Objectification of men in media

[Steve Waltz]

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.

It?s the only card straight white men have so they throw it around when they have the chance. I lose absolutely all respect for a straight white male that throws the disposable man card around. I say LGBT, women, and all other minorities should be treated equal and straight white men are throwing the disposable male card in a desperate attempt to defend their throne as the social majority. Why can those dudes just learn to share their throne and accept that all minorities should be treated the same as they do. But they?re all so blind and spoiled they just don?t have a clue.

As a straight white man, I say that straight white males should shut up and take the verbal beatings from SJWs; we can then sit on our thrones and dismiss them with a wave of our hands with our higher salaries and cooperations appeasing to our demographic all the time. Either that or straight white males should learn to share the throne. Either way, any straight white boy trying to defend themselves with pitiful excuses like ?but men are objectified too...? and ?Gurrr! Disposable man!? is just being plain selfish. We have capitalism wrapped around our fingers and they want to keep it that way by fighting against SJWs. I mean, yea, SJWs tend to be annoying as hell, but at least they?re on the right side of the fight.

 

[manic_depressive13]

I don't like when men are objectified in media any more than women. It's a little insulting, like the director is hoping I won't notice how shit the Thor movie was because they flashed me 3 seconds of Hemsworth's tits. I don't enjoy scenes like that, and I'd be perfectly happy if movies stopped shoehorning them in.

On the other hand at least these "objectified" men tend to look fit and strong. Frankly I wouldn't mind if objectified women looked powerful and capable. When Thor fights it looks like he's doing damage. Compare that to Black Widow in Avengers, who looks like she's doing a gymnastic dance routine while the enemies around her throw themselves on the ground in second hand embarrassment.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It?s the only card straight white men have so they throw it around when they have the chance.

But...it shouldn't be. The automatic assumption that straight white men are better able to deal with things causes severe (if generally lesser) problems for people who aren't not straight white men. That'd be a perfectly valid point if people would want to bring it up.

There's lots of actual ways that privilege ultimately hurts people who have it. There's lots of ways in which movements such as feminism as severely flawed. But people wanting to complain about that make up something obviously wrong instead.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

NOTE: I DO NOT WANT THIS TO TURN INTO AN ARGUMENT ON WHICH GENDER HAS IT WORSE IN THIS REGARD

Oh you poor bastard.

OT: It depends on what you classify as "objectification". When many talk of objectification, they usually mean in a sexual way. However, this is generally called sexual objectification, so it's not tackling the idea of objectification as a whole.
If we go with the commonly known one (sexual), then it means stripping someone down something without thoughts or feelings, no longer sentient. If they're sexually objectified it means they're only seen as something to get your jollies off with.

But I've never seen any other "X objectification". Why is this?

Because we do it all the time.
If I'm not thinking anything about the person working at the fast food restaurant besides getting food from them, then I'd be 'objectifying' them.
If I'm not thinking anything about the person driving in front of me other than passing them, I'm 'objectifying' them.
If all I'm doing is thinking about the arse of the person in front of me, then I'm 'objectifying' them. Or their arse. I'm not sure.
It all basically falls apart (as a problem) once you look into it.

The only reason we hear about "sexual objectification" is because some people still think sexuality should be repressed(suppressed?) for one stupid reason or another. Left or Right, they'll both tell you to stop thinking about sex.

OT again: to answer the your question about examples of male sexual objectification (because you seemed to mean sexual), look no further than most of them. There will always be articles on hot sexy guys, bulges, penises, sex, it's everywhere. Some people just brainwash themselves into thinking it doesn't exist, or can't happen.

 

[Avalanche91]

Isn't that the whole point of that swimming anime? Free! I believe?

 

[Tsun Tzu]

*siiiiiiiigh* Jesus, it just never ends, does it.

Objectification of men rarely happens in media, and it's often done in a sly 'Look we're reversing the roles' kind of way, often in works of Parody or when a creator wants to draw focus to the objectification of women. It is, rarely, played straight as objectification, with most 'believed' things of objectification being sexualization, ala the Thor shirtless scene. Thor is still a) a character and b) has agency (he clearly gives zero fucks that people are seeing him shirtless, possibly even doing it intentionally to show off to Jane), which are... well, big disqualifiers for objectification.

Basically, he's hot, but he's also a character. A very significant character appearing in four movies with only two shirtless scenes. He's as objectified as the moon is made of cheese.

Just curious here, but what characters would you consider to be objectified? I don't really doubt that you've got some good examples that I'll likely agree with.

Again, just curious.

You know it's all relative, right? Unless you're just pulling for the 'But starving Children in Africa' defense, based on ignorance of the various feminist movements in both 3rd world AND 1st world countries. If so, then I'd warn you that that invoking the 'They've got it worse over there!' is a logical fallacy and will earn you three demerit points and fifteen minutes in the penalty box.

Of course I know it's all relative. I was actually considering either a disclaimer or small text bit explaining just that, yet decided against it, figuring it would be something of a given.

