FAQ: What is the “male gaze”?
Before talking about the male gaze, it is first important to introduce its parent concept: the gaze. According to Wikipedia the gaze is a concept used for “analysing visual culture… that deals with how an audience views the people presented.” The types of gaze are primarily categorized by who is doing the looking.
While the ideas behind the concept were present in earlier uses of the gaze, the introduction of the term “the male gaze” can be traced back to Laura Mulvey and her essay “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” which was published in 1975. In it, Mulvey states that in film women are typically the objects, rather than the possessors, of gaze because the control of the camera (and thus the gaze) comes from factors such as the as the assumption of heterosexual men as the default target audience for most film genres. While this was more true in the time it was written, when Hollywood protagonists were overwhelmingly male, the base concept of men as watchers and women as watched still applies today, despite the growing number of movies targeted toward women and that feature female protagonists.
Though it was introduced as part of film theory, the term can and is often applied to other kinds of media. It is often used in critiques of advertisements, television, and the fine arts. For instance, John Berger (1972) studied the European nude (both past and present) and found that the female model is often put on display directly to the spectator/painter or indirectly through a mirror, thus viewing herself as the painter views her.
For Berger these images record the inequality of gender relations and a sexualization of the female image that remains culturally central today. They reassure men of their sexual power and at the same moment deny any sexuality of women other than the male construction. They are evidence of gendered difference… because any effort to replace the woman in these images with a man violates ‘the assumptions of the likely viewer’ (Berger, 1972: 64). That is, it does not fit with expectations but transgresses them and so seems wrong.
[Wykes and Barrie Gunter (pp. 38-39)]
The male gaze in advertising is actually a fairly well-studied topic, and it — rather than film — is often what comes to mind when the term is invoked. This is because, more than just being an object of a gaze, the woman in the advertisement becomes what’s being bought and sold: “The message though was always the same: buy the product, get the girl; or buy the product to get to be like the girl so you can get your man” in other words, “‘Buy’ the image, ‘get’ the woman” (Wykes, p. 41). In this way, the male gaze enables women to be a commodity that helps the products to get sold (the “sex sells” adage that comes up whenever we talk about modern marketing). Even advertising aimed at women is not exempt: it engages in the mirror effect described above, wherein women are encouraged to view themselves as the photographer views the model, therefore buying the product in order to become more like the model advertising it.
If you look at the image at the top right of this post, you can see that the image being sold to men is that of an attractive woman (they are encouraged to look at her in the same way the men on the curb are) while the image being sold to women is that if they buy the product that they, too, can be the recipients of male attention. Thus the image being sold, for both men and women, quite literally becomes that of the male gaze.
As feminist popular culture critics emerge, so does the use of the term in regard to areas such as comic books and video games. Indeed, it is from one of those areas that we can find a clear example of the male gaze in action:
The above image, which is a panel taken from the comic All Star Batman And Robin, the Boy Wonder juxtaposed with the script written by author Frank Miller (released in the director’s edition of the comic), illustrates the way that the male gaze works in a concrete way. When Miller says, “We can’t take our eyes off her” he is speaking directly of his presumably male audience, and the follow up (”Especially since she’s got one fine ass.”) says loud and clear that her sexualized portrayal is for the pleasure of the envisioned heterosexual male viewer. In essence, Viki Vale’s character is there to reassure the readership of their hetero-masculinity while simultaneously denying Vicki any agency of her own outside of that framework. She is the quintessential watched by male watchers: the writer/director (Frank), his artist, and the presumed male audience that buys the book.
As illustrated in the above examples, the term has applications outside of the framework that Mulvey initially imagined. Although it is most easily illustrated in places where creator intent is clear (or, in Frank Miller’s case, blatantly stated), creator intent is not actually a prerequisite for a creation to fall under the male gaze. Nor does the creator and/or the audience have to be male, nor does the subject of the gaze have to be unhappy with the result. In the end, the simplest way to describe the male gaze is to return it to its roots of the female model/actress/character being looked at by the the male looker.
And, well, if you’re still confused you can go read this Dinosaur Comic about it. It gives an overview of the subject in 6 panels, placing it in the humorous context of talking dinosaurs! And everyone knows things always make better sense when they’re put into context by talking dinosaurs.
Related Reading:
Introductory:
- Laura Mulvey (1975). “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema”. Screen 16 (3): 6-18.
- Nancy M. Brannon (Feminist Theory, Spring 99): The Patriarchal Gaze
- (TV Tropes Wiki): Male Gaze
- Ryan North (Dinosaur Comics): October 06 2006
- Maggie Wykes and Barrie Gunter (The Media and Body Image, 2005): “Ways of seeing women”, pp. 38-47.
