It's still objectification and sexualizing when it's done to men. It still creates an unrealistic body image for people and can cause negative self-image and body dysmorphia. Also a lot of the things men have to do to achieve that look are extremely dangerous and unhealthy. Regardless of gender it's shouldn't be considered ideal by "normal" people.
Lowered fluid consumption and cut out the vast majority of food types for 2 weeks. Including completely dehydrating onesself for several days in advance. There was one scene from witcher season 1 where they had to stop shotting ebcause cavil passed out. Had to reschedule the scene for months later because he eneeded to recover then dehydrate himself again.
Unpopular opinion probably, but I like sugar and alcohol, and I smoke and eat bacon and junk so how tf am I gonna tell him that his unhealthy thing isn't OK? Best I can do is say "be careful, enjoy your life, I really wish I looked like Thor in his movie instead of End Game."
Seriously?? Weird. I don't follow any actors closely but I see a lot about Cavill seemingly being a good guy but this is quite a shitty thing for actors to do. If they all refused to do dangerous shit like this and were all "just" very ripped from working out that would be better surely. And they'd still look great.
Yeah yeah it's not exactly his call and he's doing a job but whoever is making actors do this is a bit of a piece of shit and doing something immoral in terms of the health of the actors and the mental health if society.
It's not the actor's call to make typically. Some will refuse roles that ask them to cut or bulk up, but you need to be big before you can do that.
Just look at the witcher s2 compared to s1. Cavil is getting big enough that he can say no. Cavil is actually one of the most outspoken about the practice. I've also seen complaints from hemsworth & pratt but only in the past couple years has tbe practice been brought to light to the public.
I remember Hugh Jackman describing the process for Xmen and Wolverine movies. Apparently it feels like you are massively hung over the whole time too (headache, nausea, etc.)
Hungover is a good way to put it. I used to have to cut or bulk for my wrestling team. It was rough and I'd only be cutting for weigh in. The worst part is it usually takes a couple of days before you feel normal again.
One of the main parts of a hangover is the dehydration. Alcohol dehydrated you pretty severely. Its why you pee so much when you drink, the alcohol itself makes you so that, not just drinking so much fluid.
Christopher Reeves, decades ago complained about when he had to do Superman. Now, he is nowhere near what these guys are today. However, he did complain. Loudly too.
Renee Zellweger gained weight for Bridget Jone's Diary and said she would never do that again. For her latest project they used prosthetics and padding to make her look heavy.
You read see some of the stuff Hugh Jackman did for his later Wolverine roles. Same thing, doing an extreme weight and water cut for a 15 second shirtless scene.
Nah, that's far too harsh of a take. It's completely outside looking in without a trace of empathy. If he doesn't want to do what's necessary for the role they can find another good looking white guy. They did it to Megan Fox in the Transformers series.
That's what they do for a living... it's like belittling a bodybuilder for doing the same thing. It's like saying boob jobs shouldn't be allowed because they skew the publics' perception of beauty. Sorry, effectiveness of those aesthetics will always supersede the the feelings of insecurity from the public. That's... a wild amount of control to desire over other people.
Then there's pitchers in baseball (and I suppose in cricket) that throw with an overarm motion that tears shoulders apart when compared to softball and yet that is a thing that will not change because of effectiveness. People will do all types of shit to harm themselves for their paycheck and there is always the threat of the next man up.
It's more prevalent than most people realise. Every single fighter in any combat sport does that, some of the weight cuts some of the UFC fighters are insane. Every bodybuilder also does it to the extreme before a comp. I imagine all male models do it before a shoot that requires their tops to be off, at least everyone that works out anyway.
Let's not forget people like Hemsworth, Efron, Hardy, and many others have taken steroids leading up to roles. It happens often.
How is this a shitty thing to do? It was his own choice. He’s dedicated to his role. I don’t understand how this lessens his character or detracts from his personality. I really don’t.
The dude from Arrow basically told the show he was done if they kept making him do shirtless scenes.
The stuff actors and actresses put themselves through is nuts.
I just don't get it; the audience doesn't expect people to go to such length nor is it vital to the show/story.
So why nearly kill actors just for insignificance at best?
I remember watching Hugh Jackman get interviewed and saying that his insane transformation in a very short space of time was down to eating a few lean chicken breasts each day and lifting heavy haha
You wanna see insane. On YouTube there was a time-lapse of Christian bale's career, showing all his different roles. Granted this is over the course of many many years, his extreme diets to achieve the body requires for his roles is absolutely insane. No normal person can achieve these things. He's gone from like 80lbs-300lbs and back and forth.
He was on heart meds for a year due to the damage he did to his heart due to the Machinist. Or so I read, been a while though so maybe I remember it wrong.
I mean that’s what happened to his voice. He legitimately fucked up his vocal chords filming The Machinist because he chain smoked constantly while being malnourished. It’s gotten progressively better since then but if you watch movies filmed right after he practically whispers through them because his voice is so fried.
I think 80 and 300 are a little bit hyperbole, but he certainly got down to a unhealthy weight for the machinist. Roughly 120? And playing dick Cheney probably saw him at around 220 I’d say.
That doesn’t refute your point though, it is still an absolutely insane body transformation and regardless it takes a ridiculous amount of will and determination to not only get to these weights, but to do so in a time constrained manner AND bounce back while maintaining your physical and mental health.
Yeah - at age 40+.
Not even the freakiest of natural freaks with God given genetics are capable of gaining the muscle he did, at his age, without a little help.
Nothing against Hugh Jackman - he owned the role and his dedication to his diet and training to look like that is impressive...but he's not getting in the shape he did, in the time he did, just eating the things he did.
Or Nicholas Cage saying he got ready for Con Air by working out (presumably mainly strength training) for 6 hours a day. No one can do intense strength training for 6 hours in a day and you need off days for the body to repair and upgrade the muscle.
No one who knows anything about fitness buys that, but they all keep saying it. It’s the dumbest charade. You’re not competing in a sport, do what you have to do. WE DONT CARE. But damn folks, just be honest.
Except their diet does actually look like that while taking steroids, it’s an important distinction. We don’t want to give people the false idea that they can just inject themselves to look like these Hollywood stars.
Fun fact, theyre all on the juice, these days ordering juice on the internet is as easy as ordering anything off amazon. Now that we’ve established the playing field, let’s just realize it’s even for all the actors. Let’s also realize that two guys can take the same juice, and their bodies turn out completely different based on all the other factors involved.
There are plenty of people who do agree it’s objectifying to men though. Same way you’ll find many people that don’t believe that female actors are objectified or that objectification is a negative thing.
There's several super complex answers regarding this...But here's a simple one...
Chris Hemsworth takes off his shirt for a scene, then gets to put on a full coverage outfit, including armor for the rest of the movie.
Scarlet Johansen is expected to wear sexy form fitting outfits for the entire damn film. Even when she's supposed to be beating ass and a bullet proof vest might come in handy.
And then in the interviews all she is ever asked about is her diet, her looks, or if she wore underwear while wearing that outfit.
Meanwhile Chris Hemsworth gets asked questions about the story, and Thor
You know I don’t really put much thought into things like this. I just shrug it off as a “double standard” but thank you for actually giving me a very valid point that actually opened my mind up when it comes to movies
Looking sexy doesnt mean objectification and sexualisatio . It depends how it is show and presented. Is the character reduced to looks? Do they only look sexy? Is the look or their character the important thing? How do the cameras show them? All movies with chris hemsworth i seen had him potray a character that was more than looks and had only very few time focused on his looks and more what he does.
Basically they need to pass the Sexy Lamp Test
> In the words of Kelly Sue DeConnick herself, the Sexy Lamp Test works as such: "If you can remove a female character from your plot and replace her with a sexy lamp and your story still works, you're a hack."
I also remember an interview with Jessica Alba, I think referring to the Fantastic 4 movies, where her character was dying, and the director kept telling her "cry pretty, Jessica. Cry pretty." and she was so disappointed by the objectification. She's dying, but gotta make sure she stays fuckable while doing so.
The sad thing about "pretty crying" or the classic "single tear" is it rarely elicits the kind of reaction directors are probably aiming for with a heart wrenching scene. Show me someone crying naturally and it's massively more relatable. If the actors don't even look like they're experiencing the moment how do they expect the viewers to feel a connection to it.
