On Objectification Of Genders and Gender Fantasies

Just read an interesting comment below this article. One of the commenters states that male objectification is inherently different from female objectification. To paraphrase it into my own words, female objectification is all about taking everything that guys perceive as "feminine" (tits and ass, flexibility, beauty, etc.) and ramping it Up To Eleven, male objectification (as demonstrated by things like Twilight, The Sims and general fanfiction) is about underplaying things that are associated with "manliness", such as aggressiveness, toughness rather than beauty, troubled and brooding attitude rather than self-assuredness and machismo to the point that the character practically becomes "male in name only". (Again, still paraphrasing.)

I can kinda see where he (I'm assuming the commenter is male) is coming from, but there's more to it than that. Objectified men are almost always portrayed as the equivalent of children—creatures that can't help themselves, god bless 'em, and need a centralized woman figure to keep them honest while also having a powerful set of arms and chest to comfort her whenever she needs it.

Anyway, rather than the typical "Down with all objectification" rallying cry, this got me to thinking: what's a good way to reconcile what the two genders tend to like? For example, most genders tend to agree on Devil May Cry, because Dante is awesome even though he's pretty and buffoonish. Men like him because they want to be him and women like him because he's cute and confident and they get to be awesome through him. Also, the games are good, so it has that going in its favor. DMC is also filled with stripperiffic women, though—from Trish to Lady to Nevan, but women tend to be willing to tolerate it. Granted, DMC is very male-centric, but the important thing is that girls don't seem to hate it.

For an inverted example, how about the guys who like Sailor Moon? I've never watched it seriously, so I'm not sure if Tuxedo Mask is similar to the male archetype I mentioned above. If that doesn't work, though, then what about the male fanbase for Rose Of Versailles or Chobits?

EDIT: For the record, we're also assuming that the "quality" of the work is not in question, so please don't use objectification as an indicator of quality. Soul Calibur, for example, is a quality fighting game series, but has serious issues with objectifying its female characters. So, whether works themselves good or not is not being brought up.

edited 23rd Jun '12 11:21:00 AM by KingZeal

Considering that you seem to be arguing that's not the case, I have a feeling that warning won't be much good.

Because men and women fantasize about different things based on their socialization and such?

As to how you can "reconcile" them, or perhaps simply play to both male and female fantasies, Bioware seems to be reasonably good at that (even though their games generally tilt more towards the satisfaction of male fantasies than female fantasies), if I'm understanding the question correctly.

Though I would argue that there's a difference between fantasy and objectification. A well-written character that acts like a real person, has an independent personality, and has proper, logical flaws and happens to be physically and emotionally attractive is a fantasy. A flat character that exists, or has the primary function, to be physically (though not generally emotionally) attractive is objectification. Objectification is, as I understand it, about taking away the agency of people. Making them objects, as it were, rather than people. Merely finding someone to be attractive isn't objectifying them, if you still recognize that they are individuals with their own wants, needs, desires, and motivations, and not simple toys for your enjoyment.

This is rather hard for fiction as compared to reality though, since characters, in a sense, are toys for our enjoyment, in the sense that they generally aren't real people and are instead fabrications of the imagination. Thus, it requires a lot of work to create a character that has independent motivations and personality, and thus many authors simply give up and take the low road of having lots of side characters (and, often, main characters) around solely to look pretty in between occasionally doing something plot-important.

edited 23rd Jun '12 1:44:27 PM by DerelictVessel

Exactly this. To use an example I'm familiar with, there's Wonder Woman. This is a character which is meant to be a figurehead of feminism in a "man's world", but the male-dominated industry that controls her can't help but use her as tools for their amusement. In fact, this argument can be made for any female superheroine, including Catwoman, Supergirl, Power Girl, and She Hulk. Comics are notorious for being difficult for women to get into, due in part by the nonsensical sexism that pervades them. Yet, at the same time, the characters I mentioned still retain female fans. These fans are, typically, willing to tolerate the Strippeific costumes and ridiculous body proportions so long as the character is interesting. But, there comes a line where you're just asking too much. Like this atrocity.◊

Likewise, guys are willing to deal with a pretty-boy character or an angsting, brooding man-child to a degree. But abandon the character en masse when they show no good sense, such as the men in Twilight or Raiden in Metal Gear Solid 2.

I'm hoping to keep the topic focused on ways gender fantasies can be done correctly, rather than just harp on the ways it goes wrong.

I'll respect your request to avoid a derail, but I think you're missing the point of why one could happen: what people will question is whether gender fantasies should be done in the first place, not how they go wrong.

I understand, but I'm hoping we can stay somewhat on-topic. Not only is the question of if gender fantasies should be used irrelevant (because they will be regardless) but it's dismissing the idea that there's any value to them at all.

