>>3616>The male gaze objectifying people to consume them is absolutely an injustice, any Marxist should oppose the commodification of women.
I agree but this is not what Mike is arguing. The reality is that many people, especially women, have to choose between putting food on the table or making a piece of authentic work, speaking out against sexual harassment or being targeted by big names in the entertainment industry. There's no place for women to run to in order to escape the rampant exploitation in the industry without being blacklisted from it.
Celebrities like Brie Larson are more than happy to allow this to happen as long as they can stay in their multi-million dollar homes. That's because they make their paychecks by meeting the male gaze and nodding their heads towards the men who perpetuate it (look no further than how liberals/celebrities destroyed #MeToo for Biden). For every Brie Larson, there is an underbelly of underpaid female editors, writers, and etc. who add to the bulk of the value of the movie, but aren't paid if they did, so that Brie can be paid millions of dollars based on her looks alone.The cherry on top is that she's defending a capeshit movie of all things, a genre that could show a literal turd for 10 hrs and viewers would still ask for a re-release with director cuts.
It's performative feminism at its' finest, the sort required by most celebrities nowadays because their masters are upset that consumers are starting to realize just how disgusting they are. The sort that tricks women into believing that progress is being made when nothing in the superstructure has fundamentally changed.