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.

There is a hierarchy in the arts: decorative art at the bottom, and the human form at the top. Because we are men.

  —Le Corbusier and Amédée Ozenfant, 1918

Faith Ringgold (American, b. 1930). Mrs. Jones and Family, 1973. From Family of Woman Mask Series. Sewn fabric and embroidery. Collection of the artist. © Faith Ringgold

Throughout the history of art, decoration and domestic handicrafts have been regarded as women’s work, and as such, not considered “high” or fine art. Quilting, embroidery, needlework, china painting, and sewing—none of these have been deemed worthy artistic equivalents to the grand mediums of painting and sculpture. The age-old aesthetic hierarchy that privileges certain forms of art over others based on gender associations has historically devalued “women’s work” specifically because it was associated with the domestic and the “feminine.” That hierarchy was radically challenged in the 1960s by Pop and feminist artists, alike (e.g., Andy Warhol’s Campbell’s Soup Can series). In the wake of the Women’s Liberation Movement, feminist artists in particular sought to resurrect women’s craft and decorative art as a viable artistic means to express female experience, thereby pointing to its political and subversive potential.

Miriam Schapiro (American, 1923). Explode, 1972. Acrylic and collage on canvas. Everson Museum of Art, Syracuse, NY. Gift of Lucille Bunin Askin, 81.38. © Miriam Schapiro

In the quest for a “female aesthetic” or artistic style specific to women, many 1970s feminist artists sought to elevate “women’s craft” to the level of “high art,” and away from its derogatory designation as “low art” or “kitsch.” As Lucy Lippard explained in her 1973 essay, “Household Images in Art,” previously women artists had avoided “‘Female techniques’ like sewing, weaving, knitting, ceramics, even the use of pastel colors (pink!) and delicate lines—all natural elements of artmaking,” for fear of being labeled “feminine artists.” The Women’s Movement changed that, she argued, and gave women the confidence to begin “shedding their shackles, proudly untying the apron strings—and, in some cases, keeping the apron on, flaunting it, turning it into art.”⁶ For instance, Ringgold’s handmade, narrative quilts celebrate an undervalued female creative production, just as her “Family of Woman” masks and figurines from 1970—portraits from her childhood of Mama Jones, Andrew, Barbara, and Faith—included costumes sewn by the artist’s mother, who was a professional seamstress. Likewise with Miriam Schapiro’s femmages, which she describes as “activities as they were practiced by women using traditional women’s techniques to achieve their art.”⁷ Schapiro viewed her use of brightly colored, patterned fabric as a conscious feminist statement. As she wrote in 1977, “I wanted to validate the traditional activities of women, to connect myself to the unknown women artists who had made quilts, who had done the invisible ‘women’s work’ of civilization. I wanted to acknowledge them, to honor them.”⁸ Schapiro’s femmage, like Ringgold’s narrative quilts, opened the path for the re-evaluation of anonymous art done by women.

Cover of the Exhibition Catalogue Womanhouse (showing Judy Chicago and Miriam Schapiro). Design by Sheila de Bretteville. (Valencia: Feminist Art Program, California Institute of the Arts, 1972). Photograph by Donald Woodman. Courtesy of Through the Flower archive

Womanhouse, 1971–72, the large-scale cooperative project executed as part of the Feminist Art Program at CalArts under the direction of Judy Chicago and Miriam Schapiro, is another such example of feminist artists reclaiming the domestic and “women’s work.” It sought to challenge the traditional roles historically assigned to women in middle-class American society by exploring the subject of women’s labor directly. It was within this inherently domestic environment, or “woman-house,” that 21 women artists were granted space and a voice to present and perform work about stereotypically “feminine” tasks, including scrubbing floors, ironing sheets, cooking, sewing, crocheting, and knitting; cycles, such as menstruation; and forms, such as eggs, breasts, lipstick, and so forth. This landmark exhibition, through its reclamation and use of the domestic-private sphere, takes traditional female experiences as a subject with political and subversive implications.

