The difference is that those men are not objectified. Yes, those bodies are unrealistic indeed, but those beefcake guys are not presented as sex objects who have no other purpose in this world than to please women.
I get the feeling that you never hang out with a group of gals on a night out
Or like
Ever
Damn, RIP hungryphrog
I guess I don't hang out with myself then
Oh yes, Thor is oiled up and shirtless while Natalie Portman ogles him for the entire first movie because... It looks powerful? It represents his stoicism? Definitely not a sexual objectification thing, oh no sir
Tbf you can be ogled and not objectified. The difference is that Thor absolutely is portrayed as a complex character with his own agency, or subjectivity. The whole movie is about him learning to step out of the role of warmonger and into a more mature, nurturing role of a king. That gives him a lot of subjectivity - the opposite of objectivity
Edit: So to clarify, yes Thor is part of a series of unrealistic body standards for men. But he's not objectified
In social philosophy, objectification is the act of treating a person as an object or a thing. It is part of dehumanization, the act of disavowing the humanity of others. Sexual objectification, the act of treating a person as a mere object of sexual desire, is a subset of objectification,
Emphasis mine. Where in "Thor" is Thor dehumanized? Do the creators of the movie dehumanize him? No, if anything he exhibits more humanity as the movie goes on. Does Jane Foster dehumanize him? No, she's clearly sexually attracted to him and some scenes do focus on his body, but that's not enough to dehumanize someone. He is not a "mere object of sexual desire" because those scenes exist amid an entire movie that treats Thor with respect as a character, including Jane who gets to know him and love him. The only character who dehumanizes him could be Loki but he's clearly portrayed as being wrong
Tbf you can be ogled and not objectified
I gotta get me some of that copium, looks like the good stuff.
Or, like, learn what objectification actually means (and "cope" for that matter, what am I coping about? I'm just having an internet discussion)
The difference is that Thor absolutely is portrayed as a complex character with his own agency, or subjectivity.
So is Black Widow, but she is 100% leathered up sex symbol too and no one questions that.
Sex symbol =/= objectified. There's nothing wrong with being a sexy character. Sexual objectification is the reduction of a person or character to nothing but sex. Or, if you want a more accurate definition, you can look at Wikipedia's definition which I gave somewhere else
Tbf you can be ogled and not objectified. The difference is that Thor absolutely is portrayed as a complex character with his own agency, or subjectivity.
By that definition, no female main character of a film ever has been objectified.
I think what the commenter is trying to say is that male characters tend to have more to their overall presence in movies than just their body since they are generally the protagonists, but female characters are often only there to show their bodies and have very little character depth in comparison.
Though, granted, that commenter probably has horrible taste in movies if this observation is so starkly visible to them.
No there are plenty of female characters who are portrayed as two-dimensional sex objects, just like there are male characters who are portrayed the same. But Thor is not one of them. And the existence of sex appeal around a character =/= objectification
No there are plenty of female characters who are portrayed as two-dimensional sex objects
But none of them were their film's main characters, right? I mean, by definition if the character has agency and complexity to them, they're not being objectified, and basically every main character has some degree of agency and complexity. Can you give me an example of a female film lead who is objectified by the definition you've provided here?
It's not really to do with whether they're the protagonist, it's how they're treated as a character (and by extension the actor). Off the top of my head the best example is Carly from Transformers 3. She's incredibly 2-dimensional. What do we know about her, her motivations, what drives her? Well, not a lot. At best you could argue she has a good job and is responsible for getting Megatron to help OP. But when we look at the movie overall it's not great. She's consistently needing saved by Sam, the film goes to lengths to focus on her borderline inappropriate relationship with her male boss, and she just doesn't do a lot for the plot that doesn't serve some male. In fact, her introduction, arguably the most important scene for establishing her character, is a camera shot of her ass. That's objectification because the character exists amid a web of weak characterization and conformity to gender roles that treat her more like a trophy than a proper character
Carly was not the main character of that film, Sam was. I really think you're missing my point. You've defined objectification in such a way that no lead character could ever be said to be objectified. So, if you're going to use that definition to claim that Thor isn't objectified, you must agree that no female protagonist can claim to be objectified to be consistent with your own definition.
Can you find me an example of a man who serves a similar role to Carly? Find me an example of a male character who is not the protagonist who is there solely to be attractive.
Because if you're honest you'll have to agree that it is orders of magnitude more common for women to be shown that way than for men.
If you're looking for supporting male characters who are objectified in the same way supporting female characters are, then yes, that would be hard to find. But that's because men aren't sexually objectified in the same way women are, because the criteria for sexual objectification for women are different than those for men. How many romantic comedies have you seen wherein the male love interest does fulfill the role of the "strong man" by being protective of the female lead, but also is cast as submissive to her in other contexts, whether by losing arguments to her, being the butt of her jokes, or changing in the stereotypical way women like to think they can change men (e.g. taming the "bad boy"). That's how men tend to be objectified in films marketed to women, because women's sexual appetites are different than those of men.
That's not objectification. That's not reducing men to a literal object for women's desires. It's a false equivalence. Men are shown to be people in all of the contexts you just listed. In fact you'd be hard pressed to find a romantic comedy where the man isn't a character in their own right. Same goes for dramas. They definitely exist but they're a vast minority.
That’s not reducing men to a literal object for women’s desires.
Yes it is, just not the same exact type of object that women are rendered as when objectified for men.
Men are shown to be people in all of the contexts you just listed.
So are a lot of female protagonists that have clearly been objectified for male sexual appetites. Lara Croft, Wonder Woman, a host of female leads in Anime. These are not mutually exclusive things.
But look, if disagree with that and think objectification only counts when it's done in the extreme fashion you describe, I think we should just agree to disagree, because I don't think further discussion is going to get us anywhere. I've seen this term used throughout my life and those instances do not fit with what you're saying; you'd have to provide an enormously compelling argument to get me to reevaluate my entire life's experience with this concept.
I haven't defined anything, I'm going by the definition of objectification. The example I gave was Wikipedia's definition. Main characters can absolutely be objectified if written poorly. Because an objectified character is, by definition, written poorly. It has nothing to do with being the main character. It's the literal definition of objectification. Idk why you're on about main characters because that's irrelevant
I don't disagree with the definition you quoted, I disagree with how you've applied it. As I said in my first comment:
Tbf you can be ogled and not objectified. The difference is that Thor absolutely is portrayed as a complex character with his own agency, or subjectivity.
By that definition, no female main character of a film ever has been objectified.
Having agency is not mutually exclusive with being dehumanized, sexualized, objectified, etc. The fact that Thor is shown in a great light throughout much of his films doesn't change the fact that he is regularly sexually objectified as well. Wonder Woman was objectified from the start, but that didn't stop her from also kicking ass. Lara Croft, Charlie's Angels, Sailor Moon. If you're going to claim that having agency means a character can't be objectified, you have to deny that all of those female protagonists were objectified. That's not in line with my understanding of both that quote you cited and the way I've seen the term used throughout my life. I think your emphasis on the word "mere" in the definition you quoted is misplaced. I don't think the quote's author meant it as literally as you seem to be taking it.
