So every so often, when a game like Bayonetta 2 or Lollipop Chainsaw comes out people start discussing objectification of women, but I rarely hear talk of objectification of men, and when I do it's always dismissed as "power fantasy" (personally I don't think the two are mutually exclusive, one example being a random shirtless scene in Thor 2 that served no purpose other than to show off Chris Hemsworth's how body).
So I ask you, how often are men objectified in various forms of media?
would you consider a 'power fantasy' a type of objectification, setting unrealistic standards of strength for young boy?
what are some examples of objectification of men in media you can think of?
Some examples of objectification of men in various media I can think of
The aforementioned random shirtless scene in Thor 2
Nick from Lollipop Chainsaw (in that he is literally treated as an object)
the cover of EVERY WOMENS ROMANCE NOVEL EVER
NOTE: I DO NOT WANT THIS TO TURN INTO AN ARGUMENT ON WHICH GENDER HAS IT WORSE IN THIS REGARD (though I have a sinking feeling that's exactly what I'll get)
Well for one thing any mention of numbers in any war movie by the strictest definition. But if you really play fast an lose with the definition basically any guy that someone says attractive can be called "being objectified."
To be honest, I wouldn't call any of your examples "objectification"; in none of them are the male characters are treated as wholey and completely as objects. A couple of cutscenes in a game/one scene make up a small percentage of the whole game/movie. When women are objectified it's typically for the whole work they're in, and this occurs for a majority of the females characters in the particular work/form of media. One scene isn't an issue, so I can't say I'm all that up in arms about either example you give, or men being "objectified" in media in general.
Your final example (the female romance novel example) may set up unreal expectations for guys, but it's faaaaaaaar from objectification, as I highly doubt the men in those novels are treated as purely sexual objects and nothing else. And it's not like a whole lot of men are exposed to them as they're kinda something you have to be looking for in order to run into them, and since most straight men don't look for them they aren't much of a problem either (and that's completely ignoring the fact that, even if they did objectify men, it still wouldn't be a big deal since they don't have much of an impact on our culture).
It's also kinda funny you stated that you don't want this thread to dissolve into another debate, then you say that you fully expect it to.
If you're looking for a dose of male objectification look no further than BuzzFeed, that site may as well be the female equivalent of the the Chive, there are so many articles about hot guys that make you 'thirsty' or what male celeb is your boyfriend.
It kind of annoys me because there are so many feminist articles on the site and objectification goes against what my interpretation of feminism is, by putting men through the same BS women go through. Although I get that the site is taking the opposite feminist stance on objectification, with it trying to make men feel bad to make them understand how women feel.
Well, those are rather different things. I would consider various "power fantasies" to be potentially setting an unrealistic standard, and possibly quite a bad influence if we see them time and again, but that's not the same thing as objectification.
A power fantasy character has agency (lots of it); an objectified character doesn't.
Your final example (the female romance novel example) may set up unreal expectations for guys, but it's faaaaaaaar from objectification, as I highly doubt the men in those novels are treated as purely sexual objects and nothing else. And it's not like a whole lot of men are exposed to them as they're kinda something you have to be looking for in order to run into them, and since most straight men don't look for them they aren't much of a problem either (and that's completely ignoring the fact that, even if they did objectify men, it still wouldn't be a big deal since they don't have much of an impact on our culture).
It's also kinda funny you stated that you don't want this thread to dissolve into another debate, then you say that you fully expect it to.
I don't know if you need to argue against objectification in that case. There is a time and place for everything, even sexual objectification. If the male characters are objectified in romance novels so what? What context would be better for sexual objectification than a novel primarily about love, romance, and/or sex? It's one thing if it happens in the middle of a battle for the fate of the planet, but why not while two characters are flirting? The presumably straight female protagonist, who would be our viewpoint chracter, thinks the love interest is hot and thus they will be described as such. They may even be plastered on the cover of the book in a provocative way, but at least the cover would be indicative of what is going on in the book.
Fanservice-y or sexy =/= objectification. A character can show a lot of skin or have a few lingering shots of their ass, but still have a fully fleshed out characterisation and backstory.
All I can really think of (when going by the definition that a character who has character or purpose at all is not objectified) is Kaworu from Neon Genesis Evangelion. That guy was pretty much there for all the Japanese women who wanted a sexy 14 year old boy. Pretty much everything he does and every relationship he has with every other character is out-and-out intended as titillating in some backwards, creepy way.
