Ever since the idea of the male gaze erupted in popularity on Tiktok at the beginning of the decade it became one of the internet’s favourite buzzwords.
What I find interesting about this discussion is that there isn’t much consideration given to naming the desire to attract women as a woman. I’ve written a little bit about the female gaze—which I concede doesn’t exist because of the inherent and implied power imbalance—but I think that within the understanding and internalization of their inherent consumption by men as objects of desire, women are eager to learn how to signal sexual / romantic availability to other women. There’s no social blueprint and no master consensus, but I think that’s what these TikTok trends are getting at. As a bisexual woman I’ve wondered this too—I understand that femininity can be a performance of sexuality / purity / etc but how would I tweak the performance for a niche audience even though I can’t exclude the general population? Many women abandon the performance of femininity altogether, often adopting masculinity in its place, but what about the rest of us? I think a new term should just be coined so that WLW can more easily explore these possibilities for themselves. The need is there and it’s strong.
I don't know about a new term but those conversations are already being had and people are finding ways of doing that. They're just being had mostly in places that are just that little bit hard to find. If you're interested in that I suggest you go looking around where you live. Personally I'm lucky to have just been to the launch party of a lesbofeminist zine that among other things had a piece on the power of the gaze of the camera and it's effect on seeing, being seen, and the co-creation of those between the person behind the lense and in front of it, and also a piece by a femme lesbian on exactly the questions you were raising.
I'd also like to point out though that many masculine presenting women don't turn to it as a abandonment of a feminine presentation, although some certainly do, but because that is a more genuine way for them to present. I don't think you meant to invalidate that but that's kind of what you wrote, so I'd just implore you to be careful with your language.
Oh yeah, where I live there’s no shortage of queer people and queer spaces, but I really am just talking about how these things are discussed and presented online. There are countless female gaze videos and in turn quite a few counter pieces correcting (rightfully so) that the female gaze doesn’t actually exist, and so after seeing this pattern repeat enough times I think that the reason it crops up is because women don’t know another term to use to label what they’re trying to communicate and I think that would solve the problem
I disagree somewhat. While I’m sure a lot of women do indeed mean what you are saying, a lot of heterosexual (and non-het) women do mean “female gaze” literally. Because they think they can divorce themselves from the male gaze by dressing differently etc.
I'll admit I purposely stayed out of tiktok. Not saying it's bad mind you. But because of that I'm pretty out of the conversations being had in that space so can't comment on that.
finally! Reminds me of the episode of the Polyester Podcast released earlier today where they’re talking about how an internet trend/ semi-ironic meme takes on a kind of intellectual significance that distorts scrutiny of the actual thing that is being analysed (in todays episode’s case, recession indicators) - I feel like this with the ‘female gaze’; with the ubiquity of the ‘male’ gaze, how will we ever know we are operating outside of it?
Last year, I had a pretty heated debate with a friend over Poor Things and it circled around the miscommunication of the gaze— he argued that Poor Things was misogynistic on account of the sexual content — I felt it was more nuanced than just representing a female body that gets fucked, albeit, a female sexualised object, but to argue that it was “male gazy” felt so redundant, such it its ubiquity. Even his naïveté wrt ladies and BDSM (when I tried to argue that perhaps Lanthimos wanted to explore the nuances of how men navigate and rationalise their sense of ownership over female bodies, he cited the scene where she is tied up as blatant misogyny bc - and I quote - it’s the woman who’s tied up — go figure) was informed by this binary that flattens women’s experiences and desire to be totally relational to how they are positioned towards males — the same binary he was touting as the downfall of the film. He wasn’t willing to discuss anything further as he was so adamant in his diagnoses of the male gaze; as if that set it apart from other kinds of media. I know there’s a lot held in contention about Poor Things and the film does have its faults no doubt, but it’s so frustrating when you’re trying to discuss a convoluted piece of media and any discussion is shut down with decontextualised buzzwords.
