One of the most influential essays on this concept is called "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" by a filmaker named Laura Mulvey (pic related, despite her great insight she never seems to have made a great film).In order to solve the elusive mystery of why men might like to look at beautiful women, she uses the science of psychoanalysis (instead of, for example, evolutionary theory). The essay is a stream of incomprehensible jargon...but the argument she makes is that the reason men like to look at women who are beautiful or curvaceous is because of the fact that the woman has a vagina and not a penis makes the man afraid that he will be castrated."But in psychoanalytic terms, the female figure poses a deeper problem.She also connotes something that the look continually circles around but disavows: her lack of a penis, implying a threat of castration and hence unpleasure. Ultimately, the meaning of woman is sexual difference, the absence of the penis as visually ascertainable, the material evidence on whichis based the castration complex essential for the organization of entrance tothe symbolic order and the law of the father. Thus the woman as icon, displayed for the gaze and enjoyment of men, the active controllers of thelook, always threatens to evoke the anxiety it originally signified...woman asrepresentation signifies castration, inducing voyeuristic or fetishistic mechanisms to circumvent her threat"No evidence is provided for this. Given that she is a woman, how does she know this? Why would a woman having large breasts or whatever reduce the fear of castration?Astoundingly, this baseless nonsense is considered an important work, and people use this term without knowing its origins.
>>25464883sometimes I think female philosophers and literary critics just pull a lot of shit out of their ass to justify their anti-civilizational impulses and no one calls them out for it because it would be punching down.
>>25464883How is it meaningless? The camera often reflects the male director's sensibilities. The camera slides along a female body, lingers on her breasts, etc. I'm a straight guy and I once knew immediately that a director must be gay (i looked it up afterward and was right) because the way a shot just zeroed in on the male star's ass in a way that felt wrong and violating. Maybe women get the same feeling when watching movies full of tit shots. It's dumb just to reject an idea because a feminist came up with it.
>>25465020That is not really the argument of the essay but the colloquial usage of the term. That men find women attractive is not really a mystery or problem. If a director should shoot a film in a certain way or "cater" to a male audience then that is their perogative. Yet this is problematised and pathologised.
>>25465020>>25465042Cont.For instance...films catering to a homosexual male audience are never accused of "dehumanising" or "objectifying" men. I myself, though I am not gay, do not find such things offensive to the dignity or humanity of men.
>>25464883“Male gaze” is the mcdonalds of critique.
>>25464883>The "Male Gaze" is a meaningless, insignificant conceptAll feminist concepts, and the whole field of sociology in general, is full of meaningless and insignificant drivel that primarily exists to employ academics in a giant circlejerk. Whenever their little word games squirt out in the real world, disaster follows. We've seen the discourse on 'privilege' do fucking loops as it entered arenas where the precious academics suddenly have no opinions (as with the asians in higher education debate or the nogs vs slanties fights). > No evidence is provided for this. This is entirely normal for sociology. You make shit up and then invent some facts to support the theory. If pressed you might conduct some horribly biased surveys to confirm your conclusion. >>25465109This isn't science, and the sources are "I made it up" which wouldn't be a problem if these institutions weren't publicly funded. If it was a vanity project for elites or privately funded interests nobody would care they existed.
>>25465020>>25465088As a gay I find the male gaze thing lame and I wish straight men were allowed to enjoy their sexuality without feeling pathologised by foids... like having erotic impulses is some kind of evil thing...
>>25464883>Given that she is a woman, how does she know this?Read more. She is a man.
>>25465109Do you think that the claim that all/most men feel a "castration anxiety" when looking at a women is "blatantly obvious"? Nor is it presented as merely an opinion or solely "based in philosophy". The only people who oppose the idea of evidence or proof for what they say are sophists and fraudsters.
>>25465042>this is problemetazed and pathologizedI think the entire argument would be pointless if the films accused of the "male gaze" were just better films instead of big budget summer schlock aimed at teenage male audiences with 2 brain cells.Also Laura Mulvey is a very well respected film critic, something OP maliciously omits (he only refers to her as a failed filmmaker).
kek you westerners are such a bunch of loonies
>>25465753>very well respected film criticThat tells you all you need to know about film criticism.The "male gaze" criticism is generally not about the quality of the film, but about the idea that it is harmful to women, their humanity and dignity and so forth. If all sexual elements were removed from Transformers, it would not suddenly become high art. Why should I care about "schlock"? And really, neither do the critics...they frequently ignore or or even praise junk that they find politically inoffensive and critique the "male gaze" as they find it in great directors, such as Fellini etc.
