Cross-posted at Caroline Heldman’s Blog.Magic Mike is “wildly overperforming” at the box office because women and gay men are going to see it in droves. Thank you Hollywood executives for finally noticing that there’s plenty of money to be made off of heterosexual female and gay male sexuality. Magic Mike purports to be a movie that caters to het women, and while it does provide a highly unusual public space for women to objectify men, the movie in fact prioritizes male sexual pleasure in tired, sexist ways.
Watching Magic Mike was an experience. Many of the female theater-goers around me were hollering demands (e.g., “take it all off, baby!”) and grunting approvingly during dance scenes. The camera unabashedly focused tight on the dancer’s abs and buttocks, requiring viewers to objectify the male actors. I’ve written elsewhere that living in a culture that objectifies girls/women is highly damaging, and emerging male objectification is a corporate wet dream to sell products by creating new body dissatisfactions/markets.
Make no bones about it, this movie is all about reinforcing the notion that men are in control and men’s sexuality matters more. It baffles me that the filmmakers were so effective in conveying these themes in a movie about male strippers that a mostly female audience is eating up. Have we learned to devalue our own sexual pleasure so thoroughly that the scraps of het female sexual pleasure provided by Magic Mike feel like a full meal?
Aside from the questionably-empowering viewer interaction with the film, the content of Magic Mike is old-school sexism wrapped in a new package. It reinforces prevailing notions of masculinity where white men are in control, both economically and sexually, and women are secondary characters to be exploited for money and passed around for male sexual pleasure.
Most of the women in the film are audience members portrayed as easily manipulated cash cows to be exploited for money. In one scene, the club boss, Dallas (Matthew McConaughey) gets his dancers pumped up before a show by asking them, “Who’s got the cock? You do. They don’t.” Dallas has a running commentary that forcefully rejects the idea that female audience members are sexual subjects in the exchange.
Beyond the foundational theme of male control, many (but not all) of the simulated sex acts the dancers perform in their interactions with female audience members service the male stripper’s pleasure, not hers. Dancers shove women’s faces into their crotch to simulate fellatio, hump women’s faces, perform faux sex from behind without a nod to clitoral stimulation, etc. As a culture, we have deprioritized female sexual pleasure to such a great extent that these acts seem normal in a setting where they don’t make sense.While the men in Magic Mike strut their sexual stuff with a plot line that constantly reaffirms their sexual subjectivity, the few supporting female roles show women in surprisingly pornified, objectifying ways. Magic Mike is pretty tame when it comes to male bodies. Lots of floor and face humping, but no penis or even close-up penis tease shots through banana hammocks. In fact, viewers aren’t exposed to any male body part that they wouldn’t see at Venice Beach. The same cannot be said for women.
The movie features gratuitous breast scenes galore (yes, the breasts are the scene) and full body (side and back) female nudity. One of the male stripper’s wives is reduced to a pair of breasts that are passed around when her husband encourages another male stripper to fondle them because “she loves it.” The few recurring female roles in the cast are flat with no character development, including the romantic interest, while the white men in the film enjoy extensive character development.
Other disturbing moments are peppered throughout the movie. Magic Mike (Channing Tatum) makes a thinly veiled rape innuendo when he’s “teaching” a younger guy how to approach a woman at a club: “Look what she’s wearing. She’s asking to be bothered.” The movie also asks viewers to laugh at a larger woman who hurts a dancer’s back when he picks her up (see photo and trailer below). And one of the main characters has a homophobic reaction when he’s grossed out that his sister thinks he’s gay. Also, this is a story about white men where both women and men of color exist at the margins. The Latino DJ is a drug dealer (how original), and the two Latino dancers barely talk.I was heartened and humored by grandmas and teenage girls asserting their sexual subjectivity in the theater by yelling at the screen. It is wonderful to see so many women spending money for an experience that purports to cater to our sexual desires. We want to feel powerful when it comes to our sexuality because we’re constantly robbed of sexual subjectivity through popular culture, pornography, the male gaze, and in the bedroom. One Sexual Revolution later, men are still twice as likely to achieve orgasm than women during sex.
If Magic Mike is our sexual outlet, we deserve something better. When women turn around and engage in the same objectification that harms us, is that empowering? When the men we’re objectifying on the screen are degrading women and prioritizing their own sexual pleasure, and we eroticize this behavior, is that empowering? And when women eroticize sexual acts that don’t involve the clitoris/orgasm, is that empowering? I don’t have definitive answers to these questions, but I do know that Magic Mike would have been a radically different film had it truly been about female sexual pleasure. It’s high time more women were calling the shots in Hollywood and making mainstream movies that feature female sexual pleasure.