- Daniel Chandler (Notes on ‘The Gaze’): Laura Mulvey on film spectatorship
- Examples of the male gaze: Scott A. Lukas (The Gender ADs Project): The Male Gaze
Clarifying Concepts:
- Gender differences in seeing women:
Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at. This determines not only most relations between men and women but also the relation of women to themselves.
[Berger, John. (1972): Ways of Seeing, p. 42]
- Layers of the male gaze:
This article effectively, although unintentionally, reveals the layers and layers of perception that surround us. Bailey Rae sees objectification in images where women are blatently sexualised and speaks out against it. However she is apparently not aware that she can still be objectified and sexualised despite keeping her midriff covered. I think a certain blindness to aspects of the patriarchy can affect us all, purely because we are all products of it in one way or another.
[la somnambule (la somnambule): Where does the male gaze end?]
- How the male gaze interacts with sexual objectification:
In Miller’s hands, photographer Vicki Vale becomes a gossip columnist “gadfly” who struts around her apartment in lacy lingerie and fluffy heels, sipping a martini, and dictating to herself while Gotham City gleams in the huge, uncurtained, picture windows behind her.
[...]
Frank wants you to drool over Vicki Vale. She’s hot! She knows what she’s got! She’s strutting around her own apartment - technically alone - but you, dear reader, you are allowed in to watch. She’s stripped down for *you*.[Karen Healey (Girls read comics): I HAVE A DATE WITH BRUCE WAYNE.]
- tekanji (Official Shrub.com Blog): Obscuring the Male Gaze
Filed under: FAQ, clarifying-concepts
[...] a feminist space in porn that women don’t look at porn as much as men strictly because of the male gaze issues.** Written erotica was deemed more female-friendly not because of inherent preferences for visual [...]
I just wanted to say the new design is great (the blogreader gaze).
Ways of Seeing by Berger was one of the first books I read in art school. I studied art and women’s studies and although I found a great deal of it interesting on an academic level, there are some things that I feel can now be expanded upon. It is now decades later, many years have passed since the coming of age of feminism and I think women have much more power now than ever before. I think not only do we know about the male gaze, but many of us control it and use it to our advantage.
I have been reading your blog, a fantastic place. Thanks
Via Feministing’s weekly reader: Notes on ‘The Gaze’ by one Damian Chandler, specifically concentrating on advertising images.
Beautifully put. I’ll be passing this along to others for sure. Thanks!
Tigtog: That site is awesome sauce. I added the part on Mulvey to the introductions. I’ll give it a more thorough reading later to see if there’s anything else from it I want to add here.
angrygrl: I don’t disagree that there’s more to be said than was said in Ways of Seeing, or even Mulvey’s original conception of the term. It’s there because many of the concepts still apply today, and because it’s an important contribution to the history of the male gaze.
While I definitely agree that more people are aware of the male gaze than before (especially feminists), I would caution against ascribing that knowledge to most people. One of the reason this article went up is that many people — even feminists — know the term “the male gaze” but don’t know the meaning, and therefore chalk it up to “extremist jargon”.
I’m also curious to know what you mean by “control it use it to our advantage”. From where I’m sitting, working within the framework of the male gaze is, by definition, working under the control of the male doing the gazing. Therefore the ‘control’ exerted is illusory and the ‘advantage’ is tenuous at best, because it’s contingent on the male gazer conferring the power onto the gazed. Which is a kind of power that can easily be taken away and, in fact, is easily taken away when objects of that gaze don’t do what the gazers want.
Was wondering if this was a correct extension of the theory:
A side effect of the male gaze is that women begin to view themselves as they would look from a male viewpoint. I was taught that the male gaze was something that women inevitably use on themselves - developing a unique ability to step outside themselves and critique their bodies. So when a woman is walking down the street, she self-consciously watches herself walking down the street, and modifies her behaviour for an imaginary ideal. In public situations, women define themselves as being constantly viewed and judged, in a way men don’t have to.
Finally, this was marvellous site. I’m thinking, with this, and Hoyden, and LP, and guest week at Feministing, you must have an everlasting gobstopper of spare time. Plz shaer. kthxbai.
Your extension of the theory sounds about right to me, AK, although I’m hardly a theoretician here. And thanks! The lack of an everlasting gobstopper of spare time is why I was so happy to welcome Tekanji aboard as co-blogger. (My guest week stint was at Feministe, not Feministing, BTW.)
