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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think we did talk about if the objectification of women was an issue. However, instead of focusing on wether or not the issue exists, I think our discussion focused more on how ads that "objectify people should be interpreted." Should we be so offended over a 30 sec piece of TV or if we should all just take a chill pill, and realize that every race and creed is "objectified" in some way or another. If you expect to be able to say well women are objectified more and so only that form of advertising should be stopped, I have to stop you right there and tell you that you are completely full of crap.
There's absolutely no way that you can say one kind of objectification is more harmful than another and to say so means you're objectifying things. ahem ahem hypocrite ahem.
If you're going to say stop trying to sell you are product this way, you've got to tell advertisers to stop making offensive ads entirely. But then, where does it stop. Someone is always offended by something so we'd end up with completely sanitized ads that wouldn't sell squat. Then, companies would stop paying for ads, which would cut of T.V. stations' revenue, which would effectively end the television industry as we know it
Jordan,
I agree with you how Wednesday was probably one of the best discussions we have had. Almost everyone was involved and was saying what they thought. It was a hot topic. It seemed like it was the few boys (aka Alex and Tony) versus all the girls.
Also, I too noticed that no one ever really talked about women being objectified. People just went off about how Kilbourne presented her argument and why companies use advertisements that can be promiscuous.
I understand how you said that this article is titled to WOMEN and that it doesn't have to be about men. However, I think she probably should have talked about men a little bit or at least mentioned how men could get objectified in the media. It could have been her rebuttal.
Post a Comment