The "male gaze" invokes the sexual politics of the gaze and suggests a sexualised way of looking that empowers men and objectifies women. In the male gaze, woman is visually positioned as an "object" of heterosexual male desire. Her feelings, thoughts and her own sexual drives are less important than her being "framed" by male desire.
Supporters travelled <to London> from as far as South Wales and North Yorkshire on a sunny weekday January morning. Being part of this large group turned the abled-gaze back upon itself as we proudly and quietly took up space in the court room and corridors and made our presence felt.
One of the government’s proposed legal arguments was that the claimant was only taking the claim because she is excessively litigious. After seeing over 8 different wheelchair users, people with other visible impairments and non-disabled allies in court; this argument was never even raised. I think our point was made – through solidarity.
let me ponder on the subject in hand. I'll get back to you.
I really didn’t expect to be back! ("The cognescenti did, sam.") I’ve come in search of discussion deemed unacceptable (https://www.notanothercyclingforum.net/index.php?topic=2575.msg12387#msg12387) at CycleChat. If you'd rather not have it here either, I apologise in advance.Wow.
The Conversation: (https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-does-the-male-gaze-mean-and-what-about-a-female-gaze-52486)QuoteThe "male gaze" invokes the sexual politics of the gaze and suggests a sexualised way of looking that empowers men and objectifies women. In the male gaze, woman is visually positioned as an "object" of heterosexual male desire. Her feelings, thoughts and her own sexual drives are less important than her being "framed" by male desire.
Admit it guys, do you gaze malely?*
(https://i.imgur.com/VKZhh8N.jpg)
* I apologize unreservedly for that sentence on two counts: for saying "guys" as if you all were, and for making up a word that doesn't nicely roll off the tongue. (Google: "Did you mean "malery"? No I did not. But now that you mention it…
(https://i.imgur.com/FjA6zRR.jpg)
Mallory from Family Ties: "An unscholarly material girl, but kind-hearted and inoffensive, whose only main interests are shopping and boys.")
The following was on the BBC site. If you saw it, was your first thought related to Covid-19?
(https://i.imgur.com/QrpeerB.jpg)
Subliminal message: testing isn't so bad. In fact you'll like it.
Because images cause immediate unfiltered reactions – to paraphrase Tina Turner, what’s the prefrontal cortex got to do with it? – I'll admit mine wasn’t. This may be because I haven’t yet had a swab up my nose and down my throat. (Not that either are virgin territory: I’ve had both nasal and gastric endoscopies, the later unsedated. Which was particularly fun.)
When you first heard "the male gaze" did your eyes glaze over, or did you want to book yourself into the nearest media studies or self-improvement course?
(https://i.imgur.com/TgtgZYv.jpg)
"I'll be your tutor today."
Although this is directed at men, I'm equally interested in the female response.
ETAI started to watch that recently, mainly due to the huge crush I had on Ms Wilcox in my youth. I hadn’t noticed the nipple content initially, but in recent weeks I’ve become much more aware of it and have rather cynically wondered how deliberate it is to boost viewing numbers.
I recently made my bezzie mate Jane aware of the Toyah Willcox & Robert Fripp Sunday Lockdown Lunch (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khkKfMotNoI).
Jane confessed to struggling to watch it on account of the nipple content.
It isn't just a male ting.
Albeit the distraction may be there for different reasons.....
People find other people sexually attractive. Perhaps we should get over it. Of course, after about the fifteen minutes or so, your propriety circuit should kick in. I don't think it's so much a man thing, it just that women have learned not to be so obvious about it. They do the same, their eyes linger.This^
And honestly, why value attractiveness any different to any other attribute, like cleverness, they're both down to chance and genetics.
One upon a time, when I was looking to cyclists to haunt, I believe I innocently posted something to Cycle Chat. The response time before that was deleted was measured in milliseconds. They value a 'broad readership' apparently. The utter pile of fucks.
The nipple content isn't present in every episode.ETAI started to watch that recently, mainly due to the huge crush I had on Ms Wilcox in my youth. I hadn’t noticed the nipple content initially, but in recent weeks I’ve become much more aware of it and have rather cynically wondered how deliberate it is to boost viewing numbers.
