28
I think I need to take a breather from the webs, because I'm genuinely beginning to foster serious hate for subgroups of people.
Lesbian is a female homosexual.
It's not a 'label' it's an orientation.
You can't call aspects of your life 'lesbian' because YOU think you embody aspects of OUR culture.
If you're a 99/1 bisexual, and the man you're dating is ThE oNlY OnE...not a fucking lesbian.
You cannot love somebody like a lesbian. You can only love as a lesbian.
It's no wonder lesbians feel at war with every group. They fucking throw our label around like confetti. Do backflips trying to redefine MY sexuality TO me.
Here's a thought. How about leave the definition and terminology around lesbians to actual fucking lesbians.
I'm disgusted at these glizzy-gluttonous gutter tramps thinking they even have a toe to stand on when it concerns our sexuality. Bah humbug
What's sad for me is that men are never encouraged to objectify themselves for the female gaze in the same way. They're the ones who are supposed to get off seeing themselves as desirable to women, it shouldn't be the other way around.
Yep, exactly!! Like a lot of aspects of misogyny, this is so insidious and hard to correct because 1) there's a double standard involved, so the way it affects both women and men needs to change, and 2) it's based on an initially neutral want, or even a want that might be fundamental to human nature. So when women hear "X thing has been corrupted by sexism and the sexism needs to go" they hear "X thing is inherently sexist and needs to go" and get put off of feminism because they like X and/or know X isn't inherently misogynistic. (I even think this mindset is true and intentional of some feminists, where they believe X has to be sexist because it has sexism entangled in it, and the women put off are just correctly identifying those feminists' POV. It's a huge mess!)
I think both women shouldn't be treated as sex objects and straight and bi men should care more about being sexually appealing to women. It's a two-pronged problem, both the fact that women and girls are treated as objects of desire to the point it's treated as their worth or a necessary process to being worth something, and the fact that men and boys view being attractive as an inherently dehumanizing and ""female"" thing that should only ever done for males (notice how the only time men decide to be attractive, or are allowed to be portrayed as attractive in fiction, is when they're trying to attract other men?)
Like, how many other problems are entangled in there even though I just said there's just two? It's something only men deserve, because of the fact that most men are straight it has to be associated with females and therefore is part of ""femininity"" (see the "metrosexual" pejorative), it has to be dehumanizing, it has to be tied to females' worth as human beings, it has to be everywhere at all times inescapable...
It's a huge mess men made and they really don't want anyone to clean it up.
You’ve said it perfectly. This is something that should be addressed in two ways. Kudos to you.
As I keep telling women... dick is a practically worthless resource that women have in abundance. It's men who need to make the effort.
Although perhaps the fall in birth rates and lack of younger women having sex tell their own story
I think this shit sells to women more often than not, because most women are heterosexual, and see those objectified women as good role models when it comes to attracting men.
(I mean, I, too, am baffled by how objectifying e.g. adverts for women's underwear are - surely, the main customer base for women's underwear isn't the male romantic partners of those women? Many women must buy this shit for themselves, but then, why would they want to buy a brand that shows a girl who is barely of age in transparent bras? I don't get it either, but it must be selling well enough. Those adverts can't be cheap.)
Girls and women are the main audience for female pop stars like Miley Cyrus, Taylor Swift, and Sabrina Carpenter. I’m not going to comment on their individual musical talents, but just take a look at some of their styles on tours or in performances: these women at some points throughout their careers were male gaze personified, which didn’t seem to dent their popularity at all.
It's hard to find stuff that's not. Just looking through Spotify for new songs, comparing the male artist album art to the female album art is depressing. Man running with dog, sweet metal album art for the guys, and the women are mostly presenting as sexually available, naked, or close to it.
That doesn’t explain girls and women celebrating these looks when they’re debuted. You can make the argument that fans are just happy that their favorite artists are out there being successful, etc, but there are still quite a lot of fans that seem really enthusiastic about the looks alone, not just the music.
The argument is prevalence. It's everywhere and hard not to consume.
