The Male Gaze

                                            Image by Michael Bußmann from Pixabay

This is: A weekly column consisting of letters to my perspicacious progeny. I write letters to my grandkids and my great-grandkids — the Stickies — to advise them and haunt them after they've become grups and/or I'm deleted.

Warning: This column is rated SSC — Sexy Seasoned Citizens — A Perusal by kids, callowyutes, or grups may result in a debilitating intersectional triggering. Viewing with a tablet or a monitor is highly recommended for maximum enjoyment.

Please Note: If ya click on an Amazon ad, thus opening a portal to Amazon, and buy anything, Lord Jeffrey will toss a few pence in my direction and you won't have to feel guilty about enjoying my work — well, hopefully — for free. Win/Win.  

About 

Glossary 

Erratically Appearing Hallucinatory Guest Star: Dana — A Gentlerreader

"If we had 3 million exhibitionists and only one voyeur, nobody could make any money." -Albert Brooks 

Dear (eventual) Grandstickies and Great-Grandstickies (and Gentlereaders),

I have a male gaze. I can't seem to help myself. Please accept my insincere apologies. 

Hi, I'm Marcus and I'm a scopoholic. 

Hi, Marcus.

[Wait-wait-wait. There's no such word as scopoholic.]

Well, not yet, but stay tuned. There is such a word as scopophilia, I discovered it when I went a-googlin' to investigate what this male gaze thing is all about as I keep running into it. I refer to the phrase, not the gaze.  

[I'll bite, what's scopophilia?]

When I consulted my go-to online dictionary app, Merriam-Webster (M-W) I found "Medical Definition of scopophilia: a desire to look at sexually stimulating scenes especially as a substitute for actual sexual participation." 

[Hah! You're a porn addict!]

Nah, Dana, definitely not. But being a self-acknowledged testosterone poisoned, cisgender, heterosexual Pasty Patriarch constantly struggling to control my toxic masculinity I must confess I enjoy gazing at women and have for as long as I can remember. 

However, being a gentleperson, I strive to be as discrete as possible. Also, I find "sexually stimulating scenes" a poor and unsatisfying "substitute for actual sexual participation." I'm with the late, great Marvin Gaye, ain't nothin' like the real thing.  

But me being me (I'm also a self-acknowledged word lover) I wanted to know more about this word as I had never heard of it. When I googled it the very first hit consisted entirely of the following paragraph.

"Scopophilia: Literally, the love of looking. The term refers to the predominantly male gaze of Holloywood cinema, which enjoys objectfying women into mere objects to be looked at (rather than subjects with their own voice and subjectivity). The term, as used in feminist film criticism, is heavily influenced by Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalysis."

[Holloyood? Object-fying?]     

Yep. It's from a webpage that links to another webpage that's "Written and Designed by Dino Franko Felluga," a professor at Purdue University about a textbook he wrote called "Introductory Guide to Critical Theory." 

[What's that got to do with the M-W medical definition?] 

I think it has more to do with the Goog's allegedly unbiased search results and the current state of higher education than anything else. Surprisingly, as far as exactly what the nature of this psychiatric/psychological malady is, that seems to depend on which psychiatrist/psychologist/otherist you talk to. 

[No way! Get out! I didn't see that...]

Undaunted, since Dr. Felluga's (Ph.D.) definition contains the phrase male gaze and mentions Holloywood, I googled the search term Holloywood and male gaze.

Hoo-Boy... 

[Well c'mon, Dorothy, what did you learn?] 

Well, one Laura Mulvey is credited with coining the phrase in an essay she wrote titled Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema in 1973. I tried to read it but even though I have 39 certified college credits I'm not smart and/or sophisticated enough to unpack this work of feminist scholarship. 

By the first sentence of the second paragraph — "The paradox of phallocentrism in all its manifestations is that it depends on the image of a castrated woman to give order and meaning to its world." — I knew I was in over my head.

In despair, I returned to the first hit of my search, the one that led me to Ms. Mulvey, and pulled up an article from Bitch Media titled Returning Our Heads — Inside the Fight to Dismantle the (White) Gods of Hollywood, and read more carefully than the first time (I confess I only skimmed it on the first pass).     

It seems that the author, Naomi McDougal Jones, has noticed what I mistakenly thought everyone already knew, that the movies are chockablock with gratuitous shots of women in every possible state of dress and undress. 

I had assumed it was because anyone with a clue understands that men are ridiculously obsessed with looking at women, that's it's biological in nature and that Holloywood, Madison Avenue — and no shortage of women — don't hesitate to exploit this fact for fun and profit. 

