Thanks for modulating that statement. :) I think what Kilbourne is mainly talking about here is the risk of rape - which is considerably smaller for men, especially heterosexual men, which isn't to say it doesn't exist. Either way, there's no reason why objectification should impact men differently; if anything the gay community is a perfect example of a space where appearance has been constructed as essential and if you don't have that gorgeous, rippled body, you might feel somewhat inadequate. But the relative objectification of men in the media is not part of a system; it does not reinforce a structure based on systemic inequalities, does not unconsciously encourage us to treat men first and foremost as sexual objects. This objectification exists alongside images of men being portrayed as strong, dominant, active, willful, and basically everything you should want to be.
And while looking big and strong is definitely valued as a masculine asset, I would argue that traditional understandings of masculinity put a much stronger premium on attitude rather than appearance, whereas the opposite is true for women. Not to say the other element in each case isn't important, and you'll probably have more to prove if you don't have both, but toughness can make you a man even if you're relatively short and scrawny, and looking gorgeous will make you a woman even if you don't take bullshit, y'know? So basically, I think men being objectified as having to be gorgeous and muscular in the media is not really what reinforces narrow understandings on masculinity, at least not as much as ideas of men as having manly characteristics, being unemotional, strong and tough, that sort of thing.
I don't mean to say men don't suffer from hegemonic representations of masculinity, FAR from it - I'm the first one to argue that sexist, essentialist representations of women and men affect both genders and people who don't identity as either. But while eating disorders might be rising amongst men, my intuition is that the numbers are still comparatively low when compared to women (can you confirm that?), and there is a reason for that. That's what I mean - or rather, what I perceive the quote to mean - with the idea that images of men as sexual objects do not reinforce a structure nearly as much as images of women as sexual objects. Not only are they still less frequent by far, but they don't feed a whole system that perceives them as inferior, weaker, and available to be taken advantage of, which is exactly what is reinforced in the case of women.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-11-03 01:08 am (UTC)I think what Kilbourne is mainly talking about here is the risk of rape - which is considerably smaller for men, especially heterosexual men, which isn't to say it doesn't exist. Either way, there's no reason why objectification should impact men differently; if anything the gay community is a perfect example of a space where appearance has been constructed as essential and if you don't have that gorgeous, rippled body, you might feel somewhat inadequate. But the relative objectification of men in the media is not part of a system; it does not reinforce a structure based on systemic inequalities, does not unconsciously encourage us to treat men first and foremost as sexual objects. This objectification exists alongside images of men being portrayed as strong, dominant, active, willful, and basically everything you should want to be.
And while looking big and strong is definitely valued as a masculine asset, I would argue that traditional understandings of masculinity put a much stronger premium on attitude rather than appearance, whereas the opposite is true for women. Not to say the other element in each case isn't important, and you'll probably have more to prove if you don't have both, but toughness can make you a man even if you're relatively short and scrawny, and looking gorgeous will make you a woman even if you don't take bullshit, y'know? So basically, I think men being objectified as having to be gorgeous and muscular in the media is not really what reinforces narrow understandings on masculinity, at least not as much as ideas of men as having manly characteristics, being unemotional, strong and tough, that sort of thing.
I don't mean to say men don't suffer from hegemonic representations of masculinity, FAR from it - I'm the first one to argue that sexist, essentialist representations of women and men affect both genders and people who don't identity as either. But while eating disorders might be rising amongst men, my intuition is that the numbers are still comparatively low when compared to women (can you confirm that?), and there is a reason for that. That's what I mean - or rather, what I perceive the quote to mean - with the idea that images of men as sexual objects do not reinforce a structure nearly as much as images of women as sexual objects. Not only are they still less frequent by far, but they don't feed a whole system that perceives them as inferior, weaker, and available to be taken advantage of, which is exactly what is reinforced in the case of women.
...does that make more sense?