Is there a FEMALE gaze (and what is it)?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 чер 2024
- SUPPORT ME ON PATREON!
To support this channel and access content early, visit:
/ themediainsider
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this video, we follow up one of the biggest questions asked in the Laura Mulvey Male Gaze video I made a few years ago by investigating whether or not there is a female gaze. We look at Cracks and Mad Men as examples of where it might be found and whether it is as simple as objectifying both genders.
In summary, although there isn't a clear definition of female gaze yet, we can see already that it is used as a means of change for the feminist movement in film.
I saw Hustlers last night - didn't know it was written and directed by a woman, but sensed it from the very beginning. The film (which is about pole dancers) constantly frames its subjects from the perspective of the female central character (Constance Wu). It idolises its subjects (particularly Jennifer Lopez) without leering. I feel like I need to reflect on how it manages this, but it struck me as being a good example of "The Female Gaze".
great point! I felt the same way
I felt they leered plenty. I was certainly enjoying what I saw. It's only not objectification because a woman directed it to you lol. If it were a man youd be all over it because "MAN MAKE MOVIES ABOUT STRIPPER? NOT IN MY FEMINISM" lol
How do you make a pole dancing movie without it being leering?
@@emptyblank099a apparently by being a woman in the director's chair. And only that lol.
Great video. Also a video on feminist topics that isn’t bombarded by dislikes and hate comments is rare, you’re pretty lucky!
I think the people who would watch a video like this are more thoughtful than the standard UA-cam audience.
Also because he's a man. If a woman were to explain, she'd be less believed.
@@HeyMykee Stop tooting your own horn. You are not more enlightened than anyone else because you like a video lol. This video while informative is still ultimately reductive and teaches that women are not actual living beings who are sexually motivated as well. The author seems to believe all women exist in a fantasy world where they never think about sex outside of their loves when reality and history have both shown this to be false. It is an inherently gendered and misandrist look at the "gazes", attributing solely negative qualities to the "male gaze" which is unquantifiable in that all men have different tastes and the idea of one cameraman or director is not reflective of men. Same with women. Again, this video is not very thoughtful. It is in fact quite harmful and reductive and only teaches women to dislike men on an intrinsic level further by insisting our gaze is inherently objectifying and the female gaze inherently isnt, which is observably false.
As a woman it doesnt sit right with me how male gaze is described as bad but female gaze is described as almost transcedental and divine... I would've felt better if female gaze defined something gross too,(perhaps the gratiutious n shallow movies where men are dumb and women r powerful?). Labeling men as bad and woman as good only creates further tension in the already prominent gender wars...
100% agreed but I'm only watching this to know perspectives
Yes, I think so too. The word 'gaze' makes it sound very subjective, not really realistic. Besides what you suggested, maybe some parts of those sappy and unrealistic rom-com dramas are more like a female gaze. Wouldn't that feel fitting?
@@daddyleon I mean i get how those sappy rom-coms might feel like a female gaze to a guy but it doesnt seem that way for me. Especially because they are mostly harmless
@@CapeEniEer Could you maybe explain why they might seem like a female gaze to men but not to women?
'Gaze' as a negative connotation in my eyes. And rom-coms can have negative effects too, just very different from the male gaze stuff. I've heard that research indicates that it can give people a warped and unrealistic sense of how relationships should be. There might even be a racial aspect to it (not just since most romcoms tend to be with white people, but if they include POC, it's often still a white person that's showed as most desirable in some way), though...I don't have hard data on this. Plus this might be its own thing that merely intersects with the sex/gender dimension. There could be a "white gaze" that's seen as the 'default status', as whiteness often is.
I'm...getting the sense that I'm just rambling on and taking up too much of your time. But I'd love to hear your thoughts on this - idk what I could well be missing.
Well, the male gaze isn't necessarily bad and nobodies saying that. The actual issue here is that there's an oversaturation in media of only the male world perspective. We need more perspectives within media. That's all.
Why is the male gaze „bad“ and all about sexy women but the female gaze is not about sexy men but about sth completely different? Wouldn’t it be the same as male gaze but just gender switched? It’s kinda of hypocritical. I mean look at vampire diaries, a show where the majority of the audience is female and you see as often as possible hot and shirtless men AND one of the main directors was a woman. Isn’t that the „real“ female gaze? Same as male gaze but genders switched
There's a common perception that the opposite of "patriarchy" is "matriarchy". The opposite would be "not patriarchy". Mulvey argues convincingly that a gendered gaze in prominent in cinema (others, like John Berger, offer more arguments). The opposite of the male gaze would not be females objectifying men, but an absence of voyeuristic sexualization.
It's also worth noting that there is no value judgement on the male gaze. It's not "good" or "bad", it's simply something to be aware of. The critique of the male gaze largely rests on its systemic use. That Western media takes this as a starting point. Mulvey expresses this when she hints that experimental/alternative (I can't remember the language she uses) exists as an area where the male gaze isn't dominant.