Sandra Ogel (American). Ironing, 1972. From Womanhouse. Performance. Photograph courtesy of Through the Flower archive

The Dinner Party should be understood within this context. It is a multi-media work that consists of ceramics, china painting, sewing, needlework, embroidery, and other mediums traditionally associated with “women’s work,” and, as such, not generally considered “high art” by the art world. In an effort to celebrate undervalued female creative production, Chicago consciously sought to reclaim and commemorate those mediums traditionally considered “craft,” as fine art ones equivalent to painting and sculpture. By creating a monumental work of art dedicated to anonymous art by women historically, Chicago thumbed her nose at those who dared to question its artistic value—or the labor involved in its production.

Around the same time that feminist artists were beginning to study mediums and materials associated with “women’s work”—china painting, quilts, sewing, embroidery—they were also searching for a clearly readable means of expressing female subjectivity in abstract forms, which often resembled eggs, spheres, caves, or other round forms. This vaginal or “central core” imagery, as it came to be called, was another important development in 1970s feminist art, one that is integral to understanding The Dinner Party.

Notes

6. Lucy Lippard, From the Center: Feminist Essays on Women’s Art (New York: E.P. Dutton, 1976), 57.

7. Melissa Mayer and Miriam Schapiro, “Waste Not, Want Not: An Inquiry into What Women Saved and Assembled,” Heresies 4 (Winter 1978): 67.

8. Miriam Schapiro, “Notes from a Conversation on Art, Feminism, and Work,” in Working It Out: 23 Women Writers, Artists, Scientists, and Scholars Talk About Their Lives and Work, ed. Sara Ruddick and Pamela Daniels (New York: Pantheon, 1977), 296.

“It’s a world of gender inequality, and within the pleasure of ‘watching,’ the ‘active/masculine and ‘passive/feminine’ a split occurs.” So noted Laura Mulvey, a leading feminist film theorist.

   The gaze on women has been one of the most common topics in the discipline of gender studies. On a social level, it is impossible to ignore the vast differences between women and men. In the art of film and television, women have even become the object of the gaze, leading to a crisis of fragmentation of the female subject of existence. How, then, do we resolve the situation of the living woman as a passive object of gaze?

John Berger begins his book, Ways of Seeing, by writing, “Seeing comes before words. The child looks and recognizes before it can speak.”

Very often, social norms imply that “a man’s existence is made up of his actions, and a woman’s existence is made up of how others perceive her [actions].”

We live under the gaze all the time, or there is always someone who gets a voyeuristic pleasure in women, as determined by a patriarchal society where men have the superiority of dominating the vast majority of the discourse. Regardless of class, the male gaze as a gendered viewing force can, in most cases, serve as a collective norm or collective identity.

Film critic Laura Mulvey first introduced the concept of the Male Gaze in Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, where Laura argued that in cinema, men are often the dominant power and subject of the gaze. At the same time, women are the object of the eye, and most famous films are overwhelmingly male voyeuristic (e.g., Hollywood films).

Although the concept of the male gaze first originated in cinema, it has had a profound impact on advertising.

In his book, Wykes writes that “the woman in advertising is not just an object to be gazed at, but an object to be bought and sold.” The message is always the same: buy the product, and you get the girl or buy the product, and you become like the girl in the ad and get your man, in other words, buy the ‘image,’ ‘get the girl.’ “.

We need to think about that when advertising treats women as objects of the gaze, advertising as a form of promotion, does it turn women into promotional commodities? Does it mean that women’s bodies are being used as commodities for the sex trade?

The male gaze is becoming pervasive in all aspects of life, whether in television programs, music videos, or advertisements. Women have been immersed in this environment for so long that they are subconsciously accustomed to seeing from a male perspective and have inadvertently lost their sensitivity to self-examination and the uniqueness of women as individuals.

