Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!ora!daemon From: rshapiro@arris.com (Richard Shapiro) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: Who gets to look Message-ID: <1990Nov20.162003.2539@arris.com> Date: 23 Nov 90 07:54:59 GMT References: <8654@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <658245246@lear.cs.duke.edu> <1990Nov11.171709.25842@arris.com> <1990Nov16.161821.17287@iti.org> <1990Nov17.155213.23767@arris.com> <13781@june.cs.washington.edu> Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz) Organization: ARRIS Pharmaceutical, Cambridge, MA Lines: 67 Approved: ambar@ora.com In article <13781@june.cs.washington.edu> Lea Fester writes: >[Richard Shapiro wrote:] >>Ending >>women's status as objects rather than subjects, the object seen rather >>than the seeing subject, must involve consideration of women's own >>self-identity, insofar as that identity is formed according to >>gendered positions of spectator and spectacle. >Another option is to render men objects as much as they are subjects. >(I differentiate this from simply making women subjects, that is, not >seen.) This gives women the option of being an objectifier rather >than an object. Or rather, since one cannot choose to not be an >object, treating men like objects as well at least brings parity into >the world. I'm not sure this would help, This kind of reversal tends to come off as a kind of parody, something not to be taken seriously (like Playgirl magazine or male strip joints). You're probably right that there's little to be done in the short term to end this gendered spectatorship. But there may be actions we can take that will be useful in the longer term: - Education. Many people don't even realize that this is an issue at all, or if they do realize it, they discount it. It helps (I think) to show people just how pervasive this set-up really is, and to theorize what its effects are. I believe that this is a crucial aspect of the oppression of women that is completely untouched by the liberal economic approaches: equal pay, equal job opportunities, etc. Not the latter are unimportant. But on their own, they will never be sufficient. - Self-criticism. That's a loaded term, I know. But it is important to recognize the self-image component of the gendered spectator. There was a report about a year ago in which it was found that, at the age of 5 (or so), girls and boys had more or less identical notions of self-image and self-worth. By the age of 10, girls had become overwhelmingly concerned over their appearance (whether they were "pretty") whereas boys became concerned over their relative strength (or how "tough" they were). In other words, women oppress themselves as much as men oppress them. >When I see some man >looking up the length of my body, I wait until he is looking at my >face so that he sees me looking at him, then I stare at his crotch. This might be called "phallocentric". Since the disappearance of the cod-piece, male genitals have ceased to be much of a spectacle in day to day life. So your action isn't really the converse of his action, but something else altogether. I'm not sure you really want to put such an emphasis on the guy's penis. Compare "length of my body" with "his crotch". Your entire body is on display, whereas only a tiny piece of him is (and it really isn't unless he's naked or wearing peculiar clothing). There's an elaborate theory of the central signifying role of the phallus as the primary signifier of gender. I don't want to try to get into that here, except to say that you may be encouraging this, unintentionally. Also, men would have to be subjected to this every day, for most of there lives, by a significant number of women, for this strategy to be effective. They would have to see themselves completely on display throughout public and private life. This would result in a kind of equality, and you may be right that it's more feasible than ending the female spectacle. I find that a depressing thought, but it may be a realistic one.