Oh Wait, There Is Money in It

The Male Gaze
In all of the readings and discussions on the male gaze I've encountered, it is, in a way ironically, viewed only in one dimension, from one point of view. It is described as a tool of domination and oppression of the female. And while it is most likely true, considering it being a theory, I believe there is more to it than just an instrument of subjugation.

My first argument is that there is a big commercial component that is not completely explored. Laura Mulvey goes into great length taking apart movies and criticizing the demeaning male gaze; however, she wrote in 1975, the time when Equal Rights Amendment and Equal Credit Opportunity Act just appeared, thus it is possible to assume that a man was a primary source of income in the family. Therefore from a commercial standpoint it is only logical to entice the male part of the population into any and every part of the media. For example if a movie has a strong male character that is "loved and obeyed" by women, an "average Joe" would like to relate to him and be more likely to buy a ticket to the movie for himself and his female partner, be it his girlfriend or his wife. In advertisement as much is true, a simple photo of an item on the white background does not hold as much attention as a photo of the same item in a context with a beautiful model, therefore a man is more likely to remember and thus more likely to buy it. No matter how messed up and wrong the model was and is, it worked and brought money and still does.

My second argument is complementary to the first, but with regards to the Berger's Ways of Seeing. For the most part of his article, he presents European paintings that are centuries old. The presence of the male gaze is undeniable; however, the idea of patronage is not taken into an account. The artists, for the most part, were sponsored to write paintings. Unsurprisingly most of the patrons were either wealthy and/or powerful men or the church, which in its turn influenced the wealthy and/or powerful men. The church was not fond of women, which Berger in a way supports by saying: "The second striking fact is that the woman is blamed and is punished by being made subservient to the man. In relation to the woman, the man becomes the agent of God." (48) Thus it is possible to assume that patrons that were deeply religious would expect their paintings to depict women looking inferior and obeying to men. And what would please the ego of a powerful noble even more, but a painting in which he can feel in control of a woman depicted. Once again we can see money as the driving force.

Innovation Excellence

The Oppositional Gaze
Oppositional gaze represents the resistance of both gender and race. What Bell Hooks tried to communicate is that African American women did not identify with white women in the Hollywood movies, and thus created a point of view that was not affected by "pleasure in looking." (122) She argued that feminist film critics did not acknowledge the issues of race and the fact that it can provide a new gaze. (Hooks, 123) Thus African American women had an advantage that was both good and bad at the same time. It hurt to see misrepresentation and negligence of race in movies, but at same time created a perspective that allowed black women to see outside the male gaze parameters.