What's Wrong With the Female Gaze?

@jazzabel, agreed, that's why I didn't lament the lack of women cat-calling after men, winking at them, complimenting their butts, pinching them etc. Sure, a lot of men would love it if they did those things, but we, as a species, sadly aren't ready for that yet if we ever will be (doubtful, especially as long as women are encouraged to stay weak and physically less capable, kinda like what I ranted about in the previous blog post).

Anyway, I also meant non-IRL situations, like women who write stories, produce visual art etc. They don't need to worry about guys getting sexually aggressive if they show their attraction towards male skin, but still female-produced art usually doesn't have such a strong sexual gaze aimed at the male characters than in male-produced art depicting female characters, be it literature, visual art, or even music. Sans the exceptions of course.
For example, I remember in high school how guys could perform songs about fucking girls etc. and nobody would bat an eye, but more than once girls who chose to perform "sexy" songs indicating attraction to guys, they got some shit down their necks (from guys and girls alike) for doing so.

Sure, nature probably plays a part in it all, but nurture also has its role in indoctrinating women and especially girls to not only avoid expressing their sexuality, but to antagonize those females who do, even when it's something they do in safe environments such as writing novels, drawing, painting, or writing music. And that sucks.

@jazzabel, I think you should definitely do what your vision dictates and to hell with those who can't handle it. If someone's so stupid they can't accept women writing about females who actually enjoy sex and don't shy away from it either, they are too stupid for their opinion to matter. The whole notion that women shouldn't explore or discuss, much less celebrate their sexuality is idiotic and, as a notion, it should've been obsolete the moment some jackass first thought of it.

I'm actually facing a similar situation but from a slightly different angle: if I, as a guy, end up writing sexually active female characters, I'm easily labeled as a wanker only coming up with weak excuses to get my female characters naked no matter the actual reasons, motivations etc. behind the scene. It's even worse if the women aren't always straight, and while I don't lose any sleep over what others think of me, I'm not doing this alone, so often I hesitate about writing sexually active female characters of any sexuality just so I don't stigmatize our stories as crappy wankerism, as if it's impossible for any man to ever write a decent female character unless she's basically asexual and frigid to boot.
Luckily I write with a woman so if I do have a sexually active female MC, we can always claim she was Kat's character. In all seriousness, such narrow-mindedness is pretty annoying and artistically limiting unless you can ignore it. I just don't get why it has to be that way? Sure, I've read some pretty horrible female characters written by male authors who've used the character as a conduit for their own sexual fantasies, but that doesn't mean all male authors are as bad or share their motives. But I guess it's too much to ask to not be lumped together with a bunch of such literary "greats,"

It's too bad people are still so afraid of female sexuality, as if it was still a taboo subject, something we shouldn't talk or write about. I can imagine it being even worse for visual artists.
In a way this veers close to another blog post of mine about female guitarists: often they have a hard time getting any respect, being taken seriously, and they have to prove themselves over and over again no matter how good they are.
It's a double-edged sword in two ways: first, they get more exposure easily because they are rare, but the exposure usually garners them no respect. Instead they're seen as sideshow freaks. Second, if they're pretty, they have even less credibility as serious musicians, people pay attention to them because of their looks, they are treated like sex objects (e.g. they are shot in skimpy outfits and sexy poses in magazine shoots if they want to be in the magazine *cough* Metal Hammer *cough*). If they're overweight or plain, they are ridiculed for not being pretty or skinny and they won't get as much exposure than their prettier, possibly less skilled counterparts. So no matter what they do, what they are like, they're the wrong kind.

I think the same applies to just about all areas of the entertainment industry although writers generally don't have it quite that bad since we don't need to show our faces to produce and distribute our art. Doesn't mean things are the way they should be...

@jannert, then Scottish guys are lucky.

About the younger guys; you said they wear baggy shorts, probably ones that reach or are below the knees, right? If so, that's what I'm talking about. If young guys want to look good in the eyes of girls (and what straight or bi youths don't?), they can't wear 70s style short shorts (unless Scottish girls are far more open-minded than e.g. Finnish girls) much less anything like hot pants or some such even when the weather would justify that. Girls, on the other hand, can and do, and guys love it.

Do you know how demanding the local girls are when it comes to shirtless guys? Do they only show positive attention towards slim, six-packy guys with no (shaved or waxed) body hair? Or can a pudgy or skeletal youth with body hair get girls (without being a celeb or rich)?
Over here, you do need to have low body fat and at least a bit of muscle if you're a guy and want to avoid sneers and laughter when you take off your shirt even though some will label you a show-off.

On principle I agree. However, I'm pretty familiar with the music industry and sometimes the artist doesn't have the final say when it comes to things like promo materials etc. unless they're influential enough. E.g. a Finnish punkrock band, Bitch Alert, would've been featured in an issue of Metal Hammer (one of the biggest rock and metal magazines in the world, i.e. a big fucking deal for such a small band), but when the lead singer and drummer (both girls) refused to dress sexy and kneel before the bassist guy sitting on a throne and lick his boots like his BDSM bitches, the whole interview was cancelled and their career took a pretty serious hit. At least they got to keep their self-respect if nothing else...

Sadly, that's not an isolated case either, and the music industry is notorious for exploiting especially women and especially in rock circles, as if it's impossible for a woman to be a rock musician and become successful simply due to her skills without drawing attention to her sex-appeal. Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but the rule still is that the women are strongly sexualized and notably more so than male musicians who usually get to keep their clothes on (if they so choose).