There is no doubt that society’s aesthetic standards for women are often higher than those of men. Everyone scrutinizes women’s subjectivity. Any deviation from traditional norms will be met with a different look. This aesthetic standard is often a social internalization of male expectations, and women begin to unconsciously and subconsciously conform to the social norms of the male gaze, such as “good wife and mother,” “white skin and beautiful,” “good figure. “They begin to construct themselves by observing the male perspective, which becomes a mirror image for women to reflect on themselves. They begin to use this stereotypical view impression to adjust themselves, using external means, make-up, and cosmetic surgery to create a new, single image that meets the requirements of men. Women become more and more dependent on this external scrutiny to the extent that they gradually lose their sense of self-identity. Men, as monitors, become the yardstick by which they judge themselves.

We all inevitably fall into the vortex of the male gaze. From adolescence onwards, great attention is paid to the outward appearance that one presents to the public. If the question is thrown out, “If you were the only person left in the world, would you still be so concerned with your outside? Or how would you treat yourself when you lost the reflection of objects in external conditions, the artificial evaluation?”

When the ‘reflection’ disappears from the world when you can’t see yourself, are you still you?

John Berger writes: “Women see themselves as they are seen. This not only defines most men’s relationships with women but also women’s relationships with themselves.”

Women are increasingly internalizing male powers of observation.

Are women submitting to the controlling power of the male gaze in the face of burgeoning consumerism?

In this gaze of watching and being watched

How can women find their true colors to combat this encroachment on women’s rights?

According to the statistical analysis, women were significantly more likely than men to self-objectify, monitor their bodies more than men, and feel more body shame when exposed to media messages containing objectifying messages and reports emphasizing the importance of appearance.

In line with previous research, women were more likely to respond to objectifying images of the same sex. At the same time, men were less likely to react to objectifying images of the same sex. When women see pictures of women who fit the ‘ideal thinness’ and ‘beauty’ and read text that emphasizes the importance of physical appearance, they may compare them to themselves and view and evaluate themselves from an observer’s perspective, increased body shaming. Body monitoring is then elevated.
The gender comparison shows that although male subjects were exposed to media material that also addressed male body imagery, men were less influenced by it and were more concerned with physical abilities (e.g., physical coordination) and feelings of self. In patriarchal societies, men tend to evaluate themselves in terms of power, social status, and wealth, and less in terms of physical appearance. Evolutionary psychology studies have found that men are more interested in their partner’s income prospects, career prospects, and physical strength when comparing themselves to their rivals. At the same time, women are more interested in their partner’s facial attractiveness and physical attractiveness. Men tend to see themselves as the evaluators in the social evaluation system and evaluate women more based on their appearance, while women are then assessed. Under the long-term influence of objectifying culture, women internalize the culture’s notion of appearance. They tend to measure themselves according to their appearance, evaluating themselves according to the culture’s standards of female appearance and even molding themselves according to its requirements.

The study shows that the internalization of the ‘ideal beauty’ mediates between the objectification of media sexuality and the objectification of the female self. Thus, when initiated by objectifying media messages, women adopt internalized aesthetic standards to compare themselves to media images, leading to increased scrutiny of themselves and body shame. Negative body imagery can further affect women’s physical and mental health, for example, by possibly leading to eating disorders.

Why do people always experience body shame?

There is a term called male gaze, which refers to portraying women and the world from the perspective of heterosexual men in literature or visual art. Here women are often made into sexual objects and placed in the position of being viewed, examined, and used, ultimately portraying women as the ‘feminine’ other in line with patriarchal societal expectations.

In their objectification theory, Professors Fredrickson (B.L.) from the University of North Carolina and Roberts (T.A.) from the University of Colorado state that repeated experiences of sexual objectification cause women to see themselves as evaluated (based on appearance), leading women to view themselves as objects in terms of observation. This leads women to view their bodies from an observer’s perspective, i.e., self-objectification, characterized by frequent and habitual self-monitoring of appearance.

Self-objectification disrupts a woman’s connection to her subjective experience, making her more concerned with how she looks to others rather than how she feels, often seeking ‘how I look’ rather than ‘how I feel. If you think about it, do you often ask people, “Do you think I look good in this dress?”

Of course, the medium also plays a vital role in this. Whether it’s the screen, the internet, magazines, advertisements, etc., the press constantly creates images of youthful, slim, sexy bodies that permeate every aspect of people’s lives. The media is continuously developing and reproducing the perfect body image, telling the public over and over again what body image is beautiful, intentionally or unintentionally creating and conveying a standard of ‘beauty.

