Talk:Male gaze/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

What should be done about this article?

Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

This RfC was started 24 April 2015. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The male gaze was started 5 May 2015 and closed 14 May 2015 as "keep". I am archiving this discussion without further action. Cunard (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should it be merged or deleted? There is only one source. It may be classified as publicizing a neologism. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Merge. This is a neologistic piece of jargon, from a political camp in gender studies, without any scientific basis in psychology or neuroscience, and is a particularly PoV-pushing one. While there are lots of sources that use the word (not that we're citing any), there doesn't seem to be anything reliable backing up this hypothesis in the scientific literature, and the hypothesis is the subject here. It's essentially just a meme from a segment of gender feminism, and to the extent we cover it at all in WP, it can be addressed at Gaze. I don't think I'd be in favor of deletion, since the term is common enough in [a certain, narrow type of] external literature. We cover all sorts of ideas that are notable, even if they are not proven or are inherently activistic or otherwise biased. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment I'm not impressed that the article cites the same source six times, which also happens to have been written by the author who coined the term. This has potential problems in relation to NPOV as pointed out above. It's also problematic that there are no citations of secondary sources; an encyclopedia is supposed to rely mainly on secondary and tertiary sources to provide a broader view of the topic. Primary sources such as Laura Mulvey's book can be too "close to the coalface" and can give a biased view of a topic (in this case, the opinion of one scholar). More specifically, the relevant policy says:

Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.

The main question we need to answer is whether this jargon is notable enough to merit its own article; I see no evidence yet that it is (but I hasten to add that I don't know much about this particular academic domain – not enough to condemn stuff like this outright as pseudoscience anyway). So unless some evidence from secondary sources can be produced to show that this topic is notable in its own right from an objective standpoint, I'd suggest merging. Archon 2488 (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, although I see use of this phrase (often far outside is original meaning, which was limited to media presentation) frequently enough to know that secondary sources for its usage outside the original author's work will be trivially easy to find. This is why I support merging. It's common enough that someone will want to look it up on WP, probably lots of someones. But not enough secondary source material has treated the concept/phrase as a subject in itself for it to be notable enough for a separate article. Its just an unscientific and PoV-laden neologism from a narrow socio-political camp, and has been just catchy enough of a meme to gain some usage traction. We regularly merge meme and jargon articles into larger, more general ones. The intrinsic problem with "male gaze" is that misidentifies a symptom of societal forces (media enterprises, like others, tend to be controlled institutionally by men, and thus reflect male biases), and tries to re-spin it as an active social force in and of itself. It's a classic failure to understand the difference between correlation and causation. It would be precisely as absurd to write of an "able gaze" or "adult gaze" as some kind of social force, after noticing that almost all filmic works are shot from a camera height around the average height of the non-disabled, adult human's head, not that of the wheelchair-bound or of children. One could easily write a film school thesis paper suggesting that some children's films do better than others based on whether they use "child gaze" vs. "adult gaze", but such terms would be unlikely to ever enter general usage and be notable enough to even mention on WP. Because "male gaze" has been latched onto by gender feminists, to be misused in numerous ways as a term in sexual politics, this unusual case has entered somewhat broader usage, and we should cover it somewhere. The Gaze article seems the obvious place. But we should not promote it with its own one-source article. And it is being promoted, elevated wrongly to "theory" by its proponents (cf. the redundant but promotional hatnote that was in this article earlier, ''See also [[Laura Mulvey]] and [[Gaze|The “male gaze” in feminist theory]]''. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 16:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I also favor merging. Other editors can weigh in here. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I also favor merging the article. I don't think it meets the guidelines for notability on its own, but it probably deserves a much smaller subsection in the articles mentioned above.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 00:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Delete The article is single sourced, neologism. Other articles can refer to the term where secondary sources do so. SPACKlick (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Nominated this clearly dictionary only neologism for deletion here to allow for wider discussion. SPACKlick (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Strong oppose The male gaze is a major concept in feminist and gender study theory, and there are an absolutely massive number of journal entries, books and other reliable sources giving substantial coverage to the concept. Its an encyclopedic topic, and a substantial well-written article can in fact be created. Yes, the article may have its flaws, but these flaws should be fixed through editing, not the elimination of the article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 13 June 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Male gaze. DrKiernan (talk) 09:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The male gaze → Male Gaze – easier to find, currently "Male Gaze" redirects to the less specific "Gaze". – 201.37.163.198 (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- @201.37.163.198 and BlueMoonlet:::Common noun seems better to me. Trying to be helpful, I changed the offending redirect, so that "Male Gaze" now redirects to "The male gaze." --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- "Male Gaze" with capitals looks like a proper name. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I Support. But if it eases the path to consensus I am fine as well with simply lopping the "the" and having Male gaze. Not to be confused with "Male gays".... Pandeist (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Support Male gaze, per WP:NCCAPS, though I suppose "Male Gaze" is less wrong than "The male gaze", at least (cf. WP:THE). --BDD (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rewording or clarifying section on matrixial gaze

