You knew I was straight? I have to disappoint you, I'm a flaming bisexual ;)Haha, I bet Rob approves! I kept my mouth shut during this "incident". I thought it was no big deal.

Mhhh, I'll definitely think about reading that book. Im always interested in gender dynamics, roles, different types of sexism.What irks me is that, like I said, one objectification seems not to be like the other. I never said men aren't expected to be this or that by women. I just said it stems from patriarchy. Men are supposed to be powerful and domineering in every field, be it job, sexlife or general life in society and that's harmful to them AND women, while making women into a sexual object alone is only harmful to them, not to men.

Your examples of what to look for in a man or in a woman are true, however who has the upper hand in the end? The man or the woman? Who will get far in life with what they have achieved and who will just be a good-looking accessory to this person who has achieved power? Society values one thing more than the other. In fact, most women get called out on such behaviour (gold digging) and being immediatly called a dumb prostitute. "Oh, he can buy her. Haha, she is such a whore". Of course the men who fall for such ladies are being called dumb as well... or - positively - players, pimps, whatever. And when the relationship breaks down it's the man who gets the pity. The woman will be a dirty bitch who just used him for his money. People never say things like: "What a disgusting whore that guy is!"

Btw, I have no such girls in my circle of friends. Also no guys who just look for attractiveness and "compatibleness", whatever that means. I think it all comes down to the people you meet.

However, noone can tell me male objectification gives males a huge disadvantage. In case of females I see the truth every day. And the things you told me about being harassed. I get that men get harassed for different reasons. I experienced this as well and I'm not a man. I also experience the sexual aspect a lot, however, and that's just because I'm a woman. Don't know if the other stuff just happened to you because you're male.

I guess we have to agree to disagree on certain topics here.But it was interesting to talk to you!

No worries, I managed to get through the whole thing.  I already knew you were straight, and I'm sure Rob appreciates your underarm grooming habits (I guess I prefer shaved, but it's not really a dealbreaker for me). 

There's really no way for me to credibly convey what I'm trying so say to someone with a well-defined, shall we say, concept of gender inequity, built on personal experience.  The best I can do is recommend the book Self-Made Man by Norah Vincent.

I guess I'll try to tackle your questions at the end there.  1) No, men are more objectified than women (though I can't speak as to how positive or negative such objectification may be, too subjective).  Poppycock you say?  Just ask any of your girlfriends that have some variation of "wealthy", "good job", "nice car", "own house" or "powerful" (either physically or socially) on their list of what they look for in a man.  I doubt you'll find much beyond "physically attractive" and "compatible" on most men's lists (shallow as they may be, at least they're about the actual person).  2) Yes, I have had scary/weird/undesirable guys stalk me, though not for sex (I hope).  I navigate them gingerly and generally don't worry about what they say about me.  3) Never been threatened with rape, only other forms of violence.  Or death.  I usually assume they're bluffing.  Haven't died or been severely injured yet.  4) Been called a whore?  Not to my knowledge, then again my ego demands that I dress as un-provocatively as possible (trust me, no one wants to see it).  I have been called loser, slob, dork, etc. for my wardrobe choices, though.  Again, I find myself not particularly caring.  I'll leave it to you as to which of these is worse.  I guess it depends on how sex-centric your world view is.

TL;DR coming up... (and sorry for sounding sarcastic, but this issue is just very personal to me)

Yes, you're right about shirtless men. That is a form of sexual objectification. However if you take a look at gender roles and the hows and whys of stripping men off their shirts, it is mostly done to highlight their strenght.

Now you will probably argue that this is objectification as it makes the man into a an icon of action and violence. Yes. I agree partially. I think there should be more to an action hero than just his shere muscular strenght. But you forget that those characters are the ones we're supposed to relate to, those are the ones we end up liking because they have dark/interesting backstories and flaws. Women characters in action movies are mostly supposed to be an excuse to have innuendo and sex appeal, they are not as well-written as the male chars and they end up being fanservice without character development.Shirtless men can be seen in the fitness studio, at the beach, in our parks at summer ad nobody bats an eye at them. Do you know how it is for me when I decide to dress in tight clothing or a short skirt? Men whistle, men make stupid remarks and molest me. There is a big difference between the two here.

You mentioned that Black Widow is the biggest badass. So, look at what people typically use to highlight male badassery: muscles and strenght. Ass and tits are not required to be a "badass", however this is what almost every "action girl" is portrayed as. They have to be sexy and sultry to appeal to the audience, because in order to be physically strong and beliebavle SOMEHOW women don't need strenght and power and flaws, they need to be sexy and sassy. Why is that? Because women are more reduced to objects than men. That's just a fact.Who would like to fap to a woman with real muscles? Butch women are disgusting!

The other problematic about having a "Smurfette" is the fact that the writers try to cram as many super cool awesomeness inside the character, trying to make her almost inhumanly perfect to get away with the fact that they only have ONE woman amongst the main cast. And being the only woman of course she has to show some obvious sexy moments. That's what female sidekicks are being used for.