Magic Mike trailer. To see the sexual double standard, note how the trailer frames male stripping as a “fantasy” life, and imagine this term being applied to female strippers in a Hollywood trailer.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMU7s6cwxEM]
Caroline Heldman is a professor of politics at Occidental College. You can follow her at her blog and on Twitter and Facebook.
Comments 170
Andrew s — July 5, 2012
I agree more women need t be in control in Hollywood. But I'm not sure how much I agree with a lot of this post.
I'm a guy. And I saw this opening night on a date with popcorn and coke (didn't realize it was a girls night out movie and that I'd be surrounded by ladies making penis jokes). It was fun.
I thought the movie did a decent job at humanizing characters that would otherwise be 100% stereotypes. Of course I don't know any strippers of any gender.
I thought Olivia munn had a great character, specifically whe she tells mike to stop asking questions and that his job was to just look pretty. He realizes the world he lives in only when he sees that she was using him for sex and nothing else. Perhaps we are to assume at the end that he and the sister end up living a happy monogamous life,while the brother, a younger version of mike, begins the same journey.
Th nudity, I think, was used to purposely make the audience sexualize the people. Mike did that, and as an audience we connect more to the story if we are encouraged to do that. And as the story progresses we start to see how mike, along with the audience, objectifies other people. We see the emotional toll it takes on us. And I hope in the end the audience learns a lesson about the destructive nature of objectification.
The fact is that Tampa fl has a ton of strip clubs. That life exists. And this movie brings a huge audience into a room to see a story that, if done correctly (and I think it was), may start a dialogue inside people's mind.
And, regarding breasts, I'm not sure how sexual they are in this movie. They're presented in very natural settings to demonstrate the life mike is livng. Even the wife who likes her breasts touched is done to demonstrate a lifestyle that is real, perhaps not mainstream, but real. And I don't think the audience would legitimately feel sexy during that scene.
Xiao Mao — July 5, 2012
Men must ALWAYS be on top. Even when they are performing a job usually relegated to REAL women who have often been molested, raped, abused addicted to hard drugs, abandoned, etc. Woohoo, it's fun to be a stripper. Yeah. Right. Maybe if your sex RUNS THE WORLD AND HAS ALL THE MONEY.
And, the other way it's like this: any job that men do is honored and respected. As soon as women start doing it, it loses that respect (and often the pay rate drops). Women are devalued on the basis of their sex, in all things. One of the myriad of ways that the patriarchy is maintained.
This movie looks like utter crap. I could not be less interested; men bore me.
MPS — July 5, 2012
As I said in post on another topic, the real objectification of men is not in terms of sex objects, but in terms of material providers.
It's a subtler objectification because signaling ability to provide material goods is more complicated than signaling health (which is the root of sexual objectification of women). It takes the form of status signals: having a high-status job (which in modern culture doesn't necessarily equate with wealth), possessing luxury goods (expensive watches, suits, cars, boats), and so on. These signals have been commercialized just like women's fitness signals have been commercialized.
It must be stressed that the male interest in sex, and the male evaluation of women based on health, signaled in ways that cause sex appeal, is hand-in-hand with the female interest in providence, and the female evaluation of men based on ability to provide, signaled by social status and wealth, which causes appeal in women. One must be very careful when evaluating which of these is more "objectifying" and how.
I do not mean to argue the arrangement is balanced, or fair. The female mating strategy and its consequent objectification of men is more empowering to men than the male mating strategy and its consequent objectification of women. This is because a woman who does not have sex appeal has limited means of attaining sex appeal, and the means of attaining sex appeal are generally not viewed as life-enriching activities. In contrast, a man who does not have social status or wealth can work to attain social status or wealth, and the means of attaining social status or wealth (developing a career or hobby) are generally viewed as life-enriching activities.
Therese — July 5, 2012
This is the piece of commentary that's been missing from so many reviews of the film. I thought the film was good but not great. I liked the naturalistic dialogue and Matthew McConaughey's character was a total riot and Olivia Munn was wonderfully cheeky.
Unfortunately, I found myself distracted not by the buff bodies, but the way the women in the film existed in service to the men, and especially to Mike, both for random sex and for 'saving' him. I kept thinking: If the genders were reversed, what would the film look like? I think we're so used to sex being portrayed from a guy's standpoint, it takes actual work to realize that none of this is actually about female pleasure or empowerment.