In other words, perfectly fitting for the holy shit tirade of meaningless bullshit that is Evangelion. Seriously. What does he even do? He's like the Kim Kardashian of anime land. God, I need to watch that terrible anime again. Refresh my memory. Y'know, on its terribleness.
I can think of a few examples where a male character just provides fanservice and doesn't do anything else, but not many. Only women really get mad about female objectification. Oh, and the few guys who call sexy male characters "gay" or "makes me uncomfortable".
Personally whenever I see people complain about objectification my thought is "this is someone who wants to associate lust with being a bad person, or a person who wants to kiss up to the people who do". It reminds me of religion wanting to make carnal desires a sin.
I remember a conservative women whose thought on the issue struck me (I'm paraphrasing here): "these people seem to think it's impossible to want to fuck someone you don't know while ALSO seeing them as a human being". I'd call it misandric but there's a few people like you who think it applies to both genders, so I just think it's a pretty low opinion of human beings in general.
I can get behind the idea of objectification if it was "I see these people as things I can manipulate to get what I want" or something but it never is.
Your final example (the female romance novel example) may set up unreal expectations for guys, but it's faaaaaaaar from objectification, as I highly doubt the men in those novels are treated as purely sexual objects and nothing else. And it's not like a whole lot of men are exposed to them as they're kinda something you have to be looking for in order to run into them,
It flies way beyond practicality, established character, and frankly, point, aside from being a parody of a movie that probably had less objectification than the parody because there was a point, it was in character, and it was practical. Then again, I havent seen Magic Mike.
Still, it's a joke, though. I get it.
Yes, men get objectified just like women. It happens. Anybody that says it doesn't is stupid. The difference is, men don't piss & moan about it because, at the end of the day, we just don't care.
Yes, men get objectified just like women. It happens. Anybody that says it doesn't is stupid. The difference is, men don't piss & moan about it because, at the end of the day, we just don't care.
Yeah, those moaning women, it's not like they spent centuries being oppressed by men or anything.
Coming over here, taking our Playboys and our sportsball.
OT: objectification happens, but not even nearly on the same level as women. That doesn't lessen it in any way, but I'm not going to pretend the White male demographic is hard done by at any point in the near future.
Yes, men get objectified just like women. It happens. Anybody that says it doesn't is stupid. The difference is, men don't piss & moan about it because, at the end of the day, we just don't care.
Yeah, those moaning women, it's not like they spent centuries being oppressed by men or anything.
Coming over here, taking our Playboys and our sportsball.
OT: objectification happens, but not even nearly on the same level as women. That doesn't lessen it in any way, but I'm not going to pretend the White male demographic is hard done by at any point in the near future.
The current crop of moaners spent centuries being oppressed? I knew it. Women are ageless eldritch monstrosities.
It all makes sense now.
I know, I know, but really, modern western women are faaaar from oppressed and are, in fact, pretty damned privileged. If we're continuing on with the usual patter, then it'd especially be the white ones. ._.
But then, we're all privileged as fuck over in the west. It does wonders for one's ability to pontificate on social issues when you don't have to worry about whether or not your head will soon adorn the windshield or hubcaps of some crazed warlord's (forced, natch) sex-wagon.
-OT-
OP ... You KNOW what you're going to get here. We've been having discussions like this, fruitlessly, for years at this point. But, hell, I'm bored between art projects, so here we go:
Take a quick look at the term "objectification." It, quite literally, means reducing a person to the status of an object/thing. It depends entirely on how you, as a viewer, approach any given subject.
(Aside: There is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of objectification, depending on how its used. And sexy is not the same thing as objectified. Yes. Imo, even the DoA Volleyball girls are not "objectified." Each is a character unto herself with a personality.)
Anywho, here's a sort of catch-all that explains my stance on this sort of thing. Let's focus on the romance novels.
They're characters/art and they're not reduced to "objects" by anything but the viewer. Said viewer is given no more information than the visual, so they're drawing their own conclusions based on the appearance of the character. Said character is (hopefully) given a personality/agency in the story proper, IF that's the aim of the author to begin with, and it truly doesn't have to be.
Now, if they purely exist to be an ass or set of pecs/tits, then yes, I'd say they'd be "objectified." Which does happen, to be sure, to both genders.
...Unless you come at it from the angle that the art or representation itself is an object, in which case it could be argued that the 'person' doesn't actually exist and is, therefore, an object to start with, so the entire idea of objectifying a representation is utterly ridiculous, which kind of makes debating pointle-
Ok.