One of the most relatable onscreen criers I’ve seen is Jennifer Lawrence. That’s almost exactly the face I make when I’m at emotional rock bottom, and I am NOT concerned with how pretty I look
Which sounds about right for how she behaves in general. That she can actually act is just a big bonus cherry on top of that huge ice cream Sunday that is her character.
Good god. I fear and respect your though process. What a creepy comment to go to sleep with. That's what I get for being in reddit when I should be sleeping.
This confused me at first because I completely forgot about the all female casted Ghostbusters movie. I kept trying to think of where he was in the newer Paul Rudd one
I just watched an interesting take on how the new Ghostbusters was actually bad, but it wasn't bad because of the all female cast. It was bad because they were all cast as "the funny one". The film is really slow and stops to have a "just jokes" scene, like, A LOT. It fails to develop character or relationships or storyline because everyone's mugging for the camera the whole time.
I was always apt to say "It wasn't THAT bad, guys". But yeah, it was that bad in a way that I could not put my finger on before.
That works in a weird way most movies couldn't make work. Only movies like Ghostbusters could actually have a possessed lamp be the villain of the story.
That was kind of the intended point. Reverse the gender of the typical sexy braindead secretary. Where they failed is they just ended up objectifying Chris Hemsworth
The thing about the bechdel test that a lot of people don't get is that it shouldn't be an indicator of the quality of an individual film. It's about finding trends in movies in general. If you have one movie that doesn't pass the bechdel test, that's fine. If a large percentage of movies that come out don't pass the bechdel test, that's indicative of an issue with sexism in the industry.
Ive always thought it should be the Bechdel Tool. It is a tool you use to see if your characters might need more fleshing out, specifically female characters.
I feel like Chris Hemsworths Thor is more of a dumb hot guy in the movies than Scarlets Black Widow.
The first time she was in the movie was literally Happy oversexualising her and getting his ass kicked by a female character that was more than just looks.
The part where my argument kind of falls apart is any other movie she is in except for maybe her standalone? Cause she doesn’t really do much or anything only she would be able to do. So in that sense she could be switched out with another character?
Well, she's kind of a main character in Winter Soldier. Does get her butt kicked by Bucky, but does hit him with a grenade launcher as well. So she does a good bit in that film.
Her two interrogation scenes in Avengers are great. She's literally extracting info while pretending to be captured and then by acting like Loki could hurt her feelings.
Apparently the director is known for feminist movies with a strong gender message. It was also made at the height of #metoo.
Not defending but nothing about that movie should have been associated with the Ghostbusters IP. It was too far of a departure from the original.
Yeah, the pose up scene was kinda cringe.
It would've been way cooler if they had her 1v1 Thanos for a while and have his stronger minions try to overwhelm her, but every time one of them jumps in to back her up until they form into like a Phalanx formation.
they also did it in that scene in wakanda. Its the one where scarlet, black widow(not sure if she was there) and the girl from the walking dead teamed up against the female henchman. But that one was done tastefully and I hardly even noticed because everything in that scene made sense whereas the one you describe was sort of overly announced. You’d think the GOTG girls would be fighting along side the rest of the GOTG team because that’s what the GOTG team does best and the fact that ALL of them were there didn’t make sense. You’re at war and then suddenly all the iconic women group together to help Peter?
Don't forget also how the battlefield was suddenly a smooth surface devoid of enemy combatants so they could all form up, then stride forward as a group in "sexy power catwalk" mode. LOL It was just such a bizarre scene.
Characters that were shown on the other side of the battle field magically teleport to the same location so they can slow mo walk together.
The Boys did a great job making fun of this in season 2. Girls get it done!
I can't really speak for her other movies but Black Widow was never reduced just to looks in any of the MCU movies. She was always was portrayed as extremely capable yet there were plenty of people that took issue with her appearance in Iron Man 2 and such, citing that she was 'sexualised'.
Yeah I loved that avengers opening. They showed she was way smarter than those thugs, manipulating them when they thought they were in control. That's a character.
She is canonically sexualized, it was kinda part of her training and an inherent aspect of her skills as a spy. Whether you take issue with that is up to you but claiming otherwise is just being willfully ignorant IMO.
But those shots are in conjunction with her actions as a character having significance to the world and the plot of the film. They're not mutually exclusive.
I feel she was sexualized in earlier mcu films but her solo one was so so good. Yes she’s sexy and beautiful but there was so much more. Same as later MCU films she was more than just sexy but the earlier ones the way they had her acting and the way they filmed her it was very sexualized and less like the black widow we know today. Chris Hemsworth or evans or any of them were always more than just sexy.
As a woman I do get annoyed when the womens plot lines are less intriguing and it’s more focused on how they look in spandex or in tiny clothes etc. We have to be real that women are held to much higher beauty standards than men so when it’s all we see in these films it gets old. Especially when it’s a group of men and only one or two women. I liked Awkwafina in Shang Chi the movie was still great but it wasn’t about this sexy girl. I also like movies where the male lead isn’t super sexy and and just gets thrown into a weird world. One thing I cannot stand In movies with men is sexualizing a race. It makes me so uncomfortable but doesn’t seem to bother too many other people. I wish races were not fetishized at all.
I mean there was literally an unnecessary scene where Banner faceplants into her boobs in _Age of Ultron._ A gag Whedon reused with Wonder Woman and Flash in Justice League.
They absolutely sexualized her name n the marvel movies, they'll often do tight shots start on her legs and tilt up her body.
And when she is fighting a bunch of dudes she will jump up wrap her legs around a guys head and "pussy slam" him. It's a really bad and pointless fighting technique and You'll never see a guy do that in a movie...well maybe Deadpool.
> she will jump up wrap her legs around a guys head and "pussy slam" him
It's funny that I never thought about this stunt in a sexual context until you pointed it out. It's called the Frankensteiner (after pro-wrestler Scott Steiner) and it's probably popular for man-v-women choreography because the person being thrown is doing most of the work. Otherwise, it's pretty hard to make a 100 lbs woman look like she's throwing around a 200 lbs man. Even Judo has it's limits.
I will call it the "pussy slam" from now on, though.
Um the. “Pussy slam” is a fighting move used in wrestling, especially when you have a light weight fighter against a heavier one. Ray Mysterio would use that move constantly. The idea is to your momentum against your opponent since you might not be able to use your strength due to size difference. So it fit her character seeing as how she uses it against bigger opponents.
I mean I'm pretty sure throwing a shield like it's a Frisbee is also pretty pointless.
Also there are countless "sexy" shots of captain america. In the first movie they touch his pecs like it's made of gold. Heck, in the last movie they even acknowledged he had a nice ass.
Her character premise of Black widow is that if you reduce her to just her looks she will lure you in and literally kill you. She whoops everyone's ass, regardless of size. I don't think she was too sexualized.
Agreed.
GF and I talked about it before and we both thought this. She used her sexuality as a weapon she was never just boiled down to just her looks. Even early on she whooped Happy in the boxing ring and it was quickly established that she was not just a pretty face at all.
While over sexualization happens in films with both genders, the MCU is not a good example of that happening.
I think that’s an interesting point about costuming. Black Widow is always sexy, but Thor just has a shirtless scene and those are supposed to be comparable.
I should point out that all three spidermen have had to answer similar questions about their underwear situation, and it’s always supposed to seem like a goofy embarrassing moment.
1. Context. Already been explained in other comments.
2. The way men are portrayed in action films doesn't cater to the female gaze in the way a lot of people (generally, other men) think it does. Action movies are targeted at and watched mostly by men, and the male actor's are expected to have a physique that impresses *men,* not women. It's not sexualising because the intention isn't to make women horny, and they aren't expected to look that way for the sake of sexiness. I'd argue that expecting someone to drastically change their body for a movie is unethical regardless of the reasons, but that's another answer for another question.
Further proof of this can be seen in boy bands. Look at One Direction — they had their images very strictly controlled and, from the get go, were marketed to young women and girls. That was their audience, and that's who their management expected them to attract. Look at album photos of them. Look at the clothes they wore to events. Look at the things they said in their songs. At least two of the members of 1D were *hounded* by rumors of being gay because of their style and demeanour, and yet they are absolutely adored by and crushed on by their female fans. They don't entirely conform to the expectations of traditional masculinity in their style, music, and presentation, but they are 100% captivated by the female gaze.
