This is a comment by Geeky Gentleman on the post “Open Thread: Can Men Be Objectified?“
“Men can and are objectified like women are (both sexually and culturally). It just isn’t discussed as much in male culture due to male social and gender norms. Just like you can see the objectification of women in male oriented media (i.e. action movies, porn, etc.), you can also see this same kind of thing in female oriented media (dramas, romance novels, etc.). The main difference between how men and women objectify is that men objectify primarily on a visual basis, and women objectify primarily on an emotional basis.
“I am fairly omnivorous when comes to my consumption of media and especially so when it comes to movies and television shows I have seen nearly everything. And there are several different archetypes I have encountered in female oriented media that are the male equivalent to the damsel, mother, and seductress archetypes. The kind of one characters that are groan inducing and sometimes rather offensive.
“The names for these archetypes vary depending on the media, but for this posting I will use the ones listed below:
- The Wounded Lion – This the type of character that is usually ‘broken’ in some way. His wife/child died (usually tragically), he has emotional/psychological scarring from an event/person in his past, or some other form of dysfunction that causes him to lash out at the heroine because they trigger memories of the trauma for some reason. Only through the help of the heroine can he be “fixed”. Never mind that in real life these kind of men need to get psychological counseling and treatment, not to be enabled into a codependent relationship that could eventually become abusive.
- The Scoundrel – The classic ‘bad boy’ character that is either physically handsome or charismatic/charming. The kind of character that tends to either fluster or infuriate the heroine with their manchild antics, or borderline dangerous behavior. By falling in love with the heroine she can change them into a more mature and/or honest man. In real life however these men are usually emotionally manipulative and/or physically abusive. The real and deep personality changes needed to reform the”knuckle-dragging man-ape” in him usually takes several years to take place rather than a few weeks or months commonly portrayed in the movies.
- The Gentleman – Also known as the ‘knight in shining armor’ is always polite, even tempered, and knows exactly what to say. He always seems to know what the heroine needs, and seems damn near psychic in knowing when to swoop in and protect the heroine from a malefactor, protect her from a financial hardship, or be the only person to be nice to heroine and treat her with respect when everyone around her marginalizes or cuts her down because of her race/class/profession.
“In real life this usually very rare since the changing social and gender norms of our culture (something that I personally feel is needful) make it difficult to be a ‘gentleman’ without being accused of being being patronizing or labeled as a male chauvinist. Not to mention that to be able to ‘ride in and save the damsel’ more than once or twice would require a level of providence that beggars belief, or a level of attention to the heroines daily life that is obsessive to the point of being stalkerish.
“The reasons why men don’t complain about these kind of portrayals of our gender vary, but the major reasons are that:
- As men we are socialized around the values of strength and stoicism. Expressing feelings (in this case about portrayals of gender) in a forum to does not explicit ask or make okay that expression tends to be considered whining and gives the impression of weakness.
- Given our culture’s history of double standards regarding gender expectations and gender inequality in general; it is difficult to complain about male objectification without be accused of trying to defend “male privilege”.
- And in all honesty, turnabout is fair play. If we as men want to keep our Marilyn Monroes and Angelina Jolie’s, it is only fair that women get to have their Brad Pitts and Denzel Washingtons.
“In the interest of full disclosure, as a Caucasian suburbanite man in my early thirties I have as much social justification to complain about the objectification of men in ‘chick flicks/shows’, as I do about portrayal of white people in black cinema as dweebish dorks who dance like they are having a seizure. Namely, it is a media that is NOT aimed at me as viewing demographic, doesn’t address issues that are specific to my gender, and uses shared cultural experiences (both good and bad) that because of my gender I will never have experienced.”
More Comments of the Day
Photo credit: Flickr / AleBonvini
I’d like to had a 4th stereo type. It’s the most prominent one in prime time media and is portrayed by every bumbling husband in sit com land: The idiot husband. He can do nothing to satisfy home, spouse or family with out failing at some level and can only be redeemed by the forbearance of said spouse. I think this might be an example of negative objectification as Gentleman Geek describes it.
Yeah I see that one a lot especially in ads – the useless husband that is saved by the spouse and [insert product].