If we are to begin to work against the matrices of power that form the very parameters by which we think, we need to acknowledge the molecular level by which it is integrated in us, somehow, as opposed to reasserting it through the insinuation of its alternative.
Rant aside, I fuckin loved this essay, thank you for sharing
“ If we are to begin to work against the matrices of power that form the very parameters by which we think, we need to acknowledge the molecular level by which it is integrated in us, somehow, as opposed to reasserting it through the insinuation of its alternative.”
“with the ubiquity of the ‘male gaze’ how will we ever know we are operating outside of it”—this is exactly what I came away from this piece wondering. Thank you for saying it so perfectly!
Amazing essay!! As a feminine lesbian, I myself have struggled with what the female gaze could mean, and why I should appeal to it. If the female gaze is created within patriarchy, it is going to be influenced by it. WLW spaces have the potiential to pave the way for something that would lead to getting completely rid of male expectations, but they won't get rid of the core problem - the gaze itself. Society's judgment, and our judgment of ourselves because we fear society's judgment. I also agree with bell hooks in that simply the male gaze - female gaze opposition doesn't contain intersectionality. What about the colonial gaze? Even though one is a woman, their gaze can still be hurtful and oppressive. So yeah, I definitely think the female gaze - in the sense it is widely used - does not completely exist, but! It is perhaps a first step towards something more productive. I agree with the other commenters that of we renamed it, or shifted its focus, it could have actual use for scholarship and theory. And until an anarchist revolution happens that gets rid of the gaze entirely, we can perhaps stay afloat. Sorry, my comment is not the most coherent, but hope you can still make sense of it. :')
I think one of the most compelling arguments here is also one of the simplest: if you gender swap (ie consider a man trying to dress for the hypothetical female gaze), the structures of oppression that uphold the gaze crumble.
absolutely wonderful analysis. i found your idea of the “mannequin” archetype of feminine expression particularly poignant as i have an obsession mannequins as both art historical objects and cultural symbols lol - totally spot-on as a way to describe the commerce-centered gaze. amazing work!
what a brilliant essay!!!!!! love the clear and substantial arguments as to why the female gaze does not exist and the way people miss interpret the term
Cricket, I always thoroughly enjoy your thoughtful essays, and I get so excited to see the notification in my inbox—you are doing wonderful work, thank you for your critical commentary and hard work <3
i feel like one possible place where the female gaze does exist, in the sense that the media is meant to appeal to women as the main consumer and primarily produced by women, is bl, yaoi and slash fiction. ironically, women are mainly relegated to being side or background characters in such works. now, the problem with my suggestion is that the male gaze has shaped our understanding and perception of the world, as you mentioned in this article. it might be an interesting idea to examine further, though. i wish i had the time to go write about this, but my ass needs to sleep because elections are tomorrow 💀
"Most men don’t think about the way they are perceived this much because they haven’t been trained to be, and the men who are this self aware are probably mentally ill." <-- I'm not sure it's this simple. The concept of seeing yourself as both yourself and the way that an oppressing social class will perceive you is called "the gaze" here, but it's called double consciousness in The Souls of Black Folk. W.E.B DuBois talked about it, and so did Ralph Ellison, and August Wilson, and many other men (and women) of color writing about their experiences over the past few centuries. I'm not saying women don't experience this or that it shouldn't be talked about, just that the line between men and women isn't quite as clear as you've drawn it once race, class, and colonialism come into play.
I agree with you! In that sentence I was specially meaning that men don’t think about themselves in the same way women do in the context of impressing men vs women and therefore why they don’t perform for a so called “female gaze”.
But absolutely in the context of race and colonialism this self awareness would be present.