The same goes for pretty much the whole entertainment industry to varying degrees and even sports, to a certain extent; if you're a beautiful woman, you get sponsorship deals and attention much more easily than less photogenic individuals (even if they outshine you in your sport) or even handsome male athletes, but at least in most sports, if you win, there comes a point when you can no longer be ignored.

It just can't be mere a coincidence that a simple image search of, say, female MMA fighters yields plenty of sexy underwear photos, even nudes, whereas searching for images of male MMA fighters shows them either in the ring or in promo shots where they wear their competition outfits (nowadays practically always baggy, knee-length board shorts) or normal clothes. Even women's competition outfits tend to be more revealing.

I just wonder if things would be at least a bit different if women were more liberated (and weren't judged) about expressing their sexuality and their appreciation of the male form, i.e. maybe we'd actually see more scantily clad, sexier images of male artists and athletes in image searches if there was a lot of demand for them?

@jannert, the only thing I can think of is starting the slow process of changing societies through changing individuals through affecting their attitudes with new ideas even if they go against what they've been taught all their lives. Maybe we'll see results in, oh, a century or so.

@jazzabel, that reminds me of the Edmund Burke quote: "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

I'm not surprised in the least about the opera example because societies in general judge women by what they are, especially their looks, and men by what they do, their actions; women should be passive and weak, men should be active and strong.

Furthermore, this dichotomy is constantly perpetuated by men and women in a myriad of different ways ranging from the differences between toys marketed for boys (action figurines to identify with, Lego castles to build, foot- and basketballs to compete with, video games to beat etc.) and toys intended for girls (toy ovens, baby dolls, those heads you can groom with different hairstyles and make-up, Bratz and Barbie dolls to sap their self-esteem if they don't have tiny waists and big tits at 10yo etc.) to how girls are discouraged from sports ("if you train hard and lift weights heavier than a pencil, you'll get muscles as big as Arnold! And you'll lose what little tits you have and look like a 12yo boy! You'd look like a gross freak!") and musicianship, especially metal, punk, and other more aggressive genres ('cause good girls only listen to classical music or radio pop) through ridicule, disrespect, and focusing on their beauty (or lack thereof, according to the Western beauty ideals) instead of their skill.

It's not even just discouragement since sometimes girls are discouraged through encouragement: they are encouraged to like and do normal things like cooking, cleaning, wanting babies, shopping, aerobic exercise (and not too much of that either) etc. even if that means they'd need to sacrifice what they love for something about which they don't give two shits. They are encouraged to dress and look pretty by complimenting their looks when they wear make-up and a dress after getting a nice haircut at the beauty salon while they are discouraged from wearing athletic outfits, practical haircuts, and comfortable shoes like sneakers or combat boots that don't damage their feet and legs in the long run, from bruising and spraining their bodies in contact sports etc.etc.etc.
The list goes on and the end-result is that way too many girls will grow into passive and weak women with poor self-esteem (especially if they have small tits, i.e. they aren't "feminine" or some bs like that) even if they would've turned out active and strong if allowed to follow their true dreams.

The way I see it, women's sexuality has been so thoroughly suffocated over the past centuries that even if there are some places now where women could start to reclaim it, most are so indoctrinated to think they aren't allowed to do so that they either don't realize they have that option or they don't know how to do it. Kinda like the elephant and the twig: if you tie an elephant to a heavy rock or massive tree it can't unroot, it tries to escape but can't, so once it has learned that, you can tie the rope to a damn twig and the strong elephant won't even try to escape because it doesn't realize the rope would give way if it just gave it a tug.

Then again, that's hardly a surprise since even today most girls are still indoctrinated from birth to hide their sexuality, to be ashamed of it and their bodies unless they do look like barbies, to ignore their own sexual likes and dislikes, and only act according to some pattern devised by the society and upheld by the people around them. And if they dare break out of that chokehold, they are punished by being called sluts and whores, by being judged and antagonized, by being rejected and shunned by even their families, but especially by men who are so weak, they fear empowered women and hence antagonize them because they can't handle the notion that they can't control those women.
Likewise, other women also react in a hostile manner at least partly because of the crab (no pun intended) syndrome: if you have a bucketful of live crabs and one tries to escape, the others pull it back down. If one woman breaks free from the restraints, others who are still shackled see it as their sacred duty to drag her back down into the fold.

So many guys are happy with the double standard of them fucking dozens of girls but they wouldn't want an equally experienced girl as a girlfriend much less a wife. It's the age-old virgin/whore -thing: they want to fuck plenty of whores and then marry a virgin who's a whore in bed, a saint outside it while they should be accepted as they are, having slept with as many girls as they could. By God if the girl has actually more partners in her sexual past than the guy...

I also believee even that boils down to control and the fear of losing it: women who have reclaimed their sexuality can't be controlled as easily, so how do some men try to remedy that? By trying to destroy what makes the women free, i.e. dangerous; their sexuality. What better way to do this than by rape? We've all heard the phrases uttered either as jokes or excuses: "she's a fucking slut, she loves sex, so how could it be rape? I just gave her exactly what she wanted," "see how scantily she was dressed? Any woman in an outfit like that is asking for it," "she fucks everybody, so of course I thought she wanted to fuck me too. No wonder I thought she meant 'yes' when she said 'no.'"

That fear of not being able to control women stems from weakness and cowardice. Luckily not all men are weak cowards, but way too many are. It's just too bad it's illegal to reduce overpopulation by shooting them...