The Male Gaze

'I am a woman, not an exhibit' Iris Whittle

In 1975, film critic Laura Mulvey first used the term 'the male gaze' in reference to the presentation of women from a heterosexual male perspective where women are depicted as sexual objects and entirely for the pleasure of the male. 'Men have agency; women are passive and dehumanized'.

In feminist theory, the world has been conditioned, through media to equate male success with money, power and control, and female success with beauty, ability to reproduce and ability to keep a household. Even with a quick google search, 'how is male success measured' brings up articles in how to be good in business and men's health, yet if you google 'how is female success measured', you are overwhelmingly shown articles about reproduction.

Through such imagery, it is ingrained in us from an early age that a woman's' main goal in life is to create a family with a rich and successful man, and a man's goal is to get rich, marry a beautiful woman that will bear him children and carry on his bloodline. In most married couples, the woman will take his last name. His bloodline and name will carry on through generations, whereas hers is forgotten. Her name scratched from records and her sole purpose is to serve her husband. 

The hierarchy formed through the years, places the men at the top of the ladder, and women trailing behind. Alan Bennett described this in his book (later a play and movie), 'The History Boys'; 'History is a commentary on the various and continuing incapability's of men. What is History? History is women following behind with the bucket.'.

This shows how man's word is often taken as gospel, followed by the mass to the point of destruction, yet never questioned. The cleanup is left to the women, yet when they succeed in 'fixing' things, their accomplishments are not recognized. 

The Male Gaze in art

In art we have been conditioned to accept the male gaze as the standard. This has happened over many generations, perhaps stemming from sexism that is thought to have originated 12,000 years ago, when farming was introduced. The vast majority of cultures are patriarchies, where men hold the positions of social, economic and political power. This is thought to have started as the men were naturally stronger, and therefore more equipped to handle the more dangerous tasks, like hunting and protecting the settlements against intruders and predators. This, over time, gave men more authority and control over their peers and families, molding the communities into patriarchies.

This evolved further in the modern world, where men typically were the 'breadwinners', they'd go out to work and climb up the ladder in their fields of expertise, until they dominated (for example) the financial world. During these times, as was the same thousands of years ago, women were expected to stay at home, molding the house and children into images of success.

This rationale however has become outdated. The reasons women stayed at home in the past were purely physical. Women were physically weaker than men, therefore were better suited elsewhere, to create future generations and feed the house, building the strength of their male counterparts. However women no longer need protection from predators, and machines have all but abolished the need for pure strength to complete tasks like building houses and hunting. The gender roles created in the past are no longer a requirement, so why have we not evolved past them?

The answer could be people have got used to these ideas. They are used to men working and are used to women being weak and feeble. As with other fields, men dominated the art industry. Only male artists had, or were given the funding to create art with the best materials and biggest audiences, providing opportunities that women just weren't given. The media was created by men, for men. They perpetuated the male ideals and discounted the female's, because it just wasn't made for them.

This meant that visual media reduced female characters with goals and aspirations into mere objects of aesthetic value. There are hundreds of examples where the representation of women only appeals to the heterosexual cis-masculine eye. We have been conditioned to normalise this and where we watch a scene where a woman is hypersexualised, we identify with them. The male gaze portrays its inherent inequality and is a clear example of how we, as a society, perceive women. A woman can be talented, educated and successful, but the first thing we ask is 'Is she pretty?'. We are told from an early age that body hair, acne, stretch marks etc. are things we should hide and get rid of, and that we have to change ourselves to be considered beautiful to our male counterparts. 

This idea is shown in art, beautifully airbrushed bodies, the only hair visible is on our heads and the idea of a 'perfect' body type. 

This is Edouard Manet's painting of 'Olympia'. In this painting a woman is displayed naked on the bed, with her maid standing next to her with a bouquet of flowers. The painting itself is beautiful, but the focus of the painting caused a lot controversy at the time. Olympia was modelled on Victorine Meurent, and her maid modelled on Laure (last name unknown). Most paintings of the time depicting nude models were only seen as acceptable when they were 'sufficiently high-minded', but in this painting, Olympia is shown to be staring back at the viewer, showing a sense of confidence and almost confrontational. This paired with the black ribbon around her neck, which at the time symbolized the mark of a prostitute, outraged the audience.

This in itself is upsetting to me. The ban on prostitution and its symbols. The sex industry was created to benefit men. As gay relationships and sex was frowned upon, and sometimes illegal, these women in the sex industry were solely for the benefit of men. The men were the ones paying for these services, so why were the women punished? If it weren't for the men wanting sex enough to pay for it, the sex industry (although it would of still happened), wouldn't of been nearly as huge as it was and still is. I like the way Olympia is shown to be proud, not hiding in the shadows, and portraying her profession in such an upfront way. She is laying confidently on the bed, nude except for the slippers on her feet. 

This pose however gives me a different feeling when it has been painted by a man, than if it were to have been painted by a woman. If it were by a woman, it would make me feel as though she is highlighting the beauty of her muse and the confidence she radiates. However this has been painted by a man. This then makes me question, why is a man not a woman depicted? Why does she have to be nude? Couldn't he have shown the same confidence and beauty with a clothed woman? Why does she have to be naked to have her beauty shown? This is highlighted in my brain through years of famous nude paintings, the majority of them being nude females, painted by men. This fact is also highlighted by the 'Guerilla Girls', who publicised that only 5% of the artists in the MET are women, yet 85% of the nudes in there are of women.

These patterns can also be seen in movies, where women are shown to be submissive characters in the story, which is held up by the actions of men. The Bechdel Test was created in 1985 in a comic strip written by Alison Bechdel and is a measure of the representation of women in fiction. To pass, a movie has to follow three rules, There is at least two female named (lead) characters, They must have a conversation without a man present, and they must be talking about something that does not involve a man. These three rules seem easy for a movie to follow at least once throughout a 90 minute movie, but surprisingly this has only been done in 56.7% of all films. 

This is shocking to me, how can in almost half of all the films made, there isn't even one scene where two women are talking about something other than a man? Is it so out of the ordinary that women would talk about anything else? Their jobs, hobbies, family, or are these too boring for the male viewer? Are they seen as less realistic? It's as if the producers don't think that women could even be interested in something other than men.

These facts all together shows me how sexism and the patriarchy have affected art from its roots. From men being the only recognised artists, and their desire to show women nude and vulnerable, for their own pleasure. I believe its time to recognise the accomplishments of women in the art industry, and show women not only as idealised versions of themselves, but to also highlight their skills, hard work and dedication that they have put in to achieve their goals. I'm not saying to stop painting nudes of women, only for that to not be the sole purpose of the art. For the art to not be so focused on the nude body, instead the person themselves.