What it is Like to Live Under the Male Gaze -film, tv, media and regular life

[shadowkat]

Have a dull barometric pressure headach throbbing in the background,coupled with gastric-reflux, caused by god only knows what. In the continuous battle between me and my digestive system, the digestive system is winning. Same with the weather.

After my regrettable albeit interesting discussion online about the objectification of men and women on tv, I watched the third episode of S3 Mad Men - for those following the show, this is the episode that opens with Anne Margaret singing the title song of Bye Bye Birdie in the film version of the Broadway musical. Also fitting, since I just read Http://www.robwillreview.com (I think that is the correct link) review of the current revival of the same musical on lj. He posts the reviews on his lj blog and on his review blog. He didn't like it - not surprised, John Stamos is no Dick Van Dyke (who played Albert on Broadway and in the film version) and Gina Gerson is no Chita Rivera (who played it in the original Broadway version - can't remember if she did in the film, it may have been another famous hispanic singer and dancer...). They really need to get song and dance people for those roles.

At any rate - MAD MEN - a tv series about ad men on madison avenue during the 1960s, in a scene between Elizabeth Moss's Peggy and John Hamm's Don Draper - deftly tackles the topic of objectification as well as male/female roles and male power or the male gaze in a way that I almost want to post as a vid on my lj. Because I'm not sure I can make the point better than it does. Also, depressingly enough, very little has changed between now and then in the ad world - except that now the female gaze is given a bit more priority than before.

Back then, the female gaze was well close to non-existent in media. Men ruled the roost so to speak.
This is deftly shown not told in the dialogue between Peggy and Don. As well as the opening scene of the episode - which is a bunch of men, and Peggy, sitting in a room watching Anne Margret flounce her stuff. The client is trying to sell Patio Diet Soda to Women, and has decided they want an ad campaign based on Ann Margret's Bye Bye Birdie number...Peggy pipes up and says, wait, you are selling that drink to people like me, women, why would a woman want to watch a boxum 24 year old acting like a 14 year old (teen)? Because that's what the client wants...Peggy takes her complaint to Don Draper, the creative director.

Peggy tells Don about the ad, and explains her issues with it. When Don says he hasn't seen the Anne Margret bit, she shows it to him. We all watch it again. Then Don shrugs and tells Peggy that what sells is the male fantasy. Women aren't in control here. Women want to be Ann Margret. Men want Anne Margaret. So the male gaze is what sells. It's not about what women want, he implies, it is about what men want, and women being willing to become that. The ad industry to a degree has been built on that. It's what Megan Fox stated in an interview a while back - women's role in Hollywood for like forever has been to be the sex object. And that to a large degree is true - Betty Grable, Norma Jean/Marilyn Monroe, pin-up models. Note also Knocked Up, HangOver, and most of Judd Apatow's films, as well as numerous other romantic comedies of late.

The only film in recent memory that did this for women was Sex in the City. Nothing else has. Yet the romantic comedy genre has traditionally been for women. It isn't now. Men have co-opted the box office during the summer, even 500 Days of Summer - the one romantic indie flick - is for the guys, we are in his gaze, not hers.

What I found disturbing and somewhat interesting in my recent discussion on the topic - is the number of women out there who appear to not be bothered by the male gaze, but are all upset about the female one. A lot of women are upset about how James Marsters was treated on Buffy. Odd. Considering he really only appeared naked in about three episodes (Wrecked, Gone, and As You Were. Dead Things doesn't count - since both Gellar and Marsters showed skin.) He had no shirt on in five episodes in S7 (Beneath You, Never Leave Me, Bring on the Night, Showtime, and Dirty Girls). That's really nothing. And one episode of Angel S5 (Hellbound).

Yet, I don't see complaints about the attire Buffy is shown in on the packaging of the S1 DVD's - considering the actress was 18 at the time, and her character was 16. Nor complaints about how women are portrayed in recent films, not to mention the annual Sports Illustrated Swim Suit Issue that comes out every year. Heck to get her career jump-started, Charisma Carpenter appeared in Playboy. Something neither James Marsters nor David Boreanze had to do.

Are women that oblivious to the male gaze and its effects? The Sopranos on HBO, airing around the same time as Buffy, had naked women in most of the episodes, the men more or less fully clothed. It was mainstream and higher in the ratings. And look at commericials - how many do you see with attractive men? OR how about stepping into a restaurant, Hooters comes to mind. At work - I remember being at a construction site and under the glass on one of the meeting tables in the workroom was a newpaper ad of an Irish bar, with the perky little waitress, and her short short skirt, and boobs hanging out. And when the film Star Trek came out - I remember post after post talking about the wonders of Uhruha and her mini-skirt, as if it was a statement of empowerment??? This is a film in which women were either mothers, shown briefly, or a naked girl in the sack with Kirk. Urhura the female lead - was shown as a sex symbol, played by a former model. Granted Kirk is hot in the film as is Spock, but it is clearly a "male" film. Transformers - the same thing, Megan Fox struts her stuff. I mention these films because they are the blockbusters of the summer.

When women do make it to film - they are shown in traditional roles (Julia and Julie) or
as sex objects (Transformers, Public Enemies, Star Trek). Or they barely show up at all (Terminator Salvation, District 9,) or they are the object of desire, pursued but not quite gotten (500 Days of Summer). If they attempt to take on the male role, they are mocked (The Proposal, All About Steve). I haven't been to the movies that much this summer and is it any wonder?