In "Iron Man" Black Widow was not only super intelligent and a master at martial arts, she was also a lingerie model and shared obvious innuendo with Tony Stark. When did Batman model for man panties? When did Cap come on to his boss?It is also quite baffling how often female chars in action material are prostitutes or so "sexually liberated" they only run around in a thong and some high heels.I wouldn't be so invested in that subject if it wasn't all over the place.

Also, in regards to badassery, why is a woman character considered "strong" when she can do all things a man can do? Why isn't she considered "strong and badass" when she shows emotion, when she cares for someone, when she does typically femmy things such as cooking?In order to make a woman of action badass is to write a man of action and tweak the muscles into 90-60-90 and the character flaws into lingerie shoots and sassiness.

If you ask me Pepper Potts is more badass than Black Widow, because she is a real character and not just "action girl".

If you want a movie series that does obviously objectify their male chars it's "Twilight" with Jacob running around shirtless all the fucking time for no reason and playing grab-ass with his wolf friends. But Twilight is a fest of sexist crap towards all genders anyways.

I don't know if I made myself clear. I'm not a native speaker and bad at getting my point across in English. I agree with you that Cap is being made into an icon of action in the poster series, but Black Widow is being made into a literal ass and that is a negative portrayal of women in general, being nothing more than here for your sexual pleasure, while making men into physically strong weapons is - believe it or not - considered positive, as men are supposed to be the dominant sex that can inflict violence and be cool while doing so and you can thank patriarchy for that.

I don't agree with this portrayal of men.However, it affects the genders in different ways. The men get ensured that they are physically strong and powerful despite having flaws, while the women get ensured that they have to be sexually pleasing to the male gaze no matter if they're emotionally strong, physically strong or both.

If you wouldn't have said this sentence: "I suppose that would be consistent with modern conceptions of gender inequity.  It's okay so long as it doesn't make men horny." I probably wouldn't even have replied to you.Please look at our world and tell me men are getting just as negatively objectified as women. Do you get out of the house and men stalk you and won't leave you alone until you have given them your number and if not they call you a whore and stupid bitch? Do they threaten to rape you? Have you been called a whore solely based on your choice of clothing? Because that shit has happened to me because of our wonderful "modern gender inequity" that obviously is so demeaning towards horny men.

And before you ask, no I don't hate men, yes I have had boyfriends before and yes, I shave my armpits ;)

Well, that's kinda my point about giving "deeper thought as to exactly what objectification is" right there.  If the issue were mere "sexual" objectification, I guess I could point out how Cap and Thor were the only ones who spent any time shirtless in their respective movies.  I rather doubt that was done to give deeper insight into the souls of the characters. 

"He isn't allowed a mouth because some smartass thought it would be cool if he was doing something with his shield."  Exactly.  Despite your attempt to trivialize the fact that his face can't be made-out, you've made my point nonetheless.  Some smartass thought that depicting him as icon of action and violence was more important than showing there's a human being behind that shield and mask.  It seems to me that's more objectifying than showing his ass would have been.

While I don't believe anyone could rationally argue with your point about how females are typically portrayed in action movies, we both know this is not the case with Black Widow.  In fact, if I recall correctly, if she wasn't the biggest badass in Iron Man 2, she was second only to Vanko, and a close one at that.  And didn't Mickey Rourke spend a fair amount of that movie showing-off his big, ripply muscles?  Oh right, male, incapable of being objectified, sorry.

Anyway, thank you for defending my rights to let Ms. Johansson aid in my auto-erotic escapades.  Though I don't see that actually happening unless she starts doing porn, I still deeply appreciate the sentiment.

Touche.

Hard to type with one hand

I'll add that, I enjoyed the Capt. America movie. Hell I dug the shit out of Sucker Punch.

I don't believe I was 'looking' in the first place.

Can I clarify my statements re: Red Tails, or the Sgt. Fury comics? Granted I didn't learn history from the comics. I was always impressed, when I was a kid, to see comics that had fairly accurate representations of the equipment used. FFS I read Sgt. FuryAHHCs back in 1975 or 76 and they were reprints of the comics from the 60s.

Re: Red Tails, I most certainly don't wish to see, a Pearl Harbor version of the Tuskegee experience.

Oh yeah correct me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure I said I had no prob with Jackson being Fury. I look forward to seeing The Avengers movie, Hell, I may even see it in a theater.

Is it wrong to expect my entertainment to be as well done as, Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan, Blackhawk Down, or Paths of Glory for that matter? I am well aware of the fact that, I rarely get what I expect.

You do realize that the U.S. DID NOT use steroid-powered super soldiers to fight red-skulled Nazis during WWII, right? Hitler never got socked in the jaw by the Star-Spangled Avenger. If you're seeking historical accuracy, you're looking in the wrong place.

Well at least Lacus isn't directing.

Gawds, I pray, do not, I beseech you, DO not let Lucas fuck up Red Tails. I want P-40s in Africa, I want everyone who sees it, to realize how fuct racism is. I want people to see that enemy POW's of European descent, were treated with more respect than OUR own troops. Maybe Spielberg and Hanks can do a decent story on the 442nd Regimental Combat Team.