It does sell to women. It is why Victoria secret was also popular. It’s a fantasy they are selling to women. Women (not all obviously) do want to be attractive to the opposite sex, it’s natural. I would say it sells to younger women more so than older women.
Yes. In my expert with my friends and myself when we were younger, younger women typically (not all, obviously, like you said) want to be wanted.
We will never conquer misogyny until we acknowledge that and find ways to show younger women that men want them anyway; there’s no reason to cater to them and every reason to live their own lives as themselves and acknowledge that womennactually would have the upper hand if it weren’t for male strength.
I asked my mom this one time. She's obsessed with "popcorn flicks" (basically male gaze action movies with the typical oversexualized female character).
She basically said I didn't know how to have fun and that it was harmless and funny.
Later she told me it was a bit wrong for the movie to show a 17 year old girl half naked but that it was just a movie and didn't mean anything.
So I think they just tend to block it out because they get used to seeing it since childhood, so it seems normal? Hence buying products with sexualized women just seems normal to them.
Based on the responses here, I don't think anyone actually looked this up before lol.
No. It doesn't. There was a study done on this and they found that women are actually less likely to purchase products that objectify women. Even other men were less likely to do it, but there was a specific group of men that it worked on. I want to say they were a group of men who already had particularly aggressively sexist viewpoints but I can't remember exactly what the deal with them was.
The idea then is, what exactly ARE they trying to sell women? Especially when we know this crap doesn't make us want to drop money? I think a lot of companies want women to just feel insecure and hope that down the line, it'll get to them and they'll go buy something extra expensive, like fillers or a face-lift.
I can post the study when I find it again later, but there's a tedtalk about this you can find pretty easily on YouTube too. It was pretty interesting. Made me want to go find out who all owns what. Like do any make up or clothing company owners also have stock in botox, plastic surgery, etc.? Is that what they ultimately want to sell women? Or is it this behavior they want to sell women? They want women to objectify themselves and think if women do it in ads and men like it, maybe everyday women will objectify themselves more?
Here's the tedtalk https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy8yLaoWybk
There was also a meta analysis done at the university of Illinois where they found this to be a myth too, though I'm having a hard time accessing the analysis itself. There was such a strong indication that this didn't work that a number of companies stopped bothering with the sexual advertising when this came out around 2017. I'm sure you all have noticed that we no longer have 3 minute commercials of a half naked woman rubbing herself on a car while eating a massive cheeseburger. Sure, men found it hot but it didn't sell shit.
No. It doesn't. There was a study done on this and they found that women are actually less likely to purchase products that objectify women.
I always assumed it must sell, because, well, they sure do it a whole lot.
And I also assumed that companies keep track of what does or does not increase sales.
(There's also the question what we are talking of. Women may be less likely to buy a car brand that objectifies women, but objectifying advertising for women's underwear might work, because women buy those things to be attractive to men, while we usually don't buy cars to attract men. I think.)
Same but I did notice that once these findings came out, there is actually less advertising like this overall. Which makes sense, companies just want to make money and if objectifying women upsets women and then we don't buy those things, they're just losing money. And they love their money. I do think it was also partly done so much because it's more common for men to own these companies and run these ads, so I do think they used this advertising technique for a long time to "keep women in their place" socially, so to speak, to some degree rather than outright thinking it would make women buy more products. But obviously, eventually they pivoted for money.
It has been a minute since ive seen a beer commercial selling beer with boobs, for instance. But now instead, we just have straight up porn being advertised instead, which sucks, but that's kind of another topic.
There was a small caveat that it seemed to only ever work if they were specifically selling lingerie to women but even then, they have to be careful how they do it or they, again, just wind up making women feel salty and not want to do it lol.
I do think they used this advertising technique for a long time to "keep women in their place" socially, so to speak...
While I wouldn't be surprised at all if this were the main reason, honestly I feel like most of them do it because they're perpetually horny hedonists who never want to spend two seconds not aroused.