TV is a bit better - it at least is commenting on it through series such as Dollhouse and Mad Men. Or it provides women with strong roles - such as Brothers and Sisters, Damages (one of the few that has a female anti-hero), Torchwood:Children of Earth (the only sci-fi series I've seen with multiple roles for women and no-stereotypical ones), or Glee.

Granted it still has the predominately male fare - such as Supernatural. But Supernatural in its way also comments on it. Supernatural is pure noir. It is true horror noir, complete with the doomed heroes, and the doomed dark universe. In noir man doesn't have a chance. Women are either saviors or demons, parts of his subconscious, not real outside of the male's hopes and dreams. Noir fascinates me because it puts me inside the perspective of male gaze, the male mind or rather the white male mind. Most noir is film by the group in power, for some reason or other. And most of it is bleak. Almost misanthropic or apologetic. Self-abasing. The noir hero hates himself, is self-loathing. The world he inhabits pointless, and hopeless. And women a light in the tunnel, but more often than not a coming train. Supernatural also fascinates me - because it hits my brother kink - or brother issues kink. I watch it solely for the relationship between the brothers, and well Mischa Collins Castiel (who for some reason or other turns me on). Is it sexist? Yes. Is it at times misogynistic? Yes. But it is also misanthropic. That is noir. It is to a degree - the point of noir. Blade Runner being an excellent example - the Director's cut, not the original. Also to give Supernatural credit - the women are powerful - either powerful Angels, or powerful demons. They are not weak. And it hits on the nose the male fear of female power. Of gender roles.


I've worked in predominately male fields most of my life. Just this past week I was in a meeting with twelve people, I was the only woman in the room. That is normal. And while they are respectful and I like working with men a great deal, there is an undercurrent that you have to constantly fight against. I walked through a male prison and deliberately blocked the whistles and leers and catcalls. Also taught a class to male convicts in that prison, who were considerate and didn't say a thing. But I did have a 6'7, 230 pound male classmate with me, co-teaching the class.

And I've had construction workers harass me - in London, outside of the hotel I was staying in with fellow classmates - a bunch of male construction workers kept harrassing us. One day as my girlfriends and I were leaving for the market, they formed a line or one guy on each side - which we had to go through and they grabbed, fondled and kissed us as we did. My friends went first giggling and ducking. I went, stopped and told them off. One guy took my wrist and made as if to kiss my hand, I took his hand off mine and let him know in no uncertain terms if he touched me, I would not appreciate it. Laughing he backed off. The next week another friend chided me for being rude to the workers. I told her the story. She told me to suck it up. I remember walking the opposite way, the long way around the hotel to avoide their harrassment - this was in 1987 London. That same summer a classmate told me that he wondered what I'd be like stoned or on hash, he figured I'd be like a gerbil in heat. I remember just looking at him, saying not a word. Until his friend said to him, if looks could kill - you would be dead. He later apologized to me and said he was out of line.

1988: A guy in Wales, a B&B owner, once accosted me on the moors, I was alone at the time, he was my only transportation back to civilization, it was dark, and spooky. I pushed him off, got him to take me back to his B&B, I quickly took a shower. And I left the next morning. I have never been so frightened in my life. He believed I was loose because I was an American, traveling alone in Wales, and had the audacity to go into pubs by myself to get drinks and get stories at night. Women, I found out later, did not go into pubs by themselves - men did. Not women. And not unaccompanied. If you did so, you were considered loose and wanting sex, wanting to be picked up. If I had been a man, I could have collected stories, stayed at the B&B and gone to the moors, without an mishap. He was over 30 years older than I was, and he had merely taken me up there or so I'd been told to see a haunted ruin - that I could take photos of. I don't know if it was haunted or not. This was in 1988 and in North Wales. I don't know if the custom has changed since then. I'm guessing not.

When I traveled to Turkey in 2000, I was told to travel with others, that women alone were in trouble. One night traveling home with a girlfriend to our B&B, my girlfriend was accosted, a man grabbed at her crotch. It was frightening. We stopped walking home after dark. And when I joined my sailing group - I stayed with them and never went off by myself. My friend wanted to go to Iran to see the beautiful tiles she'd studied in school, the mosaics, but she wimped out when she realized she had to get head gear to cover her entire face, her head and body. It was hot that summer. We were there in August. If she had been a man, this would not even be an issue. And in Missouri, US, when I did orders of protection - 85% -90% were women seeking protection by the way, I discovered why we had to work so hard for it, on the law books there was still a law that stated a woman was the property of her husband after marriage. Oh and as a small child in West Chester, Pa, I found Penthouse and Hustler magazines in the woods, that stoned men were reading, the magazines featured men in sexual acts with teenage and pre-teenage girls. I remember my mother, frightened and upset, picking the magazines out of the crick where we'd thrown them in our fear and disgust. And throwing them into a huge trash-can. We moved not that long after that.

I repeat these experiences as an attempt to convey what it is to be female in a society ruled by men. In a world - where women cannot travel freely without fear for their physical wellbeing. And I wish these are the only ones I've experienced. They aren't. Luckily I have not been the victim of sexual violence or rape. So far. Knocks on wood.

