Once Upon A Time: Can We Escape the Male Gaze?

I am an avid follower of the abc series, Once Upon a Time. There are certainly some drawbacks to the show, and I wouldn't exactly call it the greatest thing on television, but I'm fascinated by fairytales, so I'm always on the lookout for a new retelling - lately, I've even been watching The Secret Circle, just because of its (subtle) connections to Irish mythology. And Once Upon a Time is an interesting retelling, particularly with complex characters like Rumpelstiltskin. So I'm not bashful about my interest in Once. 

But recently I discovered an interview with the cast and creators of the show, and I was surprised when they asked the show's writers to stand up - they were all men. Later, I heard them mention a female writer, but all the creators on the stage were men, and the majority of the writers appear to be men too. Yet the majority of the show's viewers are women.

When you imagine the reverse - a show produced and written by women, with a majority male viewership, it sounds worse than unlikely. It sounds laughable even. Yet women generally have no problem watching a show produced and written by men - so tell me, what do you think? In this kind of market, where men and women gobble up stories by men more readily than stories by women, is there a way to escape the male gaze? Should we?

All dolled up

I just came across this link on Fark, and just about fainted. Essentially, the article asserts, the recent absence of Mary-Kate and Ashley's finished cosmetics line on the shelves at WalMart is going to be filled by makeup that's targeted at cis girls in the 8-12 age range. Yes, you read that right. 8-12.

I think Emily's post from November does a great job of unfolding some of the personal, cultural, and political questions raised by the spectre of makeup, so I'm taking a leaf from her book to give a quick reaction to the WalMart marketing plan.

My first thought was a knee-jerk "WHAT?!?!", followed by a total-body sense of outrage. Eight, from my perspective, is far too young to be thinking that your skin needs specific products to make it attractive. For that matter, any age is. When I thought about it a little more, though, and remembered myself at ages 11 and 12, I (an admittedly flirting-and-sexually-interested-at-an-early-age person) realized that that was the age that my friend Maura and I used to go to drugstores, buy any beauty products we could, and give each other "spa treatments" and makeovers during late-night sleepovers. Of course, wearing makeup out of the house at that point was a major no-no, so my (teenaged) response was to put on just enough to make myself feel defiant before leaving for school. End result? I doubt the makeup was noticeable on me. But at age 12, wearing makeup felt empowering because it meant rebelling against my parents' rules and being "all grown up."

Now, looking at this WalMart line and juxtaposing it with my own late-tween idiosyncracies, I find myself less angry at the fact that 12-year-olds are being sold makeup (though 8 years old still makes me feel ill) and more outraged at the fact that this is how cis girls are taught to grow up. And when I say "grow up," I don't mean "behave when they become adults," but "behave now to appear grown up." In other words, what that marketing campaign is communicating is
-The primary function of women is to look beautiful.
-Makeup makes you look beautiful.
-Therefore, you need to wear makeup in order to look beautiful.
An addendum, of course, is that since these logical steps apply to women, this is the process that girls must undergo to become women (or to grow up).

It makes me wish that the makeover saleswoman described in Emily's post had made everyone push the button on the mirror before the makeover happened, so they were told that it's not the makeup that makes them beautiful. But then...that wouldn't be marketing.

From Lux: a letter to the patriarchy

Dear The Patriarchy,

Hi! How are you? Still putting it about that women have all the real power? Hilarious!

Well, another Fashion Week has been and gone and with it the still-not-getting-old debate about how size zero models are destroying our nations teen girls and whether "large" models can walk properly. Naturally, you like to offer your opinion on the subject, as you do in all things, and I can really see how you are trying to help. That said, I am really not sure that endlessly carping on about how skinny women look "weird" and how you would rather have a "real" woman is actually improving the situation as much as you think it is. It may surprise you to learn, patriarchy, that not all issues about the female body are directly connected to your collective penis. As it transpires, while you get to have a crazy amount of influence in the way we girls see our bodies, you don't actually dictate every aspect of our self image. I know!

The fashion industry cares little about whether you get your rocks off over their models. A huge, vapid, global behemoth with a largely female client base gets to define beauty any way it likes, for better or worse. The way it currently stands, I'm leaning towards worse, but not because you find double-A cups and jutting collar bones to be a bonerkiller. Yeah, sure, you want to do Cristal Renn. Who doesn't? But her story and her success in the fashion world has implications that transcend your groin. And blaming a secret "gay fashion mafia" for making flat chests and slim hips into an ideal body shape is not only daft and hand-waving a whole set of complex societal issues, it also makes you seem like homophobic as well as simply misogynist. Your dazzling resistance to believe that any concept of female attractiveness simply has to be about your desires almost makes me admire the fashion industry. Please do not make me admire the fashion industry, patriarchy!

While we are on the subject of body image, I feel I should point out that eating disorders are a far more complex psychological issue than "wanting to look like Kate Moss", a cliche that never gets old, by the way. Sometimes, it's not about wanting to please you, either, or wanting to conform to some unattainable standard of beauty. You know, the kind perpetuated by the magazines and films you like so much. Sometimes, it's about self-destruction and about control, and this is a state of mind that transcends gender. So when a man admits to this particular self-destructive urge, how about not giving it a funny name like "manorexia" or taking the piss or adding little emasculating comments of your own, as if the stigma of mental illness were not enough. There are other ways of hating your body than punishing yourself at the gym, patriarchy. Or crying yourself to sleep at night wondering how Don Draper makes it all look so easy.

So, patriarchy, I see what you're trying to do for us poor, poor ladies. But this is one time (among thousands) that you should maybe butt out. I know it's hard to accept that sometimes your judgment of our bodies is neither wanted, needed or appreciated, but it's time to realise that your desires don't get a say in everything we do. It's time to move on. Get a hobby maybe. Have you thought about knitting?