5 ms·

> No, it is not, and this is why you're having a hard time understanding the purpose of this project, because you've decided that male gaze means something it d

> No, it is not, and this is why you're having a hard time understanding the purpose of this project, because you've decided that male gaze means something it doesn't, and are arguing from that perspective. I don't think you're understanding my point. I clearly understand you want to use "the male gaze" purely in the context of static art where the men often impose their objectification of women into paintings which are then praised. Fine. I don't agree that you can decouple the real world act of "gazing" with the art definition of "gazing". Again, you're trying to decouple "the male gaze" from general objectification. I do not think you can, because then any criticism and the definition of "the male gaze" in the artistic sense becomes completely moot. Why would it matter if the gaze is different or there is no gaze for some art piece, so the end painting has the woman in a different position? If you purely want to see a different end result if you remove "the male gaze", okay, but you should clearly state that. The idea you can decouple real world objectification of women from "the male gaze" and expect people to infer your literal definition is dishonest. In every colloquial sense, the male gaze is a representation of male objectification of women, whether you like it or not. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-male-gaze-5118422 https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-male-gaze-5118422

PierceJoy 4y ago
Why do you reply to your own comments instead of mine? > I clearly understand you want to use “the male gaze” purely in the context of static art where the men often impose their objectification of women into paintings which are then praised. Fine. I don’t agree that you can decouple the real world act of “gazing” with the art definition of “gazing”. This isn’t about what I want. This about the what the term “male gaze” refers to. You’ll notice I didn’t limit my definition to static painting. My definition is how women are portrayed in visual media. You are trying to impose your own definition on to a term that already exists and has its own definition. > Again, you’re trying to decouple “the male gaze” from general objectification. Again, I’m not trying to do anything. I am using the term according to its definition. > If you purely want to see a different end result if you remove “the male gaze”, okay, but you should clearly state that. The idea you can decouple real world objectification of women from “the male gaze” and expect people to infer your literal definition is dishonest. In every colloquial sense, the male gaze is a representation of male objectification of women, whether you like it or not. No, the male gaze refers to how women are portrayed in visual media, which is what this project is about. There is already at term for female objectification. It’s “female objectification”. You are being dishonest by trying to redefine an already established term. So let’s bring this back to the project. What is your specific issue with this project? In answering, keep in mind that the Sex Lives of College Girls didn’t exist when those paintings were created. Neither did gyms.
- ablatt89 4y ago
  > Why do you reply to your own comments instead of mine? There's no reply button underneath your posts as its getting more nested. I don't know why, possibly a bug? > This isn’t about what I want. This about the what the term “male gaze” refers to. You’ll notice I didn’t limit my definition to static painting. My definition is how women are portrayed in visual media. You are trying to impose your own definition on to a term that already exists and has its own definition. I'm not imposing my own definition, you're imposing a narrow definition which is fine, and I'm using a definition that is used in the colloquial sense, that even the Stanford Plato articles and other sources agree on. And I don't think you can decouple your definition, from the very act of gazing in the real world. > Again, I’m not trying to do anything. I am using the term according to its definition. The definition from what source? I've linked a few sources, what source are you referring to? I've linked several sources of the definition, here's another: https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority... "A manner of treating women's bodies as objects to be surveyed, which is associated by feminists with hegemonic masculinity, both in