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This section seems much more jargon-heavy and very densely packed with information than the other sections; the format is much more scholarly than encyclopedic. It seems that it would be improved by rewriting it to be longer in order to clarify some of the points and/or removing any information that is extraneous to the purpose of the section. However, I am not well-versed enough in the subject to identify what information might be extraneous. Is anyone able to do this, or is it acceptable as it is? -- Benjwgarner (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Female gaze?

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Do females gaze? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.56.126 (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The female gaze is also a term in feminist theory.--Elil1999 (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

header changes

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I appreciate that you've restored a lot of the work that was reverted, but a few things were still removed and it's not clear what the issue is. First, the wikilink to literature. This is as-compared to visual arts and really shouldn't be too controversial. Second, the addition of "frequently" to the definition. This is taken directly from the source. Without which, the definition is changed completely to describe a naturally masculine aspect of all visual arts and literature; this has never been the case. The male gaze is something which frequently happens, not something inherent. Mulvey herself describes the counterexamples in defining the term, so this hopefully shouldn't be too controversial either. Then, the quotes from the Stanford source. I'm guessing this was just missed in the restorations because it was hidden. The sources were challenged initially and so I provided more information for my changes. Finally, the removal of "male gaze" from the Mulvey sentence and changing the 'analogous' sentence. First and foremost, these are done for redundancy. At the moment, the lead paragraph reads "The male gaze... The male gaze... The phrase 'male gaze'... The male gaze..." It reads like a series of sentences added by numerous editors (rightly so) rather than a cohesive paragraph. Changing up the flow was for readability. But the "has been compared to" I also find a little odd as it almost implies that the 'male gaze' is being compared to an existing phrase when in reality, the phrase 'female gaze' was specifically created as a response to the male gaze. Anyway, I'm not married to any of the phrasing and I'm sure some of this was removed as an oversight, but if it's not clear what the issue is, it's not clear how we can find a compromise. Let me know if there are still issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.235.52 (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the talk page and explaining your views. Per WP:Overlinking, we do not link everyday words unless they will significantly aid a reader's understanding of the matter, or unless doing so for context is considered beneficial. I do not see that the Literature article needs to be linked in this case. Words like frequently, often, etc. are commonly viewed as a WP:WHATPLACE matter. Some editors even cite WP:RELTIME, which is more so about words like recently and currently. Either way, we commonly avoid these words unless necessary. The words "frequently depict" are not needed, regardless of a lone author using that wording. Other definitions for the term don't include "frequently." "Depict" by itself is fine. As for adding "The term male gaze," I think that is clearer than "The phrase," especially since right before the "The phrase," you introduced "The male gaze has been compared to scopophilia" part. Also, stating that "The discussion has since coined an analogous "female gaze" for comparison." seems odd. What discussion? I know what you mean by "discussion," but we really shouldn't have that type of writing. And the discussion didn't really coin the matter; a person did. As for comparing the two, they have been compared; I don't understand your issue with stating "The male gaze has been compared to the female gaze." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Those guides are quite obviously referring to events which can be specified. As this discussion is about the definition of a phrase which has no specific time, it's neither applicable or preferable to try to specify a time. That should really go without saying and we can find countless correct uses of temporal words in describing things that happens temporally, but let's save the trouble and just change it from a state verb to an active verb, like the parent article "Gaze" and others. I have no issue with term vs phrase, I only have an issue with repeating 'male gaze' in every sentence ad nauseam. As for "compared" vs "analogous", you're the one who initially changed that sentence, so perhaps I should be asking you what issue you took with the initial phrasing. 70.59.235.52 (talk) 01:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding "quite obviously referring to events which can be specified," I clearly stated, "are commonly viewed as a WP:WHATPLACE matter. Some editors even cite WP:RELTIME, which is more so about words like recently and currently." My point in that regard was about editor perception. And beyond any misapplication of a guideline, "frequently" is not needed whatsoever in this case. In the Sexism article, we don't begin by stating "Sexism or gender discrimination is frequently prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender." We might use "commonly" or "generally" if noting the most common definition first and less common definition afterward, but neither is needed for that line. Likewise, the word frequently is not needed for that sexism line, and it is not needed for the male gaze line. I mean, is it any less a male gaze matter if "frequently" is removed? The male gaze is not about "frequently depict." It's about "depict." If the qualifier is not needed, we should not be adding it. I'm fine with this change you made. As for "compared" vs "analogous," I'm iffy on it being appropriate to state that "it is analogous to the female gaze"; this is because the female gaze is a significantly less studied topic with a smaller scope. Even the Background section of the Male gaze article currently states, "The possibility of an analogous female gaze may arise from considering the male gaze." Notice that it states "possibility," meaning that the matter is debatable. Stating that it is analogous to the female gaze is opinion more than fact. True, "analogous" can mean "comparable" and "related," but it can also mean "parallel" and "equivalent." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Evaluation

