Quote from FloatyBoaty

The point of this study is that women are the ones to blame. If they don't want to be viewed as objects, they shouldn't dress like objects. A woman or girl who dresses properly will be seen properly. The first impression someone gets of another person is what they see.

Advertising is governed by the target market. Do they want to sell fast and cheap, or slow and selective?

She conducted experiments by presenting 227 participants of the study with images of men and women, finding that men were perceived as a “global” – or whole – cognitive processing level, while women were seen on a “local” cognitive processing level.

better: She conducted experiments by presenting 227 participants of the study with images of men and women, finding that men were perceived as a “global” – or whole – cognitive processing level, while women were seen on a “common ” cognitive processing level.

I love how this study of less than 500 people speaks for the whole male population(feminists tend to do that with studies). Also it failed to see that men are viewed as whole "objects". Men are seen as utilities, tools, service, etc... Feminism and much of society seems to have an uncanny fixation on trying to get society to see women as tools too. Also were they "hot hunky" men or businessmen? Has anyone ever listened to girls describe a "ripped" guy? Abs, Guns, etc...

Men could similarly extend the 'disconnected' objectifying theme, that women only see men as a big pair of bouncing annuity yielding testicles, with a ATM attached to a permanently erect penis that never says no! It's as equally ridiculous as the never-ending stale theme propounded by feminists about men.

Observe the full wonderful spectrum of the the animal world, degrees of objectification are necessary in ensuring the continuation of every species. In a fully functioning feminist world, humans would die out quickly as ideology would take precedence above all else!

This is how these "experiements" work.

"When a man sees a woman, this part of the brain lights up. That's the part of the male brain that objectifies women."

"How do you know it is the part of the male brain that objectifies women?"

"Because it lights up when a man looks at a woman."

"Well, does that part of the male brain light up when he looks at another man?"

"It doesn't matter, because men don't objectify other men."

Something I want to know is what exactly do they mean by "seeing by parts" and "seeing by whole" and why is "seeing by whole" better than "seeing by parts."

First of all, "the sum of the parts" is by definition, the same thing as a "whole," so that means that it can't be about how much of a person, a man sees.

If they are refering to "parts" as in floating unconnected parts, it's also bullshit because, erm... Women don't look like floating unconnected body parts!

Then they can mean "parts" as if there is a boundary line between "parts," seperating body parts, into "parts." The only boundary lines I see, are the strings on the bikini. But, if they mean that, they would imply that men don't "objectify" naked women, because naked women don't have boundary lines inbetween "parts," and men are supposed to "objectify" women more, when they wear less clothes.