It's hard for you to imagine ads without objectification (particularly of women) because it's so widespread.  However, it's pretty self-defeating to say "well, we can't change it so I guess we should just objectify men too to make it fair".  That doesn't fix anything, that would still leave women being objectified.  You need to think on a bigger scale.  The big thing here is that you can't just fix the symptoms of oppression.  You have to start changing the way people think.  The more people who embrace feminism and realize that objectifying women isn't cool, the more companies start getting backlash and the less they'll be willing to do it in their ads.  There has been a LOT of controversy over ads in recent years.  I'm not saying that it's going to be anytime soon, but I think ads are slowly going to be objectifying women less because it's becoming less acceptable.  The Boston API Jam that posted a (PURELY TEXT) flyer that objectified women got enough backlash that sponsors pulled out and I believe the event was cancelled altogether.  We're not quite there yet, but we are slowly getting to where it's not going to be financially viable to objectify women.  Just trying to "settle" for objectifying men too is counterproductive.

This is what I was saying basically.  But why aren't they "generally considered attractive"?  Because look at the standard of beauty promoted in every single bit of media.  Muscular women aren't there.  It's incredibly skinny women with every single bulge or crease photoshopped out of them.  This reinforces the idea that this is what is supposed to be attractive to men and that this is what a woman should strive towards.  And god forbid you're a WoC, because as far as ads are concerned Beyonce isn't black anymore, she's photoshopped to a more acceptable "just slightly tan".  We live in a world where the standard of beauty is decided for us before we're born.  I remember us having an argument in #saltw about whether or not men generally found supermodels attractive, and the men who said they didn't were told they were just lying to be edgy or rebellious or whatever.  In our patriarchy, men who don't immediately want to have sex with Barbie are considered less of a man.  It's bad for everyone involved, but it hurts women far worse since they're the ones hurting their bodies to try to achieve a standard of beauty that these days isn't even physically possible due to photoshop.

Oh, there are tons of articles enforcing "biotruths".  That doesn't mean they're valid.  I'd like to see links to the articles you're talking about though.  Like I said, the vast majority of sociologists agree that it's a matter of socialization.  You have to also consider that all the scientific research is being done in a patriarchal society to begin with (and done mostly by men (again because of the patriarchy (smash the patriarchy delete all sexism))) and it can at times be horribly biased.

There's nothing wrong with porn focusing on men in theory.  The problem is...well, this:
Porn has always been male-gazey as fuck, but it's just gotten more and more disgusting.  Go to any porn site and click on the pictures on the front page.  Ask yourself--is this objectifying?  Is this a harmful view of women?  Chances are the answer is going to be "absolutely yes".  It's just supporting the harmful views of women that men get everywhere else.  I mean, think about the context porn exists in.  We live in a society where women are not supposed to be sexual creatures, where they are not supposed to enjoy sex or seek sex out, merely exist for men to Do Sex to.  That is what our society believes, whether you personally agree with it or not.  So having porn in which women are literally just there to Be Fucked (aka almost all of straight mainstream porn) is just perpetuating those ideas, which is legitimately 100% oppressing women.  It's not just a matter of it not being for me, it is actually harmful.  The problem is, it's so prevalent that even if you don't want to watch that kind of porn, you'll have to spend a lot of time finding an alternative, especially for free.

Depending on what survey you go by, 30-70% of women watch porn.  Pretty big gap in those statistics, but you have to consider the patriarchal factors.  Women may not admit to it on surveys, and like you said it's stigmatized.  You have to consider what you're saying here though.  The fact that it's stigmatized for women to watch porn is again a symptom of oppression, because they are not supposed to be sexual creatures.  But what about women who do want to watch porn?  They tend to have a harder time finding porn that doesn't horribly objectify them, so it is a roadblock.  Like I said, there ARE feminist porn directors, but that tends to be pornography you have to pay for (which is why, as I'll talk more about in a minute, people may pay for porn).  So what you're saying here is that it's understandable to continue objectifying women for the sake of men watching porn instead of embracing the women who want to?  This is coming off as way too Straight Male Gamer-y (if you'll remember the SMG letter, it was about how games shouldn't add gay romance options because they'll alienate the Straight Male Gamer base, ignoring the fact that it's optional to go down these paths and that there are tons of gay gamers who would like the option).  You're saying that because men are the majority in a system women are told to stay out of, they should be catered to.  Catered to to the point that what they're being shown is actively harmful to women and oppressing them.  I don't think so.

