No it doesn't. In an article talking about how a girl is stripping isn't to appeal to men, I see no difference between the two. Hell, in general, I don't see the difference. "attracting the attention of men" and "attracting the male gaze" are the exact same sentences with the exact same connotations. I see nowhere that the meanings are different. Context provides everything that the phrase does. Without the bullshit.
Which is why the term "male gaze" is appropriate. It distinguishes that which is done expressly for men, which you recognise Beyonce's music is not, and the aesthetic that is certainly done for men's benefit, or the male gaze. Men are not at Beyonce concerts in large numbers, but the sexuality is that which everyone present recognises as that which appeals to men. It panders to a world where attractiveness to men is valuable.It's no shorter, no more descriptive than saying "for men". Beyonce doesn't perform for men.
Which can also easily be described with the phrase "for men" A more common, shorter, and easier phrase to use. And that is exactly why the term male gaze is absolutely stupid and not needed. It's obvious and normal that people use sex to attract attention to themselves or to a brand. It's not some obscene or strange thing that needs a nearly-proper noun reference.Which is why the term "male gaze" is appropriate. It distinguishes that which is done expressly for men,
but the sexuality is that which everyone present recognises as that which appeals to men. It panders to a world where attractiveness to men is valuable.