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I believe this article in its entirety seems neutral in writing, offering arguments based on citable sources rather than opinion based responses. I also found that most sources were independent and accurate in content. The only issue, as mentioned earlier, was the need for citations in certain areas like the Background section. Kaitlin 121 (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 August 2020 and 24 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Delaneyjane22.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Images

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

If this phenomenon is present in visual arts, surely there should be images illustrating it. Surtsicna (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Why would readers need sexualized images in this article to understand the topic? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

By the same reasoning, why would readers need any images in any article to understand the topic? The use of the word 'sexualised' provides an insight into your outlook. The article is fundamentally about sex, expressed visually. What more appropriate article warrants the use of images to demonstrate this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.171.249 (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Origin of the term

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The article depends heavily on Laura Mulvey and apart from a brief reference to Sartre there is very little on the origins of the term, which I believe was coined by John Berger. Is that not the case? Pelarmian (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Yup - added at various articles. Johnbod (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for handling this, John. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - there may well still be rather too much emphasis on Mulvey, though she is evidently an important figure. Johnbod (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Images 24 May 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I've added a main image that felt to me like it was less sexualized than most and which has been used by many, including Berger as the first image for his chapter on male gaze, to illustrate the concept. I also felt the artist of this image seems to be using it to illustrate the concept intentionally, as otherwise the relative size of the man's head is very odd. —valereee (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

ok, but expect complaints! Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, if people complain I'm happy to discuss! :) I think there's a better illustration for the Berger section, too -- Berger never used Red Nude (or at least I'm not finding it in his book) to illustrate the concept, but he did use and analyze two images of Susannah and the Elders. I'd like to replace the Red Nude with those two. —valereee (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, and I also found this third painting by a female artist whose work is in stark contrast, added that. I hope others will see these as improvements. —valereee (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Sexism

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

To restrict the term 'male gaze' to refer only to men gazing, sexually, at images of women is to dismiss males gazing sexually at other males. Surely we are past such sexism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.171.249 (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually there is quite a bit on the relation with male homoerotic gazing in the lower reaches of the article. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

A difference I noticed between both sexes is that one often cares a lot about everything, and the other one doesn't care about anything. Maybe thats why men don't give a shit about being looked at by other men. FranSauce8 (talk) 15:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)