i think the problem with hyperfixating on sexual objectification in media as the primary form of feminist activism is that sexual objectification is a symptom, not the source. and, perhaps more importantly, it is very very easy for outrage against sexual objectification, even if put in feminist or pseudofeminist language, to simply collapse into outrage that is truly indistinguishable from traditional (christian) patriarchal anxiety around sexuality, both women's and men's.
the historically dominant social worldview is already one in which people love getting outraged over women's boobs and ass, and the love people (particularly men) have for such boobs and ass, being directly linked to the degradation of society. this does not require any kind of feminist belief to engage in. and so, even if you are putting in in feminist or pseudofeminist (by which i mean, vaguely calling on the cultural idea of feminism but not really connected to any actual feminist theory or ideology) terms, it is very, very easy for people to simply reword that ingrained, patriarchal worldview in new terms and carry on decrying those evil evil hookers and evil evil perverts, while, crucially, never actually threatening the patriarchal system. which is why such movements can get a lot of popularity quite quickly.
this is not to say that sexual objectification isn't an issue with real-world impacts and harm. but its also very clear over multiple decades that when feminists fixate on "we need to get rid of all the Bad depictions of women in any remotely sexual content from the media / culture!" that ends up being used to harm sex workers first and foremost (lest we forget that a radical feminist called for prostitutes to be "lined up and shot" after the hypothetical feminist revolution for "working with the patriarchy) and it is almost always co-opted by the patriarchy itself. this is how you get radfems continually cozying up to conservatives, because they both have the same boogeyman: the whore.
ultimately, if you try to get rid of all the Bad Sexy Images of Women, that doesn't materially threaten the system of patriarchy, which is built around gendered labor and social control. if we all lived in a Puritan village where nobody even knows how sex works before they get married and the very notion of A Pornography is incomprehensible, patriarchy could still exist. and we could also live in a society that is non-patriarchal where there are depictions of women's boobs and ass that exist entirely for the sake of making people horny, and this does not logically translate into any systemic oppression or dehumanization. because the material circumstances and overall culture would not be patriarchal.
basically its very easy to rant about how women are sexually objectified in media, its very easy to get people up in arms about how women are sexually objectified in media, a lot of people on all sides of the political spectrum have an ingrained dislike of women being depicted sexually in media, and it is much much harder to challenge the system of patriarchy (fundamentally interlocked with capitalism, imperialism, white supremacy, etc.) in a far more meaningful way. part of the problem with feminism is that the patriarchy has always seen itself as a protector and defender of women & women's moral & sexual purity being directly tied to the nation's moral quality. the patriarchy does not see itself as an enemy of women (although it certainly breeds people who do, for its own benefit). when people do not grapple with this, it leads them to believe that just wanting "what's best for women" is feminist enough.