Very awesome, very concise. I suspect I will be sending some of my argumentative new posters this way.
I may have missed this point above but what bothers me is that so many women (seem)to have a ‘male gaze’ on the world, ie they act/react in ways utterly contrary to their own interests.
It’s like Stockholm Syndrome, Amphibious.
It’s also a combination of two problems we see all the time in life, not just big-picture politics:
* most people go for perceived short term advantage even when it has long term disadvantages
(drinkers, smokers, gamblers, junkies)
* most people go for personal advantage over group benefit, or even perceived possible future personal advantage over group benefit. Average income earners vote for politicians whose policies squeeze the middle class for the benefit of the wealthy - they hope that one day they will be wealthy and then they want those advantages for themselves, but in the meantime they ignore how much harder the policies make it for them to get ahead as middle-income earners. Even lower-income earners fall prey to this one.
Lower status people falling into appeasing higher-status people for personal gain while ignoring the possibilities of collectively asserting themselves against sharp practises from the upper-status people happens all the time in human society, it is not something peculiar to women. This is largely because the upper-status people control the education curricula and tend to frown upon the lower-status people learning how all this internalisation of social controls, collaboration with social controls, is trained into us all from an early age (even when they don’t understand it themselves either, it sounds like trouble and therefore it’s discouraged). That so many women feel the need to appease the male gaze merely points to how much power society gives to it.
I can name some theory that jives with The Amazing Kim’s extension: RadicaLesbians’ “The Woman Identified Woman.” It’s mostly about developing a lesbian identity, but one of their key points is that women are socialized to identify with male perspective (”by virtue of having been brought up in a male society, we have internalized the male culture’s definition of ourselves”).
It made so much sense to me when I read it. You know that line that goes “why is it that mens’ magazines have pictures of half-dressed women, and womens’ magazines also have pictures of half-dressed women?” It’s not because women are intrinsically more beautiful to look at, but that we’re in training to look at ourselves with objectifying eyes and compare ourselves to images of more perfect objects.
This is my first time reading this blog. So far, a great read!
One thing that isn’t mentioned here is that over the last 100 years of filmmaking, less than 5 per cent of films have been made by women. Even today, that figure still stands. I don’t know the percentage re TV programs, but just on personal observation, I believe that it would be comparable to film. (Although women tend to be well represented in back-up production work, they are seldom the creative force behind films or TV programs, other than makeup, casting and costume design).
The outcome of this is that the two most powerful and influential creative mediums of the 20th and early 21st centuries are filtered overwhelmingly through men’s eyes and men’s perspectives - even when attempting to tell stories about women.
[...] an invasive, destructive eye: it actively and hungrily devours what it can see (c.f. “male gaze“). The solution, then, might mean acknowledging that no single eye (naked or not) can claim [...]
[...] Posts FAQ: -What’s wrong with suggesting that women take precautions to prevent being raped?FAQ: What is the “male gaze”?PLEASE READ THIS FIRSTFAQ: But men and women are born different! Isn’t that obvious?FAQ: what do you [...]
Arg!
I’ve done a semester of Gender Studies and the original paper was attacking all men, “You paint the pictures, you…”
Men get more pleasure at looking at women than women do at looking at men.
There is no reason to attack men for doing what is pleasurable. No immidiate harm is done.
Please do not make this a blog attacking all men. Modern day feminism to me is a plague
Which “original paper” are you referring to? Mulvey’s or Berger’s?
That is a heterosexist assumption; not only does it assume that all people are heterosexual (we’re not), but it also relies on gender essentialism which is far from a proven position. If you want that claim to be taken with any amount of seriousness you would need to provide citations to studies that back it up.
What about explaining a theory is an attack on men? There is a difference between talking about how constructs of gender and gender roles affect the media that we consume and talking about actual men. This ability to separate the personal from the constructed is fundamental to understanding any theory, not just feminist ones.
Well, it depends on what context you’re using “immediate” in, but the point is that harm is harm, and the harm of reinforcing a view that encourages both men and women to see women as objects, rather than human beings, is a major factor in the more tangible ways that society hurts women.
Neither I, nor tigtog, are doing any such thing. You are the one who is putting that frame on it, and I suspect it has something to do with you viewing “[m]odern day feminism [as] a plague”.
If you come to this website with the expectation of finding male-bashing, you will read into whatever references men and feel that it is male-bashing. But if you come to this website with the intention of broadening your own worldview and trying to understand why things that you feel to be “male-bashing” feminists (both female and male) feel to be valid ways of explaining their experiences, then that’s exactly what you’ll find.
