What's Rafel Nadal looking at? Lecture 3.

Previously in lectures we have analysed the male gaze, and been shown examples of it such as a scene from the film 'Carry on: Camping' which was intended to have a comedic effect, but it really drives home what many theorist have been exploring, the representation of gender. While also boiling it down to the seemingly simple yet incredibly complex question of 'what is gender?'. For many years society has turned to 'essentialism' to understand this question, we look for what is the essence of a man or a woman, so we can understand the distinguishing differences between the genders. In the lecture we were shown google image results of what appears when you google 'the essence of a man/woman' it feels so easy to boil a woman down their physical attributes, but then associate men with hardship and strength 'a traditional bread winner'. However these stereotypes are extremely dated, and your everyday cave man is sitting round trying to place a wild diverse society into boxes, which is near impossible. As David Gauntlett argues there is not only "more room for a greater variety of identities to emerge, it is also the case that the construction of identity has become a known requirement" this deters away from our natural instinct to understand where everyone belongs in the world, and encourages us to construct our own identity.
Still there is no escape from controversy or differing opinion, which brings me back to the title 'What's Rafel Nadal looking at?' while Gauntlett believes there is more room for a greater variety of identities, however this isn't without resistant. Nadal's advertisement for Armani jeans brings many questions of gender and sexuality into play; the image is naturally promiscuous, women may look at this image and be attracted to it, men may feel envious, or some men may be attracted to this image too. So when looking at the theories of Foucault it causes you to question who holds the power relations? Is it men or women, and does this have to matter? You could simply boil it down to the face that the photographer withholds the power relations, as he directed this photo, but it does introduce back the idea of 'the male gaze'. It could also potentially disprove theorist such as Mulvey, who believe that only women exist as a visual spectacle, but honestly does it matter what Nadal is actually looking at?