.

The whole thing is about women who were used to seeing themselves in terms of “appearance”, resenting the effects of aging on that “appearance”.

As a male, I find the great thing is, the “balance of power”, in terms of eligibility and attractiveness stakes tends to favour older men and younger women, resulting in the older women and younger men being at a comparative disadvantage.

The difference between younger men and older women? – simple, older women know their best days are past and get resentful about it whereas younger men know no better.

Col Rouge “And most of the complainants are women with ugly looks…”.
“Ugly”? “Attractive”? Who decides and dictates the meaning of these terms?
Firstly I believe a desire by both women and men to appear attractive, or at least not ugly, is a perfectly natural biological instinct. Unfortunately, it is simply because this desire is “built in” and thus irresistible that it is so infinitely exploitable by those who profit from it, i.e. the clothing, cosmetics and “diet” industries.
It is for this reason they have contrived, distorted and packaged the criteria for “attractiveness”, particularly for females, to become a deliberately difficult, for some impossible, goal. Only achievable of course by the purchase of their products. It is the pursuit of this “carrot” that appears to have become an “obsession” again particularly among women. But why among women and not men? Because, whether we like it or not, women have become the purchasers of the overwhelming majority of consumer goods. The media incessantly dangles the carrot in front of them through advertising, not because it is obsessed by it but, simply because it is paid handsomely to do so.