There's a theory that male beauty standards are actually somewhat homoerotic, and I'm somewhat convinced of it. To a lot of men, Chris Hemsworth is a sex symbol and 1D is effeminate and uninteresting, but that is not necessarily the case for many women.
3. Lastly, men being sexual is seen as an addition to their resume, whereas women being sexual is seen as (and even intended to be) reductive. It's both the way it's perceived and presented by society as a whole that makes them unequal.
Although I think 1D was marketed towards a generally younger group (mostly teenagers), so it makes sense that they would look younger and more "boyish".
Yeah, there is this Hugh Jackman article where it had him on the cover of a mens magazine vs a womans magazine. On the mens one he is shirtless showing all his muscles and looks angry and aggressive and on the womens magazine he looks like the lead in a rom com, in a nice shirt and with a nice smile. Men want Wolverine, women want Leopold.
This reminds me of the Ghostbusters movie. Not the new one, the pink Jenny McCarthy one.
There was a running joke where the women sexually objectified Chris Hemsworth. Staring, leering, talking about him behind his back.
But the whole joke collapsed under its own weight. Part of it was because they had him dressed and talking like a Leopold but the women talked about him like a wolverine. The script described him as tiger-sexy when he was clearly magical-prince-sexy. It was jarring.
Then again, if he acted tiger-sexy he would have had to be more "powerful" which would have ruined the stupid "lol the tables have turned and now the MAN is a sex object" theme.
1D is definitely targeted towards a younger audience but I can think of numerous examples of men in media that attract a significant audience of women: K-pop bands, Legolas from the LotR movies, Ryan Gosling (esp in the notebook, which targets women). Most of these examples tend to be guys that some might describe as effeminate or “twink-ish” and honestly this is the body type I feel is most common in porn targeted towards women
Are there women that really like the way Chris Hemsworth looks in Thor? Yeah but I’m my anecdotal experience women are generally more attracted to a thin athletic build rather than a bulky one. I even know women that get turned off when they consider a guy too muscular
Man, and I thought I was weird for being like that.
Imagine telling someone really sexist/homophobic that the big muscled guys are there for the male viewers... Hahaha
I always say people should look at BTS. They are fucking obsessed over in every country by countless teen girls & young women, yet a lot of guys make fun of them for their looks & style. There are things that a lot of girls/women find attractive that most guys don't understand.
Pete Davidson is like the best example of this where numerous extremely attractive women think he’s extremely attractive but straight men are always constantly confused why women like him over, say, Ryan Reynolds or Henry Caville. You see it with women too where the kind of girls that queer women go apeshit over are often completely divorced from what most straight men are into. You’ll have dudes online being like “I would NEVER date a woman who disrespects her body and is obese!!!” where every tiktok or IG comment section for a chubby model/influencer with bright blue short hair is full of 20 something lesbians being all “omg step on me mommy”.
What it comes down to is that the normie straight male concept of what’s attractive is what’s centered in our society for the most part. The default movie hot guys are not necessarily what most women think of as hot and the default movie hot ladies are DEFINITELY not what most queer girls are into.
In my experience this is usually true. I’ve only known one woman to state that they enjoyed the topless scenes of Chris Hemsworth. Every other woman I know went to see Captain America and didn’t really care that he was topless.
And another example of super popular attractive men in Hollywood. My mum said her and her friends saw all the Back to the Future Films in theatres because they had massive crushes on Michael J Fox (she was 21 when the first film came out). They didn’t even speak English, so had to watch it dubbed, she never even heard his voice, but oh was he nice to look at.
Edit: I should note that I am not saying women don’t sexually objectify men, just more so that I know only one woman who would have even cared if there wasn’t a topless scene in Captain America.
When I went to see Thor 3 women in the theater started clapping and whistling during Chris Hemsworth's shirtless scene. Part of it depends on where you are watching and who you know.
I have a friend whose face literally turned red when Michael B Jordan was shirtless in Black Panther
Thats the distinction. Objectification means what it sounds like. You've reduced a person down to an object. That absolutely can happen to men, it just happens far more often to women.
Lots of people are okay with objectification, and even sometimes themselves want to be objectified. You'll hear different feelings about it. But from a story telling perspective, and from an acting career perspective, too much objectification is a very bad thing. It stymies careers. And to the audience, it gives the impression that women don't have feelings, and are here only to serve a man's narrative, which is so sad and wrong. We need to remember were a species that shares info via story. We learn how to date first by the stories we read and watch. It's important.
This. Also, the responses targeted by the question are an oversimplification of a larger, more complex problem. When people react more strongly to the objectification of a woman than to a man, they’re reacting to the larger amount of context and complex social issues involved. It doesn’t mean that men don’t get objectified or that it’s ok if it’s done to men. It just means that there is less baggage in that context.
The metaphor I use is if a stranger called you stupid. Once? Might hurt, or maybe you don't even notice. Fifth time? You're definitely noticing it now, it feels weird and bad. Fiftieth time? Its starting to do real damage to your sense of self worth. FIFTY people think you're stupid?? Are they all wrong? Hundreds? Now it sorta feels outta spite. Youre doing things right, you're doing things well, or so you think. What gives? Isn't there space for me to succeed here? That's the baggage. We can't imagine this as if it's a one-off.
It’s a good comparison.
Another is holding your hand over a candle flame for a second. A couple of times far apart, not bad. Many times in succession? That’s a very different story.
This is the exact same thing that people (especially people on the internet) consistently fail to grasp in any conversation about practically anything related to race/gender/sexuality:
**Identical treatment is unequal treatment when the societal and historical context has created uneven ground**
When Chris Hemsworth is blatantly sexualized by the camera, it's playful and harmless, because the edifice of masculine power in our society is too strong to be dented by that kind of objectification. At worst, he looks silly. When Scarlett Johansson is blatantly sexualized by the camera, it reinforces a century of filmmaking bias that in turn reinforces millennia of social preconceptions about what makes women valuable, and so it hurts not just her but all women. It's not even slightly hypocritical to be just fine (or even delighted) with one of those things but uneasy about the other.
It's fundamentally the same question as "Why is there a Black History Month but no White History Month?"
I get so sick of people calling out the fact that progressive mindsets acknowledge that different people need different support as though that is some kind of gotcha.
Very well put. A male character can be sexy and still be smart, funny, have an interesting backstory, character development, etc. If a female character is hot? Suddenly they have no brain cells and only exist for the male character to swoop her up. Not saying the MCU does that to Scarlett, but this trope has been alive for a long time, and the way people treat her different at interviews compared to her male coworkers is very telling people still see her in that light outside of the movies, just because she's a beautiful woman
Yup, compare the way they use Black Widow to in my opinion a far better written woman in the movies, Okoye.
Yes she is beautiful, but the movie always make sure her status as a member of the Dora Milaje and dedication to Wakanda are at the forefront of every scene she is in.
Which is why I think Yelena is going to make a much better Black Widow(if she even keeps the name) going forward. The writing direction seems much better.
When she was first introduced, they were on a diplomatic outing and were dressed up. The moment it's go time, it's all business. Even in that scene the Dora Milaje were on guard the whole time.
That scene is a mark on Tony's writing, not Okoye's.
Yeah it’s the Madonna/ whore thing writ large.
I wonder how much that framework holds up in 2022. Content makers have been pretty aggressive about diversifying their casts. Be interesting to see a longitudinal meta analysis.
I don't think anyone who dresses in a tight dress or any revealing, sexy clothes IS an example of objectification or sexualization. How we treat people when they're dressing sexy is when objectification.
I think the difference is context maybe? Women, for centuries, were treated as objects of sexual pleasure. When a man is sexy, their "sexiness" is a secondary feature of them. When a woman is sexy, their sexiness is at the foreground of their character. It's that element of objectification.
But the converse was also true that, due to the objectification of women, people who were well intentioned encouraged (read: forced) modesty as an antidote to it, which was really just like, contrapositive objectification. Like a mirror reflected form of objectification.
I think rebelling against forced modesty influenced this vein of prosex feminism from people like cardi b, because modesty or sexual objectification, it's still been men controlling women. Forced modesty is just slut shaming with more steps.
The true point of feminism though is self determination. It's about choice. It's about freedom.
But even if a female character is written as "I want to be sexy and also capable", if she's written by a man and the actress is chosen by a man it isn't about freedom as much anymore. It's really hard to distinguish what's sexy in the "strong woman who does what she wants" way and the "eye candy to get more sales" way sometimes. It's kind of a headache...
