I donât have the energy to get deep into the specifics but I really would like to reblog this to make one necessary point.
While the strict beauty/body standards for male stars can be as brutal, difficult to maintain, and emotionally toxic as they are for women, this entire thread is built on a miscomprehension of the theory of objectification of women in media. By applying it too narrowly and only to the idea of weight, the speaker(s) float right past the deeper, broader, and more disturbing critique of objectification.
Itâs not just about people needing to look attractive on screen. The historical, political, and artistic critique of media as a format for the objectification of women includes, by necessity, the ways women are depicted throughout the history of art, the artist(s) who do the depicting, the viewer paying for the depiction, the subject of the depiction, the power dynamics and genders of all those aforementioned roles through Western culture and tradition, and how our modern attitudes, biases, perceptions, and sexism both external and internal all interact with the financial forces that control the economy (currently and historically also predominantly one gender).
Like, yeah it sucks something awful to have to be fit for being on TV. And male actors can be demeaned or exploited as well. But take step back and try to actually learn what words like âobjectificationâ mean okay because people have literally written BOOKS about it.
And yes, it is still worse for female actors. For every muscle man there will be 5 men hired who are normal looking, average of face, typical of size or even overweight of size on television. Even ugly or weird looking.
Women? Far, far less. An exception so notable someone will probably write a think piece on how brave their casting director was to hire them âagainst typeâ, or how brave they are for existing on camera as a 'lesson" to us all.
discoholicmusic
ellievsbear
kianamaiart
andulkaphoto
