&gt;&quot;<i>But that&#x27;s not the point. Sexism, in reality, favours men and hurts women. That&#x27;s why an image of Brad Pitt is okay, whereas</i>&quot;<p>If seeing attractive women &quot;hurts women&quot;, then by that you have to concede that the same happens to men when it comes to attractive men. Not only that, but &quot;sexism&quot; against men occurs on multiple levels in our society, so much so that we are actively blind to it, see your comment as well as below.<p>&gt;&quot;<i>Any argument that goes &quot;But if we switched genders, then it would be fine!&quot; is completely missing the point that we are still living in a de-facto patriarchy, where objectification of men is not even an issue.</i>&quot;<p>It&#x27;s odd how you claim &quot;defacto&quot; patriarchy, then concede that this patriarchy allows the objectification of men to occur as a non &quot;issue&quot;. The fact that it&#x27;s okay in this society to objectify <i>men</i> but not <i>women</i> is not proof of patriarchy, if anything it&#x27;s proof of &quot;matriarchy&quot; (if we borrow feminist-naming conventions).<p>We are still far from true equality, and it is something we should strive for as an enlightened society. But to blatantly have double-standards while claiming systemic inequality is quite disingenuous.