I recently made my bezzie mate Jane aware of the Toyah Willcox & Robert Fripp Sunday Lockdown Lunch (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khkKfMotNoI).
Jane confessed to struggling to watch it on account of the nipple content.
It isn't just a male ting.
Albeit the distraction may be there for different reasons.....
People find other people sexually attractive. Perhaps we should get over it. Of course, after about the fifteen minutes or so, your propriety circuit should kick in. I don't think it's so much a man thing, it just that women have learned not to be so obvious about it. They do the same, their eyes linger.
I think that’s quite a male viewpoint. My wife was a teacher. When dressing for school she made sure her clothing wasn’t too “nipply”. But that was teaching adolescents. Out of school it mattered not a jot, she just doesn’t think about it. It’s not as if she has any control over them. Something we males can empathise with.
But, yeah, I do notice.
I really didn’t expect to be back! ("The cognescenti did, sam.") I’ve come in search of discussion deemed unacceptable (https://www.notanothercyclingforum.net/index.php?topic=2575.msg12387#msg12387) at CycleChat. If you'd rather not have it here either, I apologise in advance.I suspect a mod is jealous of your erudition and has been waiting for an excuse to punish you!
The Conversation: (https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-does-the-male-gaze-mean-and-what-about-a-female-gaze-52486)QuoteThe "male gaze" invokes the sexual politics of the gaze and suggests a sexualised way of looking that empowers men and objectifies women. In the male gaze, woman is visually positioned as an "object" of heterosexual male desire. Her feelings, thoughts and her own sexual drives are less important than her being "framed" by male desire.
Admit it guys, do you gaze malely?*
(https://i.imgur.com/VKZhh8N.jpg)
* I apologize unreservedly for that sentence on two counts: for saying "guys" as if you all were, and for making up a word that doesn't nicely roll off the tongue. (Google: "Did you mean "malery"? No I did not. But now that you mention it…
(https://i.imgur.com/FjA6zRR.jpg)
Mallory from Family Ties: "An unscholarly material girl, but kind-hearted and inoffensive, whose only main interests are shopping and boys.")
The following was on the BBC site. If you saw it, was your first thought related to Covid-19?
(https://i.imgur.com/QrpeerB.jpg)
Subliminal message: testing isn't so bad. In fact you'll like it.
Because images cause immediate unfiltered reactions – to paraphrase Tina Turner, what’s the prefrontal cortex got to do with it? – I'll admit mine wasn’t. This may be because I haven’t yet had a swab up my nose and down my throat. (Not that either are virgin territory: I’ve had both nasal and gastric endoscopies, the later unsedated. Which was particularly fun.)
When you first heard "the male gaze" did your eyes glaze over, or did you want to book yourself into the nearest media studies or self-improvement course?
(https://i.imgur.com/TgtgZYv.jpg)
"I'll be your tutor today."
Although this is directed at men, I'm equally interested in the female response.
I think the OP is really about the proprietorial attitude of some/many men towards women, and that they think it is OK to leer at women, stocking up the wankbank.Thanks, I was trying to work that out.
Although this is directed at men, I'm equally interested in the female response.
Is your response based purely on the term "female" or is it the juxtaposition of "men" with "female"?
Guinness WR records e.g. 100m records as male and female.
Though I'm not sure non-human objections to this practice are received/understood by their staff
When Ellen MacArthur completed her fantastic Vandee Globe circumnavigation and becam the second fastest ever to sail around the world1 it pissed me off that the British Media banged on about her being the fastest women to do so and rarely mentioned that only one other person had ever done it faster which I’m sure she was both more proud of and perhaps just a little pissed about. There are some competitions where the amount of testosterone in your body makes a material difference and it makes sense to separate the competitors, but there are other competitions where testosterone isn’t a factor and enlightened organisers don’t make it an issue. When then do the media feel they should do so? Bastards.
Although this is directed at men, I'm equally interested in the female response.
Women's response. Women. The word you're looking for is women.
