I'm more curious about things that revolve around this debate. Female characters in media as sexual objects with little or no agency are referred to as a problem, either because they exist at all, or because they are too pervasive and... what? Is it because it is lazy writing? Is it because it sets up standards of beauty that are unreal? Is it because it sets up standards of behavior for women that are appaling? I'm interested in knowing why people think this objectification is bad, otherwise how can one set up counter arguments without resorting to strawmanning?
If we say that the objectification is bad because it is lazy writing, so too can we argue that making idealized male figures is equally so. Even with agency intact, a male hero figure who simply exists as an idealized version of real people is, frankly, boring as crap.
If we say objectification sets up unrealistic and unattainable standards of beauty, so too does idealization often do the same. You can point to 'ugly' male characters and say they aren't setting up any standards of beauty, but they do set up unrealistic expectations of masculine appearance. Even the ones that do have scarred faces and greying beards almost always have muscular forms with rediculous porportions. Almost as often as the idealized protagonist saves the objectified woman, he also saves a horde of skinny, dare I say 'nerdy' looking male characters who are equally defenseless, suggesting that having 'brains' is less preferable to having brawn.
If we say objectification is bad because it sets up standards of behavior that are appaling, the same can be said for idealized male characters. The tropes associated with said idealization usually involve little or no sympathy or empathy and that revolve around suggesting men are or should be brutish oafs. Even clever male characters with wit in their dialogue act without much more thought than "point gun, kill bad guy," much of the time.
That's just a few examples, but the point I"m striving at here, is that while idealization does not equal objectification, can it not cause many or all of the exact same problems? If so, why would we dismiss it as being a valid comparison to objectification? I'm not even saying it is, as I started out in my first paragrah, we'd need to lay our all of the reasons objectificaion IS bad and find out if idealization can cause those exact same problems.