My granny once said before you judge someone try walking a mile in their mocassins...it's not as easy as it sounds. But I wonder sometimes, what world we would live in if every guy experienced one day of the discomfort that James Marsters complains of on the Buffy set? Would that change things? Would they realize that is how we feel? If every guy who was made uncomfortable by those scenes or how the male characters were objectified in Sex in the City or in Buffy, thought that is how women feel all the time. Imagine feeling that way every day you go to work? Every place you travel? Imagine what it would feel like.

[Not edited due to lateness of the hour and I have to go to bed.]

Comments

[gabrielleabelle.livejournal.com]

I did find it...interesting that JM's individual experience took up a large portion of the comments to that post. Though I did open the door for it with my statements about being pleased with the male objectification in the show, which is why I let the subject carry along those lines.

Your experiences are horrifying and very telling. Due to the ubiquity of the male gaze, men are accustomed to seeing women as being "for" them. For their enjoyment and pleasure. After all, that's how women are presented in the media. And the media has a huge impact on our conditioning. It's natural that this will give some douchebags the inclination to branch out to real-world harassment and assault due to the entitlement they feel as men, which is largely endorsed and supported by the media.

While what JM went through was, obviously, horrible. It made him openly distressed, which is never a good thing. I think it's a red herring and a distraction to focus on that individual example when discussing objectification, which has a long history of doing that exact same thing to women on a much, much larger scale. That's where the bulk of my concern lies.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I did find it...interesting that JM's individual experience took up a large portion of the comments to that post. Though I did open the door for it with my statements about being pleased with the male objectification in the show, which is why I let the subject carry along those lines.

As did I, which may explain why I entered into what I realize now was a regrettable discussion on the topic.
In the Spike/Marsters fandom, JM is a difficult topic to discuss without well ending up with a free-for all.
For well, obvious reasons. I should have stuck with Sex in the City example. ;-)

That said, the discussion went way way off topic.

While what JM went through was, obviously, horrible. It made him openly distressed, which is never a good thing. I think it's a red herring and a distraction to focus on that individual example when discussing objectification, which has a long history of doing that exact same thing to women on a much, much larger scale.

Yes, while what he went through was horrible - it had nothing to do with the female gaze and was not a result of anything that we are discussing. Not really.
And even if it was, it is an isolated incident and fairly rare.

The question arises - why did they go after the red herring? Why focus on that? Why focus on one actor on a low rated cult tv series who had a bad experience? Which is similar to "white" people during RaceFail - whining about their experiences with reverse prejudice. Or White Men complaining that men get raped or men experience domestic violence. True they do, but! In a much smaller ratio. Also this is merely distracting from the broader issue. (I admittedly have been responsible in the past for permitting or adding to that distraction as I was in your post, and for that I apologize. Because I think the distraction can be take us away from a topic that does need to be addressed.)

So again, the question why are people focusing on JM as opposed to focusing on the broader issue? And why did they protest the female gaze? Why state - oh we are as bad as the men? We aren't, because we are not in power. Until JM comes out and complains about a woman masturbating in front of him on the subway or next to him on the subway or a bus, I'm not sure I can look at the male and female gaze as remotely analogous.
Until he has to walk around the block to avoid a bunch of hecklers because of the fact he is man, I can't see it. Yes, his experience on the set was horrid, but it was also short-lived. And from what I've read, he's never experienced it on another set - and he appeared nude on Smallville.

[gabrielleabelle.livejournal.com]

I do think a general discussion of the female gaze and male objectification, such as the one that went on between me and Eowyn, can be very valuable. Because such discussion inevitably leads to questions of whether objectification, in general is inherently harmful, now or in a gender equal utopia, if objectification is avoidable, and what the Ideal Solution might be. The discussion there was quite awesome, and JM was only utilized as a common example for us to speak about the larger issues.

Obviously, JM as a specific example sidetracked some other conversations. And I think the reasoning there is twofold: 1) My audience is largely Spike fans, and we feel a lot of sympathy for JM. It's a natural reaction. 2) In any feminist discussion, it can feel a lot like men, as a class, are being attacked or put in the "oppressor" category. Which...sometimes they are. But the distinction between "as a class" and "as individuals" can be difficult to convey, and a common response is to call for "fairness" in recognizing that some men, as individuals, suffer, too. Which, while true, is rather beside the point when talking on the level of society.

Overall, I thought the comments to the post were largely on-point and interesting. I know you got caught up in the JM example, unfortunately, but many other commenters were speaking to the larger issues.

Also, if it's alright with you, may I link to this post? I ask because doing so may bring disagreement/discussion your way, and not everybody wants that. :)

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Go ahead and link.

Only caught a little of your discussion with eowyn - which was actually more interesting. It may have a lot to do with your comfort level with the responder. That does, I have discovered, make a difference. The discussion I had just got flamey and headache inducing, which was largely my own fault. I got angry and that never works well.

I do think Dollhouse may actually address the topic better...but unfortunately not everyone has seen it.
Because that is at the root of Dollhouse - or the reason Whedon did it.

[gabrielleabelle.livejournal.com]

I need to get caught up on Dollhouse. I was watching, but then I got sidetracked. This is why I typically don't bother watching shows when they air. I'm just horrible at keeping up with them. :)

[lavastar.livejournal.com]

Watch iiiiit.

They have it on Netflix now!

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Hey, I use a DVR or I wouldn't seen them all. I don't watch TV live at all anymore. Everything is DVR'd or through netflix.
You can also - if you don't like netflix - download via itunes or onto your computer - most of the people on my flist watch tv that way. (Personally, it kills my eyes.)