I try really hard to take superheroines seriously as symbols of feminism, I swear, but the gaudy, obviously pandering outfits they always stick them in makes it nearly impossible for me. Then again, I think most of the men look absurd in their outfits, as well.

Hence why I refuse to write my superheroes and superheroines as wearing anything but some variety of practical head-to-toe armor. The obscenely colorful and revealing/skintight nature of your average generic superhero costumes infuriates me to no end.

edited 23rd Jun '12 2:37:57 PM by DerelictVessel

Gender fantasy doesn't really work with any character who is meant to be a fighter or combatant of any sort. Part of the problem here is that the superhero genre itself is a particular juvenile fantasy: violence. The ability to fight is the single thing that the superhero revolves around—it's the axis around which the entire genre turns. Thus, the other juvenile fantasy (sex) really struggles to find any place in it.

I would also presume that the (intended) age demographic for most superhero comics is probably too young for anything approaching sex in pornographic detail, thus leaving them with silly, tight, revealing outfits as the most explicit they can be without getting in trouble.

I'm dubious as to whether that's true anymore, but that's a different thread.

Well, supersuits are body condoms not because of that, specifically, but because of The Coconut Effect. Superman was put in tights because he was meant to invoke the sensation of a circus/carnival strongman, who wore them as performers. It effectively shows off the dynamic physique that superheroes exhibit, and since most superheroes were created in early 20th Century, this was right around the time where armies were switching from brightly-colored uniforms for morale into more drab colors for camouflage. The problem is, the time when either of those things mattered has ended. Aside from characters like Spider Man (who tends not to wear armor to maximize mobility, and needs it to be skintight because his skin is adhesive to surfaces), there aren't many justifications for it. But it remains in effect because the character looks out of place without it.

In short, it's not gender fantasy which created the problem, but gender fantasy can take full advantage of it, because it's the closest way to draw a character naked without them actually being naked. But, going back to the topic, a good indication of how this is not always bad is Nightwing. Nightwing's costume is essentially a sleek bodystocking, but he's popular with both men and women for different reasons. Men are able to enjoy reading about a kick-ass adventurer who happens to dress in spandex while women get to read about a rich, handsome, charismatic badass with the body of a god.

edited 23rd Jun '12 3:19:29 PM by KingZeal

I have a few problems with this. Firstly, the fact that something is, to a degree, inevitable, in no way makes discussion of its worth irrelevant, because it's still possible to mitigate or promote it on the basis of value, or at least identify the negative or positive effects and determine how to handle them. Secondly, the question of whether gender fantasies should be used is, by definition, not dismissing the idea that there's a value to them, it's inviting that idea as one of several possible answers to be argued for or against.

However if you mean that the discussion of worth is likely to eclipse the discussion of technique then I agree, and I respect your right as the thread starter to determine the central topic.

On topic, then, I challenge your claim that sex and violence don't mix. I think a better way of putting it might be that trying to combine sex and violence leads to absurdity and irrealism, for instance, you get amazons in impractical ChainmailBikinis and fights where everyone's primary goal seems to be to tear each other's clothes off with their feet. So yes, it's very silly, but like you said, it's a juvenile fantasy, and the rules are different for that than they are for serious drama. If anything I think the absurdity in many cases helps build the sense of titillating escapist fantasy that a lot of people are looking for, but arguably it does make both the violence and the sex less 'pure' in their expression, so someone who's specifically looking for one or the other might find the unwanted fantasy a bit intrusive.

I also think it's a bit of a misinterpretation to say that female objectification of males is centred on making them less masculine. I think it's more that in general females are using a different standard of masculinity; the stereotypical dream male is unquestionably physically strong, confident, capable and enduring, all 'masculine' traits. However, physical attractiveness, style, emotional insight and often a degree of gentleness and domesticity are also typically emphasised, which can clash with the stereotypes most men have come to expect. To reference Bill Bailey, it parallels the difference between 'Men' (the idealized, sexy, heroic conception of male prowess which is largely out of favour with modern males), and 'Blokes' (the much more accessible kind of manliness that skips showers sometimes and likes to go to the pub).

edited 24th Jun '12 11:18:42 AM by Kesteven

One thing that occurs to me, looking at Derelict Vessel's comments on "fantasy" versus "objectification", is that a really easy way to try and do what you're asking about would be to eliminate fanservice (or at least gratuitous fanservice). One can easily write lots of attractive "fantasy" characters without needing them to wear ridiculously impractical revealing outfits.

edited 24th Jun '12 2:56:27 PM by nrjxll

Bingo.

That's a bingo!

edited 24th Jun '12 2:55:49 PM by DerelictVessel

Well, it's a good start but I think there's probably more to it than that? Even if a character is well-written, if their primary function is to be a sexual fantasy, that's likely to eat away at their independent agency as a character to some extent even if it's unintentional. I think flashing some sideboob seems like a relatively harmless way to sexualise a character, whereas fetishizing their personality strikes me as potentially more dangerous.

