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

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

think the real problem isn't "the male gaze" as such, but the privileging of the male gaze.

Agreed. Had a similar discussion about a year ago - in which I was attempting to articulate a similar point. While, yes,
both female and male gazes certainly exist - and yes, actors such as James Marsters have been made uncomfortable...the male gaze predominates and is often privileged over the female gaze.
Case in point - while Buffy was certainly marketed to "tween" girls - the S1 DVD features a sexually alluring Buffy that is clearly meant to attract male viewers. As opposed to say a sexually alluring Angel. The marketing effort privileges the male gaze. And the heterosexual male gaze is predominately privileged over any other.

It's the default assumption that the TV viewer is a heterosexual male, and so the camera should linger on the things a straight man would want to look at - in other words, his gaze is privileged over that of other viewers.

Agreed. It's not only the assumption though - it's, how to put this? It's clear that this is the viewer they are aiming for.
The "preferred" viewer is the young heterosexual male. He's likely to be the "provider" or "wealthiest" person and most likely to buy the most products. Keep in mind - in the US, everything is based on advertising or marketing or consumerism.
Who is your highest wage earner? Who is most likely to buy
that Saturn or Mercedes or Mazada? Who is most likely to
buy that new big screen tv or top-dollar item?

I think that may be the reason the US TV shows feature the male gaze more in this manner than British shows do - we are reliant on advertising dollars. And advertisers tend to target the
male wage earner - preferably between the ages of 18-45 or thereabouts.

I haven't got much sympathy for your male friends who were upset about the way 'Buffy', unusually, catered more to the straight female gaze than the average TV show does... but I concede they might have had a point IF there wasn't already a whole boatload of eyecandy already out there aimed squarely at them.

Hee, me neither. Although I think or rather am pretty certain
that Whedon may have been deliberately using the female gaze in that manner to make a point, which went over the heads of
those viewers. He does it again in Dollhouse - although is a lot less subtle about it. Even makes a point of stating why he's doing it in various interviews - as a direct critique of
Hollywood's continued exploitation of women in a sexual manner to sell products. (That's most likely why there's a heavy emphasis on prostitution in Whedon's work - as a critique of that.)

At any rate, I think you are right. What the post I linked to
demonstrates is "the privileging of the male gaze", not merely the male gaze. The distinction is very important.

I don't think there's anything wrong per se with offering sexual titillation as entertainment - the problem comes when people decide they have a right to expect it that takes priority over anything else (including the wishes of the other people involved). Privilege again.

I think you are correct. It really depends on "why" someone is doing it, not that they are doing it. In the example that I linked to - they are clearly doing it to lure heterosexual males to the show.

Ryan Murphy recentally did something similar with Glee, but he satirized it. It was a Glee episode that aired after the Super-bowl. Murphy clearly had been advised by the network or someone
to do an episode that would attract people watching the Superbowl (ie, male heterosexual viewers who buy cars) - so he satirizes - a)the car ads, and b) the exploitation - showing cheerleaders with fire on their breasts and doing cartwheels.
It pokes fun at what shows like the US version of Being Human
did.

The urge to appeal to what is assumed to be the main money-earner, or privileged group - underlines the inequalities in
wage and privilege in US society and culture.