The readings this week looked at different ways of seeing, and in particular how ways of seeing influence identity formation and reception. In Ramadan is Almost Here! the Visual Culture of AIM Buddies, Race, Gender, and Nation on the Internet, Lisa Nakamura writes, "AIM buddy avatars do not stand alone to signify a disembodied self; instead they represent choices made by the user who wishes to build an online identity that is warranted by a preexisting offline relationship." Nakamura brings up the notion of identity as something that we can control based on visual signals we give off. At the same time, however, she suggests that identity is also dependent on how others interpret those signals. Given these two ideas, which one defines identity? Is our identity the product of others' perceptions of the signals we give off? Or is identity something only we can define for ourselves and attempt to convey to others through these signals?

Women and Art

It makes sense that art has been/is(?) dominated by men; after all, if art is an academic activity, then women have, naturally, been shut out of that realm for the greater part of human history. Salons and formal academies in France were all organized by men, and almost always exclusive to men. It's therefore easy to see why, in "European nude[s], the painters and spectator-owners were usually men and the persons treated as objects usually women" (Berger). However, Nakamura's article on digital media made me question why sexism exists on the internet to such a high degree. In a domain like the internet, one can assume any identity imaginable, and there is virtually no limit to who can post what and where one can post it. Why, then, does it feel like an overwhelming number of software/web developers are male? What is keeping women from being more present in digital media, where criticism (for being female) can easily be dodged because of the anonymous nature of the internet? I don't mean to say or sound as if I believe that women should have to hide behind the identity of a man to publish things on the internet/be present in the digital media realm, but I just think that in such an open forum as the internet, one would assume that it would be a "place" of greater heterogeneity.

I also just want to add that in middle school, everyone used to make those "dollz," and everyone had one as their AIM buddy icon. I'm absolutely horrified that, as a little 13-year-old, I bought into this junk, especially because only now have I realized how wrong these things are. Realizations like these really make me believe that Women's and Gender Studies classes should be included in middle school (or at least high school) curriculums. Would this ever be possible?

It was an extremely interesting experience reading the article by bell hooks.  Although a bit dated, her words/claims/writing spoke - essentially - about me.  I'm trying to figure out whether I possess this oppositional gaze - whether I would classify/express it in such a manner that she describes (and claims other women to have described).  I'm trying look inside myself and examine how I regard movies.  I think that I look at all movies with a fairly critical eye -- it's not necessarily active...more of a subconscious type of action that triggers a radar anytime I see something questionable.  I feel as if when I do notice things, my realizations are separate - either about race OR gender OR class, etc.  So when bell hooks combines these things (at least the first two, in this case), it's a bit jarring.  Yet I think it's interesting to think about the lack of intersectionality of my thoughts (when watching movies), I wonder whether there's a bigger implication to this.  What would bell hooks say about the black female having separated "oppositional gazes," not one singular 'all-encompassing' oppositional gaze?  What value/merit (if any) is there in these separations as compared to the all-encompassing one?

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?