Mulvey's Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema

Well, I've just been trying to read up on this topic, and I must confess, it is quite difficult. I initially started at Mulvey's article itself. Big mistake. Then through a synthesis of wikipedia and someone else's blog I think I understand the basics of the theory. It is very strange though.

Essentially the premises of Mulvey's argument are as follows ( I think):
P1: The woman represents the male other as she has no phallus.
P2: The lack of phallus stirs up anxiety about castration in men when they see women.
P3. HOWEVER men do get sexually aroused when they see a woman (little paradox here)
P4: Mainstream Hollywood allows the audience the opportunity to partake in vouyerism via the male lead thus OBJECTIFYING WOMEN (V.BAD)

There are 3 perspectives from which the female lead can be objectifyed:
1) The male lead's reaction to the female lead
2) The audience towards the female lead
3)The male audience relating to the male lead, allowing the female lead to become the male audience attendee's own sex object.

In all this it is important to remember that the woman is the bearer of meaning and not the maker, although this is where tha paradox of phallocentricism kicks in as the meaning of the phallus is dependent on the existence of females. Males would not see and assert their superiority if there were no women as they would not see the lack of phallus as a weakness as it would not be an option.

'Tis all very strange, and as I'm sure you can tell by the lack of coherency in this blog I don't understand the theory fully. It does all rest on Freud's psychoanalysis as a backdrop which as we all know is a little strange to say the least. However, I do agree that far too often the only point of the female leads is their beauty (shown through the ridiculous number of female leads in Hollywood) and thus the point of their role is merely soft pornography for the male audience members.
This could be adressed 3 ways:
1) Banning men from the movies (just silly)
2) More 'character' female leads i.e. hiring women that can act and don't just have beautiful legs
3) Continue doing what Hollywood is doing at the moment and hire more beautiful men, Mulvey doesn't explore female objectification of men in her essay and as long as the objectification is equal I don't have quite the problem with it.

Anyhow just some thoughts on a very strange homework task. Hope everyone's having a nice half-term :)