All Eyes on Me

Kind of had a breakthrough this weekend in the justification of one of my theories. I prize analytical thinking really highly (and in fact have been called upon to teach it in recent years) and as such I like to come up with codified assessments to assist in my understanding and interpretation going forward. Usually they’re about the craft of storytelling; sometimes they go a little broader than that, but most of the time it’s me working out my thoughts on how people convey ideas to tell stories.

I spend a lot of time thinking about female gaze. It’s my pet feminist issue, and I work to specifically tell many of my stories from that perspective. Female gaze encompasses a number of dimensions, but one of the most fundamental ones is how men are regarded as objects of attraction. And I have long believed in my gut that the key component of female gaze is vulnerability. By which I mean, that to the feminine perspective responds powerfully to the presence of vulnerability in the regarded object—perhaps even is drawn more strongly by it than anything else.

For example. Between a man who is beautiful, and a man who is equally beautiful but demonstrates some kind of vulnerability, be it physical or emotional, I would say most women are more likely to find the second man more appealing. Even between a beautiful man and a somewhat less beautiful man with greater vulnerability. Still the second one will be more appealing.

I have mountains of anecdotal evidence. Everywhere from the popularity of hurt/comfort and angst scenarios for male characters in fan fiction written by women, to the development of my own obsession with Captain America. The Steve Rogers character in the comics always bored the hell out of me, because he was so perfect and without texture. But the character in the film? A heartbreakingly gorgeous man with fears, insecurities, uncertainties, and even some feminine encoding? THE RECIPE FOR SEXUAL OBSESSION. Apparently!

(As a side note, I love, love, love this essay on how much feminine encoding the MCU portrayal of Captain America actually has. It articulates a bunch of things I felt and fell in love with about that version of the character.)

I didn’t come up with that idea on my own. I encountered it in an article several years ago that I can’t seem to find today. In that article, it mostly was examining that idea from a sort of BDSM context; if I recall correctly, it was about how femdom expressed. That part of it I couldn’t speak to, at least partially because I don’t think they supported their assertions that well. But that central IDEA, that the female gaze reacted so strongly to vulnerability, that part rang true in my bones.

So I’ve believed that for a long time on a gut level. But as a theory, I really couldn’t intellectually justify it except that it felt right. Which is not sufficient for analytical conclusion. Even “I have evidence that this phenomenon happens” is not the same as being able to articulate the REASON why it happens. And I couldn’t. After all, what’s to say it isn’t just a preference of SOME women? If I’m going to generalize it broadly, I need to be able to attribute it to something about the straight female condition.

This weekend, however, I think I finally was able to do that. And I think the root is in violence against women. One in three women will experience violence from her partner worldwide. Straight women are drawn to one of the greatest possible dangers against them. These two simultaneous facts makes any indication that a man will not be dangerous to them INCREDIBLY attractive. And I think the presence of vulnerability we tend to read as a sign of that.

Now, of course it’s not necessarily an accurate sign. But here’s the logic that I think applies. Men are not socialized to show vulnerability. Of course everyone has it sometimes, but they are encouraged to hide it. Specifically, they are encouraged to cover vulnerabilities with aggression. It’s that aggression that makes them dangerous. So there’s this sense that the willingness to admit and show things like fear, insecurity, or weakness marks a man as on the opposite end of the spectrum from aggression— and therefore, safe.

I would argue that any kind of indicator of what traditional masculinity would characterize as softness— sensitivity, femininity, delicacy —can fall under the heading of “vulnerability display.” These are also things men are culturally “not supposed to show” and they often face ridicule for these as “not befitting of a real man.” So, for example, a man who admits having qualities that are considered traditionally feminine is making himself vulnerable to attacks from other men who would perceive him as weak and unmasculine because of them. Therefore, that man’s willingness to own the qualities that could encourage others to attack him is perceived as making himself vulnerable.