Hey, I know your comment is three months old but maybe you can still answer my questions. All I want to know is, who decided on this definition of "female gaze"? This being the term we are talking about, not the term "not male gaze"/ "opposite of male gaze". 2nd question: Why is "female gaze" not just the opposite of the meaning of "male gaze" (specifically the objectification of males in media)? Thanks in advance
@@LeoGreenLion I can't answer your first question, but I think I can say a little about your second question. About every woman I've talked to agrees that the objectification of men in media is often not done to make those men seem attractive to women, but to show men an idealized version of themselves. It's a power fantasy, so to speak.
A very convincing example for that are, in my opinion, magazine covers. Many magazines that are usually bought by women don't picture male stars on the cover ripped and shirtless - they are usually depicted as "homely", in comfortable clothing, with softer lighting. Magazines branded at men on the other hand often have shirtless, unrealistically fit men on the cover, at least in the examples I've seen. Straight women in general are not just attracted to violent, muscular heroes. They like soft-spoken, nurturing types just as much.
So to conclude, I don't have a definition of the female gaze for you but I would argue that it's not the objectification of men since male filmmakers and media producers in general manage to do that pretty well on their own.
this is one oof the best videos i've seen about the female gaze or femenine gaze: ua-cam.com/video/pwtwsyoKUFo/v-deo.html&ab_channel=witandfolly
Is it not bad when it causes women to be perceived as objects and feel insecure?
@@LeoGreenLion hey, hopefully you've already looked into this but as far as I know there's really no consensus on what qualifies as a female gaze.
There are too few examples to form any meaningful analysis. One goal of many feminists (post 1980s) is not to mirror male power structures with female counterparts but to proportionally devalue them and to acknowledge the value of the other gazes.
That's a bit nerd wordy, but sorry, it's nerd stuff.
Really glad I found this channel. Thanks for sharing everything.
When they sexualized women they usually show women in a very revealing clothes and very sexualized angle like focusing more on their private area but when they do the female gaze and sexualized men they just make men take off their shirt and show their abs and that's it.
Female gaze si still very far from being well defined. I'm talking about a time where filmmakers, directors and cinematographers being comfortable to sexualized and show men in a very revealing clothes and focusing on very sexualize angle like focusing on their private area and for male actors being more comfortable to do it and for the audiences to be comfortable to see it.
This happens all the fucking time to men what are you talking about? Men are ripped and shirtless in majority of movies today, which isnt done for the male viewer lol.
@@mechamahou8467 oh yes it is. You know gay men watch movies too.
@@SinMore you know lesbian women watch movies too? Weird how that doesnt seem to matter when scantily clad women are on screen, and in your mind exists only for the mALe GAze lol. The double standard is alive and well in you. You seem to have more in common with the patriarchy than you think LMFAO
@@mechamahou8467 you don't know anything about me, felcher.
Humans are sexually dimorphic women aren't that interested in over specialised camera shots of men's bodies. Chick flicks like 50 shades of grey and 365 days are better examples of female gaze
For the men getting butthurt with this, many great male directors/cinematographers also have the female gaze.
Agreed - my Mad Men example
A good example here is the film Carol directed by Todd Haynes
The only butthurt is you.
@@umut967 @gjaddajg
You sure about that? Look up other videos about "female gaze" and you'll see plenty.
@@valentina5885 why you call men butthurt? There is a female gaze like male gaze. If you accept male gaze you must accept female gaze either. It is not about being butthurt. Btw for your logic, there is more butthurt women than men. Women always complain about male gaze (which is sense to me). Not just in the youtube comment section, they are in everywhere. Also of course this female gaze thing is a bad thing for men and we are not happy with that.Are you happy with male gaze? So why you say "butthurt" ? If you don't have a problem with male gaze, you can say that to me but if you bitching about male gaze, ohh hell no. I bet you don't like male gaze but if a man don't like female gaze you call him butthurt for no logical reason. What a hypocrishy.
I have thought about this a heck of a lot. Thanks for making a video on it.
Do you think the female gaze / male gaze is restricted to how individuals experience sexuality/treatment of due to their gender? Of course, "gaze" is defined as a look, to study at. But to me, I see the pairing of gaze and POV merging. To me, gaze could mean how women and men value certain objects/ideals: family over duty, emotional intimacy over physical intimacy, etc.
I think about Fleabag when I think about female gaze. I don't know if that counts, but it was by a female director and it was amazing!!
I 100% agree, Fleabag does it perfectly in my view
Hey, thanks for this videoand the one on the male gaze itself. I'm not that conversant in film studies and media studies but I have a unit on the Male Gaze in my intro to women's and gender studies class, and these videos work very well.
I just discovered your channel. im addicted
That’s EXACTLY the kind of audience I love! Thanks for watching
that topic is so interesting to me. I am a heterosexual woman and never have I ever found it sexy or hot when a muscular guy took off his shirt in a hollywood movie. I always thought that was weird, but now I know it isn't. To me, having defined muscles is not nesessary to find a guy sexy (from my perspective). It CAN be attractive, but it doesn't have to.
Feminine and masculine gaze is more accurate 😁. And a woman director won't automatically use feminine gaze
I have a question. My female friends often like to watch Korean show about Korean boyband. Besides the pretty faces, I think it rarely sexualized the boys but of course the show is female oriented.
