If anthropomorphism means treating an object as a person, perhaps an antonym might be objectification

: to treat (someone) as an object… – Merriam-Webster Jr.

If anthropomorphism means treating an object as a person, perhaps an antonym might be objectification

: to treat (someone) as an object… – Merriam-Webster Jr.

What do people think of stifling by dogs?

Google (Oxford Dictionaries) is giving it

as making one feel constrained or oppressed.

and stifle, as

make (someone) unable to breathe properly; suffocate.

“she stifled him with a pillow”;

airless, suffocating, oppressive… I

suggest this word because I think it describes the garment adequately, but does a better job at giving the feeling one might have wearing an oppressive jacket, which I think is what the OP was after…

Do people use ‘non inequality’ in purely placement? If only because there are people trying to imply equal weighting to the elements in the same construction. (Think of everyone else putting everything first!)

Is Kris mentioning Andy for her good wishes?

Do you really want to tell both Andy and Sandy that you value the contribution (frienship?) of one or the other? Which is better: thank people individually for their efforts. If Sandy has done more then it’s obvious in that context.

Or send them individual emails, in which case, you can make you more specific and effusive in your thanks to one of them?

How about you?

Do people use ‘non inequality’ in purely placement? If only because there are people trying to imply equal weighting to the elements in the same construction. (Think of everyone else putting everything first!)

Is Kris mentioning Andy for her good wishes?

Do you really want to tell both Andy and Sandy that you value the contribution (frienship?) of one or the other? Which is better: thank people individually for their efforts. If Sandy has done more then it’s obvious in that context.

Or send them individual emails, in which case, you can make you more specific and effusive in your thanks to one of them?

How about you?

Do people use ‘non inequality’ in purely placement? If only because there are people trying to imply equal weighting to the elements in the same construction. (Think of everyone else putting everything first!)

Is Kris mentioning Andy for her good wishes?

Do you really want to tell both Andy and Sandy that you value the contribution (frienship?) of one or the other? Which is better: thank people individually for their efforts. If Sandy has done more then it’s obvious in that context.

Or send them individual emails, in which case, you can make you more specific and effusive in your thanks to one of them?

How about you?

Do people use ‘non inequality’ in purely placement? If only because there are people trying to imply equal weighting to the elements in the same construction. (Think of everyone else putting everything first!)

Is Kris mentioning Andy for her good wishes?

Do you really want to tell both Andy and Sandy that you value the contribution (frienship?) of one or the other? Which is better: thank people individually for their efforts. If Sandy has done more then it’s obvious in that context.

Or send them individual emails, in which case, you can make you more specific and effusive in your thanks to one of them?

How about you?

Do people use ‘non inequality’ in purely placement? If only because there are people trying to imply equal weighting to the elements in the same construction. (Think of everyone else putting everything first!)

Is Kris mentioning Andy for her good wishes?

Do you really want to tell both Andy and Sandy that you value the contribution (frienship?) of one or the other? Which is better: thank people individually for their efforts. If Sandy has done more then it’s obvious in that context.

Or send them individual emails, in which case, you can make you more specific and effusive in your thanks to one of them?

How about you?

Do people use ‘non inequality’ in purely placement? If only because there are people trying to imply equal weighting to the elements in the same construction. (Think of everyone else putting everything first!)

Is Kris mentioning Andy for her good wishes?

Do you really want to tell both Andy and Sandy that you value the contribution (frienship?) of one or the other? Which is better: thank people individually for their efforts. If Sandy has done more then it’s obvious in that context.

Or send them individual emails, in which case, you can make you more specific and effusive in your thanks to one of them?

How about you?

Do people use ‘non inequality’ in purely placement? If only because there are people trying to imply equal weighting to the elements in the same construction. (Think of everyone else putting everything first!)

Is Kris mentioning Andy for her good wishes?

Do you really want to tell both Andy and Sandy that you value the contribution (frienship?) of one or the other? Which is better: thank people individually for their efforts. If Sandy has done more then it’s obvious in that context.

Or send them individual emails, in which case, you can make you more specific and effusive in your thanks to one of them?

How about you?