I’ve long been skeptical of the existence of female gaze. I really appreciate being educated on how the male gaze came about! This was such an interesting read 🫶
What I find interesting about this discussion is that there isn’t much consideration given to naming the desire to attract women as a woman. I’ve written a little bit about the female gaze—which I concede doesn’t exist because of the inherent and implied power imbalance—but I think that within the understanding and internalization of their inherent consumption by men as objects of desire, women are eager to learn how to signal sexual / romantic availability to other women. There’s no social blueprint and no master consensus, but I think that’s what these TikTok trends are getting at. As a bisexual woman I’ve wondered this too—I understand that femininity can be a performance of sexuality / purity / etc but how would I tweak the performance for a niche audience even though I can’t exclude the general population? Many women abandon the performance of femininity altogether, often adopting masculinity in its place, but what about the rest of us? I think a new term should just be coined so that WLW can more easily explore these possibilities for themselves. The need is there and it’s strong.
Love this contribution to the convo <3
I don't know about a new term but those conversations are already being had and people are finding ways of doing that. They're just being had mostly in places that are just that little bit hard to find. If you're interested in that I suggest you go looking around where you live. Personally I'm lucky to have just been to the launch party of a lesbofeminist zine that among other things had a piece on the power of the gaze of the camera and it's effect on seeing, being seen, and the co-creation of those between the person behind the lense and in front of it, and also a piece by a femme lesbian on exactly the questions you were raising.
I'd also like to point out though that many masculine presenting women don't turn to it as a abandonment of a feminine presentation, although some certainly do, but because that is a more genuine way for them to present. I don't think you meant to invalidate that but that's kind of what you wrote, so I'd just implore you to be careful with your language.
Oh yeah, where I live there’s no shortage of queer people and queer spaces, but I really am just talking about how these things are discussed and presented online. There are countless female gaze videos and in turn quite a few counter pieces correcting (rightfully so) that the female gaze doesn’t actually exist, and so after seeing this pattern repeat enough times I think that the reason it crops up is because women don’t know another term to use to label what they’re trying to communicate and I think that would solve the problem
I disagree somewhat. While I’m sure a lot of women do indeed mean what you are saying, a lot of heterosexual (and non-het) women do mean “female gaze” literally. Because they think they can divorce themselves from the male gaze by dressing differently etc.
I'll admit I purposely stayed out of tiktok. Not saying it's bad mind you. But because of that I'm pretty out of the conversations being had in that space so can't comment on that.
finally! Reminds me of the episode of the Polyester Podcast released earlier today where they’re talking about how an internet trend/ semi-ironic meme takes on a kind of intellectual significance that distorts scrutiny of the actual thing that is being analysed (in todays episode’s case, recession indicators) - I feel like this with the ‘female gaze’; with the ubiquity of the ‘male’ gaze, how will we ever know we are operating outside of it?
Last year, I had a pretty heated debate with a friend over Poor Things and it circled around the miscommunication of the gaze— he argued that Poor Things was misogynistic on account of the sexual content — I felt it was more nuanced than just representing a female body that gets fucked, albeit, a female sexualised object, but to argue that it was “male gazy” felt so redundant, such it its ubiquity. Even his naïveté wrt ladies and BDSM (when I tried to argue that perhaps Lanthimos wanted to explore the nuances of how men navigate and rationalise their sense of ownership over female bodies, he cited the scene where she is tied up as blatant misogyny bc - and I quote - it’s the woman who’s tied up — go figure) was informed by this binary that flattens women’s experiences and desire to be totally relational to how they are positioned towards males — the same binary he was touting as the downfall of the film. He wasn’t willing to discuss anything further as he was so adamant in his diagnoses of the male gaze; as if that set it apart from other kinds of media. I know there’s a lot held in contention about Poor Things and the film does have its faults no doubt, but it’s so frustrating when you’re trying to discuss a convoluted piece of media and any discussion is shut down with decontextualised buzzwords.
If we are to begin to work against the matrices of power that form the very parameters by which we think, we need to acknowledge the molecular level by which it is integrated in us, somehow, as opposed to reasserting it through the insinuation of its alternative.
