Today's Pinup Fashion a Sly Wink to the Past - New York Times

[Undertow]

...I think what we've been talking about here is something entirely different, though. Ariel Levy writes about "internalizing the objectifying male gaze," which basically means a woman defining herself and her own sense of sexuality according to what male culture tells her she's supposed to do. She ceases to see herself thru her own eyes, and instead sees herself thru "the male gaze." That's what's meant by self-objectification, and it seems to me that would be the very opposite of any kind of actual empowerment -- no matter how you slice it, it's letting someone else define an intimate part of your identity. I don't say that everyone who's interested in the pinup look does this -- but I don't doubt for a minute there are quite a few who do, and without even realizing it...

Bless you Lizzie; this is what I've been trying to articulate without as much grace.

 

[LizzieMaine]

*Would* pinuppery exist *without* the "male gaze?" *Could* it? That's a question worth thinking very hard about.

 

[C-dot]

there's more than one female perspective so far on this thread, and please re-read the question; it is open ended. i haven't actually said anywhere that i believe women are objectifying themselves. i've simply asked the question and people are getting excited saying "you believe women are objectifying themselves !!"

Wonderful - Now re-read what I said. I did not say you believed anything, I said you misunderstood, and clearly you have because you keep asking the same question again after a few people have offered their perspectives.

*Would* pinuppery exist *without* the "male gaze?" *Could* it? That's a question worth thinking very hard about.

It ties in with the debate between women who dress for themselves, for men, or for other women. It's a hard one to answer.

 

[AmateisGal]

*Would* pinuppery exist *without* the "male gaze?" *Could* it? That's a question worth thinking very hard about.

That's a tough, but excellent question. If I were to venture a guess...and keep in mind, this is my opinion only, I would say no, it wouldn't exist.

 

[MisterCairo]

I've been following the many varied, thoughtful (and not so thoughtful) comments and views in this thread. There has been some thought-provoking commentary and lots of new perspectives presented on subjects ranging from simple fashion to human sexuality, social mores and personal expression. After much self-reflection, consideration and research, I have to ask the following question:

What's a Pinup Fashipn?

 

[William Stratford]

*Would* pinuppery exist *without* the "male gaze?" *Could* it? That's a question worth thinking very hard about.

It is not an exclusively male gaze, as there is equally the female gaze (diet coke advert being an obvious example) and even a de-sexualised gaze (such as the way we treat different cultures in the way we place artefacts in museum displays), but yes archetypal "pinuppery" is certainly created by the gaze (from whichever sex, although primarily male because that is the history we come from).

The pin up is consumed, not adored, and thus it is (as with so much of modern life) the giving of importance to appetite.

If you have an hour to spare, I recommend this film (which was shown on BBC1 a couple of years ago) in which philosopher Roger Scruton discusses the place of beauty and our relationship to such.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiajXQUppYY

 

[sheeplady]

I do know that from a discussion with a trans woman I know, that it is very difficult to adjust to the "male gaze" and the attention you get as a female, having previously spent life as a male. I think it is something that women are socialized to expect a certain amount of, and I think it's just something that we're used to. It doesn't mean we like it. (I'm referring less to the cat calling aspect and more to the looking aspect.)

Although having traveled in some places where men lstaring at women is more socially acceptable does bring it totally to the surface of your awareness even if you've been a female your entire life.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The pin up is consumed, not adored, and thus it is (as with so much of modern life) the giving of importance to appetite.

I think this one big part of the reason why painted pin-up art of the Petty/Vargas Esquire magazine type became as popular as it did. It's easier to consume a product that's frankly and obviously artificial than it is to dehumanize an actual person into an object. I'm sure there were men looking at actual photo pinups who wondered who those girls actually were, where they came from, what sort of lives they led -- and even that level of human connection would have likely made it difficult to simply view them as objects. A painting of an idealized woman would have been much easier to treat as an object of fantasy, because the human element was never there to begin with. There was no need for guilt, no need to deaden any sense of emotional connection.

Nowadays, of course, we're so steeped in dehumanized sexualization that those sorts of emotions would be viewed as either repressed or quaint. Personally, I wouldn't call that progress.

 

[Noirblack]

Somebody once said "you can point to any item in the Sears catalogue, and somebody, somewhere wants to sleep with it." I don't think there's anything anyone can do about that, really, and if somebody has an unnatural attachment to a garden hose or a socket wrench, that's their own business. As long as I don't have to hear about it, knock yourself out.

I think what we've been talking about here is something entirely different, though. Ariel Levy writes about "internalizing the objectifying male gaze," which basically means a woman defining herself and her own sense of sexuality according to what male culture tells her she's supposed to do. She ceases to see herself thru her own eyes, and instead sees herself thru "the male gaze." That's what's meant by self-objectification, and it seems to me that would be the very opposite of any kind of actual empowerment -- no matter how you slice it, it's letting someone else define an intimate part of your identity. I don't say that everyone who's interested in the pinup look does this -- but I don't doubt for a minute there are quite a few who do, and without even realizing it.