It turns out, unfortunately, that it's just the usual suspects, my fellow Pasty Patriarchs, the ones with all the power and money I don't have (unfortunately) that are in charge of the world. I've never even been invited to one of the meetings! 

If I had money and power I'd produce movies like one I watched recently on Netflix, The Dig, that I can't recommend enough. It's a well made, realistic story with realistic characters and real heroes. Some of them are actually likable, consciously virtuous, and it's based on a novel, not a comic book. 

Given that it's a hit and quite a departure from their standard formula for success — Blood & Bouncing Boobies filmed in Grittyvision — dare we hope for more of the same? 

Finally, lest I appear more sophisticated and more conservative than I actually am (I'm subject to frequent libertarian impulses), sometimes a well made B&BB story that doesn't insult my intelligence and has a well-drawn, likable, non-psychotic character or two is just what the doctor ordered. 

Must be my male gaze.

Poppa loves you,
Have an OK day

Share this column, give me a thumb (up or in my eye), and/or access older columns below. If my work pleases you you can buy me some cheap coffee with PayPal or plastic.

If you do your Amazon shopping by using one of my Amazon ads as a portal to access Amazon, Lord Jeffrey will toss me a few pence if you buy anything.    

Feel free to comment/like/follow/cancel/troll me on Cranky's Facebook page.

Cranky don't tweet. 

   

 

A Narrative About Narrative Journalism

                                         Image by Steve Buissinne from Pixabay 

This is: A weekly column consisting of letters to my perspicacious progeny. I write letters to my grandkids and my great-grandkids — the Stickies — to advise them and haunt them after they become grups or I'm deleted.

Warning: This column is rated SSC — Sexy Seasoned Citizens — A Perusal by kids, callowyutes, or grups may result in a debilitating intersectional triggering. Viewing with a tablet or a monitor is highly recommended for maximum enjoyment.

Please Note: If ya click on an Amazon ad, thus opening a portal to Amazon, and buy anything, Lord Jeffrey will toss a few pence in my direction and you won't have to feel guilty about enjoying my work — well, hopefully — for free. Win/Win.  

About 

Glossary 

Erratically Appearing Hallucinatory Guest Star: Dana — A Gentlerreader

"One of our worst traits in journalism is that when we have a narrative in our minds, we often plug in anecdotes that confirm it." -Nicholas Kristof

Dear (eventual) Grandstickies and Great-Grandstickies (and Gentlereaders),

Narratives, the word itself as well as what it describes, are popping up here, there, and even over there. They are currently trending (as is, come to think of it, the word trending).

A narrative, according to Merriam-Webster definition 1-b, is "a way of presenting or understanding a situation or series of events that reflects and promotes a particular point of view or set of values."  

This is a scholarly way of describing a story that has a particular spin, just one of the reasons modern journalism is a mess. 

[Could you be a little more vague.]  

Bear with me, Dana, I'm working my way towards a very specific example of what I'm talking about. 

[That's refreshing.]

Very long story short, 

Wokism (Social Justism + Neo-Marxism) + Postmodernism = Faux News. 

[Justism? Wokism? Faux news?] 

Much to my surprise, I discovered that justism is considered to be an actual word by some people. As to its meaning... well, it refers to seeking justice for everyone... all the time... in all things... constantly. If ya don't have a higher power in your life find a rigid ideology to fill in the hole in your soul. 

Wokism is considered to be a religion by at least one guy other besides me, and Faux News is... everywhere. The equation above requires its own column, make that a lengthy essay, to unpack. 

Suffice it to say that the current version of Progressivism, more accurately called Wokism — now considered to be divinely revealed dogma at no shortage of colleges/universities — has climbed over the ivy-covered walls, is spreading across the real world, and is choking off Journalistic Ethics.

[You capitalize words that aren't s'posed to be capitalized like...]

You should know by now that I'm a firm believer in Situational Capitalization. 

[That's not even a thing...]

Maybe, maybe not, but: 

It's my column and I'll Capitalize if I want to

Italicize if I want to...   

(The writer clears his throat) Sorry, folks, your humble correspondent also has a thing for obscure cultural references.  

Anyways, there's no shortage of alleged journalists loose in the world that think that so-called facts are always a matter of interpretation and striving for objectivity is silly (postmodernism), particularly given that the end (social justice) not only justifies the means it's the whole point of journalism and everything else. 

[Huh?]

Screw the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists — for example: "Label advocacy and commentary" (my emphasis)  — Justism must be served!  

[Didn't you say something about a specific example?]

As I've stated elsewhere, The Wall Street Journal is my personal paper of record. The WSJ reports the news, for the most part, objectively and factually although not quite as well as they used to and now I know why. More on that in just a sec'.

