I don’t disagree with the definition you quoted, I disagree with how you’ve applied it. As I said in my first comment:
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.
By that definition, no female main character of a film ever has been objectified.
Having agency is not mutually exclusive with being dehumanized, sexualized, objectified, etc. The fact that Thor is shown in a great light throughout much of his films doesn’t change the fact that he is regularly sexually objectified as well. Wonder Woman was objectified from the start, but that didn’t stop her from also kicking ass. Lara Croft, Charlie’s Angels, Sailor Moon. If you’re going to claim that having agency means a character can’t be objectified, you have to deny that all of those female protagonists were objectified. That’s not in line with my understanding of both that quote you cited and the way I’ve seen the term used throughout my life. I think your emphasis on the word “mere” in the definition you quoted is misplaced. I don’t think the quote’s author meant it as literally as you seem to be taking it.
So you think that a single scene portraying a character in a sexual light is sexual objectification?
Yes, absolutely. In that scene, the character is being objectified. Who said a character needs to be objectified throughout an entire film without ever getting more nuanced treatment to be called “a character who has been objectified?” All of the definitions you’ve just taken the time to look up and type out fit with my understanding of what objectification is, I just don’t understand why you seem to be requiring these characters to be in a constant state of objectification to receive the label, when it’s patently obvious objectification can be done at some times and not others. Again, if you’re going to make that a criteria, then plenty of female leads who were clearly objectified, aren’t in your opinion, simply because they also agency, power, complexity, etc, in other moments.
you seem to be requiring these characters to be in a constant state of objectification to receive the label
I’m not. It’s about context. To treat objectification as some binary completely misses the point of objectification in the first place. As a facet of social philosophy, the idea has merit due to its context within culture and within the context of the media itself. Even if I agreed that a single sexual scene is objectifying (I don’t) it would merely be in a semantic sense when (in the example of Thor) throughout the entire movie he is a multifaceted character who is clearly treated with respect by the creators.
Agency and subjectivity, in concerns to objectification, are so important because they’re the whole point. When we assume the incredibly reductive definition of objectification as merely being acknowledged or treated as a sexual being we rob others of their ability to choose to embrace their sexuality. Thereby that definition of objectification is in itself objectifying.
Are you objectifying your partner by checking them out when they’re unclothed? Are you objectifying your partner by having sex with them? Most likely not. How do I know? Because, presumably, your partner is exercising enthusiastic consent - they are exercising their subjectivity and agency within context of a healthy and respectful relationship.
To suggest a single scene fits a semantic definition of objectification ‐ as someone who had to study this stuff in university - completely misses the point of why objectification matters
Edit: you also seem to be relying on your past experience with this term for your understanding of it. I would advise against that. Many many many groups of people completely miss the point or misrepresent objectification
I don’t disagree with the definition you quoted, I disagree with how you’ve applied it. As I said in my first comment:
Having agency is not mutually exclusive with being dehumanized, sexualized, objectified, etc. The fact that Thor is shown in a great light throughout much of his films doesn’t change the fact that he is regularly sexually objectified as well. Wonder Woman was objectified from the start, but that didn’t stop her from also kicking ass. Lara Croft, Charlie’s Angels, Sailor Moon. If you’re going to claim that having agency means a character can’t be objectified, you have to deny that all of those female protagonists were objectified. That’s not in line with my understanding of both that quote you cited and the way I’ve seen the term used throughout my life. I think your emphasis on the word “mere” in the definition you quoted is misplaced. I don’t think the quote’s author meant it as literally as you seem to be taking it.
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:
Instrumentality – treating the person as a tool for another’s purposes
Denial of autonomy – treating the person as lacking in autonomy or self-determination
Inertness – treating the person as lacking in agency or activity
Fungibility – treating the person as interchangeable with (other) objects
Violability – treating the person as lacking in boundary integrity and violable, “as something that it is permissible to break up, smash, break into.”
Ownership – treating the person as though they can be owned, bought, or sold (such as slavery)
Denial of subjectivity – treating the person as though there is no need for concern for their experiences or feelings
Yes, absolutely. In that scene, the character is being objectified. Who said a character needs to be objectified throughout an entire film without ever getting more nuanced treatment to be called “a character who has been objectified?” All of the definitions you’ve just taken the time to look up and type out fit with my understanding of what objectification is, I just don’t understand why you seem to be requiring these characters to be in a constant state of objectification to receive the label, when it’s patently obvious objectification can be done at some times and not others. Again, if you’re going to make that a criteria, then plenty of female leads who were clearly objectified, aren’t in your opinion, simply because they also agency, power, complexity, etc, in other moments.
I’m not. It’s about context. To treat objectification as some binary completely misses the point of objectification in the first place. As a facet of social philosophy, the idea has merit due to its context within culture and within the context of the media itself. Even if I agreed that a single sexual scene is objectifying (I don’t) it would merely be in a semantic sense when (in the example of Thor) throughout the entire movie he is a multifaceted character who is clearly treated with respect by the creators.
Agency and subjectivity, in concerns to objectification, are so important because they’re the whole point. When we assume the incredibly reductive definition of objectification as merely being acknowledged or treated as a sexual being we rob others of their ability to choose to embrace their sexuality. Thereby that definition of objectification is in itself objectifying.
Are you objectifying your partner by checking them out when they’re unclothed? Are you objectifying your partner by having sex with them? Most likely not. How do I know? Because, presumably, your partner is exercising enthusiastic consent - they are exercising their subjectivity and agency within context of a healthy and respectful relationship.
To suggest a single scene fits a semantic definition of objectification ‐ as someone who had to study this stuff in university - completely misses the point of why objectification matters
Edit: you also seem to be relying on your past experience with this term for your understanding of it. I would advise against that. Many many many groups of people completely miss the point or misrepresent objectification