Killing Us Softly (5/5) - Advertising's Image Of Women (2/5)

[shelkie7]

Thank you so much for the vids!!!!

[IcanSeeAndHearYou]

You're Welcome,..

It's my pleasure.

Dennis

[frizzster12200]

Thank you for this. It's really all that needs to be said here 

[peacerebelgirl]

good info...but, let's take this issue deeper madam speaker and consider not hiding behind chemical agents in an effort to disguise that you are aging.

[ybyxk]

by the way this is mainly about sex sells in ads but usually best ads strategically use emotionals... thcorpse of women for example is a fear factor sell (but the video only use the women died ones) . Ads want to sell, but get away from the seriousness of the issues by letting things seem optimistic and almost imposibly achievable unless you use their product. You expect not to see violence in real life,but in ads are okay, and on a unconcious level you accepted that violent perspective of world

[ybyxk]

personally I think the reason women (and men)are made vulnerable in advertising is because we're too ignorant to see "ads" seriously because they are "ads". Advertising industry take this weakness and uses the "volunteer" they got to make their ads （not coerced into making ads...because ads are "not real" and we all want to get some sort of fame). Ads then sells using sex sell (else we tend to ignore them), and finally we are now taking notices to ads as something serious rather than "just ads"

[ybyxk]

@ybyxk advertising industry make their ads "a joke" and its purpose is not to get too many people to offend it. Therefore men are rarely being joked around, and women in ads are portrayed "perfect and silence". However the subliminal effect of ads will eventually take place encounting so much of the same kind of theme...making us wanting to become the perfect models... although stereotypes are created, seeing so much optimism in ads we want to push ourselves into becoming the steretypic models.

[CriminalQueer]

Once again, thank you so much for posting this.

[IronWinged]

I am a female in the Marine Corps, and I am pursuing a Master's degree in business. There are strides of like-minded women every where I go. I also embrace my feminity and I'm fine with it, without resorting to innocence, vulnerability, and the like. I'm a feminist. If anything, media like this has made an impact on me, portraying women as powerless and insecure, and it has inspired me, though disgust and frustration to the point where I am the person I am today.

[professorfoxtrot]

@IronWinged The fact is that feminists are undesirable. It's not about denying women to speak their minds it's about men not being attracted to frigid cunts with an inferiority complex so immense that they must donate their unhappiness to the world. Feminists portray themselves to be insecure because of their overwhelming jealousy of mankind's achievements. The museum of women's history is a prime example of a desperate attempt to save women from historical insignificance. Men don't have this.

[morgandegreer]

@professorfoxtrot

hopefully what you just said is a joke.

[professorfoxtrot]

@morgandegreer Reality and truth, while humorously illustrated, is no joke.

[MoralRapist]

Also, watch the documentary "the tough guise".  If you think teens don't care about this issue, guess what? I'm 14 (sorry about the username, my friend made this account and I can't find a way to change my username, priavate message me if you know a way.

[nabnutsy]

we both are abused men and woman, for money and power !! our whole spirit and beingness abused for money and power. such an insanity 

[condor68y]

When women stop using their sexuality to manipulate men advertisers will stop selling to them way. You can't have it both ways. Men are far more abused in society today in different ways. Their children are kidnapped in divorce and they are often forced to support their ex-wife for many decades. Men go to war and die and take all the dangerous jobs. Men die earlier, have higher suicide rates and billions are spent on breast cancer while millions of men die due to prostate cancer etc. etc.

[ybyxk]

@condor68y em,no! children in divorce is determined by court which side is better for the children. They are not forced to support their ex-wife and children unless certain conditions have to be met (like making wife and children unable to support each other). Military allow both men and women to join. Men die earlier and have higher suicide rates and you blame that on woman? and most of them I believe don't spent on breast cancer because only women get the cancer and they support each other!

[jpenneyatyahoodotcom]

And all the while the stockholders of the companies making all this money from us buying junk and borrowing on our houses to pay for it are laughing at us while we argue about whether it's because men hate women or one of us is stupid or whatever. The point we miss is that rich people love watching poor people get themselves into a financial hole and spend the rest of their lives paying the rich folks for loans that might get them out of the hole by the time we're dead.