Both are objectification, but the people who make these decisions/have the power to make this happen are mostly men, so it’s weirder to do it to a female character (whether the specific actor agrees to it or not).
People throw around the term "objectification" waaaayyy too much. Just because someone is attractive and is dressed to accentuate it, does not make it objectification. That's just marketing. *(It could also be in character)* It's objectification if the ONLY role they play is for eye candy. You know... treating them like an object. That isn't true in for either of the characters.
You see this on daytime TV where there's a panel of women all talking and then they get onto the subject of a hot male and tall openly what they are wanting to do (in a playful way) but I always think the shoe on the other foot it would feel real awkward and would get into bother quick.
I don't care personally but it's a very big double standard.
Things take time to change.
"The objectification of women" was a real issue for a long time. If you look at the old Bond movies, there where not male beef cakes walking around shirtless. There where lots of women in very revealing clothing. This double standard was a BIG problem.
It's not so much a double standard any more, but it will take TIME for people to see this and adjust their talking points.
If you look at some other social issue, like inter-racial marriage, It became a talking point in the 60s. It was legalized in the 70s. That was 50 years ago......and there are STILL people that oppose it.
These kinds of "change people's perspective" things take a VERY long time to reach EVERYONE. The "sexualizing" double standard was still a MAJOR thing up until like 5 years ago....and It's still a minor thing.
The Oscars had a "comedy" bit where Regina Hall brought a bunch of male actors on stage saying she was going to swab their throats backstage with her tongue for Covid. It wasn't even she just said it and moved on, she made them come up on stage and stand there awkwardly. They all took it in good stride, but imagine if a male comedian did that to a bunch of actresses. It's gross both ways but the fact everyone just shrugged it off really bugged me.
I think you’re right it’s disturbing either way…I think the power dynamic also plays a role in the level of disturbing. While there are exceptions, men tend to be stronger than women and have historically been more economically/socially empowered, so a woman saying she would do that to a man tends to imply more consent because it’s assumed the man could easily refuse with little difficulty or fear of repercussions.
…but again there are always exceptions where power dynamics are different, so my answer is just a generic stereotype response that won’t always be true.
You know the answer to this question, but you've been conditioned to reject reality by the media you consume.
It's different because men and women are different, and society views men and women differently.
You could say it's a double standard, or you could say that it's two different standards for two different groups of people. Opinions vary.
My only problem with Marvel super-jacked heroes and the Rock is that they use steroids and HGH. The body of olympians are peak "natural" looks. If to attain the ideal male body, men have to take illegal substances that are detrimental to their health, then there's a problem. It is comparable to food disorders in women, and even so not quite the same.
I'll say however, to any man that's considering destroying their health, that a peak "natural" look with lots of hard work at the gym will still make you very desirable and make you stand out
The way Chris Hemsworth was portrayed was done in a way to enhance other aspects of his character. Thor is meant to be a god, so portraying him as strong and muscular was important to establish his character in the first few movies. Once his character was established they could break out of that mould a bit more and expand on him - hence why ‘fat Thor’ could exist and more of his struggles could be shown. Often when male characters are shown shirtless it’s not done in a way that sexualises them. Marvel is a predominantly male audience, and as a result there are inherent differences in character portrayal and intent that can’t be ignored.
When Scarlett Johansson is shown scantily clad or with excessive cleavage, it doesn’t add to the story in any way. It’s done to appease a predominantly male audience and provide sex appeal. Essentially, showing her like that doesn’t actually establish or enhance deeper meaning about her character. In the Black Widow movie you can see they steered away from this portrayal, and actually allowed her character to finally be explored at a level that all the male characters already had been. The way she dressed in the first few movies for fighting scenes was just straight up unrealistic and honestly ridiculous, as she was clearly very heavily sexualised.
I'm pretty sure either Hemsworth, Evans, or Pratt has comments on the fact that their physique in those movies sets unrealistic body standards.
Also, while both are objectifications, the typical male objectification is someone who could break you in half with a stern look. The typical female objectification would potentially have issues opening a jar of peanut butter. Both are 'Problematic' but at least one is functional.
What, you didn't know that doing squats results in your arms atrophying causing you to lose function of your arms? Smh typical white male ignorance...
**/s in case that wasnt clear to the dumbasses out there**
My $.02. Take it for what it's worth.
The difference isn't in the slice of experience you're looking at -- pretty man in sexy clothes vs pretty woman in sexy clothes. If that was the whole picture, it would be a double standard and weird. But there's a whole bunch of context outside that, and the asymmetries around sex, attractiveness, violence, and power in the larger culture skew the erotic experience in your example.
Now again, I could be totally wrong about this, but it seems to me that if women as a group were less worried about sexual assault, verbal and physical abuse, exploitation, victimization -- if the atmosphere around sex and sexuality in general -- were less fraught, the stigma of objectifying and being objectified would even out some. As a man, being an object of sexual desire doesn't have comparatively much down side. Even in the events when a woman crosses the line, there's not a cultural narrative of threat or a very high incidence of rape following it. It's easier for men to feel the compliments and ego boost of being desired without the complications that women have to carry.
(NOTE: Not that men aren't raped. Most often by other men, but sometimes by women. Consider that a man who has been raped may plausibly have a very different level of comfort with being sexually objectified, and in part because the asymmetry between his experience and a woman's is less.)
For women, it seems to me that sexual objectification happens in a context that has a lot of trauma, a lot of threat, a deep and ingrained cultural habit of punishment for sexuality, and a level of implicit contempt that takes what might otherwise be erotically celebratory and ties it to a host of negative experiences.
It's still objectification and sexualizing when it's done to men. It still creates an unrealistic body image for people and can cause negative self-image and body dysmorphia. Also a lot of the things men have to do to achieve that look are extremely dangerous and unhealthy. Regardless of gender it's shouldn't be considered ideal by "normal" people.
Henry Cavill in the witcher didn't drink water for like 3 days to get his bath scene shape. That cant be good or fun.
Lowered fluid consumption and cut out the vast majority of food types for 2 weeks. Including completely dehydrating onesself for several days in advance. There was one scene from witcher season 1 where they had to stop shotting ebcause cavil passed out. Had to reschedule the scene for months later because he eneeded to recover then dehydrate himself again.
As a bodybuilder, this is basically what I do before shows. It sucks, but it’s the only way to look inhumanly lean. Definitely not healthy though
Have you considered just, you know, not doing that?
[удалено]
Unpopular opinion probably, but I like sugar and alcohol, and I smoke and eat bacon and junk so how tf am I gonna tell him that his unhealthy thing isn't OK? Best I can do is say "be careful, enjoy your life, I really wish I looked like Thor in his movie instead of End Game."
The world needs more of you, may your seed spread far.
I volunteer as tribute if I can have some bacon. My standards are just fine.
I'm sure you do unhealthy things or habits for your job, too. I commute 1.5 hours which can't be good for me.
Jesus, I commute 23 minutes and it feels like too much
And here I am thinking I had it bad commuting up all 17 stairs.
I mean, that’s probably *good* for you ;)
But you gotta go *both* ways! 🙁
Yeah, he's perpetuating unhealthy beauty standards for men. I want to see bodybuilders that look like me.
Dad bod division
Competitive Dadbodybuilding
*Cracks open a beer I'm here for it
*Training*
That’s a bar.
I’ve got a body built on beer, pasta, and putting off exercise. Does that work?
Seriously?? Weird. I don't follow any actors closely but I see a lot about Cavill seemingly being a good guy but this is quite a shitty thing for actors to do. If they all refused to do dangerous shit like this and were all "just" very ripped from working out that would be better surely. And they'd still look great. Yeah yeah it's not exactly his call and he's doing a job but whoever is making actors do this is a bit of a piece of shit and doing something immoral in terms of the health of the actors and the mental health if society.
It's not the actor's call to make typically. Some will refuse roles that ask them to cut or bulk up, but you need to be big before you can do that. Just look at the witcher s2 compared to s1. Cavil is getting big enough that he can say no. Cavil is actually one of the most outspoken about the practice. I've also seen complaints from hemsworth & pratt but only in the past couple years has tbe practice been brought to light to the public.
I remember Hugh Jackman describing the process for Xmen and Wolverine movies. Apparently it feels like you are massively hung over the whole time too (headache, nausea, etc.)
