Freud, Gender, Feminism,

I had some misgivings about today’s readings for class. Regarding the psychoanalytic chapter, I always have a hard time understanding why Freud’s ideas, which are not considered to be relevant in the field of psychology, are still considered to be a valid form of analysis. To me, Freudian stuff seems kind of like hypersexualized nonsense masquerading as some kind of science or analysis. It’s just not really something that appeals to me, because his view is extremely reductive in terms of how it views gender. The Lacan stuff is a bit better; though it’s similar, (as the chart on 157 shows) Lacan emphasizes the subconscious elements of psychology and downplays the sexualized elements, which I feel is a more appropriate way of dealing with complex matters of analysis. I doubt I will approach things from a psychological perspective in anything I write, though, because this kind of early psychology jargon isn’t something I appreciate.

The one area I did enjoy reading about, however, was the “male gaze” aspect of the chapter. As a film fan, I recognize this criticism, but I hadn’t seen it explained in this much detail. I’ve always been bothered by the male-centricity of Hollywood films. It even extends to the films meant for female audiences, which are typically driven by “romance” and emotion. It’s very rare that a female character is shown with real agency on screen, so when it happens I think people are always a bit surprised. It reminds me of the movie “Juno.” In that film, the main character has quite a lot of agency. However, this agency is undercut by her teenage pregnancy. Still, I believe that a large part of the draw to that film was the “curiosity” factor of a film with a strong female character. Those types of films are quite rare in Hollywood and even among independent films. It’s much easier to work within a set genre than it is to come up with a new angle, which is how the general misogynistic tendencies of Hollywood cinema continue to be reinforced. We really need to use a critical lens on these “entertainments.”

Speaking of misogyny, I was really depressed by both the “milk” ads in the book as well as the Fox News article Dr. Pimentel emailed to us. I don’t understand how we as a society are still in a place where it’s appropriate to disseminate these types of messages. It makes it all the more important to be critical of these things in our scholarship.