pantryslut | (no subject)

Post-Femme Con thought for the day:

"However, the success of early female punk performers' attempts to desexualize the clothes they wore in such a parodic fashion is debatable. Whereas punk women intended to present these garments in such a way as to discredit their effect as fetishistic, sexually titillating items, the overriding cultural view of women as sex objects may have worked at cross-purposes with their intent. Thus, Laing argues that "an attempt to parody 'sexiness' may simply miss its mark and be read by the omnivorous male gaze as the 'real thing'." Their attempt at resistance, when contained within the subculture's private code, could be, and was, often read by the mainstream press and by observers more in terms of its accomodation, rather than resistance, to feminine sexual stereotypes. While striving to counter stereotypes of women in rock, punk women were repeatedly described as sluts, perverts, whores, and junkies by those outside the subculture."

-- Lauraine Leblanc, Pretty in Punk

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

sure -- commodification. think of it as the difference between fauxbians gone wild and, say, footage of breedlove on shim's bike. uncapturable/misunderstood by the gaze is resistant. noncompliant. not fitting into the appropriate matrix of desire and not consumable by such.

But, see, I still don't see why straight girls are excluded from this sort of cultural work. This theoretical structure implies that compromising one's self-expression to conform to the expectations of the male sexual gaze is inherent in straight female sexuality, essential even (word chosen with care), and I'm not buying that.

I don't think that's quite what I'm saying. I'm talking about a particular sort of commodification that is open to presumption/fetishism that by positionality/appearance is denied by queers. So here's the sidewalk version -- you can't fetishize me because you can't see me like that. Now, straight punk girls? I would say it comes down to attitude, since we're talking Quebecoise and not pure theory. ;)

"you can't fetishize me because you can't see me like that"

I think I'm missing something here--like what?

like a girl.

Hmm.... Since this entire conversation centers on expressions of femininity and whether or not they subvert the paradigm (god, how I hate that word now), invoking Breedlove as an example of someone resisting the male gaze doesn't really work for me seeing as how Lynnee's not about expressing femininity but identifies, very clearly, as a dude. I guess seeking the "sidewalk" truth, as mentioned elsewhere, I'm curious who among us is able to resist that gaze while still being read as feminine.

It was my understanding that Blove identified sort of interstitially -- hence the pronouns "shim", etc. But I will come up with a couple other examples -- it's difficult in part because I think media commodification/fetishization/iconization reifies the subject in ways similar to but not identical to the sexualized male gaze. So trying to find a subject who is well-known enough to use here of queer femininity is problematic.

So, regardless of actual preference... Cindy Sherman queers the gaze. Cathy Opie denies it. And I think Camille Paglia inverts it -- or at least threatens to.

And I realize that this may be a sidestep, coming to meet the question with visual artists.

I think there are moments when Karen Finley got pretty close to resisting the gaze, actually -- mostly, when she was having diarrhea onstage. Because it's an abject performance. Almost purely so.

And I realize that this may be a sidestep, coming to meet the question with visual artists.

I was just gonna say this :) Seeing vs. being seen and all.

Yeah. :)

Yeah, I would say a "performer" isn't quite getting at it. Though Courtney Love crossed my mind as a straight punk performer who perhaps has resisted the gaze--at least at points. (And I'm thinking less of her incidental "performances" before the press.) But of course she definitely seemed to cave at some point and begin assimilating into the celebrity world--toning down her antics and her appearance and becoming a more "respectable" woman. So perhaps she fails as well.

But yeah, I'm thinking less of those with celebrity who consciously, attempt to resist the gaze as part of their art and commerce. I'm thinking more "real-world" examples. I think the theory just doesn't reflect the reality.

yeah, but see, there's a difference i think between being uncommodifyable as an object of phallologocentric desire e.g. the gaze and just being fuck-you about it -- especially given her history as a sex worker, her finger to the camera, so to speak, doesn't change the staring at her. so courtney is still entrapped in the gaze.

and i think it's hard to pull performers out of this since any discussion of the gaze has to do with watching, and what we're watching is often a performance -- if nothing else, than of gender.

as far as the real world goes? i guess i'd say, do you mean by "the gaze" appropriable as an object of male desire? or do you mean something else?

femininity that is resistant: what about drag queens? divine?