Of course not all women are the same. We don’t all have exactly the same feelings, attractions, or even totally identical social encoding. But I think that this is why so, so many women are interested in stories where men cry, experience powerful emotions, are uncertain, or “in touch with their feminine side.” Not all women; we are not a monolith. But a large number, given what we do share from our experience of existing in the world as women. And I would suspect that of the women who DO NOT find themselves drawn to vulnerability, they are the ones who do not have as strong a concept of the problems stemming from traditional masculinity.

So I think I finally have a thesis on this that I can actually support. You may disagree. But I really do believe this. Vulnerability is the key component of female gaze because it acts as an indicator of an absence of the kind of masculine aggression that is most dangerous to women.

I know it’s a waste of energy to have any feelings at all with dumb comedy franchises, but Zoolander has annoyed me on an ideological level for a long time. When it came out when I was in high school, everyone I knew loved it while I just didn’t get why it was supposed to be so funny.

But the more I think about it, the more it makes me kind of angry. It basically has one joke to it, the absurdity of male models. Yes, when I was a little older I saw that there was SOME commentary on the constant-need-machine of the fashion industry with the whole Derelict thing. But mostly you’re supposed to laugh because you recognize how dumb and frivolous any man who models is, not to mention how silly the whole idea of a man modeling.

First of all, they hammer that stupid, unnecessary term, "male model." Why would you need to specify that a man is a male model, unless you think it's weird that a man even is a model? Secondly, Ben Stiller and Luke Wilson do not look like models. I mean, people might find them attractive, but they’re not beautiful or even of the unusually extreme features your average female model is. The fact that they could be passed off as models speaks to the much lower bar men have to be considered attractive. Men don’t have to be beautiful! In fact, men AREN’T beautiful! The idea that you could be invested in the beauty of men is silly! And look what idiots they are. Any dude who would want to model would have to be a moron, right? Also, I’ll admit, there is one actually funny thing about the movie— Blue Steel and its variants —but it ties into the notion of how absurd it is that dudes even would model. Look how silly dudes are when they try to present themselves so as to be aesthetic!

I don’t mind people poking fun at the modeling or fashion industries. But I wish they were aiming for the INDUSTRY rather than basically JUST the idea of aesthetic men. Even the new one’s marketing campaign ties into this. I mean, thanks to a marketing tie-in, those actors are making appearances as their characters in actual, real Valentino couture. What’s the joke there, if they’re basically just doing what actual models do— that is, wear and demonstrate high-end clothes? It’s only funny if you think it’s funny that they’re BEING MODELS. I get really, really irritated at anything that feeds into the myth of Men Not Being Hot, and that’s basically all I see in those films.

I remember when I first saw Iron Man 1 in theaters. I found Tony to be incredibly hot, and this annoyed me, because he was a jerk, and I didn’t like the idea that such jerkiness wouldn’t kill my attraction to him. Every time I see Jon Hamm, the guy who plays Don Draper, out of character, I’m always struck— “He’s so attractive! Why do I never notice this?” I watch a ton of Mad Men, he’s super-handsome, and he looks fabulous in the period drag. But it’s because his character, while admittedly interesting, is such a jerk that I find him completely repellent when he’s portraying the man. This pleases me, because as above, I don’t want to be attracted to jerks.

There’s a tired old stereotype that women are attracted to jerks. It’s the only explanation some can manage to come upon for why certain awful men have no trouble finding women, when men without their obvious downsides get ignored. It irritates me a lot, as it gets used as a justification for men to treat women badly. So I get annoyed when it seems I verify the stereotype by wanting to jump Iron Man’s bones, and smug with myself when I blow it by being immune to the charms of a Don Draper.

But the truth is, women AREN’T attracted to jerks. Women are attracted to the qualities that enable men to be jerks in such obvious ways without experiencing the immediate social pushback that stops average people from being jerks. When Tony says something rakish and nasty, he’s displaying his wit. When Don solves a problem by saying something aggressive rather than apologizing, he demonstrates guts. Tony may have a huge ego, but it shows a wellspring of self-confidence. And everybody likes good-looking people; beauty can allow people to get away with murder. All of these things— beauty, wit, confidence, courage, power —make people attractive to others. While the use they put these qualities to may be undesirable, or even off-putting, the fact remains that they still require the possession of these qualities in order to perpetrate them. And that is what is sexy.

