Observed: A Closer Look at Patriarchy and the Male Gaze

"Tex-Mex," Carl's Jr. Ad, 2015

Around 1972, John Berger, an English art critic, painter, and poet, published “Ways of Seeing” – an essay on art criticism and observation. While studying the European nude, around this time, Berger found that women who were painted as nude had become objects, rather than owners, of gaze. This phenomenon has been dubbed “the male gaze.” Laura Mulvey, in her essay “Visual Cinema and Narrative Pleasure,” articulates this phenomenon as seen through the film industry in the 20^th century. The ideas presented in both texts move to affirm the pervasiveness of the male gaze in media and popular culture. The male gaze is, in part, the result of a taught belief that a woman should “survey herself continually,” as “she comes to consider the surveyor and the surveyed within her as the two constituent yet always distinct elements of her identity as a woman” (Berger 46).  Simply said, a woman is led to believe, by uncritical assimilation, that her success in life as a woman is contingent on her ability to survey not only how she appears in relation to other women but also “how she appears to men” (Berger 46). A woman’s sense of self, then, is reliant on her ability to survey in this fashion, so her identity as a woman must include the acceptance of one chilling reality: she is a sight to be seen. Thus, the male gaze acts as a mechanism of ownership and objectification for men. Since the male gaze’s prevalence in society relies on patriarchy’s prevalence, as a masculine-driven phenomenon, any sort of dichotomy between the two concepts isn’t particularly valid; however, one could reasonably argue that both concepts feed off of each other in some way as to perpetuate a masculine agenda that is pervasive in society.

Bell Hooks, an American feminist, social activist, and author of the essay, “Understanding Patriarchy,” speaks of how patriarchy is “the foundation of our nation’s politics” and how patriarchy itself is “the political system that shapes and informs male identity and sense of self from birth until death” (17). For one to understand completely why the male gaze exists, one must acknowledge patriarchy as the ubiquitous force behind gender roles, expectations, and stereotypes. Patriarchy, simply, is “a political-social system that insists that men are inherently dominating, superior to everything and everyone deemed weak, especially females” (Hooks 18). Given patriarchy’s ability to infiltrate and control almost every aspect of an individual’s life at one point or another, its power should not be taken lightly. Domestic violence, as well as both child and psychological abuse, are common techniques that allow the male-breadwinner a means of enforcement. The reminder to those under his wing that he is, in fact, the dominant figurehead and, as such, should be respected unconditionally.

When the male gaze, as well as patriarchy, are applied to other realms of observation, such as advertisements, women, then, are viewed as a commodity, which then aids the sale of the product featured beside the woman. Because patriarchy demands, what Hooks cites as “blind obedience” (23), it is relatively uncommon for many to speak out against clear representations of both concepts in action. Actually utilizing women as a tool, a commodity and sight, advertisements both for men and women often maintain the “practices of subjugation, subordination, and submission” (Hooks 24). An advertisement featuring women, such as the Carl’s Jr. ad posted above, uses the male gaze as a means of aiding their sale of hamburgers. Although the correlation is nonsensical, men who view this commercial, as well as women, find themselves objectifying both the hamburger as well as the women. The correlation is then a bit clearer. If a viewer sees and understands the nature of the hamburger, in that it can be bought, possessed, and eaten at whim, the connotation is then translated to the women. Objectifying both the woman and hamburger allows for a viewer to become more engaged with the commercial: buy a burger and get the girl, or vice-versa. 

Advertising not intended for hetero-male attention, advertising aimed at women, commonly engages the woman in what Berger calls the mirror effect. By the woman viewing herself through the very same lens men do, the woman is encouraged to view herself as a man would. The woman, then, becomes the recipient of a mutually shared male-attention: both the surveyor and surveyed. In the link to the left, we find patriarchy’s latest attempt to reinforce the principles of patriarchy and the male gaze. The program, “Mommy Wars” pits mother against mother, as they not only compete using different mothering tactics to find the most efficient mother but also elicit and present the various judgements women have when objectified by the male gaze and marginalized by patriarchy.

 

"Mommy Wars," Similac Ad, 2015

As a writer and college student, it’s pertinent to  understand the current value systems in place  when I’m either evaluated or judged in a sense associated with either the male gaze or patriarchy. After reading Berger and Hooks, I’ve come to understand just how pervasive these sort of values are, and I’ve also become aware of my own judgements and if and when they are associated with either concept.

Works Cited:

              

Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. London: British Broadcasting Corporation and Penguin Books. 1972. Print.

Hooks, Bell. "Understanding Patriarchy." 2004. The Will to Change. New York: Atria Books, 2004. 17-33. Print.