I pay a relatively hefty subscription fee because relying on social media and/or other "free," and often revenue starved advert-supported sites, for accurate news is another one of the reasons journalism is a mess. 

The primary reason I pay the fee is for access to the staff columnists (and guest writers) on the world's best op-ed page. The Journal's paywall permits sharing these columns via social media which I do regularly on Mr. Cranky's Facebook page.

I wonder if any of my regular readers take the trouble to share my columns?

[When pray tell, can we expect the specific example you mentioned.]

I'll be right back, I'm going to pour myself a fresh cup of coffee. 

[Speaking of ethics...] 

Now, I've been aware of tinges of leftish, narrative journalism appearing in the WSJ for quite some time. Maybe it's just me? Perhaps it's just the editors slightly indulging newly minted journalists while simultaneously subtly steering them towards real journalism?  

However, there was a tempest in a teapot last summer that most of you, having actual lives, may not have heard about. 

A group of "more than 280 reporters, editors, and other employees" -WSJ, (the paper employees about 7,000 people) signed a letter objecting to how the editorial pages are run. 

F.Y.I., news and opinion constitute two different divisions of the paper and are run by different people. The letter calls for the paper to go to more trouble to point out the difference between the news and opinion articles. 

In my semi-humble opinion, anyone reading the WSJ that can't tell the difference between the clearly marked opinion pages and news articles is probably not smart enough to remember to...

[Hey! Choose to be the gentleperson!]

Also, they want to Unleash the Fact-Checkers! on one of the few surviving unabashedly and unashamedly conservative/libertarian op-ed departments in a mainstream newspaper.

Although the quality of the writing is world-class, click-baiting headlines virtually unknown, and pieces by left-wing guest writers are commonplace they want the page, three pages actually, "fact-checked." 

I smell a rat. 

In case you're unaware (that have an actual life thing again), a bit of googlin' will reveal that alleged fact-checking is often just editorializing by a different name, and that fact-checkers nowadays are fact-checking fact-checkers. 

That is to say, Narrative Journalism, on steroids.

Poppa loves you,
Have an OK day

Share this column, give me a thumb (up or in my eye), and/or access older columns below. If my work pleases you you can buy me some cheap coffee with PayPal or plastic.

If you do your Amazon shopping by using one of my Amazon ads as a portal to access Amazon, Lord Jeffrey will toss me a few pence if you buy anything.    

Feel free to comment/like/follow/cancel/troll me on Cranky's Facebook page.

Cranky don't tweet.

   

 

640 African Elephants Balancing on the Tip of a Ballet Shoe

 A Random Randomnesses column 

                                   Image by Mystic Art Design from Pixabay

This is: A weekly column consisting of letters to my perspicacious progeny. I write letters to my grandkids and my great-grandkids — the Stickies — to advise them and haunt them after they've become grups or I'm deleted.

Warning: This column is rated SSC — Sexy Seasoned Citizens — A Perusal by kids, callowyutes, or grups may result in a debilitating intersectional triggering. Viewing with a tablet or a monitor is highly recommended for maximum enjoyment.

Please Note: If ya click on an Amazon ad, thus opening a portal to Amazon, and buy anything, Lord Jeffrey will toss a few pence in my direction and you won't have to feel guilty about enjoying my work — well, hopefully — for free. Win/Win.  

About 

Glossary 

Erratically Appearing Hallucinatory Guest Star: Dana — A Gentlerreader

"People say she's crazy she's got diamonds on the soles of her shoes." -Paul Simon

Dear (eventual) Grandstickies and Great-Grandstickies (and Gentlereaders),

[Get comfortable... it's another long one.]

The title of this column, 640 African Elephants Balancing on the Tip of a Ballet Shoe, is a line from an article written by Sara Spary I found on (at?) CNN.com. As soon as I read it I knew I had to pass it along. Just because. 

The reason I read the article — Science can create diamonds at room temperatures in minutes — in the first place is that I've long been fascinated by the willingness of my fellow H. sapiens to spend a not-insignificant amount of money on pretty rocks to commemorate a given couple plighting their troth to marry each other.

Or, worse yet, purely for ornamentation, given that it's common knowledge that diamonds, in general, are not particularly rare, can be manufactured, and the average schmuck can't tell the difference between a "real" one and a manufactured one.

However, my dear Stickies and gentlereaders, never underestimate the power of good marketing and/or the pursuit of status.

It seems that a team of scientists has figured out a way to manufacture real, high-quality diamonds using a unique method in which they apply 640 elephants worth of pressure to carbon at room temperature. 

