The Male Gaze and Patriarchy
The objectification of women via the male gaze is comparable to a rancid odor that is inescapable. Pungent, uncomfortable, and severely unpleasant, the male connoisseurs of art set the tone for the depiction of females. Art was a specialty reserved for men, usually created by men and viewed by men. As a result, women were banished inadvertently from fine art and the female form was surveyed solely from the perspective of the male spectator. Utilized as a means of displaying the power of men and the submissiveness of women, depictions of women are limited to being sexual objects to satiate the salivating tongues of indignant, self serving men. The pictures in the beginning of chapter two in John Berger, Ways of Seeing mirrors the precedent that was set during the classic Renaissance period of art. The photographs exemplified the male perspective on the role of women in relation to men. All of the images lacked emotional complexity and reeked of misogyny, women were devoid of any form of power. The images served to show women as objects that are to be admired, in the images they carried no presence and they only served to be captivating creatures. Surprisingly, this dogmatic paradigm albeit disturbing wasn’t surprising to me. The nonsensical values that were imposed by the societal structure were a contributing factor to the sexualization of women in portraits, in ads and even in the workplace. A strong emphasis on female visual appearance proliferates the body of work presented to us in chapter two. Berger states,” men act and woman appear” ( Berger, 47). This phrase made me raise an eyebrow because it forced me to think about how inextricably linked our actions are to our personas. As a woman this poignant phrase simplifies the dichotomy that exist between males and females, women are meant to be looked at while guys are not. Interestingly, I feel as though the male gaze and female gaze aren’t inherently different. Women are conditioned from birth to be aware that they will be under constant observation. Women often conform to the desires of men, to how men want to see them because it became the window in which women also perceive other women. Berger phrases it best by stating the woman turns herself into a object . This argument that Berger makes runs even deeper than I previously thought, the matter of beauty via the male gaze is non metaphorically skin deep. Berger frankly discloses the power of pubic hair imagery as it relates to fulfilling a man's ego, reinforcing male dominance and dehumanizing women by relegating them to a place of no power. The omission of hair in the painting The Allegory of the Time and Love by Bronzino is a perfect archetype for male ideas of beauty. Berger stated that “ hair is associated with sexual power, with passion. The woman's sexual passion needs to be minimized so that the spectator may feel that he has the monopoly of passion” (Berger, 55). The depths of patriarchy are gruesome and hyper-critical of the organic human form, the male gaze is man-made. Natural in its origin the male gaze manifest itself in modern times as a tendency to glorify a women’s ability to conform to an unnatural standard of beauty. Devoid of pubic hair, barred from feelings of passion and condemned to submissiveness, the clear depiction women in various forms of media is disparaging and displays an outright absence of humanism. It’s imperative to note that Berger states that the idealism surrounding the classical depiction of woman has remained stagnant because the ideal spectator is always assumed to be male and the image of female is meant to flatter him.
The objectification of women via the male gaze is comparable to a rancid odor that is inescapable. Pungent, uncomfortable, and severely unpleasant, the male connoisseurs of art set the tone for the depiction of females. Art was a specialty reserved for men, usually created by men and viewed by men. As a result, women were banished inadvertently from fine art and the female form was surveyed solely from the perspective of the male spectator. Utilized as a means of displaying the power of men and the submissiveness of women, depictions of women are limited to being sexual objects to satiate the salivating tongues of indignant, self serving men. The pictures in the beginning of chapter two in John Berger, Ways of Seeing mirrors the precedent that was set during the classic Renaissance period of art. The photographs exemplified the male perspective on the role of women in relation to men. All of the images lacked emotional complexity and reeked of misogyny, women were devoid of any form of power. The images served to show women as objects that are to be admired, in the images they carried no presence and they only served to be captivating creatures. Surprisingly, this dogmatic paradigm albeit disturbing wasn’t surprising to me. The nonsensical values that were imposed by the societal structure were a contributing factor to the sexualization of women in portraits, in ads and even in the workplace. A strong emphasis on female visual appearance proliferates the body of work presented to us in chapter two. Berger states,” men act and woman appear” ( Berger, 