By "this", do you mean retarded articles that make baseless assertions such as "Advertisers use three main strategies to lure folks into buying their products: sexism, boobs and sexism?"
Woah... I've never heard you use strong language on a commenter before... I've got to be honest, I think I'm barely connecting the dots myself... I think you're saying that the kind of unrealistic, pandering, stereotypical and sexist portrayals of women in ads exemplifies the kind of poor thought processes that we accept in this culture and that the opportunity you have as an English teacher to challenge and/or change this thinking is why you do your job. Am I right?
:rant: What shocked me is that those ads are paltry examples of the way this culture symoblizes women in advertisements. I can't remember what product it was, but just recently I saw an ad where sexual/physical attraction was used to promote a product that has no bearing on interpersonal relationships. Wish I could remember the ad. I was stunned. I knew the day would come, mind you, but it definitely left me shaking my head.
It's getting worse, not better, Ben. This year's Superbowl ads were excessively loaded with sex and vulgarity of one kind or another. We live in an age when Family Guy is prime-time tv. I've heard not one word about the AXE commercials from anyone. Anyone. Those ads are so blisteringly awful for setting the tone of acceptable male-female relationships it's just mind-boggling.
When are the administrators of the culture going to realize the culture is slowly heading down the same path as Ancient Rome? Action News, mid-day and prime-time programming about vices of everykind, "Destroyed In Seconds" on Discovery (I think)... When you buy titillation, you buy addiction... It's not the content, it's the precident. It's about the sum, not the parts... :/rant:
Okay, you guys obviously have stronger opinions on this than I, so I'm gonna pull out like Kobe after a big win. But I'd say the take home message here is just that commercials all are (and always have been) petulant, tasteless nonsense. We can probably all agree with that...
the strong language is just because bowes didn't call me last night to ask how work was.
yeah, i was basically just going off on the whole idea of traditional gender roles and how much they still permeate our society (some of those commercials are from months, not years ago). since a lot of my research and writing has to do with critiquing social and cultural norms, there's a hope in our department's (and a lot of english/comp departments nationally) that exposing these kinds of assumptions to critical thinking can help disseminate an unacceptance for little pink girl's stay-at-home playskool world-land...whether that actually ever gets any better, i don't know. sexism, like racism, is one of those things that i think a lot of people just assume disappeared after the 60s and 70s, and that's a pretty dangerous attitude to have, obviously...
also, mike, in response to your last paragraph, i'd argue we live in a capitalism society now, not a democratic one (at least not as much). people aren't going to be concerned about morality/cultural high-brow-y-ness as much as they will be with saving money/making money. nobody's going to pay extra money for a hybrid car as long as gas is 1.50 a gallon.
Agreed, Ben, agreed. I'm not suggesting that people have "best interests" in mind. I know what drives consumers. I'm one of them, too. I've long ago thrown out the idea of this being a "democratic" nation. It never was, thank God! (Interestingly, however, capitalism is a great way of ascertaining the wishes of the democracy. But that's a whole other discussion...)
I think my point is actually much different than your point, now that I understand better what you're getting at. I'm suggesting that society does it to themselves. And nobody cares. (The whole idea of society "administrators" that I mentioned is completely bizarre, of course. Esp. in a capitalist system. In actuality, as I was told by a maquiladora owner in Mexico, "you vote with your dollar." So, we, collectively, are the administrators of the society.)
But to your point: I would like to suggest a difference between "traditional" gender roles and "common" gender roles. Even if we leave "traditional" gender roles, we may never leave "common" gender roles. By which I mean, given complete freedom and encouragement to choose your role at will, the actual roles may not change much. Just the expectations would change.
I'm all for people having the freedom and encouragement to do as is best for them, but I think the limitations imposed by nature impinge a lot more than people want to think. When only one gender has the mother's milk, you know, it's going to weight the roles in particular directions, vis a vis necessity. It's great that we have technology and such that can alleviate that imbalance when it's necessary, but over the long haul, I expect that biology to outlast the technology unless evolution starts kicking into Super Mode.
I mean, don't forget the realities of bio-feedback. Nobody talks about it, but I'm certain the reality is that if I: Mike Prewett, had a uterus, I'd have a very different take on life and priorities. That would cause me to define my role in a way I wouldn't choose now in my uterus-less state. And that's pretty normal. I define my role differently depending on whether I own a car or not, or whether I'm mechanically or artistically inclined at that particular moment. So, it follows easily that altering aspects of my biology would also alter my perception of how to live life.
no, i think it's important (and something culture theorists, etc. don't like to admit) to remember that gender stereotypes, like any other stereotype, come from an actual biological reality in the first place. and while i don't necessarily have a problem with people thinking that women like taking care of babies, i think there's a big difference between a person (or group) saying "well, women are more likely to want to stay home and clean house" and a corporation that has a vested interest in profits saying "hey guys, your girl isn't going to love you unless you drop a huge diamond ring on her face". i'm just trying to say, i guess, that people should generally be informed enough to see a debeers ad and not think "oh yeah, that's how you treat a woman" but instead stop for a minute and think "why is this particular ad insisting this is how things have to be?"
i don't think commercials are brainwashing us into putting women onto pedestals singlehandedly, but i am frustrated that things like this have been on TV since the 50s, because that means obviously people are buying products from companies that are turning desires like wanting to please your ladyfriend to their advantage...also, i don't know if any of that made sense.
By "this", do you mean retarded articles that make baseless assertions such as "Advertisers use three main strategies to lure folks into buying their products: sexism, boobs and sexism?"
ReplyDeleteno, you piece of shit, i mean the fact that those videos exist and that people watch them.
