影片版2025/01/15發佈。

一開始嘗試直接用英文寫這篇文章，發現難度還是有點高。首先使用英文的時候，我的用字還是比較口語。不過用字倒是其次，比要大的問題是腦袋思路沒有那麼清楚，也很容易ramble，用太多篇幅講不重要的東西，沒辦法很靈活的跳躍思考。所以後來還是先寫了中文版，然後再翻譯成英文，希望未來能夠慢慢克服這問題。

中文版

最近去看了The Substance這部電影，覺得是一部很棒的電影。不過上網看了一些評論，發現主流的感想都偏向某種風向。因為希望網路上出現一些不同的聲音，因此花了一點時間，把我自己的看法整理成文章，未來也會做成一部影片。

劇情簡述（劇透）

為了讓沒看過的人也能順利閱讀，這邊附上我自己寫的劇情簡述。

Elisabeth是一個曾經紅集一時的好萊塢電影明星。今年50歲的她被製作人替換掉，盤算找正年輕，更美貌的女孩取代她。面臨容貌焦慮的Elisabeth，被給予了一個機會，使用the substance藥劑，製造出一個更年輕、更漂亮的分身。不過他必須要每7天就切換到另外一個身體，才能維持兩具身體的機能。她接受了這個機會並開始活著在兩具不同的肉體之間來回穿梭的日子。然而，這是她痛苦的開端。隨著她對新的年輕肉體得到的紅利上癮，她越來越厭惡自己原先的身體。也因為他不遵守7天內要回到原本身體的規定，於是對原來的身體造成不可逆的傷害，最後迎來悲慘的結局。

責任外部化

很多主流你會看到的觀點，會看到這類的關鍵字「男性凝視」。把這個主角描繪成一個受害者。但是他們忽略、或是避而不談的是，女主角只是特權被拿回來罷了。

我想用一個比喻來描述。假設小美每個月從父母那邊得到10000圓的零用錢。到了18歲，父母決定不給她零用錢了。這時候她開始抱怨、哭鬧，抱怨父母待他不公。大家會怎麼看待這件事？以一個正常的標準來看，你只會覺得「18歲都成年了，沒有零用錢很合理」，父母已經盡把你養大的義務了，剩下給你的東西都只是多給的。

在我看來，這些喊著「男性凝視」「年齡歧視」的人，也有異曲同工之妙。他們享受完20歲青春美貌的時候擁有的「外貌紅利」、「特權」，等到年華老去之後，發現這些特權消失了，而開始抱怨。

殊不知，沒有任何人歧視他們。他們所經歷到的，只是「一般人」會被對待的方式，也就是每個普通男人從小就在面對的世界罷了。沒有特權、沒有免費關注，就是一個大家靠實力說話的世界。

除此之外，你會發現從頭到尾，沒有任何一個人，有強迫女主角做出他自己不想做的選擇。這種病態的對容貌的追求，既不是社會，也不是她的老闆叫她做的，而是她自己把自己推向無止盡的容貌追求的深淵的。她從頭到尾都有選擇，可以停止對容貌的追求，並開始享受當下的狀態，但她沒有。既然如此，怎麼還能夠把責任推託給「社會」呢？

年齡歧視、「男性凝視」不存在

我想要提出一個滿有爭議的觀點。我認為年齡歧視、男性凝視這些東西根本不存在，至少以這部電影的劇情來說（先不提廣義上的社會現象）。

為什麼這麼說？首先我們必須先了解「商業」是如何運作的。商業的目的就是為了賺錢。一個老闆願意雇用你，就是為了帶來收入。你能幫老闆賺錢，就是好員工；不能幫老闆賺錢，就沒有價值。在這部電影中也是一樣的。如果你作為一個女星，你的賣點就是年輕好看，那麼當你沒有這個賣點，賺不了錢了，憑什麼要求大家還是要給你跟過去相等的關注？就跟前面講的零用錢例子一樣。那些「外貌紅利」不是你應得的，那只是多給的。

會使用「歧視」、「凝視」這些字眼的人，有一個很大的誤會。他們以為這些「標準」，是社會賦予的，他們以為「社會」會物化「女人」，其實不然。男人與女人會被用不同的方式來「物化」。

女人會用「掌握資源的能力」、「社交能力」、「社會地位」、「外貌」等等多樣的因素來「物化男人」。而男人主要以「外貌」、「年齡」、「生育能力」來物化女人。

為何兩性之間會有這樣的差異呢？這可以從演化心理學裡面找到很多線索。雄性跟雌性在擇偶上本來天性就有很大的差異，這邊就不細究。總之，因為生物本能的原因，兩性恆量價值的標準當然也會不同。並不是完全出自社會賦予的觀念。