My fault.

...Then why engage again? If you just want everyone to look at cat pictures, why stick your head into a discussion that isn't? If you don't want to be a part of the talk, don't jump in and go 'Why can't we all just agree to disagree and watch Mittens fall down the stairs?'

Well, why did you start your post with "*siiiiiiiigh* Jesus, it just never ends, does it"?

You apparently recognize the uphill, cyclical nature of such discussion...so why bother responding?

I obviously still felt like poking my head in, otherwise I wouldn't have typed up the preceding paragraphs, but is there a particular reason why I can't engage, be aware of my rationale for engaging, and make my weariness known with a simultaneous failed attempt at a bit of levity?

 

[loa]

How about the billions of nameles grunts with no character to speak of you gun down in an ocean of shooters?
Isn't that objectification?

And if it is, shouldn't you reconsider the binary stance of "grr all objectification bad" since "fixing" it is downright impossible and implausible?

I mean we're talking about every single instance a character is in the background and isn't "presented as a person (your mileage may vary)" here.

 

[visiblenoise]

I miss the good old days when the only kind of objectification that mattered was the one where the hooker gets humiliated and beaten up

 

[renegade7]

Your final example (the female romance novel example) may set up unreal expectations for guys

Honestly, those would set up unrealistic expectations for anyone. There's a reason they're called "emotional porn".

How about the billions of nameles grunts with no character to speak of you gun down in an ocean of shooters?
Isn't that objectification?

I would say that male objectification is less sexual and more...exactly this. See, a 6'1" 20-something with a gymnast's physique and tits and ass busting out of a skin-tight catsuit is a male fantasy...but so is being a muscle-bound Greek god. Male objectification takes the form of violence and aggression, not necessarily appearance. Men are expendable and it's okay if we're killed violently, whereas a female death is much more often intended to provoke sympathy. Solving problems with violence and aggression is shown as a male ideal (for instance, it's okay or even ideal for a man to physically assault someone who flirts with his girlfriend).

The other destructive form of male objectification is hypersexuality, wherein men are judged by their number of sexual partners, those who have fewer being mocked as "sexless" or virgins. From my own personal experience, this caused me to have some self-worth issues when I was younger before I knew better.

 

[Silvanus]

Personally, I don't see a distinction. A power fantasy might have more agency, sure, but that agency is irrelevant in the larger scope of things (that character existing for the idealization of the reader/viewer/gamer). Sure, one is a character they want to be, and one is a character they want to own (because, let's face it, the idea of sexual objectification is ownership; no one wants a woman to be super sexy and not belong to them), but both are ideals envisioned without being embodied. They are things a person wants, not people a person wants to exist.

They're both ideals, sure. My point is that if those tropes are consistently associated with specific genders, they say very different things about those genders. Numerous male power fantasies associate the gender with power, capability, determination; objectified female characters associate the gender with quite the opposite.

NB, as always, I'm talking about trends.

 

[Steve Waltz]

Men aren?t objectified ENOUGH in the media.

Get more men wearing speedos on the Food Network, and some more shirtless guys on WE tv; the world would be a better place in my opinion. Hey, I like seeing women in bikinis on beer commercials and video games, but I hate being criticized for liking something God programmed me to like. So, I say give objectified men to women so they can ogle the men and stop nagging me for ogling objectified women.

A perfect compromise to where both sides can be happy. Then only the self-rightious will whine and complain, to which unified men and women could tell them all to shut up while we watch half-naked members of the opposite sex doing physical stuff, like swimming or playing beach volleyball.

 

[Piorn]

I don't really worry about objectification per se, shallow depiction of people is in itself morally neutral. You depict an attractive person and say "this person looks good", and then people agree ir disagree.

What bothers me more is that shows like tBBT teach people to mock men for not conforming to "male" stereotypes.

 

[Erttheking]

Objectified men do not look like this.

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/9/99065/3772690-4991895913-37294.jpg

I have yet to find a woman who looked at that picture and said "Yeah I wanna fuck that."

Objectified men look like this.

http://i.imgur.com/GaNdaFQ.jpg

Objectification is not determined by the amount of skin that is shown. It is determined by the way that character is treated in the narrative. If the character is just a fuck toy who is there to look good, he is objectified. That's why the men in Jojo's Bizarre Adventure aren't objectified. They're sexy as fuck, but they have actual agency...cept maybe Speedwagon.

This link explains it well.

http://madlori.tumblr.com/post/96644265130/vixyish-yondamoegi-dreamsofjade

 

[Dizchu]

I think men get objectified more in media, just not sexually. When people complain about damsels in distress as being mere plot devices... oh boy. I'd rather be a damsel than one of the hundreds of nameless goons the protagonist guns down. They rarely even have any desires of self-preservation, in favour of just lunging at the hero pretty much expecting to be slaughtered. That's actually more objectified than the hypothetical scenario of a stripper begging not to be killed as the player character murders her in a game, because at least she wants to remain alive.