For example, the slap face and A4 waist are used as criteria for judging beauty, or activities such as “putting a coin in your collarbone” or “touching your belly button with your backhand” have been created.

Through these media, people have unconsciously ‘internalized’ and endorsed such standards, which has resulted in women indirectly losing their voice and their body image being scrutinized and changed as if it were an object. Women themselves are also affected by this, as they strive to achieve self-identity and social acceptance through imitation.

In addition to women, men have also been transformed by the media’s ‘internalization.’ For example, some men (especially young male youth icons) portray themselves as ‘fresh meat’ through fitness and fashion, actively conforming to others’ definitions and expectations of ‘fresh meat.’ These men are becoming conscious of being aesthetic objects and are becoming aware of being gazed at.

In addition to the gaze theory and media power mentioned above, body shame is often associated with mainstream aesthetics. In the workplace, for example, there are often specific standards for the body image of employees. Such measures largely influence the choices they make at work. According to the survey, 22% of women have had plastic surgery to find a better job.

The BMI (BMI = weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) for both men and women is 20.1 for women and 24.7 for men, and for women, more weight means less employment. It doesn’t matter if they are fat for men; instead, being too thin can affect finding a job.

Further analysis by economists found that if a woman in a city is fat overall and has a high BMI, then body size will have less impact on her job. In other words, the dominant aesthetic is a significant cause of size discrimination.

Body shame is a new disease of the times, behind which is the joint promotion of social culture, mass media, and consumer economics. The media promotes the visual senses to open our mobile phones and see the perfect images of various celebrities and colors. After looking at them for a long time, we do not become beautiful but more anxious.

Most anxiety is generated by “comparison.”
In psychology, this behavior is called ‘social comparison,’ which means that individuals compare their own beliefs, attitudes, opinions, etc., with those of others.

Festinger refers to this phenomenon as social comparison. Social comparison, also known as an interpersonal comparison, is Social comparison, also known an interpersonal comparison, is a widespread psycho-social phenomenon that is inevitable in human interactions.

But the social comparison does not stop at the stage of “comparison” in the sense that it is a self-discovery, a new rule of approach to life.

The reason why I chose to explore women’s self-awareness is that during my tutorial with Richard, I realized that there is a big difference in the level of self-awareness of women in the East and the West, the East is more traditional in choosing the old ways, but the West is more inclusive. So when getting into a deeper discussion, it has a lot to do with the social environment, for example, when I am on the streets of London. I am on the streets of Beijing, my style of dressing may be very different; the social environment at the moment affects my thinking; in my subconscious, I think that in London, I can do anything. No one will weirdly look at me, but in China, I will think about more things. But one day, on the street in England, with my pink hair, black leather jacket, and colorful sarong, when a passer-by asked me if I was Japanese, he said I had a very Japanese style. I began to wonder about the differences between the development of Japanese culture and Chinese culture. Because both early Chinese and Japanese culture had stringent rules, such as well-fitting traditional clothing and hierarchical hairstyles. Still, nowadays, the Harajuku culture trend in Japan rubs off on the whole of Asia.

How did Harajuku culture develop in Japan?

Harajuku was initially named to several clothing shops in the area between Jingu-Mae, Shibuya-ku, and Sendagaya in the same district of Tokyo, Japan. It has since become a representative of Japanese street culture, meaning do it.
It is a style of dressing for young people in Harajuku, Japan. It is characterized by colorful clothing and colorful hair. Harajuku hair tends to be a gradient of color, with a visually appealing blend of colors being one of the main features of the Harajuku style. The Harajuku style emphasizes the mixing and matching of colors.