This is something that *REALLY* pisses me off. The way women are often referred to as females. I can't hear someone say it without thinking of Ferengi from Star Trek.
Why is it in the sentence above it's men, but females? Why are women described using a term more from science, than every day language. When a woman wins a race, it's "First female to win race!" You never hear "x win's males race" or "X is the second male to win this race".
It's always Man/men. But female/females. It really bugs me.
Female is an adjective. Female what? female baboon? Female fruit fly? If you use the word female, you should include the subject that you are using that adjective to describe.
One of the simplistic things people can do to be more inclusive, is to use better, more inclusive language. Calling women female(s) without that subject is really exclusionary.
That is the response from this woman.
J
Cough, Diet Coke adverts in the 90s!I think the OP is really about the proprietorial attitude of some/many men towards women, and that they think it is OK to leer at women, stocking up the wankbank.Thanks, I was trying to work that out.
I guess context is important (are you in a discotheque or cashing a check at a bank?) and I guess there's a grey area between eyeing someone up and objectifying them (and what you are perceived as doing).
Is this just a male gaze phenomenon? I recognise that popular culture and advertising sells based on objectifying women (because objectifying men doesn't sell), so does that mean that women don't?
I suspect a mod is jealous of your erudition and has been waiting for an excuse to punish you!
FWIW I consider you to be high in the top 10 of interesting contributors over there, not least for the "I'm an American - ask me anything" thread. Since my infrequent posts tend to be throwaway one-liners, with the occasional blurred photo thrown in, I really appreciate the amount of effort you put into yours.
I'd start a campaign of insurrection if I thought it would do any good!
That is the response from this woman.
One of the simplistic things people can do to be more inclusive, is to use better, more inclusive language. Calling women female(s) without that subject is really exclusionary.
Why are women described using a term more from science, than every day language…. It's always Man/men. But female/females.
It appears a thread (https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/is-the-heteronormative-view-thriving-on-cyclechat.271741/) has been launched in my absence, initially partly about my absence then moving on to the larger issues concerning the treatment of women on the board. Much as I dislike giving them clicks, devotees of forums might find it interesting.
The male gaze is more broadly cast than you realize...
This is something that *REALLY* pisses me off. The way women are often referred to as females.
We have not yet mentioned the juxtaposition of 'the men' with 'and the girls'..Women tend to use 'girls' a lot - even the Goddess Denise Lewis does. Many years ago I was marshaling the tail-enders on a club run; two women were the last up a hill and, as they got near, I called out "come on girls". 19-yo daughter asserted that she was a woman and lare-40s mother said "speak for yourself".
When societal power is given by numbers, it will be used.
We have not yet mentioned the juxtaposition of 'the men' with 'and the girls'..Women tend to use 'girls' a lot - even the Goddess Denise Lewis does. Many years ago I was marshaling the tail-enders on a club run; two women were the last up a hill and, as they got near, I called out "come on girls". 19-yo daughter asserted that she was a woman and lare-40s mother said "speak for yourself".
I don't like 'men - ladies' - pairs should be logical:
men women
boys girls
etc.
The male gaze is more broadly cast than you realize. It’s the reason male colleagues feel empowered to comment on how much weight I’m carrying or not carrying. It’s the standard by which my haircut is judged by male and female acquaintances (‘that bob does nothing for you’ is coded, y’know). It’s the beauty benchmarks, the ideals women are expected to conform to. It’s the reason young women get their lips done and their boobs done and their labia surgically altered. It’s being told by my best friend to come shopping with her so she can make over my wardrobe. It’s the phrase ‘mutton dressed as lamb’. It’s a hell of a lot more than whether people like to look at other people.
It’s labeling women as ‘ugly’ if they don’t conform. It’s ‘smile, love, it might never happen’. From complete strangers.
It’s less overt now than when I was young, but it’s still always there.
Besides there are more women than men in the UK, so I'm not really sure where that leaves your point.
Yes, I got that. I was making a wider point that in terms of society as a whole women do outnumber men, but the power balance is inversely proportionate.
