Editing Objectification (section)

==Arguments==
Nussbaum found the general understanding of objectification was too simplistic to be useful as a normative concept to evaluate the moral implications of [[sexualization]] of women.  She attempts to remedy this by distinguishing between benign and harmful forms of objectification in different circumstances relative to sex.<ref name=":0" />
Nussbaum considers objectification not just significant when considering sexuality, which has been discussed at length, but also an important component of the [[Marxism|Marxist]] view on [[capitalism]] and [[slavery]]. She argues that not all forms of objectification are necessarily inherently negative, and that objectification is not necessarily a foregone conclusion when one of the seven properties is present.<ref name=":0">{{cite journal |last = Nussbaum|first = Martha C.|title = Objectification|jstor = 2961930|journal = [[Philosophy & Public Affairs]]|date = 1995|volume = 24|issue = 4|pages = 249–291|doi = 10.1111/j.1088-4963.1995.tb00032.x}}</ref>

According to [[Immanuel Kant]]'s theories, sexual desire is inherently objectifying, as a strong sexual urge includes a desire to engulf another person for sexual satisfaction. This desire manifests as a desire to control the target's behaviour to secure one's own satisfaction, effectively denying the target's autonomy. The intensity of sexual desire also reduces subjectivity by drowning out consideration of the target's thoughts or feelings in the pursuit of one's own satisfaction, reducing other people to a set of body parts intended to provide gratification. In short, sexual objectification is a general feature of sexuality, in that the involved parties eagerly desire both to objectify and be objectified.<ref>{{cite journal|first1=Evangelia|last1=Papadaki|title=Sexual Objectification|journal=From Kant to Contemporary Feminism|date=1 August 2007|volume=6|issue=3|pages=49–68|doi= 10.1057/palgrave.cpt.9300282|s2cid=144197352}}</ref>

[[Catherine Mackinnon]] and [[Andrea Dworkin]] adopt Kant's understanding of sex as inherently objectifying, but disagree that participants are objectifiers and objectified in similar proportion; rather, it is asymmetrical. Because sexuality exists within a larger social and culture context and men and women are not granted power equally within that context, this heavily influences the dynamic. According to Mackinnon and Dworkin, male sexuality is expressed dominantly via objectifying others, while female sexuality is expressed submissively via accepting objectification or engaging in self-objectification. In this context, women are more vulnerable to violability and lack of subjectivity and autonomy. Mackinnon and Dworkin ignore personal histories and psychologies that Nussbaum considers equally morally important to the construction of male and female sexualities.<ref name=":0" />

While [[male gaze]] is one of the main enablers of self-objectification, [[social media]] is a medium that heavily promotes and enforces self-objectification, especially in women. Women post [[selfies]] on social media from camera angles that typify the male gaze perspective,<ref name=":7">{{Cite journal|last1=Cohen|first1=Rachel|last2=Newton-John|first2=Toby|last3=Slater|first3=Amy|date=February 2018|title='Selfie'-objectification: The role of selfies in self-objectification and disordered eating in young women|url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0747563217306003|journal=Computers in Human Behavior|language=en|volume=79|pages=68–74|doi=10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.027|url-access=subscription}}</ref> while the comments section provides a forum for viewers to voice disapproval or praise.<ref name=":7" /> Positive feedback brings a sense of validation to women who post these selfies and reinforces the behaviour.<ref name=":7" />