At the same time, there was a rise in the Ura Harajuku culture, thanks to the influence of American trend culture, which was influenced by the influx of American culture after the Second World War, when the American army was stationed in Japan, making Rockabilly an instant hit in Japan at the time, with people swapping out their previous lvy style clothing for jackets and jeans. At the same time, skateboarding and street elements were also influencing the youth of the time. The roots of the RIHARJUKU culture are rooted in the Japanese yakuza culture, which was influenced by American trends, so the Japanese yakuza brought the RIHARJUKU style to the American movement, and the American street style, vintage, and biker culture have influenced the design of the RIHARJUKU brand to this day. RIHARJUKU represented an irresistible trend in Japan from 1985 to around 2000 and was the starting point of Asian trend culture.

Coloured hair

In addition to the influence of Harajuku culture, the prevalence of otaku culture in Japan has seen colorful hair become a cultural attribute. Originally, bright hair in anime was intended to increase character recognition and colorfulness and reflect the character’s personality, among other functions, but was emulated by many young people, resulting in a new style.

Why is Japanese culture so influential?

The awakening of women’s self-awareness is always accompanied by radical social change and ideological transformation. Each awakening is closely linked to the reality of women’s position and the pressing needs of the moment and therefore focuses on different issues and manifests itself differently.

The awakening of women’s self-awareness in the West

1. The first awakening: the awakening of a sense of rights

In the 18th century, the dramatic social changes in continental Europe led to a worldwide social movement in which the search for equal social status and the realization of equal rights became the focus of female thought. Inspired by the idea of human rights, they criticized the traditional view of the thinning out of women’s abilities on the grounds of biological differences. They focused their struggle on denying women’s educational and economic rights, demanding that women be given equal rights with men to education.

2. The second awakening: the awakening of gender consciousness

In the 1930s, women’s rights to vote, education, and employment were also significantly improved. This period saw a shift from a desire to improve the realities of the situation to a theoretical search for the root causes of women’s current problem, an academic exploration of the nature of women’s oppressed status and the lack of self-awareness, and a search for women’s liberation. Early women called for gender equality, fought for women’s rights, and established them in institutions and laws. However, traditional gender roles remained unchanged, and the oppressed status of women remained fundamentally unchanged.

Gender theory presents a powerful challenge to the biological determinism and traditional social roles of women prevalent in the 19th century West, pointing out the crucial factors that shape gender inequality and deepening the understanding of the relationship between gender inequality. It expresses the view that biological differences are not the decisive factor in the differences between the roles and behaviors of the sexes, but that institutional and cultural factors are the leading causes of the differences between the parts and behaviors of men and women, and that people’s existing gender perceptions are a product of socialization, a manifestation of social relations and a way of being in relations of power, which can be changed.

3. The third awakening: the awakening of identity consciousness

Women’s experience varies across class, race, ethnicity, and culture, so women’s identity cannot be confined to gender identity alone, but race and style are equally important. Postmodern feminism, however, does not agree with this and advocates the uprooting and reconstructing of the female ‘subject’ identity.

4. Reflections on the awakening of women’s consciousness in the West

The development of the women’s movement and feminist theory has shown that the women’s movement cannot make substantial progress on its own. It requires the solidarity of women worldwide and the support and cooperation of men as the other half of humanity. Anne Ferri says that “the emphasis on the importance of gender differences is necessary, but only transitional, because I don’t want to see a woman speaking only as a woman or a man speaking only as a man.
We are faced with a social system and culture that is quite firmly male-dominated and dominant, and within which the movement for female liberation is bound to receive backlash and infiltration from existing ideologies, but at the same time, the awakening of female consciousness and the development of feminist theory is influenced by existing human civilizations and ideas. The question of how to reconcile and choose between multiple voices and one position, and to structure and at the same time construct a vision, is a question we still need to consider in the future.

Although I am personally very interested in the future of AI and the big data, my skills and abilities are limited, so I have switched my topic to female self-awareness, which is also of great interest to me personally.

What：

Female self-awareness

How can we help women raise their self-awareness？

Why:

When in an unfamiliar environment, people subconsciously disguise themselves or develop a so-called “persona.” My idea comes from the fact that when I first entered university, I joined a new environment. There were many new voices around me, which gradually blurred my perception of ‘self, and I began to wrap up my ‘self’ and present myself as what I thought the ‘voices around me’ wanted me to be. I began to wrap my ‘self’ around me and present myself as I thought the ‘voices around me’ wanted me to present myself. But when I stepped out of this environment, I suddenly became acutely aware that this was not the way I liked to be. It’s not easy to face our true selves, which means looking at ourselves, admitting our flaws, and acknowledging things that we can’t change.   

