5 ms·

> 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

> 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
> 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. I think I see what the issue is. You are referring to male gaze, whereas I'm referring to Male Gaze. That's fine, but this project is about Male Gaze, or rather Female Gaze. Male Gaze has a definition, and it does not include general objectification of women, which already has a term: objectification. > The definition from what source? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_gaze https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_gaze "In feminist theory, the male gaze is the act of depicting women and the world in the visual arts[2] and in literature[3] from a masculine, heterosexual perspective that presents and represents women as sexual objects for the pleasure of the heterosexual male viewer.[4] In the visual and aesthetic presentations of narrative cinema, the male gaze has three perspectives: (i) that of the man behind the camera, (ii) that of the male characters within the film's cinematic representations; and (iii) that of the spectator gazing at the image.[5][6]" https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-does-the-male-gaze-mean-and-what-about-a-female-gaze-52486 https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-does-the-male-gaz... "The “gaze” is a term that describes how viewers engage with visual media. Originating in film theory and criticism in the 1970s, the gaze refers to how we look at visual representations. These include advertisements, television programs and cinema." > 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. Exactly. It is a critique of the Male Gaze, a term which has an established definition that does not include general objectification. If you can't acknowledge that, you're being dishonest. > "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." Did you notice that you just included the definition of male gaze from the person who coined the term, and it is the definition that I've been using? > This is from the very website. Your premise that the intent of the website has no motives is not correct. Where did I claim they have no motive? > 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. Again, these paintings were created decades, or centuries before your examples of female gaze existed. And you are now implying that if a female gaze exists, then a male gaze cannot be wrong? That's obviously a terrible conclusion.

PierceJoy 4y ago

> 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. I think I see what the issue is. You are referring to male gaze, whereas I'm referring to Male Gaze. That's fine, but this project is about Male Gaze, or rather Female Gaze. Male Gaze has a definition, and it does not include general objectification of women, which already has a term: objectification. > The definition from what source? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_gaze https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_gaze "In feminist theory, the male gaze is the act of depicting women and the world in the visual arts[2] and in literature[3] from a masculine, heterosexual perspective that presents and represents women as sexual objects for the pleasure of the heterosexual male viewer.[4] In the visual and aesthetic presentations of narrative cinema, the male gaze has three perspectives: (i) that of the man behind the camera, (ii) that of the male characters within the film's cinematic representations; and (iii) that of the spectator gazing at the image.[5][6]" https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-does-the-male-gaze-mean-and-what-about-a-female-gaze-52486 https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-does-the-male-gaz... "The “gaze” is a term that describes how viewers engage with visual media. Originating in film theory and criticism in the 1970s, the gaze refers to how we look at visual representations. These include advertisements, television programs and cinema." > 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. Exactly. It is a critique of the Male Gaze, a term which has an established definition that does not include general objectification. If you can't acknowledge that, you're being dishonest. > "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." Did you notice that you just included the definition of male gaze from the person who coined the term, and it is the definition that I've been using? > This is from the very website. Your premise that the intent of the website has no motives is not correct. Where did I claim they have no motive? > 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. Again, these paintings were created decades, or centuries before your examples of female gaze existed. And you are now implying that if a female gaze exists, then a male gaze cannot be wrong? That's obviously a terrible conclusion.