That's actually the view academics such as philosopher Martha Nussbaum bring to the world.

See their definition of objectification here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectification#Definitions

As you can see, doesn't apply. A static t-shirt image of any sort is always an object but never objectification, because it lacks the context it would need to be more.

Objectification was never about naked Vs. clothed. It was about how women are treated and viewed as individuals. It is about autonomy and being more than a 2D prop for male character's use.

You can be naked and still have a great deal of personality, story importance, and be respected by both male characters within the medium and the writers. See Game of Thrones. There is an absolute ton of nudity in that, and yes, there is objectification (e.g. background sex) but the show gets a pass because female leads are given a great deal of importance, autonomy, and respect. They're nobody's props or objects.

An image is literally an object. It's not a woman. Objectifying an actual woman would be more clearly immoral. Objectifying a shirt - which he literally, legally owns - is not necessarily a problem.

> Care to elaborate on how that works?

A fully clothed women in a still image still has no personality, no interactions, no lines, no inherent character. A still image is within itself a prop or an object.

So criticising a still image for objectifying women is inherently both true but also completely redundant. Everything in a still image is static, it is an object, plants, animals, women, men, naked, fully clothed, they're all objects.

The term "objectifying women" (as a negative) originated from turning women into objects or props in situations where they wouldn't otherwise be so. So for example, you take a female character, you remove all of her lines, put her in sexy clothing, then have the male characters stand around and talk about how sexy she is. That's objectification, they've literally turned that women into an object or prop for male character's use.

Calling all sexual images of women "objectification" is simply an overreach. It also doesn't make rational sense when applied to women who couldn't have dialog, personalities, or interactions such as a still image on a t-shirt. It is pretty hard to have ANY women or man on a t-shirt who isn't an object.

You can call it "distasteful" (likely true) or "inappropriate" (again, likely true for work) but you didn't, you called it objectification which it objectively is not.

Context is key. I haven't followed this shirt brouhaha in any serious depth but I assume that all of his colleagues and management saw him wearing the shirt before he delivered his talk. AFAIK it became a problem afterwards. So, if you (not me) want to equate a shirt with female characters on it to a shirt with the N-word on it then, yes, if the workplace context was right why not wear it at work (e.g. I'm thinking an indie record label or similar environment with black, white, whatever people working together as a tight team and a black friend of a white guy bought him said t-shirt).

Ultimately, it's up to the guy wearing the t-shirt to make a judgement call as to whether doing so would offend or not offend his friends and colleagues. So: context, relationship with everyone else at the place he works at, balanced sensitivity etc.

If he honestly (not deliberately) makes the wrong call, he should apologise and everyone should move on. Work is a place for adults, not children on a lynching party.

If you're white, and your black friend gives you a shirt with the N-word on it, they aren't your friend.

> so they may well be unaware of how it would be percieved by his colleagues when worn in this context.

Wasn't the controversy more about how the shirt was perceived by randos on twitter, not by his colleagues?

This is an under-recognized point. Women can definitely undermine women's interests.

Really? I would fight that lawsuit tooth and nail. Neo-puritanism makes my blood boil.

Have you actually read Lolita.

Well, yeah. (Also they're not naked.) Heck, there are Bibles that have pictures of naked women in them. Are you saying women aren't allowed to be naked, or no one is allowed to make pictures of them, or they should only be photographs and not fantasies, or what exactly?

That's interesting. What do you think woman who do this or desire to be viewed like this?

It is an excellent advice. Made by someone who writes for a living. However, the comment system is not made to make us all agree about everything. My concern is about the restriction you put in a unconscious way to your opinions when there is dissent. Is this a kind of censorship? A very sofisticate one?