Look.
Basically, it's all subjective and each of us is spending an inordinate amount of our time on earth bickering about it with total strangers on the internet. Personally, I would rather we all just hug and drink while sharing cat pictures, but what can you do? Not engage, over and over and over, with the same folks you bear no honest ill will toward in an apparent effort to gain nothing but additional unnecessary stress?
Yeah, those moaning women, it's not like they spent centuries being oppressed by men or anything.
Coming over here, taking our Playboys and our sportsball.
OT: objectification happens, but not even nearly on the same level as women. That doesn't lessen it in any way, but I'm not going to pretend the White male demographic is hard done by at any point in the near future.
I am yet to meet a single woman who has been objectified for centuries. In fact, I'm yet to meet any woman older than generation X who wasn't aware of the great strides towards equality the world has taken over the space of their lives. I have however met many who expect the instant gratification we in gen X have been bred to expect, those who scream of times past when women were for little more than keeping the house and making babies and the injustice done to them. Unfortunately for them, but fortunately for the rest of us, those days are long gone.
Are things perfectly equal? Nope.
Is the male demographic hard done by? Nope.
Is the female demographic hard done by? also Nope.
Yes, men get objectified just like women. It happens. Anybody that says it doesn't is stupid. The difference is, men don't piss & moan about it because, at the end of the day, we just don't care.
Yeah, those moaning women, it's not like they spent centuries being oppressed by men or anything.
Coming over here, taking our Playboys and our sportsball.
OT: objectification happens, but not even nearly on the same level as women. That doesn't lessen it in any way, but I'm not going to pretend the White male demographic is hard done by at any point in the near future.
Difference is that nobody goes around promoting censorship in the name of defending the honor of white men. Also nobody gives a shit if a man gets hurt. People are up in arms, banning a game if it even so much as has a woman getting hurt in it. Yet hundreds of men get mowed down by the hundreds in game after game after game and nobody bats an eye, and men have always had to die in everything from wars to starvation to job-related death, but men aren't oppressed at all, huh? It's those women who have to endure getting eye raped all the time that are so oppressed.
Don't act like men have historically had it so much better. Whenever it came time for blood to be shed, it was ALWAYS the blood of men. Whenever a life was to be saved, it was always a woman. I'd take being eye-raped, even actual raped, over my life being considered completely and utterly disposable, and being taught from a young age that my life is disposable, any day of the week.
I've actually be curious about that assumption.
See at the very least that statement assumes western culture, specifically ones that had a roman and Abraham leaning. if that is inherently true with all peoples then it's human nature.
then there would have to be a cultural beginning to this event, this systematic oppression of women, a primordial point. I have yet to find it but I'm not a gender studies person, I'd like to have a job that i could claim is useful like writer or psychologist.
that being said
these dude actually tackles the matter pretty well and so on, this sort of thing ring true
Coming over here, taking our Playboys and our sportsball.
wasn't pay boy some flapper feminist symbol, becuase women where able to express their sexuality instead of the Victorian, everything but your face is covered modesty thing.
[qoute]
OT: objectification happens, but not even nearly on the same level as women. That doesn't lessen it in any way, but I'm not going to pretend the White male demographic is hard done by at any point in the near future.[/quote]
uh pardon, my friend he said men, not white men, just men.
there was no need to bring in colour of their skin, while a lot of us here live in countries founded by and populated to a high density by whities doesn't mean they it's necessary to bring up that when touching on a far reaching subject.
but I have to agree with you, men tend to suffer more from higher agency which is why they don't often ***** about things.
The heck is with people and "white male" all of the sudden.
It's a mite bit dumb, the more i hear it the more I think these people went turnabout on the white man's duty from Victorian times.
It's awe-strikingly racist, and more to the point sort of stupid. The current problems with society are and cannot be level towards one figure, but rather an interlocking system of problems and human natures that, mixed with ignorance and the last breaths of a failing empire. Once the north American empire falls i suspect people will use the term, in it's equivalence in Hindi and Mandarin directed at the current privileged tribe.
I did a long winding thing on objectification but if you aren't willing to slog through that mess i will give you this.
Why does it matter?
because in this instance any character rendered is a object, a construct lacking anima or intelligence and yet a will of it's own.
I generally have reservations on enforcing will upon culture because culture is it has to tackle epistemological scales, human view points and most often then not ends with very small minded, very moral people doing their thing. All of these matter attempt to as if a blanket cover so many people's lives and yet never truly help any, hell I'd offer it does more bad then good because these discussions often have the speaker remold culture to their liking without ever consdiering the consequences.
