I found this article to be very confusing, yet interesting nonetheless. I have came across some of Mulvey's main points in some of the psychology and philosophy classes I've taken in the past. One of the points Mulvey made throughout her article, under psychoanalytic terms, was that the woman finds meaning in her sexual difference or "the absence of a penis," and that castration is "essential for the organization of entrance to the symbolic order and the law of the father." She then went on to say "Thus the woman as icon, displayed for the gaze and enjoyment of men, the active controllers of the look, always threatens to evoke the anxiety it originally signified." My question is, do you think that people in today's society unconsciously define the meaning of a woman through their sexual difference? If so, do you think it will always be this way?
Discussion Question - Mulvey
TrackBack URL: http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/197677