Author Topic: The increasing popularity of The Male Gaze.  (Read 13832 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Auggziliary

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1185
  • Gender: Female
  • Queen of the birdies
Re: The increasing popularity of The Male Gaze.
« Reply #45 on: December 29, 2012, 06:50:52 pm »
Re, "Nice Guys:"  Altruism does not work that way.

Also, "increasing popularity?"  ...Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the "male gaze" been popular pretty much since the dawn of humanity, most notably in more patriarchal societies?  This isn't some new phenomenon, and its prevalence isn't something new, either.  The thing is, we're more aware of it, nowadays.  We've got the internet, and its accessibility is bordering on universal.  The generations alive today (and those of tomorrow) have access to a broader, deeper range of information than at any other point in human history.  This allows us to really see just how wide-spread certain ideas are, to understand the true scope of that which is our nature as a species.

Its not the popularity that's increased, but our ability to see it on a global scale.  The same thing applies to, say, the prevalence of crimes, or the levels of depravity to which certain religious organizations can reach.  We see more, we hear more, but not necessarily because there is more, we've just got better access to it, now.

Dude, compare Barbie to Monster High.  Both are marketed at the same people: elementary-age girls.  Both are made by Mattel.  One has been in continuous production, in more or less its present form, for about 50 years now; the other is completely brand-new.

Barbie has D-cup breasts, yes, but she has a straight back.  She is standing erect like a normal human being.  The only things that you can really complain about are her feet (which are designed that way so she can fit into the high-heeled shoes properly--jointed ankles on dolls tend not to work out so well) and her skinny waist (which has been improved over the years to be not nearly as anorexic).

You can't tell it as much when they're in the package, but the Monster High girls have badly bent spines.  They may only have the equivalent of a B-cup, but they're thrusting it out about as far as Barbie's chest, and it looks really weird from the side.  What is obvious is how much more exaggerated everything is: the heads are proportionally much larger and cartoonish, sure, but their torsos and limbs are scary-thin and elongated like Bratz.  Monster High dolls and Bratz dolls can wear the same clothing, because they're both nightmarishly thin; Barbies can't squeeze into the clothes of either doll line.

Speaking of Bratz, look at the makeup.  Both of those Mattel dolls are wearing heavy makeup, but the faces still look like pretty high-school girls with reasonable proportions (again, Monster High exaggerates the size of the eyes a bit, because it's more cartoonish).  But Bratz has HUGE, pouty red lips--a typical indicator of female sexuality.  It's been exaggerated to the point that it doesn't even look cute anymore; it's just ugly and creepy-looking, and vaguely reminiscent of racist minstrel shows.  The Bratz line only sells at all anymore through sheer inertia; the line was popular when it debuted in 2000 and has slumped since.

This sort of broken-spine, huge-lipped foolishness literally did not exist in the dolls that were marketed to me when I was a little girl.  It is being marketed to little girls now.  And it is transparently used to accentuate curves and other sexual features while simultaneously making a figure that is stick-thin to a degree not possible in a human being.

I don't really think Bratz dolls are more sexy or whatever than Barbie. They are creepy looking, but they just look like really stylized and exaggerated, rather than extra sexy. When I look at a Barbie doll, it seems like they're making a realistic version of an ideal, whereas the Bratz dolls look like a normal tween girl if her features were extremely exaggerated.
I find both dolls terrifying though, to be honest.
BITCHES! YOU BITCHES! Killing me won't bring back your God damn honey!

Offline Material Defender

  • Food Scientist in Space
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 959
  • Gender: Male
  • Pilot of the Pyro-GX
Re: The increasing popularity of The Male Gaze.
« Reply #46 on: December 30, 2012, 09:19:45 am »
Re, "Nice Guys:"  Altruism does not work that way.

Also, "increasing popularity?"  ...Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the "male gaze" been popular pretty much since the dawn of humanity, most notably in more patriarchal societies?  This isn't some new phenomenon, and its prevalence isn't something new, either.  The thing is, we're more aware of it, nowadays.  We've got the internet, and its accessibility is bordering on universal.  The generations alive today (and those of tomorrow) have access to a broader, deeper range of information than at any other point in human history.  This allows us to really see just how wide-spread certain ideas are, to understand the true scope of that which is our nature as a species.

Its not the popularity that's increased, but our ability to see it on a global scale.  The same thing applies to, say, the prevalence of crimes, or the levels of depravity to which certain religious organizations can reach.  We see more, we hear more, but not necessarily because there is more, we've just got better access to it, now.

Dude, compare Barbie to Monster High.  Both are marketed at the same people: elementary-age girls.  Both are made by Mattel.  One has been in continuous production, in more or less its present form, for about 50 years now; the other is completely brand-new.

Barbie has D-cup breasts, yes, but she has a straight back.  She is standing erect like a normal human being.  The only things that you can really complain about are her feet (which are designed that way so she can fit into the high-heeled shoes properly--jointed ankles on dolls tend not to work out so well) and her skinny waist (which has been improved over the years to be not nearly as anorexic).

