The internet loves outrage — but apparently, it also loves choosing where to aim it. When Peddi came under fire for the way Janhvi Kapoor’s character was presented, the debate quickly became a referendum on female representation. Now Toxic has landed in the middle of a similar conversation, with women again being placed in highly stylised, glamorous and sexually charged situations. So why does one film trigger accusations of objectification while the other gets wrapped in the language of artistic expression? The answer is far more complicated than simply saying, “One was directed by a man, the other by a woman.”

Peddi vs Toxic: The Double Standard Is Harder to Ignore Than the Glamour

1. Let’s stop pretending the argument is about skin.
The Peddi backlash was not simply because Janhvi Kapoor’s waist, navel or glamorous styling appeared on screen. The criticism went deeper—to how her character was written and how Ram Charan’s character behaved around her. That distinction matters.

2. Now enter Toxic.
Geetu Mohandas’ Toxic has also faced questions about its portrayal of women, particularly after its trailers and songs triggered criticism. Yash himself defended the film before release, insisting that there was a genuine “voice for women” within it.

3. And suddenly the conversation becomes complicated.
If a glamorous presentation automatically equals objectification, then the yardstick has to remain consistent. If context, characterisation and narrative intent matter, then both films deserve to be judged on those parameters — not reduced to who directed them.

4. The “male director versus female director” argument is simply too convenient.
A woman filmmaker does not automatically make every portrayal feminist. Likewise, a male filmmaker does not automatically make every glamorous female character misogynistic. Cinema is messier than that.

5. The real question is: who gets agency?
Does the woman exist merely as decoration around the hero? Does she influence the story, make choices, and possess an identity beyond her appearance? That is where the conversation should begin — and where it should stay.

6. And this is where selective outrage becomes dangerous.
If audiences are genuinely demanding better representation, excellent. But the same standards must apply across films, stars, industries, and directors. Otherwise, criticism starts looking less like principle and more like fandom wearing a moral costume.

7. Brutal truth?
Peddi and Toxic should not get automatic passes or automatic condemnation. Judge the writing. Judge the agency. Judge the context. Judge what the camera is actually doing.

Because if the only rule is “glamour in one film is exploitation, but glamour in another is art,” then the problem isn't the cinema.

It's the double standard.