It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.



page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 11:04 AM
There is something I would like to attempt to communicate, but it was a difficult twist for my mind, and so I suspect it might be for others. It might even be a provocative one, stirring resistance and objection. (didn’t mean to make a pun, there, but it works).

We women often oppose being objectified by men. I know I have. Yet so many men do it. With time, I came to realize even my own husband, who I love dearly, objectifies me.
I first thought that meant he sees me as a pretty object to possess. Well, yeah, he does.
I seriously put our marriage into question then- it was a major crisis between us.

Now, I don’t know if he is representative of most males, or if he is weird. I know he has lots of friends who think the same. The thing is- he LOVES objects. Everyone, including himself, is an object, in his mind.

He has a LOT of objects…. I collect ideas, I could be called a hoarder, and thank god no one can see the mess in my head. But they CAN see our home, our cellars, our property crammed with objects. Heck they can certainly see the Checker Cab and the jet fighter in our front yard!

I used to frown at this, and wonder how he can cherish “things” so much when there are people who are so much more important. When I’d find him sitting in one his Checkers, stroking the seats silently, I’d ask- why do you love this?

He would explain, in a reverent voice- all the lives! All the experiences! Can you imagine how many people have sat on this seat?? Each one with a whole life time of relationships, of experiences, of loves and hates, pains and pleasures?? It is enormous!

I still didn’t get it.

Then he got the plane. Which I was none too happy about. But he found the serial number on it, and he began restoring it, and he started looking up it’s history… he began to find pilots who flew in it, pilots who fought in Vietnam with it. Found out it had a colourful past- one of the first MiG killers. He began to form friendships with these men, and ended up writing a book. They guys have come to call it a biography of an aircraft- not a kind of aircraft, but that specific one.

It is really about the men who flew it. A chapter on each one, the stories of their lives, pictures of them and their families, their flight logs, and the missions they undertook with it.

These guys did things no one ever heard about, and they were so touched by this, you can’t imagine! So many other men spoke up after the first edition, he had to make a second, with more pilots included. We go each year to reunions with them, and I have sat to listen to their stories, and watched them cry, hugging that book.

That is when it all made sense to me. These objects are part of the world of persons, to him. Each one of us is formed by the many persons we came into contact with from the time we were born.

Yes, I am an object to him- but not at all void of meaning, or value- he sees my mother and father, and siblings, and friends… teachers, my country, my whole past!

Now, I dislike the vision of being something formed by the exterior world. I like to see myself as someone formed by myself- a self made person, my personality made by me. THAT is what I wished he saw. But he doesn’t see that as meaningful.

The me that formed me, was originally formed by the exterior and others, so … we get into the whole question of freewill even existing, ultimately.

The objects he loves, including me, are not meaningless- they are not limited to the colors or shapes they hold. They are symbols and containers of life.

In a way, he sees me much bigger than I do- I would tell you I am made of this point of view, and that opinion, and this preference… he would describe me as so much more- a billion different moments of experience living.

I don’t know if I am expressing myself clearly on this. I had to use the example of my own life to relate to what I am trying to say. In the end, I came to realization that it is okay that I am an object to him, and that he sees himself as an object.

It is a different point of view than what I knew before, but it also made my life richer to grasp it. It brings together imagination, memory, and emotion with the material world.

posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 11:13 AM
a reply to: Bluesma

Yours certainly sounds like a very loving relationship. Yes, those with a sense of history "see" the entire pattern (or at least a percentage of it) which is contained in a person, a piece of ground, a spot in space. And it is a profound connection. So as objects (men are seen as objects too) we all share mind-space with a great deal of other experiences and 'objects'. If that mind-space exists within the space also covered by 'love', 'caring', and the other emotions of connection, more power to it - power which in its own energy bonds even closer.

A very nice OP, thanks for the thoughtful insights on the topic and for sharing.

edit on 2-8-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 11:20 AM
Personally, I think you're describing and comparing different things, but it's nice to see someone take apart a complex personal dilemma and make it work for themselves. It's just nice to know that people are thinking.