ReplyDeleteChrist, I could find 20 commercials that "hate men" at least as much as those commercials hate women. Silliness...
ReplyDeleteWoah... I've never heard you use strong language on a commenter before... I've got to be honest, I think I'm barely connecting the dots myself... I think you're saying that the kind of unrealistic, pandering, stereotypical and sexist portrayals of women in ads exemplifies the kind of poor thought processes that we accept in this culture and that the opportunity you have as an English teacher to challenge and/or change this thinking is why you do your job. Am I right?
ReplyDelete:rant:
What shocked me is that those ads are paltry examples of the way this culture symoblizes women in advertisements. I can't remember what product it was, but just recently I saw an ad where sexual/physical attraction was used to promote a product that has no bearing on interpersonal relationships. Wish I could remember the ad. I was stunned. I knew the day would come, mind you, but it definitely left me shaking my head.
It's getting worse, not better, Ben. This year's Superbowl ads were excessively loaded with sex and vulgarity of one kind or another. We live in an age when Family Guy is prime-time tv. I've heard not one word about the AXE commercials from anyone. Anyone. Those ads are so blisteringly awful for setting the tone of acceptable male-female relationships it's just mind-boggling.
When are the administrators of the culture going to realize the culture is slowly heading down the same path as Ancient Rome? Action News, mid-day and prime-time programming about vices of everykind, "Destroyed In Seconds" on Discovery (I think)... When you buy titillation, you buy addiction... It's not the content, it's the precident. It's about the sum, not the parts...
:/rant:
Okay, you guys obviously have stronger opinions on this than I, so I'm gonna pull out like Kobe after a big win. But I'd say the take home message here is just that commercials all are (and always have been) petulant, tasteless nonsense. We can probably all agree with that...
ReplyDeletethe strong language is just because bowes didn't call me last night to ask how work was.
ReplyDeleteyeah, i was basically just going off on the whole idea of traditional gender roles and how much they still permeate our society (some of those commercials are from months, not years ago). since a lot of my research and writing has to do with critiquing social and cultural norms, there's a hope in our department's (and a lot of english/comp departments nationally) that exposing these kinds of assumptions to critical thinking can help disseminate an unacceptance for little pink girl's stay-at-home playskool world-land...whether that actually ever gets any better, i don't know. sexism, like racism, is one of those things that i think a lot of people just assume disappeared after the 60s and 70s, and that's a pretty dangerous attitude to have, obviously...
also, mike, in response to your last paragraph, i'd argue we live in a capitalism society now, not a democratic one (at least not as much). people aren't going to be concerned about morality/cultural high-brow-y-ness as much as they will be with saving money/making money. nobody's going to pay extra money for a hybrid car as long as gas is 1.50 a gallon.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, Ben, agreed. I'm not suggesting that people have "best interests" in mind. I know what drives consumers. I'm one of them, too. I've long ago thrown out the idea of this being a "democratic" nation. It never was, thank God! (Interestingly, however, capitalism is a great way of ascertaining the wishes of the democracy. But that's a whole other discussion...)
ReplyDeleteI think my point is actually much different than your point, now that I understand better what you're getting at. I'm suggesting that society does it to themselves. And nobody cares. (The whole idea of society "administrators" that I mentioned is completely bizarre, of course. Esp. in a capitalist system. In actuality, as I was told by a maquiladora owner in Mexico, "you vote with your dollar." So, we, collectively, are the administrators of the society.)
But to your point: I would like to suggest a difference between "traditional" gender roles and "common" gender roles. Even if we leave "traditional" gender roles, we may never leave "common" gender roles. By which I mean, given complete freedom and encouragement to choose your role at will, the actual roles may not change much. Just the expectations would change.
I'm all for people having the freedom and encouragement to do as is best for them, but I think the limitations imposed by nature impinge a lot more than people want to think. When only one gender has the mother's milk, you know, it's going to weight the roles in particular directions, vis a vis necessity. It's great that we have technology and such that can alleviate that imbalance when it's necessary, but over the long haul, I expect that biology to outlast the technology unless evolution starts kicking into Super Mode.
I mean, don't forget the realities of bio-feedback. Nobody talks about it, but I'm certain the reality is that if I: Mike Prewett, had a uterus, I'd have a very different take on life and priorities. That would cause me to define my role in a way I wouldn't choose now in my uterus-less state. And that's pretty normal. I define my role differently depending on whether I own a car or not, or whether I'm mechanically or artistically inclined at that particular moment. So, it follows easily that altering aspects of my biology would also alter my perception of how to live life.
err.. I don't mean to say "don't forget"... that sounds so condescending... sorry, I get a little worked up...
ReplyDeleteno, i think it's important (and something culture theorists, etc. don't like to admit) to remember that gender stereotypes, like any other stereotype, come from an actual biological reality in the first place.
ReplyDeleteand while i don't necessarily have a problem with people thinking that women like taking care of babies, i think there's a big difference between a person (or group) saying "well, women are more likely to want to stay home and clean house" and a corporation that has a vested interest in profits saying "hey guys, your girl isn't going to love you unless you drop a huge diamond ring on her face".
i'm just trying to say, i guess, that people should generally be informed enough to see a debeers ad and not think "oh yeah, that's how you treat a woman" but instead stop for a minute and think "why is this particular ad insisting this is how things have to be?"
i don't think commercials are brainwashing us into putting women onto pedestals singlehandedly, but i am frustrated that things like this have been on TV since the 50s, because that means obviously people are buying products from companies that are turning desires like wanting to please your ladyfriend to their advantage...also, i don't know if any of that made sense.