Secondly, I think much of the value in Silverman's essay is the fact that it analyzes something which we greatly take for granted; our vision. By inviting the reader to consider the power that our gaze, and specifically the gaze of a male towards a female, has we are engaged on not a pitying and sympathetic level, but rather of someone who is closely affected by and deeply involved in what the author has to say. So then, what does the author have to say? A lot of things, but what I feel is most interesting is the origin of how the male gaze has come to take on such significance in our society. I held the assumption that it was of course relative to a woman's sex appeal and the objectification of a woman into being something purely for a male's viewing pleasure. However, Silverman explains that it is actually more relative to money and class than either of these. What this insinuates is that women were not always necessarily seen as sexual objects but rather just objects to be adorned and utilized in the same manner one would their home. Although this is also a terrible way to see a person, which despite popular belief women are, it calls into question which is better, for a woman to be a sexual object or just an object?
It's a difficult question to answer because a woman is in both not allowed to be a full fledged person. However when one looks at the purpose behind either, to be a sexual thing or just a thing, although being only a thing allows you the malleability to perform many tasks/purposes it also separates you from being something with a pulse, which being a sexual object doesn't. When one considers this, it appears as though it might be better to be objectified sexually in that it at least gives a woman the right to be a biological being and gives her some sort of physical characteristics, albeit only erotic. In that sense, this drives the question as to whether the male gaze and the objectification of women has somehow progressed from it's simplified beginnings. If looked at logically, it seems as though the answer is yes, though that doesn't necessarily mean one shouldn't hold their applause. For if we socially can only allow women to be something if they are satisfying our sexual cravings, that we honestly haven't gotten that far. Perhaps it is time for final (dis)course (yayy my title does have something to do with what I wrote!!) and I would suggest we order the sweet taste of equality.
--Jheanelle G.
This could be a good premise for a paper. Or, at least, a good title, as you seem to be a fond of crafting those: Is Woman A Sexual Object or Just an Object? (to the extent that there is such a thing as a non-sexual object, of course).
ReplyDelete