Re the "male gaze", I have heard that it's biologically pre-programmed: women check out faces whereas men check out genitals and then faces, even with other men. The eyes go there without conscious effort, and if the man is consciously trying to inhibit this any further interchange will be a bit strange as the tropism continues to exert itself. Be aware of it, get it over quickly and relax is possibly a better stratagem.Many years ago, early '80s, there was a Channel 4 programme which investigated this and discovered it's not true. They got volunteers to sit in a chair at which had eye tracking devices and watch a disco. Where people were actually looking was very similar for both men and women. From what I remember, it tended to be eyes first, then crotch, then secondary sexual characteristics, repeat.
I've also been sat in meetings where I've put forth an idea, had it shot down, then 5 mins later had a male colleague* put forth exactly the same idea, and have it accepted.
The male gaze is more broadly cast than you realize. It’s the reason male colleagues feel empowered to comment on how much weight I’m carrying or not carrying. It’s the standard by which my haircut is judged by male and female acquaintances (‘that bob does nothing for you’ is coded, y’know). It’s the beauty benchmarks, the ideals women are expected to conform to. It’s the reason young women get their lips done and their boobs done and their labia surgically altered. It’s being told by my best friend to come shopping with her so she can make over my wardrobe. It’s the phrase ‘mutton dressed as lamb’. It’s a hell of a lot more than whether people like to look at other people.
It’s labeling women as ‘ugly’ if they don’t conform. It’s ‘smile, love, it might never happen’. From complete strangers.
It’s less overt now than when I was young, but it’s still always there.
Besides there are more women than men in the UK, so I'm not really sure where that leaves your point.
I expect TimC is thinking of situations where a group of women pick on an isolated man, eg hen party vs stripper, but small-scale incidents like this don’t really tell us much about how the power structures of society operate.
Your post does suggest that it’s not a “male gaze” issue, since it is also the treatment of women by other women(?).
I don’t follow/understand. Imu eitherYour post does suggest that it’s not a “male gaze” issue, since it is also the treatment of women by other women(?).
It is absolutely a male gaze thing, when even your dearest friend thinks they’re doing you a favour by helping you to conform to the appearance designed for the pleasing of men.
So, obviously I’m not normal, but this behaviour is something that I have heard of but never witnessed.
May I have a guess as to its content? Drago braying out his ignorance in what he thinks is an articulate manner, a few hangers on grunting in agreement about how they can't even be sexist or racist anymore without the snowflakes getting offended, and then theclaud kicking them all into space with just three or four sentences? That was the traditional ordre du jour in that kind of thread on CC when I stopped reading it a few years ago.
I lost a lot of weight a few years ago. I was told “don’t lose any more weight. I like you like that’. By a married male colleague.I have had this a lot over the last year as I have lost weight. Multiple colleagues at work telling me I have lost enough, or too much, weight.
I do think it’s men of my own generation and older. Younger people seem to be so much more evolved. Cause for rejoicing IMO.
I don’t agree. The suggestion is not that it’s deliberate action by men. It’s more that the whole world defaults to pleasing men.Don't agree with what? Your post immediately follows mine but I don't think it's replying to it - or if it is, I'm not sure how, so I'm checking.
See Caroline Criado-Perez, Invisible Women.
I don’t agree. The suggestion is not that it’s deliberate action by men. It’s more that the whole world defaults to pleasing men.Don't agree with what? Your post immediately follows mine but I don't think it's replying to it - or if it is, I'm not sure how, so I'm checking.
See Caroline Criado-Perez, Invisible Women.
Okay, thanks. Your example shows that the onlooker doesn't have to be present, in fact might not even be encountered, for the effect to be felt. So in that case, it's clearly not a stare, etc. It's more of a perspective, maybe something like "women choose their own clothes but do so from a male perspective".I don’t agree. The suggestion is not that it’s deliberate action by men. It’s more that the whole world defaults to pleasing men.Don't agree with what? Your post immediately follows mine but I don't think it's replying to it - or if it is, I'm not sure how, so I'm checking.
See Caroline Criado-Perez, Invisible Women.
Sorry, it’s a pain doing quotes on my phone.
