Right. I've got me coffee and some time to kill before an interview, so I'm going to field a few things.
First and foremost I have to admit fault with my explanation of the male gaze, I was tired and angry so I phrased it poorly. The male gaze / objectification of a character is not only applicable if the character exists for no other reason. It's more about the context of their actions, and how it compares to how men are treated.
So, say, if we get a strong, capable character who suddenly decides it's time to take her clothes off, adopt spine-breaking contrappostos and moan seductively - that's still pandering to male gaze. For me, personally, that's worse than characters who are just one-dimensional vessels for the male gaze; if it's a previously strong character who's suddenly debasing herself it strikes me as some sort of BUT LET'S TAKE THAT CHARACTER DOWN A PEG thing. Which is horrible.
To repeat myself, it's also somewhat dependent on how men are treated within the same context (if men are ever given a sexual context, at all). I already explained the difference between Kratos and Bayonetta; while both make a business out of ass-kicking and have a sexual element to their character, the difference is in levels. Kratos can be sexual, but in doing so he is never sexualised. Bayonetta, conversely, is absolutely defined by her sexuality. I want to point out again how fucking creepy and intimidating it is for violence to be sexualised, but beyond that, the fact that her power is intrinsically tied to her sexuality is itself sexist, and her sexuality is shown in a way that's meant to be watched and made a spectacle of. Women are almost always handled depending on their sexuality or their attractiveness.
Someone mentioned Sarah Palin already, didn't they? And you're arguing against the existence of male gaze?
Did I miss all the articles talking about how Obama was set to win because of how he's ~sexy~, or articles criticising the cut of McCain's suits? Because I saw an awful lot of similar shit levelled at Palin (and conversely, an awful lot of stuff criticising Hillary Clinton for not being attractive enough).
Women are rarely characterised as just being capable. They always have to be capable -- and sexy!
And that's even if they're lucky enough to be characterised as capable at all.
That's why the action girl thing is sexist; it's always an extension of sexuality, or the character is still largely shown as a sexual one. The same can not be said of men. That's why it's sexist.
Alien isn't really a sexist film, btw. It's not half as good a feminist film as it sets out to be, but it's not what I'd call sexist.
Oh and this pissed me off:
Stereotypes are self-perpetuating because we're raised in a society that punishes people for deviating from the percieved norm. It's hard to "choose to accept or endorse" something in a meaningful way when you've been indoctrinated with that shit since you were born.
First and foremost I have to admit fault with my explanation of the male gaze, I was tired and angry so I phrased it poorly. The male gaze / objectification of a character is not only applicable if the character exists for no other reason. It's more about the context of their actions, and how it compares to how men are treated.
So, say, if we get a strong, capable character who suddenly decides it's time to take her clothes off, adopt spine-breaking contrappostos and moan seductively - that's still pandering to male gaze. For me, personally, that's worse than characters who are just one-dimensional vessels for the male gaze; if it's a previously strong character who's suddenly debasing herself it strikes me as some sort of BUT LET'S TAKE THAT CHARACTER DOWN A PEG thing. Which is horrible.
To repeat myself, it's also somewhat dependent on how men are treated within the same context (if men are ever given a sexual context, at all). I already explained the difference between Kratos and Bayonetta; while both make a business out of ass-kicking and have a sexual element to their character, the difference is in levels. Kratos can be sexual, but in doing so he is never sexualised. Bayonetta, conversely, is absolutely defined by her sexuality. I want to point out again how fucking creepy and intimidating it is for violence to be sexualised, but beyond that, the fact that her power is intrinsically tied to her sexuality is itself sexist, and her sexuality is shown in a way that's meant to be watched and made a spectacle of. Women are almost always handled depending on their sexuality or their attractiveness.
Someone mentioned Sarah Palin already, didn't they? And you're arguing against the existence of male gaze?
Did I miss all the articles talking about how Obama was set to win because of how he's ~sexy~, or articles criticising the cut of McCain's suits? Because I saw an awful lot of similar shit levelled at Palin (and conversely, an awful lot of stuff criticising Hillary Clinton for not being attractive enough).
Women are rarely characterised as just being capable. They always have to be capable -- and sexy!
And that's even if they're lucky enough to be characterised as capable at all.
That's why the action girl thing is sexist; it's always an extension of sexuality, or the character is still largely shown as a sexual one. The same can not be said of men. That's why it's sexist.
Alien isn't really a sexist film, btw. It's not half as good a feminist film as it sets out to be, but it's not what I'd call sexist.
Oh and this pissed me off:
Kriven Wrote:That says something about the mentality of the youth of both genders, and what roles they actually choose to accept and endorse.these things do not happen in a vacuum.
Stereotypes are self-perpetuating because we're raised in a society that punishes people for deviating from the percieved norm. It's hard to "choose to accept or endorse" something in a meaningful way when you've been indoctrinated with that shit since you were born.
![[Image: 6WzBw.gif]](/image.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F6WzBw.gif&hash=6ff886b5afbfba9968aaf662f3956817)