Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has inspired thirst on the internet with photos of himself in his youth. Credit:Getty Images By contrast, women are often reduced to sexual beings, and their worth judged accordingly as a way of reducing their credibility and power. Remember the way the Liberal party objectified Julia Gillard as a way to diminish her credibility and worth with their menu of "Small Breasts, Big Thighs, Big Red Box"? Even when the objectification of women is "complimentary" it still diminishes their credibility, such as when the Daily Mail turned a Brexit meeting between Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May, and Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon into a competition over who had the best legs. By contrast, when women are complimentary about a man, it has a quite different dynamic. Just this week Phil Barker expressed outrage about some women's comments about "Tree Man". To those just joining us, "Tree Man" is the moniker given to online fitness instructor Danny Jones. As per his profession, he is buff and frequently posts on social media, flexing and posing and providing motivation pep talks to his followers. He's also very tall – hence the "Tree" in "Tree Man" – and good looking.

Barker objected to responses to some of his posts, which included comments from women such as "Oh my … I would climb that and live on it forever", "Sweet Jesus, someone fetch me the smelling salts," while another asked Mr Jones to "murder my pussy". Anti-Hillary Clinton merchandise being sold outside the RNC. Credit:Oliver Laughland/Twitter Yes, it's objectification. But it's quite different in tone and effect. "Sweet Jesus, someone fetch me the smelling salts" sounds like it could have come from a Victorian-era lady overcome by a handsome lord. The demand that Mr Jones "murder my pussy", meanwhile, although conjuring disturbing images of a gangsta version of Mrs Slocum from Are You Being Served?, is hardly a sign of overt or predatory sexual agency. After all, she's inviting him to do something to her rather than forcing herself on him. Both examples suggest a form of sexual agency that's sublimated; that isn't fully expressed. We're not yet at the stage where women are on an even level of sexual agency with men – masculine sexuality is still seen as dominant and aggressive, whereas the idea that women even pursue men remains outside the norm, let alone women dominating men sexually.

This kind of "objectification", then, has the effect of redressing the balance; giving women some marginal agency rather than depriving men of their existing agency. The 'double standard' argument assumes there is a level playing field on which one group is being held to a standard that another group is not. The problem with the whole double standard argument is that it assumes there is a level playing field on which one group is being held to a standard of behaviour that another group is not. In other words, men and women have equality already, but one group (men) is being unfairly held to a more rigorous ideal of behaviour, while the other group (women) is permitted to do as they please. But that's not the case. The simple fact is that men and women, across a broad range of spheres of life, are not equal. If running down men in public life on a regular basis for their appearance was the entire business model of a whole media outlet – hello again Daily Mail – then, yep, sign me up to the battle against the objectification of men. If men's appearance was routinely used against them at professional settings to devalue them and deny them promotion and advancement, then I'd be more concerned about this apparent "double standard".

If there were a huge number of websites set up by women for the sole purpose of perving on men to decide whether they're hot or not – and labelling them the male equivalents of sluts and pigs if they're "not" – then get me to the barricades. But as the promising young men from Sydney's St Paul's College just reminded us with their social media posts about "harpooned whales" and "Happy Slaying" salutations, when women are objectified they are debased, diminished and denied agency. Of course, men are increasingly subjected to unrealistic standards of physical beauty. Ever since the arrival of "Marky" Mark Wahlberg in the early 1990s Calvin Klein underwear campaigns, we've seen men increasingly objectified across the media. And there are cases of men being judged in the media – the body shaming of Osher Günsberg and Leonardo DiCaprio being cases in point – but these cases are hardly widespread and enduring. That's not to say it's fine; it's not. But it is very different to the shaming of women, which has a deeply entrenched social precedent. Loading

The real issue with objectification is the systematic removal of the objectified person or group's humanity and agency. And when it comes to the objectification of men compared to the objectification of women, it's clear we're talking about very different things. Christopher Scanlon is Chair of Teaching and Learning in the College of Arts, Social Sciences and Commerce at La Trobe University.