That's another reason we don't allow male comments in the pinup thread. We can't take away "the male gaze," but at least by silencing the male voice we can perhaps blunt its impact a bit and give the women here a bit more room to define themselves on their own terms. I don't think it's coincidental that a great many of the photos in that thread are much closer to Golden Era fashion photography than the sort of stuff you'd find hanging on a gas station wall.

So help me understand. First, what is the male gaze? I assume it is given a specific meaning in the work of Ariel Levy. Or are we safe to assume that it is simply the act of men gazing at women? When a woman internalizes the male gaze, that is self-objectification. And in that case, a woman is letting someone else define an intimate part of her identity. I assume that means her sexuality (another nebulous term). You state that not everyone interested in the pinup look internalizes the male gaze (assuming now we are talking about women interested in the pinup look). But quite a few (women) interested in the pinup look internalize the male gaze and they do it without even realizing it. Is there a third group? Those who internalize the male gaze and realize they are doing it? Are the women who intentionally internalize the male gaze empowered, or are they also disempowered like the women who internalize the male gaze without realizing it?

 

[Undertow]

...Nowadays, of course, we're so steeped in dehumanized sexualization that those sorts of emotions would be viewed as either repressed or quaint. Personally, I wouldn't call that progress.

I know this is way off topic, but I often wonder at people's reaction to torture. Torture is torture, regardless of why it's perpetuated, against whom it's perpetuated, or by whom it's perpetuated. Torturing one man to save a thousand is still torture, and it's still sickening.

Yet, I bring this up in conversation often (it's a current topic, after all), and I'm always a bit surprised to see peoples' eyes light up when they describe the necessity to torture another human being.

I think dehuminzation has run rampant in this country, and I can only hope the pendulum swings back sooner than later.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think dehumanization goes hand in hand with the modern culture of Ironic Detachment. When nothing in life is sincere, when everything is put between quotation marks, why *care* about anything?

 

[C-dot]

It is not an exclusively male gaze, as there is equally the female gaze (diet coke advert being an obvious example) and even a de-sexualised gaze (such as the way we treat different cultures in the way we place artefacts in museum displays), but yes archetypal "pinuppery" is certainly created by the gaze (from whichever sex, although primarily male because that is the history we come from).

Sometimes I wonder if the heterosexual female gaze (in this context) is because they are studying the focus of the male gaze so they can understand why the subject gets it. I think a lot of women tend to scrutinize other women whom men find attractive out of curiosity, myself included - I recall asking the male loungers in another thread what it was about Veronica Lake they liked, and getting some interesting responses.

 

[Atticus Finch]

Sometimes I wonder if the heterosexual female gaze (in this context) is because they are studying the focus of the male gaze so they can understand why the subject gets it. I think a lot of women tend to scrutinize other women whom men find attractive out of curiosity, myself included - I recall asking the male loungers in another thread what it was about Veronica Lake they liked, and getting some interesting responses.

You mean this kind of heterosexual female gaze?

AF

 

[C-dot]

You mean this kind of heterosexual female gaze?

lol Or this one:

As a matter of fact, Jayne Mansfield ties in perfectly to this topic. She fascinates me - I've made quite a study of her. She built her whole career (i.e., her life) on being an object of male desire. These photographs were taken at Romanoff's during a party to celebrate Sophia Loren's American debut. Jayne wasn't actually on the guest list, but she wasn't one to stay at home when there was publicity to be had. The way she leans over to show off her two most famous assets is no accident. In the photo I posted above, she was attempting a publicity stunt: leaning out as far as she could to make her breasts "accidentally" fall out. When it didn't happen, she became frustrated and plucked one of them out, unnerving table mate Clifton Webb ("Please Miss Mansfield, we are wine drinkers at this table!") as the flashbulbs popped.

Jayne traded fairly well on this strategy until the 1960s, when the sexual revolution made her coy sexuality passé so fast her head must have spun. The rest of her life was spent in pathetic attempts to regain her former stature, whatever that was, and she was on her way to another appearance in another seedy nightclub when she was killed in a horrific car accident in June of 1967.

I wonder what Jayne would have said in answer to Lizzie's question. For anyone interested in exploring the most extreme side of objectification and what happens when the woman herself encourages it, read Martha Saxton's biography "Jayne Mansfield and the American Fifties" and, along the same lines, Lynn Peril's "Pink Think", a study of midcentury female ideals and the impossibility of attaining them.

 

[LizzieMaine]

l and, along the same lines, Lynn Peril's "Pink Think", a study of midcentury female ideals and the impossibility of attaining them.

Excellent book. After reading it, I recommend taking a long, slow walk thru the "Girls' Toys" department at your local Wal Mart, and thinking long and hard about how far we pretend we've come.

 

[AmateisGal]

lol Or this one:

This picture makes me laugh so much! lol Sophia's expression is PRICELESS.

 

[AmateisGal]

Someone posted this on Facebook today and I thought it made a lot of sense (and was also pertinent to this discussion).

 

[Feraud]

That sums up the situation.

 

[William Stratford]

Hammer + head + nail...

 

[ThesFlishThngs]

I face paint at children's parties, and the saddest/most annoying aspect I encounter is the vulgar trendy club music that's played. 5,6,7 year old girls dressed like twenty-something club hoppers and singing along because they know the words to all the songs.