More over it's the worse end to attack the ills of society.
Help people.
Help people and perhaps you could have culture change, not the other way round.
normally I don't usually make anti dualist arguments like these but, they are just game characters, men and women.
If you care that a rendering is sexualized, fine I guess but from what I understand people know what play is. People like ideals, illusions and drama and to date I don't see this carrying over more then the normal bed rock is.
It'd be better to attack it directly.
let me end this with a remark on the paradox of objectification and it's identification.
let me get into my philospher mind set, boom sophestry, lets go
There's an unfortunate things with the mind, to think something you have to create the possibility for the other event, an example of the matter is holding a something fragile in your hand you realize you have to be careful not to crush it, naturally you have recognize the possibility of crushing it. or how easy it would be to.
The same could be said for objectionable.
So I must beg the question, where does it come from, where does it go?
Simply if someone is objectified in a forest and nobody's around to see it does it make a lick of sense.
Does the line have to be drawn at the interaction, I've heard many defend bayonetta and decry it but it was created by a woman but the moment one has called her creation internalized muhsoggywhatever then one is technically objectifying her, by removing her agency and reducing her choices and experiences to cultural default.
What we have is a Ouroboros, the head bitting the tail, objecitifiation will exist as long as people can define it. An innocent would have no problem ignoring or even failing to view this as a whole.
I the honest truth I fail to see this a real issue or see how this damaging at all, the women in my life are tough and have never put up with these sorts of issues. They laugh at this sort of kerfuffle and I have to wonder what is the key reason to remove it.
Let me make something clear, I follow the categorical imperative and intention when it comes to judging issues of morality (more so the latter them the former). And as i see it, it is not inherently a negative action, the lines of though condemning it require greater mechanisms to condemn it, I.E. this effects people this way, which affects people this way 2xcombob.
But there isn't an immediate affect, it's a gradual effect resultant from many different factors to which it isn't even the biggest offender just the most immediately distasteful.
Further more it as a theorem negates the agency and experience of the people affect by it, man, woman, OR A
SWEET TRANSVESTITE, FROM TRANSSEXUAL, TRANSYLVANIA
objectifying most humourously.
hrrrm actualyl that song did help.
I think attacking objectification in media fails to address the direct results of media, culture, evolutionary roles, instinct, nature, nuture, yattayada, what ever else you could roll up out of this.
The results the people will still fall prey to the symptom and while one removed (one of)the cause(s).
As someone more inclined to psych over pop feminism's hackened sociology I'd argue it would be better to maintain responsibility on all people and an expectation of full agency, more now then ever in our day and age of nobody fucked up.
Followed by therapy, self actualization and contemplative meditation.
But I'm a Jungian, a moralist, an old school anti authoritarian liberal and a fool.
I know the economic limitations but my I've always loved the saying from bone, about having to find the dragons for yourself.
And the finale from the manticore.
".? Davey, did you ever think that these three men who were so splendid at understanding others had first to understand themselves? It was from their self-knowledge they spoke. They did not go trustingly to some doctor and follow his lead because they were too lazy or too scared to make the inward journey alone. They dared heroically. And it should never be forgotten that they made the inward journey while they were working like galley-slaves at their daily tasks, considering other people's troubles, raising families, living full lives. They were heroes, in a sense that no space-explorer can be a hero, because they went into the unknown absolutely alone. Was their heroism simply meant to raise a whole new crop of invalids? Why don't you go home and shoulder your yoke, and be a hero too?? "
You will never be complete without trails and tribulations.
The most honestly caring thing to do is let people over come their suffering. Not do it for them. It's a pain I know, so many people but there is a balm of Gilead, we can come to them with open arms and mark them together.
We all suffer together and perhaps with that knowledge and a bit of love and empathy we can all pick up our yokes and bee heroes.
Thor is here, Loki is now.
And, as always, people really need to stop pretending that men were sent off to fight because they were seen as disposable, because the reason they were sent off to fight is because they were seen as the only one's actually capable of doing so. If you're argument is that being the default soldier for human history makes you disposable, tell me what you make of all the instances where certain men were disqualified from being soldiers? Were black men forbidden from serving because they weren't as disposable as white men? How about gay men? Transmen? The handicapped?
You beat me to it. The argument that men are obviously disposable because women weren't allowed combat roles in many societies is rather patently false, but won't go away.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