However in terms of "sexual objectification", females have historically been subject to it more. That said, the issue isn't as prevalent in video games as many might think. If anything, it's more pervasive in advertising. Even the sexual objectification of men is more pervasive in advertising, we've all seen those Hollister bags with a ripped guy with his face cropped out.

Personally I don't see much of a problem with it in narrative media, though it does go hand-in-hand with sloppy storytelling. As I said, advertising is where it's most troublesome.

 

[Silvanus]

Oh, yeah. Definitely agree.

Probably irrelevant to your point, but... "NB"?

I'll certainly agree that either can be pretty unhelpful, too.

'NB' is short for 'nota bene', which just means 'note well', or 'take note of this'. It's not a common thing to see though.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

Well? I guess men are objectified in gay porn. But obviously, that?s kinda niche.

Bodybuilders, maybe? I mean, when you look at them in a magazine or something, you don?t give a shit about their personality or their history or anything, do you? Both men and women, regardless of sexuality, likely think, ?Woah, he?s got some pretty big muscles?. And the guy on the receiving end of this admiration probably takes pride in this, just like how some female swimsuit models probably do as well.

 

[gLoveofLove]

Alright, well, this is gonna be slightly complicated. Objectification - in this instance, Sexual Objectification, is based on the character having zero input in their presentation. They are placed in such a way that makes them sexually appealing, with zero relevance to their character what-so-ever. Characters like this are Objectified, or short-hand Sexualized (I realize I made a mistake in my initial post where I said Thor was subject to 'Sexualization' - he's Sexual, but he isn't sexualized.)

Sexualisation is not synonymous with Objectification. It's not the same thing as Sexual Objectification either. A lot of those characters listing were sexualised, as stated, but that does not mean that they were objectified. It's a slightly different issue.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

A pair of points come up that got a random eureka moment out of me. I didn't dwell on them, this thing just kinda happens.

1: It happens to men, but they aren't as upset about it.

2: Men get objectified by being the disposable grunts.

First, and foremost, yes, it's usually men that get the violence done to them in videogames, in war, etc. I'm not really trying to take that away. ... well, kinda, I am. I would be open to more female troopers in games, and in life.
It's still true, regardless.

Men rarely complain. This is also true.

But while males are the majority of fodder, here's the thing. Who's usually the one gunning down, or throwing the fireballs, or swinging the melee weapon dealing with the fodder?
Who's generally the most competent person in the entire plot doing the things that only they can do? Who're the ones that generally are foretold to be in legends, and do legendary things? To the point that it often relegates others to bit parts?
Who's generally the ones getting laid, getting love stories, and being fawned over?

Basically this. While it's true males are the majority of fodder, they are also the majority of the most powerful people in the story's universe. They do the sort of things that go down in legend.
Thing is, not every male is equally powerful, so we have fodder.
This leads to the potential notion of the whole "power fantasy" thing. Here's a lone guy making every other guy in existence look not quite as competent. It makes the main guy the alpha, and who doesn't want to be the best at what they do, and adored for it? Or at least get some recognition?

I dare say if there's no power fantasy in it, it's possible someone's either numb to it, takes it for granted, or both thanks to the high saturation in media, and history.
It doesn't have to be interactive media, it's the cheering people get from it in general. Guys get celebrated for what they do pretty often across media. They're the heroes, they're the zeroes, they work in every area of the spectrum of personality. They're villains, heroes, lovers, fighters, fodder, parental figures, child figures, and so forth. And they're often in such roles.

What I'm getting at is that males often get a shitton of positive to make the bitter pill of negative go down easier. So what if they're most of the fodder when their hero guy is taking out the fodder?
They get it coated in chocolate, and icecream coz they're so often praised that it balances out all the negative stuff to the point that they don't get vocal about it.
So what if Thor gets shirtless once or twice when hes beating the piss out of some foe in a glorious way? Hell, who cares if Hulk gets shirtless if he's acts so awesome that he's praised for just being him?!
<youtube=MMpCCo8Evnc>

Look, I'm not here to say who has it worse, or better, here. Honestly, I'm here to put thought to text, and ramble.

 

[wadark]

It depends on the definition for objectification in a non-literal sense. The op seems to describe scenes of gratuitous male nudity or partial nudity. But a scene here or there is hardly objectifying.

In general the term objectifying has very little to do with physical appearance, though that can certainly enter into it. To be objectified, I think, a character has to be created in such a way as to not have any (or very little) purpose or drive of their own. A character who exists solely for the benefit of the audience or the main character.

This can certainly include depictions of nudity (a la DoAX), but can also be a personality trait or simply the characters circumstances (a la princess peach). These are characters who have very little in the way of their own driving force, goals, or to be frank: reasons for existing. DoA girls pretty much exist to be looked at and ogled, princess peach is the plot macguffin that Mario gets to rescue in every game.

 

[Glongpre]

We should just say both genders have their pros and cons and leave it at that. We should be helping each other, using our strengths to fill the weaknesses of others!!!