Why it’s OK to objectify men, but not women
It’s easy to roll our eyes at the gripes of “underpaid” Hollywood stars who still rake in millions and live luxury-filled lives, but these film industry stats closely resemble reallife stats when it comes to women receiving equal pay, promotions to management roles and prime job opportunities after a certain age.
A study by the Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film reported that women in movies from last year were three times more likely than men to be shown in sexually revealing clothing or nude. Depressingly, only 32 per cent of speaking roles in film are given to women.
Can male objectification be annoying? Certainly. Can it be unwanted? Yes. However, a comment on a male’s good looks remains just that: a comment.
Objectifying women results in an entire binder full of consequences: unequal pay, unequal screen time ( it’s still rare to find a singular female lead or female-dominated cast), sexual harassment and rape culture, the much- referenced glass ceiling and females being valued more for what they wear on the red carpet than why they’re there.
The state of affairs in Hollywood has certainly improved since the mid-20th century when women all but signed their careers and bodies away to film studios that demanded they never leave the house without makeup and plied them with amphetamines to keep them smiling, singing and dancing for hours on end. But there’s a long way to go.
Young starlets are still expected to maintain a facade of virginity, yet simultaneously strip down on screen to “make it.” It’s no less common to watch young female celebrities – Lindsay Lohan, Amanda Bynes, Sel- ena Gomez, Demi Lovato – check in and out of rehab than it was to watch stars like Debbie Reynolds, Judy Garland and Marilyn Monroe struggle with addiction and mental illness.
The fact that women can even be accused of objectifying men is actually a huge step forward. Until recently, the female sex drive was forcibly shrouded. Women couldn’t openly express desire or attraction without being shamed. They – ironically – were expected to be sexual objects without any inkling of sexuality (unless, of course, given permis- sion by men).
Many men still feel the need to control women’s sexuality because it frightens them. This isn’t a statement about the character of individual men as much as it is a result of centuries of fear- mongering that dates as far back as depictions of Eve and Jezebel in the Bible. It’s been taught over and over again that female sexuality is manipulative and dangerous.
As it becomes less okay to objectify women and more normalized to sexualize men, males often feel an impending sense of doom. Something like Buzzfeed’s compilation of “39 guys who’ll make you pregnant without even touching you” becomes a symbol of a feminist conspiracy to take over the world.
The development of females being able to openly talk about sex without judgment, not only in the public sphere, but even among close friends, is only a recent one. It was encouraged by the resurgence of feminism and the rise of media geared towards women.
Candid female- oriented media outlets like Jezebel and Broadly discuss formerly taboo topics, while series like Girls have exhibited realistic depictions of female sexuality. A new wave of outspoken comedians such as Amy Schumer, Chelsea Handler and Sarah Silverman have also brought female wants, needs and desires into the public sphere via comedic sets that seem less threatening when paired with a laugh track.
It’s telling that female sexuality is still so often obscured by comedy. Sitcoms and films deemed palatable for mass consumption that address the subject are rarely art house pieces or dramas. Rather, films like Trainwreck and Bridesmaids prevail. Even so-called objectification online takes the form of cutesy memes, like the Ryan Gosling “Hey Girl” meme, and tongue-and-cheek Tumblr posts like “the six stages of becoming a Cumberbitch” and “hot guys holding BB-8.”
It’s indicative of a woman’s current status in the entertainment industry. It’s one in which they are still nervously testing the waters of expressing sexuality, shrouding their lust in the plausible deniability of humour. If they’re criticized or shamed, they can always say they were “just joking.”
Even the sudden rise of male objectification in advertising – commercials featuring shirtless studs in everything from cologne ads to national campaigns for Kraft’s Zesty Italian salad dressing – are presented in a kitschy manner that mocks itself.
These portrayals don’t validate women’s sexual desire, as much as turn it into a joke. In the public sphere, a woman lusting over a man still seems like an odd, fish- out- ofwater scenario.
Despite all the navel- gazing of male celebrities, women’s sexuality isn’t taken seriously, and that’s why male objectification isn’t as much of a threat. Men simply don’t share the same historical struggles or risks that women do when it comes to being objectified.
Male objectification isn’t threatening because men don’t suffer from a severe power imbalance that puts them at risk economically, socially and physically.
Appreciating a man’s “smokin’ bod” doesn’t harm him in any way. In fact, it can actually serve the purpose of liberating women and their libidos.
The l ong history of the male gaze and men’s freedom to sexualize women without repercussions makes “doing the right thing” more complicated than simply applying the same rules to everyone. Men and women have such vastly different historical experiences with objectification that equality can’t be achieved by treating everyone equally.
While men catcalling women on the street further distorts the gender imbalance, women sexualizing men actually evens the gender playing field.
And so until gender politics change radically, I say bring on the shirtless men!
THE HISTORY OF THE MALE GAZE MAKES DOING ‘ THE RIGHT THING’ MORE COMPLICATED