objectified objects

  • Alec [about Camille]: Does she still love you?
  • Magnus: I don't think so. She wasn't very pleasant the last time I saw her. Of course, that could be because I've got an eighteen-year-old boyfriend with a stamina rune and she doesn't.
  • Alec: *sputters*
  • Alec: As the person being objectified, I ... object to that description of me.
The Handmaid’s Tale: marketing, then and now

Comparing the Hulu adaptation of The Handmaid’s Tale to the 1990 version is… weird, because the old one seems to have been made with a “haha, this could never happen; let’s play it like a fun adventure thriller and sell it as sexy as possible!” kind of attitude. I mean, the trailer has this bouncy narration that starts with “once upon a time…” and turns the dystopian element into more of a soap opera.

And just take a look at the promotional art:

(…I don’t think that was the message of the book, guys. Sure, Offred was longing for human touch, or pretty much any kind of human connection, but I think that the book was more about women being reduced to wombs with legs, not state-owned prostitutes… It was about the desperation of needing to give birth or face punishment. Everything about this dystopia was hyper-de-sexualized.)

Oh, and my favorite:

“A psychosexual movie shocker.” With what looks like half the cover of a cheesy romance novel, minus some buff shirtless guy.

(I also think it’s kind of funny that they say “once upon a time in the near future” sex became used for control and domination, as if rape and prostitution haven’t existed for centuries… but okay…)

I’ll admit I haven’t seen this version (or the Hulu one, for that matter), but I do appreciate that they cast a properly old and creepy man in the part of the Commander, and a properly aged woman for his Wife. The Hulu casting is a little youthful, if you ask me; the book characters felt very weathered, and I think it mentioned that they were supposed to be quite a bit older than Offred. Her “affair” with the Commander is supposed to feel very weird and unsettling, partially because he’s this old man who wants someone to play Scrabble with and dress up in sequins.

Anyway, then we had what I call the “holy shit these dystopias are too real” phase, culminating with the new Hulu adaptation of this particular dystopia, which is waaaay too relevant to today’s issues.

See? This is how you depict the feeling of objectification. Not with a topless woman bathed in flattering lighting – by objectifying a woman yourself, you’re not sending a message so much as continuing the trend. Especially when you sell your film as some kind of sexy romance. “Branded, sold, controlled: she belongs to The State” doesn’t quite cut it; this very simple, very clear message does. Offred is no longer human, she doesn’t have a face; she is just an object. Objectified.

(This also has some fantastic layering because it recalls the messages that you might find scrawled across the bathroom mirror meant to demean other girls; part of Gilead’s system involves pitting women against each other: Wives against Handmaids, Handmaids against Aunts, even Handmaids against each other out of jealousy and in the Red Center with their slut-shaming. To stay in power, the men at the top make sure that the women below them are too occupied with resenting each other that they forget to look up at who the real enemy is.)

*holy FUCK*

Now THAT is how you market a dystopia. This story is not some scandalous fantasy set in the near-but-distant future; it’s a warning, of what might be lurking just around the corner. The Handmaid’s Tale is an incredibly frightening book to read today, because of the things that are being allowed to happen in our society. It shows what happens when we let sexism flourish, when ecological and political crises make us paranoid enough about national security that we let the people in power take away our rights. It is a fucking nightmare.


the shadowhunter chronicles moodboards: alec lightwood

Magnus said dryly. “She wasn’t very pleasant the last time i saw her. Of course, that could be because I have an eighteen year old boyfriend with a stamina rune and she doesn’t.”

Alec sputtered. “As the person being objectified, I… object to that description of me.”

catskye  asked:

Hey, I can't tell whether women like Madonna and Nicki Minaj choosing to hyper-sexualize themselves to sell music is “pushing society’s boundaries by expressing their sexual freedom” or “contributing to society’s problem of objectifying women as sexual objects in order to sell a product”. So, which is it?

I think it really depends on how the women doing it view what they’re doing.

Are they doing it because they feel they have to to be accepted or successful? Is their manager forcing them to?

Or, are they doing it because they like how they look? They’re comfortable with being overtly sexual?

Feminism is really about choice. Some women feel most empowered being more “risque”, others don’t.

It is a tricky subject with lots of gray areas. But I guess I would say you’d have to look at the woman’s reasoning and freedom to be doing or wearing what she is.

I don’t think I could say in general “women who don’t wear a lot of clothes and adding about sex are/aren’t feminists”.