Is it also a form of female gaze?
definitely not. Boysbands are manufactured by old men, based on a stereotype that Korean women are into feminine men. Male idols are sexualized exactly like the female idols : they have to look cute, act childlike, and be single, selling a boyfriend fantasy.
@@babymilksnatcher wow big hypocrisy. Of course it is female gaze. Fantasy or sex sells. So it is female gaze.
It's a worthwhile question to explore, but it is important to consider cultural context as well.
Mulvey's analysis works well for European and North American film up to the 1970s (and beyond) because it reflects specific coding common to that cinema language and those societies.
To really get at your question you might want to investigate Korea's historical relation to gender and how those dynamics have played out in various art forms through the ages.
John Berger's "Ways of Seeing" series is another good primer for gaze theory that might offer some insights.
In contrary they are sexualized, take a look at 'Love shot' by Exo or 'Monster'
@@umut967 The issue there is the problem of semantics.
since male has been used to portray something Negative. Now one could say Female gaze is an attempt to create something "positive and superior" Read feminist philosophy which raises great issues within the male dominate world of philosophy and then watch it stumble and fall right into the same issues it just tried to point out.
The Sexual gaze which we are talking about has been dominated by the male perspective for 100 years.
Now Females get a chance for their sexual perspective.
But we also get a chance for their gender perspective.
And at the same time it begins to open up for a neutral perspective. Objective perspective and more to be explored more freely.
This also challenges the male gaze and allows it explore more than just the "sexual stare stereotype" which is a good evolution for it.
But alas people tend to marginalize and generalize concepts into what can only be seen as an intellectual insult to anyone else that actually bothers to ponder deeper than stereotypes.
Could you do a video on Richard Dyer's star theory?
I did a presentation about male gaze months ago, and I had a lot of questions about the Female Gaze... and I think we share the same point of vue. We have always to consider that movies ( specialy when it's Hollywood or any big budget industry) is about dreaming and fantacies, so having attractive men on screen is not the equivelante of the Male gaze.
That's it! I had to research quite a bit for this video because I always felt I gave waffly answers to students when they asked the question! Glad it's helped.
ines d. Its view not vue but i agree
It kinda is, one is “being sexualized for men” and the other is “being sexualized for women” there is no difference between the two besides the gender being sexualized. And the reason I poot them in quotes is because we often forget that women can get sexual pleasure from sexualized women too, and vice versa for men. Of course there in’s t a thing wrong with either, and it’s honestly silly to suggest otherwise. It’s just a movie, its not hurting anyone.
@@floor413 but mainstream media largely influences how society consciously/subconsciously thinks, more than we realize. So IMO its not “just a movie.”
@@JinjiSayson You're one of those people that think video games make kids violent, aren't you?
I liked the video overall, but disagreed with the idea that female gaze isn't making men sexy or scantily clad. I think we should call the "Male Gaze" the "Heteronormative Gaze" instead.
Yeah, especially as lots of women like to ogle scantily clad men. If they're ripped and have visible abs anyway.
@@joemusashi7774 literally everyone through these comments think the only thing women are motivated by are "feelings" lol
Good info. Excellent perspective and conjecture of what we should expect and begin to see as more women begin directing and shooting films.
Yep - links really nicely to Stuart Hall's ideas of analysing representations in terms of the ideology of the media producer rather than the accuracy of the representation.
We already have them.
Summarize, i would say that while the male gaze is objectifying, the female gaze is qualitative.
That in itself is a double standard.
@@liampatrick3110 it isnt the same standard so yeah two standards. The guy explains it, they arent opposites. Is like feets and kg. They measure different things.
@@nataliaf.6289 ua-cam.com/video/aj4Qo_qHVyA/v-deo.html
Came from the future cause I found a post with the magazine pictures I talked about. Is in Portuguese, but it states that the slide 2 is male gaze from man over man, and slide 3 is female gaze from woman over man. instagram.com/p/CRbyPXMB1fb/
Thank you for having the easiest to understand and most helpful explanation on the female gaze. Looked it up and I couldnt get an answer that made sense.
Till now
Glad it was helpful! I've only really scratched the surface on the topic, so should really follow up with more detail
does the media insider reply??
Nope
The female gaze is the L Word TV show.
So I guess when my mother would openly state she was attracted to the half naked men in movies and hot and hollar I guess that just like... doesnt count as being attracted to them now? Or is like... she looking at him with pious eyes concerned only with wha tf he dreams and thinks about? This idea that man bad woman good is beyond reductive and misandrist.
So, if the objectifying of men isn't considered to be a part of the female gaze, does this mean that we don't consider the sexual perspective of a heterosexual woman as the viewpoint in question despite the male gaze being generally considered to solely be the sexual perspective of a heterosexual male.
4:37 would that really be a female gaze? Isn't that just the "in-universe effect of the male gaze"? The word gaze suggests to me that there's a clear agent-based intent, but this example shows you what it is like to have "your intent" not matter because you don't have "agency" to begin with. You're a subject. Not a subject in the sense: you're not objectified, but a subject in the sense of subordinate. I wouldn't say: the feminist perspective = female gaze.
It could be me, but I always saw "the male gaze" as a representation how a stereotypical straight heteronormative guy watches the world. I think the film "Cracks", 3:22, might not necessarily be a "female gaze"-film, but just lacks a "gaze".