So you think that a single scene portraying a character in a sexual light is sexual objectification?
Edit: Also, if you don't like the way I've worded the definition of objectification you can look at American philosopher Martha Nusbaum's:
Instrumentality – treating the person as a tool for another's purposes
Denial of autonomy – treating the person as lacking in autonomy or self-determination
Inertness – treating the person as lacking in agency or activity
Fungibility – treating the person as interchangeable with (other) objects
Violability – treating the person as lacking in boundary integrity and violable, "as something that it is permissible to break up, smash, break into."
Ownership – treating the person as though they can be owned, bought, or sold (such as slavery)
Denial of subjectivity – treating the person as though there is no need for concern for their experiences or feelings
So you think that a single scene portraying a character in a sexual light is sexual objectification?
Yes, absolutely. In that scene, the character is being objectified. Who said a character needs to be objectified throughout an entire film without ever getting more nuanced treatment to be called "a character who has been objectified?" All of the definitions you've just taken the time to look up and type out fit with my understanding of what objectification is, I just don't understand why you seem to be requiring these characters to be in a constant state of objectification to receive the label, when it's patently obvious objectification can be done at some times and not others. Again, if you're going to make that a criteria, then plenty of female leads who were clearly objectified, aren't in your opinion, simply because they also agency, power, complexity, etc, in other moments.
you seem to be requiring these characters to be in a constant state of objectification to receive the label
I'm not. It's about context. To treat objectification as some binary completely misses the point of objectification in the first place. As a facet of social philosophy, the idea has merit due to its context within culture and within the context of the media itself. Even if I agreed that a single sexual scene is objectifying (I don't) it would merely be in a semantic sense when (in the example of Thor) throughout the entire movie he is a multifaceted character who is clearly treated with respect by the creators.
Agency and subjectivity, in concerns to objectification, are so important because they're the whole point. When we assume the incredibly reductive definition of objectification as merely being acknowledged or treated as a sexual being we rob others of their ability to choose to embrace their sexuality. Thereby that definition of objectification is in itself objectifying.
Are you objectifying your partner by checking them out when they're unclothed? Are you objectifying your partner by having sex with them? Most likely not. How do I know? Because, presumably, your partner is exercising enthusiastic consent - they are exercising their subjectivity and agency within context of a healthy and respectful relationship.
To suggest a single scene fits a semantic definition of objectification ‐ as someone who had to study this stuff in university - completely misses the point of why objectification matters
Edit: you also seem to be relying on your past experience with this term for your understanding of it. I would advise against that. Many many many groups of people completely miss the point or misrepresent objectification
La Femme Nikita
Haven't seen that particular film, but is the female lead shown to be powerful? Does she have agency? I would presume she does. Is there some complexity to her character (e.g. she has to resolve some sort of inner turmoil during the film)? My point is the these criteria (which DudePluto put forward, not me) preclude such characters from being objectified. I don't agree with that. As I understand objectification, characters like the lead in La Femme Nikita can be sexually objectified, even though they have agency and complexity to them. My point is that DudePlato's claims about how objectification works preclude many examples of female leads that have been argued to have been objectified in the past.
You've never watched a romatic movie or chickflick have you?
Brandon Routh is what I imagine as "chick flic" bod. He's in shape but I wouldn't say he's at all "unrealistic" or idealised bodybuilder muscular. Also let's not forget one of the world's most popular chick flicks of all time, The Notebook, had Cage as the lead.
Brandon Routh and Ryan Gosling are kinda regular guys? I took the OP's meme as poking a little fun at the idea of unrealistic male body image in media, but now I'm thinking that there's a real issue.
Seriously, a couple of square-jawed, six-foot-tall men with lustrous, full heads of hair, who have personal trainers and make working out a full-time job before a movie role? That's realistic?
It happens, but it's not pervasive. There's nothing wrong with sexual imagery in a vacuum.
The issue for women is the sheer avalanche of bullshit. Images of half naked women with unrealistic bodies are EVERYWHERE. Billboards, magazine covers, commercials, etc.
It's okay to discuss men's issues without needing to whatabout them. Women's issues are also valid. This isn't a competition it's about media creating body dysmorphia in people.
Please take a look at the meme again. Did you read the first paragraph on it? You should tell this to the meme author.
I don't disagree. In these discussions though there almost always are a few comments that try to make the case that men actually have it just as bad as women, and I think it's good to challenge that.
You can support what men have to deal with while also acknowledging that it's infinitely more oppressive towards women. I think it's often hard for some people not to mention it because it's like, yes, feminists have been talking about this exact thing for decades, why is this a realization suddenly?
But men have been told since forever to bottle things up and not acknowledge them. Men don't get to have emotions. This is not a new issue and in fact many men themselves perpetuate this problem. That isn't the exact same issue anymore.
When we finally get to a point where people are discussing it, bringing up the group who have been dealing with it for years as though men aren't allowed to to have these feelings too absolutely minimizes the initial conversation.
There is space for both conversations to happen, and both should happen. But when this happens in literally every thread trying to discuss male body dysmorphia that's not positive conversation anymore.
It is hard enough to love yourself without wondering if people secretly think your body is vile
I agree. I'm not trying to shut down that conversation, just contextualize it a bit and have it be part of both conversations. Both conversations are linked so I don't see why that wouldn't be natural.
“i’m not trying to shut down that conversation i just don’t think your viewpoints are valid”
🤣
I think my point is that they really aren't linked. It is two groups experiencing similar things, but for a variety of reasons the context is completely different. And moreover because the conversation is essentially brand new for one group and extremely well known for the other, talking about them like they are the same cheapens the conversation around the newer group.
I'd liken it to a friend telling you about a problem they're having and instead of listening to them, starting to talk about your own similar problems. I realize that's a superficial example but I think it explains where I'm coming from.
I mean in no way to disregard or minimize the long and well documented struggle women have had with body image issues. But I do think men's body image issues deserve to be discussed on their own merit without always needing to be contextualized through the lens of women's issues.
When men want to talk about this issue, why do they have to minimize the problems women face first? The meme is literally doing that. And I don't see any backlash against the author doing exactly what you supposedly condemn here.
You make a fair point. I honestly forgot what the original meme was and had focused purely on the discussion. I'd agree that the original meme isn't productive conversation (though what meme is, really?).
I think they are linked, though. Objectified male bodies tend to be the type of body that men in charge think is the ideal, the same way that objectified female bodies tend to be the type of body that men in charge think is the ideal.
Most of the women I talk to don't really care for the ultra-built body type we tend to see in blockbusters. If they're attracted to the leads it tends to be for other reasons that are orthogonal to them being jacked.
