Objectification

It is interesting that throughout her essay Mulvey rants about how women are objectified and used merely to satisfy the sexual fantasies of males, yet in doing so, she implies that a woman is a castrated male and therefore inferior to males in film. Does this mean that she is implying that a lack of penis automatically makes a woman inferior to a man? While I somewhat agree that women usually have the "supportive" roles in film and are subject to a man's decisions and actions, it is ridiculous to completely victimize women as defenseless and forced to play such roles. Before an actress agrees to play any role, she is first given the script, meaning that she knows what she is in for. If she likes it, she sticks with it. In the end, it is women who choose to be portrayed in this way on screen. (Un)fortunately, it is, and always has been, part of human culture to glorify the female body. More women enjoy showing off their figure than those who do not. The only reason women are still given these "inferior" roles is because they, themselves, have not done anything to change it, and I would go as far to say that they actually enjoy them. On the other hand, and a point where I am a bit more willing to agree with Mulvey's argument on the use of women solely as visual pleasure, is the fact that it is okay (and pretty regular now) to show breasts and vaginas on screen, but you will rarely, if ever, see a penis (except for obvious instances such as porn... or Prospero's Books ha). This is both interesting and sad as it speaks volumes about society's standards. Why is it okay to see a female's intimate parts in literally every film out there, but it is almost completely offensive or immoral to show a man's intimate parts? Given this fact, I do believe that Mulvey's argument is at least somewhat valid. However, until women decide to break this stereotype by no longer flaunting their bodies and not accepting roles that are "second best," they will not cease to be perceived as "eye candy" to society.