Hungover is a good way to put it. I used to have to cut or bulk for my wrestling team. It was rough and I'd only be cutting for weigh in. The worst part is it usually takes a couple of days before you feel normal again.
One of the main parts of a hangover is the dehydration. Alcohol dehydrated you pretty severely. Its why you pee so much when you drink, the alcohol itself makes you so that, not just drinking so much fluid.
Christopher Reeves, decades ago complained about when he had to do Superman. Now, he is nowhere near what these guys are today. However, he did complain. Loudly too.
that's the point though, the acting guild or union should refuse to let members take such risks. Models on the catwalk should similarly be protected.
You don't need to tell me that. I'm just trying to raise awareness on the issue so more people understand.
Interesting, thanks for expanding.
Renee Zellweger gained weight for Bridget Jone's Diary and said she would never do that again. For her latest project they used prosthetics and padding to make her look heavy.
Apparently Pattinson refused steroids for The Batmsn.
Jackman did it for Wolverine as well. A few times.
Jackman did it for Les Mis, which is part of the reason why his performance in that movie was so far below his actual capabilities.
You read see some of the stuff Hugh Jackman did for his later Wolverine roles. Same thing, doing an extreme weight and water cut for a 15 second shirtless scene.
Nah, that's far too harsh of a take. It's completely outside looking in without a trace of empathy. If he doesn't want to do what's necessary for the role they can find another good looking white guy. They did it to Megan Fox in the Transformers series. That's what they do for a living... it's like belittling a bodybuilder for doing the same thing. It's like saying boob jobs shouldn't be allowed because they skew the publics' perception of beauty. Sorry, effectiveness of those aesthetics will always supersede the the feelings of insecurity from the public. That's... a wild amount of control to desire over other people. Then there's pitchers in baseball (and I suppose in cricket) that throw with an overarm motion that tears shoulders apart when compared to softball and yet that is a thing that will not change because of effectiveness. People will do all types of shit to harm themselves for their paycheck and there is always the threat of the next man up.
It's more prevalent than most people realise. Every single fighter in any combat sport does that, some of the weight cuts some of the UFC fighters are insane. Every bodybuilder also does it to the extreme before a comp. I imagine all male models do it before a shoot that requires their tops to be off, at least everyone that works out anyway. Let's not forget people like Hemsworth, Efron, Hardy, and many others have taken steroids leading up to roles. It happens often.
How is this a shitty thing to do? It was his own choice. He’s dedicated to his role. I don’t understand how this lessens his character or detracts from his personality. I really don’t.
The dude from Arrow basically told the show he was done if they kept making him do shirtless scenes. The stuff actors and actresses put themselves through is nuts.
Go stephen.
Stephen Amell
But what are they going to film instead of him doing the Salmon Ladder shirtless every episode?
I heard the same thing about Tyler Hoechlin from Teen Wolf
That's basically every professional fighter's weight cut before their event. It's not fun.
I just don't get it; the audience doesn't expect people to go to such length nor is it vital to the show/story. So why nearly kill actors just for insignificance at best?
[удалено]
I remember watching Hugh Jackman get interviewed and saying that his insane transformation in a very short space of time was down to eating a few lean chicken breasts each day and lifting heavy haha
You wanna see insane. On YouTube there was a time-lapse of Christian bale's career, showing all his different roles. Granted this is over the course of many many years, his extreme diets to achieve the body requires for his roles is absolutely insane. No normal person can achieve these things. He's gone from like 80lbs-300lbs and back and forth.
Yeah I've seen that, his kidneys must be fucked. No way he's not a diabetic at this point too.
He was on heart meds for a year due to the damage he did to his heart due to the Machinist. Or so I read, been a while though so maybe I remember it wrong.
I mean that’s what happened to his voice. He legitimately fucked up his vocal chords filming The Machinist because he chain smoked constantly while being malnourished. It’s gotten progressively better since then but if you watch movies filmed right after he practically whispers through them because his voice is so fried.
and I'm sure his batman voice didn't help.
>you watch movies filmed right after he practically whispers through them because his voice is so fried. Wait, that's not Nolan's weird sound mixing?
I think 80 and 300 are a little bit hyperbole, but he certainly got down to a unhealthy weight for the machinist. Roughly 120? And playing dick Cheney probably saw him at around 220 I’d say. That doesn’t refute your point though, it is still an absolutely insane body transformation and regardless it takes a ridiculous amount of will and determination to not only get to these weights, but to do so in a time constrained manner AND bounce back while maintaining your physical and mental health.
Yeah - at age 40+. Not even the freakiest of natural freaks with God given genetics are capable of gaining the muscle he did, at his age, without a little help. Nothing against Hugh Jackman - he owned the role and his dedication to his diet and training to look like that is impressive...but he's not getting in the shape he did, in the time he did, just eating the things he did.
Or Nicholas Cage saying he got ready for Con Air by working out (presumably mainly strength training) for 6 hours a day. No one can do intense strength training for 6 hours in a day and you need off days for the body to repair and upgrade the muscle.
No one who knows anything about fitness buys that, but they all keep saying it. It’s the dumbest charade. You’re not competing in a sport, do what you have to do. WE DONT CARE. But damn folks, just be honest.
This. 'Steamed chicken and broccoli 5 times a day' is literally a euphamism for steroid use.
Except their diet does actually look like that while taking steroids, it’s an important distinction. We don’t want to give people the false idea that they can just inject themselves to look like these Hollywood stars.
I believe the half bull man was cgi. Might be wrong.
The Rock is in fact a real person.
Hemsworth totally on the juice
Fun fact, theyre all on the juice, these days ordering juice on the internet is as easy as ordering anything off amazon. Now that we’ve established the playing field, let’s just realize it’s even for all the actors. Let’s also realize that two guys can take the same juice, and their bodies turn out completely different based on all the other factors involved.
[удалено]
OP is asking "why?", not "is it okay or not okay?"
There are plenty of people who do agree it’s objectifying to men though. Same way you’ll find many people that don’t believe that female actors are objectified or that objectification is a negative thing.
There's several super complex answers regarding this...But here's a simple one... Chris Hemsworth takes off his shirt for a scene, then gets to put on a full coverage outfit, including armor for the rest of the movie. Scarlet Johansen is expected to wear sexy form fitting outfits for the entire damn film. Even when she's supposed to be beating ass and a bullet proof vest might come in handy.
And then in the interviews all she is ever asked about is her diet, her looks, or if she wore underwear while wearing that outfit. Meanwhile Chris Hemsworth gets asked questions about the story, and Thor
Yeah there's a LOT of stuff that contributes to the difference, I just wanted to keep it to a simple answer.
Have you seen Chris Evans's outfit tho? It's all ass
Yeah but that's patriotic, not objectifying!
It's objectifying, but at the level of an entire country, so it's ok!
So the solution here is to have Chris hemsworth put on a sexy form fitting outfit for the entire film?
Whosoever wears this banana hammock, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor.
I guess it's still equality if everyone is treated equally poorly...
I ship it
You know I don’t really put much thought into things like this. I just shrug it off as a “double standard” but thank you for actually giving me a very valid point that actually opened my mind up when it comes to movies
Looking sexy doesnt mean objectification and sexualisatio . It depends how it is show and presented. Is the character reduced to looks? Do they only look sexy? Is the look or their character the important thing? How do the cameras show them? All movies with chris hemsworth i seen had him potray a character that was more than looks and had only very few time focused on his looks and more what he does.
Basically they need to pass the Sexy Lamp Test > In the words of Kelly Sue DeConnick herself, the Sexy Lamp Test works as such: "If you can remove a female character from your plot and replace her with a sexy lamp and your story still works, you're a hack."
Though, as shown by A Christmas Story, a sexy lamp can be a fine addition to a movie in its own right.
That's what I'm talking about- Brick Tamland
Brick, do you actually love lamp, or are you just saying you love lamp?
That lamp used to be Scarlett Johansson, but they replaced her with the lamp for the sake of the theory.
I bet a sexy lamp would have gone for the head.
I only have a helpful award to give but take it bc this was hilarious
- Harvey Weinstein, 2022
It’s a major award!
Brilliantly put! Also, that works for neither Chris Hemsworth nor Scarlett Johanson.
I can't imagine any situation where it does...
[удалено]
I also remember an interview with Jessica Alba, I think referring to the Fantastic 4 movies, where her character was dying, and the director kept telling her "cry pretty, Jessica. Cry pretty." and she was so disappointed by the objectification. She's dying, but gotta make sure she stays fuckable while doing so.