One of the goals behind breaking down the patriarchy is removing the singular vision that our culture tends to have on a lot of issues, since our culture is run predominantly by a single demographic. I don't think sexualized imagery would ever go away, but a higher variety of that imagery that caters to a wider variety of tastes might help with body image issues.
Men feeling shitty for not being jacked, women feeling shitty for not being slim and large-breasted, black women feeling shitty about their hair, black and asian men feeling shitty about their features because so much of our beauty standards are set on white individuals... It's all particular flavors of the same underlying issue. There's no harm in adding women have been talking about this for decades. Let's team up and stop this bullshit.
I think we simply don't agree. You lose me at your first paragraph. The second this is framed as anti-man, you lose your audience of men immediately. It doesn't matter whether it rings true or not. Men don't feel that seeing buff dudes is the effect of toxic patriarchy bearing down on them. They just wish they could be be strong and powerful like these images they see. Telling them they are the victim and that men are to blame is very counterproductive.
There are some very complex socio-evolutionary-mental issues at play here that go beyond guys simply needing to blame men that are more powerful than them for their insecurities. I should know, I'm a guy who thinks often about images like these and what they mean for me and my ability to look and feel how I want. And I'm happily married for over a decade. It's not about whether women find me attractive. I want to feel like I'm in the body I want. And what I want has been quietly shaped to an unreasonable ideal over the course of many years. That isn't something easily changed, and it's really the crux of things.
I don't see a comment saying that. All I see is someone saying that it isn't a real problem for men.
I don't. I see a comment trying to draw a distinction between the way that unrealistic bodies tend to be contextualized in our culture. It doesn't say that they don't cause body issues for men.
The only thing you're doing here with your comments is saying "but women have it worse!" You're not here to discuss the actual issue, you're here to derail the conversation.
And the only spaces in which feminists have had these conversations is in private academic settings on the "men's issues" day of their course curriculum. To feminists, men's issues are a footnote. And that's fine--I don't expect feminists to really give a crap about how societal sexism affects men; that's not their purview and it certainly isn't on them to bring attention to those problems. But stop pretending feminists have given men or their issues equal or even just proportional time in their discussions, much less their activism.
If you think they aren’t objectified that’s your own lack of perspective.
Reminds me of the "everyone has sinful urges" anti-gay pastors
"Buff men are built for the male gaze"
My guy, I have some news for you
As a woman, who is into men, and has friends who are also into men. Everyone I know who is into men would say Hiddleston is more attractive than any of them.
When we say buff men are there for the male gaze what we're saying is that they're filling a male power fantasy of being the "big strong hero" archetype. You'll also notice that all of them were depicted as being complex characters in their own right, absent of just being big and buff.
Even guys are objectified if they are pretty enough. Many women do that with movie stars.
Oh my friend, they very much are objectified. Have you never hung around straight women or gay men? Those men are slabs of meat and that's it.
I think you have a point except for the fact that the meme is about unrealistic body standards, not objectification. So it's kinda like bringing up pancakes in a conversation about waffles
But why does the meme has to take a jab at the problems women face? It's undebatable that women are faced with unrealistic body standards all the time. And I don't get why the meme has to try and take away from that.
Because the discussion of legitimate male issues is being co-opted by anger and anti-feminism. But that's just my guess
It doesn't. That's not what the meme is saying at all.
The point of the meme is that no one ever talks about unrealistic male body standards, despite it being so blatant.
fair point
I really feel like this misses the point. And it sells both men and women short.
The most cruel part of depictions like this isn't simply that the opposite sex is or isn't drooling over them. It's that they are presented as ideal and desirable physiques.
This impacts how people feel like they should aspire to look. And that impacts how they feel about their own bodies.
It is so reductive to focus just on whether these bodies are objectified by the opposite sex. It's the internal struggle people are faced with that is the real issue.
I'll take "someone that hasn't hang out with women for 300" Alex
That's not just a hot take, that's straight up nuclear.
The thing is on both sides it's for the male gaze. Women are are objectified for men (look how sexy she is, don't you want this?), and men are objectified for men (look how strong and handsome he is, don't you want to be like him?)
men are objectified for men (look how strong and handsome he is, don't you want to be like him?)
If you think women aren't enjoying the male eye candy, I have some news for you
I think the "steroid guy is how all men should look" isnt coming from women but rather "alpha dudebro culture" that has no interest in asking women what they want (that would be gay/beta etc)
Reread my comment and you'll find I never said or claimed that. But that's not the primary reason it's done. Women aren't the primary demographic for comic books and comic book movies. Superhero men are drawn the way they are for the male gaze, and women are drawn the way they are for the male gaze. If some women like it too, that's just a bonus for the publishers. This translates onto the screen.
As a straight male I feel nothing looking at buff men and I can assure you it's the same for many other men. We truly don't feel much looking at them and they're not presented this way for our gaze.
About the only guys I know that do care are caring because they're insecure about their own bodies. Especially friends who exercise regularly to try to achieve these physiques.
That proves the point then doesn't it? The way society assigns value to women based on their perceived attractiveness to men is attached to misogynistic propaganda. We tell girls how to look when they're six months old. They already know they have to be deathly thin by the time they're 10. Many girls developing eating disorders in fucking middle school. They almost only see women who exactly fit societies definition of attractiveness in every single movie. They get bullied, they see other girls being bullied for their weight. The size of their breasts becomes a subject of mockery when they're not even in puberty yet. Their family members, their parents, will impose standards upon them. Their friends will, their teachers, every single adult they ever encounter.
So you might see this and think nothing, just a bunch of buff guys. And that perfectly demonstrates it. This has no affect on you, you do not suffer oppressive conformation pressure due to every single aspect of your body and appearance. You don't see yourself as having no value because you don't look exactly like them, you don't have every single person in your life every single piece of media in your life telling you that you have no value because you don't look like them. We do, that's something we deal with every single day. That's something that literally kills us, that contributes immeasurable suffering into the world. It's not even close to the same.
No one was even TALKING about that, why do you have to come here with your "oh women have it worse". WE KNOW. THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S GREAT FOR US EITHER.
Jesus.
The commenter I am responding to made other comments, you should read them.
Also saying women have it worse doesn't even come close to it, you should re-read my comment.
I don't even want to get into what your comment says wrong because we shouldn't even be having that discussion. You're just belittling men's issues. Can you just have one comment that doesn't mention how bad women have it? Like, just one comment where you exclusively discuss male problems.
I'm not the one who mentioned women, that was already happening in this thread. I responded to all the anti feminist takes here. That's all I did. We're on a post talking about body image issues, which in another comment I already said that men would benefit greatly from body positivity and better representation for diverse body types in media. Body image issues are definitely a thing for men too. I never said they weren't. What I said is it is not comparable to the way body image is weaponized by misogyny against women. Because again, I was responding to people who were saying it was.
That's great for you. I'm glad that you're secure in your self image. The people that these are targeted towards aren't.