I think that’s an important thing to remember. It’s a shame that kindness and gentleness aren’t so paramount on that list of attractive qualities that the absence of them can cancel out the approval, but I think this explains what’s going on there. At least, a hell of a lot better than the theory that people actually like badness and being mistreated.

I am one of those people who thinks it's a shame that there is no real "dressing up" anymore. Mostly I think it's a good thing that in our daily lives we're allowed more freedom of expression in how we dress, and that we're not always being held to some rigorous arbitrary standard. But I do wish there were, in addition to that freedom, more occasions where it was expected and normal to dress according to formal rules. I love the way people, specifically men, look in formalwear, and there's just no occasion to ever wear black or white tie anymore. It's just so striking, so attractive. It lends an air of elegance, power, taste, discernment, and it looks so damn good.

Last year, the Met Gala theme was white tie. It was one of the few places outside of Downton Abbey one could actually see real people in white tie. Honestly most people didn't wear anything close to it. The handful of people who did didn't always execute it traditionally, and the aesthetic effects were variable. But the one person EVERYONE was talking about, as not only having nailed it, but having knocked it out of the park, was Benedict Cumberbatch.

Now I'm no Benedict Cumberbatch fangirl. I think he's charming and talented, but I really don't like how he's freaking everywhere, even in roles he's not suited for. I get how he's attractive but he doesn't really do it for me. But have you ever seen him in what he wore to the 2013 Met Gala? It's quite possibly the most exquisite white tie ensemble I've ever seen.



As I said, I'm a Downton Abbey fan, so I have a fondness and a familiarity for men who look GOOD in white tie. I still keep every image from the couture men's formalwear shoot the male actors did a couple years back on my iPad. They all look hot, though most of the articles have some kind of modern twist to them. But Benedict's here is so perfectly styled, so carefully composed, so exquisitely tailored that it makes for a sort of ur-example of a classic ideal. It flatters his figure, and the details are so thoughtfully chosen-- the exact distance of the waistcoat below the cutaway, the single Albert watch chain, the perfect length of the trousers. And it SO technical and correct, going back to the earliest codifications of the style. They throw the word "timeless" around, especially when it comes to the varying levels of men's formalwear, but dressed like this, Benedict could walk into a ballroom at any minute going back to 1870, and every woman's head would turn and murmur, "Who. Is. That?"

I am working away furiously on my new film script Adonis, set in a matriarchal alternate history Ancient Rome. It's a hard road, but it's coming, and I'm really starting to believe in this project. I need to get it finished so it can be read on the last Sunday of the month.

I have so many thoughts about this story, about the process of putting it together. I can't spare the time to write them all down now, because I need to hit that deadline. But it's challenging and at times even wringing. But I think it will be worth it in the end.

I gave this piece its title because the myth of Adonis always stuck in my mind. I’m not sure why. Perhaps because it was one of the rare touchstones in our culture referring to a beautiful man. I wasn’t always as invested in the beauty of men as I am now, but since becoming so, the character has stood out even more for me.

( Trigger warning: sexual assault )

Today is Chris Evans's birthday. To celebrate:









Here's to one more year of that beautiful, beautiful man.

They've released some new images from the set of Captain America 2: The Winter Soldier.





God damn this beautiful man. <3 About time I had some new junk to feed my habit...

This is my mom around the time she was married.



Ridiculous.

My daylilies are growing up nicely.


They've been in the ground since June 15th, so that makes a little over two and a half months. They've gotten a lot fuller since the last time I checked in with them, and they've been very healthy and easy to care for, needing a little pruning of dead leaves. One of them is even starting to branch out into other clusters. When the first one sprang up I thought it was a little weed that blew into the pot at first, but when I bent to pull it I saw it was a new plant springing from the same bulb.


Also, the daylilies may not have bloomed yet, but the kitchen has flowers in it. bronzite very sweetly brought nennivian flowers, and she put some of them in a lovely arrangement in a vase on the table. The kitchen is my favorite part of Illyria, so it made smile to see how cheerful they made the place when I came home yesterday.