Jennifer, I hear what you are saying but I think the term “objectify” is behind used in the technical sense here. When we speak sociologically or psychologically of objectifying someone we are speaking of wanting them or seeing them for something less than the sum of what they actually are. It can be intellect, emotion or physical characteristic. The point is that in society we seek out our idea of perfection of one of those things and those things, rather than the person, become the “object” we reach for.
I’m sorry, but objectifying someone is turning them into an object. Objects don’t have emotions. Therefore, while women may objectify men, it is impossible to objectify someone on an emotional basis.
Your confusing who’s emotions. It’s not that women objectify men’s emotions, it is that women objectify men, through how they feel about men/the man/the object, not just how men look (emotional vs visual). just because my grandfathers watch doesn’t have emotions, doesn’t mean it doesn’t stir emotions within me. I haven’t read shades of grey, but I suspect there is an awful lot of male objectification in those pages, even without the visuals of pictures.
If you really want to get technical, Gentleman Geek’s examples are not so much “objectifying” as “typifying.” But the effect is the same – reducing the complex nature of an individual to pre-established, rigid, repeatable, valueless non-person.
It’s what the mind does … objectify. When I pick up a copy of ‘Men’s Health’ and look at the guy on the cover I’m not musing over his potential emotional depth or possible intellect, I’m checking out his guns! I don’t think anything of ‘cover guy’ except “hey those are some awesome bicepts”. It’s not so much as a reduction in that it’s the only facet of ‘cover guy’ that I can perceive. He might be smart and whatever but all I can see is that he has big muscles. We make judgements based on the information we have.
@KKZ: Bravo, well said.
I wonder, is it objectification to always hear “Women have it worse”, do we reduce men to nothing more than “people who are luckiler than woman” , an object of sort.
Sometimes yes that is just it. Kind of like the who “I complained about having no shoes until I men someone with no feet.” Taken way too far. Whether it’s true or not that “women have it worse” has nothing to do with how bad guys have it. But sure enough that is how guys get shut out when they try to speak up. Even they aren’t trying to claim they have it worse than women that is the first accusation they reach for. And that’s what we get reduced to. It doesn’t matter how our lives really are, just… Read more »
Hey, thanks John :-D. Interesting point you make too! It might be a stretch of the definition of objectification, but I definitely see what you’re getting at. And it’s a double-edged sword – pegging men as “those who have it better than women” and pegging women as “those who don’t (will never?) have it as good as men.”
In any case, oppression/discrimination/objectification is not really something that can be measured or quantified, so arguing who has it better or worse is moot anyway.
I think there are two kinds of objectification – objectifying a person for being incredibly physically attractive (in a conventional sense), and objectifying a person for being decidedly unattractive. The latter bothers me more than the former, and both sexes are guilty of it. Examples, from things I’ve witnessed… A group of young men reacting to an “ugly” woman with comments like “Take it away, it burns my eyes!” PeopleofWalmart.com A woman receiving flirtatious attention from an “ugly” man and labeling him a creeper. The whole “No Fat Chicks” thing that pops up in various mediums A close friend of… Read more »
Objectification is normal and neutral. It’s what leads to sex and relationships. No one knows their partners before they have sex with them for the first time, or even after many times. And you know what’s really sexist? Claiming that women don’t do it. Being unable to develop a relationship because you can’t see beyond what initially attracted you to someone, well, that’s a character flaw and a problem, and something else entirely. It may or may not have something to do with gender roles, or sexism. KKZ, what you’re describing in the second instance is really people just being… Read more »
Objectification is not neutral. Physical attraction is neutral. There is a difference.
What’s the difference?
There’s no such thing as purely physical attraction. We’re not amoebas.
The main problem with this comment is not even that stereotyping is not the same thing as objectifying but rather that Geeky Gentleman is blind to the ways that men are objectified for their bodies every day, all day by women and by other men. Action films objectify men, or haven’t you seen Top Gun or Casino Royale? Here’s a list off the top of my head of very prominent cultural artifacts that objectify men in precisely the same physical, visual ways that women are objectified. Tyler Lautner’s torso. David Beckham’s package and butt in undies commercials during Super Bowl… Read more »