Whether it works on you or not. Whether it succeeds or not... The intent of the portrayal is a masculine power fantasy.
Hell, it might be for the writer. Tony Stark (and 80% of all Marvel-men's) 'I'm an asshole but you love me for it' vibe is the same thing really.
My dude, I'll put it plainly, I think you might be gay. There's no way you look at a ripped, naked Chris Hemsworth butt and think "that scene was for men"
Its a male power fantasy. It isn't "I want to sex up Chris Hemsworth" its "I want to be an absolute flesh monster like this guy" its about the idea of male success and dominating others. Written by dudebros for dudebros.
That'll be news to my wife! (Also, you assumed I'm a man. I am, but you still assumed.)
Actually, the statement works whether you're male or female
Think about it
Haha that's fair
Yes. Just like Fifty Shades of Grey is definitely for the male gaze.
This is just blatant sexism.
Are you saying my comment is sexism or the practice is sexism?
Why not both? Objectifying people can be sexist, and your comment was clearly sexist. They're not mutually exclusive.
How is my comment sexist?
...no? Have you actually hung out with real people?
Man, you shifted those goalposts fast! You've been doing this a long time, haven't you?
What goalposts did I shift and where did I shift them to?
Women are are objectified for men (look how sexy she is, don’t you want this?), and men are objectified for men (look how strong and handsome he is, don’t you want to be like him?)
If you can't see it, I don't think I can help you.
I'm not really sure how you move goalposts in your initial claim. I don't think moving goalposts means what you think it means. Maybe you mean double standard, which I would still disagree with but it would at least make more sense here.
ITT, people who think attractive man = female gaze.
My partner and I tried to come up with an example of a character built for the female gaze. The best we could do was Idris Elba as a Jinn from 3000 Years of Longing.
In cinematic representations of women, the male gaze denies the woman's human agency and human identity to transform her from person to object — someone to be considered only for her beauty, physique, and sex appeal, as defined in the male sexual fantasy of narrative cinema.
So while women might like looking at the men in Magic Mike or watching nameless romcoms, the women in the stories have no agency. The men might serve their every need and save them from whatever situation, but the men are still doing all the things, and they follow the men-in-charge storyline.
Legolas?
Any male character from Twilight? Any male romcom character?
Twilight? The movie where the dude makes all the decisions and routinely threatens the life of the girl who has negligible agency?
Sure, women like it, but it’s written with the archetype of the man being macho and in charge. I.e. the Male Gaze.
Been reading this thread and honestly, the only thing you've convinced me of is that the concept of the male gaze has become so diluted through expansion that's it's effectively meaningless.
Bella Swan? Oh, she's written to appeal to the female fantasy of being protected by a big strong man who is so emotionally devoted to her that being separated from her drives him to suicide. I.e. the Female Gaze.
See what I did there?
The part you’re missing is agency. It’s not just about what appeals to men or women. Whether or not Bella is in a situation that a woman might envy, she does nothing in the story. She is an object to be fawned over and protected.
I mean isn’t it a little odd that apparently men and women both like movies where men do everything? Maybe that’s a trend worth investigating?
If you want a Female Gaze movie, find a movie where the man is reduced to an object that does nothing while women run the show. It’s shockingly hard to do.
she does nothing in the story.
That's simply not true. You're mistaking the character's physical vulnerability (in the context of supernatural beings, no less) for helplessness and/or passivity, of which Bella is neither.
If you want a Female Gaze movie, find a movie where the man is reduced to an object that does nothing while women run the show.
No, that's inverting the male gaze and calling it the female gaze. The criteria for the female gaze would be based on stereotypes that appeal to women sexually. A strong man leaping to the heroine's rescue could be exactly what women want to see in their movie's men, particularly if those men are also cast as submissive to the heroine in other ways, like losing arguments with her, being the butt of her jokes, or changing in the stereotypical way women try to change men (e.g. reforming the "bad boy" into a faithful, stand-up man so the woman can have the best of both worlds, so to speak). Plenty of romantic comedies marketed to women fit those criteria.
What does Bella do in the story? Dad buys her a truck, dude saves her from a car accident, stalks her, plays baseball in front of her, then the family chips in to save her from The Tracker or whatever. She just kind of hangs out. She doesn’t even decide to move to Forks in the first place.
Also, please look up the term “Male Gaze”. It’s a real term. I didn’t invent it. And it doesn’t simply mean “stuff that men like to see.”
In the context of cinema, it’s mostly men who write the films we watch, mostly men who make those films, and it is men who are usually the target audience.
Therefore, men are usually given the lead in the stories themselves while female characters are assigned functions that are limited to serving the goals of those male protagonists
“Reforming a bad boy” is literally a woman serving a man. Especially if the “goal” of the man is to get with the woman.
Show me a romcom where the man serves the desires of the woman and doesn’t get to fuck her at the end.
Bruh
That's still the male gaze. Most women I know don't care about bicep size. It's one of those things men do to look more like other men they think have good bodies.
The scene with Tony Stark chopping wood is much closer to the female gaze, according to my friends at least. For them it's all about the forearms and in general the type of body you get from real physical labor, not the kind of body you get from the gym
Most women I know don't care about bicep size.
Bruh
As someone mentioned, literally almost any male romcom lead.
Disagree. They generally fall into the male gaze as well. Not necessarily physically, but the roles they play are generally cool collected dude that calls all the shots and/or saves the girl. Something men want to emulate.
Also they’re almost always rewarded with the love of the woman.
Surprised you could only think of Idris! Would say he's definitely female gaze in most of his roles. Off the top of my head, and as a woman who talks about celeb 'crushes' with other women, the tops are:
Stanley Tucci in literally anything.
Tom Hiddleston (Loki had way more female attention than Thor)
Jack Black as Bowser
David Harbour as Jim Hopper
Sean Austin (in general, but also as Bob in ST)
Paul Rudd (again, in almost anything)
Pedro Pascal (particularly as Joel)
Hugh Jackman in musicals (as opposed to being Wolverine)
All examples of men who, for the most part, are not obvious sex symbols in their roles, all of whom women go absolutely wild for.
I think you're ignoring the non-physical aspects of Male Gaze.
The problem with your examples, is that in most of the stories/roles you listed, women don't do anything. Unless the story does something to elevate women beyond passive objects, it's still written for the Male Gaze where men make are in charge and make all the decisions.
Hmm, I see your point now I've looked up the actual theory of female gaze.
It seems in the modern social media space, female gaze has been used to mean something more like "the male characters who women find attractive are the ones that show more emotional, loving, nurturing and supportive traits". So if used this way, it's not a direct contrast to male gaze. Maybe we need to call that observation something different!
I wonder if Bob (Sean Austin) does fall into the proper definition though? His character does exist for the most part to lift every other character around him, especially Joyce Byers.
Yay! Real conversation!
Thanks for taking the time to look into it. I haven’t watched The Last of Us, but from your description, it sounds right.