而男性的價值，有比較多不同的評分項目跟特化方向，也因此會「看起來好像」社會對男性的年齡比較寬容，不會有那麼嚴重的年齡歧視，並且年紀大了也能保有一定價值。但其實這只是錯覺、以及看得不夠全面。為什麼這麼說呢？

女性只要外貌這個能力值夠高，基本上就很夠用了。看看有多少人光靠外貌就能夠當飯吃就知道了。且就算不講那些比較極端，用外貌變現的案。一般女性只要是相貌不要太差，通常比起男性，社交上也是能夠享受到一些紅利的。先不論你你喜不喜歡擁有這樣的紅利，但不可否認這個紅利是存在的。不管是在交朋友方面、日常生活中得到免費的幫忙、去夜店可以免費、可以通過與擁有資源男人的約會的經驗快速提升自己的閱歷，這些都是男性很難享有的紅利，但女性是可以無償得到的。

但相對而言這就有點像一把雙面刃：去提高社會地位、學識、等等其他能力也因此對於一個女性並不會起到太大的加分作用，只能算是附加價值。

但是看看男人，能單靠外貌吃飯的男人，不能說完全沒有，但可就少很多了。能靠外貌當飯吃的，基本上都是天選之人了。大部分一般男性是無法享有上面提到的那些紅利的，必須要自己慢慢打磨自己各方面的能力，累積資源，才能夠慢慢嘗到果實。所以男人與女人一開始起跑點就不同了。但也因為外貌的比重沒有那麼重的原因，男性能夠靠後天累積的能力與資源，去彌補外貌上的劣勢，就算是30, 40, 50歲，都還能夠有向上成長的空間。

當你這樣全面的去看價值的評斷標準，就會發現，會把電影中這種女性遇到的情況，說成「年齡歧視」是一個很自我中心的說法。其實她們只是從原本享有「多餘的紅利」的狀態buff，變回「一般人的狀態」。也就是她們到了40, 50歲失去外貌優勢之後，才真正第一次開始體會，沒有這些紅利的人從出生就開始面對的，沒有多餘關注與紅利的世界罷了。

聰明人怎麼玩這遊戲

用面對問題時的思考方式，我認為可以把人分成兩種。

會想辦法「改變自己」解決問題的人
要求「社會改變」，認為自己沒有錯的人。

當一個人去看這部電影，如果得到的觀點只有「男性凝視」、「年齡歧視」，那代表大概率屬於第二種。

當發生問題時，只檢討外部，是一個非常沒有效率的方式。與其期待世界改變，不如改變自己。原因很簡單，世界有世界運作的法則，不是你想要變就能變的。就算能夠改變，也不是你有能力觸及的領域。不如先從自身行動改變，等自己有了能力，再來想辦法改變世界。

經濟學中我們可以看到很多範例。市場有他自然達成平衡的機制，當你透過外力去改變這個市場，通常都會產生不可預期的副作用。比如說立法提高基本薪資，美其名是保障勞工權益，但可能衍生更多問題。這邊作為舉例，列出幾種可能的問題：

因為薪資提高造成雇主虧本，而不願意找人，結果反而造成找不到工作的人增加
生產力不高的人，失去動機提高自己的生產力。反正法律會保障他們領到更高的酬勞
比較優秀的員工，看到生產力不高的人，卻領到相同的酬勞，產生不滿，而選擇打混

由這個例子可以看出，當我們想透過外力，去強制改變市場平衡，就有可能出現很多預期外的負面效果。

同樣的現象也可以套用在「政治正確」的風潮上。人們偏好好的基因，喜歡看外貌好看的人類，本來就是天性。透過外力強制把不好看的東西塞到顧客的喉嚨裡，最後遲早會迎來反撲。

總之，說了這麼多，我想要表達的是，總是只考慮理想，想要改寫世界的遊戲規則，是一個太過天真的想法。反之，我個人奉行的觀念是「了解遊戲規則，並照著遊戲規則優化自己的行動方針」。

