Megan O’Brien — Supplemental Response #4

    With the constant societal discussion around female bodies, I found this week's literature refreshing. Both body types are arguably equally extreme and for show, however, they spark entirely different conversations. It is peculiar that the female on screen body type is perceived as attainable and becomes a borderline expected norm in society, while the male on screen body type is perceived as fake and never becomes an expectation. The desirable muscles and height add to the male protagonist's character, while the female protagonist is simply expected to have a conventionally attractive body type and is notable when she doesn’t fit into this mold. 

    In real life, both body types are enviable; however they play different roles in their affects on society. Women are defined by the need to be small and when they are not they are attacked about their innate femininity. Alternatively, the extreme masculine body does not set the same precedent in what a man should look like, but instead what a man is. As Dyer states, “their body represents an assertive and confident declaration of masculinity, which naturalizes male physical power.” Men are not held to the same construct of expectations and instead benefit from the exaggeration of their idolized form. 

    To the core, male stars that obtain an impressive physique that costs them their health due to unhealthy eating habits and steroids are considered unrealistic; meanwhile, the frail feminine ideal that is equally mentally and physically taxing to obtain is made an expectation. The fundamental differences between these conceived perceptions emulate the frequent issue regarding gender topics, leading to the overarching expectation that women can only be one thing.