DudePluto

He would try to make you feel like an idiot by trying to sound all self righteous and smart. (Honestly he would fail

Are you sure you spent time on reddit? This was all I saw there

you seem to be requiring these characters to be in a constant state of objectification to receive the label

I'm not. It's about context. To treat objectification as some binary completely misses the point of objectification in the first place. As a facet of social philosophy, the idea has merit due to its context within culture and within the context of the media itself. Even if I agreed that a single sexual scene is objectifying (I don't) it would merely be in a semantic sense when (in the example of Thor) throughout the entire movie he is a multifaceted character who is clearly treated with respect by the creators.

Agency and subjectivity, in concerns to objectification, are so important because they're the whole point. When we assume the incredibly reductive definition of objectification as merely being acknowledged or treated as a sexual being we rob others of their ability to choose to embrace their sexuality. Thereby that definition of objectification is in itself objectifying.

Are you objectifying your partner by checking them out when they're unclothed? Are you objectifying your partner by having sex with them? Most likely not. How do I know? Because, presumably, your partner is exercising enthusiastic consent - they are exercising their subjectivity and agency within context of a healthy and respectful relationship.

To suggest a single scene fits a semantic definition of objectification ‐ as someone who had to study this stuff in university - completely misses the point of why objectification matters

Edit: you also seem to be relying on your past experience with this term for your understanding of it. I would advise against that. Many many many groups of people completely miss the point or misrepresent objectification

In agreement with your broader point but a different approach: to say that we should die out as a species due to climate change is over-simplifying, imo. Yes, there are hardships ahead and we truly need to look at ourselves as a species and ask what needs to change for the sake of ethics and others. However, we have been in dire situations before, albeit with less foreknowledge. Would someone living in, say, 1840 have wished that humanity had died out in the bronze age collapse, when the near-entirety of known civilization collapsed due to climate change?

When considering the entire species we can't take such a short term view. Yes, hard times are ahead. Yes, we will get through it. I say if one is inclined not to have kids, he should not have kids. But if one is inclined to do so, he should do so

Because the discussion of legitimate male issues is being co-opted by anger and anti-feminism. But that's just my guess

So you think that a single scene portraying a character in a sexual light is sexual objectification?

Edit: Also, if you don't like the way I've worded the definition of objectification you can look at American philosopher Martha Nusbaum's:

• Instrumentality – treating the person as a tool for another's purposes

• Denial of autonomy – treating the person as lacking in autonomy or self-determination

• Inertness – treating the person as lacking in agency or activity

• Fungibility – treating the person as interchangeable with (other) objects

• Violability – treating the person as lacking in boundary integrity and violable, "as something that it is permissible to break up, smash, break into."

• Ownership – treating the person as though they can be owned, bought, or sold (such as slavery)

• Denial of subjectivity – treating the person as though there is no need for concern for their experiences or feelings

Sex symbol =/= objectified. There's nothing wrong with being a sexy character. Sexual objectification is the reduction of a person or character to nothing but sex. Or, if you want a more accurate definition, you can look at Wikipedia's definition which I gave somewhere else

I haven't defined anything, I'm going by the definition of objectification. The example I gave was Wikipedia's definition. Main characters can absolutely be objectified if written poorly. Because an objectified character is, by definition, written poorly. It has nothing to do with being the main character. It's the literal definition of objectification. Idk why you're on about main characters because that's irrelevant

It's not really to do with whether they're the protagonist, it's how they're treated as a character (and by extension the actor). Off the top of my head the best example is Carly from Transformers 3. She's incredibly 2-dimensional. What do we know about her, her motivations, what drives her? Well, not a lot. At best you could argue she has a good job and is responsible for getting Megatron to help OP. But when we look at the movie overall it's not great. She's consistently needing saved by Sam, the film goes to lengths to focus on her borderline inappropriate relationship with her male boss, and she just doesn't do a lot for the plot that doesn't serve some male. In fact, her introduction, arguably the most important scene for establishing her character, is a camera shot of her ass. That's objectification because the character exists amid a web of weak characterization and conformity to gender roles that treat her more like a trophy than a proper character

No there are plenty of female characters who are portrayed as two-dimensional sex objects, just like there are male characters who are portrayed the same. But Thor is not one of them. And the existence of sex appeal around a character =/= objectification

Or, like, learn what objectification actually means (and "cope" for that matter, what am I coping about? I'm just having an internet discussion)

Tbf you can be ogled and not objectified. The difference is that Thor absolutely is portrayed as a complex character with his own agency, or subjectivity. The whole movie is about him learning to step out of the role of warmonger and into a more mature, nurturing role of a king. That gives him a lot of subjectivity - the opposite of objectivity

Edit: So to clarify, yes Thor is part of a series of unrealistic body standards for men. But he's not objectified

In social philosophy, objectification is the act of treating a person as an object or a thing. It is part of dehumanization, the act of disavowing the humanity of others. Sexual objectification, the act of treating a person as a mere object of sexual desire, is a subset of objectification,

Emphasis mine. Where in "Thor" is Thor dehumanized? Do the creators of the movie dehumanize him? No, if anything he exhibits more humanity as the movie goes on. Does Jane Foster dehumanize him? No, she's clearly sexually attracted to him and some scenes do focus on his body, but that's not enough to dehumanize someone. He is not a "mere object of sexual desire" because those scenes exist amid an entire movie that treats Thor with respect as a character, including Jane who gets to know him and love him. The only character who dehumanizes him could be Loki but he's clearly portrayed as being wrong

I think you have a point except for the fact that the meme is about unrealistic body standards, not objectification. So it's kinda like bringing up pancakes in a conversation about waffles