TLOU is good and potentially fits the criteria, I'm not sure actually, as the main female character is a child so inherently vulnerable and kinda reliant on this achey old man to ferry her through the apocalypse. Would still recommend, I cried like a baby through certain parts.
The Sean Astin character I'm referencing is in Stranger Things S2. I think has at least one potential example of female gaze (as a compliment to Winona Ryder's character).
Stranger Things probably isn't great for other metrics though, like the Bechdel test.
Oh my bad. Mixed up the shows! Yeah I’ve seen S2! Completely forgot he was in it. Sean Astin is a good pick. Also killing him off so soon and so unceremoniously is an absolute crime.
Just a tangent: In my film class back in school, they defined the male gaze by what the camera focuses on, i.e. does it mimic what a straight, male viewer would focus on. Whether a character is "designed for the male gaze" is kind of squishy, and debatable, but the mechanical, film-studies definition of male gaze is indisputable. Once you see it, you can't unsee how many times a female character is introduced by panning up her body.
The difference is that those men are not objectified. Yes, those bodies are unrealistic indeed, but those beefcake guys are not presented as sex objects who have no other purpose in this world than to please women.
I get the feeling that you never hang out with a group of gals on a night out
Or like
Ever
Damn, RIP hungryphrog
I guess I don't hang out with myself then
Oh yes, Thor is oiled up and shirtless while Natalie Portman ogles him for the entire first movie because... It looks powerful? It represents his stoicism? Definitely not a sexual objectification thing, oh no sir
Tbf you can be ogled and not objectified. The difference is that Thor absolutely is portrayed as a complex character with his own agency, or subjectivity. The whole movie is about him learning to step out of the role of warmonger and into a more mature, nurturing role of a king. That gives him a lot of subjectivity - the opposite of objectivity
Edit: So to clarify, yes Thor is part of a series of unrealistic body standards for men. But he's not objectified
Emphasis mine. Where in "Thor" is Thor dehumanized? Do the creators of the movie dehumanize him? No, if anything he exhibits more humanity as the movie goes on. Does Jane Foster dehumanize him? No, she's clearly sexually attracted to him and some scenes do focus on his body, but that's not enough to dehumanize someone. He is not a "mere object of sexual desire" because those scenes exist amid an entire movie that treats Thor with respect as a character, including Jane who gets to know him and love him. The only character who dehumanizes him could be Loki but he's clearly portrayed as being wrong
I gotta get me some of that copium, looks like the good stuff.
Or, like, learn what objectification actually means (and "cope" for that matter, what am I coping about? I'm just having an internet discussion)
So is Black Widow, but she is 100% leathered up sex symbol too and no one questions that.
Sex symbol =/= objectified. There's nothing wrong with being a sexy character. Sexual objectification is the reduction of a person or character to nothing but sex. Or, if you want a more accurate definition, you can look at Wikipedia's definition which I gave somewhere else
By that definition, no female main character of a film ever has been objectified.
I think what the commenter is trying to say is that male characters tend to have more to their overall presence in movies than just their body since they are generally the protagonists, but female characters are often only there to show their bodies and have very little character depth in comparison.
Though, granted, that commenter probably has horrible taste in movies if this observation is so starkly visible to them.
No there are plenty of female characters who are portrayed as two-dimensional sex objects, just like there are male characters who are portrayed the same. But Thor is not one of them. And the existence of sex appeal around a character =/= objectification
But none of them were their film's main characters, right? I mean, by definition if the character has agency and complexity to them, they're not being objectified, and basically every main character has some degree of agency and complexity. Can you give me an example of a female film lead who is objectified by the definition you've provided here?
It's not really to do with whether they're the protagonist, it's how they're treated as a character (and by extension the actor). Off the top of my head the best example is Carly from Transformers 3. She's incredibly 2-dimensional. What do we know about her, her motivations, what drives her? Well, not a lot. At best you could argue she has a good job and is responsible for getting Megatron to help OP. But when we look at the movie overall it's not great. She's consistently needing saved by Sam, the film goes to lengths to focus on her borderline inappropriate relationship with her male boss, and she just doesn't do a lot for the plot that doesn't serve some male. In fact, her introduction, arguably the most important scene for establishing her character, is a camera shot of her ass. That's objectification because the character exists amid a web of weak characterization and conformity to gender roles that treat her more like a trophy than a proper character
Carly was not the main character of that film, Sam was. I really think you're missing my point. You've defined objectification in such a way that no lead character could ever be said to be objectified. So, if you're going to use that definition to claim that Thor isn't objectified, you must agree that no female protagonist can claim to be objectified to be consistent with your own definition.
Can you find me an example of a man who serves a similar role to Carly? Find me an example of a male character who is not the protagonist who is there solely to be attractive.
Because if you're honest you'll have to agree that it is orders of magnitude more common for women to be shown that way than for men.
If you're looking for supporting male characters who are objectified in the same way supporting female characters are, then yes, that would be hard to find. But that's because men aren't sexually objectified in the same way women are, because the criteria for sexual objectification for women are different than those for men. How many romantic comedies have you seen wherein the male love interest does fulfill the role of the "strong man" by being protective of the female lead, but also is cast as submissive to her in other contexts, whether by losing arguments to her, being the butt of her jokes, or changing in the stereotypical way women like to think they can change men (e.g. taming the "bad boy"). That's how men tend to be objectified in films marketed to women, because women's sexual appetites are different than those of men.
That's not objectification. That's not reducing men to a literal object for women's desires. It's a false equivalence. Men are shown to be people in all of the contexts you just listed. In fact you'd be hard pressed to find a romantic comedy where the man isn't a character in their own right. Same goes for dramas. They definitely exist but they're a vast minority.
Yes it is, just not the same exact type of object that women are rendered as when objectified for men.
So are a lot of female protagonists that have clearly been objectified for male sexual appetites. Lara Croft, Wonder Woman, a host of female leads in Anime. These are not mutually exclusive things.
But look, if disagree with that and think objectification only counts when it's done in the extreme fashion you describe, I think we should just agree to disagree, because I don't think further discussion is going to get us anywhere. I've seen this term used throughout my life and those instances do not fit with what you're saying; you'd have to provide an enormously compelling argument to get me to reevaluate my entire life's experience with this concept.
I haven't defined anything, I'm going by the definition of objectification. The example I gave was Wikipedia's definition. Main characters can absolutely be objectified if written poorly. Because an objectified character is, by definition, written poorly. It has nothing to do with being the main character. It's the literal definition of objectification. Idk why you're on about main characters because that's irrelevant
I don't disagree with the definition you quoted, I disagree with how you've applied it. As I said in my first comment:
Having agency is not mutually exclusive with being dehumanized, sexualized, objectified, etc. The fact that Thor is shown in a great light throughout much of his films doesn't change the fact that he is regularly sexually objectified as well. Wonder Woman was objectified from the start, but that didn't stop her from also kicking ass. Lara Croft, Charlie's Angels, Sailor Moon. If you're going to claim that having agency means a character can't be objectified, you have to deny that all of those female protagonists were objectified. That's not in line with my understanding of both that quote you cited and the way I've seen the term used throughout my life. I think your emphasis on the word "mere" in the definition you quoted is misplaced. I don't think the quote's author meant it as literally as you seem to be taking it.
