Zac Efron Shirt Rip at MTV Movie Awards Was All Good Fun - Provided You're Female, of Course

Article here. I vigorously reject all accusations of shameless self-promotion. :). Seriously, one of IBT's editors asked me to write about this recent made-for-TV stunt from a "body objectification" POV, so I did. Excerpt:

'The MTV Movie Awards included an event that has had the web buzzing ever since it exploded onto our screens. Winner of the MTV Best Shirtless Performance award, Zach Efron had promised that if he won it, he would remove his shirt. As he began to do so, Rita Ora ran up behind him and tore his shirt wide open. The audience thought it was hilarious, and so, apparently, did Zach.
...
Despite the obviously-staged nature of this stunt, the reader may want to consider this: Had Rita been the one undressing and Zach the one to run up behind her and tear her shirt off, what would have been the popular reaction to it? Would there be so much glee, or would there be general condemnation from people who do - and do not - consider themselves feminists? Far lesser events have elicited protests outside a studio's headquarters.
...
We've not yet even touched on how men's bodies are objectified to the point of disposability in dangerous occupations such as construction, emergency services work, and military service, nor even how the recent uptick in anabolic steroid use among teenaged and pre-teen boys that signals an unhealthy early preoccupation with their physiques. Since the vast majority of ordinary workplace, EMS, and military injuries and fatalities are suffered by men, should not society's efforts to make males aware of their "non-object" status be considerably more pronounced?
...
Feminists state that girls and women should be encouraged to think their value does not come from what they look like and how best they can please a man, but is more a matter to be decided for oneself. I am pretty sure this belief is held in general by most people in the western world, including the typical men's rights activist.

I simply add that a similar statement applies to men and boys: Our value does not come from our appearance (and particularly also, our "utility"), nor our ability to please a woman. It is up to each of us to decide it.'

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Congrats Matt for being

Congrats Matt for being published in an International news site!

I hope you don’t mind a little commentary with a different view in regards to double standards and men valued for utility, women valued for sex/reproduction.
I think you and I would agree that feminist claim to want to get rid of double standards, but they have no problem upholding them when they are projected on to men and for women’s benefit. I see this, have no problem acknowledging it and is why I view feminist as bigots and ignorants. An example of this is when feminist claim valuing women for sex is wrong and bad (attach blame and shame onto men who do this), yet get boob jobs, act seductively and use their sexual value to get things from men.

However, I am not one to believe double standards are a result of social condition, nor do I believe double standards are bad (this is where I dissent from many MRAs). I believe they are rooted in biology and therefore will not change. So when I see a double standard occurring, I just think to myself “yep, there’s a double standard” I don’t attach any blame or shame, nor am I trying to get society to get rid of them. Upholding double standards is actually what is most efficient and most productive to society. (it is how and why the double standard exists in the first place). For example:

When it comes to sex, it has been said that women are the locks and men are the keys. A lock that can be opened by any key is a useless lock. A key that can open any lock is a master key.

This of course projects the double standard we have about gender roles and sex, and female slut-shaming. However, because of biological differences it takes more work for a man to get sex compared to a woman. All of society benefits from the man’s productivity, and women’s promiscuous behavior actually inhibits or breaks up the formation of families which is bad for society.

I also frequently use the generalization that women are valued for the sexual and reproduction potential and men are valued for their production potential. When romantic relationships form they trade. Again, this is not bad and is a natural occurrence. No one barters for what they already have or for what they can provide for themselves. This is the “yin yang” of the male-female relationship.

Women are not capable of as much physical production as men (and much of society’s production is physical). Then there is cognitive production (invention and innovation) if you believe men are more competitive, risk takers, etc. and women are more emotional, you are already accepting the idea that men and women have different cognitive abilities. Although it is somewhat un-provable (subjective), I will say that men are also capable of more cognitive production (of course feminist will refute this). Production capability along with reproduction roles (women have risk of pregnancy, biological clock, etc.) is why men and women make many of the life choices they do including career choices.

If you truly believe men and women are equal in regards to productivity potential and you also KNOW that women are the only gender who can make babies, then wouldn’t that make women SUPERIOR to men? But if you can acknowledge that men and women are different, wouldn’t that explain why men and women make different choices and why double standard exist?

So in regards to Zac Efron and the ripping off his shirt. Feminists should be against this, if they want to be treated as equals and against double standards. I, however, am fine with recognizing the areas men and women have different values and I am fine with double standards.

Just Saying.

Women can't make babies without DNA from a man. That is all.

Xtrnl, in the realm of

Xtrnl, in the realm of reproduction, women have far more value. Men have a higher sex drive, and they produce millions of sperm daily all of their adult life. Their contribution to making a baby last moments compared to nine months of the female. Women expose only one egg per month and for only a limited number of years of their adult life. Value is all about supply and demand. One man and a hundred women can make about 100 babies in a years’ time. Yet one woman and a hundred men and you can only make one baby in a years’ time. It takes far more women to make babies.

I agree with Matt that

I agree with Matt that everyone should decide for themselves about how they want to be valued by others and what they will value in return. However the problem I have with feminists (and some MRAs), is they want everyone to accept their value system (they blame and shame those who don’t). Feminist go further and demand that society pay for their personal choices about values. For example, if a woman does not want to value her reproductive capabilities, that’s fine, but they expect all of society to pay for their choice by way of free birth control and convenient abortion clinics.
Notice feminist are not demanding that society give men ways to not utilize their biological strengths. They claim to support it, but they are not demanding that men stay away from dangerous jobs or calling for a gender quotas in those types of fields.

It was about the willful ignoring of objectification of men

You have double standards re the sexes and readily admit to it. But you're not a feminist. Feminists claim not to have double standards but they clearly do. For feminists, 2x-standards are only a problem when working vs. women. If they work vs. men and/or for women, they're fine w/ it. But they'll deny this, or attempt to rationalize it or red herring the point. Or, simply refuse to listen/engage constructively or even civilly.

That's not you, Kris. But the article wasn't about people who are honest about the 2x-standards they have re the sexes. It was about feminists and how their notions around objectification are extraordinarily limited; nothing in their orthodoxy admits of males being objectified, despite the obviousness of its occurrence.

The whole article came down to the last paragraph. As simple and fair an observation as it is, it's actually quite radical. Men having value independent of being useful to others, yet even women, too? To state it ought to be up to individual men to decide their own value? Radical!

But not when speaking of women. Then, it's "progressive".

I think every couple should

I think every couple should do what they feel is right for them. Personally, I just don't believe in traditional relationships because they are a legal liability for a man. I also feel an obligation to warn other men about them. However, if the laws were actually fair, and I could earn enough money, I would be happy with such an arrangement. Provided that my wife did almost all of the work maintaining the house, and the cooking. In other words, if the labor is divided evenly, I have no problem with that. I just err on the side of caution due to laws. And it's also nice to receive a gift once in a while instead of just being the giver. To each their own.

Women may be necessary to make babies, but men are too. You need a man's DNA, and without support from the man, the offspring fares much worse than they would otherwise. I just wish more men had enough self-respect to realize this truth and not let it be used as a means of giving women more value than men.

I can't wait for the day the artificial womb is perfected. It will be game over for gynocentrists.