There's a whole genre of porn that's 'bachelorette' themed with male strippers and all. On the surface, it looks like it's geared to women, but even there the women are basically just pleasuring the men.
Kelsey — July 5, 2012
I've never been to a strip club of any sort, nor have I seen this film. But what I'd like to know is, is this an accurate representation of how that industry operates?
Kelseylp — July 5, 2012
I saw this movie on opening day (judge if you will), before seeing any reviews or criticism. I feel the same way as this reviewer. In the opening scene, Channing Tatum gets out of bed and we get a full shot of his naked body from behind. The women in the theater starting cheering and I thought, this is going to be fun! But the very next shot is of a naked woman and the cheers immediately stopped. The atmosphere immediately lost its charge and it never got back up to that level of excitement. It doesn't make sense to me to have so much female nudity and objectification in a movie targeted towards women. Maybe it's a big conspiracy to make women think that their sexual liberation lies in submitting to men like this? Or maybe there are just so few women in the movie industry that in order for a film like this to be made they had to please the male CEos with boobies everywhere.
Therese — July 5, 2012
I saw the film (see my comment above) and I thought it was outrageous that there was not a single frontal nude shot of any of the guys. The movie is about male strippers!! The penis pump scene was a fantastically droll moment, by the way. The nudity doesn't have to be sexy. It's just as effective as a source of humor, and especially as a commentary on how much work it takes to be 'sexy.'
Objectifying Men: Is Turnabout Fair Play? — July 5, 2012
[...] But we have rarely seen objectification of men as a main event on the order of Magic Mike, the Channing Tatum film about male strippers that opened this week to great media fanfare (thanks, New York Times, for reporting from the land of “duh” that many gay men are enjoying the film), reports of “girls night out” gone wild, and solid box-office receipts. We’re thrilled for any of our fellow ladies to get in touch with their sexuality, and even to appreciate the male form. We love hot men, too, and, yeah, drooling over guys is a good stress reliever. And, of course, there is nothing wrong with making a movie about the lives of strippers, male or female. But is there no way for us to just be a little more civilized here, girls? We wouldn’t want mags and websites reporting on a lady-stripper movie with giggly photo captions like, “Sorry—are we objectifying you, Channing?” But Glamour did, and they’re hardly alone. People did a “Hump Day” slide show of Magic Mike costar Joe Manganiello, complete with terrible pun. (“He’s real. And he’s pec-tacular.”) NextMovie gave us a gallery of “8 Guys We Want to See Strip in Magic Mike 2.” Women in screenings were yelling, “Take it all off, baby!” at the screen. [...]
Mimis — July 5, 2012
This article is hilarious. Sometimes you just have to enjoy the show without thinking. PUN INTENDED.
Laura — July 5, 2012
Not sure I agree with this post at all. I think the main focus of the film was to subtly critique that hyper-macho male universe. I DEFINITELY didn't think it purported the message "being a male stripper is fun, especially since I get to subjugate women!"
I know it really seemed like a dumb chick-flick to take at face value, but I applauded it for going a little further than that.
Roger — July 5, 2012
Just a guess but I would imagine that this movie lacked a cock-shot (a shot of male genitalia) because of concern over the rating -- I'm sure there will be an unrated version released to Blu-Ray/DVD where you can view the male sex organ in all of its glory. This is a movie written by a man, directed by a man, with a male production company and distributed by a studio run by a man; what did you expect? This movie more appropriately seems to target the gay male audience than the female audience that it actually cultivated.
For example, the movie was made on a budget of $7 million, which to me suggests that the only reason why this movie was made to begin with was because of the spectacle for gay male audience and not because it had a compelling story or romance. Had they anticipated a stronger female following, they likely would have invested more money in the film (since the gay male demographic is a relatively small niche compared to its heterosexual counterpart). This movie seems tailored to serving its targeted niche and not fulfilling females' sexual appetites -- had that been the case, the budget would likely have resembled Striptease, which had a budget of $40 million. Look at other blockbusters targeting young females: Twilight, $37 million, The Hunger Games $78 million.
Because this was directed by a man, it is likely that the focus was solely on what parts of the male anatomy the director believed to best fulfill female sexual appetites while maintaining the gay male demographic and still obtaining its R rating (who wants to see a penis when you can see chiseled male abs and firm gluts?). Males are the ones who respond most to visual stimuli whereas females' response to sexual stimuli is dependent on context -- i.e., the emotional connection between the characters.