So you think that a single scene portraying a character in a sexual light is sexual objectification?
Edit: Also, if you don't like the way I've worded the definition of objectification you can look at American philosopher Martha Nusbaum's:
Instrumentality – treating the person as a tool for another's purposes
Denial of autonomy – treating the person as lacking in autonomy or self-determination
Inertness – treating the person as lacking in agency or activity
Fungibility – treating the person as interchangeable with (other) objects
Violability – treating the person as lacking in boundary integrity and violable, "as something that it is permissible to break up, smash, break into."
Ownership – treating the person as though they can be owned, bought, or sold (such as slavery)
Denial of subjectivity – treating the person as though there is no need for concern for their experiences or feelings
Yes, absolutely. In that scene, the character is being objectified. Who said a character needs to be objectified throughout an entire film without ever getting more nuanced treatment to be called "a character who has been objectified?" All of the definitions you've just taken the time to look up and type out fit with my understanding of what objectification is, I just don't understand why you seem to be requiring these characters to be in a constant state of objectification to receive the label, when it's patently obvious objectification can be done at some times and not others. Again, if you're going to make that a criteria, then plenty of female leads who were clearly objectified, aren't in your opinion, simply because they also agency, power, complexity, etc, in other moments.
I'm not. It's about context. To treat objectification as some binary completely misses the point of objectification in the first place. As a facet of social philosophy, the idea has merit due to its context within culture and within the context of the media itself. Even if I agreed that a single sexual scene is objectifying (I don't) it would merely be in a semantic sense when (in the example of Thor) throughout the entire movie he is a multifaceted character who is clearly treated with respect by the creators.
Agency and subjectivity, in concerns to objectification, are so important because they're the whole point. When we assume the incredibly reductive definition of objectification as merely being acknowledged or treated as a sexual being we rob others of their ability to choose to embrace their sexuality. Thereby that definition of objectification is in itself objectifying.
Are you objectifying your partner by checking them out when they're unclothed? Are you objectifying your partner by having sex with them? Most likely not. How do I know? Because, presumably, your partner is exercising enthusiastic consent - they are exercising their subjectivity and agency within context of a healthy and respectful relationship.
To suggest a single scene fits a semantic definition of objectification ‐ as someone who had to study this stuff in university - completely misses the point of why objectification matters
Edit: you also seem to be relying on your past experience with this term for your understanding of it. I would advise against that. Many many many groups of people completely miss the point or misrepresent objectification
La Femme Nikita
Haven't seen that particular film, but is the female lead shown to be powerful? Does she have agency? I would presume she does. Is there some complexity to her character (e.g. she has to resolve some sort of inner turmoil during the film)? My point is the these criteria (which DudePluto put forward, not me) preclude such characters from being objectified. I don't agree with that. As I understand objectification, characters like the lead in La Femme Nikita can be sexually objectified, even though they have agency and complexity to them. My point is that DudePlato's claims about how objectification works preclude many examples of female leads that have been argued to have been objectified in the past.
You've never watched a romatic movie or chickflick have you?
Brandon Routh is what I imagine as "chick flic" bod. He's in shape but I wouldn't say he's at all "unrealistic" or idealised bodybuilder muscular. Also let's not forget one of the world's most popular chick flicks of all time, The Notebook, had Cage as the lead.
Brandon Routh and Ryan Gosling are kinda regular guys? I took the OP's meme as poking a little fun at the idea of unrealistic male body image in media, but now I'm thinking that there's a real issue.
Seriously, a couple of square-jawed, six-foot-tall men with lustrous, full heads of hair, who have personal trainers and make working out a full-time job before a movie role? That's realistic?
It happens, but it's not pervasive. There's nothing wrong with sexual imagery in a vacuum.
The issue for women is the sheer avalanche of bullshit. Images of half naked women with unrealistic bodies are EVERYWHERE. Billboards, magazine covers, commercials, etc.
It's okay to discuss men's issues without needing to whatabout them. Women's issues are also valid. This isn't a competition it's about media creating body dysmorphia in people.
Please take a look at the meme again. Did you read the first paragraph on it? You should tell this to the meme author.
I don't disagree. In these discussions though there almost always are a few comments that try to make the case that men actually have it just as bad as women, and I think it's good to challenge that.
You can support what men have to deal with while also acknowledging that it's infinitely more oppressive towards women. I think it's often hard for some people not to mention it because it's like, yes, feminists have been talking about this exact thing for decades, why is this a realization suddenly?
But men have been told since forever to bottle things up and not acknowledge them. Men don't get to have emotions. This is not a new issue and in fact many men themselves perpetuate this problem. That isn't the exact same issue anymore.
When we finally get to a point where people are discussing it, bringing up the group who have been dealing with it for years as though men aren't allowed to to have these feelings too absolutely minimizes the initial conversation.
There is space for both conversations to happen, and both should happen. But when this happens in literally every thread trying to discuss male body dysmorphia that's not positive conversation anymore.
It is hard enough to love yourself without wondering if people secretly think your body is vile
I agree. I'm not trying to shut down that conversation, just contextualize it a bit and have it be part of both conversations. Both conversations are linked so I don't see why that wouldn't be natural.
“i’m not trying to shut down that conversation i just don’t think your viewpoints are valid”
🤣
I think my point is that they really aren't linked. It is two groups experiencing similar things, but for a variety of reasons the context is completely different. And moreover because the conversation is essentially brand new for one group and extremely well known for the other, talking about them like they are the same cheapens the conversation around the newer group.
I'd liken it to a friend telling you about a problem they're having and instead of listening to them, starting to talk about your own similar problems. I realize that's a superficial example but I think it explains where I'm coming from.
I mean in no way to disregard or minimize the long and well documented struggle women have had with body image issues. But I do think men's body image issues deserve to be discussed on their own merit without always needing to be contextualized through the lens of women's issues.
When men want to talk about this issue, why do they have to minimize the problems women face first? The meme is literally doing that. And I don't see any backlash against the author doing exactly what you supposedly condemn here.
You make a fair point. I honestly forgot what the original meme was and had focused purely on the discussion. I'd agree that the original meme isn't productive conversation (though what meme is, really?).
I think they are linked, though. Objectified male bodies tend to be the type of body that men in charge think is the ideal, the same way that objectified female bodies tend to be the type of body that men in charge think is the ideal.
Most of the women I talk to don't really care for the ultra-built body type we tend to see in blockbusters. If they're attracted to the leads it tends to be for other reasons that are orthogonal to them being jacked.
