PIN UP & SHUT UP

WHY IT’S DE RIGUEUR TO OBJECTIFY MALE STARS, BUT TRÈS GAUCHE TO GAZE AT THEIR FEMALE EQUIVALENTS. AN ESSAY BY SABRINA MADDEAUX,

It’s not easy being a hot piece of beautiful man these days.

While you may rather be known for your business prowess, theatrical artistry or philanthropic spirit, women – being the animalistic, sex- crazed creatures they are – just can’t help but stare at your abs and swoon over your lush mane of pretty boy hair.

Take poor Ryan Gosling, for instance. The actor will forever be haunted by viral photos of his chiseled six pack. And then there’s Channing Tatum. The Magic Mike star may never recover from the degradation he experienced playing a droolworthy stripper in not just one, but two films.

Game of Thrones heartthrob Kit Harington knows the pain. In a recent interview with Page Six he declared that enough was enough: “To always be put on a pedestal as a hunk is slightly demeaning,” he complained. “It’s not just men that can be inappropriate sexually; women can as well. I’m in a successful TV show in a kind of leading-man way, and it can sometimes feel like your art is being put to one side for your sex appeal. And I don’t like that.”

We feel your pain, Kit. We feel your pain.

Actors are increasingly expected to pose topless, get ripped in the gym to secure much- coveted superhero roles and stand idly by while women ruthlessly compile Tumblr accounts documenting the bulge in their pants. After photos of Jon Hamm walking around Manhattan in tight slacks were gawked at online, the renowned keeper of the bulge responded to the attention his package garnered by saying, “I’m wearing pants, for f--k’s sake. Lay off.”

All the while, female objectification has become increasingly taboo. Don’t you dare comment on Jennifer Lawrence’s appearance or her wardrobe or even her posture unless you want to face the wrath of social media.

This, of course, has enraged large portions of the privileged white dude population, who ask why it is that they can’t freely catcall women or loudly appreciate the curves of whomever they please, while women are seemingly allowed to indulge in the same behaviour as much as they want.

The objectification of male stars is so severe that TIME Magazine used all of its creative energy to coin a term for it: Man-jectification (well done, TIME).

For many, it seems like a terribly sexist double standard. Yet, objectification is a time- honoured Hollywood tradition that has affected both men and women over the years. Film is a visual medium, after all. The emphasis on strikingly good- looking stars dates back to the 1920s, when matinée idols such as Harold Lockwood and Wallace Reid were adored for their handsome looks. Matinée idols were almost exclusively male, and usually played romantic leading roles.

Picture-Play Magazine once wrote of Reid: “The only reason why they don’t let Wally play in dress- suit roles all the time is that the casualties among the ladies would soon empty the picture houses. In fact, we feel that we’re toying with the fan hearts even to print this picture.”

Today, the difference is the history. Male actors have traditionally never been confined to just playing silly romantic leads. Their good looks have never stopped them from making boatloads of money, dominating the dialogue or being the first boldface name on a promotional poster. They haven’t lived in fear of sexual harassment or, worse, rape.

Since the days of matinée idols, the entertainment industry has largely been held hostage by the male gaze. The term, coined by feminist film critic Laura Mulvey in 1975, refers to how women in film and television are often depicted from a masculine point of view.

Ever notice a camera pan slowly over a woman’s body? Or a female suddenly naked on screen for no apparent reason in relation to the plot? You’ve witnessed an example of the male gaze, in which men hold the power and privilege of looking while women are powerless objects who should consider themselves fortunate for being appreciated.

This phenomenon doesn’t just exist on screen; it translates into everyday life. A Princeton study found that showing men pictures of sexualized, scantily- clad women evokes less activity in areas of the brain responsible for recognizing and analyzing another person’s thoughts, feeling and emotions. Instead, the area of men’s brains re- sponsible for handling tools lights up. Showing subjects photos of fully clothed women doesn’t elicit the same reaction.

Other studies found that men see women as less likeable and intelligent when presented with photos of only their bodies rather than faces. Training men to focus on women’s sexual characteristics via the male gaze trains them to focus less on women’s human traits. The result: when women become valued only for their looks, they’re perceived as pieces of property that men can own and define on their own terms.

The reason why there’s no equivalent to the “male gaze” – even while women sexualize men – is that men haven’t been subjected to the sexual harassment, pay disparity and mental anguish over coerced sexualization followed by cold rejection after a certain age that women have over the years. Tweeting a meme of shirtless Ryan Gosling doesn’t affect his pay grade, ability to take on serious roles or define him solely by how much women would like to sleep with him. He’ll still work after his hair turns grey – excuse me, silver – and his skin sags.

Meanwhile, actors like Jennifer Lawrence, Amy Adams and Gillian Anderson are offered less money than their male co- stars, regardless of screen time or “star power,” because they’re women in a genderbiased system. A 2014 study published in the Journal of Management Inquiry concluded that pay for female movie stars increases until they reach 34, then rapidly decreases ( as does the number of roles for women of a certain age). The top- earning year for men is 51, and there is no noticeable decline in wages after that.

FOR MANY, MALE OBJECTIFICATION IS A TERRIBLY SEXIST DOUBLE STANDARD