How

As the first part of the body that humans look at when distinguishing individuals in society, the face is like a monitor for the narrative of identity. In some people’s minds, there is a gap between the ‘body’ they are born with and the ‘self’ they perceive inside so that they may give themselves a ‘reborn’ body through various external means – ‘body modification.

The mask is now not just a tool to conceal one’s identity; it is increasingly being used as the most intuitive form of expression – a way to actively recreate a face and construct one’s narrative to oppose the settings and interpretations of others.

I will be using masks as my intervention tool. My stakeholders are women with a weak sense of self. They are Chinese women living in China, the US, and the UK; they have different professions. They are teachers, photographers, lawyers, etc. However, they have in common that they have body shame, appearance anxiety, and some other different issues about self-consciousness. I contacted them via email and social media, asked them for their thoughts and opinions, and invited them to join me in this intervention. I will collect their work through pictures and interview the participants, which I hope to use to help them open up their inner selves and discover who they are.

During the intervention, I will give each of them a natural blank mask if I can or use a drawing tool such as an iPad to do so. I hope that they will draw their faces, maybe in different colors, maybe in various forms, but just their inner selves.

Timetable

4.26-5.2 Discuss with stakeholders，experts and Questionnaire.

5.3-5.9 intervention and Interview

What if

Everyone struggles with different things, and there is no fixed level of self-acceptance for each individual. Sometimes people may have misconceptions about self-acceptance, such as self-acceptance being a passive acceptance or tolerance of one’s shortcomings when self-acceptance sees and acknowledges all of one’s qualities without judgment. Or people may think that self-acceptance means indulging oneself or trying to get ahead, but self-acceptance is not a behavior. It is just a state of mind. My project hopes to help more women realize the importance of self-awareness and re-examine self-awareness and behavior.

Self Awareness – Who Am I?

Introduction

We usually identify our existence with our position in society, our friends and family, the needs and desires of our body, and the emotional and intellectual expressions of our mind. For example: We might say ‘I am a student studying economics, I have three sisters and live in London’. We rarely take the time to contemplate the real nature of our existence; to ask the question, “Who am I?”

Self awareness is about learning to better understand why you feel what you feel and why you behave in a particular way. Once you begin to understand this concept you then have the opportunity and freedom to change things about yourself enabling you to create a life that you want. It’s almost impossible to change and become self-accepting if you are unsure as to who you are. Having clarity about who you are and what you want can be empowering, giving you the confidence to make changes.

Try this challenge

Think about describing yourself to another person without mentioning anything about the external things that are in your life, your friends, family, studying etc. Concentrate only on yourself, how you feel and behave, perhaps recognising some of your strengths and weaknesses.

Did you manage to explore your thoughts, feelings and behaviours?

It’s easy to get caught up in irrational thoughts and beliefs and live out internal dramas that can severely affect the way we perceive ourselves and consequently determine our feelings and actions. Relationships are easy until there is emotional turmoil. This is the same whether you are at work or in your personal life. When you can change the interpretation in your mind of what you think, you can change your emotions and shift the emotional quality of your relationships. When you can change the emotions in your relationships you open up entirely new possibilities in your life.

Having a clear understanding of your thought and behaviour patterns helps you understand other people. This ability to empathise facilitates better personal and professional relationships.

Is self-awareness important?

Self awareness is important because when we have a better understanding of ourselves, we are able to experience ourselves as unique and separate individuals. We are then empowered to make changes and to build on our areas of strength as well as identify areas where we would like to make improvements. Self-awareness is often a first step to goal setting. Self-awareness is being conscious of what you’re good at while acknowledging what you still have yet to learn. This includes admitting when you don’t have the answer and owning up to mistakes.