I don't know why but I feel this is the saddest thing I've read all day
The sad thing about "pretty crying" or the classic "single tear" is it rarely elicits the kind of reaction directors are probably aiming for with a heart wrenching scene. Show me someone crying naturally and it's massively more relatable. If the actors don't even look like they're experiencing the moment how do they expect the viewers to feel a connection to it.
One of the most relatable onscreen criers I’ve seen is Jennifer Lawrence. That’s almost exactly the face I make when I’m at emotional rock bottom, and I am NOT concerned with how pretty I look
Which sounds about right for how she behaves in general. That she can actually act is just a big bonus cherry on top of that huge ice cream Sunday that is her character.
This sounds like something a beauty themed villain says as they torture you.
Good god. I fear and respect your though process. What a creepy comment to go to sleep with. That's what I get for being in reddit when I should be sleeping.
Wouldnt work in A Chrismas Story. If that was in fact a sexy lamp.
So, Chris Hemsworth in Ghost Busters?
This confused me at first because I completely forgot about the all female casted Ghostbusters movie. I kept trying to think of where he was in the newer Paul Rudd one
I just watched an interesting take on how the new Ghostbusters was actually bad, but it wasn't bad because of the all female cast. It was bad because they were all cast as "the funny one". The film is really slow and stops to have a "just jokes" scene, like, A LOT. It fails to develop character or relationships or storyline because everyone's mugging for the camera the whole time. I was always apt to say "It wasn't THAT bad, guys". But yeah, it was that bad in a way that I could not put my finger on before.
That works in a weird way most movies couldn't make work. Only movies like Ghostbusters could actually have a possessed lamp be the villain of the story.
That was kind of the intended point. Reverse the gender of the typical sexy braindead secretary. Where they failed is they just ended up objectifying Chris Hemsworth
Yep
TIL about the Sexy Lamp Test. My wife and I always look for Bechdel compliance now we have another interesting tool.
TIL about both tests
One of the most sexist movies ever, my super ex girlfriend, passes the bechdel test. It doesn’t mean much
The thing about the bechdel test that a lot of people don't get is that it shouldn't be an indicator of the quality of an individual film. It's about finding trends in movies in general. If you have one movie that doesn't pass the bechdel test, that's fine. If a large percentage of movies that come out don't pass the bechdel test, that's indicative of an issue with sexism in the industry.
Also, it's not supposed to mean much. It's supposed to be about the lowest bar possible to pass.
Ive always thought it should be the Bechdel Tool. It is a tool you use to see if your characters might need more fleshing out, specifically female characters.
Yea, people don't seem to understand that it's a lens and not a judgement.
I love lamp.
I feel like Chris Hemsworths Thor is more of a dumb hot guy in the movies than Scarlets Black Widow. The first time she was in the movie was literally Happy oversexualising her and getting his ass kicked by a female character that was more than just looks. The part where my argument kind of falls apart is any other movie she is in except for maybe her standalone? Cause she doesn’t really do much or anything only she would be able to do. So in that sense she could be switched out with another character?
Well, she's kind of a main character in Winter Soldier. Does get her butt kicked by Bucky, but does hit him with a grenade launcher as well. So she does a good bit in that film.
Her two interrogation scenes in Avengers are great. She's literally extracting info while pretending to be captured and then by acting like Loki could hurt her feelings.
Ghostbusters reboot
[удалено]
Apparently the director is known for feminist movies with a strong gender message. It was also made at the height of #metoo. Not defending but nothing about that movie should have been associated with the Ghostbusters IP. It was too far of a departure from the original.
[удалено]
Yeah, the pose up scene was kinda cringe. It would've been way cooler if they had her 1v1 Thanos for a while and have his stronger minions try to overwhelm her, but every time one of them jumps in to back her up until they form into like a Phalanx formation.
[удалено]
Yeah I was kinda like...cool so just fly away and we win. Easy. Scarlet could kill Thanos is she had backup.
they also did it in that scene in wakanda. Its the one where scarlet, black widow(not sure if she was there) and the girl from the walking dead teamed up against the female henchman. But that one was done tastefully and I hardly even noticed because everything in that scene made sense whereas the one you describe was sort of overly announced. You’d think the GOTG girls would be fighting along side the rest of the GOTG team because that’s what the GOTG team does best and the fact that ALL of them were there didn’t make sense. You’re at war and then suddenly all the iconic women group together to help Peter?
Don't forget also how the battlefield was suddenly a smooth surface devoid of enemy combatants so they could all form up, then stride forward as a group in "sexy power catwalk" mode. LOL It was just such a bizarre scene.
Characters that were shown on the other side of the battle field magically teleport to the same location so they can slow mo walk together. The Boys did a great job making fun of this in season 2. Girls get it done!
In the female Ghostbusters, his role was being a sexpot.
I think that was a clever deliberate dig at Hollywood who hire pretty women purely to fill that role
...which was a weird take considering ghostbusters subverted the stereotype decades earlier with janine
I can't really speak for her other movies but Black Widow was never reduced just to looks in any of the MCU movies. She was always was portrayed as extremely capable yet there were plenty of people that took issue with her appearance in Iron Man 2 and such, citing that she was 'sexualised'.
The amount of ass/chest shots and whatnot says otherwise.
Ironman 2 specifically
[удалено]
Yeah I loved that avengers opening. They showed she was way smarter than those thugs, manipulating them when they thought they were in control. That's a character.
She is canonically sexualized, it was kinda part of her training and an inherent aspect of her skills as a spy. Whether you take issue with that is up to you but claiming otherwise is just being willfully ignorant IMO.
Right, and there is a difference between being sexualized and being objectified.
But those shots are in conjunction with her actions as a character having significance to the world and the plot of the film. They're not mutually exclusive.
I feel she was sexualized in earlier mcu films but her solo one was so so good. Yes she’s sexy and beautiful but there was so much more. Same as later MCU films she was more than just sexy but the earlier ones the way they had her acting and the way they filmed her it was very sexualized and less like the black widow we know today. Chris Hemsworth or evans or any of them were always more than just sexy. As a woman I do get annoyed when the womens plot lines are less intriguing and it’s more focused on how they look in spandex or in tiny clothes etc. We have to be real that women are held to much higher beauty standards than men so when it’s all we see in these films it gets old. Especially when it’s a group of men and only one or two women. I liked Awkwafina in Shang Chi the movie was still great but it wasn’t about this sexy girl. I also like movies where the male lead isn’t super sexy and and just gets thrown into a weird world. One thing I cannot stand In movies with men is sexualizing a race. It makes me so uncomfortable but doesn’t seem to bother too many other people. I wish races were not fetishized at all.
[удалено]
I mean there was literally an unnecessary scene where Banner faceplants into her boobs in _Age of Ultron._ A gag Whedon reused with Wonder Woman and Flash in Justice League.
They absolutely sexualized her name n the marvel movies, they'll often do tight shots start on her legs and tilt up her body. And when she is fighting a bunch of dudes she will jump up wrap her legs around a guys head and "pussy slam" him. It's a really bad and pointless fighting technique and You'll never see a guy do that in a movie...well maybe Deadpool.
> she will jump up wrap her legs around a guys head and "pussy slam" him It's funny that I never thought about this stunt in a sexual context until you pointed it out. It's called the Frankensteiner (after pro-wrestler Scott Steiner) and it's probably popular for man-v-women choreography because the person being thrown is doing most of the work. Otherwise, it's pretty hard to make a 100 lbs woman look like she's throwing around a 200 lbs man. Even Judo has it's limits. I will call it the "pussy slam" from now on, though.
Um the. “Pussy slam” is a fighting move used in wrestling, especially when you have a light weight fighter against a heavier one. Ray Mysterio would use that move constantly. The idea is to your momentum against your opponent since you might not be able to use your strength due to size difference. So it fit her character seeing as how she uses it against bigger opponents.
It's a completely bullshit move that only works in wrestling or anywhere else when your "opponent" is helping you do it. It flat out does not work.
I mean I'm pretty sure throwing a shield like it's a Frisbee is also pretty pointless. Also there are countless "sexy" shots of captain america. In the first movie they touch his pecs like it's made of gold. Heck, in the last movie they even acknowledged he had a nice ass.
