It's not sexist. There is a double standards in the lack of outrage though. If this was a female stripper movie there would be no doubt a backlash from certain groups, like they are doing with other forms of entertainment but they aren't doing so when it happens to males, so that is the only sexism I would see from this, the lack of outrage.
That said, I don't think anything like this deserves outrage. Strippers exist, male and female. It's retarded when people scream objectification of women doing something like stripping and it's retarded when people say the same when it happens to men.
Some people will say "Objectification" but what's annoying is that most people using that damn phrase don't seem to even understand what it means. The men and women in these movies CHOOSE to act in those roles. No, representing one aspect of yourself alone is not objectification, such as physical attraction. If it's objectification to be a performer then the mere idea of acting is objectification, and so on and so forth.
So overall, no. It's not sexist when women are in such movies and it's not sexism when men are in such movies. The only sexism that could perhaps be seen is the outrage over women being treated in such a way met with the lack of outrage of men being treated in that way.
The men in this movie are in control an the movie focuses on them as usual. That's why this movie is not sexist or objectifying and other movies about females are.
How are female performers not "in control" when they are stripping? Just because it doesn't elaborate on it doesn't mean that they're forced in to it and the standard would be that they chose to be in that position, same goes for the actors choosing that role.
Are you saying objects can't be focused on when you say the movie focuses on them as a point to say it isn't objectification?
The difference is that this movie explores the men in this life style, as some movies have done to female strippers. By this logic if a scene takes place in a cinema in a movie then the actors in the movie they watch are being objectified, or that if there are builders that are building then they are being objectified if they're not given a back story.
Also, how is it that when the movie is about male strippers it's not sexism but when you say "and other movies about females are", you are implying when the movie is about the female strippers, like the male strippers in movies, that it's sexism? That in itself is showing you're holding a double standard here purely on sex, which would imply your view here is sexist...
I'm talking about the characters. I mean in cases where women are in these positions to be objectified, as in their role in the movie is not central or needed. Which is why Magic Mike is okay, then men are the main focus, they are actual characters, not just something to look at. They are being taken seriously as the human beings they are.
Plus the question on whether or not something is sexist doesn't just pertain to the characters in the material, it also depends on who made it and who they made it for. You should research this issues further.
But that's the case with every background character or group of characters, to just be something to look at, as I said with my builders example.
How does it depend on who it is made for and who it isn't? Let's say that material is made for men and it has women in the background of a scene stripping. I assume you would view that as sexism, but why is that sexism? Being attracted to the opposite sex wouldn't be sexism and showing "some" of the opposite in a certain aspect (physical attraction) does not make it objectification, it's just showing a single aspect of them.
This is why I say that most people that like using the term, "objectification" don't seem to understand what it means. They seem to think that showing a woman in a sexual position makes her objectified rather than the woman being viewed as a "person" in a sexual position. Single aspects/traits of people that are signled out for entertainment or some other purpose is not implying that it's the only thing that person has or is good for.
I've been talking about these issues for a long time. I don't appreciate the condescension within that last statement, especially given that you seem to have avoided some of my main points I made and then made such a comment to imply I don't know what I'm talking about.
Is Magic Mike sexist towards men?
← View full post
It's not sexist. There is a double standards in the lack of outrage though. If this was a female stripper movie there would be no doubt a backlash from certain groups, like they are doing with other forms of entertainment but they aren't doing so when it happens to males, so that is the only sexism I would see from this, the lack of outrage.
That said, I don't think anything like this deserves outrage. Strippers exist, male and female. It's retarded when people scream objectification of women doing something like stripping and it's retarded when people say the same when it happens to men.
Some people will say "Objectification" but what's annoying is that most people using that damn phrase don't seem to even understand what it means. The men and women in these movies CHOOSE to act in those roles. No, representing one aspect of yourself alone is not objectification, such as physical attraction. If it's objectification to be a performer then the mere idea of acting is objectification, and so on and so forth.
So overall, no. It's not sexist when women are in such movies and it's not sexism when men are in such movies. The only sexism that could perhaps be seen is the outrage over women being treated in such a way met with the lack of outrage of men being treated in that way.
--
deshikd
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
The men in this movie are in control an the movie focuses on them as usual. That's why this movie is not sexist or objectifying and other movies about females are.
--
[Old Memory]
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
How are female performers not "in control" when they are stripping? Just because it doesn't elaborate on it doesn't mean that they're forced in to it and the standard would be that they chose to be in that position, same goes for the actors choosing that role.
Are you saying objects can't be focused on when you say the movie focuses on them as a point to say it isn't objectification?
The difference is that this movie explores the men in this life style, as some movies have done to female strippers. By this logic if a scene takes place in a cinema in a movie then the actors in the movie they watch are being objectified, or that if there are builders that are building then they are being objectified if they're not given a back story.
Also, how is it that when the movie is about male strippers it's not sexism but when you say "and other movies about females are", you are implying when the movie is about the female strippers, like the male strippers in movies, that it's sexism? That in itself is showing you're holding a double standard here purely on sex, which would imply your view here is sexist...
--
deshikd
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I'm talking about the characters. I mean in cases where women are in these positions to be objectified, as in their role in the movie is not central or needed. Which is why Magic Mike is okay, then men are the main focus, they are actual characters, not just something to look at. They are being taken seriously as the human beings they are.
Plus the question on whether or not something is sexist doesn't just pertain to the characters in the material, it also depends on who made it and who they made it for. You should research this issues further.
--
[Old Memory]
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
But that's the case with every background character or group of characters, to just be something to look at, as I said with my builders example.
How does it depend on who it is made for and who it isn't? Let's say that material is made for men and it has women in the background of a scene stripping. I assume you would view that as sexism, but why is that sexism? Being attracted to the opposite sex wouldn't be sexism and showing "some" of the opposite in a certain aspect (physical attraction) does not make it objectification, it's just showing a single aspect of them.
This is why I say that most people that like using the term, "objectification" don't seem to understand what it means. They seem to think that showing a woman in a sexual position makes her objectified rather than the woman being viewed as a "person" in a sexual position. Single aspects/traits of people that are signled out for entertainment or some other purpose is not implying that it's the only thing that person has or is good for.
I've been talking about these issues for a long time. I don't appreciate the condescension within that last statement, especially given that you seem to have avoided some of my main points I made and then made such a comment to imply I don't know what I'm talking about.