4 ms·
Precisely how do you define "exploitative?" In the commercial context of movies and advertising, every depiction of anything is "exploitative," in that it is le
by empthought 1y ago
Precisely how do you define "exploitative?" In the commercial context of movies and advertising, every depiction of anything is "exploitative," in that it is leveraging the depiction to make money for the movie financiers or advertisers.
- krapp 1y agoI mean, precisely, the phenomenon of the male gaze[0]. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_gaze https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_gaze
- empthought 1y agoThat isn't exploitation. If you read that entire article, the concept of "exploitation" doesn't occur once.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- krapp 1y agoThe concept of exploitation occurs in the first paragraph.
- empthought 1y agoNo it doesn’t. The first paragraph talks about objectification, not exploitation. They are different concepts. I spent years of my life studying this.
- rpdillon 1y agoI have a hard time getting on board with that paper. > The paradox of phallocentrism in all its manifestations is that it depends on the image of the castrated woman to give order and meaning to its world. An idea of woman stands as lynch pin to the system: it is her lack that produces the phallus as a symbolic presence, it is her desire too make good the lack that the phallus signifies.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- krapp 1y agoDo you have a substantive criticism to make?
- rpdillon 1y agoThis would be an interesting discussion, but I don't think this article, or HN, are the right place. In short, the paper boils down to "sex sells" but wraps it in so much linguistic and semantic psychoanalytic sophistry that it's barely intelligible, and hardly actionable. Psychoanalysis is on very unstable foundations (see Popper's critiques), and this attempts to build on that, which doesn't compel belief, at least with me.