Many of research studies indicate there are big disproportions in presenting men and women in various media. For example in Poland, average European country 87% of individuals in everyday press are men , while only 13% are women. Television presents a little better on this field- 66% men versus 34% women. Most women are shown in household environment, while men usually play professional roles. There is significant difference in age of both presented genres. One should notice that youth prevail among women, but as far as men are regarded this factor seems not to be so important.
We could say- where these stereotypes come from? Let's define stereotype first. The stereotype is a simplified, usually irrational image of things, persons imprinted in one's consciousness by his environment. The stereotype of a woman has emerged from a centuries-lasting transmission of cultural data referring to female which include specified codes, behaviours and principles. John Berger- an English art critic- in his BBC tv series from 1972 and in a book " Ways of seeing" pointed out that " the essential way of seeing women, the essential use to which their images are put, has not changed"(64). The roles of both genres in society are still different, as well as their social presence. Men were always regarded as active sex, they ruled community. The female attribute was a passive role. She usually was dominated by the male. The subjection turned out in European civillization to be so strong that woman allowed to turn her "into an object – and most particularly an object of vision: a sight"(47) Berger indicates that women were the main subject in one category of European oil painting – the nude. The femine body was subjected to male desires and male power. We live in the world where most of masterpieces throughout centuries inform us that female body is passive, usually nude. This object is used by a male artist who creates a piece of art designed for only male sight. The paradigm relation "artist-model" is the one when a woman plays the role of a model, while man is an active entity forming not only his "product", but also standards of female appearance and ways of its picturing.
The permanent influence of the role division on present art and media is also indicated by female writers and critics. In 1975 essay, "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" Laura Mulvey introduced the concept of "male gaze" in the cinema which occurs when the camera puts the audience into the perspective of a heterosexual man. Moreover, she emphasize that the female gaze is the same as the male gaze. Women tend to look at themselves through the eyes of men.
In her essey " The oppossitional gaze" Bell Hooks broadens the problem of a male gaze to racial issues. She points out the perspective of a black woman in the world dominated by white people. First of all she reminds us of the absolute absence of black women in the cinema: " With the possible exception of early race movies, black female spectators had to develop looking relations within a cinematic context that constructs our presence as absence, that denies the body of the black female so as to perpetuate white supremasy and with it phallocentric spectatorship where the woman to be looked at and desired is white" (118). She develops the term of " oppositional gaze" encouraging black women not to accept stereotypical representations in films of mostly white female actors, but rather actively critique them: "Not only will I stare, I want my look to change reality" (130). The oppositional gaze argues with the male gaze's tendency to create the mainstream reality and consciousness.
The resistance of modern female to the stereotypes of women in art or cinema is very important. "Male look" is still present, especially in popular culture and media.The materials I read recently made me sure our passive attitude results in dehumanizing women. One of the aspects of forcing "male gaze" is the image of the "perfect woman" present in female periodicals, especially luxury ones. The "female target" concentrates on her attractiveness, and her main activity is consuming. The model recipient is a compulsive consumer who this way realizes her various social needs. The female press, advertisements deliver the significant message: the most important is how you look. Or, more simply and shorlty: "You are how you look" or :You are because you look". We cannot allow the appearance be the essential factor defining the identity of women.
1. Berger, John. Chapters 2,3. Ways of Seeing. London: British Broadcasting, 1972.
2. Hooks, Bell. In Black Looks: race and Representation. Boston: South End Press, 1992: 115-131.
In your essay when you said that "our passive attitude results in the dehumanizing of woman," it reminded me how the male gaze and power has such a wide scope in its influence from fashion to basic human rights. It's almost like a passivity that is molded and remolded over time in women. How many times will I catch myself being so quite in a group setting and my brain will ask "why, why, why are you so quite??" like I have had some type of training/socialization that I am not aware of ... well sort of- feel like g-gammed Pavlov's dog or something. These revelations are eye opening- from how passive you can be and how when western women debates over what to wear over and over somewhere in the Middle East a woman has no choice to but to wear a burka, leaving only her eyes for viewing, because that is the male dominated power structure she lives in.
ReplyDelete