everyday social interaction and in relation to their representation in visual media: see also objectification." > No, the male gaze refers to how women are portrayed in visual media, which is what this project is about. There is already at term for female objectification. It’s “female objectification”. > You are being dishonest by trying to redefine an already established term. I am not being dishonest here, the original project has commentary that is critique of the male gaze. If you can't acknowledge that, you're being dishonest. > So let’s bring this back to the project. What is your specific issue with this project? In answering, keep in mind that the Sex Lives of College Girls didn’t exist when those paintings were created. Neither did gyms. The whole premise of the project is not only to view the art form from a "neutral perspective" (what is that even supposed to mean?), but to critique "the male gaze." From the very About section on the page: "For decades, it has been discussed in which ways depictions of women in art... Laura Mulvey coins the term “The Male Gaze” back in 1975 in her essay Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema arguing how women in especially movies would be objectified and fetishized, empowering the male heterosexual movie-creator and male heterosexual audience." This is from the very website. Your premise that the intent of the website has no motives is not correct. And my initial statements in regards to there being examples of media objectifying men through a "female gaze" stands, hence the premise that the "male gaze" is a bad thing, is wrong.
ablatt89 4y ago
> Why do you reply to your own comments instead of mine? There's no reply button underneath your posts as its getting more nested. I don't know why, possibly a bug? > This isn’t about what I want. This about the what the term “male gaze” refers to. You’ll notice I didn’t limit my definition to static painting. My definition is how women are portrayed in visual media. You are trying to impose your own definition on to a term that already exists and has its own definition. I'm not imposing my own definition, you're imposing a narrow definition which is fine, and I'm using a definition that is used in the colloquial sense, that even the Stanford Plato articles and other sources agree on. And I don't think you can decouple your definition, from the very act of gazing in the real world. > Again, I’m not trying to do anything. I am using the term according to its definition. The definition from what source? I've linked a few sources, what source are you referring to? I've linked several sources of the definition, here's another: https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100128610;jsessionid=8A8374A6CA5DAFE68F40768D3B401535 https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority... "A manner of treating women's bodies as objects to be surveyed, which is associated by feminists with hegemonic masculinity, both in everyday social interaction and in relation to their representation in visual media: see also objectification." > No, the male gaze refers to how women are portrayed in visual media, which is what this project is about. There is already at term for female objectification. It’s “female objectification”. > You are being dishonest by trying to redefine an already established term. I am not being dishonest here, the original project has commentary that is critique of the male gaze. If you can't acknowledge that, you're being dishonest. > So let’s bring this back to the project. What is your specific issue with this project? In answering, keep in mind that the Sex Lives of College Girls didn’t exist when those paintings were created. Neither did gyms. The whole premise of the project is not only to view the art form from a "neutral perspective" (what is that even supposed to mean?), but to critique "the male gaze." From the very About section on the page: "For decades, it has been discussed in which ways depictions of women in art... Laura Mulvey coins the term “The Male Gaze” back in 1975 in her essay Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema arguing how women in especially movies would be objectified and fetishized, empowering the male heterosexual movie-creator and male heterosexual audience." This is from the very website. Your premise that the intent of the website has no motives is not correct. And my initial statements in regards to there being examples of media objectifying men through a "female gaze" stands, hence the premise that the "male gaze" is a bad thing, is wrong.