47). This phrase made me raise an eyebrow because it forced me to think about how inextricably linked our actions are to our personas. As a woman this poignant phrase simplifies the dichotomy that exist between males and females, women are meant to be looked at while guys are not. Interestingly, I feel as though the male gaze and female gaze aren’t inherently different. Women are conditioned from birth to be aware that they will be under constant observation. Women often conform to the desires of men, to how men want to see them because it became the window in which women also perceive other women. Berger phrases it best by stating the woman turns herself into a object . This argument that Berger makes runs even deeper than I previously thought, the matter of beauty via the male gaze is non metaphorically skin deep. Berger frankly discloses the power of pubic hair imagery as it relates to fulfilling a man's ego, reinforcing male dominance and dehumanizing women by relegating them to a place of no power. The omission of hair in the painting The Allegory of the Time and Love by Bronzino is a perfect archetype for male ideas of beauty. Berger stated that “ hair is associated with sexual power, with passion. The woman's sexual passion needs to be minimized so that the spectator may feel that he has the monopoly of passion” (Berger, 55). The depths of patriarchy are gruesome and hyper-critical of the organic human form, the male gaze is man-made. Natural in its origin the male gaze manifest itself in modern times as a tendency to glorify a women’s ability to conform to an unnatural standard of beauty. Devoid of pubic hair, barred from feelings of passion and condemned to submissiveness, the clear depiction women in various forms of media is disparaging and displays an outright absence of humanism. It’s imperative to note that Berger states that the idealism surrounding the classical depiction of woman has remained stagnant because the ideal spectator is always assumed to be male and the image of female is meant to flatter him.
The Allegory of the Time and Love by Bronzino
Similar sentiments beckon the argument made by social activist author Bell Hooks, in Understanding Patriarchy. Hooks, expands on the notion that male dominance can only exist with the presence of female submission. Patriarchy as defined by Hooks, is the political social system that insist males are inherently dominating and rule over the weak. The main methodology to maintaining dominance is through various forms of psychological terrorism. In the novel, Hooks juxtaposes her childhood experiences of her and her brother and exemplifies instances in which she displayed more traditionally masculine traits and faced much opposition to her father. There was an instance in which she was beat for disobeying her father for wanting to continue to play marbles. Essentially, her father disliked the fact that she was more aggressive and competitive than her older brother. A striking quote was when she stated that “ retelling was necessary to reinforce both the message and the remembered state of powerlessness” (Hooks, 21). This anecdote harkens back to my upbringing. As a youngster, I remember getting reprimanded by my Southern grandmother to close my legs, shave said legs, stop being rowdy and just to mute my energy so I wouldn’t be so “rambunctious”. It’s not surprising that women are taught to suppress their true nature at the expense of being socially acceptable. As much as the patriarchy serves to bolster the power of men it also cultivates a intense hardship among young males who don’t fit seamlessly within the confines of stereotypical masculinity. A sad message that’s translated through Hooks narrative refers to the conditioning of young males to be a monogamous group while frowning upon stereotypical feminine behavior. A young boy named Alexander, enjoyed dressing up as Barbie but was scolded and shamed, this processed was coined as “ the normal traumatization of boys” (Hooks, 21). Hooks furthers her point by stating,” to indoctrinate boys into the rules of patriarchy, we force them to feel pain and deny their feelings” (Hooks, 21). This notion introduces the ultimatum conform or be condemned. People often don’t take kindly to lifestyles that are alternative. The rigidity of our society is what gives patriarchy its power, society refuses to renounce the idea that men are made to have all the power and dominate over others. The patriarchal attitudes are ingrained in our social attitudes and behaviors. This predicament is similar to the male gaze in that it also forces males to conform to patriarchy in order to avoid being ostracized. In a contemporary context, vestiges of patriarchy and the male gaze is most apparent in ads for merchandise, especially in the United States.
Tom Ford Cologne Ad, 2018
Source:https://moritamayumimediafoundationblog.wordpress.com/how-male-gaze-is-pertained-in-tom-ford/
Works Cited
Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. London: British Broadcasting Corporation and Penguin Books. 1972.
Hooks, Bell. Understanding Patriarchy. Louisville Anarchist Federation Federation, 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment