422 karma · joined January 10, 2014
To be clear, lay offs can be caused by fuck ups, but not all are.
And some people critique your critique. Why do you get upset when people critique you? Why do you dismiss any feminist thought?
No problem, but the point is that your perspective doesn't apply to this project.
> Not only that, you make assertions that the website's intent is only to view art pieces from a male gaze, when the About clearly has criticism towards male objectification.
This is why I suggested in the other comment that you're getting emotional. I never asserted that. Didn't even imply it. This is completely made up.
> You've continuously dismissed any criticism of the website. This is extremely obvious.
If it's extremely obvious, then you should have problem quoting where I did that.
> First, you state that the website is merely trying to look at art pieces from a non-male gaze perspective.
Quote please.
> Then, when shown an About Me where there is criticism of the male perspective, you argue that the "male gaze" does not mean men checking out women.
It does not mean checking out women.
> When presented with multiple definitions, you cherry-pick the Wikipedia one
I presented two sources which both said the same thing. That's not what cherry picking means.
> ignore my arguments that assert that the "male gaze" can't be decoupled from the real world concept because then it wouldn't make any sense.
I'm ignoring it because it doesn't make sense. You're trying to tie two different things together that are separate concepts, and then blaming me for not agreeing with you.
> And then you claim this whole time, you've actually understood what my and other's arguments against the website has been, despite prior dismissing everything we said.
Quote please. It's not that I don't understand your argument. It's that your argument only works if you redefine what male gaze means. You can't redefine something that has an existing definition just because it suits your arguoment.
> Why is that a terrible conclusion?
So any bad thing that men do is no longer bad if women do it to? Is that a serious position? Haha.
> You've completely absolved all criticism of feminist thought.
Quote please.
> Why do you think male sexuality is a bad thing but female sexuality expression is good?
Quote please.
> That sounds pretty sexist to me.
If you can quote where I said male sexuality is bad, then that would be sexist. But you can't. Because I didn't.
This constant tactic of inventing things out of thin air is getting tired. Please stop.
Now you’ve left another reply to the same comment, just more emotional this time.
The reason you aren’t seeing a reply link is because you’re trying to reply too fast and are getting rate limited. Instead of trying to get around it and post emotional responses, just patiently wait until the reply link shows up and then reply to my post directly. Please calm down, there’s no reason to get this upset.
Again, please don’t reply to this comment and start yet another thread. Reply to our existing thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34071819
I think I see what the issue is. You are referring to male gaze, whereas I'm referring to Male Gaze. That's fine, but this project is about Male Gaze, or rather Female Gaze.
Male Gaze has a definition, and it does not include general objectification of women, which already has a term: objectification.
> The definition from what source?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_gaze
"In feminist theory, the male gaze is the act of depicting women and the world in the visual arts[2] and in literature[3] from a masculine, heterosexual perspective that presents and represents women as sexual objects for the pleasure of the heterosexual male viewer.[4] In the visual and aesthetic presentations of narrative cinema, the male gaze has three perspectives: (i) that of the man behind the camera, (ii) that of the male characters within the film's cinematic representations; and (iii) that of the spectator gazing at the image.[5][6]"
https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-does-the-male-gaz...
"The “gaze” is a term that describes how viewers engage with visual media. Originating in film theory and criticism in the 1970s, the gaze refers to how we look at visual representations. These include advertisements, television programs and cinema."
> I am not being dishonest here, the original project has commentary that is critique of the male gaze. If you can't acknowledge that, you're being dishonest.
Exactly. It is a critique of the Male Gaze, a term which has an established definition that does not include general objectification. If you can't acknowledge that, you're being dishonest.
> "For decades, it has been discussed in which ways depictions of women in art... Laura Mulvey coins the term “The Male Gaze” back in 1975 in her essay Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema arguing how women in especially movies would be objectified and fetishized, empowering the male heterosexual movie-creator and male heterosexual audience."
Did you notice that you just included the definition of male gaze from the person who coined the term, and it is the definition that I've been using?
> This is from the very website. Your premise that the intent of the website has no motives is not correct.
Where did I claim they have no motive?
> And my initial statements in regards to there being examples of media objectifying men through a "female gaze" stands, hence the premise that the "male gaze" is a bad thing, is wrong.
Again, these paintings were created decades, or centuries before your examples of female gaze existed.
And you are now implying that if a female gaze exists, then a male gaze cannot be wrong? That's obviously a terrible conclusion.
> I clearly understand you want to use “the male gaze” purely in the context of static art where the men often impose their objectification of women into paintings which are then praised. Fine. I don’t agree that you can decouple the real world act of “gazing” with the art definition of “gazing”.