具體一點來說：有外貌優勢，可以選擇好好利用它，它會帶來巨大的紅利。但同時要了解它是一把雙面刃，以及它不是永久的東西。

又或者你也可以選擇不用它，反其道而行，去累積其他價值。這時候你會失去很多紅利，但是你就不用面對失去這個紅利時，所帶來的損失與落差感。

如果天生沒有這個優勢，還是可以試著彌補這個缺點，就算沒有正分，至少也不要負分。接下來看看自己有沒有其他優勢可以利用，並努力提高那些優勢。其實就這麼簡單而已。

以劇中女主角來說，她已經50歲，過去透過外貌紅利變現，已經擁有一般人一生無法擁有的財富，也享受過繁華富貴。現在就算是50歲的年齡，也擁有高於同齡人的外貌。已經是人生勝利組中的勝利組了。只要能夠「放下」，這一切的慘劇就不會發生了，一切都只是一念之間。

English Version

On a Saturday morning, I was struck with an urge to watch a movie. With not many options at hand, I picked The Substance after watching a few trailers, not knowing what this show is really about. It turned out to be a very interesting movie that I haven't seen anything like it in quite a while. Granted, I don't watch movies that much in the first place. Anyway, it was great. What wasn't great though, was the reviews. Most of the reviews I read clearly lean towards a certain direction, creating an echo chamber. Wishing to add an opinion of a different side, I decided to compile my thoughts into a blog post.

Plot Summary(spoiler alert)

Elisabeth Sparkle, a once celebrated Hollywood movie star, is now 50 year old. Her youth and beauty faded, Elisabeth is dismissed from her long-running aerobics TV show by her producer, who is calculating to replace her with a more youthful, beautiful girl. Elisabeth is given an opportunity to inject "the substance" into her body to produce a younger, more beautiful "better version of herself". The only caveat is that she has to switch between her original body and the new body every 7 days. Devastated, she took the opportunity and creates a younger clone of herself, named Sue. As she grows addicted to the attention and privileged treatment she gets as Sue, Elisabeth makes the inevitable mistake of not switching back to her own body in time, causing permanent damage to her original body. The situation worsen as time goes on. Hatred starts to grow in Elisabeth towards Sue for not following the rules, while Sue starts to despise Elisabeth, the ugly part of herself that she refuse to face, even though they are literally the same person. Talk about cognitive dissonance. Matters continue to get worse and the story comes to a tragic end...

Pointing Outwards

You will see the term "male gaze" appear in many reviews of this movie. They portray Elisabeth as a victim of society's unhealthy beauty standards. What they fail to realize, purposefully or not, is there is no such thing as ageism or "male gaze" to begin with.

Let me illustrate my idea with an analogy. Amy gets $300 every month from her parents as pocket money. At 18, her parents suddenly stops her money supply.

"You are on your own now." her parents say.

Amy starts crying and complaining about the discontinuation of her pocket money.

How do you feel about this story? Most will probably say

"She's already 18"

"Her parents are not obligated to give her money"

"She should be happy they gave her money at all!"

In my eyes, those throwing around the terms "ageism" and "male gaze" are in a similar mentality as Amy. They think the privileges they used to enjoy in their youth were the "baseline", and that they should be treated that way their entire life. What they fail to realize, is that they are just having their privileges taken away, and experiencing for the first time the reality that every man lives in from the moment his is born, a reality with no free privileges, no free attention and where everyone needs to prove themselves to be recognized.

One other thing I want to mention, is that throughout the entire show, no one forced Elisabeth to do anything. The society didn't do it. Her producer didn't do it. She did it herself. She pushed herself down the rabbit hole of the endless pursuit of beauty and youth. She has a choice all along. She could have stopped at any point and started to enjoy her current state. She had everything everyone dreams to have. But she chose not to stop. How could you blame the society for this tragedy when Elisabeth had every opportunity to call it quits? There is a point you have to stop pointing outwards and assume of the burden of responsibility.

Why the "male gaze" and "ageism" do not exist

In my opinion "ageism" and "the male gaze" do not exist, at least in the context of this show.

Not everything has to be viewed as some type of discrimination. Businesses is all about maximizing profit. An employer hires an emplyee for the extra profit they can generate. Same goes for what happens in the show. If your only selling point as an actress is looks, then with your appearance taken away, on what grounds are you asking for the same level of attention you used to enjoy? As what I previously stated, as much as "privileges" are often taken for granted for those who have it, they are not to be demanded "for free".

One big misconception people throwing around terms like "ageism" and "the male gaze" is that they think all these "standards" are forced onto us by society. They think "society" only objectifies women, when in reality men and women are just objectified in different ways, and there is nothing inherently bad about objectification.