>>25465761Non-western academics and women buy into this stuff too
>>25464883George of the Jungle with Brendan Fraser is a perfect example of "the female gaze" go watch it and see the differences to movies focusing on "the male gaze".
>>25464883Thought that was Ian McKellen
>>25465901Male gaze...female gaze...it is all nonsense. Some men react to male gaze gibberish by saying "look women do it too!" but there is no need to validate the concept. As I say, men's sexual attraction to women is not a mystery or problem>>25465943Male gays
wow thanks, I really needed a feminist to explain why I liked looking at beautiful women. All this time I thought it was just a natural occurrence from being straight.
>>25464883Unfuckable yids discussing theories as to why. A sort of bizarro /r9k/ in a way
>>25466190Actually, I don't know if Mulvey is jewish. But feminists/leftists do seem disproportionately jewish. Other influences on the "male gaze" or "objectification" concept are Berger, Nussbaum, Dworkin...
>>25464883it seems to be a form of pathologizing male writers. if you follow feminist logic to the letter it leads to the man being vilified no matter what. if a man portrays a woman as a sexual being, it is male gaze. if he portrays her as asexual, thats a patriarchal reactionary fantasy.
>>25465146
If the female body provoked fears of castration in men, then why would men want to gaze upon female bodies? Wouldn't they not want to?
>>25466367Surely you think that in order for the statement that men use "fetishistic mechanisms" to reduce the castration anxiety induced by seeing a woman to be true, that this must actually be the case or state of affairs as shown by evidence? What "arbitrary" or "a priori" rules are employed here? Unless you don't believe in evidence...in which case, what is there to discuss? How can Mulvey's argument be true or false or command any belief one way or the other?
>>25464883Is this some Freud/Lacan type bullshit again?
>>25466379On her reasoning, all men would be homosexuals. Obviously no men were consulted or surveyed or tested as to whether this mechanism actually exists.
>>25466390Yes
>thread full of angry men descends into panic like a cage full of enraged chimps when having to contend with an idea.I'd say that's evidence she's on to something.Anyway if it helps any of you retards understand the male gaze, consider this:Sexuality is used for MARKETING. Your brain is being HIJACKED you are shown the outline, the implication, the suggestion of female sex but you CANNOT get it, cannot PENETRATE it and this causes FRUSTRATION.The castrstion anxiety is a powerful motivating force, it's what motivates you to participate in the rat race against other men. It's what's motivating everyone in this thread. So yes, the alluring female figure, dangled in front of you is a symbol that triggers your castration anxiet. The representation of the thing is not the thing. No primitive human ever looked at a representation of a woman on a screen, shaved and wearing nylons. Ceci n'est pa une femme.Read Lacan, read freud, for the love of God think critically and engage with the material in some relevant way. Every time you intensify the groupthink around attacking this concept you're keeping all men locked in this hypnosis. "I don't have castration anxiety, i'm straight!!" Yes indeed.
>>25465014True>>25465020>The camera slides along a female body, lingers on her breasts, etc.This doesn’t necessitate olympic-level mental acrobatics about fearing castration.
>>25466434People refuting something is evidence for something? Men are not spurred into the pursuit of women and competition with other men due to castration anxiety, but due to sexual desires shaped by evolution, like many other animals.A woman with shaved legs and nylons or one recorded by a camera is no less a woman than one without such things.Lacan and Freud are mostly incomprehensible charlatans, especially the former.
>>25466434>confronted by an ideaThis is the psychoanalytical equivalent of arguing that peoples’ reaction to flat earth demonatrates its veracity
>>25466434>>25466456Also...I don't have any problem with homosexuality. If I were a homosexual, I would engage in activites as dictated by homosexual desires.
>>25464883Notice how it's always the old, fugly bints that nobody would ever want to look at who are always saying and writing this shit?HMMMMMMM....
OP discovers interpretive psychoanalytical frameworks are not empirical claims, woah.so many midwit OPs that would've been more productive as a cursory LLM exchange before posting.
>>25466485In other words, they are nonsense. As Hume says:"When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion"
>>25464883People use all kinds of jargon daily that some leftoid chud just invented one day and put in an essay to try and undermine society and commonly held values. None of it makes any sense
>>25466441To fail to reproduce is to be castrated. This was known to ancients, it was the greatest sin against filial piety according to confucius.