You would, in all honesty, likely be wrong. You can go read Ultimates (gore, incest, sextapes) or Cry For Justice (gore, explicit torture, big questions about the nature of justice) or Countdown (gore, insanity, homophobia is for assholes). It gets pretty messy. Or as positive examples, Blackest Night.

Honestly of all the series I've looked at, I don't think any of them are really suited for people below the age of 18, though Trinity and 52 are at least not likely to scare them witless and 52 doesn't pose any questions they're not likely to be able to deal with. (Not counting the Sarah Conner Chronicles ads in 52, which were disturbing enough that when I saw them after somebody said "no seriously, try comics again" at age 25 I was pretty quick to move on.)

That's true, but King Zeal's original topic was on how to cater to one gender's fantasies without offending the other. Eliminating pointless fanservice while still writing overly-attractive characters isn't necessarily a recipe for success, but I think it would accomplish that goal.

The second point is exactly what I mean. Even talking about mitigation is eventually going to derail into a conversation of whether or not it needs to exist at all. Every single topic I've brought up about fanservice as a tool in fiction has gotten responses along the lines of "it's not necessary, so don't bother", which I want to avoid here.

Again, this is probably a better wording than what I said, so thank you for that. However, what I'm hoping to challenge is the idea that these fantasies have to be juvenile. Right now, they're juvenile because they don't even try to handle the subject maturely. Like, for example, why does Wonder Woman dress in a Leotard of Power which shows so much skin? Because shut up. Same with Power Girl. Every tacked-on reasoning that they use to try and explain why she has a Cleavage Window feels dumber than the last one. Why not just say that these women just like to show off if that's what you want anyway?

Not to mention that even if their bodies are "made of steel", so to speak, all of the drag and wind resistance they get flying like that would tear their costumes to pieces—and that's only if we assume that breast bounce doesn't hurt like hell if you're Nigh Invulnerable. If it does, then why don't they wear a sports bra? It's not like there aren't ways to wear those and look sexy, if that's what the character is aiming for.

I mentioned before that I found the point lacking. As I said, I think male objectification isn't so much about emasculation as it is making men out to be essentially children. They may be strong, powerful, and (maybe handsome), but they're all slaves to their biology and will ultimately destroy themselves without a woman in their lives.

I always have an issue where I like to have a few highly attractive characters but it's difficult to write it without readers believing it to be empty objectification. I'd like to just have highly attractive characters sometimes.

If I'm working on a comic, it's easy, I just draw highly attractive characters. But when I'm writing and I want to paint that description then readers object to it.

edited 26th Jun '12 8:26:10 PM by breadloaf

While that does tend to give me the willies, it's not really because of "objectification" as such.

Well it's tough with writing where you're trying to guide the reader through the world and only your words paint the scene for them. So if you choose to say someone looks very attractive, has fair skin or has really nice hair (hopefully not actually using those descriptions in my writing), then the reader thinks "Okay, she being attractive is what the author wants me to know about. Why does he want me to know about that?" That second part is where it gets thrown off course. If it's not the point of the scene, then they expect you not to talk about it, but then you want to paint the scene properly. Am I able to "neutrally" describe a very attractive woman in super opulent royal court gear up... that the reader understands I'm merely painting a scene so they can see what I want them to see?

I personally just flat-out hate any excessive physical description of characters; if I wanted to know perfectly what things look like I'd draw a comic.

But as far as avoiding giving the wrong impression with something like that, I think what matters is how consistent it is with your normal standard of description.

I don't per se mind it, but it's got to flow naturally and fit in right. If you're doing deep POV, then you can only note what your viewpoint character would. If you're writing somewhere more omniscient, then you have to not be quite so damn obvious about Author Appeal.

Depends on your viewpoint character, too. If you're in the POV of a courtier, they'll damn well notice everything status-related about how someone dresses and presents themselves. If they work in fashion, they'll know what designers people are wearing, exactly what fabrics, and the like. If they're a construction worker, they'll know tools, work-boots, and the like, and if something seems "off".

The key is not to dedicate one lump passage into a description. Describe the character bit by bit, through subtle descriptors as the action continues. Pausing a scene to dedicate an entire paragraph or two to a description is like putting a movie in slow motion while the camera pans in on the thing being described.

"Take a look at this map," she said, brushing soft brown locks out of her eyes.

"It feels like ninety-degrees outside," he said, wiping the sweat from his masculine, chiseled jaw.

"Can you do me a favor, just this once?" Her crystal blue eyes sparkled, such a gorgeous face making it difficult for anyone to say no.

edited 27th Jun '12 6:24:08 AM by KingZeal

I hope the actual description there wasn't meant as a positive example.