The whole concept of the image of women within society and subsequent comments made about the positioning of women through art is a struggle for shifting power structures. All of the articles deal with the idea of the woman as an image that must be viewed as a sexual object within patriarchal society. At the same time she also signifies lack and castration which is a great subconscious fear of the patriarchy. Possessing the phallus means having the power within the system and the articles as a whole present a number of varying critiques of phallic power by both males and females.

The article by Laura Mulvey reviews the construction of film within Hollywood as a enforcer of patriarchal power. Using psychoanalysis, she goes through Hollywood films and points out all the camera angles and other mechanisms put into play that make the female stars of these films objects of desire. The female stars are put into the role of being passive and dependent on the active male star to fulfill the plot. These women are always made to be glamourous and the camera angles used put them in the position of an object. Mulvey argues that the camera places the viewers in the position of the male star with the scopophilic gaze. The female becomes an object in this view and is desired by both the male star and, through the film's construction, the viewer. She also brings in the point that since the female is put in a passive situation, it is relatively easy for the male to dominate over her and possess her. This Mulvey attributes to the woman as an image of castration. To control this castration fear, the male has to control the woman as a representation of this fear. With this psychoanalytic model, Mulvey demonstrates how Hollywood film is used as a tool to place women under the power of the phallus, but due to their lack, they can never possess the phallus or have power.

Mulvey's argument is countered by Noel Carroll's article where he points out problems with using a psychoanalytic model to describe the image of women in film. He feels that using psychoanalysis too easily omits characteristics of films that refute the image of woman that Mulvey argues is prevalent in film. Instead, he argues that it is better to study the image of women in film without using psychoanalysis. This way, one can study many films and find a pattern in them rather than linking together a few films that work under psychoanalytic theory and ignoring any films that don't support this particular film theory. Carroll counters Mulvey's examples of women as the passive object with other films from the same period in which the female star is not placed in a position where they can be an object. The main problem I find with his examples is that they are from different film genres. The plot devices and other mechanisms working within the film to construct it are similar, but they are not designed to have the same function. A comedy obviously does not operate like a dramatic film. I don't think that many of his comparisons can be considered valid because of this.

Carroll's other argument is that male stars have been treated the same way as female stars and have been turned into sex objects in the same way. He cites examples of stars like Arnold Schwarzenegger, who have used their bodies as a sexual object for women. The difference I see in this is that while male actors have been sexual objects, they still have a power that the female stars Carroll compares them to lack. This may be due to the fact that these men are still very active in forwarding the plot of the film, although they may be erotic, whereas the women are object and nothing else.

The final article by Amelia Jones leaves film theory and goes into the reaction of performance artists in critiquing or enforcing phallic power. In particular, the article covers the works of male body artists. Jones argues that many of these artists broke with the modern tradition of showing phallic power. She points out that the power of the phallus is only effective if it is veiled. These artists, through their performances, critique phallic power. Although this is pointed out to some extent, I feel that some of her examples are better at establishing phallic power rather than critiquing it. I think that the weakest examples in her article are the performances by Yves Klein, Robert Morris, and Vito Acconci that involve women. In all of these the pieces are works by the male artist and the women are given no credit for the creation of the piece at all. The women are also placed in a position of submission, with the male dominating over her. For me, this reinforces, rather than critiques patriarchal power.

The only artist who effectively critiques the idea of power through the phallus is Bob Flannagan. He mutilates his penis, thereby making it a focus and separating himself from the power of the phallus. His performances also use a role reversal as he submits to a dominatrix. This is different from the other male performance artists as he has no power. As he is not the one in control, he can't have the phallus. His performances actually open up the questioning of phallic power through their structure. I think that is where many of the other examples in the articles fail to break out of the established way of looking at things. The articles fail to question what effect a performance with a man dominating another man would have on the concept of phallic power. They assume that everyone has the same reaction to performance and film. What about the reaction of a homosexual to films and performances structured in this way?