1258
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2023
1258 points (100.0% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
27201 readers
3024 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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 person =/= 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.