yerssot:
don't get carried away, it was a highly theoretical sentence
as I mentioned on msn, I think we're misunderstanding each other and talking past each other. I'll try to be more clear in this post, though it's getting more and more difficult.
On the sports matter: I was taught about the olympics in high school and was told that women weren't allowed to watch it because of all the naked men. but that's some time ago now and I may be wrong.
the 'naked' statues have probably been at display at sports arenas, political houses and other kinds of publical places where women weren't allowed to come. this is an assumption, though, not a historical fact I've been introduced to.
anyways: my point was actually just to demonstrate that the ancient greek society was patriarchal to the finger tips. that women weren't expected to participate in male activities, which were much more active than the ones expected of the women.
that leads me to the sex of the sculpturer: no, I don't have any proof that all of these were indeed men. considering the fact that ancient greece WERE very patriarchal does make it natural to assume this, though. women weren't allowed to participate in all the official stuff. they belonged entirely to the home-sphere. if they were to sculpt, they'd have to go out, get a job (and a very physical one at that). that would mean noone to look after the children, the house, the cooking (except maybe some slaves or servants.) she wouldn't, in other words, be capable of fulfilling the role of a woman. she'd have moved in on the role of a man, thus making her unfeminine and most likely unattractive as wife. then she may not get married at all, and this way loose her only way of fulfilling the expectations of her sex: she'd be childless, husbandless, and since the wife was the man's property, also loose quite some rights. besides this, I doubt that women were allowed to be trained as sculpturers at all. all in all, what I'm trying to get at: ancient greece was a patriarchal society, where specific things were expected from both genders. there might have been some female artists, I can't say there weren't for sure, but I doubt they were anything but the exception proving the rule.
was it the part about 'otherness' you didn't understand?
no, they couldn't (wouldn't) depict anything but these things, and that's my point exactly, and that's were the little female goddess statues/dolls we touched upon in the previous posts enter the picture. they were (most likely) products of a matriarchal society, were women were depicted as active subjects, not just passive objects. they had a function. women in ancient greece didn't have a function. at least not one that was accepted and appreciated as being important and valuable. neither were poets, as the written word in ancient greece was frowned upon. what was worshipped and accepted was the physical, active, strong male body. my point was, as stated above, that ancient greece was a patriarchal society favouring active men. when women were depicted, they were depicted as victims, passive or sexually dangerous and attractive: male fantasies.
our present day society is a patriarchal society. not as bad as in ancient greece, and it's slowly moving towards a more equal society, but it's nonetheless stil based on patriarchal norms and values. so yes, we do encounter lovely male bodies, such as yours ( thank god for your generosity
), but the naked, female body is the one we encounter the most. in this country, there's just been a gigantic, male roar, because some big posters featuring a naked male was hung all over town. in the end, the manufacturers had to take it down, course the men just couldn't handle being 'made into sexual objects'. strangely enough, noone mentioned the equally naked woman hanging on all the other posters, advertising for the same product. we've simply become used to the naked, female body. this body's become the 'property', so to say, of the street, the public forum. it no longer indicates a 'subject', but an object. therefore, it's not harmful, it's not dangerous, it doesn't attack any society standards, as does the naked male body.
this is one of my basis-es for saying that the female body's become the object for the male eye. also, if you see in which contexts the naked, female body appears, and how it's photographed/filmed/painted/etc., you'll see that most of the time it's made to be appealing to the male, heterosexual majority. yes, women find role models in these women, course that's the role models a patriarchal society provides them with. they learn to see themselves through the male eye. look at all the little girls wearing thongs and skimpy, little skirts. that's not themselves looking at their own bodies from a female perspective. that's themselves looking at their bodies from a male perspective.
I think I already answered the thing about the women in greek society above ( and yes, I do believe they were bound and gagged at home, but I don't know enough about ancient greek society to say so for sure.) if you don't think I've answered it thoroughly, beat me over the head with the questions again and I'll make another try.
if I get the time, I'll look for some pictures on the net for you. what I'm talking about are the rather gruelling pictures of the tortured in hell. there are some rather sadistic scenes, featuring witches having sex with demons. some of these were painted over though.
indeed. many societies used to be matriarchal. my points only apply to the patriarchal societies.
I'm not disputing that there have been female warriors. actually, I'm quite certain there have been.
I jumped to kill bill without explaining why, which wasn't very clever of me. what I meant was: yes, most tales about female warriors have been told and retold and retold and rewritten, to fit the present day society they're told in. yes, I do believe that the present day image of jean d'arch is a very male fantasy. she's no longer seen as merely a historical woman, but as a legend, a myth. myths only live as long as they're relevant to present day society. yes, I can find the hard, naked facts on jean d'arch and her life in a history book and that's all good and fine. but jean d'arch, as she lives out side the history books, is a myth, a tale, a story, told by men. how we view her was expressed very well in the film ( I'm afraid I didn't watch it, so I can't go into details.) the pictures I saw of milla in this role, fitted the idea of a dangerous, phallic woman. beautiful, with open mouth, very feminine, and still very masculine. a fantasy. this is where kill bill enters the picture: both present day idea of jean d'arch and the present day heroine, black mamba, are male fantasies. the only difference is that jean d'arch actually existed.
yes, hollywoods's changing. as the patriarchal structures of society starts changing, women ( and homosexuals for that matter) get to make demands too. and what they want (or think they want. this may just be a taking over of the male ideas of sex. and then it may not, I don't know) is more good looking, sexy, naked men. so hollywood, because women now have the money and the time to go to the cinema, needs to cope with this.
still. even though good looking men are starting to pop up everywhere, there are still different ideas of when men and women are sexy. men don't HAVE to be good looking to be sexy. you'll find loads of elderly, ugly men, who are playng the main character in a film and still being surrounded by gorgeous women, simply because men are still judged on their actions and capabilities. they are active subjects. women, on the other hand, MUST be beautiful, no matter how active they are. they are, therefore, more 'objectified' because their appearance comes before their actions.
no, and if that was how I articulated myself, I'm sorry. what I meant was that because you do not know how it should be done, but still think it could happen, we're basically on the same side.
you misunderstood my use od the word 'attractive'. what I meant by it was that it's just not very desirable for a woman in the sense that, as I've stated before, a rape is about controlling and getting rid of frustrations and anger. an angry woman would not want to go through a long process of 'persuading' the penis. she'd act in rage. men can rape when in rage. women can't, cause they're dependable on the man to have an erection. he's not very likely to have this with a raging woman scratching his face and stabbing him. that's what I meant by it.
)?
who?