One of the goals behind breaking down the patriarchy is removing the singular vision that our culture tends to have on a lot of issues, since our culture is run predominantly by a single demographic. I don't think sexualized imagery would ever go away, but a higher variety of that imagery that caters to a wider variety of tastes might help with body image issues.
Men feeling shitty for not being jacked, women feeling shitty for not being slim and large-breasted, black women feeling shitty about their hair, black and asian men feeling shitty about their features because so much of our beauty standards are set on white individuals... It's all particular flavors of the same underlying issue. There's no harm in adding women have been talking about this for decades. Let's team up and stop this bullshit.
I think we simply don't agree. You lose me at your first paragraph. The second this is framed as anti-man, you lose your audience of men immediately. It doesn't matter whether it rings true or not. Men don't feel that seeing buff dudes is the effect of toxic patriarchy bearing down on them. They just wish they could be be strong and powerful like these images they see. Telling them they are the victim and that men are to blame is very counterproductive.
There are some very complex socio-evolutionary-mental issues at play here that go beyond guys simply needing to blame men that are more powerful than them for their insecurities. I should know, I'm a guy who thinks often about images like these and what they mean for me and my ability to look and feel how I want. And I'm happily married for over a decade. It's not about whether women find me attractive. I want to feel like I'm in the body I want. And what I want has been quietly shaped to an unreasonable ideal over the course of many years. That isn't something easily changed, and it's really the crux of things.
I don't see a comment saying that. All I see is someone saying that it isn't a real problem for men.
I don't. I see a comment trying to draw a distinction between the way that unrealistic bodies tend to be contextualized in our culture. It doesn't say that they don't cause body issues for men.
Here's one: https://kbin.social/m/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world/t/159507/Buffed-af#entry-comment-635033
The only thing you're doing here with your comments is saying "but women have it worse!" You're not here to discuss the actual issue, you're here to derail the conversation.
And the only spaces in which feminists have had these conversations is in private academic settings on the "men's issues" day of their course curriculum. To feminists, men's issues are a footnote. And that's fine--I don't expect feminists to really give a crap about how societal sexism affects men; that's not their purview and it certainly isn't on them to bring attention to those problems. But stop pretending feminists have given men or their issues equal or even just proportional time in their discussions, much less their activism.
If you think they aren’t objectified that’s your own lack of perspective.
Reminds me of the "everyone has sinful urges" anti-gay pastors
"Buff men are built for the male gaze"
My guy, I have some news for you
As a woman, who is into men, and has friends who are also into men. Everyone I know who is into men would say Hiddleston is more attractive than any of them.
When we say buff men are there for the male gaze what we're saying is that they're filling a male power fantasy of being the "big strong hero" archetype. You'll also notice that all of them were depicted as being complex characters in their own right, absent of just being big and buff.
Even guys are objectified if they are pretty enough. Many women do that with movie stars.
Oh my friend, they very much are objectified. Have you never hung around straight women or gay men? Those men are slabs of meat and that's it.
I think you have a point except for the fact that the meme is about unrealistic body standards, not objectification. So it's kinda like bringing up pancakes in a conversation about waffles
But why does the meme has to take a jab at the problems women face? It's undebatable that women are faced with unrealistic body standards all the time. And I don't get why the meme has to try and take away from that.
Because the discussion of legitimate male issues is being co-opted by anger and anti-feminism. But that's just my guess
It doesn't. That's not what the meme is saying at all.
The point of the meme is that no one ever talks about unrealistic male body standards, despite it being so blatant.
fair point
I really feel like this misses the point. And it sells both men and women short.
The most cruel part of depictions like this isn't simply that the opposite sex is or isn't drooling over them. It's that they are presented as ideal and desirable physiques.
This impacts how people feel like they should aspire to look. And that impacts how they feel about their own bodies.
It is so reductive to focus just on whether these bodies are objectified by the opposite sex. It's the internal struggle people are faced with that is the real issue.
I'll take "someone that hasn't hang out with women for 300" Alex
That's not just a hot take, that's straight up nuclear.
The thing is on both sides it's for the male gaze. Women are are objectified for men (look how sexy she is, don't you want this?), and men are objectified for men (look how strong and handsome he is, don't you want to be like him?)
If you think women aren't enjoying the male eye candy, I have some news for you
I think the "steroid guy is how all men should look" isnt coming from women but rather "alpha dudebro culture" that has no interest in asking women what they want (that would be gay/beta etc)
Reread my comment and you'll find I never said or claimed that. But that's not the primary reason it's done. Women aren't the primary demographic for comic books and comic book movies. Superhero men are drawn the way they are for the male gaze, and women are drawn the way they are for the male gaze. If some women like it too, that's just a bonus for the publishers. This translates onto the screen.
As a straight male I feel nothing looking at buff men and I can assure you it's the same for many other men. We truly don't feel much looking at them and they're not presented this way for our gaze.
About the only guys I know that do care are caring because they're insecure about their own bodies. Especially friends who exercise regularly to try to achieve these physiques.
That proves the point then doesn't it? The way society assigns value to women based on their perceived attractiveness to men is attached to misogynistic propaganda. We tell girls how to look when they're six months old. They already know they have to be deathly thin by the time they're 10. Many girls developing eating disorders in fucking middle school. They almost only see women who exactly fit societies definition of attractiveness in every single movie. They get bullied, they see other girls being bullied for their weight. The size of their breasts becomes a subject of mockery when they're not even in puberty yet. Their family members, their parents, will impose standards upon them. Their friends will, their teachers, every single adult they ever encounter.
So you might see this and think nothing, just a bunch of buff guys. And that perfectly demonstrates it. This has no affect on you, you do not suffer oppressive conformation pressure due to every single aspect of your body and appearance. You don't see yourself as having no value because you don't look exactly like them, you don't have every single person in your life every single piece of media in your life telling you that you have no value because you don't look like them. We do, that's something we deal with every single day. That's something that literally kills us, that contributes immeasurable suffering into the world. It's not even close to the same.
No one was even TALKING about that, why do you have to come here with your "oh women have it worse". WE KNOW. THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S GREAT FOR US EITHER.
Jesus.
The commenter I am responding to made other comments, you should read them.
Also saying women have it worse doesn't even come close to it, you should re-read my comment.
I don't even want to get into what your comment says wrong because we shouldn't even be having that discussion. You're just belittling men's issues. Can you just have one comment that doesn't mention how bad women have it? Like, just one comment where you exclusively discuss male problems.
I'm not the one who mentioned women, that was already happening in this thread. I responded to all the anti feminist takes here. That's all I did. We're on a post talking about body image issues, which in another comment I already said that men would benefit greatly from body positivity and better representation for diverse body types in media. Body image issues are definitely a thing for men too. I never said they weren't. What I said is it is not comparable to the way body image is weaponized by misogyny against women. Because again, I was responding to people who were saying it was.
That's great for you. I'm glad that you're secure in your self image. The people that these are targeted towards aren't.
