Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

It takes someone with a PhD in psychology who studies gender to say something so utterly clueless about human sexuality [Darleen Click]

Peggy Dexler, author of a book which celebrates “Raising Boys without Men” …

(future prison guards will appreciate her contribution to their job security)

… writes about the horrible contribution to the scourge of the “male gaze” that is swimsuit issue of Sports Illustrated

This year, though, Sports Illustrated has gone too far. In the photo, Davis eager pulls down her bikini bottom and thrusts forward her pelvis in a way that’s clearly meant to draw the eye to that very spot between her legs — far more so than her eyes, or even her breasts. It’s an invitation to picture her naked, and more. And in case there was any ambiguity of what the image is supposed to evoke, there’s the clever cover line that begins: “Hannah Davis Goes Down South. … ”

It is explicitly explicit, and as such impossible not to view it as intending to reduce women to billboards and sex objects. Claiming to portray Davis this way in the name of “celebrating the female form” is a lie balder than her nether region.

Yadda yadda yadda. The usual, and convenient, Rad-feminist prudishness — YAWN.

Hang on, though.

After all, if the point isn’t to objectify women for the pleasure of the male gaze, why has no one created a counterpart magazine featuring a scantily dressed man? Why are men so rarely offered up as objects to behold? Men aren’t the only ones who like to “appreciate the beauty” of the opposite sex.

If the point isn’t to objectify women, and subvert them in some way, then why isn’t there a similar model for men? Instead, most examples of men gracing magazine covers with their bodies on display are for men’s magazines, with a male readership. Why is it normal to “celebrate the female form” but not the male one?

This is what a PhD does to some people – it isolates them from reality.

Women, generally, are not into gazing at anonymous naked, or near naked, men. Period. It isn’t the way most females are sexually wired.

You can get women to snap up pics of actors and other good-looking celebs in all manner of dress or undress. But again, in those situations, these are men they “know”.

It is why magazines like People sell and have a large female readership — while there is only Playgirl magazine, originally launched as the “female gaze” oriented magazine Ms. Peggy pines for, but whose readership is at least 50% gay men.

The “female gaze” is really to be found in the genre of romance novels.

Will someone gift Ms. Peggy a subscription to Harlequin?

27 Replies to “It takes someone with a PhD in psychology who studies gender to say something so utterly clueless about human sexuality [Darleen Click]”

  1. bgbear says:

    Islam has this issue covered.

  2. McGehee says:

    The Chippendale dancers were too busy getting busy to comment.

  3. LBascom says:

    Remember way back how SNL had the Church Lady (Maetin Short If memory serves), a stereotypical prudish Christian woman?

    That’s from when this was the USA and such nonsense was a joke. Ahh, good times.

    Chech Lady ain’t got noth’n on the modern progg woman. And the modern progg women aren’t joking.

  4. dicentra says:

    “The Male Gaze” is a literary construct. It’s not unusual for a novel (especially 19th century) to depict a man gazing at a woman, thereby “taking possession” of her.

    Insofar as you’re studying how the male gaze functions in literature, it’s all well and good. However, lit crit profs cannot resist the temptation to conflate literary conventions with reality, so here we are.

  5. dicentra says:

    Church Lady is Dana Carvey.

    Notice how they used her to mock Christians and then they started using her to mock the behavior of slutty celebs like Madonna.

    That’s the usual trajectory of recurring characters who are supposed to be non-lefty caricatures: Frank Burns was supposed to be a smug, Bible-bashing hypocrite but became the comic relief; the Ferengi were supposed to be predatory capitalists but became shrewd comic relief (and not a little Jewish); the Borg were supposed to be “the ultimate consumers” but became the collectivist, Utopian-seeking nightmares.

    Hard to keep up a character that’s based on a shallow, null-dimensional caricature in a Hollywood writer’s head.

  6. LBascom says:

    Yes, Dana Carvey. That was the dude.

    I just find it ironic the typical modern feminist type are bigger scolds than a 1970’s SNL skit of a stereotypical Christian scold.

    I’m glad I was young 45 years ago; the rules were much simpler.

  7. Ouroboros says:

    “Take me buccaneer” she gasped…

  8. serr8d says:

    Raise a boy without a man? You’ll always have a boy.

  9. serr8d says:

    @DrPeggyDrexler
    . ? .

  10. serr8d says:

    Ooops…that was supposed to be an ‘up arrow’, pointing to the “r” in “Drexler”.

    Strange that Twitter formats and accepts ascii characters better than WordPress!

  11. John Bradley says:

    Use ↑ ( ↑ ) or ⇑ ( ⇑ ).

    HTML entities are your friends.

  12. Ernst Schreiber says:

    I’m confused. Isn’t that intended to be Hannah Davis displaying her raw grrrrrl power for all to celebrate? Are we supposed to slut shame her now? Or are we supposed to scorn the boorish men who gaze upon this latter day Lady Godiva?

    What. Do. Women. Really [long pause] Want?

    he asked in his best William Shatner cadence.

  13. sdferr says:

    What. Do. Women. Really [long pause] Want?

    just like everybody (right?), having her cake and eating it too

  14. palaeomerus says:

    ” “female gaze” is really to be found in the genre of romance novels”

    The female gaze is a whole different thing from the male gaze.

    It’s more of a “I thought you said you were going to mow the lawn today” or ” a few situps every morning wouldn’t kill you, you know” sort of thing. Or ” I told you you wouldn’t ever use that crock pot.”

  15. palaeomerus says:

    The female gaze sez: ” Just for men is a shitty hair dye. You look like a mannequin from the eyebrows up you doofus. That’s what $5.99 gets you. Who the hell do you think you’re fooling anyway?”

  16. Squid says:

    What. Do. Women. Really [long pause] Want?

    Lemme see what the opening weekend box office is for 50 Shades of Grey before I get back to you…

  17. Ernst Schreiber says:

    However big that opening is, don’t forget that you aren’t Christian Grey.

  18. ’50 Shades Of Grey’?!?…me, I’m curious yellow.

  19. palaeomerus says:

    ” Six or seven shades of missionary position and spooning with sincere patient mutual affection through thick and thin, strong and weak. And maybe if that doesn’t cut it we can get the thing out and you tell me what to do. “

  20. Spang Nation says:

    […] Protein Wisdom: It takes someone with a PhD in psychology who studies gender to say something so utterly clueless ab… […]

  21. LBascom says:

    “What. Do. Women. Really [long pause] Want?”

    Well if you don’t know I’m not telling you!! </women>

  22. McGehee says:

    What women really want is to find a man who knows who he is, is comfortable with it, and can be the steady landmark in her tumultuous life — and change him.

  23. McGehee wins a cookie [low-fat].

  24. McGehee says:

    I can’t claim authorship; I also don’t remember whom to credit.

    When I read that previous comment back to my wife she informed me that I am her lighthouse.

    “Because you’re tall and bright.”

  25. bgbear says:

    I get the male glaze when women talk about celebrities or clothes.

Comments are closed.