It disturbs me that men think any kind of image that plays to sexuality is default objectifying. Like, I’ve seen men, feminists, laugh off the appearance of Chris Hemsworth in the Ghostbusters trailer as objectifying - even as something they think it would be positive to find wasn’t actually in the movie. Something the makers put in just to make meninists mad. O_o
I’ve been thinking about that and trying to put into words exactly how many levels of fucked up are going on in that sentiment. And it’s hard because these are men who mean well and are trying to understand about objectification, but…
Liiiiiiiike, yes, it’s eye-candy. It’s honest-to-god eye-candy that plays to the (heterosexual/boy-liking) female gaze, and we are starved of that, but let’s be real: that is a fully clothed man shot from the waist-up engaged in agentful action, dressed and behaving in a way that reflects character and characteristics that do not revolve around women or attraction. THAT IS NOT OBJECTIFICATION.
It’s like a strawman understanding of feminist analysis of the objectification of women in film. Objecting to sexual objectification is not about saying you can have nothing sexy in your film. Suggesting otherwise plays into the myth that women’s sexual drives are less than mens, and that men want theirs to be pandered to more because their drives are more demanding upon them and they can’t ‘help’ themselves.
I mean, are you kidding me? Are men so used to the objectification of women that the above seems objectifying in comparison to, say, even one of the least objectified female action heroes of our time, Black Widow?
Objectification is when your introductory scene in the film is ostensibly about your skill as an interogator, but you’re scantilly clad and shots that are supposed to demonstrate your intelligence are actually framed to focus on your breasts:
And even your fight moves are filmed to focus on your breasts:
And even when you get to be the cool person who doesn’t look back at explosions, you have to stand in a sexual, rather than action pose, and your face remains serenly calm, because women aren’t allowed to express anything that might prevent them looking pretty even in the middle of a fight (and this is something your supposedly feminist director has actually said to you):
And you’re the only one in a team of heroes whose costume is actually skin-tight and unzipped to show your cleavage.
And this is a character widely praised as being much less objectified than women usually are in action films.
Don’t tell me Chris Hemsworth is being objectified in Ghostbusters - HE IS NOT. He’s a good looking man, for whom part of his role in this film is eye-candy. The only thing that’s new is that he’s not in a dominance role - he’s not the leading man, he doesn’t lead the team, he supports them. Do men seriously think that just not being in charge means they’re being objectified?
Don’t tell me this is objectification. And seriously don’t tell me you think it would be a laugh if these shots weren’t even in the film because, lol, it’s just some kind of joke to get misogynists riled up. Fuck you. That’s my ever-so-rare eye-candy. Hands off. I don’t get to see this very often.
gummygunk
snowghoul
titsay
s-u-f-j-a-n-s-t-e-v-e-n-s
izzy806
kianamaiart
