# Objectification in Science Fiction



## Rodders (Sep 15, 2019)

I recently finished watching Andromeda last night and one of the things that struck me was how much it objectified women. Looking back, it's always been there. From Logan's Run, the skin tight spandex that Colonel Wilma Deering wore in Buck Rogers, to Leia's slave girl costume. Even Babylon 5 (which I rate as my favourite Sci-Fi experience) had a scene with Captain Lochley. 

It got me wondering whether SF objectifies women more than other genres of TV or film?


----------



## Finch (Sep 16, 2019)

Popular Sci-Fi  has  it's origins in adventure stories for boys . A lot of early Sci-fi was  a men only world.  When it became more  graphic, magazines and television, the girls nearly always  wear skin tight  clothing  , to please the boy audience.  I  never read  westerns , but that has had a male dominated  readership .  Soldier Blue was a borderline porn film . But westerns  never gained much popularity in that direction and more or less faded away.


----------



## ctg (Sep 16, 2019)

Rodders said:


> It got me wondering whether SF objectifies women more than other genres of TV or film?



We are coming out from it. In the past showing skin, or boobs were an important thing. Now strong women aren't showing skin, unless it's needed for the plot advances. Still, you look at Orwell or ST, you'll see everyone wearing jumpsuits and it's kind of expected, except the model for females aren't necessarily a blond, size-0. These days you'll get more by giving them a chance to be what are, and if they choose to reveal something it has to fit the whole thing.






dressed for purpose 





also dressed properly

Times are changing rodders.


----------



## tinkerdan (Sep 24, 2019)

This is the problem with objectification. We all know it exists and it has existed for quite some time--well into all of history(why if only they knew what we know now then there would be no reason for them to have fallen so short).

So if you reach back to look at it in works of the past you will undoubtedly find it. If you are studying history and the history of the media and maybe sub-texting objectification and how it mirrors that era, then I can see the reason to make those observations. It's a reflection of the time. Really not much you can do about it other than observe and comment or in the most extreme perhaps censor yourself by not watching anything from the past.

I have some dear friends who don't watch old movies because--well, they're black and white--and their preference is to color and what were those people thinking making black and white films and putting them out there like that.

Jump to the present and it(objectification[not black and white movies]) does become a hot issue; because we certainly don't want people reaching back from a few years hence and objecting to our blatant objectification and make an object of ridicule of us or worse yet censoring us. 

Anyway, the answer to the OP  is that it reflects not the genre but the time and so the answer is no.


----------



## HareBrain (Sep 25, 2019)

No one has mentioned that SFF gives its costume designers a much freer rein than e.g. historical drama, so I think it's inevitable that it does so more, especially back when there was far less scrutiny over this aspect.

Even with modern levels of awareness, however, it still seems quite prevalent. There are lots of book covers and film posters like the one below, for _Divergent_, in which the female character is posed looking over her shoulder so her backside can face the camera. This is almost never the case with male figures, as was pointed out in a funny spoof poster from some superhero film (I forget which) a while back.


----------



## Mouse (Sep 25, 2019)

HB:


----------



## ctg (Sep 25, 2019)

I personally would like to see the front of the woman and as funny as it is give men an opportunity to show the backside.


----------



## Jeffbert (Oct 13, 2019)

A few years ago, I was in a bookstore that had a section of Sci-fi paperbacks. A brief glance showed that most had scantily clad 36-24-36 young women on the covers. Some were riding on flying dragons. 

As a dirty old man myself, I enjoy the sight of such women. I think it is just the natural order of things that men are more attracted to some women than to others; and to certain parts of their bodies than to others. Women might be attracted to men based upon things other than, or not exclusively, or primarily , physical appearance.


----------



## Al Jackson (Oct 13, 2019)

My observation is that has changed in these 'modern' times, it's not true of The Expanse.


----------



## Lumens (Oct 13, 2019)

HareBrain said:


> This is almost never the case with male figures, as was pointed out in a funny spoof poster from some superhero film (I forget which) a while back.


That was Deadpool I think. There was also a mention of "America's ass" for Captain America in the latest Avengers flick, but not anything on the poster itself.


----------



## Star-child (Oct 13, 2019)

Perhaps we are missing the "objectification" of men that is happening at the same time? When women are posed or dressed to emphasize their attractiveness, their breasts and buttocks are highlighted. But it is obvious in the Divergent and Avenger pictures that the men are dressed and posed to emphasize shoulders, arms, chests and powerful legs. It is as if the things that are visually attractive about women are considered sexual and therefore prurient, while the things that are visually attractive about men aren't given the same consideration. Are the things that are attractive about men's bodies without similar sexual appeal?
































SFF does offer many opportunities for sexy looks, but it is easy to think of plenty of epic SF where no bulging sex appeal is in evidence. Star Wars, 2001, Interstellar, Arrival, Robocop, Silent Running, Minority Report, etc.


I'd bet there was a very conscious choice that Captain Marvel uses fairly genderless heroic poses. (Or are they male?):


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 13, 2019)

The problem with objectification of women in film is that it reflects wider cultural values - ie, that men do things, and women have things done to them. In mainstream film, especially action films, the woman exists as nothing more than than a sexual reward for the male hero. This especially reflects the old-fashioned view that women exist primarily to have babies.

Science fiction in film and TV can often simply repeat these everyday biases, but some science fiction has been outstanding in challenging them: in _Star Wars_ Leia is initially portrayed as the traditional princess who needs rescuing, but then she takes control of the rescue, and afterwards is a principal figure in organising and leading the Rebel Alliance.

_Aliens _and _Terminator 2_ are both outstanding films for portraying women as people, driven by character development rather than by gender roles, and _Babylon 5_ is generally very progressive for the way they treat all characters as characters.

Then we get modern failures such as _Star Trek: Into Darkness_, where characters are overly sexualized and the female lead appears in a full body shot in nothing but her underwear, for no other reason than to titillate young male viewers - when my eldest daughter saw that, she said it made it clear the film series wasn't intended for her.

Sure, males can be objectified, too - but they are not reduced to solely sexual figures whose role is to passively reproduce. Chest shots emphasis the strong, masculine nature of the lead, emphasizing the role of the alpha male - a figure that really should have been left in the trees when us apes came down from them.

Anyway, this thread is moving too close to the discussion of social politics, which we don't do here, so I'll close it now.


----------

