HEY EVEREYONE let's gang up on Tony and Alex!!!!

Yesterday's discussion in class was probably one of the best ones we have had. I think everyone added something too it which made it enjoyable, at least to me. The title of this blog is a joke fyi, because I know they were the two males who were disputed with the most, and I know that neither of them had a problem with it.
One of the points that I think we talked around, but wasn't ever presented, (because someone cough cough wouldn't let it be myyyy turn.) was that no one in the class could say that the objectification of women is not an issue. We talked around and around about how we liked or disliked Kilbourne's approach, but no one could say that they disagreed with her message.
Some brought up the fact that Kilbourne neglected to explore the objectification of men in the media. Whenever I heard this in our discussion I honestly wanted to scream. Yes, it is also a problem. Yes, it happens. No, we are not minimizing it. BUT THE ARTICLE WASN'T ABOUT MEN, HATE TO BREAK IT TO YOU. In case you didn't notice, it was titled Two Ways a WOMAN Can Get Hurt. I would totally read an article of the same content about men if you asked me to and discuss it. I may react to it like you did, and feel as though I was being yelled at or blamed. I am not scolding you for feeling that way, its perfectly legit, but you cannot say she does not talk about men enough because, she acknowledges its there and she doesn't even have to. The paper is about women. I'm sorry if you were ill informed.

go ahead and objectify me. its expected

I want to say that I agree wholeheartedly with Kilbourne, but I cant. I want to say that I do because obviously as a female I feel the pressures that she talks about. I can’t totally agree with her because I think she exaggerates every idea that she has. Of course she is doing this to make her point stronger. When you use extreme cases to prove your point, more often than not it is actually proven.
I think she looked way too far into some of the ads she talked about. Like the ad with the man boxing a shadow and the shadow was of a woman. I personally think it was actually his shadow. It was the same silhouette as the boxer.
Even though I think she exaggerates her points, I do still agree with her. Women are always and have always been objectified and thought of as property in the media. Industries know that sex sells and they use it to their advantages. One of her strongest points I agree with most; in some ads, there are men violating women and it is to be expected, like the ad with the little boy looking under a woman’s skirt, but if the roles were reversed it is unacceptable.
The other point that I liked was when she said that ads don’t cause violence, it’s when people start taking the ads as the truth and applying them to life that violence occurs.

did you really just assign me tv watching?

I honestly didn’t see many ‘good’ commercials as I was watching TV tonight. You know those commercials that you quote all of the time? The ones you may not remember what they were for, but you remember the commercial. I saw a lot of commercials for shows on the network. (Oh, I was watching Bravo’s Make Me a Supermodel by the way.) And I also saw a lot of movie trailers. One commercial I did see was for the Chrysler Town and Country Minivan. They really played up the technology thing and made it seem that if you had this van you were up to date. I mean the chairs swivel for gosh sakes! Who doesn’t want that! At the end of the commercial it says, “this pick makes the parents almost as smart as their kids.’ And then it shows the bumper sticker on the car that says “Honor Student.” I thought the commercial was pretty clever because all parents want their kids to be honor students and everyone wants to be up on the latest technology. It even appealed to kids because the kids in the commercial were having fun with the seats that moved and the ‘game table’ in the center of the car.