Display MoreI don't know weather it's my ssris or what but I don't really feel sexual desire super much, so I don't know why my individuality gets forced into it when it clearly was not the point of the post. Voyeurism and scopophilic viewing in film regardless of gender is oppressive because of the reduction of people from subject to objects(Martha Nassbaum probably the best work on this though a common criticism is that it is too broad) , which if one goes by feminist theory from the Simeone de Beauvoir to anti-porn feminists like Andrea Dworkin to whatever feminists are out there teaching in academia that I've had to suffer classes under because mandatory requirements. If there's one thing I would dare generalize about feminists in academia as a whole is from most papers I've read objectification of any sort is pretty much a moral sin(if you think we are past the death of God of course something else has to fulfill the structure remaining) , unless the writer really wants to push the framework of the theories but I would say view 2 is less common then view 1 by academic usage on the average paper despite wiki going for view 2 but also no citations on their own definition unlike their article on the male gaze.
This is one of those cases where the definition being wonderfully uncited on wikipedia is complete bs but that's the one probably everyone cares about where, " The female gaze is not about banning sex, desire and fantasies, but about showing that these can exist without objectification. It puts men, women and everybody on equal footing." as whatever whackjob who wrote it never read any academic papers with it's use that actually defined it for some reason as when you get down to it, unlike Mulvey's male gaze which she specifically defined within her paper, female gaze varies from:
1. female viewing that leads to sexual objectification as seen in the works Romance and the female gaze obscuring gendered violence in the Twilight Saga, Chick Flicks and the straight female gaze and pretty much any work intensely focusing on the view in mainly heterosexual female dominated genres such as romance, BL, shoujo etc... but also a ton of papers on lesbian erotica for the homosexual female gaze, pretty much papers analyzing female ttraction to certain genres, films, characters etc.. also the easiest female gaze papers to find.
2. Female gaze as some superior, "purer"(sarcasm quotations) gaze which is somehow non-oppressive despite being based within the same psychoanalytic framework of theory of the male gaze, as if women are gifted with some sort of special essence within their gaze that frees them from it due to prior oppression, such as anything Zoe Dirse has ever written on. This one is bigger with documentary filmmaking more than literary/cinema analysis though unless I have to I will not force myself to search through hundreds of papers again. After all there's still 10x the papers on the male gaze then the female one because that's just what mainly female academics like writing about more I guess.
The weirdest thing I still don't get is the idea of the female gaze breaking boundaries in this thread , sure the average kpop idol does not fit white, middle class masculinity even the beast-dols but kpop idols and their looks as we know come from a different cultural context, so though it probably may seem to be breaking ground for academics and kpop fans wanting to hype their groups up as "revolutionary"(nothing in kpop is revolutionary or progressive politically it is the most neoliberial invention possibly ever). Plus there's the factor of non-asian people enjoying kpop who probably view the average kpop male idol as a unerotic ennuch fitting more with whatever stereotypes they have in their head from their own society.
I’m sorry you can’t see why the distinction is important. But sadly I already explained it the best I could. And your rebuttal is not relevant to that.
And you combining multiple things. Sexual desire as part of the feminist cause is relevant. It is merely not part of this discussion. I don’t how to get the point across that not every discussion needs to be had everywhere for them to be relevant.
When talking about taboo or purity or multitude of other things, then we talk about female sexual desire in the context of the feminist cause.
In this particular discussion since the topic at hand is the female gaze which started as an opposite for the objectifying male gaze, the main point is to focus on the more emotional or distinctive characteristics of the image.
Objectification is dehumanizing. How do we know the female gaze is not dehumanizing and not objective in the collective(again not you, but in the collective)? The poof is in the society. Men are not objectified creatures who have no more worth to them than their bodies.
You seem to be confusing multiple things and wanting everything to be discussed simultaneously. But that’s often the problem with discussions on feminism.
There is place in the table for multiple things!
If you wish to discuss Yaoi/women’s sexual taboo sexual individuality and other things I had actually perhaps on the previous forum had a discussion like that and we can have it once more.
But until then my purpose is to discuss the female gaze as a opposite of the male gaze and show the more vulnerable or softer side of what women like to see. And I think there is merit in this discussion.