Fetishization of Same-sex relationships

Oh my god.

I literally was on The Spoiling Dead fan page (the comments have been deleted now) and I saw this girl say that “Aaron’s boyfriend is a ginger, anorexic creep” and that “Aaron and Jesus would be better together”. Literally an example of fetishization of gay men and same-sex relationships. It angers me so much that 1. Some people can be so shallow and rude 2. They want two men to break up or the one they don’t find hot to be killed, simply for two other gay men to get together to satisfy and for their own sexual gratification; ignoring the fact that Aaron and Eric have been together since before the apocalypse and that they are in love. If you are one of those people that only like same-sex relationship representation because they sexual gratify you and you find it hot and you want to break one up because you don’t find it “hot” - then fuck you. You are homophobic and are reducing gay/bi men to sex objects and that you only care about representation if it get’s you off. This happens all the time with straight men fetishizating lesbian/bi women too.

Wanting a same-sex couple to become canon because you think they would be a cute, interesting couple is not fetishization. In fact, finding same-sex intimacy/kissing/sex arousing is not fetishization either. Studies have been shown that (more so in women) many people, regardless of the sexuality or whether it is a same-sex or opposite sex couple, will get aroused by many different types of porn regardless of the person’s own sexuality and the nature of the porn. Watching gay porn when you are a woman is also not fetishization either. Just like a man being aroused by seeing the naked female body doesn’t mean that he is fetishizing/objectifing the female naked body - it’s just something he finds arousing and is attracted to. You can not help what you get’s you aroused (it is something that is biological and psychological, something that is in your nature) and as long as it is not non-consentual, paedophilia, bestiality situation or porn that arouses you then there should be no problem with what arouses you.

What is fetishization is when you want a same-sex couple to become canon simply on the grounds of you wanting to watch them kiss/have sex. Fetishization is dating a bisexual person for the expectation of having a threesome with them. Fetishization is the asking intrusive questions about an lgbt person’s sex life for your own little fantasy and gratification. Fetishization is seeing a lgbt person as a sexual object or objectifying same-sex relationships as to something that simply gets you off. For example, Youtuber Onision constantly fetishizes lesbian/bi women and talks about their sex life explicitly and how he finds it really hot to watch lesbian/bi women have sex, in literally every video he makes. That is fetishization.

Regardless, back to what I was ranting about. It got me really annoyed because I have been someone out of the few people alongside others like @thegaymerist @thereadersmuse @askdarus and @paullrovia that have been angered by the lack of interaction between Aaron and Eric and how AMC have completely ignored their relationship and the bad treatment of same-sex relationships in TWD in general. The fact that there are some people that want Eric to die or break up with Aaron because they don’t find them a “hot couple”, they don’t find him attractive and want Aaron to be with Jesus because it would be “hot” is down right shallow, rude, disgusting and objectifying of same-sex relationships. Literally I am annoyed as hell because I once got accused of fetishising gay people simply because I said is that Daryl might not actually be straight and that him and Jesus would make a groundbreaking, cute and interesting couple (they were a stranger in the youtube comments so they don’t know me). It’s people like that one person that makes people like myself, who has been angered by AMC’s treatment of ALL their LGBT characters (killing off both of Tara’s gfs, Aaron and Eric little to none screen time), be lumped together with people who actually fetishises/objectify same-sex relationships. Finding same-sex relationships cute or interesting is not fetishization; objectifying them as to something that gets you aroused and that you only care about lgbt representation if you find the couple hot/want to watch them have sex is.

All our LGBT characters in The Walking Dead (and all others shows tbh) deserve that respect of treating them as people, not objects like some people do. We are allowed to get angry when they and their relationships are ignored or when one of them dies unnecessarily before we can see more of their relationship grow. We should also call out, calmly and non-aggressively, when people objectify them. 

Originally posted by bayleeni

Originally posted by daily-walkers

Originally posted by midqueenally

“‘Does she still love you?’

'I don’t think so,’ Magnus said dryly. 'She wasn’t very pleasant last time I saw her. Of course, that could be because I’ve got an eighteen year-old boyfriend with a stamina rune and she doesn’t.’

Alec sputtered. 'As the person being objectified, I… object to that description of me.’”