So it seems odd to me that when a movie is marketed using visual cues rather than emotional cues, that the author of this post would expect a movie tailored toward the sexual desires of females rather than the gay male audience (yes gay men are still men and they respond to sexual stimuli in the same manner as heterosexual men). The sexes get their rocks off in completely different ways, which is why creating a female version of Viagra is more difficult than its male counterpart. This movie is very much a male perspective on being a male stripper, and based on the marketing did not pretend to be anything but that. Looking at this from the perspective of the studio/director, I imagine that they were concerned that there had to be some "payoff" for the hetero males who were dragged to see this movie by their significant others.
This movie is much more successful than the studio could have hoped for. I don't believe that objectifying men is the answer to the objectification of women that has gone on for such a long time. Moreover, I don't think that the lack of a penis shot says anything about the intentions of filmmakers other than wanting to make as much money from the project as possible -- and attaining an R rating is absolutely critical since most major theaters won't play NR/X rated films.
Aerochick42 — July 5, 2012
Two things i want to say after reading the comments: Steven Soderbergh actually wanted there to be more frontal male nudity but it was a ratings issue so they had to be edited out. just throwing that out there since i've seen at least one person noting the lack of full frontal nudity instead of the peeks we were given. there is a double standard in Hollywood when it comes to male and female nudity; we all know this.
and the other is that i'm not sure what movie the writer of this article was watching, but there was MOST DEFINITELY an emphasis on female sexual pleasure. there were two or three instances where Mike (Channing Tatum) picked a girl up with her legs over his shoulders and dived his face into her pelvic area, mimicking cunnilingus. cherry picking the times where the men were thrusting their penises into the particpants' faces doesn't mean they've ignored female sexual gratification.
yeah, the "she's asking to be bothered" comment didn't sit well with me. then again, this movie never claimed to be a progressive, feminist film. it told a story wherein the main character re-evaluates his life and leaves that world behind and it did that in a fun, sexy way. like many films to come out of Hollywood, it's problematic but that doesn't mean it's not enjoyable. i definitely plan to add this to my DVD collection; i'm a huge Steven Soderbergh fan.
just my two cents
Andrew s — July 5, 2012
A lot of the comments here seem to indicate that people think the marketing of the movie is the movie.
The movie has nothing to do with the marketing, which has the sole purpose of getting people into theatres to see the movie.
Don't forget tht "eyes wide shut" was marketed as a super sexy flick with Nicole Kidman and Tom cruise. There was as,o lots of talk bout the orgy scene.
Turns out he movie wasn't sexy at all and even the orgy scene was extremely unsexy.
The marketing may be what people are talking about, because I do not think the movie matches with a lot of the criticism here.
Derp — July 5, 2012
You're presenting the "Look at what she's wearing - She's asking to bothered" scene WAAAAAAY out of context. The line is in NO way a "thinly veiled rape innuendo." The line is spoken when one of the male characters is being encouraged to go SPEAK (yes, just speak) to a woman in a bar who is wearing a plastic tiara and an "I'm Finally 21!" pageant sash. Wearing accessories that announce to everyone in the bar that it is your 21st really IS asking to be bothered - As in, strangers approaching you, wishing you a happy birthday and hopeful buying you a drink.
mimimur — July 5, 2012
I just like to point that women hollering at a dancer might not be empowering either. We live in a soceity where sex is equated to power and domination, which means that the conventional view of sex is that is is by definition not equal. There's nothing self evident or natural about that. If sex is going to be equal, we have to rethink the entire concept.
Liz Bloodbath — July 5, 2012
I've never been to a male strip club. From what I've seen in other fictional representations they seem pretty weird and regressive. The mainstream sex industry is so sexist and imbalanced it's unsurprising that a movie about it would come out sexist and imbalanced.
For instance, male strippers seem to usually be chosen for athletic looking bodies, while female ones are usually skinny but not athletic looking. So it's more of a power image, and the implication seems to be that the audience wants to be possessed by them rather than possess them.
And of course, women in the sex industry are seen as sluts, and men are seen as lucky studs.
Women are so used to just accepting this imbalance that it's not surprising that they're enjoying this movie despite its existence. Hopefully it will still be a step forward in the right direction. If making movies to appeal even a little to female sexuality proves to be profitable, maybe future films will be more progressive.
Do gay men and women both go to male strip clubs or is it mostly just women? I have no idea.
