Who's Vision's , Who's Fantasy.. Are we seeing?

I want to start off by explaining the male gaze from a male's perspective, that is the explanation from Bergen in the Ways of Seeing “In the art-form of the European nude the painters and spectator-owners were usually men and the persons treated as objects, usually women” (Berger 63). He goes on and says “Women are depicted in a quite different way from men-not because the feminine is different from the masculine- but because the “ideal” spectator is always assumed to be male and the image of the woman is designed to flatter him” (Bergen 64).  In these terms, it is quite obvious what the male gaze is, to simplify, the male gaze is a pleasurable look from a man onto a woman where she is no longer a conscious being but an object to be seen in the most flattered way. This male gaze is not natural, this idea is not genetically encoded; instead this idea of the male gaze was designed.  According to Mulvey in Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema... film also designed this code and it was designed to maintain patriarchal order, "Unchallenged, mainstream film coded the erotic into the language of the dominant patriarchal order" (835).

Today can we say that this male gaze still runs true? Are females still objects of viewing pleasure in the media???

This ad was taken from http://itsguycode.com/guycode/526-old-ads-that-degraded-women.html

Of course, and in the era, where sexual visuals are used to sell everything, some advertisers have sunk so low to objectifying a female child.  This ad is always disturbing to me.  How far will this male gaze go to keep females objectified? Whether this is a digitally produced image, the image still stands, "innocence is sexier than you think."  This young girl looks no older than 7 years old and yet "her image is designed to flatter him" (Berger 64).  Mulvey also states "The magic of the Hollywood style at its best......from its skilled and satisfying manipulation of visual pleasure" (835).  Simply put, this is by no means a Hollywood image although some can argue it is, the point being, this is skillfully a satisfying manipulation of visual pleasure. And welcome ladies and gentlemen to the WORLD of the MALE GAZE.

Bergen discusses the traditions in European oil painting that carry on the ideas of women objectivity and its lasting effect today (63).  It is therefore not surprising how this is the dominant form of vision in popular culture.  To make this more easier to understand, the person producing, the person projecting, the person writing, the person directing and the person holding the camera is MALE 90% of the time.  I have experience in the urban eye candy modeling industry and these ideas are very prevalent.  I have been in photo-shoots where I was told to make certain facial expresses and gestures to appease the MEN. I was told to pretend that someone was staring at me and to give them a naughty look in return.

  The person holding the camera was male and the intended audience is male so the dominant viewpoint is from a males perspective, men want to see what is flattering to them. If we are constantly dominated with a one dimensional vision, the ending product will be one dimensional. 

On the opposite side of the spectrum, Bell Hooks in the The Oppositional Gaze does an amazing job with  including women of color in the fight for equal representation in the media, "Conventional representations of black women have done violence to the image" (120). So what exactly is this Oppositional GAZE?? and why did it develop?? According to Hooks, the oppositional gaze, is a look and gesture of resistance (116).  She digs further in explaining the oppositional gaze  as look as a "critical gaze", she says "one learns to look a certain way in order to resist"(116).  Resist what?? According to Hooks, to resist the of negation of black representation  in media (118).

She goes on to say  when black women did appear on scene, they were there to represent "white womanhood as object of the phallocentric gaze"(119).  When woman of color were present in the early films, we were unfairly represented and it is fair to say, they still are wrongfully represented.  Hooks gives us an example when discussing Julie Burchill commentary on Girls on Film, "Tallulah Bankhead complimented her on the paleness of her skin and the non-NEGROIDNESS of her features" (119).

So what does this all mean? I understood in Media 180, the structure of mass media in the horrible portrayal and subjection of women especially in movies and music videos.  For me personally, it is extremely upsetting and in someways I feel helpless.  However, I believe my own little acts of resistance and acts from all women will one day balance the representation and we will no longer be ignored and objected to the MALE GAZE.

Shay.