You can't tell it as much when they're in the package, but the Monster High girls have badly bent spines.  They may only have the equivalent of a B-cup, but they're thrusting it out about as far as Barbie's chest, and it looks really weird from the side.  What is obvious is how much more exaggerated everything is: the heads are proportionally much larger and cartoonish, sure, but their torsos and limbs are scary-thin and elongated like Bratz.  Monster High dolls and Bratz dolls can wear the same clothing, because they're both nightmarishly thin; Barbies can't squeeze into the clothes of either doll line.

Speaking of Bratz, look at the makeup.  Both of those Mattel dolls are wearing heavy makeup, but the faces still look like pretty high-school girls with reasonable proportions (again, Monster High exaggerates the size of the eyes a bit, because it's more cartoonish).  But Bratz has HUGE, pouty red lips--a typical indicator of female sexuality.  It's been exaggerated to the point that it doesn't even look cute anymore; it's just ugly and creepy-looking, and vaguely reminiscent of racist minstrel shows.  The Bratz line only sells at all anymore through sheer inertia; the line was popular when it debuted in 2000 and has slumped since.

This sort of broken-spine, huge-lipped foolishness literally did not exist in the dolls that were marketed to me when I was a little girl.  It is being marketed to little girls now.  And it is transparently used to accentuate curves and other sexual features while simultaneously making a figure that is stick-thin to a degree not possible in a human being.

They always seemed more exaggerated for the sake of cartoonishness as opposed to 'look this way' because they do not appear to be real people. They do not have the 'realism' for lack of a better word of barbie. This kind of setup means that they aren't meant to be an example, just meant to be a toy. I mean when I grew up I had a lot of action figures of ripped, muscley men in tight clothing. I felt no urge or great desire to replicate their careers or body type. They were honestly just toys to me. Even the ones with any regard for realism and ignoring the ones not intended in any regard that way. I think things involved around enforcing female roles in play, like houses, baby dolls, and cooking items are far more damaging than shitty, cartoony dolls. This whole concept of fat is bad and the concepts society as a whole are teaching kid's a lot more than these dolls. I didn't feel uncomfortable about being fat until I was in High School and was learning about all these awful things about being fat (Which is more caused by having a horrid diet than being fat, at least the majority of things). I also became much more concerned over my appearance in high school, having the urge to try to figure out how to build muscle but too self-consciousness to go to a gym with people in it. I think girls are hit with the image train early or I got on it late since I'm autistic.

I also had a barbie doll someone gave me that got set on fire. I forget the circumstances of that.
The material needs a defender more than the spiritual. If there is a higher power, it can defend itself from the material. Thus denotes 'higher power'.

"Not to know is bad. Not to want to know is worse. Not to hope is unthinkable. Not to care is unforgivable." -Nigerian Saying

Offline Auggziliary

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1185
  • Gender: Female
  • Queen of the birdies
Re: The increasing popularity of The Male Gaze.
« Reply #47 on: December 30, 2012, 09:49:18 am »
I hated the barbie dolls my parents got me. I remember I sacrificed a few of them to the Beanie Baby's god.
BITCHES! YOU BITCHES! Killing me won't bring back your God damn honey!

Offline Material Defender

  • Food Scientist in Space
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 959
  • Gender: Male
  • Pilot of the Pyro-GX
Re: The increasing popularity of The Male Gaze.
« Reply #48 on: December 30, 2012, 01:12:04 pm »
I hated the barbie dolls my parents got me. I remember I sacrificed a few of them to the Beanie Baby's god.

They aren't really that interesting if you aren't into dress up. I mean, I enjoyed armoring up my playmobiles and lego people, but that was to play war. Always loved to play made up wargames with my toys and my brother.
The material needs a defender more than the spiritual. If there is a higher power, it can defend itself from the material. Thus denotes 'higher power'.

"Not to know is bad. Not to want to know is worse. Not to hope is unthinkable. Not to care is unforgivable." -Nigerian Saying

Offline NonProphet

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 55
  • Bowties are cool.
Re: The increasing popularity of The Male Gaze.
« Reply #49 on: January 07, 2013, 03:02:42 am »
Relating to the book covers:
I don't see much of a problem with the pose of the character in the 3rd one (any more than with the first), but her expression & lack of Navajo features are a bit annoying. As is the open jacket, considering she's in a place that's similar in climate to Northern Siberia (or colder).
Now, as for the character's body type on the 3rd cover... yes, she is normally more full-figured. It's likely that the artist took too much of a liberty with the body type (or used a stock model, which happens often). I agree that the overall image suffers for it.

As for the comments about the 3rd cover's woman looking "skeletal": No. The model used might have had that body type.
While I am one of the first to be up in arms about curvy & full-figured women being insulted because of their body types, I also cannot stand it when people insult slender & thin women for the same.
I'm not saying you're doing it, TheL, but I've been seeing it too often lately & it's hypocritical. Maybe I'll post something about it in F&B.

...Sorry, rant/hijack over.

I'm not saying "I don't think Yana should be skinny."  I am saying, "This picture makes it look like the person's bones are literally showing."  That is what I mean by skeletal.  I am totally fine with skinny people.
Ohhh. I must have misunderstood through the haze of body-type hate that I've been seeing all over the internet lately. I should remember that most FSTDTers are better than that.