There are so many children's shows and movies, even the crappy knock-off and bootleg ones, where there's a scene of a female character being sexual, sexualized, or seducing a male character. In kids' entertainment. Where half the time the characters are animals. They add boobs to animals and color them pink and have them wink and sway their hips at the main character to make him cartoon horny. In kid's entertainment. Even the crappy knock-offs made in a week that the production team didn't give two shits about.
They're just ruled by their dicks tbh
I don't think you need to "look this up" to understand that some women, due to our socialization, feel such a pressure to conform to the Male Gaze that they do buy products specifically aimed at attracting it. See: Victoria's Secret, revealing clothing of any kind, even makeup...
Sure, some. But not most. It's largely a myth. Women actually don't like being made to feel shitty about themselves and be reminded that men view them as objects, who'd have thought?
ETA: also, seems like people definitely do need to look it up because clearly, a lot of the assumptions surrounding this are incorrect. Why would you be upset about there being a source that disproves this? Isn't it a positive thing that it doesn't work and therefore isn't something that's used as often? That's a good thing for women. Why dig your heels into an incorrect and negative assumption? Just odd.
Of course, but I do think lots of younger women, especially, feel the pressure to conform to the male gaze even if they don't like it. We're taught that our worth is contingent upon male approval, so to rid ourselves of that pressure takes a tremendous amount of courage.
I see young college girls walking around my city wearing bras as shirts, for example, more times than I'd like to even count.
Oh yeah, of course. I absolutely agree. This is specific to advertising things to women, whether it's products or exercise routines. OP was asking if that sort of thing actually sells to women, which it doesn't and if we have sources for that. It doesn't make women more likely to buy that product or sign up for that subscription. I DO, however, think it influences how women and girls feel like they should present themselves and I definitely think it has a direct negative effect on their self esteem.
In these studies, they mentioned that for women, these ads will be more "memorable", but not helpful with sales. And they found that by more "memorable", they mean women remember those ads and they remember them negatively. So it seems like women don't want to buy more crap and just wind up feel shitty about themselves for longer.
Thank you for the clarification :D
In that case, hell no, I'm not more motivated to buy, say, a pair of leggings if some AI Brazilian butt lift clone-Kardashian robot doing squat thrusts is modeling them...
Np! Thanks for hearing me out! And I totally agree, those things make me want to grab the baggiest cargos I own 😂
I don't think the male gaze APPEALS to women, but I think it does SELL to women. We are trained from the beginnings of our lives to make ourselves as appealing as possible, and we learn the male gaze very well. If a woman still tries to find her self worth in male approval or in patriarchal ways, she will evaluate things with a male gaze in mind. A woman who is desperate to compete with porn for her boyfriend's attention, for example, (instead of ditching the piece of shit) would be the perfect target for that type of advertising. "See how much hotter you could be? See how much more your boyfriend would like you if you looked more like the Instagram models he follows?"
Exactly, just wondered if anyone had a source to back it up
This might sound trite but my answer is "the financial successes of the industries advertising and selling makeup, sexualized female fashion (...so, female fashion), hair waxing and plucking, cosmetic surgery, Botox, Ozempic, fad diets, lingerie, bikinis, push-up and padded bras..."
There's probably more I forgot, too. But just look at how many billions they make.
I certainly remember reading about it when doing an undergrad communications major many many years ago. The ad business saying at the time was 'men want to have the woman, women want to be the woman.'
Lesbians don't want women to be objectified (or feel uncomfortable in changing rooms) because we are women and have empathy, unlike men. This is what makes our sexuality different from straight men, something homophobes don't understand.
As for the main point of your post, women have always had to put up with male perversion when trying to build a career and some women, sadly, use male perversion to succeed.
Kind of, but I’m thinking more of those women who are definitely marketing their exercise routines to other women … does a ‘male gaze’ advert actually work for women or is it why many car companies, etc. have changed their approach in the West as far as I can tell
Are you sure that's what they're doing? Like half of those women are ultimately just trying to get men to look at their OF but try to do it in discreet ways. It's really common.
