• ruckblack@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Oh yes, Thor is oiled up and shirtless while Natalie Portman ogles him for the entire first movie because… It looks powerful? It represents his stoicism? Definitely not a sexual objectification thing, oh no sir

    • DudePluto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Tbf you can be ogled and not objectified. The difference is that Thor absolutely is portrayed as a complex character with his own agency, or subjectivity. The whole movie is about him learning to step out of the role of warmonger and into a more mature, nurturing role of a king. That gives him a lot of subjectivity - the opposite of objectivity

      Edit: So to clarify, yes Thor is part of a series of unrealistic body standards for men. But he’s not objectified

      In social philosophy, objectification is the act of treating a person as an object or a thing. It is part of dehumanization, the act of disavowing the humanity of others. Sexual objectification, the act of treating a person as a mere object of sexual desire, is a subset of objectification,

      Emphasis mine. Where in “Thor” is Thor dehumanized? Do the creators of the movie dehumanize him? No, if anything he exhibits more humanity as the movie goes on. Does Jane Foster dehumanize him? No, she’s clearly sexually attracted to him and some scenes do focus on his body, but that’s not enough to dehumanize someone. He is not a “mere object of sexual desire” because those scenes exist amid an entire movie that treats Thor with respect as a character, including Jane who gets to know him and love him. The only character who dehumanizes him could be Loki but he’s clearly portrayed as being wrong

      • anonono@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Tbf you can be ogled and not objectified

        I gotta get me some of that copium, looks like the good stuff.

        • DudePluto@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Or, like, learn what objectification actually means (and “cope” for that matter, what am I coping about? I’m just having an internet discussion)

      • Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The difference is that Thor absolutely is portrayed as a complex character with his own agency, or subjectivity.

        So is Black Widow, but she is 100% leathered up sex symbol too and no one questions that.

        • DudePluto@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sex symbol =/= objectified. There’s nothing wrong with being a sexy character. Sexual objectification is the reduction of a person or character to nothing but sex. Or, if you want a more accurate definition, you can look at Wikipedia’s definition which I gave somewhere else

      • Tedesche@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Tbf you can be ogled and not objectified. The difference is that Thor absolutely is portrayed as a complex character with his own agency, or subjectivity.

        By that definition, no female main character of a film ever has been objectified.

        • people_are_cute@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think what the commenter is trying to say is that male characters tend to have more to their overall presence in movies than just their body since they are generally the protagonists, but female characters are often only there to show their bodies and have very little character depth in comparison.

          Though, granted, that commenter probably has horrible taste in movies if this observation is so starkly visible to them.

        • DudePluto@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          No there are plenty of female characters who are portrayed as two-dimensional sex objects, just like there are male characters who are portrayed the same. But Thor is not one of them. And the existence of sex appeal around a character =/= objectification

          • Tedesche@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            No there are plenty of female characters who are portrayed as two-dimensional sex objects

            But none of them were their film’s main characters, right? I mean, by definition if the character has agency and complexity to them, they’re not being objectified, and basically every main character has some degree of agency and complexity. Can you give me an example of a female film lead who is objectified by the definition you’ve provided here?

            • DudePluto@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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

              • Tedesche@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • Imotali@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • Tedesche@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.

                • DudePluto@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  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

                  • Tedesche@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I don’t disagree with the definition you quoted, I disagree with how you’ve applied it. As I said in my first comment:

                    Tbf you can be ogled and not objectified. The difference is that Thor absolutely is portrayed as a complex character with his own agency, or subjectivity.

                    By that definition, no female main character of a film ever has been objectified.

                    Having agency is not mutually exclusive with being dehumanized, sexualized, objectified, etc. The fact that Thor is shown in a great light throughout much of his films doesn’t change the fact that he is regularly sexually objectified as well. Wonder Woman was objectified from the start, but that didn’t stop her from also kicking ass. Lara Croft, Charlie’s Angels, Sailor Moon. If you’re going to claim that having agency means a character can’t be objectified, you have to deny that all of those female protagonists were objectified. That’s not in line with my understanding of both that quote you cited and the way I’ve seen the term used throughout my life. I think your emphasis on the word “mere” in the definition you quoted is misplaced. I don’t think the quote’s author meant it as literally as you seem to be taking it.

              • Tedesche@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

      • ruckblack@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh I’m sorry, did I make you feel accountable for something? Nowhere did I blame women in my post. Go take the projection elsewhere.