So what do I think is a "female gaze"? I know it when I see it, I guess. I don't really think there is a clear "female gaze"...yet? While you can: respond to the male gaze; lack a gaze; have a feminist perspective, I don't think any of these are therefore a "female gaze", imho. Just as "gaze" evokes: intent and agency, it also evokes an overall negative connotation. Perhaps it comes down to this: I think having "a gaze" is a bad thing. I think developing a gaze requires having ample time of "socio-historical value-creating and society-shaping power". And in order to have that you have to have the opportunity and will to not be bothered by a sort of double consciousness. And I don't think there has been 'a time and place' to do this.
it is a female gaze because it feels satisfying to watch because we feel understood, and it offers fresh perspective.
I cant explain what im feeling but i agree with this whole thing. As a kid i used to groan at some unneccesary sexualisations, id feel "thats so unrealistic no girl ever stands like that", and then id feel satisfaction when films show stuff that gives a new perspective to male audiences about women, something in me would go " see? see that!!! thats how it is!!" female gaze seems like this big thing but in the end its an easy way to feel gratified for women, just like how male gaze is a quick satisfaction for men
@@CapeEniEer But men don't necessarily feel understood or get a fresh perspective from the male gaze. The male gaze is just sexualizing, objectifying. I had and have the same feelings when I see those films, but I don't think that the absence of that or a more realistic perspective is a female gaze. The word 'gaze' makes it sound very subjective, not really realistic. Maybe some parts of those sappy and unrealistic rom-com dramas are more like a female gaze. Wouldn't that feel fitting?
Yes that's a good way of putting it, the connotation "gaze" is when the other gender (or any person in general) is made into a subordinate (meant for surface-level understanding) as opposed to a subject which is through either the eyes of the main character or the eyes of the audience sometimes led by the camera. As a female, I'd say a fair example of the "female gaze" would be seen in fan-fiction mostly written by women where the female character is quirky and flawed and the male character is mainly there to recognize she's a diamond in the dust. Similar reason as to why boybands and rom-coms work. I know the argument is that oh it is men market boybands and rom-coms but I think the only reason they marketed it was because they cared for the money and not because it's their personal gaze, but because many women definitely are attracted to it and buy into it, and that sort of perpetuated the cycle.
please find my commentary about it, i d like to know what you think! (or i can copy if you cant find it lol)
female gaze, outside movie direction, in feminism, isn't so much about highlighting emotions like his examples, is about a qualitative view instead of a objectifying one (neuromarketing explains how woman and man process information differently). That works in a lot of levels, in the construction of characters in the male gaze people will have functions like tools for the main character, in the female gaze people will have characteristics, abilities, that add to the main character; in magazine covers that portray man that are subject of desire, for the male gaze that man will show power and status, for the female gaze will show skills and differentials. etc.
I also think that they are describing a feminist gaze as female faze, because in mass media we have female gaze since woman started to have their own money, but it is a gaze attached to patriarchal views of gender roles, of the woman view and what woman should desire. Is female gaze, according to man, but it is.
I don't know if I agree with this video. What you talked about and the examples you used sounded more like perspective instead of a female gaze. I don't think it's fair to use perspective as a strictly female thing. Especially when that implies that men don't have different perspectives, other than sex, when it comes to dealing with the opposite (or same). Shouldn't the female version of "the objectification of women", be the objectification of men?
Gaze and perspective are the same thing though - and yes we commonly talk about gaze in terms of gender, but actually every social group AND individual has a gaze - you could talk about the British gaze, or the white gaze, or the teacher's gaze - it all just refers to how that social group sees aspects of the world and represents them
True. This are not examples of female gaze but more examples of female perspectives being objectified in a very male gaze society.
I agree with you but i also agree with the video. As a woman it doesnt feel right how male gaze is simplistic and shallow meanwhile female gaze is being described as a "whole new perspective" and deep. But the video is correct, I feel gross gratification from a film showing stuff that relates to women, i dont feel anything when i look at nude male bodies, NOTHING. Im guessing that men feel gross gratification from watching Megan Fox's hot body in transformers too?
When does the male/female gaze end and story telling begin.
This video only further proves that feminism is all about "men bad women good"
'gazing' whether is masculine or femenine is an unsophisticated way of portraying characters in entertainment
Watching classic movies from the 50s had a good bapance btwn the male and female gaze. It captureed what the male protagonists view was but also the females emotions n feelings
Hello Christmas passed and it is now 2021 so quickly into 2022
Wait, you state the male gaze is about iconography of female bodies for the perspective of men. Then you state that the female gaze is for the purposes of seeing the subject from the perspective of feminism. That is a restricted feminist catagory that for the sake of under representation, doesn't carry the implied pejorative meaning of the male gaze. You also restrict your example of female gaze to a specific genre of cinema and then dismiss it as glorification of male beauty. You are cherry picking examples, and using postmodern Theory in an applied turn to dismiss any possible outcome that questions the oppression paradigm. It is anti intellectual fear mongering. It's disingenuous and antisocial.
This is applied activism at its worst.