Paul, treating women as objects that exist to decorate *your* world (as a man) does no harm? Really? Are you considering women’s feelings at all?
This blog absolutely doesn’t attack “all men.” Give examples. It attacks sexism and patriarchy. Unless you think all men are entitled, sexist jerks, this blog doesn’t attack *men* in the least.
[...] him and then turns around “strip” for him to be a weird and unnatural thing to do, very male gaze-y) Outside we see the ground shaking and leaves falling from a tree; Chloe stares at her cup as it [...]
Hi I’m 17 and have recently started doing a module in media about women portayal in film, hense why I’m reading this,
it’s actually making me feel quite horrid! I never knew women were viewed like this, but now I do it is oh so obvious.
The male gaze extension that the amazing kin said way up above, I can relate to that, and now I understand why I do this! “she self-consciously watches herself walking down the street, and modifies her behaviour for an imaginary ideal.”
this is infuriatin!
xxx
[...] ads and protests they recognize the ads or protests as sexist. Another reason is because of the male gaze. PETA tends to use the male gaze when photographing or filming ads. The third reason we recognize [...]
Is the male gaze natural or cultural? The commercialization of the femal body and the fredom of having pleasure are latent behind this.
Cultural.
While the gaze as a general concept could be argued to have a natural component, an integral part of what makes up the “male gaze” is the societal construct of male as active/powerful and female as passive/weak. While there are theories in evolutionary biology that use nature to explain how this construct emerged, they are largely based on guesswork and no scientific studies have conclusively found evidence that such behaviours are hardwired into our biology.
… an integral part of what makes up the “male gaze” is the societal construct of male as active/powerful and female as passive/weak.
I would go further: it is the absence of any non-male perspective in public consciousness. In the Mainstream Media (MSM), in mixed-gender discussions, in political discussions, the female perspective is absent, and if presented, is simply ignored. The absence of non-male perspectives (a form of “social modelling”
trains both men and women that non-male perspectives simply do not exist.
This is not negated by the fact that many women do discuss their perspectives. However, they do so mostly in “private”, women-only settings, and outside these settings (e.g., in male-only or mixed gender settings), people mostly act as if they had never happened. This gets across the message at a mostly or entirely unconscious level (social modelling) to both men and women that even when female perspectives exist, they don’t exist.
This is quintessentially cultural: culture defining what we see and don’t see.
I’m afraid I may get shot down on a personal level for asking a question, but I want to learn, and I think that learning the answer outweighs the risk.
Are images designed with a male audience in mind which presents a female human being in the image *always* wrong?
Or is the normalization of such images the thing that is wrong?
It’s more the imbalance which is oppressive: the “cheesecake”:”beefcake” ratio.
Nearly every image of women we see has a cheesecake factor, where the woman is groomed and displayed as an object of allure. Beefcake by contrast is a niche, not the standard.
Have you thought about how women are now starting to reclaim the male gaze??
have a look at french artist Orlan, she activly repulses and reclaims the male gaze by performing surgeries on herself under only local anesthetic…. an effective critique???
Have you thought about how the male gaze laffects other men? How is “buy the product, get the girl” all that different form “buy the product, get to be like the girl so you can get your man.” We all buy the product in the end. The system is the same, the only difference is that it has been, historically, created by men. I doubt that the situation would be all that different if this system were created by women.
Hi, I’m a male who’d like to learn about this stuff.
The way you’re presenting the ‘male gaze’, it looks like something essentially related to film, advertising, comics, and other visual media. And what happens is that these media tend to take a standard straight man’s sexualized view of women and visually implement it (as if having the audience see things from that viewpoint).
But what about the sexualized viewpoint itself? What about the way the standard straight man sees women? Is that considered part of the ‘male gaze’ phenomenon? Or does it have to be implemented in some visual media in order to qualify as ‘male gaze’?
I mean, I’ve always felt uncomfortable about this fact about myself and other men: I feel always and everywhere compelled to look to see whether a passing woman is attractive. I really do wonder how this affects people. And so I wonder if there’s been much examination of that phenomenon (or related phenomena).
There are subtle differences. One of these approaches came into being very recently as a natural extension of capitalism. Also, both approaches reinforce the woman as a passive sexual object.
I always find this type of comment to de distracting and unfounded. We’ll never know what the system would have been like had it been created by women, will we? And actually there is some anthropological evidence, regarding a few small societies that were/are maternally tilted, which lends credence to the idea that women in charge do not set things up like a reverse patriarchy.