More specifically, women objectify men by evaluating their ability to amass resources, social skills, status, and looks while men evaluate women by their appearance, age, and fertility.

Why do the differences exist in standards between the two sexes, you might ask. Clues can be found in evolutionary psychology. There are innate differences in how men and women select sexual partners which I won't delve into in detail right now. What we need to understand now is that NOT everything is artificial standards forced upon us by society.

There are more factors in judging a man's value than in a woman, and this makes it seem like society does not hold men to the same standards as women when it comes to appearance. However, this is merely an illusion, a failure to look at things from a wider perspective.

Women get to enjoy what men can't dream of by just looking good. Look at all the instagram and onlyfans models that make a living off their looks alone. Even if we don't look at those extreme cases, a woman that doesn't look terribly ugly enjoy more privileges than they may realize. Everything from bonding with people more easily than men, to going to clubs for free, to the option to enrich their materialistic experiences by dating more established men. These are all privileges that many women take for granted that men don't have.

All of those perks are great. But this is a double edged-sword in that they also mean other aspects such as higher social status, being more knowledgeable, and career achievements don't add much value to a woman's overall value when put into perspective with looks.

If we turn and look at men, there do exist men who base their career on their looks alone, but it's very rare. Most men can't rely on their looks alone. What defines a man's value needs to be accumulated over time. This process can take years, even decades. This is why men usually reach their peak in their 30s or 40s as opposed to women, who peak in their 20s. This also explains why men seem to deteriorate slower as they age. It not that they deteriorate slower per se, but that they didn't get value for free in the beginning like women do, and so there nothing to be lost and many things to be gained as they age, whereas it's the opposite for women.

Once you understand how women and men are valued differently, it becomes evident that blaming everything Elisabeth faces in the show on "ageism" and "objectification" is a naive, and self-centered way of thinking. The "ageism", in reality, is just the "privileges" she once enjoyed being taken away and her being treated like a "normal" person for the first time.

How to play in modern society

People can be categorized into 2 groups by how they act when faced with a challenge:

those who attempt to change their course of action to tackle or avoid the challenge
those who demand the environment to change, and place no blame on themselves

If all someone gets out of watching this show is "ageism" and the "male gaze", they are probably the latter.

It is counterproductive at best, to point outwards when faced with an issue.

Why? The world works the way it does for a reason, and it is not as easy as many might think to alter it. Even if it was possible, it wouldn't be a trivial matter an individual who already has problems with their own lives can achieve. Instead, start from within. Improve your mindset, and improve your own life, and once that is done, maybe consider changing the world by helping others in need.

The market has its own natural dynamics and equilibriums, and attempts to alter it by force can produce undesirable outcomes. Typical examples of this can be found in economics. Minimum wage regulations, for example, are designed to protect the rights of workers, but in reality, it creates many unexpected undesirable effects that are often negative. Just to name a few:

Higher minimum wages lowers employers' profit margins, reducing their motivation to hire workers, which in turn increases unemployment
Lower productivity workers loses motivation to up their productivity as law ensures the amount they receive
More capable workers, seeing the lesser ones compensated equally, become motivated to put in less effort

This example illustrates clearly how altering the natural balance by force instead of letting the market do its work can sometimes lead to undesirable outcomes.

Same thing can be said about all the PC stuff going on. It is only natural for humans to prefer better looking individuals, which are just a manifestation of good genetics. Pushing less good looking things down consumers' throats is bound to create negative reception. In fact, it already has.

Only thinking in ideals without considering the reality, is a naive approach to solving a problem. My personal philosophy is "understand the game, and optimize your strategy according to the rules."

To be more specific, if you have an edge appearance-wise, it is totally fine to leverage it. It will bring about many benefits. But bear in mind it is a double-edged sward and not something you can rely on permanently.

Or you could chose not to use it as well. You could hone your other values and skills. You may have to give up a lot of benefits, but you get to avoid the feeling of loss that you would have to face otherwise.

If you don't have such an advantage to begin with, you could still try to make up for it. Even if you don't get a big bonus, at least make it not negative. With that in check, look at other hidden talents or advantages you could potentially leverage, and try to enhance them. Simple as that.

In the case of Elisabeth, for example, she is 50 years old. Has cashed out her beauty for fame and a good career. Possesses wealth that most can't dream of having. Even at 50, she maintains an appearance superior to most women her age. She literally has it all. As long as she could have let her greed go, all the tragedy could have been avoided. Everything starts from within, and can only be stopped from within.