>>25466507That is merely metaphor and word-play and non-literal language that is not reflected in human psychology.To speak plainly, it is only a sexual desire formed by evolution. Animals act likewise, who have no concept of castration.
>>25466485so its a self referential circlejerk?This is why I prefer analytical philosophy to these continental charlatans playing mystic
>>25466456>>25466463You both just avoid the substance of the argument to engage in this rhetorical dance. Yes the intensity and unanimity of people arguing about something that they claim is common sense is indicative of a profound question. It would not get replies if people didn't feel the need to disprove it.And regardless of what you say about flat earth the thread is directly referencing a cultural context in which "male gaze" is an accepted basic critique. So you're in fact arguing a minority position.You can't pivot seamlessly from "obviously true" to "supressed hidden truth" you have to fucking pick one.I swear men are half evolved it's so TIRING having to labor under male emotions and ad hominems and rage and anyone and anything that can play the role of the enemy and never be able to actually discuss anything.The actual productive argument/discussion would begin with "the male gaze is good actually" and would explore that, (which is actually surprisingly difficult) but this thread will never get there, except for the occasional aside about "it's evolutionary psychology!" Right, yes, which is why we still worship morbidly obese Venus idols. Clearly.
>>25466391Well, this is one of the unacknowledged issues with Freudian psychoanalysis: it cannot explain male heterosexuality. Which is ironic.
>>25466524>Reddit spacingGo back.
>>25464883Men with small penises will rage as we see in this thread, but women's intuition and instinctual connection with Creation is stronger than his utilitarianism
>>25466524The male gaze is good in its effects, but it has alighted upon the wrong object. Contemplation of male beauty is obviously a more suitable pastime for the soul, and the superiority of the thing contemplated is reflected in the superiority of the works borne of this contemplation.
>>25466524People get into heated arguments against abortion, globe earth, vaccines, climate change and so on. You are arguing against what I say...am I therefore right?
>>25466524Most people who use the term male gaze are unaware of and would probably disagree with Mulvey's argument.
>>25466524Mulvey's argument is nonsense.And the way male gaze is used colloquially is that it is "degrading" or "undignified" or "dehumanising" for male sexual desire to be expressed.But what do they mean by dignity, humanity and other such words? More meaningless words. I do not find male homosexuality to degrade or dehumanise men, though I am not a homosexual.
>>25464883I think she has no fucking idea what she's talking about because she is ultimately taking a stance from the assumtion of a foid. If I see a women I want to voyeur along her body down to see her pussy because I want to ponder penetrating it, not voyeur in it's mysteries because I fear castration. If anything the mind overflows with the heart's fullness and she can't think of anything but castrating men when they look upon a women who preceeds her fertile announcement. Typical fucking hollyjew.
>>25466527wot iz reddit spacing ?
>>25466527newfag spotted
>>25466578>You didn't see this posted on /pol/ THREE YEARS AGO!? FUCKING NEWFAG!!!Take a look at your life man, holy fucking shit.
>>25464883this is just low IQ Freud
>>25466588>>25464883why do all old feminists just look like old men? they dont even look like other old women. is it just the short hair
>>25466434Fair but if it causes castration anxiety then the media would altogether come to a full stop in its consumption. People are normal and tend to avoid pain and frustration, by your argument we should all be watching bestgore 24/7 because we are afraid of dying. No, it really is simple, a woman in sexual connotation form creates ATTRACTION, like a bee goes to a flower, a thirsty lion to a river. Because it give preconceived possibility that desires may be fulfilled even if it isn't there. A thirsty lion will still go over yonder if he thinks he saw water even if it isn't there, not because he's afraid he might be thirsty.
>>25466533"It is only the man whose intellect is clouded by his sexual impulses that could give the name of the fair sex to that undersized, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, and short-legged race: for the whole beauty of the sex is bound up with this impulse. Instead of calling them beautiful, there would be more warrant for describing women as the unæsthetic sex" - Schopenhauer
Sex is used to control you for capitalism by hijacking your monkey brain
>>25466190the femcel fears the boyim
>>25465014>>25464883that is stupid , but what does that have to do with the male gaze?
>>25466875This is actually the original meaning of the term. Now it really has no meaning at all.Many left-wingers don't even know the strange and dubious basis of their ideas.