This isn’t about what I want. This about the what the term “male gaze” refers to. You’ll notice I didn’t limit my definition to static painting. My definition is how women are portrayed in visual media. You are trying to impose your own definition on to a term that already exists and has its own definition.
> Again, you’re trying to decouple “the male gaze” from general objectification.
Again, I’m not trying to do anything. I am using the term according to its definition.
> If you purely want to see a different end result if you remove “the male gaze”, okay, but you should clearly state that. The idea you can decouple real world objectification of women from “the male gaze” and expect people to infer your literal definition is dishonest. In every colloquial sense, the male gaze is a representation of male objectification of women, whether you like it or not.
No, the male gaze refers to how women are portrayed in visual media, which is what this project is about. There is already at term for female objectification. It’s “female objectification”.
You are being dishonest by trying to redefine an already established term.
So let’s bring this back to the project. What is your specific issue with this project? In answering, keep in mind that the Sex Lives of College Girls didn’t exist when those paintings were created. Neither did gyms.
No, it is not, and this is why you're having a hard time understanding the purpose of this project, because you've decided that male gaze means something it doesn't, and are arguing from that perspective.
> In modern contexts, it's clear criticism of "the gaze" is criticism of the objectification of women. It's argued that it's "harmful" in art, as it represents objectification of women.
Again, no. The male gaze is a specific term that refers to how women are portrayed in visual media.
Let's also keep in mind your example of the Sex Live of College Girls is 2 years old. The art used by this project is much much older. These time periods are not comparable.
That's not true. The first two sentences in your first post:
> Has the creator never been to a gym full of attractive men with fit bodies, and observed women oogling at the men? Has the creator never observed how straight women will oogle at men with handsome faces?
What you are describing is the literal act of gazing. Your next two sentences are about media, but still mostly about the act of gazing. They had nothing to do with how men are portrayed by women directors, which would be the actual female gaze.
> Whether you like it or not, the gaze is in the context of film and not just static art.
I agree. But it's not about the literal act of gazing, which is what your original post was referring to.
Your whole argument is centred on the act of gazing, not perspective in art.
Let me give an example. I'm sitting on park bench gazing at a woman walking by me. I am a male, and I am gazing, but that it not the male gaze.
Both figuratively and literally, given that it allows you to control the lighting :)
> Because, We can't create new works of the past and we can't remix them to make something originally genuine with accurate intent.
I'm not sure what you mean by genuine, but changing the intent is the whole point.
> So... what is it you're saying exactly?
Exploring historical art from new perspectives is interesting and valuable.
No, that is completely incorrect. Watch the intro video again.
The most famous piece of art is the modern world is the Mona Lisa. Historical art carries much more weight than modern art in almost all cases. Just like we continue to examine and analyze historical events/people/etc, I don't see why we wouldn't also do that with art.
If you had to guess, what do you think the ratio is of men to women, in terms of well known artists in those time periods?
> On the second level: outside observation is a valid truth, what one person sees is not the same as that person themselves sees.
No one is denying that. The premise here is that other perspectives, or valid truths, were not seen because the observers were almost always men. Even passive observing can introduce biases, which is why we have things like double blind trials.
Do you not believe it's interesting to try and imagine what art might look like from different perspectives?
In practise, SAR is free in Canada no matter where you are. There are hundreds and hundreds of SAR calls in BC per year, and not a single person rescued has been required to pay a cent. Many of them do make donations though as a token of thanks.
[1] https://vancouversun.com/news/costs-still-being-tallied-afte...
Not in Canada. SAR is completely free in Canada for the reason you've basically alluded to in your next paragraph.
> but I can absolutely understand why people would wait a bit longer than they should before pressing.
I've been to a number of presentations from the local SAR, and whenever they're asked about this, they say that the reason SAR has no cost is precisely because they never want people to hesitate before pressing the button or making the call.
:)
And with that lovely validation, I am out.
Are we going to keep going, or should we just stop?
At this point it’s quite clear that you really just want to have the last word. You haven’t contributed anything of substance to this thread, but will somehow feel emotionally fulfilled if you have the last comment.
So go ahead. Reply and tell me how wrong I am again. It will completely validate everything I just wrote, but I am interested to see whether you’re willing to do that in order to have the last comment in the thread. My prediction is that you lack the self control to stop yourself from replying, but we shall see :)
There are no mistakes in my thinking or writing. You made incorrect assumptions and then ran with them, which is funny because that's what you accused me of.