…need I say more 😍😍😍, by Cassandra Clare

The arguments against kataang that call Aang possessive because of words he rarely uses (once unconsciously in a dream, and the other he never said, but agreed with) are odd to me. The two main things are “forever girl” and “the Avatar’s girl”. While I see the term ‘forever girl’ to mean: a girl you spend the rest of your life with, we’ll extend the phrase to ‘my forever girl’ to be fair. Possessive, right? If you want to observe any normal facet of the English language, then yea, of course it’s possessive. This train of logic would mean calling someone ‘my friend’ would result in the shockingly oppressive objectification of him or her because I just called them ‘mine’. 

A funnier example would be that the phrase ‘I love you’ or even ‘I like you’ would be objectification because in those two sentences, you is the object of the sentence. 

“But I am willing to forgive you.” 

(katara is objectifying Zuko, and honestly constantly threatened him many times, where is the backlash) 

But more people like talk about “the Avatar’s girl”. The possessive apostrophe makes it all the more intriguing because in school you learn that apostrophe denotes “the girl belonging to the Avatar” or “the girl of the Avatar”. So since I can’t just wave this one away because of that deeper apostrophe thing, let’s examine feminist perspectives on objectification and see if everything adds up with Aang and Katara. I’m going to be using a helpful list describing different kinds of objectification by Martha Nussbaum in 1995. 

  1. instrumentality: the treatment of a person as a tool for the objectifier’s purposes;

I feel like how it is in the show is the opposite of what people expect. In the first season, Katara is relying on Aang to teach her waterbending, or at least tote her around the entire world to go find someone who can. Over time, they definitely became closer friends, but originally Katara was heavily relying on Aang as a means to get her to the North Pole. She uses him to help her with schemes pretty often (Imprisoned, Painted Lady ep). Regardless, I can’t find a lot of examples of Aang using Katara to get to any of his objectives. Katara’s independent, and in a lot of episodes, will usually go out and do something for the Gaang herself unprompted. 

      2. denial of autonomy: the treatment of a person as lacking in autonomy and           self-determination;

Aang does the opposite of this throughout the series as well. Aang respects Katara’s autonomy. He brings her all the way to the North Pole because he believes in her determination to master her element. Aang is at times surprisingly supportive of Katara even when she thinks he won’t be. 

Aang: So you’ve been sneaking out at night? Wait, is Appa even sick?
Katara: He might be sick of the purple berries I’ve been feeding him, but other than that he’s fine!
Aang: I can’t believe you lied to everyone, so you could help these people.
Katara: I’m sorry, I know I shouldn’t have …
Aang: [Happily.] No, I think it’s great! You’re like a secret hero.

      3. inertness: the treatment of a person as lacking in agency, and perhaps                 also in activity;

I interpret this to mean “Denial of the other’s influence or power in a situation”. This can be refuted with Aang’s behavior during The Waterbending Master. Aang defies Master Paku because he is so adamant about Katara’s ability to waterbend. 

Aang: [Also just as angry.] Yeah, they’re not fair! If you won’t teach Katara, then …
Pakku: Then what?
Aang: Then I won’t learn from you!

Further on this, Aang doesn’t discourage Katara from trying to take on Master Paku herself because he is fully reassured in her ability. He trusts her because he knows she’s a good fighter, and doesn’t put his attachment to her before that. 

Aang: Go Katara!

          4. fungibility: the treatment of a person as interchangeable with other                       objects;

This is just not something Aang would do to anyone. Moving on. 

          5. violability: the treatment of a person as lacking in boundary-integrity;

People are going to jump on this one and we all know why. 

(notably, Katara has an extra eyebrow in this image) 

This is one time Aang overstepped Katara’s boundaries while they were both confused about their situation, and neither were sure of what to think of their relationship. But it’s not like he keeps believing that Katara lacks any boundaries and justifies himself in his wrong action. In fact, he regrets it only moments after. 

        6. Ownership: the objectifier treats the object as something that is owned                 by another, can be bought or sold, etc.

Possessive apostrophes obviously don’t count here. Maybe this is proof June or Zuko objectify Aang as a commodity they have to capture in return for great rewards. But Aang to Katara? There’s really nothing here. And the interpretation of the “Avatar’s Girl” thing more just means they’re in a relationship rather than implying Aang owns Katara in any way. 

         7. denial of subjectivity: the treatment of a person as something whose                    experiences and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account.

Southern Raiders. Aang takes into Katara’s feelings about her mother, relates to them with his losses and tries to convince her not to take her revenge too far in a calm way. 

The Guru. He sees a vision of her in trouble and rushes to save her. Her experience in that moment is everything to him, because he doesn’t want her to be in danger. 

