I understand women don't appreciate being "objectified" but my question to them is why is this a sign of machismo:
(source: wordpress)
But this isn't a sign of feminism?
(source: Vanity Fair via thebosh.com)
Isn't it the same thing?! Football-related picture with beautiful people in underwear. Why is it that if we show women in underwear it's evil, but showing a guy isn't. NONE OF IT IS EVIL!
People just like looking at beautiful things like scenery, paintings, pictures, and hard bodies REGARDLESS OF GENDER!
So come on, let's all take a nice deep breath and relax a little, no need to shout wolf when there's a picture of a beautiful person around.
Mmmm, I can't see the first picture, the link seems to be broken, but still I want to comment on this subject.
ReplyDeleteMale chauvinism or "machismo" is not the same as misogyny, neither it is the opposite of feminism. The first implies the superiority of men towards women, while the second defends gender equality.
That being said, you could argue that a naked person is a naked person, no matter the gender, but the key here is the context. What's the target of each picture? What's the intention behind it?
It's easy to overlook the problem when you are not directly affected by it. Men are not usually objectified. When two sportmen appear in their underwear in Vanity Fair, I don't feel they are shown as sexual objects, but as a representation of the effort they put in their job, in which their bodies are the main tool. However, when a woman is shown naked in a traditionally masculine context is usually shown as an object of desire or beauty. Usually women are judged by these factors, regardless of who they are or who they are trying to become. Beauty is expected from women above any other quality, but not for men. That's not equality, and that's a problem.
I could name hundreds of examples, but take this five covers of the same GQ issue, notice anything?:
http://juliamoved.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/20120918_gq-women-in-media.jpg?w=439