PierceJoy 4y ago

Why do you reply to your own comments instead of mine? > I clearly understand you want to use “the male gaze” purely in the context of static art where the men often impose their objectification of women into paintings which are then praised. Fine. I don’t agree that you can decouple the real world act of “gazing” with the art definition of “gazing”. This isn’t about what I want. This about the what the term “male gaze” refers to. You’ll notice I didn’t limit my definition to static painting. My definition is how women are portrayed in visual media. You are trying to impose your own definition on to a term that already exists and has its own definition. > Again, you’re trying to decouple “the male gaze” from general objectification. Again, I’m not trying to do anything. I am using the term according to its definition. > If you purely want to see a different end result if you remove “the male gaze”, okay, but you should clearly state that. The idea you can decouple real world objectification of women from “the male gaze” and expect people to infer your literal definition is dishonest. In every colloquial sense, the male gaze is a representation of male objectification of women, whether you like it or not. No, the male gaze refers to how women are portrayed in visual media, which is what this project is about. There is already at term for female objectification. It’s “female objectification”. You are being dishonest by trying to redefine an already established term. So let’s bring this back to the project. What is your specific issue with this project? In answering, keep in mind that the Sex Lives of College Girls didn’t exist when those paintings were created. Neither did gyms.

ablatt89 4y ago
> Why do you reply to your own comments instead of mine? There's no reply button underneath your posts as its getting more nested. I don't know why, possibly a bug? > This isn’t about what I want. This about the what the term “male gaze” refers to. You’ll notice I didn’t limit my definition to static painting. My definition is how women are portrayed in visual media. You are trying to impose your own definition on to a term that already exists and has its own definition. I'm not imposing my own definition, you're imposing a narrow definition which is fine, and I'm using a definition that is used in the colloquial sense, that even the Stanford Plato articles and other sources agree on. And I don't think you can decouple your definition, from the very act of gazing in the real world. > Again, I’m not trying to do anything. I am using the term according to its definition. The definition from what source? I've linked a few sources, what source are you referring to? I've linked several sources of the definition, here's another: https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority... "A manner of treating women's bodies as objects to be surveyed, which is associated by feminists with hegemonic masculinity, both in everyday social interaction and in relation to their representation in visual media: see also objectification." > No, the male gaze refers to how women are portrayed in visual media, which is what this project is about. There is already at term for female objectification. It’s “female objectification”. > You are being dishonest by trying to redefine an already established term. I am not being dishonest here, the original project has commentary that is critique of the male gaze. If you can't acknowledge that, you're being dishonest. > So let’s bring this back to the project. What is your specific issue with this project? In answering, keep in mind that the Sex Lives of College Girls didn’t exist when those paintings were created. Neither did gyms. The whole premise of the project is not only to view the art form from a "neutral perspective" (what is that even supposed to mean?), but to critique "the male gaze." From the very About section on the page: "For decades, it has been discussed in which ways depictions of women in art... Laura Mulvey coins the term “The Male Gaze” back in 1975 in her essay Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema arguing how women in especially movies would be objectified and fetishized, empowering the male heterosexual movie-creator and male heterosexual audience." This is from the very website. Your premise that the intent of the website has no motives is not correct. And my initial statements in regards to there being examples of media objectifying men through a "female gaze" stands, hence the premise that the "male gaze" is a bad thing, is wrong.

ablatt89 4y ago

> Why do you reply to your own comments instead of mine? There's no reply button underneath your posts as its getting more nested. I don't know why, possibly a bug? > This isn’t about what I want. This about the what the term “male gaze” refers to. You’ll notice I didn’t limit my definition to static painting. My definition is how women are portrayed in visual media. You are trying to impose your own definition on to a term that already exists and has its own definition. I'm not imposing my own definition, you're imposing a narrow definition which is fine, and I'm using a definition that is used in the colloquial sense, that even the Stanford Plato articles and other sources agree on. And I don't think you can decouple your definition, from the very act of gazing in the real world. > Again, I’m not trying to do anything. I am using the term according to its definition. The definition from what source? I've linked a few sources, what source are you referring to? I've linked several sources of the definition, here's another: https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100128610;jsessionid=8A8374A6CA5DAFE68F40768D3B401535 https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority... "A manner of treating women's bodies as objects to be surveyed, which is associated by feminists with hegemonic masculinity, both in everyday social interaction and in relation to their representation in visual media: see also objectification." > No, the male gaze refers to how women are portrayed in visual media, which is what this project is about. There is already at term for female objectification. It’s “female objectification”. > You are being dishonest by trying to redefine an already established term. I am not being dishonest here, the original project has commentary that is critique of the male gaze. If you can't acknowledge that, you're being dishonest. > So let’s bring this back to the project. What is your specific issue with this project? In answering, keep in mind that the Sex Lives of College Girls didn’t exist when those paintings were created. Neither did gyms. The whole premise of the project is not only to view the art form from a "neutral perspective" (what is that even supposed to mean?), but to critique "the male gaze." From the very About section on the page: "For decades, it has been discussed in which ways depictions of women in art... Laura Mulvey coins the term “The Male Gaze” back in 1975 in her essay Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema arguing how women in especially movies would be objectified and fetishized, empowering the male heterosexual movie-creator and male heterosexual audience." This is from the very website. Your premise that the intent of the website has no motives is not correct. And my initial statements in regards to there being examples of media objectifying men through a "female gaze" stands, hence the premise that the "male gaze" is a bad thing, is wrong.