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
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
Third party apps were only the tip of the iceberg. The bigger issue is the increasing monetization of data and recommendations across the site. This whole thing is ultimately about who will shape the internet: users or corporations. That's why it's silly for people to pretend there's a neutral opinion
The difference is that while lemmy does have a theoretical sum of upvotes minus downvotes, the website doesn't calculate it and display it for you and everyone else to see.
If you want to find your total score on lemmy you have to install a script that allows you to see your own total. Or grab a calculator and get adding
I would imagine it working just like on reddit and lemmy, where it can originally be claimed by the original poster or anyone who wants it. It's obviously not an ideal solution, but it's worked well enough historically. Maybe someone else would have a better idea
Specifically, I moderate /c/worldbuilding@lemmy.ml and I noticed that lemmy.world's side is not updating. No new posts from lemmy.ml's side, and their side shows 300+ subscribers while mine shows ~80
For future reference, if you find a community that looks dead and you want to take over, you can message the admins of that instance and they'll look into giving you the community :)
I see what you mean but that would require you to make an account for each topic you want to discuss. If they make it so you can have one account for every instance that might be great, though
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: