Topic on Talk:Male Gaze

This page shows the changes between two versions of a post by Umbire the Phantom in the topic "Should we rename this trope?" on Talk:Male Gaze. You can see other versions of this post at its history page.

Version by Umbire the Phantom from 2 years ago ← Older edit		Version by Umbire the Phantom from 2 years ago
Line 1:		Line 1:
	I'm going to have to agree with Robkelk after some consideration - while the original post that started off this discussion is right to highlight the double-standard of how certain types of fanservice are treated and the assumptions made as to who it's for (albeit ''more than a bit'' ''heavy-handedly''), we'd be missing the forest for the trees if we focused on that only with the goal of renaming it and then stopping there.		I'm going to have to agree with Robkelk after some consideration - while the original post that started off this discussion is right to highlight the double-standard of how certain types of fanservice are treated and the assumptions made as to who it's for (albeit ''more than a bit'' ''heavy-handedly''), we'd be missing the forest for the trees if we focused on that only with the goal of renaming it and then stopping there.

	''Obviously'' there'd be more people interested in a nicely-shaped butt than just cishet men, and by that token there's no need to assume that it stops at women's butts, either. But a lot of fanservice is, '''''seemingly''''', made with expectations like those in mind - why is that? If we aspire to be a reference site and a hub for advancing both the criticism of works and the creation of works (not ''like'' TVTropes anymore, per se, but akin to it), then we have to be willing to dig past initial discomforts and really get into the thick of it.		''Obviously'' there'd be more people interested in a nicely-shaped butt than just cishet men, and by that token there's no need to assume that it stops at women's butts, either. We, as viewers contemplating what we consume, are aware of that. But a lot of fanservice is, '''''seemingly''''', made with expectations like those in mind - why is that? If we aspire to be a reference site and a hub for advancing both the criticism of works and the creation of works (not ''like'' TVTropes anymore, per se, but akin to it), then we have to be willing to dig past initial discomforts and really get into the thick of it. By that token, we can then seek to understand where attempted "corrections" of this phenomenon seem to go wrong (e.g., thinking that the problem is fanservice itself rather than the approach taken to it - blaming the tool for the incompetence of the craftsman, to put it biblically).