THE MALE GAZE

“In a world ordered by sexual imbalance, pleasure in looking has been split between active/male and passive/female.”

First of all, Mulvey was talking about how our society is structured by, and for the benefit of heterosexual men (i.e., “the Patriarchy”). Men are considered the “active” do-ers of the world, while women are expected to take a more “passive” role supporting the men and/or men’s goals.

In the context of cinema, it’s mostly men who write the films we watch, mostly men who make those films, and it is men who are usually the target audience.

Therefore, men are usually given the lead in the stories themselves while female characters are assigned functions that are limited to serving the goals of those male protagonists.

THE MALE GAZE

“The determining male gaze projects its fantasy onto the female figure… with [her] appearance coded for strong visual and erotic impact.”

“The determining male gaze” is what happens when we put it all together.

Men writing the films, men making the films, men being the protagonists, and men being the target audience all combine into a unified — heterosexual male — perspective of female characters.

In other words, we all been conditioned to adopt the male gaze because that is the way we were “raised” by traditional cinema.  

THE MALE GAZE

“Traditionally, the woman displayed has functioned on two levels: as erotic object for the characters within the screen story, and as erotic object for the spectator within the [cinema] auditorium.”

Female characters must perform their story function while also adhering to the heterosexual male sexual fantasy — though not always in a literal way. Simply being beautiful (or “sexy”) is all that’s needed. 

Let’s clarify with an example. In the following scene from Fast Five, Gisele (Gal Gadot) and Han (Sung Kang) have been tasked with getting the bad guy’s fingerprints.

This scene is a perfect illustration of what each aspect of Laura Mulvey’s male gaze looks like in practice.

Notice how the very first thing Gisele does to accomplish her part of the mission is strip down to her bikini. Next, the camera shifts to super sexy slo-mo to catch each tiny movement Gisele’s body makes — which gives us time to notice that many of the other women in the frame are just as scantily clothed.  

Because this is Han’s point of view, the camera lingers on Gisele’s every move from a slight distance. But ultimately, we punch in on her bum because that’s where the bad guy puts his hand — which is what Gisele wants to happen.

We accept all this because we know Gisele is in on the whole thing — that it’s her idea, even. But in fact, the character of Gisele is being used to achieve something the male protagonist needs.

Now that we have a sense of what to look for, let’s practice being able to recognize the male gaze.   

Subvert the male gaze

We subvert something by taking away its power, especially in the context of a long-accepted social construct, like the Patriarchy. With this in mind, how can we subvert the male gaze in our filmmaking choices?

One way is to draw attention to it; and a good way to do that is by swapping genders. Take a role a woman always plays and cast a man instead.

As the male gaze and feminism collided, I became curious about the of the rise of feminism from a male perspective, so I invited three men of different backgrounds and ages to explore the confusing moments of confronting gender issues.

Question: How do men feel about the fragmentation of a man who is consciously learning to become a male feminist but is not fully practicing it and is aesthetically attracted to so-called “perfection”?

A：

Regarding the white young thin aesthetic, I admit I would think this is good looking at first glance, but that’s about it. If one is looking for a mate, there are other more critical more things. Also, I try to appreciate different women’s styles and consciously reflect on whether my aesthetic preferences are too homogeneous. I don’t think this is hypocrisy, people in other cultures just perceive beauty differently, so beauty must have an acquired construct in it, and since this is the case, making your aesthetic more far-reaching is achievable.

B：

As a gay, I can relate more to the tear in the face of feminism, but I’ll say this about my struggle with misogyny/toxic masculinity.
Am I an ally to women as a sexual minority? I don’t think so to a large extent. On the one hand, as a group that also receives systematic oppression from the patriarchy, I share women’s interests in resisting patriarchy. On the other hand, my aesthetic is influenced by masculinity, especially in the courtship of males. I have observed a “no-culture” in the gay community, an aversion to “sissy.” I know that this is a misogynistic sentiment, but I still can’t help but prefer masculine men. It tears me apart at times. You want to free yourself from it, but your body’s instincts are pulling you in.

Sexual roles are also a manifestation of sexual politics, and I disagree with the bottom-top, reducing heterosexual roles. However, I’d still prefer to be top, and that’s the moment I feel torn. I disagree with lowering the heterosexual role of the bottom to the top, but I’d rather be the top, and that’s where I feel torn.

Does sexual politics only exist between heterosexuals? Not. I think it is by abandoning the assumption of consistency in the “sexual orientation-sexual role-sexual self-perception” that we can discover the more fundamental mechanisms at work in sexual politics, such as the exciting contextualization of the distinction between gay and lesbian sexual roles.

As an ordinary person, I hope to see more ordinary, anti-mainstream, imperfect, flawed sexual minorities walking proudly in the sunlight and public discourse in the future. As long as we want to love/accept them, let’s love/assume them all. Optimistically, it takes time for social perceptions to change. It is undoubtedly easier to get a “manly” gay man who fits the popular perception of masculinity than a queerer, feminine gay man. Perhaps what this group lacks is solidarity.

C：

In my opinion, this inconsistency between aesthetic and conscious learning does not imply isolation of consciousness and behavior. In the first place, aesthetics is closer to consciousness than to conduct, and there is more or less a conscious drive behind every behavior. I, therefore, see it more as cognitive dissonance brought about by the conflict between bodily and conceptual experience and uncertainty about self-identity (what kind of adopted person I am).

The so-called ‘biological’ attraction to the perfect body can result from social conditioning. Being white and thin and young is not the best condition for fertility, even from a biological perspective. At the same time, the learning of feminism can be a process of identifying and consciously resisting social conditioning and a subjective and conscious choice full of agency.

I do not believe that one needs to force oneself to be the perfect feminist. The self itself is a complex aggregate, and knowing and doing are not the norm. Being aware of all the contradictions and conflicts in oneself is an exciting experience to be born into. This awareness is also a rare personal reflection. It is not necessarily conducive to learning and understanding feminism if one considers oneself shamed and sinful for being attracted to white, thin young people. Therefore, it signifies oneself and cuts oneself off from one’s gender group. To be able to observe and experience one’s own aesthetic experience from a third party perspective, with curiosity and acceptance, and even to apply what one has learned, may lead to unexpected incidents.