Interesting take. I sort of thought the "female gaze" was closer to sth like romantic comedies as it filters male characters through the lens of relationship desirability. The male "princes" in romantic comedies often fulfill female fantasies: charming, sophisticated, clean-cut, well-dressed, conversational, cosmopolitan, successful. The rest also fall under very obvious tropes (the boy-next-door/best friend, the bad boy, the soulmate, etc.). Emphasis is on how the guys and girls talk and dress and conduct themselves in social situations rather than overt sexualisation or brute masculine strength. Of course, this could be off-base as a lot of women find romantic comedies shallow and infantilizing, but it feels like the opposite of the typical Hollywood male gaze.
You make a good point, but those rom-coms are mostly made by men for women to watch. and so still present a women-centric topic through the hetero male gaze. Those 'princes' are often what they believe women want from a male-centric view. They are still filmed in the same way, with video clearly zooming in on the 'pretty'. Even the ones that have the female lead start off an ugly duckling ends up as a male ideal.
@@miabrantley205 So what about the films and literature written by women that follow those tropes?
@@playboyx1114 it's obviously a trope fueled by societies views that that's the only thing women are interested in, it's hilarious that rom com's which are mostly cheesy and centered around the guy getting the girl is seen as something women actually want😂 ofc there's exceptions but I'm pretty sure across the board we don't like them just as much as guys don't
@@briannadeleon4672 so female gaze is now part of the male gaze when it’s not how you want it? For example, 50 shades of grey, a movie directed by women, inspired by a book written by women, sexualizes women more than most “male gaze” movies, is that also “male gaze”
The structure of tgis weird argument is. male gaze: how men sexualize women
Female gaze: gow women perxiev the world
But men perciev the world to they have their own perspective beyond just sex.... If the male gaz is a point of sexualization why is the female gaze a point of experience rather.
There is a female gaze but you have to be unique for a woman to give it to you. You will catch her looking at you and she will not break eye contact.
Fighting sexism, with more sexism. We live in a society.
Irony
I wonder if the female gaze would still be as diverse if it came first and could develop and then the male gaze came around would their roles perhaps swap
@jay what's your point
Seems comparable to how television anchors and reporters speak. It has become homogenized and almost a caricature. If you were to make space for anything else, you probably won’t settle on just one alternative, but rather a variety of options at a of speaking more reflective of the population.
Sounds like bullshit pretty much
So what you are saying is the male gaze is not based on natural, biological tendencies, but rather, the structure of society. If society was structured differently, both gazes would look different.
I agree with your examples, but in the feminist view (not always about movies) the female gaze is a bit more than that!
In a lot of groups i read materials with examples in other medias like magazines, comic book and video games. For me the strongest aspect of it is the attention to skills and feelings. Yes male gaze is about an egocentrical view of the story by males BUT the objectifying in it is about attractiveness, desire and status. The female gaze also has it, woman arent just about feelings and immune to desires (thats a sexist and limited view of "the woman view"). But for woman we measure attractiveness and status in the ability of people. In man a lot of times we search for classical masculinity aspects like protectiveness, caring and the ability to provide. In a lot of feminist publications about it you will find comparatives of magazines that portray man to compare female x male gaze, in the male gaze (magazines for man) man are strong and powerful, while in the female gaze (magazines for woman) man know how to cook or build things and we have attention to the eyes and hands.
Right now I am studying female gaze in the field of personal branding to help woman express themselves without the references of the male gaze of beauty and power and trough the empowerment of the female gaze, in marketing we end up looking at a lot, all kind of details that sends that message in words, pictures and storytelling. Female gaze is a subject with a lot to evolve cause we, woman, are building what it will be right now. I just hope we go beyond patriarchal stereotypes of man to woman and look to ourselves, portray ourselves, and our own views.
edit: i guess people say that the female gaze doesnt exist because the version of it that exists still reflect patriarchal ideals of gender roles, but it does exist, we do have media that uses triggers to appeal to woman, just look at any advertising to strictly female audience. what we dont have is a feminist gaze (or non-male gaze lol) because the female gaze that exists is still attached to the gender roles
Came from the future cause I found a post with the magazine pictures I talked about. Is in Portuguese, but it states that the slide 2 is male gaze from man over man, and slide 3 is female gaze from woman over man. instagram.com/p/CRbyPXMB1fb/
i am still pretty confused about what a female gaze is.. ;/ male gaze seems a lot clearer. ok so one thing that i am having a problem with is that male gaze seems to be at least part of the time sexual in nature, but is female gaze sexual in nature? or is it just giving females a space to explore and feel without being objectified? cause i would think there should be some kind of sexual component at least some of the time too, but that didn't seem to be covered?
I'm pretty confused about it too; but one thing I gathered was that the female gaze can be sexual too. The only difference is that the female gaze doesn't take away the agency of these characters' bodies in the way a male gaze does. The female gaze explores the emotional parts of sexuality, the male gaze doesn't tend to look much past the physical.
@@urishitapawar Thank you.
@@Sandra-hc4vo You're welcome!
Keep thinking about “American Psycho” the movie while watching this. Hmm......