The first 6 episodes are rough going, but after the 6th it does take off, and it does address these themes. Another show that addresses these themes rather well is Mad Men (but it may push your buttons, because it is a harsh and hyper-realistic take on what it is to be a women in the ad industry.)

[next_to_normal]

The question arises - why did they go after the red herring? Why focus on that?

For me personally? Because it was the only thing I disagreed with in Gabs' post. And a conversation about something we disagree on is a lot more interesting than just nodding along to everything else.

Why state - oh we are as bad as the men? We aren't, because we are not in power.

I disagree. Objectification is objectification, no matter who's doing it. Yes, women face a much greater systemic problem of sexism in which female objectification occurs, but that doesn't make it any less wrong to objectify men.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

No one here is saying it is right to objectify people.
I didn't.

Anymore than it is right to judge people on their race or gender.

The argument was never that it was okay to objectify men and not women. The argument was that women are objectified CONSTANTLY. Every day. Every moment. Every minute. Without anyone stopping it. Yet men are rarely objectified and when they are - people jump to their defense.

Oh, why don't you like the poor short guy or the old guy or the fat guy??? Yet women are expected to be young and sexy.

How many magazines have naked women on the cover? How many have men?

Until men are objectified in a way that robs them of their rights and equates to the way women are objectified - I seriously do not see it as an issue.

Ask yourself this question - when was the last time you saw a guy heckled in public by a bunch of women?
I saw a woman heckled just about every day.

Yes, I think we all agree that objectification is wrong, but we can also all agree that it is to a degree instinctual and we all do it. (How many Spike icons have you lusted after?)

Men don't need to be defended. They aren't the ones who have to go out of their way not to be groped on the sidewalk on their way to work each morning.

[next_to_normal]

No one here is saying it is right to objectify people.

The original comment was that Gabs was pleased to see male objectification. I think that brings with it at least some connotation of it being acceptable or okay. Either that, or it's "I like seeing bad things happen to other people, as long as it's not my gender," which seems cruel and not what I expected from her.

The argument was that women are objectified CONSTANTLY.

And I get that. I don't understand why you feel I need a lecture on this, since I've stated that I am aware of the problem.

It's obvious that you and Gabs both see objectification first and foremost from a feminist perspective. I don't. When I talk about objectification, I'm not talking about power imbalance or oppression. I'm simply talking about treating people the way they deserve to be treated - as people, not objects.

I learned about objectification way before I learned about feminism, in a very different context. Thus, when I object to objectification, the oppression of women is not my top priority. I'm sorry if that bothers you. You can go ahead and call me a bad feminist or not a feminist at all. I don't really care. Either way, you and I are clearly on different pages, and if you care to understand more about my perspective, you can read the conversation I had with Gabs on her original post.

Why are we pleased by the female gaze?

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I apologize for the didatic/lecturing tone in the response above - I tend to get didatic and terse when I get frustrated. ;-)

I only read a portion of your debate with gabs, and as I noted in the email thread above, I agreed with the view that one should not objectify people - what I did not see in what I read nor see in any of your responses above is an understanding on your part regarding why we found the female gaze to be pleasing. Note understanding should not be confused with justification or excuse. People often confuse the two terms. I'm not saying that you are, just trying to be clear.

Like you, I was raised first from the perspective that you do not objectify, and came to the "feminist" perspective much later in life. After an in-depth struggle with it.I argued from your perspective. I said -objectifying is wrong period. How can you be pleased by the female gaze? How?

What I never asked was WHY? Because how is a simple enough question to answer - it's a lizard brain function. And I'm not enough of an expert to engage in a lengthy discussion on it.

I tried to explain the why in my post above and did it again in my response to you - so that is flogging a dead horse and we obviously both get it.

The last line of my initial post above was meant to explain why I was pleased to see the female gaze examined. Please note - and I can't speak for gabs here - but for myself, a portion of that pleasure came from the fact that the woman's perspective was finally being addressed - we are finally inside our gaze not just his. If we could objectify someone else, then this meant we were not mere objects ourselves. That we lived outside of men, that we were equal to them, equal faults, equal needs, and equal desires. We are neither saints nor sinners. We are human like they are.
[This is not meant to be a justification by the way, just an explanation. They are not the same thing.]

Ironically, Buffy the Vampire Slayer answers the why questions quite well.

In S6 - the female gaze - or sexual objectification of Spike - is both a turn-on and a turn-off. We are shown what it does to both Buffy and to Spike in horrific detail. In Beneath You - Spike asks a horrified Buffy, Am I Flesh? Am I flesh to you? But the counter part to that equation is shown, with Warren in I Was Made to Love You and in Dead Things.

What is pleasing here - is that the writer by flipping the gender roles at times, shows how the woman feels - he goes inside her pov.

It is forcing the man to step inside the female perspective. To see through her eyes, and not necessarily see what he wants. To realize we aren't as different as he may wish.

It is also about power. That is also why we are pleased.

In Lessons:

Buffy to Dawn: Who has the power?
Dawn has a stake and feels powerful: I do
Buffy rolls her eyes and Dawn gets bitten by the vamp she's fighting.
Buffy: Who has the power?
Dawn: He does.
Buffy: Yes. You're just a girl.

Think about that last line. It is repeated through the series.

