Personally I’m one or two stupid comments away from putting a doornob in a sock and beating dumb people with it.

I did not simply say “Mulvey said so” and I also did indicate that she has since revised her work concerning the ‘male gaze’.

Please note that this does not make her initial theory WRONG. A theory by definition is something to be examined and argued against and modified. That’s why it’s a THEORY and not a FACT. But I imagine you know all this.

Mulvey’s original points “demonstrating the way the unconscious of patriarchal society has structured film form” are still important and relevant . The idea of the “gaze” and the codes denoting the “to-be-looked-at-ness” of females privileges the male when we examine cinematic gaze / photographic gaze.

I think you should practice what you preach. Perhaps you should have engaged in discourse, or screaming, instead of “just flailing your arms instead”!

Good point, there, Sherry.

In response to Tudor’s-initial-splurge, I must admit that I’m also getting QUITE tired of the open acceptance of theoretical suggestion. I flipped my lid in a bar a few months ago discussing Mulvey with Fono and Katie-his-ladyfriend, but that was probably just the booze. Since then, it’s been bubbling up again…

Wait a minute, here.
‘Open acceptance of theoretical suggestion’ isn’t what bothers me, come-to-think.

‘Immediate acceptance of popular academic theoretical suggestion’ is a more tightly-honed identification of The Bother.

I think that by the end of one’s university career, one must either come to grips with the university’s political/ideological views and decide whether or not to embrace them or simply strangle them. Professors, especially at higher levels, often present theory as fact hoping either to inspire legions of followers or spark debate; it may be sad that so many followers and so little debate are generated, but so the academic community is built.

It may also be sad that, depending on your professor, program, and the ideology of your university your attempts to engage in debate may label you as a dangerous radical or right-wing fanatic rather than a curious or thoughtful arguer.

This and other small hypocrisies make up our so-called freedom of speech.

Or left-wing fanatic?

So who forced Tudor to wear makeup last year? Women?

I’m a woman, but I feel like I’m doing drag when I wear makeup. That’s a tangent.

I felt influenced by culture - needing, as a woman, to wear makeup - and when I came out, I made the realization that I was fulfilling the part of my culture that demanded I wear it.

That said, it was even more important when I realized that my culture wasn’t created by one person, by one gender … that everyone had a hand in creating and perpetuating it.

I’m not nearly as educated as you folks are, and I don’t give a shit about whose brain is larger. But, these questions are important, these dialogues are important. So continue flinging these grandly syllabic words around, and keep thinking. Don’t feel shitty, if you’re a boy, to fight a woman over what you think is a sexist ideology.

Although it may be easy to point a finger at Laurier profs and Laurier ideology, I think responsibility falls mainly on students who, skimming theory, reduce complex and highly contextual arguments to a one line mantra that they pull out of their asses at will, feeling that name dropping constitutes academic engagement. I think profs are exasperated with classes full of students who either have not read the material or else have reduced literary and social theories to soundbites. I’m sure profs would be ecstatic to argue with valid challenges to theories, but the student needs to take on the responsibility of active reading and critical thinking before that process can happen.

Mace, you bring up a wonderful point: there are very interesting cultural, social, economical, and sexual forces at work that shape our behaviour. If we had any sort of intellectual integrity, we would try to understand them insted of making silly assertions about men forcing women to wear makeup.

And Ikabod, I truly like Mulvey’s article about the gaze. She makes some interesting observations. However, I was bothered by your assertion that the photographic apparatus itself is inherently sexist. It isn’t. Mulvey makes the point that the dominant aesthetic favours the male gaze, but she never argues that the camera is a substitute for a penis.

Oh, and most theories are discarded because they are WRONG. We ingore most of Freud’s theories because they were convincingly defeated. Other theories like “the earth is the centre of the universe” and “man is inherently supperior to women” were also WRONG. Thus it is perfectly possible for some theories to be wrong. In the same way, Mulvey was wrong about some of her initial assertions and had to modify them.

What Tina’s described seems to be a general school/univeristy problem: “I know, let’s latch onto one guy’s ideas and just apply it to everything, ‘cause then I look smart and don’t have to read the rest of the course material! Yeah!”

Square peg, round hole.

I struggled with people exactly like you’ve described in my classes at UW - it frustrated the hell out of me.

As for social behavioural patterns and acceptable notions, I agree that men, women, everyone, and the camel they rode in on have an impact. We built this little system together, folks. Pointing fingers at men in general gives feminism (of whatever flavour you fancy - there’s multiple brands) a bad name.

[folds up the soap box and thanks the stars above that the English degree’s been in a frame for 2 years. Master’s degree? I think not!]