Rant aside, I fuckin loved this essay, thank you for sharing
“ If we are to begin to work against the matrices of power that form the very parameters by which we think, we need to acknowledge the molecular level by which it is integrated in us, somehow, as opposed to reasserting it through the insinuation of its alternative.”
That part!!! So true agreed completely
“with the ubiquity of the ‘male gaze’ how will we ever know we are operating outside of it”—this is exactly what I came away from this piece wondering. Thank you for saying it so perfectly!
Chad ‘thing I like’ vs virgin ‘thing I don’t like’
Amazing essay!! As a feminine lesbian, I myself have struggled with what the female gaze could mean, and why I should appeal to it. If the female gaze is created within patriarchy, it is going to be influenced by it. WLW spaces have the potiential to pave the way for something that would lead to getting completely rid of male expectations, but they won't get rid of the core problem - the gaze itself. Society's judgment, and our judgment of ourselves because we fear society's judgment. I also agree with bell hooks in that simply the male gaze - female gaze opposition doesn't contain intersectionality. What about the colonial gaze? Even though one is a woman, their gaze can still be hurtful and oppressive. So yeah, I definitely think the female gaze - in the sense it is widely used - does not completely exist, but! It is perhaps a first step towards something more productive. I agree with the other commenters that of we renamed it, or shifted its focus, it could have actual use for scholarship and theory. And until an anarchist revolution happens that gets rid of the gaze entirely, we can perhaps stay afloat. Sorry, my comment is not the most coherent, but hope you can still make sense of it. :')
I think one of the most compelling arguments here is also one of the simplest: if you gender swap (ie consider a man trying to dress for the hypothetical female gaze), the structures of oppression that uphold the gaze crumble.
absolutely wonderful analysis. i found your idea of the “mannequin” archetype of feminine expression particularly poignant as i have an obsession mannequins as both art historical objects and cultural symbols lol - totally spot-on as a way to describe the commerce-centered gaze. amazing work!
what a brilliant essay!!!!!! love the clear and substantial arguments as to why the female gaze does not exist and the way people miss interpret the term
Thank you so much!!🩷
loving that 2nd reference
Cricket, I always thoroughly enjoy your thoughtful essays, and I get so excited to see the notification in my inbox—you are doing wonderful work, thank you for your critical commentary and hard work <3
Thank you so much this is so kind!
i feel like one possible place where the female gaze does exist, in the sense that the media is meant to appeal to women as the main consumer and primarily produced by women, is bl, yaoi and slash fiction. ironically, women are mainly relegated to being side or background characters in such works. now, the problem with my suggestion is that the male gaze has shaped our understanding and perception of the world, as you mentioned in this article. it might be an interesting idea to examine further, though. i wish i had the time to go write about this, but my ass needs to sleep because elections are tomorrow 💀
exactly
"Most men don’t think about the way they are perceived this much because they haven’t been trained to be, and the men who are this self aware are probably mentally ill." <-- I'm not sure it's this simple. The concept of seeing yourself as both yourself and the way that an oppressing social class will perceive you is called "the gaze" here, but it's called double consciousness in The Souls of Black Folk. W.E.B DuBois talked about it, and so did Ralph Ellison, and August Wilson, and many other men (and women) of color writing about their experiences over the past few centuries. I'm not saying women don't experience this or that it shouldn't be talked about, just that the line between men and women isn't quite as clear as you've drawn it once race, class, and colonialism come into play.
I agree with you! In that sentence I was specially meaning that men don’t think about themselves in the same way women do in the context of impressing men vs women and therefore why they don’t perform for a so called “female gaze”.
But absolutely in the context of race and colonialism this self awareness would be present.
I’ve long been skeptical of the existence of female gaze. I really appreciate being educated on how the male gaze came about! This was such an interesting read 🫶
this banged in such a serious way….. the photos! the advertisements! the examples! thank u cricket guest
Ah thank you so much!!🩷🫶🏻
you ate. fr this is so accurate.
what a wonderful and thoughtful read!
Thank you 🩷🩷