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 this comment's parent
← View full post
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.