If you're watching porn on the internet and aren't sure if it's mainstream, it's mainstream.  If you aren't digging down deep for obscure niche porn, you're watching mainstream porn.  Mainstream doesn't mean commercial DVDs, in fact nowadays internet IS the mainstream if anything.  As for paying for porn, like I said before there are a lot of good reasons why someone would want to.  When mainstream porn is entirely excluding you, you may have to pay money for niche stuff (as I said in a previous post, for example, there's porn made for lesbians that's different than "lesbian porn" on regular sites, but it's usually paid only.  Note here that gay male porn is very easily accessed online, because again, men are supposed to be sexual whereas men are not).  Really, when you have niche porn, you typically can't just make up the money in ad revenue like mainstream porn.  It's understandable.  You say "I've never paid for porn", but stop and think about the fact that you're a man.  Mainstream porn is catering to you.

So what?  Some people can't help but get off to child porn, but that's harmful as fuck.  Even if no children were harmed in the making of it (such as anime nudes of kids).  It's reinforcing attitudes that are directly and irrefutably hurting children, the same way mainstream porn is directly hurting women.  Your right to jerk off to whatever you want is a lot less significant than my right to not be oppressed by what you're jerking off to.

Women are considered monolithic when it comes to their desires by society.  What do women want?  To fall in love and get married and have kids.  Try being a woman who says they don't want kids or don't want to get married and you'll find out that this is true.  Of course, you're right that men do have a similar thing with the answer being "sex anytime and always", but don't dismiss the sexism on our side too in favor of your own issues.  I do agree that there is an idea of women being monolithic in the sense of "how do I get them to let me fuck them" from men.  That's why you have PUAs. 

Good, please continue never using those words, and please call other men out when they do.  This is one of the main roles a man has as a feminist ally.  If a man calls me a bitch and I call him out on it, chances are I'll just be called even more of a bitch for that.  When someone is firmly rooted in misogyny (even if it's casual misogyny), they sometimes won't listen to women.  That's where you need to come in.  You have to understand though that even though you don't like aggressive people, typically women who are called bitches aren't being aggressive.  They'll be called bitches simply for speaking up at all, or for being assertive (way different than aggression), or simply just for existing.  Don't just equate that word with aggression.  For some men, women are being aggressive (to them) if they do ANYTHING outside their gender role.

Yes.  He did.  Even if only subconsciously, those words are a statement that express misogyny.  It's probably not his fault, either.  This is such a huge part of society that we have drilled into our brains from birth.  It's hard to overcome that.  Doesn't mean he shouldn't be expected to though.

How many relationships do you personally know that are based on money?  The golddigger stereotype is pretty pervasive, but is it true?  For the sake of argument, let's assume it is (although I absolutely don't think it represents any large percentage of women).  Something you need to start doing when you examine the patriarchy is always ask "why".  Don't just say "hey, some women only marry men for money!  What about that?!"  Why?  Well, some women are told that this is the only way they can get ahead in life.  They're never told ways THEY can be successful, they're told that their success lies in grabbing a successful man.  I'll take any excuse to talk about The Facts of Life, but this scene is pretty relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=aZYs23NllZc#t=229s (about 4 minutes in if it doesn't skip there automatically).  Why is this joke funny?  Because it's true.  Because women are told this.  To this day they're told this.  Marry a good man instead of having a career.  Is this sexism against men?  Or is it sexism against women?  It's a symptom of patriarchy that is telling women that they should not be in the workplace.  How else are women supposed to gain power and money (which is something our capitalist society tells us is the most important thing)?  Their only option is to "marry a good man".

But, as I said earlier and as you seem to believe also, this stereotype isn't prevalent anyway.  Women aren't doing this in the numbers that are portrayed in media and popular culture.  Now let's look at what you're comparing it to--the sexual objectification of women.  Would you say that women aren't really objectified and that that's just a stereotype too?  Based on my personal experience, I can tell you absolutely no.  They are objectified, every single day their entire lives.  This is doing serious harm to women.  The idea that women are supposed to be available for men's sexual gratification is what leads to things like harassment.  Catcalling.  Groping.  And rape.  This is why you need to quit looking for an analogue to men.  You can't find a comparison.  When you're the group in power, you're never going to have a convenient flipside to the issue.  There is no simple reverse that can apply to men, and there won't be in a patriarchy ever.
 