I disagreed that ‘gaze’ was the wrong word. Women get dressed in the morning with nobody looking at them, but it’s still for the male gaze.
I lost a lot of weight a few years ago. I was told “don’t lose any more weight. I like you like that’. By a married male colleague.There is an evolution taking place in some sectors of the British population. I am an enlightened feminist, especially when compared to my father. However in comparison to my son I’m a knuckle dragging cave dweller.
I do think it’s men of my own generation and older. Younger people seem to be so much more evolved. Cause for rejoicing IMO.
For 22 years, I worked in an environment which was 85% women (in a company of about 10,000 people). It was brilliant and I loved it, but of course I saw situations where the boot was on the other foot.
For 22 years, I worked in an environment which was 85% women (in a company of about 10,000 people). It was brilliant and I loved it, but of course I saw situations where the boot was on the other foot.
Out of interest, if 85% of the company were women, approximately what proportion of senior managers were women? There being lots of women isn't the thing that gives them power. Did those women need to wear a uniform, and did that uniform involve clothing that was female-specific? Was there a dress code of being presentable, where "presentable" for a man means not looking like you've been pulled through a hedge backward, but for a woman carries the expectation of wearing a full face of make-up, having a specific hair style and wearing heels?
This thread is a perfect example of why I spend the majority of my online time here and not CC.^
Thoughtful debate alerting me to things that I possibly should have been more aware of, and a range of views all put forward respectfully.
Keep it up.
^ I was going to bring this up but couldn't be arsed. I don't think Virgin airlines consists of 85% female pilots and 15% male cabin crew, somehow. You've already rumbled it, but if you want to take about male gaze then aircrew is an excellent context.
So, obviously I’m not normal, but this behaviour is something that I have heard of but never witnessed.
Male gaze is - amongst other things - what stops men from behaving badly towards women when there are other men (who they can't trust to be accomplices) around.
So, obviously I’m not normal, but this behaviour is something that I have heard of but never witnessed.
Male gaze is - amongst other things - what stops men from behaving badly towards women when there are other men (who they can't trust to be accomplices) around.
I don’t understand. I think it’s because there are many different aspects to “the male gaze” which take on a number of different ... things? ... that I would view as being distinct different ... things?. I’m struggling to identify the difference between the objectification of women and the male gaze - I think your post (quoted) explains that, but at that point I lose the sense of what “the male gaze” means.
Guys! Teams meeting; team A is one male person, team B is one male person and one woman. There is a break in connectivity and the male person in team A says "Have I lost you guys?" The funny thing being that the male person in team B is called Guy! (Which is as good a time as any to point out that "guy" has changed quite a bit in meaning since it ceased being simply a personal name – and the name has recovered as well.)
It's not about specific men doing things with their eyeballs,As you'd expect for YACF (I don't know if the same occurs on CycleChat) there are multiple discussions going on simultaneously: about eyeballs, assumptions, self-policing, language, and now pissing in tents. (No, I still haven't read that Conversation article, I've been reading about Guy and the other two, and correcting people's hyphenation and stuff. It's another fun Saturday which was supposed to be next Thursday.)
German men have to, because of sitzpinkel.A wide-mouthed Sunny Delight bottle was recommended to me. Apparently, given sufficient skill, it is unnecessary to leave the sleeping bag. And it doubles as a hot (well, 37°C) water bottle after use.
(https://i1.wp.com/berlinerisch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Im-Sitzen-pinkeln-Aufkleber-f%C3%BCr-saubere-Toilette-G%C3%A4ste-WC-Besucher-Klo1.png?resize=300%2C225)German men have to, because of sitzpinkel.A wide-mouthed Sunny Delight bottle was recommended to me. Apparently, given sufficient skill, it is unnecessary to leave the sleeping bag. And it doubles as a hot (well, 37°C) water bottle after use.
German men have to, because of sitzpinkel.A wide-mouthed Sunny Delight bottle was recommended to me.