When Spike is turned into a sex object by Buffy, in a way, it is almost karmic justice - because Spike throughout his life has made women objects for his pleasure or derision. They are just girls for him to kill or fuck or shag or love or take care of. Harmony. Drusilla (who gets off of taking care of, when the tables turn, he can't handle it and he notes to Angelus that Dru is his in Destiny. His property.)Buffy - he sees as his. And constantly discusses in proprietary tones - "not 'your'bint anymore" or to the Buffbot - "your mine". In fact with the Buffbot - he literally turned Buffy into a sex object. When the tables are turned, he goes insane - she has the power, not him.

That is why it is pleasing. Not because we get off on him getting his just deserts - that's not it. But because, finally we are shown it from our point of view and we can be something more than an object of desire.

It's not about right, it's not about wrong. It is about power.

Re: Why are we pleased by the female gaze?

[next_to_normal]

I... don't really know what else to say at this point. Your last line indicates that we're still on completely different pages here. I said in my previous post that to me, it's not about power; it's about the right way to treat people. You've just said the opposite. I understand what you're saying, but I still disagree.

Re: Why are we pleased by the female gaze?

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I said in my previous post that to me, it's not about power; it's about the right way to treat people. You've just said the opposite. I understand what you're saying, but I still disagree.

why can't it be about both?

I don't believe the two are mutually exclusive.

How we treat people has a lot to do with how much power we have and how much they have. Example: how do you treat your boss as opposed to how you treat your friend? Or how do you treat a fellow student as opposed to a teacher?

You treat them differently? Right?

How we treat people is based on how much power we have.

Our disagreement is that you appear believe that power and treatment are exclusive and can be discussed separately and have no bearing on one another?
Am I correct? Or am I misreading you?

For the record - everyone agrees that you should not "treat" people as objects. That is a given. But do you understand why we do? Do you understand why the female gaze could be appealing? I'm not asking for you to say that yes under certain circumstances treating people like objects is okay. That is not what I am saying at all. Nor am I saying that treating someone like an object is a good idea. Nor do I believe gabs is necessarily stating that - she's stating the extreme version is bad, but the one in which you say oh that guy on the street is hot or that girl is hot - is not bad.

I'm not asking for agreement, I am asking for understanding - it's not the same thing.

Re: Why are we pleased by the female gaze?

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I'm not asking for agreement, I am asking for understanding - it's not the same thing.

In attempt to clarify that last statement - I guess, from your responses, I don't think you are understanding what we are saying.

It sounds to me as if you are oversimplifying it.

ie. Fire bad. Tree pretty.

When in some cases fire is good and trees aren't necessarily always pretty.

or "treating people as objects is bad, you don't do it"

as opposed to why do people do it? what is behind it?
and to what degree is it bad?

Does that make sense?

Re: Why are we pleased by the female gaze?

[next_to_normal]

I'm not asking for agreement, I am asking for understanding - it's not the same thing.

And yet, I've said I understand, and you're still arguing with me.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but what do you want from me? I feel like you won't let this go until I give you the right answers to your questions, like I'm being forced to take a comprehension test or something.

I thought my last comment was a pretty clear "I'm exiting the discussion" comment. If you don't think I'm leaving with a full understanding of what you were saying, that's a shame, but quite honestly, I'm not interested in proving it to you. I'd rather just agree to disagree and go our separate ways peacefully.

Re: Why are we pleased by the female gaze?

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

You are right. At this point, we should just agree to disagree.

My apologies. I realized after reading your last two posts that you may be understanding me fine, but I don't understand your perspective at all.

It makes no sense to me.

[gabrielleabelle.livejournal.com]

Speaking for myself...as we discussed, I see objectification in some form as an inevitability and don't see it as inherently cruel or bad. It's just when it's not balanced with sufficient characterization or largely one-sided to make the entire point of a character to be a "sex object" that it gets icky. And I tend to think if we start balancing the scales, being open about exploring sexuality in the media in an even fashion, objectification wouldn't result in the crazy responses from the audience who see a naked male body and go, "OMG! That's new and different! I must go and objectify this individual!" Or the audience that sees a naked female body and goes, "Oh, yes! More tits with no brain attached! That's what the wimmenz is for!"

Obviously, that's seeing things from an ideal perspective, but...hey, that's what I do.

[lavastar.livejournal.com]

And something I just realized about the JM sitch: one of the reasons people latch onto it is because of his privilege he's allowed to say that in interviews. Because he knows he can work it out so he never has to do anything like that again, and won't have to fear not being able to get parts/work with that creator again because he says he felt uncomfortable doing the nudity. Whereas a woman wouldn't and doesn't have that privilege, generally. Notice how you don't hear complaints from any of the girls - you could say because they don't mind it or because it wasn't as bad for them, but that's also just true in general, that women can't really complain.

Agreed - thank you for this response.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Whereas a woman wouldn't and doesn't have that privilege

Exactly. Thank you for pointing this out.

It is what a lot of people don't understand. If you read all of Marsters interviews and Q&A's or a good percentage of them, he actually states that. In fact - he said that Lisa Kudrow more or less underlined for him in a heated exchange he had with her preparing for a scene in PS: I love You - where their characters had a similar argument. He said she opened his eyes on the topic.

