Yesterday in my Anthropology class we discussed how the male gaze can also be applied to lesbian women when they are not in the presence of men. Although we have discussed this briefly in class, and I agree that women of any sexual orientation are influenced by the dominant culture they were raised in (in our case, androcentric/heteronormative) I questioned whether lesbian women really are dressing and catering to male desire. As our discussion progressed, our professor brought to our attention Focoult's idea about "othering," which I have discussed in previous classes (race, gender, and sexuality). The concept of "othering" focuses on all people, much like the male gaze, but caters less to male desire and more generally focuses on how we think people perceive us."Othering" means simply making note and being aware of different people,
whether they be racially, politically, socially, sexually, or in any
other way different from you."
This is not necessarily the same thing as the male gaze, but it is based upon similar principles. The idea of "other" that we project is the driving force behind the way we dress, act, and interact with other people. According to Foucault, this idea of "othering" effects us all, because it is part of human nature.
I found this easier to "swallow" than the idea that lesbian's are also subject to the male gaze, but I am still not convinced... simply denying association with a concept because I don't find it tasteful doesn't mean that it does not effect me. It may effect lesbians in a different way, and maybe the fact that I have an insider view on this certain issue limits my understanding of how lesbians can also be impacted by male desire.
So, I ask, How do you think lesbians are also subjected to the scrutiny of the male gaze?
It seems to me that lesbians, among all other categories of people, are affected by how others see them or, more likely, how they BELIEVE others see them. However, this is problematic from the start.
ReplyDeleteFirst, categorizing people ultimately leads to separation to some degree. It is my belief that upon categorizing people, this belief immediately implies the presence of another alternative thing in the world. As this thing is perceived as another person, it is also perceived as something like another "blank" person. "blank" can represent any categorization (black, white, woman, man, etc.).
Herein, as this person is a DIFFERENT KIND OF PERSON (what would that even mean?) they become treated not as a PERSON LIKE MYSELF.
The (poor) logic continues to this -
1. A person who is not myself must be treated differently from how I treat myself.
2. To treat someone as not-myself one should subjectively categorize them as DIFFERENT KIND OF PERSON.
3. Treatment towards DIFFERENT KINDS OF PEOPLE is dictated primarily in incorrect terms.
The way I see it, when someone chooses to believe something about another person based on how a DIFFERENT KIND OF PERSON is, they have ostensibly made a categorical error in treating someone who is AN INDIVIDUAL as DIFFERENT KINDS OF PEOPLE.
in a nutshell, I think this happens to everyone by everyone and that it is perpetuated by forces which are outwardly identical to the male gaze in function and being. Even people who don't want to participate are forced into it.
(in tones of desperation) Authentic action is hard to come by...
I understand what you are saying, and although I don't disagree, I'm hesitant to say that I fully agree. However, I would like to narrow it down a bit and argue that from my observations, the fact that lesbians are subjected to the scrutiny of the male gaze plays out in several ways. For example, I think the tendency for one of the partners to take on the "male" role or if not, for others to assume that there is a "man" in the relationship is what first comes to mind.
ReplyDelete