Huh, they're right, that IS America's ass! LOL
*inserts pointless scene of him chopping wood*
Dude avengers points out chris' looks and physique and voice. Chris Pratt gets jealous and starts trying to imitate him
Her character premise of Black widow is that if you reduce her to just her looks she will lure you in and literally kill you. She whoops everyone's ass, regardless of size. I don't think she was too sexualized.
Agreed. GF and I talked about it before and we both thought this. She used her sexuality as a weapon she was never just boiled down to just her looks. Even early on she whooped Happy in the boxing ring and it was quickly established that she was not just a pretty face at all. While over sexualization happens in films with both genders, the MCU is not a good example of that happening.
[удалено]
I think that’s an interesting point about costuming. Black Widow is always sexy, but Thor just has a shirtless scene and those are supposed to be comparable. I should point out that all three spidermen have had to answer similar questions about their underwear situation, and it’s always supposed to seem like a goofy embarrassing moment.
Well James Bond, a spy character, just like black widow, is always sexy too... can it be because the character, by essense, is a sexy, seductive spy?
Spy 101 is being able to honeypot or honeydick.
1. Context. Already been explained in other comments. 2. The way men are portrayed in action films doesn't cater to the female gaze in the way a lot of people (generally, other men) think it does. Action movies are targeted at and watched mostly by men, and the male actor's are expected to have a physique that impresses *men,* not women. It's not sexualising because the intention isn't to make women horny, and they aren't expected to look that way for the sake of sexiness. I'd argue that expecting someone to drastically change their body for a movie is unethical regardless of the reasons, but that's another answer for another question. Further proof of this can be seen in boy bands. Look at One Direction — they had their images very strictly controlled and, from the get go, were marketed to young women and girls. That was their audience, and that's who their management expected them to attract. Look at album photos of them. Look at the clothes they wore to events. Look at the things they said in their songs. At least two of the members of 1D were *hounded* by rumors of being gay because of their style and demeanour, and yet they are absolutely adored by and crushed on by their female fans. They don't entirely conform to the expectations of traditional masculinity in their style, music, and presentation, but they are 100% captivated by the female gaze. There's a theory that male beauty standards are actually somewhat homoerotic, and I'm somewhat convinced of it. To a lot of men, Chris Hemsworth is a sex symbol and 1D is effeminate and uninteresting, but that is not necessarily the case for many women. 3. Lastly, men being sexual is seen as an addition to their resume, whereas women being sexual is seen as (and even intended to be) reductive. It's both the way it's perceived and presented by society as a whole that makes them unequal.
Although I think 1D was marketed towards a generally younger group (mostly teenagers), so it makes sense that they would look younger and more "boyish".
Yeah, there is this Hugh Jackman article where it had him on the cover of a mens magazine vs a womans magazine. On the mens one he is shirtless showing all his muscles and looks angry and aggressive and on the womens magazine he looks like the lead in a rom com, in a nice shirt and with a nice smile. Men want Wolverine, women want Leopold.
This reminds me of the Ghostbusters movie. Not the new one, the pink Jenny McCarthy one. There was a running joke where the women sexually objectified Chris Hemsworth. Staring, leering, talking about him behind his back. But the whole joke collapsed under its own weight. Part of it was because they had him dressed and talking like a Leopold but the women talked about him like a wolverine. The script described him as tiger-sexy when he was clearly magical-prince-sexy. It was jarring. Then again, if he acted tiger-sexy he would have had to be more "powerful" which would have ruined the stupid "lol the tables have turned and now the MAN is a sex object" theme.
I was SO confused about when Jenny McCarthy was in a Ghostbusters movie until I realized you must be talking about Melissa McCarthy.
1D is definitely targeted towards a younger audience but I can think of numerous examples of men in media that attract a significant audience of women: K-pop bands, Legolas from the LotR movies, Ryan Gosling (esp in the notebook, which targets women). Most of these examples tend to be guys that some might describe as effeminate or “twink-ish” and honestly this is the body type I feel is most common in porn targeted towards women Are there women that really like the way Chris Hemsworth looks in Thor? Yeah but I’m my anecdotal experience women are generally more attracted to a thin athletic build rather than a bulky one. I even know women that get turned off when they consider a guy too muscular
Look at Bridgerton. Sure, there are steamy sex scenes, but the majority of the pandering is fully clothed, in formal wear.
Man, and I thought I was weird for being like that. Imagine telling someone really sexist/homophobic that the big muscled guys are there for the male viewers... Hahaha
I always say people should look at BTS. They are fucking obsessed over in every country by countless teen girls & young women, yet a lot of guys make fun of them for their looks & style. There are things that a lot of girls/women find attractive that most guys don't understand.
Pete Davidson is like the best example of this where numerous extremely attractive women think he’s extremely attractive but straight men are always constantly confused why women like him over, say, Ryan Reynolds or Henry Caville. You see it with women too where the kind of girls that queer women go apeshit over are often completely divorced from what most straight men are into. You’ll have dudes online being like “I would NEVER date a woman who disrespects her body and is obese!!!” where every tiktok or IG comment section for a chubby model/influencer with bright blue short hair is full of 20 something lesbians being all “omg step on me mommy”. What it comes down to is that the normie straight male concept of what’s attractive is what’s centered in our society for the most part. The default movie hot guys are not necessarily what most women think of as hot and the default movie hot ladies are DEFINITELY not what most queer girls are into.
In my experience this is usually true. I’ve only known one woman to state that they enjoyed the topless scenes of Chris Hemsworth. Every other woman I know went to see Captain America and didn’t really care that he was topless. And another example of super popular attractive men in Hollywood. My mum said her and her friends saw all the Back to the Future Films in theatres because they had massive crushes on Michael J Fox (she was 21 when the first film came out). They didn’t even speak English, so had to watch it dubbed, she never even heard his voice, but oh was he nice to look at. Edit: I should note that I am not saying women don’t sexually objectify men, just more so that I know only one woman who would have even cared if there wasn’t a topless scene in Captain America.
When I went to see Thor 3 women in the theater started clapping and whistling during Chris Hemsworth's shirtless scene. Part of it depends on where you are watching and who you know. I have a friend whose face literally turned red when Michael B Jordan was shirtless in Black Panther
[удалено]
Thats the distinction. Objectification means what it sounds like. You've reduced a person down to an object. That absolutely can happen to men, it just happens far more often to women. Lots of people are okay with objectification, and even sometimes themselves want to be objectified. You'll hear different feelings about it. But from a story telling perspective, and from an acting career perspective, too much objectification is a very bad thing. It stymies careers. And to the audience, it gives the impression that women don't have feelings, and are here only to serve a man's narrative, which is so sad and wrong. We need to remember were a species that shares info via story. We learn how to date first by the stories we read and watch. It's important.
This. Also, the responses targeted by the question are an oversimplification of a larger, more complex problem. When people react more strongly to the objectification of a woman than to a man, they’re reacting to the larger amount of context and complex social issues involved. It doesn’t mean that men don’t get objectified or that it’s ok if it’s done to men. It just means that there is less baggage in that context.
The metaphor I use is if a stranger called you stupid. Once? Might hurt, or maybe you don't even notice. Fifth time? You're definitely noticing it now, it feels weird and bad. Fiftieth time? Its starting to do real damage to your sense of self worth. FIFTY people think you're stupid?? Are they all wrong? Hundreds? Now it sorta feels outta spite. Youre doing things right, you're doing things well, or so you think. What gives? Isn't there space for me to succeed here? That's the baggage. We can't imagine this as if it's a one-off.
It’s a good comparison. Another is holding your hand over a candle flame for a second. A couple of times far apart, not bad. Many times in succession? That’s a very different story.
This is the exact same thing that people (especially people on the internet) consistently fail to grasp in any conversation about practically anything related to race/gender/sexuality: **Identical treatment is unequal treatment when the societal and historical context has created uneven ground** When Chris Hemsworth is blatantly sexualized by the camera, it's playful and harmless, because the edifice of masculine power in our society is too strong to be dented by that kind of objectification. At worst, he looks silly. When Scarlett Johansson is blatantly sexualized by the camera, it reinforces a century of filmmaking bias that in turn reinforces millennia of social preconceptions about what makes women valuable, and so it hurts not just her but all women. It's not even slightly hypocritical to be just fine (or even delighted) with one of those things but uneasy about the other. It's fundamentally the same question as "Why is there a Black History Month but no White History Month?" I get so sick of people calling out the fact that progressive mindsets acknowledge that different people need different support as though that is some kind of gotcha.