Your comment reminds me of when a historically privileged majority says, ” Oh, minorities are just as prejudiced, etc.” So? And? Does that in any way detract from the goal of a more equitable society?
“How is “buy the product, get the girl” all that different form “buy the product, get to be like the girl so you can get your man.””
For one thing, the man is the actor in both these scenarios- the only action women can take is to try to set things up so that the man will want her. The woman doesn’t go find her dream man, she just fancies herself up so her dream man will choose her. It’s the difference between being the actor or subject of the story, and the object of the story, a thing to be desired.
[...] since I saw this with my girlfriend, her performance is truly memorable, which makes the whole male gaze thing more palatable for folks who are less interested in staring at Bardot for an hour and a half. [...]
This is all wonderful information. Can you tell me if there is any literature on how many women have been convinced into thinking that the male gaze is normative and to be aspired to? Not only this but I feel that many women have also been convinced that lvingin up to the male gaze is feminist and liberating - ie taking off your clothes for some camera (held by a man) is a form of feminism. Basically, self objectifcation is good for us (This makes me throw up a little in my mouth).
Any info on that? Thanks in advance.
Farheen,
My take on it is that women’s responses to the male gaze are complex but rational.
The gaze shapes many young girls’ sense of self-worth from an early age; this simple gesture is sometimes the first measuring stick by which many women/girls learn to judge themselves.
There are essentially 2 reasons for actively seeking out the gaze.
One is a form of approval seeking behavior. This is because not being gazed at (in certain social settings) is a form of rejection. The gaze is often an indicator that a woman meets the minimal male standard for fuckability–afterall if he won’t even look your way, he’s certainly not going to fuck you.
The second reason women seek out the gaze is simply in response to the mixed messages about women’s bodies.
Women and girls are told that our natural bodies are not only inherently sexy, but sinful and thus should remain covered up. One of my favorite examples of this hypocrisy is how public breast feeding is often regarded as disgusting yet, women flashing tits during a ball game is actively encouraged.
The next leap in the patriarchal mindset is that young women/girls = sex. This idea is married to the common belief by males that females have sexual power over them.
The result is that women are both praised and cursed for evoking the gaze. Praise in the form of favors, attention, compliments and monetary gain; cursed in the form of harassment, sexual assault (aka asking for it) and for taking advantage of the powerless males.
just my 2 cents
Additionally, Farheen, if you want to do some reading up, a lot of academic work has been done on internalized sexism (and racism, and homophobia, and so forth) - you could try running searches with that as your keyphrase. Some writers try to theorize how oppressed classes come to identify with their oppressor, some try to theorize how to escape this (see my link to RadicaLesbians in a comment above), some develop qualitative research on particular demographics who internalize the hatred that is meant to keep them in place (sociologists like Patricia Hill Collins).
[...] the writer/director (Frank), his artist, and the presumed male audience that buys the book” (Finally, A Feminism Blog, 2006, para [...]
[...] I have found myself the object of people’s gaze. I’m not speaking strictly about the male gaze or street harassment, though I’ve experienced both in abundance. I’m talking about [...]
I’d consider myself quite familar with the concept of the male gaze, as an art student it’s thrown around a lot! And as a feminist painter i think about this in my work. I didn’t know the origins of the term before reading this article- and here beside me on the bed is the book “Visual and Other Pleasures,” a collection of essays by Laura Mulvey. I’d planned on starting it this afternoon unless I got lured by other library books. Just pleased at the coincidence
and will definitely read that essay now.
Cheers on the site!
[...] test shots - because once the models arrived, I was uncomfortable with the amount of playing to the “male gaze” going [...]
[...] Along with how she is objectified visually, Jalila’s cockiness and innuendos contribute to the “male gaze,” which basically means she is being depicted the way her heterosexual male writers and readers would [...]
Crap that last attempt at a comment got away from me and is way too long and won’t be posted.
TL;DR VERSION
When a commercial shows a man using a product to get a girl, it is male gaze because the woman is the object. When a commercial shows a woman using a product to get a guy, it’s male gaze because it shows the woman as being dolled up for the male observer. What are the actual differences that make this so?
“Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at.” — What does this actually mean and what’s the basis for saying it?
Is there any exclusionary criteria for male gaze, such that we can look at a depiction of a woman and say “nope, that’s not male gaze”?
Did you save a copy of your longer comment, Huitzil? I’d be happy to mail it to you if you wish to post it elsewhere, perhaps as its own post on another blog.
It was still in the queue on the page here so I just copied it, in case I ever feel like using it somehow (I probably won’t). Thank you, though.