Mel Gibson’s movie What Women Want attempts to get into the female mind. After an electrical accident, Gibson is given access to every woman’s thoughts. Simultaneously, Gibson is objectified by women left and right; scrutinized for his demeanor, his physic, etc. Throughout the film we see that Gibson is uncomfortable with this role reversal. As a result, he becomes more aware of his actions and his encounters with women. However, in the end, our protagonist goes back to being an outsider to the woman’s mind. But it is only during Gibson’s access into the mind of women that female thoughts and desires are exposed. This private or reserved representation of the female underscores traditional assumptions about femininity within our society.
As stated by John Berger, “Men act and women appear”, we see that the gendered body is represented very differently for the male and female (Bordo, 196). In The Male Body: A New Look at Men in Public and in Private, Susan Bordo posits, “Women may dread being surveyed harshly—being seen as too old, too fat, too flat-chested—but men are not supposed to enjoy being surveyed period” (173). She argues that the experience of being surveyed or being placed on display is strictly fastened to femininity. While the female identity relies on this encounter, the male identity is questioned and subjugated through the same process of observation. Furthermore, Bordo explains, “Women aren’t used to seeing naked men frankly portrayed as ‘objects’ of a sexual gaze” (177). The access to such images of the male body, in Bordo’s opinion has been denied to women. She states, “women have been deprived not so much of the sight of beautiful male bodies as the experience of having the male body offered to us, handed to us on a silver platter, the way female bodies—in the ads, in the movies—are handed to men” (178).
To this end, we see that when Gibson is given access to women’s thoughts in What Women Want, in particular their desires, he feels inadequate and overwhelmed with failure. Could this be because he feels out-of-place or overexposed to the female gaze? Bordo elaborates on this idea of “overexposure” quoting John Ashbery of New York magazine who states, “Nude women seem to be in their natural state; men, for some reason merely look undressed” (179). While Bordo strongly disagrees with this statement, it serves as a testament to the unequal roles with which men and women play within society. Additionally, it illustrates society’s lack of experience with the heterosexual males offered up as “sexual objects”. Hence, we do not know how to look or react to the naked male body.
In The Perfectible Body: The Western Ideal of Male Physical Development, Kenneth R. Dutton examines the significance of the body through the perspective of the observer. He posits that “although the nude appears to depict the body as immediately accessible to our scrutiny, free of artifice and accretions— or perhaps because it merely appears to do so—its political and sexual ramifications are constantly open to changing ideological interpretation” (321). Hence the body is continually reinforced into particular positions of power or lack there of.
However, at one point Dutton argues that the objectified body can serve as a criticism of being an outsider. He discusses Robert Mapplethorpe’s pornographic studies, specifically his classicising studies, which use black nudes as an example of being an outsider. In this sense, could we argue that the male nudes serve as a means for the female to share in a sense of being an outsider?
So why are we all so uncomfortable with the male body? Why has it remained such a taboo topic and image to capture? In Hunks, Hotties and Pretty Boys, Susan Baker grapples with the representation of male beauty at the end of the twentieth century. In her examination of the feminist artist Alice Neel’s work, Baker explains, “her perspective on the male body is no-nonsense” (18). Neel is known for her depictions of the male body in its natural or regular form. In one particular artwork, also recognized as one of Neel’s most controversial nudes, she captures Joe Gould, a “homeless would-be writer” of the 1930s in New York (18). In the painting, Gould is represented having not one, but three penises that are placed front and center in the piece, as to not be over looked. Baker explains that this representation serves “to put the organ of controversy right out there before any woman or man willing to consider it and its significance” (18).
Could it be that the lack of discussion or representation of the male body on display perpetuates this mysterious and taboo sensation? Are we putting the penis on a pedestal? And if so, how do we remove it from such a throne?
The statement, “putting the pussy on a pedestal” is continually used to refer to the actions of men. It goes hand in hand with the other lovely saying, “Pussy wiped”. Both of these statements make men run for the hills or have them in constant fear of having their friends say them within the same sentence as their names. Inevitably, these statements are discussing the power reversal within a heterosexual relationship, where the female holds the power while the male simultaneously reverts to the role of the subordinate. At the same time, such statements imply that this type of power reversal is represented as the exception not the norm. In this case, aren’t we continually placing the penis on a pedestal?
In Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty, Nancy Etcoff contests that penises serve “as charms to lure females” (182). Nevertheless she explains, “In most societies today, women do not get to see the penis immediately, so it value as a courtship device is questionable” (182). In this sense, the lack of display of the penis, in Etcoff’s opinion acts as a means of attracting individuals of the opposite sex. Similarly, when describing a male Calvin Klein advertisement (seen on 169), Bordo exclaims, “clearly outlined through the soft jersey fabric of the briefs… there’s a substantial presence there that’s palpable (it looks so touchable, you want to cup your hand over it)” (171). In both of these passages there is an apparent enthroning of the penis. It is covered and left a mystery to its observers. However Etcoff speculates that this covering of the penis may be due to that fact that the male organs are not deemed as beautiful. Could it be that the size of the penis is what is desirable and not its actual appearance?
Furthermore, Etcoff emphasizes that size serves as the determining factor within hierarchy of power, or as she calls it the “tower of power”. She explains, “In the animal world, the dominant animal tends to be the largest” (172). Moreover, “In human villages throughout the world, the chief is know as ‘the big man’, and he is usually physically imposing” (172-173). While Etcoff is only discussing a male hierarchy revolved around size and proportions, it could be argued that this way of thinking has been applied to our ways of seeing and understanding both the male and female bodies. In this sense, could it be that the male body is continually placed on a pedestal because of its size?
In questions of the penis it is always safe to refer to Sigmund Freud for some sort of explanation. In Some Psychical Consequences of the Anatomical Distinction between the Sexes, Freud grapples with the development in both the female and male sexes. It is in his opinion that when the female encounters the penis for the first time during childhood, she notices the “strikingly visible and of large proportions, at once recognize it as the superior counterpart of their own small and inconspicuous organ, and from that time forward fall a victim to envy for the penis” (252). While Freud’s theory goes overboard on the sexist remarks, his underlying ideas could still serve some purpose.
Overall, Freud argues that through the process of comparison, more specifically a comparison based on “proportions”, children attempt to understand themselves in relation to those around them, more specifically in relation to those of the opposite sex. In regards to the female, Freud posits that the result is that of penis envy, a “character-trait of jealousy” (254). This jealousy, Freud believes originates from the difference in size of the sexual organs of the male and female. Could this idea of proportions be the reason for the crowning of the penis? Could it all come down to size? And if this is the case, how do we start to move in a new direction where size doesn’t have to matter? Hopefully something will change so men like Mel don’t have to experience some outer body experience to understand what women want.
Works Cited:
Baker, Susan. "Naked Boys, Desiring Women: Male Beauty in Modern Art and Photography." Hunks, Hotties, and Pretty Boys. Ed. Stevn Davis and Maglina Lubovich. 12-48. Print.
Bordo, Susan R. "Beauty (Re)discovers the Male Body." The Male Body a New Look at Men in Public and in Private. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2000. 168-225. Print.
Dutton, Kenneth R. "The Body Observed." The Perfectible Body: the Western Ideal of Male Physical Development. New York: Continuum, 1995. 321-55. Print.
Etcoff, Nancy. "Size Matters." Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty. 167-204. Print.
Freud, Sigmund, and Elisabeth Young-Bruehl. Freud on Women: a Reader. New York: W.W. Norton, 1990. Print.
I was just looking at the fashion blog Fashiongonerogue.com and came across the three new V Magazine covers, staring Jane Fonda, Susan Sarandon, and Sigourney Weaver. All three of the actresses are over 60 and attempt to prove that age is just a number. However, Jane Fond
a just recently admitted to having plastic surgery. Furthermore, it appears that the women are trying to fit into what society has deemed as beautiful in the present. All three women are shown wearing styles that are in vogue and poses that we see displayed by models. Fonda is captured in animal print 
and a studded choker. Weaver wears a thick knit and dark lipstick and Sarandon is represented in the nude with long curly hair and big earrings. What do you guys think about these images? Do they work? 
