This has to be the most egregiously outrageous drivel I have read today. The so-called female gaze is far more objectifying, superficial, and based on immutable physical characteristics — unlike the male gaze which is specifically focused on features that are changeable, such as weight, and is far more lenient when it comes to intrinsic features such as one's craniofacial features and proportions.
There is nothing humanizing about judgment focused solely on the person's physical traits — such as height, frame, face, and even hair which is largely genetic; the fact she claims otherwise is laughable and insulting to anyone with the capacity to critically analyze this nonsense. The so-called deliberate choices and expressions of that man are only emphasized post-hoc, once the genetically determined physical judgment has reached its verdict; she wouldn't care at all if it were a balding manlet who engaged in the exact same things and attempted to present himself that way, so I don't understand why she is trying to sugarcoat it as if her 'gaze' is somehow preferable — it's disingenuous and intellectually vacuous.
The female gaze is far more superficial than the male counterpart, and that is simply a fact of nature that can be observed through countless studies, and evolutionary psychology which perfectly explains the emergence of this phenomenon.
Further to that, it appears to me that the sole reason she believes the male gaze is 'more sexual' is because men find a significantly larger number of women as attractive, thereby leading to higher rates of sexualizing women, whereas women only do the same for a modicum of highly attractive men. This appearance of sexualization is simply a reflection of the skewed intersexual dynamics that heavily favor women.