When I consider objectification of women, I associate mistreatment and disrespect with that concept. Clearly, you two are not that case, so maybe objectification isn't the problem, or at least the root of the problem. I think the real problem is a systematic, environmental one - one of nurture.

The world is teaching the children, not the parents. Thinking and acting rightly is not what this world does, so that makes sense to me.

posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 11:54 AM
It is perhaps more 'bonding' than 'objectification'.

Men are all a bit more ASD than women, it is in their DNA, their relationship to engineering, mechanics, to objects that were /are essential for survival is stronger than it is in women, who are naturally more nurturing, intuitive etc, in evolutionary terms.

My son has high functioning Arbergers and is truly lovely, he is affectionate, cares for things and people and has good morals. He also has strong bonds to 'things' like his toys and sometimes feels the need for 'rescuing' an old toy he finds, even if it wasn't his. He doesn't like to think of it being left out or rejected, he would rather see it being loved and used than discarded.

Caring for things is a better way than the mindset of a throw away culture.

There is probably also a difference in caring for objects compared to personal relationships as these are dynamic. Men often IMO have a different view of women than most women do. Some women are more like objects to men, being more physical connections than deep emotional bonds, however much certain women might fool themselves into thinking otherwise. I have some very very hot ex boyfriends, I know how it works and how certain women are all too keen on making themselves all too available at the drop of a hat, despite being so called 'friends'. I also know these super hot ex bfs don't see such women as anything but 'objects'.

I see women like that and men that lack the morals to resist as both less than worthy of a deep bond.

If a man chose marriage to a woman, it is often because of a bond. How long such bonds last is a matter of individuals. I always believe that people cannot be owned and have turned down a few marriage proposals due to such a fear of 'lifelong commitment' and 'eternal love'. IMO not any person on Earth can make that vow in all honesty as they do not know the future or how they will feel about another person further along the line. Marriage should be on individual terms, IMO for more truthful and meaningful commitments.

posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 12:06 PM
With the majority of women in the world ritualisticly disguising themselves on a daily basis is it any wonder they get objectified.

Make up.
Plastic surgery.

How often do we get to experience the true woman in a natural state?

Many men on the other hand don't conceal so much or try so hard to satisfy peer pressure or personal insecurities by disguising their true self.

I have bad skin, unkempt hair, tatty clothes, stubble, I'm skinny and what you see is what you get.

posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 12:44 PM
There is nothing wrong, in my view, with enjoying the world of physical manifestation...the world of the senses. Get down and wallow in it like an ol' bitch dog.
I find that it is easier to comprehend and absorb the spiritual realm once the animal urges are satiated.
Dance like no one is watching.
On some level you are an object, but this is a 7 layered burrito we're eating.
edit on 2-8-2014 by skunkape23 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 12:57 PM
a reply to: Bluesma

I commend you for sharing your husband with so many other things. lol

posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 01:08 PM
I can't add much really but thank you so much for writing this.... I found it so beautiful it almost brought me to tears. Somewhere in your words I felt a deep, new understanding of my own processes and relationships.

I love objects too and find myself entranced by layers of other lives and stories. I'm fascinated by the fact that every object had a creator, a fellow human who got swept up in a wave of creativity and the urge to make or design that object.

Making space in my life for objects that speak to me goes very against the current popularity of minimalist/ ecological living, so I always feel awkward about my "stuff" but your story says it all

posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 01:31 PM

originally posted by: Mon1k3r
Personally, I think you're describing and comparing different things, but it's nice to see someone take apart a complex personal dilemma and make it work for themselves. It's just nice to know that people are thinking.

When I consider objectification of women, I associate mistreatment and disrespect with that concept. Clearly, you two are not that case, so maybe objectification isn't the problem, or at least the root of the problem. I think the real problem is a systematic, environmental one - one of nurture.

Well, I guess this perspective made me ask- why do I assume that mistreatment and disrespect is what one does to objects??? Is it a result of our "disposable" consumer culture? I see men who do not disrespect and mistreat their objects.

posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 01:48 PM
I guess what I am trying to propose is this possibility-

That objectification is not necessarily bad. That perhaps, there are forms of it which can be very positive.

What do we think of when say "object"?

