Or it could just be that women are tired of being objectified in genre movies, in the cringey way they often were in the past (Scarlett in the first Avengers or Megan Fox in Transformers come to mind)...
And thus, we are seeing the overcorrection of that era because Hollywood is unsure of how to portray a woman as both strong and sexy without triggering the blue haired Twitter mob so instead simply settle for making them strong and masculine.
1958
1959
1959
1966
1977
Women, even young idealized fantasy women have had short hair, before now.
1929 - What!?
\
1960s - No way!?
\
90s - Impossible!
\
Stop, you're confusing them.
\
Thank you. I’m aware that women have been getting haircuts for quite some time. Not the point I made at all.
The short hair just a minor facet of the current androgynous presentation and de-feminisation of women but go ahead and only focus on that.
This sort of response is the equivalent to if you went to a restaurant and complained that your pizza was cold and the chef said ‘People love eating cold pizza. Pretend you’ve just woken up with a hangover and get on with it.’
As usual, there’s no hope of having an objective and evaluative discussion around the topic because people invariably get caught in the stance of their ideological hive mind and can only view the subject through that lens.
The scales have tipped entirely away from objectification now but my view is that, as with most things, the middle ground is where we should be aiming for.
Shoot for the female equivalent representation of what Captain America received in The First Avenger; an idealised and aspirational physique, presented as impressive and desirable but not gratuitously so, not over-sexualised or lingered on for more than a second that lets you know- yep, that’s a super human. And most importantly, actually show the differences between male and female demeanours. Wonder Woman got it right.
I think maybe you have misconstrued exploitation and objectification with "celebration of the female form." Females come in lots of forms, with different hair and everything. If you aren't celebrating them all, well, that's exploitation and objectification.
You just portrayed exactly what I meant when I said ‘the thought of an idealised anything female as being discriminatory and oppressive’
What you’re defending is body-positivity nonsense that really doesn’t belong anywhere near superheroes.
Escapism doesn’t quite have the same appeal if the characters who are supposed to motivate us are all just greasy schlubs, reflective of the general population.
‘We need to celebrate ALL female forms or else we’re exploiting and objectifying them?’ Come on.
Celebrations should be reserved for achievements. Achievements take effort. Therefore, only physiques acquired through a degree of effort and hard work are worthy of celebration.
I celebrate Linda Hamilton’s dedication to transforming herself into a shredded warrior for T2 and roll my eyes at Florence Pugh’s announcement that she refuses to ever lose weight for a roll. You can justify not wanting to take the more difficult path with whatever virtue signalling, victim mentality you like- you’re still just being lazy.
Hamilton could have just said- ‘but Sarah’s been locked up and on a poor diet. Her spirits are probably really low so I believe she would have let herself go in that scenario. Therefore, I’ll be prepping for the role by eating Oreos and whipped cream on my sofa. This is my body and I need to feel comfortable in it.’ Schlubbiness is not empowering, admirable or desirable to anyone.
These super characters are supposed to be our physical and moral superiors. If we can’t acknowledge that there is a superior and ideal physical form or even generally more desirable traits in each *** (that are already well researched and documented cross culturally,) well, we’re probably in the same societal situation where we can’t actually define what a women is. So, yeah, we’re right where we should be then.