Sexually objectifying men, harder than you think « blue milk — July 5, 2012
[...] wheeeee! the title of this post is a pun. Here’s a terrific review over at Sociological Images (and the discussion that follows is interesting, too) of the new Soderbergh film, Magic Mike (which [...]
socsci — July 5, 2012
"And when women eroticize sexual acts that don’t involve the clitoris/orgasm, is that empowering?"
Seriously?
As a woman, should I be concerned that some of the sexual acts I find erotic involve neither a clitoris nor an orgasm?
I know this wasn't the main point of your article, but when you say things this ignorant it really does make it hard to take the other parts seriously. Just a heads up.
Yourlifeslines — July 5, 2012
For a comical sarcastic take on this topic read my blog
http://callmegravy.tumblr.com/post/26602537601/women-need-to-stop-being-such-pussies
asfandancer — July 5, 2012
Have not seen the movie, do not plan to. Nothing to do with objectifying sex or whatever I just am not interested in watching guys who seem to be more in love with their own bodies then anything else. Besides which I like my men with body hair.
analog2000 — July 5, 2012
I have not seen the movie, but this paragraph stood out:
Have you ever been to strip club where male dancers perform for a female audience? Because this is standard practice (at least here in the Midwest). I never thought about it until now, and you're right, that doesn't make sense. But it is an accurate portrayal of what actually happens at a club (in this regard).
Sexualization of Men — July 6, 2012
[...] Post: Magic Mike: Old Sexism in a New Packagehttp://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/07/05/magic-mike-old-sexism-in-a-new-package/ [...]
Alex Odell — July 6, 2012
Several people have been defending this movie as subverting the macho-man culture we have. I haven't seen the movie, still don't plan to, but I am curious as to how exactly the movie did this?
Allison D. — July 6, 2012
I plan to see "Magic Mike," because I want to watch hot guys dance around mostly nude, but "The Full Monty" is a much more thoughtful treatment of male stripping. It's not about The Industry itself, though. It examines how men cope with body insecurity, and feeling emasculated when they lose their jobs. It's also inclusive: the guys who strip are fat, or balding, or scrawny, or jowly, and they still get to be sexy. (I'm aware of the sad truth that this type of inclusiveness would never fly if the strippers were women. Most would respond "GOD, THAT'S GROSS" and "Ew, no one wants to see that.")
Laura — July 6, 2012
Could you please NSFW a couple of these photos? Thanks!
Objectifying Men: Is Turnabout Fair Play? « Jennifer Armstrong — July 6, 2012
[...] But we have rarely seen objectification of men as a main event on the order of Magic Mike, the Channing Tatum film about male strippers that opened this week to great media fanfare (thanks, New York Times, for reporting from the land of “duh” that many gay men are enjoying the film), reports of “girls night out” gone wild, and solid box-office receipts. We’re thrilled for any of our fellow ladies to get in touch with their sexuality, and even to appreciate the male form. We love hot men, too, and, yeah, drooling over guys is a good stress reliever. And, of course, there is nothing wrong with making a movie about the lives of strippers, male or female. But is there no way for us to just be a little more civilized here, girls? We wouldn’t want mags and websites reporting on a lady-stripper movie with giggly photo captions like, “Sorry—are we objectifying you, Channing?” But Glamour did, and they’re hardly alone. People did a “Hump Day” slide show of Magic Mike costar Joe Manganiello, complete with terrible pun. (“He’s real. And he’s pec-tacular.”) NextMovie gave us a gallery of “8 Guys We Want to See Strip in Magic Mike 2.” Women in screenings were yelling, “Take it all off, baby!” at the screen. [...]
TeakLipstickFiend — July 7, 2012
This is Steven Soderbergh? Wow, the trailer makes it look like a a crap rom com (which would be 99.9% of rom coms).
decius — July 7, 2012
How does this movie reinforce patriarchy, in exactly the opposite way from how Showgirls reinforced patriarchy?
Jonathanwitkus — July 7, 2012
It is male sexuality that is demonized in our culture.
Chippendales Backstage: Magic Mike « subcomandante ✸ Stil Macht Mode — July 9, 2012
[...] ewig Lustfeindlichen haben auch schon das vergiftete Herz der nur anscheinend weiblichen Lustfreiheit beim Genusse dieser trainierten Körper ausgemacht. Nein, es ist nicht die Tatsache, dass jetzt [...]
Jcov154 — July 9, 2012
No one has addressed the female bonding effect that the movie has had on the public. Everyone I know who has seen it has gone in groups of friends. Sort of a reaffirmation of a group experience. Also negotiating gender roles as females are often encouraged not to get excited about sex
Toothbrush Bearcat — July 9, 2012
I don't need Steven Soderbergh to empower my clit.
