What is important for Mulvey is the appeal that the classical Hollywood film makes to the male viewer. Within the conventions or codes of the cinema, the image of the woman exists to be looked at and to be desired by the male spectator who possesses the gaze (along with its controlling power). While male viewers desire the female characters, another drive that appeals to male viewers, that of identification, compels the male spectator to identify with the male characters on the screen. The ideology of heterosexual patriarchy that works within classical Hollywood film prohibits male characters to be constituted as erotic objects. The male spectator (and gaze) cannot look at the male character in the same way as the female characters. As Mulvey states; "the male figure cannot bear the burden of sexual objectification. Man is reluctant to gaze at his exhibitionistic like... A male movie star's glamorous characteristics are thus not those of the erotic object of the gaze, but those of the more perfect, more complete, ideal ego." Thus the male spectators do not sexually desire the male screen character but desires to be like the male character. The male character on the screen represents a more perfect and complete image of masculinity which the male spectator can identify with but not sexually desire.
You may be thinking to yourself that there are also female viewers in movie audiences and these spectators are not mentioned above. And that is precisely Mulvey's point; the male gaze privileges male viewers over female viewers and serves the interests of patriarchal ideology. For female spectators the male gaze supports patriarchal ideology; if women identify with female representations they are identifying with representations that reduce women to sexual objects. By internalizing these representations women, so the argument goes, are participating in their own oppression. They define themselves as objects to be looked at by men. This point explains the wide range of ads (and representations in general) where women are concerned even anxious about their appearance.
Mulvey asserts that because cinematic representations of women are produced by a male dominated system there is no viewing position for women that is comparable to the male gaze. In other words there is no female gaze working for women within patriarchal ideology and practices.