Killing Us Softly, is the third part in three films by Jean Kilbourne. Her first film was in 1979, then 1987, and finally 1999. They all are about Advertising and the effects it has on women and the way advertisements show women.
During the film, she showed clips from magazine articles, television commercials, and other forms of advertisements and the way women were portrayed. The clips that were shown were everyday ads that we would all see on tv, or billboards. It was rather shocking to see the images in these ads. First of all the women were being hyper-sexualized, which was especially disturbing when it was young teens or young women. No matter what age of the women, unless you were over age 50, you were displayed as a sex object. The advertisements keep increasing the way to objective women. As terrible as the Ad industry is, we are the ones who continually buy the products. Unless we stop giving in, it just turns into a vicious cycle again. It is our time to stand up, no woman should have to deal with being objectified especially in the media.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Picking Mates
In class last week, we read an article by bell hooks about romance and the idea around love. It was very interesting. I still am not sure where I stand exactly on this, but I do know that it was indeed thought provoking. The class discussed the article for a good fifteen minutes. It was roughly questioning the logic around being in love and the process, or lack there of, of finding a mate.
I read the article and at first was completely thrown off guard. How we could possibly choose our mates by a list based solely on our needs. Oh my, what a brilliant idea. If only it could be that easy and logical. It would be a great idea if we actually chose our mates by our needs and by our mind. Instead we are taught my the media, society, etc, that we are supposed to fall dramatically in love and be swept off our feet. Clearly that is not the case. Just think about how much happier couples would be, the divorce rate would most likely decrease. But, the romance side of love would be completely gone. If only we could do away with romance, but can we? Even it is what we really truly need, will we be able to give up on romance?
I read the article and at first was completely thrown off guard. How we could possibly choose our mates by a list based solely on our needs. Oh my, what a brilliant idea. If only it could be that easy and logical. It would be a great idea if we actually chose our mates by our needs and by our mind. Instead we are taught my the media, society, etc, that we are supposed to fall dramatically in love and be swept off our feet. Clearly that is not the case. Just think about how much happier couples would be, the divorce rate would most likely decrease. But, the romance side of love would be completely gone. If only we could do away with romance, but can we? Even it is what we really truly need, will we be able to give up on romance?
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Women in Sports
Earlier this week in class we had discussed questions over several readings. One of the discussion questions in particular was fascinating to me. It was basically asking why women aren't taken seriously in sports. It also asked what influences society played in women's sports.
It was clear to me playing sports through high school who was valued more. In case you didn't notice, everyone else did. I mean people blatantly tell you you are not as important as the boy's team, even if they lose all the time. I thought maybe it was just a high school thing, but unfortunately it is not. Who decides that women are not as important and shouldn't be given the opportunity? Is it like every other institution, where the white men with the money run the show? So the "upper class" white men get to decide if it is important enough to have a women's tennis team or softball team. But boy will they support a women's cheerleading team or dance team. Why is it that all women have to fit into this cookie-cutter life, not all women want to be like that.
It was clear to me playing sports through high school who was valued more. In case you didn't notice, everyone else did. I mean people blatantly tell you you are not as important as the boy's team, even if they lose all the time. I thought maybe it was just a high school thing, but unfortunately it is not. Who decides that women are not as important and shouldn't be given the opportunity? Is it like every other institution, where the white men with the money run the show? So the "upper class" white men get to decide if it is important enough to have a women's tennis team or softball team. But boy will they support a women's cheerleading team or dance team. Why is it that all women have to fit into this cookie-cutter life, not all women want to be like that.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Tough Guise
Today in class we watched the video "Tough Guise". I was a tad confused by the title but was genuinely open to the contents of the film. Within two minutes, I was completely captivated by the narrator. Jackson Katz talks to the camera in a simplistic way, but his information is stunning. He makes connections that I have never thought of or questioned in some aspect but didn't fully understand. The key argument that the film is based on is masculinity and the fact that it is or could be a pose.
Wow, I couldn't believe this. This whole idea that being masculine is taught to boys from birth, not a surprising fact, but that it is also a pose. I started to think in detail about this. They really are taught by birth what is "normal" and masculine for boys. How to act and feel, or more appropriately not feel. But what about after birth, teenage years? The media especially portrays "real-men" as being muscular, strong, independent, and so forth. Young men especially feel that they have to be a "real man" there is no other except able way. So in return, they do pose as being masculine. The concept is really not that shocking once you look at the evidence, but just saying it opens the topic up. After all opening up controversial topics is the first way to solve it.
Wow, I couldn't believe this. This whole idea that being masculine is taught to boys from birth, not a surprising fact, but that it is also a pose. I started to think in detail about this. They really are taught by birth what is "normal" and masculine for boys. How to act and feel, or more appropriately not feel. But what about after birth, teenage years? The media especially portrays "real-men" as being muscular, strong, independent, and so forth. Young men especially feel that they have to be a "real man" there is no other except able way. So in return, they do pose as being masculine. The concept is really not that shocking once you look at the evidence, but just saying it opens the topic up. After all opening up controversial topics is the first way to solve it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)