I'd maybe be pissed if this film was written/directed/produced by a woman or person of color, but please, you find old school sexism/racism in EVERY GODDAMN MOVIE EVER MADE basically.
Eye roll.
Jcov154 — July 9, 2012
Female bonding is a part of the movie audience. People are going in groups and enjoying it. Also, they are negotiating gender roles and challenging stereotyped female roles that are not supposed to be interested in sex. Some people enjoy being dominated in the bedroom. There are tops and bottoms and neither is right or wrong. Lets try to think about this differently than so black and white
pduggie — July 10, 2012
"
In one scene, the club boss, Dallas (Matthew McConaughey) gets his dancers pumped up before a show by asking them, “Who’s got the cock? You do. They don’t.” Dallas has a running commentary that forcefully rejects the idea that female audience members are sexual subjects in the exchange."
That makes sense. It would be pretty hard to get men to degrade themself in such a way if you couldn't convince them you were in "power". Its like the narrative of porn performance as "empowering"
Caroline162 — July 11, 2012
This article is ridiculous. When women are strippers (who do the EXACT same things to control and bleed dry their customers - I know because I was one in college) the whole thing is degrading to women and the men have the power. When the men are the strippers, it's degrading to women and the men have the power. How does that work?
How about this? Some people are willing to see themselves as victims in ANY scenario.
This was a totally absurd, silly movie that had no plot and was fun to watch - and I neither felt hot and bothered not objectified when I watched it.
Get over yourselves.
Derangierte Einsichten - Kurz und knapp again — July 12, 2012
[...] Magic Mike: ein Film über männliche Stripper. Leider trotzdem mit typisch männlich-heterosexueller Inszenierung. [...]
Amy — July 12, 2012
I went to see this movie with a friend having not seen a preview and very little idea of what I was getting into. Every time the women "whoo" - I just laughed. The way they bashed the female patrons, knowing a similar crowd would be attending the movie was such a ridiculus move, yet it seemed many in the movie theater did not make the connection.
My biggest problem with the movie was the girl he was interested in- that shortly after he was in bed with another one night stand- she insinuates she wants to sleep with him since he had a sudden change of heart. Ummm... NO. Because he character would have said "ok but you got to prove it to me that you want to live different'...and make him get tested!!! But no the girl just falls all over him...yuck!
Fjdsalk — July 13, 2012
most of this story is just fine and interesting. but it seemed like you didn't like the line “Who’s got the cock? You do. They don’t.” this line isn't sexist. that's just a true statement. i could picgture a girl getting pumped up to go out to a nightclub for a quick lay telling herself in a mirror "who's got the vag? you do. they dont." i just dont mind a line saying a true biological fact.
Moonrise Kingdom and Magic Mike | Christopher Llewellyn Reed @ Stevenson — July 15, 2012
[...] world is new, and it’s good to see a mainstream film exploiting the male figure, for once (though women do not exactly come across as empowered here – it’s still a man’s wor...). The script is well written, with generally good character development, and the relationship [...]
An Open Letter to the Internet, Simon Pegg, and His Followers | emmajenkin — July 17, 2012
[...] As for the surprising number of people who told me that because I watched Magic Mike I’m a hypocrite, I should let you know I have not seen Magic Mike. Nor do I plan to. And you know what? That movie, focused on naked writhing men, is still all about men’s sexual dominance. [...]
Evangelion806 — July 17, 2012
Ugh...really? This just proves women aren't satisfied with anything. Go back and read your 50 shades of grey
Phire Walk With Me | Weekly Link Round-Up — July 18, 2012
[...] [...]
Magic Mike Turns Tables on Objectification, Desire | BroadBlogs — July 18, 2012
[...] the simulated sex on stage often mimics male pleasure, with women’s heads shoved against cocks and men humping women’s faces or behinds. How about a [...]
Saturn — July 19, 2012
I don't agree with this article at all. To me, it showed women being in power. Women were having one night stands with guys as boy-toys and the female would leave and say "I'll call you." The main male character kept calling Joanna and it turns out Joanna was using him and got engaged to someone else. The main male character is desperate to connect with a female on a real level and finally does at the end. I see the whole movie as females treating males as boy-toys and not giving a shit if the guy calls the next day or not.