The manufacturing of real, high-quality diamonds has been around since the 1980s but the process requires high temperatures. Note the phrase real, high-quality. We're not talkin' pubic zirconias' people. 

[It's cubic zirconias, not...]  

I know, Dana, and I apologize. 

Fun fact! According to Wikipedia the current primary method for manufacturing pubic zirconia stones is called the Skull-Melting method because it requires temperatures of over 3,000 degrees. 

How cool is that?

- Is the fact that the Titans of Tech not only have more money than God but also have the sort of power the so-called Robber Barons of a century or so ago could only dream of, slightly concerning? 

[Oh great, yet another article about cancelation/censorship by social media, Big Tech, and/or the Purple Press. Or are you worried that the Goog has noticed you have tens of regular gentlereaders and is about to cancel you?]

Being a disciple of the late, great Alfred Enigma (What, me worry?) Newman, 1895 - 2018, I cultivate, albeit not always successfully, not worrying as a virtue. 

However, I do find non-nonprofits of Citizens of the Republic like Laurene Powell Jobs and her ilk, a bit worrisome.  

[What's a non-nonprofit and Who's Laurene Powell Jobs?]   

Non-nonprofits are organizations set up by gazillionaires that at first glance look like traditional nonprofit entities that have to report where the money comes from and where it goes. 

However, they're LLCs, private limited liability companies. For example, the business of the dude/dudette/person that owns your favorite local restaurant is probably structured as an LLC... assuming, of course, the plague/gummit hasn't destroyed it. 

So, a non-nonprofit "charity" can spend its money any way it pleases, even try to generate profits.  

[Wait... you made up the term non-nonprofit didn't you?] 

Guilty as charged.

[Who's Laurene Powell Jobs?] 

Steve Jobs' widow. Net worth $19,000,000,000 more or less. 

According to Wikipedia, she's the "... executive and the founder of Emerson Collective, an organization that, among other investing and philanthropic activities, advocates for policies concerning education reform, social redistribution and environmental conservation, and a major donor to the Democratic Party candidates including Kamala Harris and Joe Biden."

[So? It's her money and she can spend it any way she pleases.]

    

When you're right you're right, Dana. Must be me. 

Just because she bought herself an American literary institution, The Atlantic (Est. 1857), Lord Jeffrey (net worth $180,000,000,000) bought his favorite newspaper, the Washington Post ('cause he could), and Mr. and Mrs. Zuck-erberg (net worth $90,000,000,000) have also set up a non-nonprofit... well... that's not necessarily a disturbing trend, right?   

   

 

- Uncle Joe is wasting no time. He's crankin' out executive orders and memoranda faster than a newly enthroned divine right monarch on meth. Perhaps the reports of cognitive decline are bogus. 

No, I'm not going to comment on wiping out 11,000 jobs with the stroke of a pen by canceling the Keystone pipeline that so many people are bitching about. We're in a climate crisis and the little people who don't need private jets to save us from ourselves must do their part to compensate for the carbon footprints of those who do. 

For example, John Kerry (net worth a mere $250,000,000... of course his better half, another wealthy widow, is worth about a billion) Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, needs his private jet to buzz around the planet to attend meetings with his colleagues from other signatories of the Paris Climate Agreement. Hey! it's not actually a treaty, per se, so screw that Senate approval crap... and stop your whining. 

For the record, I do have a favorite Executive Order.  

“Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports.” This is a line from the Executive Order on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation. 

[Catchy title.]

Boys who self-identify as girls want the right to choose which restroom or locker room they use, or which team they join, and Uncle Joe stands with them. What could possibly go wrong? Right?

And, a favorite memorandum...

The following is from a memorandum titled Modernizing Regulatory review, a masterpiece of bafflegab destined to be enshrined in the Deep State Hall of Fame. 

(i)    identify ways to modernize and improve the regulatory review process, including through revisions to OMB’s Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis, 68 Fed. Reg. 58,366 (Oct. 9, 2003), to ensure that the review process promotes policies that reflect new developments in scientific and economic understanding, fully accounts for regulatory benefits that are difficult or impossible to quantify, and does not have harmful anti-regulatory or deregulatory effects; 

My emphasis. You've gotta read the whole thing to fully appreciate it.  

Poppa loves you,

Have an OK day

Share this column, give me a thumb (up or in my eye), and/or access older columns below. If my work pleases you you can buy me some cheap coffee with PayPal or plastic.

If you do your Amazon shopping by using one of my Amazon ads as a portal to access Amazon, Lord Jeffrey will toss me a few pence if you buy anything.    

Feel free to comment/like/follow/cancel/troll me on Cranky's Facebook page.

Cranky don't tweet.