Whether it works on you or not. Whether it succeeds or not... The intent of the portrayal is a masculine power fantasy. Hell, it might be for the writer. Tony Stark (and 80% of all Marvel-men's) 'I'm an asshole but you love me for it' vibe is the same thing really.
My dude, I'll put it plainly, I think you might be gay. There's no way you look at a ripped, naked Chris Hemsworth butt and think "that scene was for men"
Its a male power fantasy. It isn't "I want to sex up Chris Hemsworth" its "I want to be an absolute flesh monster like this guy" its about the idea of male success and dominating others. Written by dudebros for dudebros.
That'll be news to my wife! (Also, you assumed I'm a man. I am, but you still assumed.)
Actually, the statement works whether you're male or female
Think about it
Haha that's fair
Yes. Just like Fifty Shades of Grey is definitely for the male gaze.
This is just blatant sexism.
Are you saying my comment is sexism or the practice is sexism?
Why not both? Objectifying people can be sexist, and your comment was clearly sexist. They're not mutually exclusive.
How is my comment sexist?
...no? Have you actually hung out with real people?
Man, you shifted those goalposts fast! You've been doing this a long time, haven't you?
What goalposts did I shift and where did I shift them to?
If you can't see it, I don't think I can help you.
I'm not really sure how you move goalposts in your initial claim. I don't think moving goalposts means what you think it means. Maybe you mean double standard, which I would still disagree with but it would at least make more sense here.
ITT, people who think attractive man = female gaze.
My partner and I tried to come up with an example of a character built for the female gaze. The best we could do was Idris Elba as a Jinn from 3000 Years of Longing.
Edit: I think you all are missing the point.
From Wikipedia
So while women might like looking at the men in Magic Mike or watching nameless romcoms, the women in the stories have no agency. The men might serve their every need and save them from whatever situation, but the men are still doing all the things, and they follow the men-in-charge storyline.
Legolas?
Any male character from Twilight? Any male romcom character?
Twilight? The movie where the dude makes all the decisions and routinely threatens the life of the girl who has negligible agency?
Sure, women like it, but it’s written with the archetype of the man being macho and in charge. I.e. the Male Gaze.
Been reading this thread and honestly, the only thing you've convinced me of is that the concept of the male gaze has become so diluted through expansion that's it's effectively meaningless.
Bella Swan? Oh, she's written to appeal to the female fantasy of being protected by a big strong man who is so emotionally devoted to her that being separated from her drives him to suicide. I.e. the Female Gaze.
See what I did there?
The part you’re missing is agency. It’s not just about what appeals to men or women. Whether or not Bella is in a situation that a woman might envy, she does nothing in the story. She is an object to be fawned over and protected.
I mean isn’t it a little odd that apparently men and women both like movies where men do everything? Maybe that’s a trend worth investigating?
If you want a Female Gaze movie, find a movie where the man is reduced to an object that does nothing while women run the show. It’s shockingly hard to do.
That's simply not true. You're mistaking the character's physical vulnerability (in the context of supernatural beings, no less) for helplessness and/or passivity, of which Bella is neither.
No, that's inverting the male gaze and calling it the female gaze. The criteria for the female gaze would be based on stereotypes that appeal to women sexually. A strong man leaping to the heroine's rescue could be exactly what women want to see in their movie's men, particularly if those men are also cast as submissive to the heroine in other ways, like losing arguments with her, being the butt of her jokes, or changing in the stereotypical way women try to change men (e.g. reforming the "bad boy" into a faithful, stand-up man so the woman can have the best of both worlds, so to speak). Plenty of romantic comedies marketed to women fit those criteria.
What does Bella do in the story? Dad buys her a truck, dude saves her from a car accident, stalks her, plays baseball in front of her, then the family chips in to save her from The Tracker or whatever. She just kind of hangs out. She doesn’t even decide to move to Forks in the first place.
Also, please look up the term “Male Gaze”. It’s a real term. I didn’t invent it. And it doesn’t simply mean “stuff that men like to see.”
https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/what-is-the-male-gaze-definition/
“Reforming a bad boy” is literally a woman serving a man. Especially if the “goal” of the man is to get with the woman.
Show me a romcom where the man serves the desires of the woman and doesn’t get to fuck her at the end.
Bruh
That's still the male gaze. Most women I know don't care about bicep size. It's one of those things men do to look more like other men they think have good bodies.
The scene with Tony Stark chopping wood is much closer to the female gaze, according to my friends at least. For them it's all about the forearms and in general the type of body you get from real physical labor, not the kind of body you get from the gym
Bruh
As someone mentioned, literally almost any male romcom lead.
Disagree. They generally fall into the male gaze as well. Not necessarily physically, but the roles they play are generally cool collected dude that calls all the shots and/or saves the girl. Something men want to emulate.
Also they’re almost always rewarded with the love of the woman.
Surprised you could only think of Idris! Would say he's definitely female gaze in most of his roles. Off the top of my head, and as a woman who talks about celeb 'crushes' with other women, the tops are:
All examples of men who, for the most part, are not obvious sex symbols in their roles, all of whom women go absolutely wild for.
I think you're ignoring the non-physical aspects of Male Gaze.
The problem with your examples, is that in most of the stories/roles you listed, women don't do anything. Unless the story does something to elevate women beyond passive objects, it's still written for the Male Gaze where men make are in charge and make all the decisions.
Hmm, I see your point now I've looked up the actual theory of female gaze.
It seems in the modern social media space, female gaze has been used to mean something more like "the male characters who women find attractive are the ones that show more emotional, loving, nurturing and supportive traits". So if used this way, it's not a direct contrast to male gaze. Maybe we need to call that observation something different!
I wonder if Bob (Sean Austin) does fall into the proper definition though? His character does exist for the most part to lift every other character around him, especially Joyce Byers.
Yay! Real conversation!
Thanks for taking the time to look into it. I haven’t watched The Last of Us, but from your description, it sounds right.
TLOU is good and potentially fits the criteria, I'm not sure actually, as the main female character is a child so inherently vulnerable and kinda reliant on this achey old man to ferry her through the apocalypse. Would still recommend, I cried like a baby through certain parts.
The Sean Astin character I'm referencing is in Stranger Things S2. I think has at least one potential example of female gaze (as a compliment to Winona Ryder's character).
Stranger Things probably isn't great for other metrics though, like the Bechdel test.
Oh my bad. Mixed up the shows! Yeah I’ve seen S2! Completely forgot he was in it. Sean Astin is a good pick. Also killing him off so soon and so unceremoniously is an absolute crime.
Just a tangent: In my film class back in school, they defined the male gaze by what the camera focuses on, i.e. does it mimic what a straight, male viewer would focus on. Whether a character is "designed for the male gaze" is kind of squishy, and debatable, but the mechanical, film-studies definition of male gaze is indisputable. Once you see it, you can't unsee how many times a female character is introduced by panning up her body.
Exactly. This is pretty much what I wanted to say, but couldn't find the words.