Feminism and Mainstream Games vs Feminism and Virtual Worlds - Page 8 - SLUniverse Forums — July 22, 2012
[...] you were trying to do. Why would you do that to somebody? Also, I haven't seen the film yet but according to this article, Magic Mike is not an example of femle gaze at all. It's an example of the male gaze. Have you seen [...]
Sibyl — July 25, 2012
I have worked as a female stripper in the past and this seems to depicted the stripping game fairly well. It is about creating a fantasy. Most professional strippers are just that professionals. Male or female the stripper is always in control in every club I have been into. It's their job to create illusions and entertain.
If this movie was about a female stripper, she would have to be either a victim, junkie, decoration, or whore. This depiction has always made me mad. I know many sane, healthy, happy girls and guys who have been/are strippers because they wanted to. They don't regret it either; it's just a job folks
Why Magic Mike Is Sexist | Opinion | LIp Magazine — July 29, 2012
[...] But the film does say some interesting things about sexuality and gender, particularly when it comes to who’s being objectified and when. Because, as Caroline Heldman says, Magic Mike is just old sexism in a new package. [...]
Kikitottie — August 4, 2012
As much as I acknowledge the complete objectification and subjugation of women in media for capital gains; and the subsequent degradation of women as a whole in society; I don't believe that your everyday guy on the street is to blame, he is ~to a lesser extent~ also objectified and subjugated as well by the greed and psychotic tactics of the few who are in control of the opiates for the masses which is mainstream media. Yes it is run by white men, but the general population of men are just as powerless to change the way this machine is running. And as women our greatest power lies in the loving and nurturing nature we possess. It is for our best interest and that of future generations to embrace our vulnerability and our emotions and see them as the gifts of power they are
Movies: Gazing at Magic Mike. « The Early Bird Catches the Worm — August 12, 2012
[...] stripper in Magic Mike—female adoration, money, drugs—Caroline Heldman at Sociological Images wonders why this kind of “stripping as fantasy life” attitude would never be seen in media about...: because Magic Mike still panders greatly to male [...]
Lip : Why Magic Mike is Sexist, But To Women, Not Men | Zoya Patel — October 22, 2012
[...] But the film does say some interesting things about sexuality and gender, particularly when it comes to who’s being objectified and when. Because, as Caroline Heldman says, Magic Mike is just old sexism in a new package. [...]
Mikey — November 4, 2012
Lol.
So basically, when it involves female strippers, it's offensive to women.
When it involves male strippers, it's still offensive to women.
Give me a break.
Mikey — November 4, 2012
I have never been at a movie where a naked woman produced applause or anything of that nature from the guys. On the other hand, perverted women openly will cheer when a naked man appears on the silver screen. Women also openly don't have an issue to spend $10+ to see a film simply because of sexy men in it. I have rarely come across a guy who wanted to blow $10 on a movie simply because they might get a glimpse of tits or bush. Even if they did admit that, they would be considered sexist. But when women openly admit to it, it is deemed OK.
Can you say double standard?
And if you want to talk sexism then maybe you should take a look at modern age ads on television, where the men are portrayed as baffoons and get slapped by their wives/girlfriends/random women and it is deemed perfectly acceptable. You make it sound like everything is about pleasing the man, but in reality the exact opposite is true. Marketing is heavily based off men's fears of not being enough for women. Wake up. I could go on and on about this.
ANONANON — January 9, 2013
I agree with Mikey; this whole thread is nothing but misandric, manipulative, double-standard nonsense. People have commented that there were no male genitals. Go show me one single mainstream film, even 18 rated, where they show female genitalia in graphical, close-up detail. No I'm not talking bums or breasts - they're in a different league. Show me a mainstream film with female genitals, one where their private parts are revealed to strip them of their dignity and respect or shown as part of a comedy sketch etc. whatever you like....
Can't find one? Well that's funny because I could list literally dozens of films and TV programmes with plenty of graphical images of male genitalia in all its glory. And, what's more, I find them in FAMILY films with a much lower age restriction or broadcast at times in advance of the watershed.
All these excuses and the reasoning that goes alongside trying to justify the fact that it's ok to objectify men whilst KNOWING that you wouldn't feel the same if it were the other way around is nothing short of pathetic. Reverse the roles of this film and you'd all be telling a very different story.