And "The Hurt Locker"
And "Fried Greem Tomatoes"
I actually think David DeCoteau B films are a great example of male gaze applied to men.
Mad Men is one of the most sexist male gaze filled show I've ever seen.
And women in the movie business unfortunately usually use the male gaze too. It's very ingrained. The tv show Masters Of Sex have two women behind it, but is just as filled with the male gaze as any other show. Women are not immune to it when making movies.
MY female gaze is DEFINITELY about objectifying male bodies! I don't want to be more including or whatever. I want my eye candy! And I also want a movie were the women aren't eye candy at all, while the men still are. That's some real female gaze.
So you’re saying that it’s fine to “objectify” men but not women? Seems hypocritical
@@floor413 Only because women have been objectified for the last 2000 years or so. I want equality, and to get that, we need to give mens bodies attention more for some time.
Men have been objectified just as long as women have been, Sweatheart.
@@liampatrick3110 No they haven't, baby.
@@ling0n381 They have, look it up!
not to be rude but it sounds like the concept of a male gaze has had a lot of thought put into it especially when used politicly as with feminism, when the female gaze is brought up i often see people say the same basic thing, "well the male gaze is a, b, c, but the female gaze can't possibly be the same or (for some reason) opposite to that" its always describe as a wonderful thing that needs to develop and grow and its all inclusive and glorious. seems odd that it would be these things when this male gaze thing is so widely disliked. should it not be equally bad for a female gaze to exist or even equally good. if it hasn't had time to mature and people are only just starting to think on it shouldn't the praise be toned down a bit. also the singling out of a gender from a species is a bit strange when analysing systems of production for a form of media. i liked the moment in the video that says everyone has their own gaze but should it not be taken further, can we develop a piece of media with a feline gaze, not some mental off the wall cat lovers film but a straight up normal film just using the perspective of a cat, and why stop there, viral gaze would make an interesting watch when everyone in the film is viewed as a host and spreader of the virus. i just think tiring any academia to a political ideology really does limit its scope,
understanding how we use the male gaze can help artists who are inclined to try, develop really cool pieces of work. and we really need a different set of terminology because outright naming a gender is pretty limiting, sorry just rambled,
anyway just wondering what your thoughts on it are, should film studies take the male gaze theory and turn it into something useful outside of politics or is it best left in that field of study
@Pia Tshering but that doesnt mean the female gaze is right, or moral.
@@ZaiDrizzleDrop it hasn't barely developed, I don't think we should label it as good or bad yet. Maybe just new, or refreshing, something to observe and learn from.
Viewing WOMEN through the female gaze is a wonderful and amazing thing because it does not overly sexualise or objectify women while also not robbing them of their femininity or attractiveness. Compare, for example, how Harley quinn is portrayed, filmed and treated by other characters in suicide squad (the male gaze) versus in birds of prey (the female gaze)
@@sara_daria2 except that is explicitly not what we are discussing here or even really in this video. Because when we discuss the male gaze we do *not* discuss its lens on men, but solely on women. When talking on the female gaze we tend to only want to talk about its positive impacts on women,and outright say or imply that female gaze simply does not apply to men, because women are(apparently) not meditated by attraction.
One sometimes sees feminist artists doing pictures of nude men, but the proper equivalent in art for females would be
a man with 'good genes' for breeding one way or another: either the Bad Boy - one described in the Simpsons as a 'rebel who plays by his own rules' (getting a sigh from Lisa and Marge) or the financially successful City Boy who owns a Ferrari and has an athletic body. I am not quite sure how this element of female selectivity might be rendered in pictures. That would be a good subject for a PhD - "Female artists of the past and their subjects". Perhaps male aristocrats are the equivalents of the female nude. Of course, many women have carnal relations with the Bad Boy, who is good at impregnating many women, and later look for a Type 2 male - the successful bachelor or nice guy - later in life, with whom to settle down, although the timing and life-planning can be difficult, as the latter now have sexual access to women in their early Twenties. There will be a lot of painting. (Remind me why we wear clothes in the first place - apart from cold weather - particularly while swimming.) Surely the question: "Why clothes?" should precede "Why nude?" ?
Twilight New Moon
I took my little sister's boy it was....😂 A spectacle to see. It was also pretty entertaining to watch the audience.
I agree but it falls in line with what’s been said about the female gaze. It’s about seeing the world through a female perspective and making them feel what they go through. I do think it’s changing, we can’t help but appreciate a muscled-man.
@@Femmefatale1990 I wasn't aware of the series at the time. But was definitely unique to see the other side.
its funny that with books that isnt the case that much.
Female writers tend to focus on the hands and eyes of the male character
@@ysmn01keysmack YEAH RIGHT
Wikipedia REALLY beats around the bush on this one lol. C'mon man, using "gaze" is disingenuous because here's what GPT4 says about it: "Where and what the female gaze looks at can vary widely because it encompasses the diverse experiences and expressions of women." So yeah, good luck with that, and pls don't call this a "gaze" to confuse ppl lol. Here are better, less confusing terms for this concept: Female Interpretation
Female Perspective
Female Vision
Female Insight
Female Lens
Female Outlook
Female Standpoint
Female Narrative
Of course there's a female gaze. Why is all the love interests in chick flicks tall guys? You wouldn't ever see a short fat balding man as any of her love interests. The fact that we keep questioning something so obvious will keep people in the dark forever.
