Showing posts tagged male gaze

Hey, did Fruit of the Loom manage to make a men’s underwear commercial that features actual men actually showing off the advantages of their product?  And then stay true to form for the women’s version with a powerful, rather than objectified, scantily clad woman?

Huh.  Color me impressed.

Compare this “men don’t want to look at naked men” atrocity or the one million and seven women’s clothing advertisements that seem to be selling sex (via the male gaze) rather than clothing.  Not to mention all the media that treats scantily clad women as sexual fantasies and par for the course and scantily clad men as unimaginably ridiculous.

Also please admire the “Do not attempt unless you’re a professional on a closed course wearing the right underwear.”

pollums:

appolsaucy:

good-idea-poorly-executed:

lostwiginity:

Interesting.

This is actually really interesting.

I love that he pointed out that it’s different when men and women are objectified on film, not only because of the way our society views men and women, but also in the specific way those shots are framed

When consuming media it’s so important to remember that filmmakers and ad companies have so many tools at their disposal that the average viewer is not even aware of. The way a scene is set, the way the camera moves, which parts of a person are included in the fame, the number of seconds the camera views each particular part of a person. All of these things very subtly evoke responses from us. We don’t notice them because we aren’t supposed to notice them—if they are doing their job right, everything feels seamless and correct to the viewer. And even if we do notice, we may not be able to articulate it because most of us haven’t studied filmmaking techniques. 

If you think you are 100% impenetrable to the effects of the content you view, you are deluding yourself.

excellent explanation of the Male Gaze, a must watch

This is brilliant. I love Rantasmo.

(Reblogged from tres13)

traversant:

archetypalboner:

“Women are more likely to be attracted to personality and men are more likely to be attracted to physical appearance.”

Woah maybe that’s because we teach women to see men as people and we teach men to see women as objects.

Ding ding ding ding ding.

(Source: revtomdildomolar)

(Reblogged from sreddish)
There’s a weird paradox in every issue of Cosmo: they constantly say that men have huge sex drives and aren’t picky, then lay out thousands of things things you must do exactly right in order to get and please a man. Apparently dudes will fuck anything that moves… unless it’s wearing last season’s eyeshadow, gawd.

Compliments and Non-pliments

I’ve been thinking a lot about the nature of compliments and I think the key issue is that a compliment is intended to make the other person feel good about themselves.

Thus a compliment

1) must be welcome.  This means that in cases of sincere compliment thought will have been put into the other person’s probable response. Your own opinions on what is complimentary only take precedence in compliments directed to you.  (Actually, this is probably the only rule that needs to be on this list, but I’ll provide some more for people that need assistance making the judgment call.)

2) is about something the other person would feel good about—generally things the other person has control over are going to work better! If someone says you have nice ears you might be like “um, thanks…?” but if they admire your choice of t-shirt or reading material or your new hair style that’s probably going to go down better.  But maybe you just want to compliment someone’s appearance because they clearly just put so much effort into it, right? First: SEE NUMBER ONE.  Second: try complimenting the effort, not the outcome.  (“I really admire that you make it to the gym every day.”) That’ll make your intentions a lot more clear.

3) is directed to that person.  If you’re talking about that person, instead of to that person, you probably have a case of compliment fail.

4) is about the other person, not you!  For example, “I’d like to have sex with that person” is a statement about yourself, not a compliment.  (It’s also generally a creepy thing to say outside of a few specific contexts.)  Basically anything focusing on your desires, preferences, or intentions is not going to qualify as a compliment.  It might or might not qualify as informative to the other party.

Dear Men, Gentlemen, Dudebros, and Boys of all sorts: This is How It’s Done.

audsandends:

At the moment I am working on a pilot doing office-y stuff for the construction department.  This means that at any given moment I am surrounded by upwards of 60 male construction workers.  They’re as nice as they are grizzled and way more chill than the drama-laden-bordering-on-emotionally-abusive last TV show I worked on.

All that to say, a girl walking around on set is noticed.  

Yet, I’ve never been leered at or commented on.  Everybody is super respectful, and yes, they “notice” me, but so far it’s only in a “oh that’s a female usually there are males here” manner.

Today I was walking through to grab some paperwork and one of the guys looked at me and exclaimed, “Audrey!  Looking very sharp today!”

I felt pretty good, because that is what a compliment is supposed to do, make the other person feel good.  And maybe I’m stereotyping a little but from what I’ve heard construction dudes are “supposed to be” pretty vulgar.  However, I’ve gotten more respect from these guys than I’ve gotten from 75% of the males I’ve encountered out in public.