I met the women in question working at a gym so I would be surprised if it was all a ruse just to get people to look at their OF
Oh, the way you worded it made it seem like you were talking about Instagram or YT cause you mentioned adverts. And that's definitely what some of them do, I know cause I like doing some youtube workouts and I avoid the OF ones.
Now I'm curious how they market in person sexually lol.
Ah ok, hadn't come across OF on YouTube yet, but these were gym staff who had their own Instagram and so on
Ah ok. Maybe they're under the impression it works so they keep doing it? It's funny, this was debunked a few years back and most companies stopped bothering with it because of that but so many people are still convinced it's a good advertising technique. I imagine they just think it works 🤷🏼♀️
I know for me personally, it has the opposite effect and doesn't work at all lol
I think the idea is the woman viewer identifies with her: “I too will have a hot ass men want to stare at!”
A lot of Instagram influencers seem to take photos for the male gaze only. Maybe they are copying the "model draped over a car" style of marketing, Kardishan-style self-promotion, or promoting an OF account. IDK it doesn't make me want to buy anything they are selling. If I wanted to buy a bag I don't care if it makes me look hot - get out of the damn way and show me a close-up photo of the stitching so i can see if it is worth the money.
What an interesting question. I was just considering an aspect of that this morning.
I was watching Landman. I like Billy Bob Thornton. I didn't realise it was a Taylor Sheridan written show until the first women characters showed up.
We have the alcoholic party girl ex wife. The upskirt view of the 17 year old daughter. The long suffering ethnic widow. The ice queen attorney who demands respect. All the same women you find in Yellowstone and its spinoffs.
I (a lesbian) am generally irritated by the female stereotypes and tropes Sheridan uses. But my mother, sisters, aunts all (straight) LOVE his shows and the female characters, far from annoying them, are instead really enjoyed.
One scene in particular had a senior citizen male watching a 17 year old girl rub Crisco all over herself - double male gazey - and the other women around me seemed to be amused at the old man's antics.
So sure, I think the male gaze sells to women. At least to a lot of straight women who apparently rather enjoy it as if they're in on the joke or living vicariously through the girl being watched, reliving their old head-turning days.
I just moved to this area and I don't have any lesbians to watch tv with yet so I can't compare them for you here!
This show sounds like something…
I will admit I watched a bit of Yellowstone because I like a cowboy film but then I just thought it was silly.
Why did Kelly Reilly go from an ‘incredible business negotiator’ in the city to a stay at home kid sulking in the bath and going on teen emo dates to glare at wolves in a few episodes 😂
I think I officially stopped watching when their mom decided to bleed to death to prove her daughter was bad at horse riding.
Also Kevin Costner is all over the ads and he’s barely in the show. What cheapskates!
Women buy things, so I'd say : yes, it works on women too. But since everything is male dominated, what else are women going to do?
Now maybe women would prefer different methods, but all women have been raised with the male gaze so it might be hard to sort out good data.
I can't give you any numbers on how well it sells as a marketing tactic, but I can tell you that even though I was a very rebellious tomboy as a kid (I still am now, I just also was as a kid) when I was trying to learn how to draw cartoons I severely internalized that female characters had to pose in what I would now call but didn't realize at the time a very sexualized and submissive way: standing unsteadily with legs always pointing inwards, hips pushed to one side to emphasize curves, often having "bedroom"/half-lidded eyes, etc.
Because that's how the female cartoon characters I loved and unknowingly converted from the creators' sex objects into actual characters were drawn. Even though I gave them personalities and made them actually do something besides fawn over the male lead and hated when they were sexualized in more noticeable ways (mainly wearing skimpy outfits), I drew them that way because I was presented with literally no other ways that they could be drawn. I just thought that was a neutral Rule of Cartoons for how you draw a female character. (I even think some of the reason this gets perpetuated is because of that mentality: maybe not every artist drawing a sexualized female character is doing it intentionally, they were just trained to believe this is the only/correct way to design them.)
The male gaze is so internalized we learn it as kids. It's so internalized we don't even realize we've internalized it. Insert Margaret Atwood "You are your own voyeur" quote.