DOUBLE STANDARD HYPOCRYTES!
nonanon — January 21, 2013
Oh dear, here we go, the usual employment of shaming tactics. Shame on you. It's all you have left, isn't it! And, by the way, my love life is great thanks, and I really mean that. Why do you think that people who tackle feminists are unusual in any way. Actually, we're quite normal, everyday people that are tired of hearing this tripe and we're beginning to make a stand against it. If you wanted true equality then you wouldn't be supporting the things you do. You'd be acknowledging that the scales have tipped too far and now it is men and boys who are hard done by. Actually, they've ALWAYS been hard done by, it's just that these days it's even worse thanks to the feminists indoctrination that has took place over the last few decades.
What I read on this article was ludicrous, misinformed junk written by a feminist who has, once again, tried to skew the facts in favour of making it look like women are hard done by. It's shocking really, just shocking how feminists try and manipulate a situation to suit themselves. But, you see, like I said, people are wising up to this nonsense and starting to see the truth behind feminists covert and sly social engineering tactics. In this particular instance, we have a film with bundles of male objectification aimed specifically at pleasuring women and gay viewers. It's NO DIFFERENT to a film where the roles could be reversed. It does EXACTLY the same amount of damage to boys as it does to girls. It's just that nobody gives a damn about the male species and how they might be affected detrimentally so they stick a low age restriction on it and advertise publically wherever they like and at whateer time they like - a completely different set of rules seems to apply, all in favour of the female, I might add.
So, I've made my point which only concerns objectification. No matter what subject you care to bring up regarding equality, I could counteract your argument by rasing heaps of issues and inequalities against men that are FAR, FAR WORSE. Health, education, workplace, media portrayal, the homeless, suicide rates, wars, custodial and Father's rights, politics....you name it, men have it worse.
Feminists have fast become way out of touch and totally out of date. Their drivel is boring to say the least and socially dangerous, too.
I'm sorry I am being a bit harsh but it's how many people are feeling these days and we're tired of it. Everyone is man-bashing and it's just got to stop. It'll be the up and coming generation of boys that will stop you in your tracks.
And I have no idea what you're talking about regarding computer games??
Blowout (Denise Duhamel) | Outside of a Cat — April 21, 2014
[…] envisions a revolutionary strip club, one that succeeds where the movie Magic Mike failed (read a smart discussion of it at Sociological Images): the best answer to a sexist culture where a woman is reduced to bare skin and body parts is not, […]
Hooha — June 1, 2015
I agree, this film is terrible as sexist and objectifies women while empowering men: just like most Hollywood films out there. Once again Hollywood puts out crap targeted to a certain audience and expects them to love it. Sorry but I'm too smart to fall for their crap.
Christopher Bogart — July 12, 2015
Is this article for real? Wait it is cause I just read it. Wow. You took a movie that objectifies men sexually thus showing the double standard that's been in place for decades, and managed to twist it around and further dehumanize/demonize us. Bravo!
Is Magic Mike XXL Sexist? | Godless Cranium — July 13, 2015
[…] it is sexy; how the film purports to glorify female pleasure but is, in fact, simply traditional, male-dominated sexism in a new package (yes, “package”); how the fervor of female moviegoers surrounding this film (and, for […]
The Rise of the Hunk. | The Scarlett Woman — November 7, 2015
[…] stripper in Magic Mike—female adoration, money, drugs—Caroline Heldman at Sociological Images wonders why this kind of “stripping as fantasy life” attitude would never be seen in media about…: because Magic Mike still panders greatly to male […]
T. Lindfield — February 21, 2018
Thank you! I finally saw this movie, and was baffled that it was considered anything close to a feminist film! Just another movie rooting for the male gaze.
Sharon — December 6, 2019
I watched Magic Mike and the movie did nothing for me sexually . There is no need at all to see naked men at all. Those women that wanted to see this are very insecure and not girlfriend material never mind worthy to be called wives. I am young lady of 24 and i was happy with the story line, Seeing breasts and other parts of the women body in this film or any other film is nothing knew.Men like to see naked women we all know this and i for one have no issues with that. Females in general like to have a story line to get us in the mood. Any women going to watch this film to see naked men as some serious issues with herself to be addressed, I went with my friends and we were happy with seeing topless men who needs to see more. Women need to stop behaving like they are sex starved and having double standards is not what everyone women wants or to be tagged with , so these feminists need to go back to the drawing board and look themselves properly because of them other loving women are being labelled as loose women when we are not. These women should grow up and find a men to love them instead of acting so childish like they have never been loved before or seen a naked men in the flesh. Big deal if this film showed naked women , i respect my body and i have loads of male friends that respect me and my mind and share my views about life. Some women will not be happy but i speak for loads of normal decent and happy single women here. trust me.