Wednesday, March 27, 2013

What does Jon Hamm and Michael Fassbender have in common?


Well... these two fine gentlemen have been the butt of immature taunts and jokes for quite a while, and it's bordering on, if not full stop, sexual harassment. If you're not familiar with actor Jon Hamm, he stars in 'Mad Men' and he's also in movies too like 'Bridesmaid' and 'The Town'. However it seems that when there is a gossip article about him lately, he is often being compared to Michael. Specifically, since Michael starred in 'Shame' last year, people have talked more about his nudity in the film than the damn film itself. So the comparisons between Jon and Michael has been made into hilarious gossip fodder! [sarcasm]

As an example, not 20 minutes ago, I checked out my tumblr dashboard, while here at work, and as I scrolled down, up pops brightened animated gifs of Michael nude, walking around in his apartment in Shame. Also, there were gifs of him using the bathroom, and having sex (that was on tumblr yesterday). Thanks tumblr, you guys really "love" and respect Michael Fassbender. Not! I then go to Dlisted to check up on today's gossip and low and behold, there is an article about Jon Hamm's interview with RollingStone and he's complaining about people talking about his private part.
"Most of it's tongue-in-cheek. But it is a little rude. It just speaks to a broader freedom that people feel like they have - a prurience. They're called 'privates' for a reason. I'm wearing pants, for fuck's sake. Lay off. I mean, it's not like I'm a fucking lead miner. There are harder jobs in the world. But when people feel the freedom to create Tumblr accounts about my cock, I feel like that wasn't part of the deal ... But whatever. I guess it's better than being called out for the opposite." - Jon Hamm - RollingStone


Now that you have read Jon's comments about this uncomfortable situation, for those of you (no one in particular) who see nothing wrong with posting images of Michael nude, taking advantage of his artistic expression, to gawk like out of control fools... do you see how silly and rude this is? No? I didn't think so. Basically, people will keep commenting about the bulge in Jon's pant leg, circling it, enlarging and cropping images, like they've never seen a human's penis before. And they will still continue to express complete and utter disbelief at the state of Michael's nudity. I guess like Jon said, if both he and Michael were on the opposite of the spectrum, that kind of chatter would be worse. I'm not a complete prude. Believe me, I appreciate a beautiful man too. I've made comments about how much I loooooooooooove it when Michael wears those panted on skinny jeans, and such. But I have never ever posted nude images of Michael here or at Pinterest, tumblr, twitter, and I've never circled or highlighted any of his images with the expressed interest of focusing in on his privates. Like Jon said, it's rude to do so. 
~~~~~~~~

I hope you all enjoyed the Fassy News Network newsletter yesterday. As usual, a couple people unsubbed from the newsletter shortly after reading the latest issue. I always find it funny how people take such deliberate steps to sign up for the newsletter, an email that is sent out once every 2-3 months, and then unsubscribe from it after getting an issue. Did I write something in it that offended you? Do please tell me. Oh well, buh bye then!

Source: Dlisted

3 comments:

Dionne said...

I wasn't aware of the situation with Jon Hamm. *sigh* Nothing more to be said that hasn't already.

Maria Willis said...

Eh, I'm of two minds on this, if the sole reason you're a "fan" of someone is for their looks: it's pure objectification, plain and simple.

Does that mean being a fan of any actor and admiring their body isn't objectifying? Not at all (I'm guilty of it and I know it immediately which I've posted about before, on my blog not here).

I've reblogged gifs from Shame or Fish Tank and tagged them as being pleasurable to look at out of context. I won't excuse what I've posted because there's no justification for it other then I found it (at the time) pleasing to look at or it resonated with me (I'm referring to a scene in Shame where his face showed like fifteen different emotions in the span of seconds or the fact that we've all been terrified of being caught doing something we enjoy).

I'm not saying you're pointing me out, just using myself as an example, in case other people do the same thing or don't know how to feel about what they choose to reblog. I only have a problem when folks reduce a person to being solely one thing or say the ONLY perk of a film/show is (insert whatever body part you choose too) because obviously there is so much more.


/but that's just my two cents
//also, Simone I didn't know y'all have a newsletter! I always check this site via mobile so the format is different for me I think

Martha said...

I had heard about the Hamm situation but I didn't know there was a place just for shots of his business. I did go to this place and all it is is shots of him and some of them feature promininence let me say. I guess I am with him on that to have a blog just for that is not only rude but also quite immature.

As Fassy gets more fans they will undoubtedly discover Shame and some of them will post shots of him as well. It's unavoidable. I guess everyone that does post should ask themselves how they would feel if it were them who were the subject. Yes actors willingly make a film but I don't think it gives us the right to focus on a certain body part that as Hamm says is supposed to be private.

Maria is right though I certainly held my breath when I saw his his gorgeous face in Inglorious Basterds and then after I became a fan I realized his looks had made me pause at various other times and then I realized it was the same guy. And while I now have really come to appreciate his craft because he does take his job seriously (as is very evident even in a pop corn flick such as X-Men) I still enjoy him for his looks.