>>25466588>>25466731/thread
>>25466588No such thing as high IQ Freud>>25466731Capitalism is a vague, meaningless term. If workers owned the means of production or whatever, the sexual impulse would remain. Sex is the control mechanism of evolution/nature which uses pain and pleasure to guide us towards certain actions (albeit in a crude way)
>>25464883>>25466588>>25466731>>25466920
>>25466441>This doesn’t necessitate olympic-level mental acrobatics about fearing castration.This is building off Freud like most academics of her day. He's the one who invented the idea of castration anxiety. I'm sure we'll get a thread about how stupid Freud was, right? I'm certain you didn't single Mulvey out for any particular reason, right?
>>25464883>lack of a penis, implyingmales and female animals evolved separately from male and female plants. it takes a particularly disgusting kike to so separate sex from reproduction to come up with this obscene confusion>>25465020>The camera slides along a female body, lingers on her breaststhat movie is obscene and ineligible for copyright
>>25466434> i can still renig and salvage this termyoure just a nigger
>>25468269Freud is mostly a charlatan. Anyone who builds upon him, builds on a foundation of sand.
>>25468269Most of the quote in the OP is based on Lacan tbf
>>25464883i always felt the source of discomfort among women at male gaze stuff is just that they don't get horny from it and when you're not horny naked people, especially of your own sex, look kind of stupid and retarded
>>25468533"It is enough for us to stop our ears to the sound of music, in a room where dancing is going on, for the dancers at once to appear ridiculous. How many human actions would stand a similar test? Should we not see many of them suddenly pass from grave to gay, on isolating them from the accompanying music of sentiment?" - Henri Bergson
>>25468533In my opinion, women have a lower libido and thus have difficult sympathising with/understanding the male libido
>>25466434>It's what's motivating everyone in this threadPeople like to meme that this sort of approach to life is typical of the woman who can't comprehend male relations, whether they are of friendship or competitive adversity. In this case, clearly, neither apply, rather we like so formulate thoughts and express ideas and engage in dialogue with somewhat like-minded people.I would say instead, not that this sort of approach is typical of the woman, but of the fucking loser who's gotten into his head that everything has to be pathologized in accordance only with his dogmatic postmodern views. As far as you're concerned, though, I'd rather classify you as a troll.>>25466524>You both just avoid the substance of the argument to engage in this rhetorical danceFor the confused readers, this is just newspeak for:>I swear that hidden somewhere in my post lies a profound message which I've failed to properly express and which indeed would be only be valid if supported by my rhetoric. My rhetoric is lackluster and fallacious and but disregard that and accept the message. The message is unclear and hardly argued at all but we all know it to be true! Don't pick at my words but address the message barely expressed through poorly chosen claims which are easy to contradict!Anyway, again, when you see written something like ""male gaze" is an accepted basic critique", you know you ought to walk away from the discussion.Anyway...>>25464883>the science of psychoanalysisCome, now, OP..."The male gaze" is a term which can be used to describe the phenomenon of men enjoying to look at hot women and that's as far as it goes. One can study the mechanism which drives men to do that and indeed can use that fact to sell movies- but the "intellectualizing" of this type of discourse by third-wave feminists is as baseless, mal-intended and nonsensical as any other anon ITT has already shown.The type of woman who is likely to write up this sort of nonsense is bitter and privileged and stupid and ought never engage in public discourse, but bitter is her defining trait. She is fueled by resentment and empowered by a system from which chiefly she and her type benefit, which is the same system which taught her her framework. Illuminism and the democratization of not only higher-level education, but education at all, is at fault is what I'm getting at but I fear I'm running out of characters.
>>25465014Yes>>25464883The concept as it is popularly used is different from whatever gobbledygook she was peddlingBasically in /lit/ it's the habit of male writers to write from a male perspective (SHOCK! HORROR!)Now, I've read enough chick lit to know that women are equally guilty of "female gaze". Specially in fanfiction where the author's sex is not immediately apparent, i can tell very quickly when an author is either male or female.But of course these times being what they are, women refuse to acknowledge that they are equally guilty, while loudly and vociferously bitching about male gaze
>>25468605I say "science" humorously>>25468613All this talk of male/female gaze is simply applying bizzare freudian jargon to normal/natural human behaviour
>>25464883The rise of trans porn has single-handedly proven this bitch wrong
>>25466434I almost exclusively watch tranny porn tho and still prefer my chicks with dicks to be feminine
>>25468564i don't know if it's really lower but it's generally definitely of a different character. i think they tend to perceive masculine expressions of sexuality as objectifying because it tends to be more visually oriented (i.e. it's oriented towards the seeing of a naked woman, there's a focus on angles and sounds and movements and actions that turns men on) whereas women tend to get off on a 'vibe' more
>>25464883just make the "female gaze" as coming from their mind's eye, and you will have a fair bit of material to back it up given their their book porn(which is what it genuinely is)
>>25468605Holy saggers
I, too, hate the male gays.