“Damn, those jeans!”

“Look at that ass!  That’s a big ass!”

“Hey Sexy.” (this one was whispered straight into my ear as he walked past, and he turned around to make sure he saw my shocked reaction)

I’ve had guy friends tell me I should take these things as “compliments”.    That they’d “feel good” if a female said the same to them.

These are not compliments.  

I hear these every time I go out in public, no matter what I’m wearing.  I get leered at, and, on occasion, groped.  Or “accidentally” touched on my backside or frontside.

These are not things that have happened with construction workers.  These are things said and done by classmates, neighbors, dudes in suits, friends of my friends, and men who are old enough to be my father.

These are not compliments, but “looking sharp” is.  Because it’s not objectifying me.  Because I wore a blazer today and somebody noticed and thought it looked nice.  Because he meant it to make me feel good and not to announce he was objectifying me.

That, my friends, is how it is done.

 

Amen.  If it makes you feel like shit it’s not a f—ing compliment.  Kind of by definition.

(Reblogged from audsandends)
Come on, smile for me. I won’t pump your gas until you give me a smile!
Said to me, a woman, by an older man when I was just a teenager and pulled up to fill my car at a full service gas station. Made me feel humiliated and ashamed, like it wasn’t enough that I was paying with money but that I had to pay with a smile. It’s been years and I still look back on it and feel upset that it happened. (via microaggressions)
(Reblogged from microaggressions)

Personality and Job Descriptions.

audsandends:

I’ve been going through some ridiculous job descriptions lately (“Must be perfect at everything and also psychic!”, “Must be young but have 20 years experience!”, “Must be a superstar worker but get paid nothing!”, etc.)  that remind me of how terrible male writers write their female characters: unrealistic laundry lists of traits that do not add up to make an actual person.  Like 2 PhDs + Double Ds + Black Belt in Karate = Leading Lady (FYI, this is an actual character from an actual script I read as an intern once.  It wasn’t good).

And for some reason this made me remember a girl from my Keyboarding Class in 8th grade.  Yeah, Keyboarding Class.  You read that right.

Anyway, she was one of the popular “hot girls” and had huge boobs and was talking about how much she hated them.  They gave her back problems, clothes never looked right on her, and it was one of her goals to get a breast reduction.  

She was telling some of our classmates about all this, and about how none of her friends were supportive of her goal, because 

You wouldn’t be you without them!

and how angry this made her feel.  At the time, I didn’t understand what she meant— that these kids felt her entire personhood was wrapped up in her boobs, and if she didn’t have them, she wouldn’t be a “hot girl” anymore, and if she wasn’t one of the “hot girls”, she was nothing.  

Her personality didn’t matter, only what she looked like.

And now I’m just retroactively really, really sad that there was nobody there to tell her to get new friends.

This.  This-this-this-this-this. 

I’ve been playing this game with my brother where we hold up fingers for the number of female characters that exist in a movie trailer.

Have you seen the trailer for Jack the Giant Slayer? I think the princess is the only woman in that entire universe. But I guess she’s a special snowflake who is, like, spunky (while still being pretty and in need of rescue, obvs) so it’s all good with their representation of women?

There’s this really frustrating feeling I get from a lot of movies that the writers think that all they have to do is slap a PhD and a blackbelt on their female character and now she’s a Strong Female Character and not just a sex object.  You know.  Even though she doesn’t actually have a character and they’re still treating her like an object.  (She’s a sex object +5!)

Hang on—I checked the complete cast list. Out of 69 people, the women are:

  • "Princess Isabelle"
  • "Jack’s Mum" (listed 8 people down from Jack’s Dad)
  • "Little Girl"
  • and “Merchant 1049 - Uncredited”

WELP.  GUESS THIS UNIVERSE HAS ALL THE WOMEN IT NEEDS.

People.  Unless your movie is set in, like, a monastery, there ought to at least be women AROUND.  You know.  EXISTING AND STUFF. 

LIKE WE HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO DO.

PS: How awesome would a Jack in the Beanstalk movie with a female Jack be? I would watch the hell out of that movie.

(Reblogged from audsandends)
You may not agree with a woman, but to criticize her appearance — as opposed to her ideas or actions — isn’t doing anyone any favors, least of all you. Insulting a woman’s looks when they have nothing to do with the issue at hand implies a lack of comprehension on your part, an inability to engage in high-level thinking. You may think she’s ugly, but everyone else thinks you’re an idiot.
Hillary Clinton (via ellesugars)

(Source: smellslikegirlriot)

(Reblogged from placitas)