Theres a difference between a conventionally attractive lead and the "gaze" the filmmaker is going for. Gaze is about the perspective of the character, the audience, and the camera..
@@DM-jn3zoUm okay? What are you saying? You're just echoing what I'm saying.
@@icesledge2893 it sounded like your were saying that tall guys in chick flicks counts as "female gaze". But I was saying gaze has to do with where the director decides to focus the camera to convey meaning, not really the attractiveness of the love interest.
@@DM-jn3zo You know what I'm saying. Because it doesn't matter if I was trying to align with what you want to say, I'll say what needs to be said and that's it.
@@DM-jn3zo So why you guys getting mad when you saw sexy naked woman? Lead actors are very hot so it is not director's fault. They can show their body on movie. What do you think? Should it be forbidden to show sexy women exposing their own bodies? Feminists say ''male gaze'' when they saw attractive woman on TV
If you want to understand the "female gaze", I highly suggest this film ~ ua-cam.com/video/mnbXcJjkc20/v-deo.html
Telenovelas
bruh
bruh
Magic Mike is what men think women want to see
Sure
it's for gay men.
Has no one here been on spring break in Cancun?
@@Rocketsurgeon64 only young, drunk idiots go to those meat markets. That's not the real world.
Except women largely watched it. Weird how facts disagree with your fantasy.
"Male gaze bad and flawed but female gaze innovative and inspiring"-an utterly generalized, apologist, and reductive viewpoint that was furthered using cherry-picked examples.
That's not what he said at all but I don't expect randoms on the Internet to understand nuance. 🙄
Sorry but the male gaze being portrayed as „seggs, b00bs, Lust“ (as if men have literally no other thought besides seggs and sexualising) and the female gaze being like the Perfect thing „not only about seggs but about emotions and personality“ is stupid. In my opinion it implies that men ONLY think about seggs and are sexualising everything while women never do that and always look at the inside. Men who focus on environment and personality do exist and women who are sexually active, sexualise and objectify others also exist.
So what your saying is, the shots of Wolverine's naked body is more about subconscious homoerotic objectification since all of the creative perspectives come from the male mind? Makes perfect sense to me.
I dont know if this is sarcasm or not. The comments here lead me to believe it isnt. In case it is, that's like saying any female director who casts scantily dressed women is just secret lesbian fantasy.
@@mechamahou8467 If you watched the video, it does make sense. Of course a male director giving washboard shots isn't by definition a closeted gay man. He is just selling sex, although men do admire male bodies without being gay, but I digress. Yes, the Male Gaze is real and yes it goes beyond art and exists in mundane ways in real life too. So yes, the comment was a joke.
There's so many things I'd like to criticize here and in the previous video but it would take me all day to get to the bottom of it 🙈 I gave your videos a chance in good faith though... On the off chance I'd missed something crucial about this whole concept.
Male gaze is when females are sexualized, and female gaze is when men are sexualized; its that simple. And there's nothing wrong with it either, but there is something majorly wrong with thinking that one is okay when the other is not; that is double standards and being a massive hypocrite. Let me ask you this: if there was a movie that panders to the male gaze a lot, and has like a bunch of women in skimpy clothes and all that- but, then you figure out it was written and directed by a woman; and she says it was purely to have fan service in the film. Now, do you get mad at her for pandering to the male gaze? or do you rally behind her and call he brave and stunning. Because if you rally behind her but get mad at a male director for doing the same thing, you are hypocrite. It's that simple. Also I find its hilarious you think that its actually a good thing that ITV dropped all of its male writers, and you called it a "Huge step in diversity". That could be further from diversity! In fact I would call that sexist, since they literally fired them based on there gender alone! You are a hypocrite who can't see past his own double-standards.
I agree that if someone thinks a woman portraying the male gaze in her films is okay when it's not okay for a man to do it, that is hypocrisy. But the ITV comment was not that they dropped all of their male writers, they said they are dropping full-male writing teams. Meaning they are only having writing teams that consist of both men and women.
Is there a female gaze? Personally I think its yes and no.
Women can and do objectify male characters and men in media, but its less uncomfortable to a female -and possibly male- audience because women have been the 50% of society that's been oppressed from expressing our thoughts and emotions, not men. Men aren't used to the sexual stigma society has put onto their bodies, which has cultivated a subconscious mindset that male bodies are inherently less sexual than female bodies, or that female bodies are inherently more sexual.
Unfortunately this perspective doesn't take into account gay members of either gender, but the male gaze never accounted for that in the first place.
B
Nature or nurture? Nature. Militants can rant and rave all they want but men and women are different. And the whole outlawing all male writing teams is draconian. Just hire the best writers and that would probably mean have different perspectives but these "laws" being passed down are not the answer.
I think this analysis is well intended and it is an effective way of starting the conversation, however, it falls short on the critical aspect of the male gaze as patriarchy propaganda; everything that's been done and shown in visual media since cinema was born has fixated ideas about how women have to BE and LOOK according to man agendas, revolving around their "life purposes" and pursues. Director Jill (now Joey) Soloway explains this topic (and the concept of patriarchy propaganda which I borrowed here) in detail (and wonderfully) in a conference she gave at TIFF called "The Female Gaze", go check it!
