Male Gaze/ Oppositional Gaze

The "Male Gaze" is essentially the idea that Men view women as an object and not a person. An object meaning, an entity with no meaning behinds its actions or decisions. They view women as this idle being that is to be looked at for his pleasure and nothing else. "Men act and women appear. Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at. This determines not only most relations between men and women but also the relation of women to themselves"(Berger 47). Along with Berger's idea of the "Male Gaze" he gives a brief history of this idea through many paintings throughout European history and how the same rules applied then. In each painting shown, Berger explains that the woman's posture has no relevance to the rest of the painting itself but for the one and only reason which is to satisfy the man observing the actual painting.

We see this idea implemented into our lives everyday. Everything from movies, television, and even advertisements displayed in public on the street. I believe that it is highly unlikely for anyone to walk outside and not come across one provocative advertisement in public. This idea has been embedded in our society for a very long time so it would only seem to be the norm to the average person. I believe strongly that this is the reason why this idea is so pervasive to not only our society but the world as well. After being part of European culture and in its history, it spread to other parts of the world and now it is globally accepted by the mainstream media and society that we know today.

"In a world ordered by sexual imbalance, pleasure in looking has been split between active/male and passive/female"(Mulvey 837). I have come to understand these structures in a somewhat alarming way, because of how unjustifiable this idea is and on other terms i don't believe that everyone fits the role of this perspective. In Berger's piece, what he is saying overall about the general society is that Men are valued based on their actions and not on presence, and women are to the opposite. As a man, I feel that I do not fit this role in anyway and hope that many feel the same.

On the other hand, the term known as the "Oppositional Gaze" shows a completely different perspective from everything and everyone that had to do with this mainstream view of society. The Bell Hooks piece really dives into the meaning of the "Oppositional Gaze", which is from the black female perspective. When one thinks back about the early 1900's where the beginnings of cinema was born and blacks were getting the rights as citizens and voter, we most often think of the division between black and white. However, this division at the time really only only accounted for black men and white men. Women were not really in the picture as of yet. There were feminist groups developing, however fighting for women in general and not considering race. Bell hooks makes this evident: "Critical, interrogating black looks were mainly concerned with issues of race and racism the way racial domination of blacks by whites overdetermined representation. They were rarely concerned with gender"(118).

Early Cinema at the time depicted the "traditional American Family" which was always associated with white and wealth. Even back to Berger's idea, the Women that was being explained never specified the race, but in actuality he was talking about white women. Therefore Cinema was the instrument used to display this image of feminine beauty which was the white Woman. The only time a black woman was displayed in film was if she was a character that most would not admire. Even black women themselves could not relate to the black female characters of cinema because this was not an accurate depiction of who they were. Essentially the "Oppositional Gaze" referred to the fact that Black women really didn't have a place or role in this view of how society should look.