A few weeks ago, I had a lengthy discussion with a 20 something former actress, who had been acting in film since she was 16. She was explaining why she left the profession. She said that she got tired of being judged on her body, doing favors for the casting couch, and well the nude scenes and the objectification. What JM complained about on Buffy, which by the way was minor and only on the equivalent of maybe 15 episodes out of more than 50, actresses have to put up with daily.

SMG dealt with it by putting a nudity clause in her contract.
The nudity clause is a risky maneuvre - because it can limit the roles you get - and it has hurt SMG in that regard. What it means is the studio has to hire a body double if they want to do nude scenes. Freddie Prince, her husband, got her to do it - he has one as well. Most actresses, over 75% of them, do not. Actors -rarely need them.

And yep, Marsters hasn't had to do a nude scene since maybe a brief bit in Smallville, but his female co-stars, including Gellar, with her nudity clause, have.

[shapinglight]

Re: modern day North Wales and whether it's changed from when you were there, I think you would find it had, depending on where you went. Some people complain about so-called PC ruining everything but in my view it's done a lot of good. At the very least, it's made the sort of people who would have thought nothing about shouting sexist/racist insults at other people think twice.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Thank you. It's good to know that Wales has changed in the 20 years since my last visit. I was in Bala, Wales - a small town, that two very sweet military guys that I met on a train drove me to. Collected a boat load of stories in that area.
And outside of that one instance - I really wasn't accosted.
(Course it helped that I was able to meet up with my brother in Aberwysth soon after. By the time we parted company, about two weeks later, I was okay again.)

When I related the tale to others in the area - they informed me that I probably shouldn't be entering pubs by myself particularly at night, and he most likely thought I was a loose American. I remember being shocked by this. I was 21 years of age at the time.

[shapinglight]

Bala's just down the road from where I live. :)

I think back in the 80s the drinking culture in Wales was pretty male oriented. In fact, pubs in general in the whole of the UK were. Women and families would go in the lounge, very rarely in the bar area. Things have changed an awful lot in the last 20 years. For one thing, a large number of pubs serve food now, and are generally speaking more female/family friendly.

You can even get a decent glass of wine.

[curlymynci.livejournal.com]

I loathe female targeted advertising that relies on the male gaze theory. American Apparel and its ilk are dreadful for it. There's something violating about seeing an exploited and compromised woman being held up as an ideal for me. "Here emulate this, be this worthless, and if you really look vacant and accessible, I might see fit to fuck you." It's become worse over the past decade or so and ever more offensive. It would be nice to see some product promotion that plays on our strengths and hopes rather than fears and weaknesses. Dove make a good attempt - they seem to be the exception to the rule.

I've been going into pubs on my own for years in England and Wales. I don't think there is any common assumption that you are easy and out for sex (they wish). You would expect them to try their luck and to be treated in a sleazy manner, but that would be more because the kind of men who are going to pubs every day are usually alcoholic lecherous losers. The builders thing was more endemic, but has been cracked down on massively over the past decade or so. They get struck off for that kind of thing. There are numbers for women to report them and as a result you hardly even get a whistle or a comment these days.


The JM stuff - I have felt uncomfortable with it since I heard that he was uncomfortable with it. That makes me sad but I think it would be the same for either gender.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

As I was relating to shapinglight above...just now - I did visit Wales 20 years ago and have not been back since. No real reason outside of time and money. So it is probably very different now, and I'm glad to hear it. Wish the same could be said of other areas of the world.

Also good to hear that something has been done about the construction workers.

On the JM bit - lavastar makes an excellent point above that I will reiterate here - JM can complain without retailation and he complained mostly to get his female fans from yelling at him to take his shirt off. That said, when he was doing a scene with Lisa Kudrow on a related topic for PS: I Love You - she more or less made it clear to him.

The difference is - that women don't have a choice in the industry - 9 times out of 10, a woman will have to take her shirt off, wear a mini skirt or bikini, or push-up/power-bra and the guy won't. Gellar had to wear push-up/power bras her first season on Buffy with low cut shirts.

I've lost count of the number of actresses who have told me that they left the biz because they got tired of it. Got tired of being treated like sex object. That they were too old - at 35. Or needed bigger boobs. Or to lost weight. Men really don't have that problem.

[elisi]

I'm run off my feet, so I don't have time to give you a proper response. So I'll just say thank you for a very good and thought-provoking post.

[kd0206.livejournal.com]

This is such an interesting discussion. I started reading at Gabrielleabelle's and followed her link to here. I always felt that objectification was, for lack of a better word, a "lizard brain" function. The same part of us that is attracted to the features of babies. We may or may not act on those basic impulses. Your pulling in of the Mad Men show is brilliant. The exploitation of those impulses to sell things is very much the point. That the Male Gaze is empowering somehow to women; something to strive for. I need to think some more on this but thank you!

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

I think, generally speaking, that objectification is a lizard brain function. We are attracted to those physical apsects in the opposite sex that we believe would be compatible with our ability to procreate with them. (Or so says many a biologist that I've read.) It is instinctual.

But I think the media has to a degree taken it to a new level.
If the sexes were truly equal, if women had equal power to men, this would not be a problem. But whenever the power is unequal or out of balance - one group having more than the other, the group with the power has a tendency to abuse it, and more often than not to the detriment of the group without power. That's why relationships that are based on an unequal level of power, ie. one person has more than the other, tend to collasp, implode, or are unhappy. Power unfortunatly corrupts.

[ishtar79.livejournal.com]

Great post. I've watched that Mad Men episode, and was also particularly struck by that scene. It's a bit depressing how little things have changed since.