Close up shot of woman (made to look as young as possible) gagging while being skullfucked. Dick is removed and then jizzes over woman's face, camera fades out while woman is swallowing.
 
 cumdumpstersluts5 Anal eWRECKtion
 

*skipped a bit for space*... let's take a look at the awful world of porn: at this point, the number of women who have large butts and thighs probably exceeds those who still have the skinny-busty look (tho tummies are still unmarketable, unless you make the leap to the BBW niche). that's not what the rest of the media says should be attractive, but in porn it sells.

I also think it's difficult say what is actually "generally considered attractive" (Warped - read this if you're skimming). the only way we as humans can get large enough of a sample size to think we know what everyone likes, is to listen to the media's distorted garbage. it's highly doubtful that's actually what the majority of straight western men find attractive, that's just what we're told they find attractive. they may even say "yeah of course I find super models sexy!" but is that really how they feel? probably not. it's an entirely artificial standard of beauty, which I think is unique to our piece history

and I don't know if muscular women ever had the chance to be widely considered attractive, even before national or global media. like that's one thing I find attractive, but I'm in the unique position of being a white educated northeast american male who had a uh interesting life growing up. I once wrote a thesis paper on the perception of female beauty throughout history and across the world, and it's really an immensely interesting topic - from the cults of pregnancy and fertility (WILLENDORF WOMAN) to the botticelli bullshit to the pre-media architecture-inspired fashions to the convoluted garbage that's been going on for a while

Not the best person to answer this, but we can look at related issues in cognitive science to get an approximation of how you could look into this matter. Universal grammar is one example. The idea is that there's a language-specific genetic component that distinguishes human beings from animals, the corollary being that human beings have naturally unique language capabilities. One of the capabilities that's most often cited is recursion, which is something that all languages that have been studied to this date exhibit.

So the obvious thing to do would be to investigate whether cultures other than our own, both current and historical, have, in isolation, come to manifest the same patriarchal gender roles.

I think there probably is a minor genetic component to it. Namely, the fact that women have children. Which means that even in prehistorical tribes, during pregnancy, they were more often confined to the home and unable to do physically demanding work than men. Which leads to a natural divide in labor roles: women get to do other, "minor" tasks, such as preparing food and creating clothes, which are easy to do while pregnant or looking after children.

The difference with something like universal grammar is that it's not a built-in cognitive factor, although it's still probably one of the root causes for why so many societies are patriarchal: they started out like that and the attitudes became so ingrained that they never changed. You could come up with other genetic factors, like the fact that in our hypothetical antiquity it would be more beneficial for reproductive reasons to sacrifice men in defense of the tribe than women. So men are the more obvious candidates to go hunting and to war.

But it's like Biggles said:

You could come up with genetic reasons, and they can be right or wrong, but none of that has any necessary bearing on how things ought to be. Lots of natural processes are extremely inefficient and incorrect. Our cognitive abilities permitted us to create culture, which in turn permits us to shed the simpleton logic in favor of something more sensible.

So, as for the question of whether patriarchy is "natural" or not, you have to keep the context in mind. We don't have to go hunting anymore, and it's reasonable to assume that the patriarchy of the ancient tribes would have been a direct result of the primordial need of survival. I'd have to say that none of the genetic components that can be (and historically have been) used to define gender roles can really be proven to be built into our cognitive abilities. It might have been convenient for an ancient tribe, but that doesn't prove that it necessarily follows for a modern society. Physiological differences between men and women exist, but they're relatively minor and make very little difference in a non-hunter-gatherer society.

Besides, all this talk over whether or not certain things are genetic seems to me to be an attempt at killing the discussion, because "why bother fighting human nature?" There are plenty of good reasons to do so.

I agree with Biggles' post, which I want to make clear before I post this since what I'm about to post is only tangentially related, but this post made me want to write a short post about the gender politics of Wikipedia, which are pretty interesting and also upsetting.  Wikipedia is overwhelmingly written by men (I believe it's something like 85% men).  It's everyone's go-to source for quick info, but a lot of articles (especially articles ABOUT gender issues) are heavily skewed.  Read the article about men's rights or friend zone or misandry and you'll see what I mean.  And definitely read their talk pages too.  You'll see people pointing out the bias in the articles being outvoted by the overwhelmingly male userbase.  This leads to bias going unchecked.  It's altering the way this information is viewed since Wikipedia is where everyone goes to get a quick overview of subjects.  It's just another example of patriarchy shaping society yet again.  Wikipedia doesn't represent a crowdsourced constantly-in-check viewpoint of the world, it's a viewpoint of men.  It's The World According To Men.