The male gaze...or why I don't watch the US version of Being Human

[shadowkat]

This post on the male gaze, ganked from more than one person on my correspondence list - sort of clarifies one of the many reasons the US version of Being Human holds 0 appeal for me and is somewhat unwatchable. But it also depicts how prominent the male gaze is in American culture. I honestly do not know if this is true world-wide. Can't really tell from the exports. The Japanese cinema I've seen, specifically anime and the Chinese cinema - seems to indicate it is, albeit differently. French cinema - seems to be somewhat equal on the topic. British? Hard to tell - so much of the stuff that gets exported is parlour room dramas or costume dramas a la The King's Speech. There are a few shows like Doctor Who, Torchwood, Being Human - but not many. You tell me? Do you think the male gaze is a world-wide phenomena, just differently expressed? Because I really have no clue. Am hesitant to generalize because that way leads stupid assumptions.


Will state that the above post reminded me a lot of well this:

Can't find a picture of Naked Spike - so just imagine it. (I know weird, but it's late).


http://nerdsinbabeland.com/archives/2872

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FemaleGaze


Anyhow, it reminds me of some very interesting discussions I had with male friends and fellow fans of Buffy while it was airing during the sixth season. They were whining about Spike always being naked.
One friend stated, actually they both stated it - "I am only interested in seeing more naked Spike, if Sarah (Buffy) is naked too. We should get to see her too." To which I remember replying, hmmm, like we get to see Lilah in the all-together on Angel, but Wes fully clothed. "Well, that's different." Right. OR "like we see women on most shows with their breasts and buts, but never see the male genitilia.

What hit me in both conversations, was the shock and dismay from the guys at seeing Spike nude, Spike as a sex symbol, with his shirt off. Same deal with Riley, Xander, Angel, and well most of the men in the series - while women were fully clothed, albeit in sexy attire. It should be noted that Buffy's shows target audience was young women. Men - really weren't the target here. Actually I'm not sure the network cared if the men tuned in.

Grey's Anatomy and Sex in the City are similar - the target audience is women, so the gaze is female.
The guys are hunks. They are shown topless and nude. The women either under a sheet or fully clothed.
Same with Being Erica - we see the guys looking hunky, not the girls.

You can always tell who the target audience is. In daytime soap operas - men have their shirts off, the good looking men, the girls rarely are shown in anything revealing. Or that revealing.

So there is a female gaze...it just depends on if women are the target group. That's not to say we aren't a sexist society.

Is this objectifying? I'm not entirely sure. Yes and no. Being turned on by the human body isn't necessarily a bad thing. I guess it is how it is being used and depicted? I mean - look at American celebrities - from Marilyn Monroe to James Dean and well, Rob Lowe, Brad Pitt, Ian Sommerland, and sigh, Brittany Spears. They are to a degree "sex symbols".

Also look at your friends icons and ahem, banners. I mean - the banner I got at No Rest for the Wicked Awards of a sexy Spike was not work safe - so I couldn't post it to my lj homepage and still access that page at work. Was that objectification and the female gaze? Hell yes. Is it wrong?
I don't think so....? I don't think this is as black and white as we want it to be. I think it falls into ambiguous moral ground...a sort of cloudy gray area?

Comments

[frenchani.livejournal.com]

Yeah monokini was fairly common in the 80's but you wouldn't see many topless women on beaches these days, because of breast cancer.

When I was a kid, people didn't care about the damages sun exposure could cause (not only on naked breasts but also on young kids' skin) but things have changed, fortunately.

Personally I never liked monokini, mostly for aesthetic reasons.

US - it's less explicit and if it were that explicit? They'd get inundated with complaints and told to take it down immediately for being "offensive". The recent Skins ad campaign, where two teens are shown passionately kissing - had to be taken down from subways after a Hassidic man complained about it being offensive.

Well, there's big difference between Europe and America, it's called de-christianization!

Religious influence used to rule but was put down in the last two centuries. For how long, sometimes I wonder...

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Well, there's big difference between Europe and America, it's called de-christianization!

Actually he was orthodox Jewish. I may have spelled Hassidic wrong...it's very orthodox Jew - think long beard, hat, and all in black. The Islam community was also upset about it. The Christians weren't that upset actually. (at least according to the paper).

Religious influence used to rule but was put down in the last two centuries. For how long, sometimes I wonder

Hee. It probably helped that you sent half of your religious fanatics to the colonies. LOL! Keep in mind,
90% of Americans are the decedents of people who fled here/immigrated here due to a) religious persecution (there's a lot of French Protestants and British Puritans who immigrated to the Americas during a particularly bloody era of history, along with Russian Jews, and Dutch Amish), b) income tax evasion and/or property tax evasion (economic reasons),
and c)political persecution.

Regarding tv and film? I think there's an economic difference actually that we are ignoring - ie. US is a free-market economy, and tends to go after high wage earners with its media products. While, I get the feeling that French film and tv shows are less "money-makers" or "big money-makers"? For example in NYC- our biggest industries or the biggest money makers are finance and entertainment. Most tv shows succeed or get canceled based purely on how many advertising dollars they can attract. The best commericials or most expensive, the ones everyone wants are the car ads.

[frenchani.livejournal.com]

No no you spelled it right, I know what hassidism is so I got that the man you mentioned was a Jew. I mentioned the de-chritianization because it's how we call it given that Christianity was the main faith in Europe, but it basically means that religion - whatever it may be-lost its influence over society as people became less and less religious and atheism progressed. It's a process of secularism. Also in the case of France there was the law on laïcité that was the result of a harsh struggle against Catholic Church that began with the Philosophers of Enlightnment.

Anyway what I meant was that the US are a country wherein people according to the statistical data are in majority "believers" , religion still has a big influence (even in politics)and churches are true lobbies, while European history moved from it in the 19th century.

And yes, there's also the fact that the colonials were very religious and America was a sort of promised land for them.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure how true this is now? Because the US is actually moving further and further away from religion as a focus. You can't tell - because the Christian right is so vocal in the US that you don't realize they are a minority. They are by the way.

Most young people statistically in the US aren't practicing any religion. In the paper the other day - they mentioned more and more were going towards Buddhism, Scientology, or Self-Help or areas which were less Christian based. Unitarianism is actually on the rise. (My church has quite a few atheists.) And US government and culture is actually secular. We do not permit prayer in schools, and never really have, but even less so now.
(Although the Christian Right whines about that a lot.)

Granted a lot of this is based on region. Certain regions of the US are less secular than others. Kansas for example is a region that is very into religion and religious values, while you'll find certain areas of say California is less so. NYC is a hodge-podge.

And religion really doesn't have as big an influence in our politics as you may think - if it did, certain people wouldn't get elected and other's would. Example - one of the reasons Mick Huckabee and Mitt Romney struggled was religion, one was a former preacher (which turned people off) and the other was a Mormon (also turned people off), and there was a bit of an issue with the Rev. Jesse Jackson (his preacher status was a big problem).

John F. Kennedy winning was a big deal back in the day - because a Catholic becoming President was unheard of.

We are into religious freedom over here.