Men will tend to behave in the presence of an authority figure (of any gender) or a man who is assumed to be 'owner' of the target of their bad behaviour, and tend to misbehave in a group of peers. (The oiks shouting at cyclists thread should serve as a proxy for those who've never been perceived to be female, queer or disabled by random strangers.)
I think you meant to type Readers' Letters. hth.
Men will ... tend to misbehave in a group of peers.See, there you're using "men" to mean "mankind".
I'm reminded of that anecdote you once told me, Mike, about pissing off Steve T at a party :-DI have still not been forgiven. O:-)
I think I’ve mentioned before just how scary it was as an apprentice to be sent into the operator suites of the mail order catalog companies back in the 70s. The old hands used to think a big joke sending 16 and 17 yo to change phone parts when they hid in the equipment room. Some of the mid 20 yos also reported it could be quite disquieting to have to attend alone as well. This was before the advent of the ‘laddet’ and so those of us from more middle class back grounds (usually about half of the apprentices) had not been exposed to the raucous capabilities of a large group of women with little social damping.
Do you remember at the end of that ride how surprised I was at the small size of your car? :-D :-DIt's not the size that matters, but how you make best use of it. :-D
....but that raises the point that, given the right environment, that cultural hangover can be overturned very quickly.
You know movies, like breakfast club (but also pretty much any modern teen horror film), where the alternative styled girl resolves her issues and at the end is made over to look like the cheerleader. Is that male gaze?Whilst my wife likes the music of Grease, the first comment made as we left the cinema was, “why did she have to change?”
I think I’ve mentioned before just how scary it was as an apprentice to be sent into the operator suites of the mail order catalog companies back in the 70s. The old hands used to think a big joke sending 16 and 17 yo to change phone parts when they hid in the equipment room. Some of the mid 20 yos also reported it could be quite disquieting to have to attend alone as well. This was before the advent of the ‘laddet’ and so those of us from more middle class back grounds (usually about half of the apprentices) had not been exposed to the raucous capabilities of a large group of women with little social damping.
The same at Sangamo's in Felixstowe. Legendary. A dock messenger, good-looking young six footer we took on, told us he dreaded going through the shop floor. One reason he left but told it as a joke against himself.
That one's not so simple, because Danny simultaneously changes the other way. Maybe, after the carnival, they agree a sort of middle ground. You know, clean-cut goody two-shoes during the week, leather-clad sex maniacs at weekends.You know movies, like breakfast club (but also pretty much any modern teen horror film), where the alternative styled girl resolves her issues and at the end is made over to look like the cheerleader. Is that male gaze?Whilst my wife likes the music of Grease, the first comment made as we left the cinema was, “why did she have to change?”
I agree with Ruthie and Jasmine.It’s not intended as an amusing anecdote but to illustrate that women need to be in large groups to even have a similar effect on men and thus it’s very rare for men to experience,and thus understand what they daily impose on women.
And while people may find the term "gaze" confusing - Foucault meant something very specific about the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaze
What do you define as a large group?I agree with Ruthie and Jasmine.It’s not intended as an amusing anecdote but to illustrate that women need to be in large groups to even have a similar effect on men and thus it’s very rare for men to experience,and thus understand what they daily impose on women.
And while people may find the term "gaze" confusing - Foucault meant something very specific about the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaze
This is tangential to the discussion, unless anybody wants to talk about Jane Kaczmarek's portrayal of a domestic dominatrix in Malcolm in the Middle. (https://youtu.be/c4CVKbVtTsc)Why does your New York book store story smack to me more of Usanian employment practices and lack of staff wellbeing safeguards than of being a targeted example of poor management?
(https://i.imgur.com/okzfkPs.jpg)(click to show/hide)
Most of my bosses have been women. Probably most of their ultimate bosses were men, but my early working life in particular was ruled by what I came to see as the unfairer sex.
My first jobs, besides the obligatory paper round (almost all male coworkers), were in bookstores. There was typically a dress code: men wore neckties, women wore… pretty much anything. My inaugural dressing down happened when the boss was off for a week and I came in tie-less, only to be grassed by her lieutenant.
