Previous Trope Repair Shop thread: Misused
, started by BlackMage43 on Mar 2nd 2019 at 8:31:13 PM
I personally feel like there has to be some kind of split as more and more people start to realize there are two interconnected, but contextually different definitions of this trope.
In the more common colloquial sense mostly used for this site, it simply means "camerawork viewing women in a way to appeal to the presumably-straight male audience" and minor deviations thereof, but I'm starting notice some instances of people making Male Gaze entries about the academic definition of "works or elements thereof in general based off a male-centric worldview."
It might sound a little pedantic a distinction, but the divide's very obvious when in entries from pages like Birds of Prey (2020) (which isn't about camera work but of the antagonist's self-centered and misogynist characterization) or Lindsay Ellis (entries based off her primarily exploring the academic definition with Transformers and what its generally male-centric purview represents).
I know this article page goes over both definitions, but I feel like forming some kind of distinction between the two uses of this could at least be considered.
Thanks for playing King's Quest V! Hide / Show Replies
I made a TRS thread about this some while ago, it didn't go anywhere, but the idea of separating the camerawork aspect to a gender-neutral "camerawork displaying a character in an appealing manner for the audience" into a new trope being called CamService was considered.
Edited by BlackMage43
Cam Service sounds like a great distinctive trope name! (and incidentally gender-inclusive with Female Gaze)
Thanks for playing King's Quest V!
Could we rename this trope, and the description, to something that doesn't ignore gays, lesbians, and bisexual women?
Hide / Show Replies
No.
For one, it's actually an established term referring to a certain kind of camera shot. So it's rather not on us to make that change.
For another, it's rather the point that the idea is that filmmakers resort to this shot because the "standard" for a viewer is a straight male.
Edited by Larkmarn Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
That crossed my mind, to.
It seems to have the unfortunate implication that only men find women attractive, something that seems rather backwards in 2017 when women being lesbians or bisexual is becoming acceptable in the west.
There's nothing unfortunate about it. Heterosexuality is the overwhelming majority, therefore it is true that most of the people who find women attractive are men, and that most men find women attractive. Outliers are irrelevant.
Lance Omikron: While the current page image certainly does what its supposed to do, consider this picture the picture linked below. Anyone else think that it does exactly what the current image does, only better?
EDIT: Ah, shoot. This link
◊ should work.
Deleted a few examples, but only to shore up the Female Gaze YKTTW
, where their presence is more appropriate.
Knows-Many-Things
Tell me again why we deleted Baby Got Back if this page is essentially turning into the same thing.
Find the Light in the Dark Hide / Show Replies
This page is an existing term and an actual deliberate camera choice.
The former devolved inti "this is an ass I like."
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
(The former is actually enforced in Young Adult publishing, as it is an accepted fact that boys dislike reading books about girls and thus general-audience YA novels must have male leads.)
I think the linked article is a weak citation to support this sentence.
Edited by danielgudman
I think we have a good top-of-page quote, it just needs some links in it. It's from the Star Wars: The Old Republic "Return" trailer:
Havoc Squad Commander: (Nico ogles a passing Twilek girl) Eyes front!
Nico: Just inspecting the troops, Corporal.
Edited by R3GARnator
{{Tsundere}} pet.
Re the Stargate example: Male Gaze is an existing theoretical concept. The basic core of the idea is "the male perspective is the most important perspective", because the viewer/reader of the work is assumed to be by default male, to come from a male viewpoint, to emphasize with the male characters, etc. Ogling women is a side effect, but it's not the only effect. Depicting female trauma in terms of its effect on the male characters is very much a component of Male Gaze. If you want to argue that the Stargate example does not fit, then you could (for example) explain it in terms of the character's personality or the narrative structure, but as summarized by the original poster, it fits.
Calling someone a pedant is an automatic Insult Backfire. Real pedants will be flattered. Hide / Show Replies
That's not what this trope is about. This trope may be a component of what you're talking about, but this trope is about the actual gaze, not a general male focus. Since two separate people have removed it already and no allies have come forward for you here, I'm removing it again. Unfortunately, while I'd say it's something we should have, looking through Double Standard, I can't find a page for what you're talking about; you might want to take this to YKTTW.
My posts make considerably more sense read in the voice of John Ratzenberger.
And I should clarify: I'm sure the term is used in academia for something else, but terms' definitions are often contested in the humanities anyway, and we're not always bound by the way a term is used in the "real world." (c.f. Trope)
My posts make considerably more sense read in the voice of John Ratzenberger.
Actually, the description's been changed; this being one of the Tropes Of Legend, though, and always having dealt with prurience in "the camera's gaze," I'd say the trope in the description should be elsewhere, with a redirect from this page to there.
My posts make considerably more sense read in the voice of John Ratzenberger.
"this trope is about the actual gaze" Yes, the idea that the gaze is always male (or, at least, can be assumed to be male without question). In the repair shop discussion on Male Gaze vs Female Gaze the overall consensus was that as the terms were preexisting and common, the tropes should fundamentally be about the existing concepts (the latter was completely revamped as a result); there was a movement to make another trope for "prurience in the camera's gaze" (Pervy Camera was suggested), but it didn't get off the ground.
I'm looking at the forum discussion, and I'm not seeing anything close to that; in fact, I'm seeing the exact opposite, a general consensus to change Female Gaze to something more approaching what Male Gaze has always been here. You're saying this, but everyone else's reactions range from politely ignoring to politely fighting.
My posts make considerably more sense read in the voice of John Ratzenberger.
1. Female Gaze at the time (now changed to Eating the Eye Candy) had little to do with either Pervy Camera or the academic Female Gaze. That was the initial point of the thread.
2. IMO, the thread had a split between people who knew the academic concept of male gaze and those who were only going by the description as it was then. Before I got involved in the thread, we have these posts:
- Post 6, by Bobby G: "Male Gaze is a pre-existing term, which we are using slightly innaccurately."
- Post 8, by gorgardard: "[...]Male Gaze is much more meta - it refers not to characters within a series but to the very nature of the series' viewpoint/narrative/etc..."
- Post 11, by gorgardard: "Most Writers Are Male is partially the reason, but the actual Male Gaze theory also states that women writers are forced to put the Male Gaze into their works(especially in geekier stuff) in order to not alienate an audience."
- Post 15, more gorgardard: "Also, the one [definition of Male Gaze] we use on the wiki is a simplified version. [links and quotes a website discussing male gaze]"
- Post 24, by Bobby G: "Besides, the Male Gaze is a masculine perspective which the viewer is forced to adopt. It encompasses more than just the camera lingering on certain female body parts for slightly longer than is necessary."
- Post 39, more Bobby G: "And I repeat: the pre-existing term Male Gaze is not purely about the camera lingering on certain parts of the female anatomy."
- Post 40, alliterator: "It's about the audience being forced to view characters through the lense of the (male) camera. At least, I think."
- Post 41, Bobby G again: "Yes. The audience is forced to adopt a male perspective."
- and I get involved at post 64 and agree with the people who are pushing the academic definition.
, suggesting some degree of official approval.
Edited by lebrel
Calling someone a pedant is an automatic Insult Backfire. Real pedants will be flattered.
Looks like we'll need to find another link to Mulvey's paper: that link says that Brown University no longer offers an archive service.