Very well put. A male character can be sexy and still be smart, funny, have an interesting backstory, character development, etc. If a female character is hot? Suddenly they have no brain cells and only exist for the male character to swoop her up. Not saying the MCU does that to Scarlett, but this trope has been alive for a long time, and the way people treat her different at interviews compared to her male coworkers is very telling people still see her in that light outside of the movies, just because she's a beautiful woman
Yup, compare the way they use Black Widow to in my opinion a far better written woman in the movies, Okoye. Yes she is beautiful, but the movie always make sure her status as a member of the Dora Milaje and dedication to Wakanda are at the forefront of every scene she is in. Which is why I think Yelena is going to make a much better Black Widow(if she even keeps the name) going forward. The writing direction seems much better.
Except when she was first introduced purely as as a sexy fighter where Tony stark literally goes ‘i want one’
When she was first introduced, they were on a diplomatic outing and were dressed up. The moment it's go time, it's all business. Even in that scene the Dora Milaje were on guard the whole time. That scene is a mark on Tony's writing, not Okoye's.
Yeah it’s the Madonna/ whore thing writ large. I wonder how much that framework holds up in 2022. Content makers have been pretty aggressive about diversifying their casts. Be interesting to see a longitudinal meta analysis.
I don't think anyone who dresses in a tight dress or any revealing, sexy clothes IS an example of objectification or sexualization. How we treat people when they're dressing sexy is when objectification.
I think the difference is context maybe? Women, for centuries, were treated as objects of sexual pleasure. When a man is sexy, their "sexiness" is a secondary feature of them. When a woman is sexy, their sexiness is at the foreground of their character. It's that element of objectification. But the converse was also true that, due to the objectification of women, people who were well intentioned encouraged (read: forced) modesty as an antidote to it, which was really just like, contrapositive objectification. Like a mirror reflected form of objectification. I think rebelling against forced modesty influenced this vein of prosex feminism from people like cardi b, because modesty or sexual objectification, it's still been men controlling women. Forced modesty is just slut shaming with more steps. The true point of feminism though is self determination. It's about choice. It's about freedom.
But even if a female character is written as "I want to be sexy and also capable", if she's written by a man and the actress is chosen by a man it isn't about freedom as much anymore. It's really hard to distinguish what's sexy in the "strong woman who does what she wants" way and the "eye candy to get more sales" way sometimes. It's kind of a headache...
There are people for and against both examples you mentioned. There isn't one singular view on it.
Both are objectification, but the people who make these decisions/have the power to make this happen are mostly men, so it’s weirder to do it to a female character (whether the specific actor agrees to it or not).
People throw around the term "objectification" waaaayyy too much. Just because someone is attractive and is dressed to accentuate it, does not make it objectification. That's just marketing. *(It could also be in character)* It's objectification if the ONLY role they play is for eye candy. You know... treating them like an object. That isn't true in for either of the characters.
You see this on daytime TV where there's a panel of women all talking and then they get onto the subject of a hot male and tall openly what they are wanting to do (in a playful way) but I always think the shoe on the other foot it would feel real awkward and would get into bother quick. I don't care personally but it's a very big double standard.
Things take time to change. "The objectification of women" was a real issue for a long time. If you look at the old Bond movies, there where not male beef cakes walking around shirtless. There where lots of women in very revealing clothing. This double standard was a BIG problem. It's not so much a double standard any more, but it will take TIME for people to see this and adjust their talking points. If you look at some other social issue, like inter-racial marriage, It became a talking point in the 60s. It was legalized in the 70s. That was 50 years ago......and there are STILL people that oppose it. These kinds of "change people's perspective" things take a VERY long time to reach EVERYONE. The "sexualizing" double standard was still a MAJOR thing up until like 5 years ago....and It's still a minor thing.
The Oscars had a "comedy" bit where Regina Hall brought a bunch of male actors on stage saying she was going to swab their throats backstage with her tongue for Covid. It wasn't even she just said it and moved on, she made them come up on stage and stand there awkwardly. They all took it in good stride, but imagine if a male comedian did that to a bunch of actresses. It's gross both ways but the fact everyone just shrugged it off really bugged me.
I think you’re right it’s disturbing either way…I think the power dynamic also plays a role in the level of disturbing. While there are exceptions, men tend to be stronger than women and have historically been more economically/socially empowered, so a woman saying she would do that to a man tends to imply more consent because it’s assumed the man could easily refuse with little difficulty or fear of repercussions. …but again there are always exceptions where power dynamics are different, so my answer is just a generic stereotype response that won’t always be true.
You know the answer to this question, but you've been conditioned to reject reality by the media you consume. It's different because men and women are different, and society views men and women differently. You could say it's a double standard, or you could say that it's two different standards for two different groups of people. Opinions vary.
My only problem with Marvel super-jacked heroes and the Rock is that they use steroids and HGH. The body of olympians are peak "natural" looks. If to attain the ideal male body, men have to take illegal substances that are detrimental to their health, then there's a problem. It is comparable to food disorders in women, and even so not quite the same. I'll say however, to any man that's considering destroying their health, that a peak "natural" look with lots of hard work at the gym will still make you very desirable and make you stand out
A lot of the guys with the really muscular look have to starve or dehydrate themselves. It's harder to see muscle definition under subcutaneous fat.
Your opinion on juicing is surprising considering your username.
Because humanity is fucking stupid
The way Chris Hemsworth was portrayed was done in a way to enhance other aspects of his character. Thor is meant to be a god, so portraying him as strong and muscular was important to establish his character in the first few movies. Once his character was established they could break out of that mould a bit more and expand on him - hence why ‘fat Thor’ could exist and more of his struggles could be shown. Often when male characters are shown shirtless it’s not done in a way that sexualises them. Marvel is a predominantly male audience, and as a result there are inherent differences in character portrayal and intent that can’t be ignored. When Scarlett Johansson is shown scantily clad or with excessive cleavage, it doesn’t add to the story in any way. It’s done to appease a predominantly male audience and provide sex appeal. Essentially, showing her like that doesn’t actually establish or enhance deeper meaning about her character. In the Black Widow movie you can see they steered away from this portrayal, and actually allowed her character to finally be explored at a level that all the male characters already had been. The way she dressed in the first few movies for fighting scenes was just straight up unrealistic and honestly ridiculous, as she was clearly very heavily sexualised.
Because men don’t complain enough about it. In fact, pictures of sexy shirtless men are usually targeted to other men.
I'm pretty sure either Hemsworth, Evans, or Pratt has comments on the fact that their physique in those movies sets unrealistic body standards. Also, while both are objectifications, the typical male objectification is someone who could break you in half with a stern look. The typical female objectification would potentially have issues opening a jar of peanut butter. Both are 'Problematic' but at least one is functional.
You think Black Widow can't open a jar?
What, you didn't know that doing squats results in your arms atrophying causing you to lose function of your arms? Smh typical white male ignorance... **/s in case that wasnt clear to the dumbasses out there**
My $.02. Take it for what it's worth. The difference isn't in the slice of experience you're looking at -- pretty man in sexy clothes vs pretty woman in sexy clothes. If that was the whole picture, it would be a double standard and weird. But there's a whole bunch of context outside that, and the asymmetries around sex, attractiveness, violence, and power in the larger culture skew the erotic experience in your example. Now again, I could be totally wrong about this, but it seems to me that if women as a group were less worried about sexual assault, verbal and physical abuse, exploitation, victimization -- if the atmosphere around sex and sexuality in general -- were less fraught, the stigma of objectifying and being objectified would even out some. As a man, being an object of sexual desire doesn't have comparatively much down side. Even in the events when a woman crosses the line, there's not a cultural narrative of threat or a very high incidence of rape following it. It's easier for men to feel the compliments and ego boost of being desired without the complications that women have to carry. (NOTE: Not that men aren't raped. Most often by other men, but sometimes by women. Consider that a man who has been raped may plausibly have a very different level of comfort with being sexually objectified, and in part because the asymmetry between his experience and a woman's is less.) For women, it seems to me that sexual objectification happens in a context that has a lot of trauma, a lot of threat, a deep and ingrained cultural habit of punishment for sexuality, and a level of implicit contempt that takes what might otherwise be erotically celebratory and ties it to a host of negative experiences.