In our highly competitive culture, this can seem counter-intuitive. In fact, many of us operate on the belief that we must appear as though we know everything all the time or else people will question our abilities, and then perhaps judge us. If you’re honest with yourself, you’ll admit that really the opposite is true. Because whether you acknowledge your weaknesses or not, everyone still sees them. So rather than conceal them, the person who tries to hide weaknesses actually highlights them, creating the perception of a lack of integrity and self-awareness.

The Johari Window

The Johari Window can be looked at from many angles and provides four basic forms of the Self (the Known, Hidden, Blind, and Unknown Self).

The Known Self is what you and others see in you. This is the part that you are able to discuss freely with others. Most of the time you agree with this view you have and others have of you.

The Hidden Self is what you see in yourself but others don’t. In this part you hide things that are very private about yourself. You do not want this information to be disclosed for the reason of protection. It could also be that you may be ashamed of these areas and feel a vulnerability to having your faults and weaknesses exposed. This area equally applies to your good qualities that you don’t want to advertise to the world due to modesty.

The Blind Self is what you don’t see in yourself but others see in you. You might see yourself as an open-minded person when, in reality, people around you don’t agree. This area also works the other way. You might see yourself as a “dumb” person while others might consider you incredibly bright. Sometimes those around you might not tell you what they see because they fear offending you. It is in this area that people sometimes detect that what you say and what you do don’t match and sometimes body-language shows this mismatch.

The Unknown Self is the self that you cannot see, others can’t see it either. In this category there might be good and bad things that are out of the awareness of others and you. This might refer to untapped potential talents and skills that have yet to be explored by you, your friends, colleagues or managers.

Body Shame

In our society, it’s difficult to love your body without effort, and it can take many years of work to get there. There are many challenges to face before one feels compassion, acceptance, and ultimately love for their body.

Pictures, articles, videos, blogs, and vlogs constantly feed us messages about how we should look. How many times a day do you see an article telling you how you can get a, “bikini body,” as if putting a bikini on your body doesn’t qualify as a bikini body? These kinds of messages can seem so normal that we don’t realize the message we’re receiving and telling ourselves is that our bodies aren’t good enough as they are.

There is a societal body-shaming that is so ingrained that it can feel like the truth. But it’s not the truth. You don’t have to change your body to be deserving of showing it off however you’d like—bikini, tankini, one-piece, and perhaps even just your birthday suit (where permitted, of course).

In addition to the societal challenges we face, your family history may be another barrier to overcome. Our values and beliefs are passed down through generations. Many kids were told directly to change their appearance, because they were too fat, too thin, or otherwise not right. In other families, parents were careful not to criticize their child’s body, but they criticized their own bodies and modeled behaviors like constant dieting, which sent the message that their body type wasn’t good enough. This is an example of a covert message, because even if the parent never explicitly told you what the “right” body should look like, you still internalized the message that their body wasn’t good enough as it was.

Those who were teased and bullied as children suffered wounds from peers that can bleed for a lifetime unless tended to. As children, the need to be accepted and for a sense of safety among peers is important. When a child feels ostracized for their appearance, the belief that they are not OK, good enough, or worthy of love begins to get cemented. The outcome may be a lifetime focused on changing their body, but the feeling of worthlessness is much deeper than that.

When it comes to dating and mating in this complex world, one’s body shame can greatly impact their experience. It contributes to low self-esteem, which impacts who you choose, how you expect to be treated, what kinds of boundaries you have, and how you treat others. Also, it impacts your ability to be vulnerable, intimate, and to experience pleasure. Body shame, and not body weight, can be a barrier to love and connection.

Changing your body might seem like the answer. If only you could be thinner, leaner, stronger, or bigger, you’d feel great. Perhaps you would, in some ways. I like to call these our “if only’s,” which are the false beliefs that if only we could reach some (often unattainable) goal, everything would change.

Unfortunately, even when one does reach their “if only,” they find that it wasn’t the answer to all of their pain and problems. More often than not, healing these painful wounds takes a different kind of change. Usually, healing body shame takes changing internally, not externally.

So I wanted to use body reshaping as a way of exploring female self-awareness

Research

Intervention-Mask