Objectification of men in media
- Thread starter totheendofsin
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I've actually be curious about that assumption.Daystar Clarion said:
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.LifeCharacter said:
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.thaluikhain said:
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.
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.
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.
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.Steve Waltz said:
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.
Oh you poor bastard.totheendofsin said:
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.
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.Shanicus said:
Again, just curious.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
Honestly, those would set up unrealistic expectations for anyone. There's a reason they're called "emotional porn".Inglorious891 said:
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).loa said:
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.
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.Kaulen Fuhs said:
NB, as always, I'm talking about trends.
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.
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.
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.
What bothers me more is that shows like tBBT teach people to mock men for not conforming to "male" stereotypes.