>>25468787Observe who must pursue in sexual matters, who uses prostitution and pornography, higher % of male users on dating apps, sexual activities of homosexual men compared to straight women...it all results from the market dynamic shaped by higher male sex drive.
male gaze is a retarded and deeply dishonest concept because if you spend any time around females you realize they really enjoy staring at other women's bodiesas always, feminism is a shit test and western society failed it
>>25468935>if you spend any time around females you realize they really enjoy staring at other women's bodiesTRVKEThe more time you spend around women, the more you realize that they talk and obsess over how women look far more than any other demographic. They're literally always judging and evaluating other women's appearance but hiding it behind the whole "yaaass queen all my besties are 10s omggg" shtick.
>>25464883I hate you evo-psych niggers so much, you think you're doing actual science but it's even less rigorous than Freud. You just think because you attach a scientific name to it you can skate by on your vague intuitions
>>25469146Most opposition to evo-psych is political in nature. It is no coincidence that the prominent attackers of it are Marxists or left-wingers, such as Gould or Lewontin.It is absurd to believe our "minds" are not shaped by evolution. Most of the attacks on evo-psych apply with far greater force to the attempts at cultural or social explanations. Mulvey's above nonsense is a good example. People only tolerate her rubbish, and stuff like it, because it is in alignment with their political beliefs.
>>25464883>finding women attractive is objectifying themOk>...and this is LE BADWhy?>... it just... le isBut it's hot.>but that's... le badHave feminists ever explain why they hate objectification so much?
>>25469223Of course our minds are shaped by evolution but all evo-psych basically boils down to ooga booga me want fuck
>>25468665I'm not saying the behaviour is unnatural, but it still requires a descriptor
>>25464883She clocked your perverted ass
>>25469272>Have feminists ever explain why they hate objectification so much?no, because they're unable to explain anythingbut I can explain it for them: everyone wants to be admired (the 4th tier of need on Maslow's Pyramid), usually for their character and personality, or some other skill in which they take pride.the women who say these things usually fall into either 1 of 3 categories:1stly, and rarest, they're ugly but if they say it they can imply that someone has found them attractive enough to sexually objectify them. like a poorfag whining that women only want him for his money.2ndly, the really hot ones, and I've seen supermodels say this. either they realised they've sold their bodies to what is essentially a sex industry, and they're reacting against it; or it's performative marketing for optics. probably both.3rdly, the average somewhat-attractive woman. at its heart saying this is disingenuous, because they know damn well that being pretty got them a few free passes here and there. I know girls who've simpered a bit to male staff for an extra nugget in their Macca's and so on. ("hol up, I'm the hottest one here, lemme try it... oh, it's the last one and you're closing for the night anyway, go on, just for me? thank youuu so muchhh <3".) but they don't want to accept responsibility for that, because they know it's shallow and IS IN FACT objectification, which they performed TO themselves.note that this is exactly the same as a RICHfag buying whores by the dozen, or showing their wives with cash in lieu of actually listening to them, and then whining "women only want me for my money"and the women who abuse this privilege the most (including the 2nd type, who make careers out of it) are also the ones who regret it the most, because deep down inside they do know it's shallow and demeaning. also they're the ones who put most effort into prettifying themselves and then find their portfolio of personal skills (and personality) lackingand they always have an eye on the ticking biological clock>Aye. Queen you shall be... until there comes another, younger and more beautiful, to cast you down and take all that you hold dear.TL;DR they hate objectification mostly because of regret and denial
>>25470165whoa. based.
Feminist philosophy has never been about anything else but homely looking upper-middle class women coping with looking the way they do.
>>25468533You're thinking like a man. Women don't really think of each other's nudity to be as ridiculous as men think other men's nakedness to be ridiculous.What you, as a man, will have a hard time wrapping your head around on the other hand is just how insecure and envious women can be of women hotter than them. When you see a man clearly superior to you physically or mentally your natural reaction will probably be "he's so cool, I really should exercise more and read a book every once in a while". A woman in the same situation would almost always feel existentially superfluous instead of being filled with awe and admiration towards that person.