Consider for a moment, some men with their cars....
That has always been a relationship I find curious. Many even call them "she", as they do with boats.

It is definately seen as a means for attaining their desire- to get somewhere they desire to get to.
Yet, they will still understand that, sometimes the car will break down, and they cannot always control that
(especially people who collect old cars
). So it has behaviors that are outside of their will and they have to accept that fact.

They can understand the car has needs- if one does not put fuel in, change the oil regularly, drive it regularly, change the tires and check the air pressure, it will suffer- and as a result will not be an effective means to fulfilling their desire. They are capable of understanding that to neglect the cars needs, or mistreat it, is bad for them.

I am not sure the problems comes from objectification itself, but rather- what kind of object you present ourself as?

After all, one would not try to open a can with a pen, nor write a letter with a can opener.

If you present yourself as a sexual object, it HIS fault he doesn't see you as an object for comfort, or learning, or reproducing, or building a home, or traveling with......

Maybe, it might be helpful to consider how a man treats and feels about his objects?

We can claim we want to be loved for what we are thinking, what is inside our heads, right?

But with all we know about the subconscious now? That has much less value... we say one thing, do another; We think we want thing and it turns out that we actually wanted something else, but were in denial about it.
Listen to my words, not my body- how realistic is that?

posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 01:52 PM
In one respect, objects stand for the mental worlds they touch... easy, touchable representations of ideas, feelings and people we love.

Hoarding, keeping objects, stems from, in my view, at least partially, the fear of death and the loss of all those beautiful universes people construct and are a part of... their lives and those of loved ones.

The rub is that it seems no information, or lives, are truly lost... just as energy isn't lost, I doubt that memories and feelings dissipate... If I had to bet, I'd surmise they get "stored"... somewhere.

But anyway, beautiful post... made me all wistful. And as far as woman's complex, sometimes sucky reality and how men view them, well... it's as different as there are men... and woman.

Looking at beauty in the form of a meatsuit isn't the whole story... but darn it, some women are incredible... so incredible, that farting, pragmatic, cynical men get all gooshy and poetic. That's worth something on it's own despite the (ofttimes) much more incredible universe inside.

posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 03:53 PM
a reply to: Bluesma

Good observations, bluesma, and good insight.

The objects in our experience are objects, but only insofar as they are not us. As objects in another's experience, we cannot help but be objectified. All we can do is try to be the best objects we can be, and this obviously involves a little mask and costume wearing, and a little acting on our part.

posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 11:02 PM
Sure lots of men objectify women but it goes the other way too but unoticed because its harder to spot.

I dont see much point in calling this objectification. Objectification implies overlooking feelings because outside of certain spiritual religious views objects do not have feelings. It also implies ownership.

Its pretty impossible for me to see a person as an object.

posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 02:32 AM
a reply to: Aural
How do we know objects don't have feelings?

Because they don't express them in a way we can observe or perceive?

We women often place much value on emotion (I know I do). But emotion is immaterial, not of the "real" world- emotions tell of past, how things were for us, how we'd like or how we fear they can be, in the future. They are subjective.

Many men value focus on objective reality- what things ARE here and now. We even encourage them to not listen to their feelings- ignore your fear and step up to face challenges, ignore your desire to punch someone in the face. Be rational, logical, objective.

As a result of such a conditioning, they often become rather unaware of what their feelings are in any given moment.

How can a being be cut off from their own emotions but simultaneously aware of others emotional states?? Like being expected to know how we feel even when we did not express it with clear words?

Women rely heavily on non-verbal communication, body language. But that communication is highly dependant on empathy- your body mirrors emotions expressed physically- it is through reading your own interior that you can know what the others feelings are. That puts a man, who has developed the habit of being unaware of his interior life, at a disadvantage.

You may think your feelings are clear without words, for him, you could be feeling nothing at all. "I'M FINE" means your fine- even if you said it with tight lips and stiff movements, in "that" tone.

From there, it is easy for me (now) to understand how people can be objects to some.