And throughout most of the show there’s really nothing to say that Aang absolutely ISN’T considering her emotions at any one point in time anyway, save for one mistake in EIP, which was more like a misinterpretation than a complete ignorance of her feelings. 

And even despite all of this, according to this list, some forms of objectification aren’t inherently bad either. It’s more of a neutral term that, depending on the scenario, can have differing effects. Which is why the argument about which speech Aang unconsciously uses or inwardly agrees with is “objectifying” Katara is kind of flimsy. Even in the first point of this list by a notable philosopher, you could objectify your partner by resting your head on their lap. I mean, you’re using their lap as a pillow, right? And that’s how I see the interpretation of those two times Aang ‘objectified’ Katara. I think him nodding to ‘I thought you were the Avatar’s girl’ was ultimately harmless. Some people like to try to portray Aang as a maniachal abuser because of one thing he agreed with because he was sure Katara returned his feelings. Not because he demanded those feelings to be reciprocated or expected them for no reason, but because she had actually previously shown interest. And that’s harmless

“Does she still love you?”

“I don’t think so,” Magnus said dryly. “She wasn’t very pleasant the last time I saw her. Of course, that could be because I’ve got an eighteen year-old boyfriend with a stamina rune and she doesn’t.”

Alec sputtered. “As the person being objectified, I … object to that description of me.”

Cassandra Clare, City of Lost Souls (The Mortal Instruments, #5)

Does she still love you?”
“I don’t think so,” Magnus said dryly. “She wasn’t very pleasant the last time I saw her. Of course, that could be because I’ve got an eighteen year-old boyfriend with a stamina rune and she doesn’t.”
Alec sputtered. “As the person being objectified, I … object to that description of me.
—  City of Lost Souls

anonymous asked:

I noticed that Cartman treated a toilet similarly to the machines from the most recent episode. He showed dominance over the toilet by hitting it, and the Alexas and Google assistants by making them say whatever he wants.

TFW u objectify objects

Remember that moment in City of Lost Souls when

Alec: Does she still love you?

Magnus: I don’t think so. She wasn’t very pleasant the last time I saw her. Of course, that could be because I’ve got an eighteen year-old boyfriend with a stamina rune and she doesn’t.

Alec: *sputters*

Alec: As the person being objectified, I…object to that description of me.

“Does she (Camille) still love you?“
"I don’t think so,” Magnus said dryly. “She wasn’t very pleasant the last time I saw her. Of course, that could be because I’ve got an eighteen year-old boyfriend with a stamina rune and she doesn’t.”
Alec sputtered. “As the person being objectified, I … object to that description of me.”

We Are #WomenNotObjects
Join the conversation. #WomenNotObjects

Join the conversation. #WomenNotObjects

Does she still love you?“
"I don’t think so,” Magnus said dryly. “She wasn’t very pleasant the last time I saw her. Of course, that could be because I’ve got an eighteen year-old boyfriend with a stamina rune and she doesn’t.”
Alec sputtered. “As the person being objectified, I … object to that description of me.
—  Cassandra Clare, City of Lost Souls

I haven’t written anything for Queer Dean Month yet, which is a crying shame. So I thought I’d talk about the tilt scan, which many have noted with regard to the famous shot in A Little Slice of Kevin, in a little more detail.

The tilt is a technique in cinematography that is instantly recognizable to most consumers of visual media whether they consciously know it or not. In a tilting shot the camera remains stationary while rotating on a vertical axis called the tilting plane. It is often used to indicate the sexiness of the female body as an object. The first gif in Google image search for a ‘sexy body’ is a tilting scan of a half-naked female body.

Keep reading

“Does she still love you?“
"I don’t think so,” Magnus said dryly. “She wasn’t very pleasant the last time I saw her. Of course, that could be because I’ve got an eighteen year-old boyfriend with a stamina rune and she doesn’t.”
Alec sputtered. “As the person being objectified, I … object to that description of me.” 
"She always was the jealous type.” Magnus grinned. He was awfully good at changing the subject, Alec thought. Magnus had made it clear that he didn’t like talking about his past love life, but somewhere during their conversation, Alec’s sense of familiarity and comfort, his feeling of being at home, had vanished. No matter how young Magnus looked- and right now, barefoot, with his hair sticking up, he looked about eighteen- uncrossable oceans of time divided them.
—  Cassandra Clare, City of Lost Souls