John Berger illuminates the importance of seeing. “Seeing…establishes our place in the surrounding world” and is the basis on which we form our beliefs and experiences. In asking us (the readers) to re-imagine a one of the nude paintings, Berger is alluding to the extreme power and control we have over what we see. Like Berger, Mulvey addresses the malleability of sight by discussing the ways in which film can construct how an audience views certain subject matter. I see this concept playing out in the “real world” in terms of how people choose to dress and display themselves to the rest of the world through clothing, haircuts and makeup. In our decisions to dress a certain way (butch, femme, preppy, punk etc) we are acknowledging the power we have to manipulate the sense of sight. Mulvey and Berger both acknowledge societies ability to re-imagine things in a way that is more pleasing to an individual. So what it is that devalues this power we have over establishing ourselves in the surrounding world? Why is it that if we deviate from the norms of how we’re supposed to appear to the outside world (women=feminine, men=masculine) then we evoke a sense of “violence” (as Berger puts it)? Why does it scare people (and societies) so much when we see something that doesn’t appear normal?

In this weeks lecture we learned about the "gaze"and gendered ways of seeing. In Lacan's article it discusses the "mirror stage" when a baby realizes his/her reflection and then realizes an idealized view of himself which is unattainable. How is this paralleled to the idea of the medical gaze which is based on objective concepts which can, literally be seen. Are both unattainable or is it the definition/emphasis that people put on these "gazes" what makes them unattainable?

Berger and Mulvey both discuss the way women appear in images, and Berger in particular notes the way women conform to and perform for the male gaze. He discusses the way "a woman must continually watch herself" and how "she has to survey everything she is and everything she does because how she appears to others, and ultimately how she appears to men, is of crucial importance... her own sense of being in herself is supplanted by a sense of being appreciated as herself by another" (280). If this is a primary cause for why "men act and women appear" (281), how do you think that a widespread adoption of the burka (or something akin to it) would affect the popular representation of women in the US? Would an overt rejection of the male gaze help to liberate women who are now too absorbed in their own appearance to be able to act as truly autonomous beings? Or is there too much importance in reclaiming female sexuality, and would relinquishing this sexuality simply be a denial of what makes a woman, a woman?

Lisa Nakamura's article "Ramadan is Almoast here" examines several examples of virtual reality that provide further evidence for the objectification of female bodies, particularly in computer/video games and internet messaging. Mulvey suggests in her article that "the male figure cannot bear the burden of sexual objectification" (Mulvey 838). However, my own experience of computer gaming with text MUDs as well as graphical MMORPGs showed a trend of males playing female characters specifically for the attention attracted - in these cases "fringe benefits" of free handouts by other males trying to impress the females. One might argue that the gender-switching phenomenon only exists because the cyber world is a fantasy that bears little to no resemblance of reality, and thus males put in a female's position can overlook the physical aggression of the "male gaze" felt in real-life encounters. I find it extremely interesting that males would find female characters attractive to play because of the perceived bonuses that they get from the rest of the playerbase, while females might find the attention overbearing and unwanted; accepting gifts from others makes the character seem in a way "promiscuous," a trait which a male behind the character would be willing to exploit (possibly virtual consumerism?). The female on the other hand often finds herself in an uncomfortable position (perhaps because she is looking to socialize and is commodified instead?). Clearly there is quite a high degree of incomprehension between the genders based on perception/understanding, which influences impressions taken from experiences even if one is to "walk in the shoes" of the other gender (i.e. using a fantasy virtual-reality approach to promote feminism won't work). How does one ameliorate this difference? Sujean's and Claire's posts referred to the increasing objectification of men in modern media - does this really seem to be the answer (objectify everyone so they're all equal), or should we be working to eliminate objectification altogether?

In an excerpt from Ways of Seeing, John Berger discusses the idea of the self, and how this "self" is different for women and men. While the male's sense of self is independent of his appearance or behavior, suggesting "what he is capable of doing to you or for you," the female's identity is intertwined with her "image of herself"-- "A woman's presence expresses her own attitude to herself and defines what can and cannot be done to her. Her presence is manifest in her gestures, voice, opinions, expressions, clothes, chosen surroundings, taste-- indeed there is nothing she can do which does not contribute to her presence." If this is what determines how women are seen and whether or not they are taken seriously by others, will it ever be possible to have a society where relations between the sexes are equal? Is there any way to transcend this kind of inequality if it is so ingrained in the ways in which we see ourselves, behave towards ourselves, and exist in the world in general?

Oct. 23rd

In examining "the gaze", John Berger states that this oppressive, male gaze is active, while Laura Mulvey states that it is another manifestation of an "unconscious" patriarchal structure. How active is this "gaze"? I think that determining the answer to this question is crucial in figuring out how to fight it, and answer the answer that Claire poses. In addition, how must women fight off this gaze? Based on my personal account, I feel that I have seen a backlash in the media today, in which women impose a female "gaze" that objectifies men as well. Are women justified in doing so? If not, what other measures can be taken?

Oct 23rd discussion

In "Ways of Seeing," John Berger explains the problem of perspective as the insistence on a single, objective way of seeing.  Berger examines perspective as applied to Renaissance painting. Laura Mulvey raises the same question in film, where "the camera becomes the mechanism for producing an illusion of Renaissance space," ie the illusion of an objective reality that is only based on what the camera sees. Mulvey's solution is to free the camera from this position and acknowledge its subjectivity. This is the same solution that Sarah offered in discussion last week: to acknowledge one's assumptions and social location in order to try to achieve some sense of objectivity. How can we apply this to looking, in order to look without objectifying?