Possession is not a necessary part of objects. When we walk through a forest, we can appreciate rocks, and not want to possess them. In the case of my husband, he has an almost mystical reverence for objects which includes a strange sense of fate - he believes the things he has come together with were attracted to him somehow, or the universe brought them together for him to glorify their true nature. He will speak of the coincidental events that lead him to them ( how do you fall upon a fighter jet you can take home? Or a Checker cab, when you are a small town boy in rural France? - or a girl from California, for that matter! LOL! )

For him these were not much short of miracles, or the universe granting him the opportunity to care for, love, and bring out their inherent glory. If events lead him to part with them, or not be able to attain them, it is because they have another destiny all their own and that is beyond his power to dictate or
force. Someone else must be a better match for their needs.

We talked about this thread and he was embarrassed to admit to me that he literally kisses his car each time he takes a drive in it, to thank it for carrying him. He also kisses and thanks me each time I make a meal or iron his shirt (without fail, for 25 years!)

I am aware that women especially have a negative reaction to the idea of objectifying people- but it was interesting to me to discover that for a person who loves objects, that isn't necessarily bad!

posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 05:53 AM
a reply to: Bluesma

Ever tried decluttering? Maybe thats what you need!

But unfortunaly materialism leads most people's lives. I dont know anyone that can live without having possessions exept for those that know better. And the richer, the greedier. It is a trap in which most fall. There is no cure to this unless he is ready to struggle for years to give up on his bad habits, and eventually be less happy in the end.

On a funny note, you know there is a psychic ability that would fit your husband perfectly? Its psychometry, the ability to read one object's or place's history, emotional and all.
edit on 4-8-2014 by _damon because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 06:00 AM
The objects in our experience are separated out of the whole with ideas and words. Experience is all there is really - experience is not made of two things. Experience is one thing which is not actually a thing. Experience is not made of objects yet that which believes or feels itself separate makes believe in separation, in fragmentation - it believes and feels that there is other than what there is. It splits 'experience' into 'me and not me'. The seeming (seaming) split makes a world, that is not, appear out of nothing and that world is believed in more than that which believes in it.
The experience is an ever changing dancing tapestry of light.

The feeling of being objectified is never going to sit right because deep down one knows one is not an object.
edit on 4-8-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 07:22 AM
Look deeply into direct experience to find that there are no objects.

At the end of this investigation Rupert Spira says that 'It is an insult to experience to reduce it to only concepts and objects - that is the true blasphemy'.
edit on 4-8-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 07:49 AM
On the other hand we are all objects, everything is an object if it has material form surely?

Why do some of you find this to be an issue?

Some objects engender feelings of love and some of hate, it is all in the eye of the beholder and their life view.

An example being the symbol the Nazi's used commonly known as a swastika in the West but in the East is still held as a symbol of hope/light as it has for 1000's of years.

posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 08:16 AM

originally posted by: Aphorism
All we can do is try to be the best objects we can be, and this obviously involves a little mask and costume wearing, and a little acting on our part.

Why would you try to be the best object you can be? And who is measuring and what device is used to measure?
All (believed in) objects compete and competition is conflict - wanting to be better than something other is caused by feeling inferior and the need to feel superior - one does not already feel worthy and whole and complete.
Until you realize what you really are (what there really is) - you put a mask on - that mask divides the whole into what then appears as many objects - and one can get lost in concepts.

posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 08:25 AM

originally posted by: johnb
On the other hand we are all objects, everything is an object if it has material form surely?

Why do some of you find this to be an issue?

Some objects engender feelings of love and some of hate, it is all in the eye of the beholder and their life view.

It is all in the eye of the beholder.
Without the beholder can an object have anywhere to exist - can a feeling of hate or love arise?
Can an apparent object exist without first separating a part out of the whole?

There is only what is actually happening - this which is happening has no name- it is flowing and moving and alive. Yet words seem (seam) to separate this wholeness into separate things.
This happens because you 'think' you are separate to experience. Experience is one thing - but it is not really a thing because it has no boundaries.
Mind (thought/words telling stories about what it thinks is happening) splits experience into 'you and not you' - but where is the you that is separate to what is happening (always presently)?

All is arising and subsiding in the eye of the beholder (the all seeing, all knowing , ever present eye/I). The I just gets confused and thinks it is a thing when really all things come and go in it as it.

edit on 4-8-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in