About Buffy, I will say that while the show did its fair share of objectification of women (the skimpy outfits, the majority of female characters being attractive and 'hot' in a mainstream way, the fact that male actors like NB and DB being allowed to pile on the pounds as the show went on while the women shrinked), but it's still better at presenting the female gaze than most shows out there. Much of JM's run in S6 and Angel's naked ass coming back from hell come to mind. I think most of the hand wringing about 'poor objectified JM' comes from an almost unhealthy obsession of certain fans and of course internalised sexism.

The personal experiences you describe sounds awful, but the worst thing is that it doesn't even sound that unusual to me. I've had pretty much every single body part randomly grabbed on the street on a frequent basis since I was 15 (and the harassment started earlier, and given that I always looked younger, there's an extra ick factor) to say nothing about incidents involving teachers and doctors. Most days I just shrug it off (after lashing out), and than in itself is kind of sad.

A friend of mine who also grew up in harassment heavy areas were discussing this a few weeks back, and we compared the experience of just being a woman like living on a constant battlefield. Sometimes even the most mundane of tasks like popping around the corner can involve an amount of stress the average male will never know, and when it's every day, everywhere? It gets *exhausting*.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Great post. I've watched that Mad Men episode, and was also particularly struck by that scene.

Thank you! And yes, I wish I could get everyone to see that episode - the whole episode - it's a brillant and depressing depiction of what it is like to be a woman in this society.

About Buffy, I will say that while the show did its fair share of objectification of women (the skimpy outfits, the majority of female characters being attractive and 'hot' in a mainstream way, the fact that male actors like NB and DB being allowed to pile on the pounds as the show went on while the women shrinked)

Oh yeah. SMG had to wear push-up bras that first season to make her boobs bigger in order to bring in the coveted young male audience along with the mini skirts and low cleveage. (She was playing a 16 year old. Why that didn't bother more women fans, I've no idea.)

but it's still better at presenting the female gaze than most shows out there. Much of JM's run in S6 and Angel's naked ass coming back from hell come to mind.

Agreed. The turning of Angel (DB), Riley (they attempted it but Blucas just didn't take off in that way), and Spike into sex objects impressed me. I've seldom seen that done. Usually when a guy is nude it is while he is having sex with a naked, beautiful woman - who we get to see everything on - such as Nip/Tuck. And he's usually not in as good a shape as she is.
Or he is clothed and she isn't. Here they did the opposite - Gellar was clothed and he wasn't. And he was prettier. Gellar was clothed and Angel wasn't. In sex scene with Angel - we see bits of Angel's body, not her's. Same with Spike - we see his naked chest not her's. Usually it is the opposite.

Your last point regarding JM? I agree. The internalized sexism...is something that worries me a great deal. I've been seeing it more and more online.

Most days I just shrug it off (after lashing out), and than in itself is kind of sad.

That's the worst part - we've gotten used to it. It's almost as if we accept it. And when they throw us a bone, we are grateful.

A friend of mine who also grew up in harassment heavy areas were discussing this a few weeks back, and we compared the experience of just being a woman like living on a constant battlefield. Sometimes even the most mundane of tasks like popping around the corner can involve an amount of stress the average male will never know, and when it's every day, everywhere? It gets *exhausting*.

Hee. Yes. Nods in agreement. I had a similar discussion recently with a friend. We were discussing the men masturbating on subways. Between 1999-2002, periodically, we'd have a guy either sitting next to us or across from us, masturbating while he looked at us on the subway. My friend and I would either move or just ignore him. Another friend begged me to take her train with her, because she had into the same problem and thought he might be stalking her. We reassured her - that no, he did to all of us and just to ignore him. We had gotten used to it. Skip ahead to 2009, a guy is masturbating and looking at women on the subway, leering at them in the same manner, followed one off the train, except this round a woman complained, and others began taking photos of him on their cell phones. He was finally arrested.

But my friend and I didn't take action, we'd gotten so used to ignoring harrassment, that we sort of saw it as well part of being a woman in our society.

[flake-sake.livejournal.com]

God, thank you so much for this. I just recently had a discussion about this and was basically eaten up, because I stated that the objectification on Buffy is actually pretty fair spread between the sexes and that I think Buffy mini skirting through all of S1 makes up for Spike in S6.
The only difference is that Buffy provided less fanservice for man that is usually common on tv and more for women. It did not suit the standard male gaze or rather it made up for it by catering to the female gaze too.

JM himself as far as I know said something like now he knows like the girls feel, and did not intend to become the martyr he sometimes staged as.

I absolutely agree that the omnipresence of the male gaze is decidedly annoying in the vast majority of movies and star trek was one of them (thank you for stating that too).

[gabrielleabelle.livejournal.com]

JM himself as far as I know said something like now he knows like the girls feel, and did not intend to become the martyr he sometimes staged as.

I'm wondering if you have a link to a quote on this? I believe you, but a link would come in handy in the current discussion. :)

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I can't find it - but I do remember Marster's in either a Q&A or in an interview discussing a conversation he had with Lisa Kudrow on PS: I Love You. The topic was related, although not exact. It was in regards to a scene they do in the film. The two characters that Marsters and Kudrow play are discussing men grabbing women and vice versa or something along those lines. And Marsters more or less made the argument that well was that men shouldn't be objectified and oh poor me. And Kudrow ripped him a new one. She went into depth and he was blown away by her. She more or less laid it out it for him.

