4 ms·

> 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 e

> 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.

ablatt89 4y ago
> 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. I've been acknowledging your point of view, and now you finally acknowledge my perspective, instead of continuously ignoring it. Thank you. > 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? Yes, you are using that definition, that doesn't mean everyone agrees of your interpretation as defined in the articles I linked. Not only that, you make assertions that the website's intent is only to view art pieces from a male gaze, when the About clearly has criticism towards male objectification. Why is the website not subject to criticism again, because you view that is no context? > Where did I claim they have no motive? You've continuously dismissed any criticism of the website. This is extremely obvious. First, you state that the website is merely trying to look at art pieces from a non-male gaze perspective. Then, when shown an About Me where there is criticism of the male perspective, you argue that the "male gaze" does not mean men checking out women. When presented with multiple definitions, you cherry-pick the Wikipedia one, ignore my arguments that assert that the "male gaze" can't be decoupled from the real world concept because then it wouldn't make any sense. And then you claim this whole time, you've actually understood what my and other's arguments against the website has been, despite prior dismissing everything we said. > And you are now implying that if a female gaze exists, then a male gaze cannot be wrong? That's obviously a terrible conclusion. Why is that a terrible conclusion? You've completely absolved all criticism of feminist thought. Why? Why do you think male sexuality is a bad thing but female sexuality expression is good? That sounds pretty sexist to me.
- PierceJoy 4y ago
  > I've been acknowledging your point of view, and now you finally acknowledge my perspective, instead of continuously ignoring it. Thank you. No problem, but the point is that your perspective doesn't apply to this project. > Not only that, you make assertions that the website's intent is only to view art pieces from a male gaze, when the About clearly has criticism towards male objectification. This is why I suggested in the other comment that you're getting emotional. I never asserted that. Didn't even imply it. This is completely made up. > You've continuously dismissed any criticism of the website. This is extremely obvious. If it's extremely obvious, then you should have problem quoting where I did that. > First, you state that the website is merely trying to look at art pieces from a non-male gaze perspective. Quote please. > Then, when shown an About Me where there is criticism of the male perspective, you argue that the "male gaze" does not mean men checking out women. It does not mean checking out women. > When presented with multiple definitions, you cherry-pick the Wikipedia one I presented two sources which both said the same thing. That's not what cherry picking means. > ignore my arguments that assert that the "male gaze" can't be decoupled from the real world concept because then it wouldn't make any sense. I'm ignoring it because it doesn't make sense. You're trying to tie two different things together that are separate concepts, and then blaming me for not agreeing with you. > And then you claim this whole time, you've actually understood what my and other's arguments against the website has been, despite prior dismissing everything we said. Quote please. It's not that I don't understand your argument. It's that your argument only works if you redefine what male gaze means. You can't redefine something that has an existing definition just because it suits your arguoment. > Why is that a terrible conclusion? So any bad thing that men do is no longer bad if women do it to? Is that a serious position? Haha. > You've completely absolved all criticism of feminist thought. Quote please. > Why do you think male sexuality is a bad thing but female sexuality expression is good? Quote please. > That sounds pretty sexist to me. If you can quote where I said male sexuality is bad, then that would be sexist. But you can't. Because I didn't. This constant tactic of inventing things out of thin air is getting tired. Please stop.

ablatt89 4y ago

> 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. I've been acknowledging your point of view, and now you finally acknowledge my perspective, instead of continuously ignoring it. Thank you. > 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? Yes, you are using that definition, that doesn't mean everyone agrees of your interpretation as defined in the articles I linked. Not only that, you make assertions that the website's intent is only to view art pieces from a male gaze, when the About clearly has criticism towards male objectification. Why is the website not subject to criticism again, because you view that is no context? > Where did I claim they have no motive? You've continuously dismissed any criticism of the website. This is extremely obvious. First, you state that the website is merely trying to look at art pieces from a non-male gaze perspective. Then, when shown an About Me where there is criticism of the male perspective, you argue that the "male gaze" does not mean men checking out women. When presented with multiple definitions, you cherry-pick the Wikipedia one, ignore my arguments that assert that the "male gaze" can't be decoupled from the real world concept because then it wouldn't make any sense. And then you claim this whole time, you've actually understood what my and other's arguments against the website has been, despite prior dismissing everything we said. > And you are now implying that if a female gaze exists, then a male gaze cannot be wrong? That's obviously a terrible conclusion. Why is that a terrible conclusion? You've completely absolved all criticism of feminist thought. Why? Why do you think male sexuality is a bad thing but female sexuality expression is good? That sounds pretty sexist to me.

PierceJoy 4y ago
> I've been acknowledging your point of view, and now you finally acknowledge my perspective, instead of continuously ignoring it. Thank you. No problem, but the point is that your perspective doesn't apply to this project. > Not only that, you make assertions that the website's intent is only to view art pieces from a male gaze, when the About clearly has criticism towards male objectification. This is why I suggested in the other comment that you're getting emotional. I never asserted that. Didn't even imply it. This is completely made up. > You've continuously dismissed any criticism of the website. This is extremely obvious. If it's extremely obvious, then you should have problem quoting where I did that. > First, you state that the website is merely trying to look at art pieces from a non-male gaze perspective. Quote please. > Then, when shown an About Me where there is criticism of the male perspective, you argue that the "male gaze" does not mean men checking out women. It does not mean checking out women. > When presented with multiple definitions, you cherry-pick the Wikipedia one I presented two sources which both said the same thing. That's not what cherry picking means. > ignore my arguments that assert that the "male gaze" can't be decoupled from the real world concept because then it wouldn't make any sense. I'm ignoring it because it doesn't make sense. You're trying to tie two different things together that are separate concepts, and then blaming me for not agreeing with you. > And then you claim this whole time, you've actually understood what my and other's arguments against the website has been, despite prior dismissing everything we said. Quote please. It's not that I don't understand your argument. It's that your argument only works if you redefine what male gaze means. You can't redefine something that has an existing definition just because it suits your arguoment. > Why is that a terrible conclusion? So any bad thing that men do is no longer bad if women do it to? Is that a serious position? Haha. > You've completely absolved all criticism of feminist thought. Quote please. > Why do you think male sexuality is a bad thing but female sexuality expression is good? Quote please. > That sounds pretty sexist to me. If you can quote where I said male sexuality is bad, then that would be sexist. But you can't. Because I didn't. This constant tactic of inventing things out of thin air is getting tired. Please stop.