One sweltering summer at a Manhatten store incidentally in the looming shadow of a Trump owned hotel, things came to a head. Us men became jealous that the women were swanning in wearing the most comfortable clothes they could find, whilst we were condemned to the usual noose.
As a kind of protest, an enterprising coworker found a box of used neckties out on 42nd Street and distributed them amongst the sweat-stained staff. They were horrid: wide as all the 70s (well before my tie-wearing time), hideous to the last detail, and in some cases questionably stained. The manager was not best pleased, but could do nothing. Of course, we still sweated. But somehow it was the sweat of freedom.
Which is ogling, leering or whatever as opposed to "gaze". Gaze in that sense might be that you were dressed and arranged for the visual pleasure of those lassies and camp man.What do you define as a large group?I agree with Ruthie and Jasmine.It’s not intended as an amusing anecdote but to illustrate that women need to be in large groups to even have a similar effect on men and thus it’s very rare for men to experience,and thus understand what they daily impose on women.
And while people may find the term "gaze" confusing - Foucault meant something very specific about the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaze
I've seen a train bay of 3 pished erm lassies and 1 incredibly camp man giving shit to a whole train carriage.
You just need enough toxic attitude present.
What probably makes it more likely from a small group of men is the acceptance of that attitude means you're more likely to act that way possibly only because when in a group and you don't have it, its automatically assumed you're odd.
The late 90s, early 00s possibly has the most overt demonstration of acceptance of such attitudes aka "lad/ladette" "culture".
Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk
Which is ogling, leering or whatever as opposed to "gaze". Gaze in that sense might be that you were dressed and arranged for the visual pleasure of those lassies and camp man.What do you define as a large group?I agree with Ruthie and Jasmine.It’s not intended as an amusing anecdote but to illustrate that women need to be in large groups to even have a similar effect on men and thus it’s very rare for men to experience,and thus understand what they daily impose on women.
And while people may find the term "gaze" confusing - Foucault meant something very specific about the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaze
I've seen a train bay of 3 pished erm lassies and 1 incredibly camp man giving shit to a whole train carriage.
You just need enough toxic attitude present.
What probably makes it more likely from a small group of men is the acceptance of that attitude means you're more likely to act that way possibly only because when in a group and you don't have it, its automatically assumed you're odd.
The late 90s, early 00s possibly has the most overt demonstration of acceptance of such attitudes aka "lad/ladette" "culture".
Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk
Why does your New York book store story smack to me more of Usanian employment practices and lack of staff wellbeing safeguards than of being a targeted example of poor management?
Indeed. And the male teachers had the trial of year 9 girls.
I was talking about the appraisal earlier, not the ogling which is still often ubiquitous. I'm obviously modern enough that my toes curl when I hear the builder's wolf-whistle and 'alright love, smiling won't kill you.' If I could organize an air-strike, I'm sure it would kill them. It's an attitude that gradually seems on the way out, though not nearly fast enough. I'd also be terrified and angry if I had a daughter. Probably if I had a son too, in case he turns out like that. I'm not sure what parents do with their disappointing children. I figure statistically, at least some of the parents here must look at least one of their children and think 'why?'
But yes, daughters if you're a father. I can only imagine that I'd be in a state of abstract terror. Strangely though, that doesn't seem to inform the behaviour of some men (which I don't understand, I wouldn't want someone letching after my daughter, not even the fictional one, so why do it to someone else's?) I think we're back to education with ordnance.
The image has been placed within <spoiler> tags. Some employers are less receptive to pictures of women in states of undress than others.
Aimee, a 44-year-old screenwriter who lives in Los Angeles, said that wearing a mask in public even after she’s been vaccinated gives her a kind of “emotional freedom”. “I don’t want to feel the pressure of smiling at people to make sure everyone knows I’m ‘friendly’ and ‘likeable’,” she said. “It’s almost like taking away the male gaze. There’s freedom in taking that power back.”
I do like not having to shave first thing in the morning!Shave late in the evening then. :thumbsup:
I know we've had this before, but on that basis it deserves a repost:Clickbait?
https://youtu.be/JUWBoYwAgaE (https://youtu.be/JUWBoYwAgaE)