I wish I could find the quote. I'm guessing it may have been at one of the cons right after that film and someone may have transcribed it. At any rate, he told his fans the story, and then paused and apologized to them. He said he owed them an apology - Lisa was right, he had no idea. Or something to that effect. I can't find it though - which means it was probably a Q&A or obscure interview.

If you want to look? It would be in regards to Lisa Kudrow and PS:I Love You - it's the scene between the two characters in the bar, about 10 minutes in length, a brief argument about women being shallow about guys or something like that.

[flake-sake.livejournal.com]

I wrote that from memory and am sad to say, that I wasn't able to find where I got it from. I'm fairly certain, I heard it and did not read it. Most likely in one of the comentaries or interviews on the dvds (s7 maybe).

Sorry, reminds me that you really have to keep track of that stuff. If I find it again, I'll let you know.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

God, thank you so much for this. I just recently had a discussion about this and was basically eaten up, because I stated that the objectification on Buffy is actually pretty fair spread between the sexes and that I think Buffy mini skirting through all of S1 makes up for Spike in S6.

You are welcome. Buffy wasn't only wearing a mini-skirt, she had been forced to wear a push-up/bust increasing bra that first season. Sarah stated in interviews that she was relieved when they switched to pants and stopped with the push-up bras. And exposing her mid-driff (which she hated).

The only difference is that Buffy provided less fanservice for man that is usually common on tv and more for women. It did not suit the standard male gaze or rather it made up for it by catering to the female gaze too.

Yes, and it was one of the few tv shows that did. The only others that have done so are daytime soap operas (which have a predominately female audience), and Sex in the City. Desperate Housewives - which is a female show - still makes the women the sex objects.

JM himself as far as I know said something like now he knows like the girls feel, and did not intend to become the martyr he sometimes staged as.

We can all thank Lisa Kudrow and possibly Kathy Bates for that one. Apparently he had the same discussion with Lisa Kudrow (who used to play Phoebe on Friends) on the set of PS:I Love You. She more or less laid out the differences for him, much as I have above.

JM started whining about it in his Q&A's in part - because a couple of women shouted during them that he should take his shirt off. (What he didn't know and I'm certain Lisa told him is this happens to women all the time and I mean ALL THE TIME not just in conventions with obsessed fans that are more than willing to take their shirts off in front of you or on a closed set with grips and a few cast members. Also unlike men, if we take our shirts off in public - we can get fined for indecent exposure.)

I really wish I could find that quote. But I looked and it has been swallowed by the net. I think it was probably a Q&A, Q&A quotes are really hard to find.

[yourlibrarian]

If every guy who was made uncomfortable by those scenes or how the male characters were objectified in Sex in the City or in Buffy, thought that is how women feel all the time. Imagine feeling that way every day you go to work? Every place you travel? Imagine what it would feel like.

To me this is the central reason why I feel men can't be objectified in most cultures in the same way women can. Because regardless of what happens to a few highly sought after men, in general men do not have to experience the general physical insecurity and restrictions women do. Also, given their control of the media and its products, and their sought after nature as consumers, they are easily able to send messages about how unwelcome male objectification is.

I also found this discussion quite interesting:

oir fascinates me because it puts me inside the perspective of male gaze, the male mind or rather the white male mind. Most noir is film by the group in power, for some reason or other. And most of it is bleak. Almost misanthropic or apologetic. Self-abasing. The noir hero hates himself, is self-loathing. The world he inhabits pointless, and hopeless. And women a light in the tunnel, but more often than not a coming train...And it hits on the nose the male fear of female power.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

Because regardless of what happens to a few highly sought after men, in general men do not have to experience the general physical insecurity and restrictions women do. Also given their control of the media and its products, and their sought after nature as consumers, they are easily able to send messages about how unwelcome male objectification is

Exactly. Note how many women felt sorry for James Marsters. But I have yet to see a man or woman post about poor Sarah Michelle Gellar who had to wear mini-skirts and push-up bras, and low cleavage and reveal her mid-driff. Or how about Harmony?

I think what a lot of people don't understand about the word "privilege" - is it is the perks of those who have power.
Who in control. In our society - men have privileges women don't have - they can do, say, and enter areas we can't without getting harrassed. Men can take their shirts off on a hot day, we can't. I remember in college, we'd been hiking in the backwoods for days, and we came back to the camp-ground.
Several of the women in the group had taken their bras and shirts off along with the men - to soak up sun and get cool.
(It was in New Mexico and about 90 some degrees). The park ranger told the women to put their shirts back on - it was considered indecent. The men were fine. I thought nothing of it. It made sense. And I did not have my shirt off. Breasts are a turn-on after all - for men. They have objectified them.

Regarding the noir...yes. I like to get inside the head of another point of view - and noir as a genre is a great way of getting inside the male mind. A friend of mine, African-American Female, once told me that she likes reading racist authors such as Flanner O'Connor - because if she can understand their pov, see how they think, then she can combat it.

[lavastar.livejournal.com]

Oooh, very interesting. Good job.

[lavastar.livejournal.com]

Aaagh, just realized that sounds super creepy when you're making a post partially about your experiences being sexually harassed. What I meant was that you did a good job telling something awful, that shouldn't need to be told.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

It sounded fine. ;-) No worries.