Hell
It's basically gae male gaze 😎
I don't really agree with this video. In my opinion, the female gaze is just when men are objectified (basically the opposite to the male gaze). But there is a "Female perspective", this is when the movie forces you to see the world as a woman.
If you are going to have a term like "the male gaze" then there should always be an exact opposite for the other gender (this rule isn't followed when it is actually gender-specific, but only when there is no possibility of the other gender experiencing it.), this is why all feminist words like mansplaining and manspreading all have female counterparts which are almost always seen as non-official but are still used.
I also think there is a problem with the whole "objectification" thing. It does exist but it seems like you can push it to a real extreme when you're doing it to males, which feminists (who seem to be all about equality) don't care about.
I am actually doing Film Media GCSE, and the entire 3 years has a running theme of "representation of women", which I didn't sign up for. I'm all fine about talking about the representation of women but only when we also get to talk about how men and other groups like races and religions are represented. That was more of a rant directed to Mr Hudson.
Together Channel Excuse me for jumping in like that but:
What you are describing is a gender binary take on how humans act. I deduce this since you are talking about the implication of an existing "opposite" that basically mirrors the male gaze - while naturally assuming that you are just confirming with this comment to have a bias based on the heteronormative perspective.
@@saschanabali8022 Isn't the male gaze theory itself based on the ''heteronormative perspective"? Isn't your take on how men act a gender binary take?
@@apo.7898 yes. This is what they do. And then when cornered refuse to respond.
This is quite an inaccurate description of the male and female gaze. Especially the male gaze. Anyone who has read and understood Mulvey's work on the subject will clearly see that it's not as simple as how women are represented on screen. It's far more complex and broader than that and can't be defined and constrained to such a simple premise.
H
Imma be real with you, I don't want to be hard on a hot girl only for the camera to suddenly show me some dude's abs...that's the definition of bait and switch...you want movies with no hot girls? Walk outside or watch the mirror 🪞
This topic is a little bit difficult to understand but I can only assume that when a male director and writer makes a movie it's the male gaze? When a female writer and director makes a movie it's a female gaze? But we are all human don't we behave and view things similarly?
5:13 that’s absolutely NOT a huge step forward for diversity oh my fucking god 😭😭😭😭
yes it is lol what do you mean
a lot of women write the lines of stand of comedy skits for many famous male comedians
@@SoniaAnastasiaaa that’s irrelevant. What I mean is that firing all the men just to hire all women isn’t any more diverse than there being all men. Diversity means mixed! And the problem with FORCED diversity, which this definitely is, is that u hire not based on competence, but based on genitalia 😑 which means ur prolly gonna end up with a worse product.
@@triton1060 no, it's just mens turn to sit on the sidelines. You guys will be ok, go do sports Or BBQ or something. Don't worry your pretty head off about women taking over.
@@SinMore Do you consider yourself a feminist? Also, do you take issue with anything I said? As in, do you think I'm wrong in any way?
Top level simping
Top level ignorance
@@QueenBee-pb6bt another simp😂
I sure hope the female gaze also involves as much sexual desire expressed for males as males have for females. It's a very passionate and pleasing feeling. I can see no advantage to one gender being sexually desired more often than the other. That leaves more people of one genders desires less satisfied more often. It's a very discouraging and infuriating thought for me that women don't feel sexual desire and are aroused just by attractive appearances as often as men. I choose not to believe it, but I'm doubtful enough to want to stay single. Some studies have shown that women often lie about thinking of sexually pleasing things less than they do because of perceived societal pressures making them feel more guilty. I don't know how so many people could be as happy as they are thinking there's a great mismatch of that pleasurable a feeling experienced and wanted by both genders.
This video is completely biased.
Wasn't meant to be - I'm just teaching the concept
@@TheMediaInsider Men are objectified just as much as (if not, more than) women are.
Liam Patrick now you have a bias
@@charlottemosby3730 I recommend you look up "male objectification" on Ellen.
@@liampatrick3110 no they aren't LOL
Its not at all hard to explain. Male POV is female lead doing stuff that makes her approved by male characters. Female POV is female lead doing stuff to satisfy herself. Male POV is female. Its the difference between Jane Ripley and Natasha Romanoff. Or the difference between Marion from Requiem for a Dream and the boring chick from Queens Gambit. When female character is being raped, there is a clear difference in camera concentrating on a crotch, buttocks and boobs and a camera concentrating on a face. Its really not that hard. They just make it look hard.
certain Kennedy shows why women should not be directors in Hollywood
This video was a massive word salad. If you can't clearly define what the female gaze is in 2 or 3 sentences then you likely don't know how to define it. It's really not that complicated. The female gaze is what women like in men as opposed to what men would think is attractive to women.
“Offers a window into the feminine experience”? Still stuck with the male lens huh? Why not women making films for themselves and other women? Most guys just don't get this and neither do you
Seems like a whole bunch of cherry picking to me. Go drink your soy latte
Channel known for intellectual dishonesty and lies