[jpenneyatyahoodotcom]

As an afterthought, if they can create misogyny, violence by one poor person against another poor person, strife in the ranks and general mayhem and it helps their bottom line, well then why wouldn't they? It's not like there's anything immoral about it (according to them) - it's just business.

Once you understand that, it makes sense that they would pick one gender over another - exactly why doesn't matter much, the point is to create division so they can conquer. And they have. Hooray!

[Laura6221024]

Thank you for posting these.

[Saewara]

This was a very interesting, quite eye-opening report/speech, well presented as well. I think she's right about saying that mass media is a HUGE factor in this and to be blamed. The mass media has lost any sense of responsibility towards their customers & uses cheapest methods in a desperate attempt to sell their product. They strategically make women unhappy about their appearances and only those with high self esteem will be able to brush it off. The way of advertising needs to change.

[professorfoxtrot]

@Saewara Advertising needs to change? How about low-self esteem! Self-esteem comes from within and those who can't rise above a petty jealousy of women who are hotter than themselves are in for a tough ride in life. People need to look into themselves rather than just simply "fix" society or tell others what they should and shouldn't do. There are already too many of those people.

[Saewara]

I agree, merely changing advertising will not solve the problem, but I never claimed such. Of course parents need to help their children develop a stable self-esteem. Still, the advertising has gotten WORSE over the years & I'm sick of it, not to mention that some ads really are insulting (no, not talking about "women in undies" here). You can't completely block out being influenced by ads, it happens unconsciously, high self-esteem or not. It's naive to deny this. Stupid ads are stupid, period.

[professorfoxtrot]

@Saewara I don't see how anyone could find these ads personally insulting. I think it's a very collectivist notion to take a offense to an advertisement that depicts another woman (perhaps unfavourably) as if to claim ownership on this woman and that all women are being degraded by extension. The people who are depicted these ads are individual creaters of choice. If anything kids should be taught freedom of choice, not the undue burden of collectivized guilt.

[eppinee]

@professorfoxtrot how does this argument apply to 8 year old girls who are trying to lose weight and be "sexy" because of the messages pushed through advertising? Is the 8 year old jealous and can't rise above it? Your statement is a pretty naive one, what you don't realise is that advertisers employ psychologists to communicate their message. It's pretty hard to have a high self esteem these days when our society is wall papered with the message "you're not good enough."

[professorfoxtrot]

@eppinee How is it a naive one? The idea that other people's achievements should dimished to satisify one person's jealously is an infantile notion. So it's the 8 year old who needs to learn both that thinness comes through exercise and proper diet and that there will always be people who will have better things, more desireable features than themselves. You can't teach the kids to just hide under the blankets and have the world go away.

[eppinee]

It's naive because your assumptions are all wrong. Firstly, you assume critics are "jealous." False. Secondly, you assume that "thin" always = "healthy." False. Thirdly, you assume that messages that make kids and women feel bad about themselves lead to "better diet and exercise" and therefore "better health." Again untrue. What constitutes a "desirable" feature is highly subjective but we are led to believe by advertising that desirable is thin, passive and sexy at the cost of women's health.

[professorfoxtrot]

@eppinee My assertions are bang-on and here's why. Firstly, a large cross-section (well beyond the majority) are indeed jealous and it is evidenced by the fact that they don't care about the models' individual choices to partake in these advertisements as much as bringing them down to their level so that they may show more "realistic" girls as a function amerliorating their lack of self-esteem. Though she uses different rhetoric it is quite literally envy which Kilborne regards as "unattainable"

[professorfoxtrot]

Secondly, I made no assumptions about thin being synonymous with good health but on the contrary Kilborne tries to condemn thin girls and models as anorexic so she may appeal to the jealousy of the average American woman who is grotesquely obese when compared to women of other nations and generations which suggests that these diets are self-induced and abnormal, but it doesn't stop janey from forging their acceptance as normal!

[tinkerbellgirlblue21]

We're all jealous of hookers too and their choice to partake in...well, ya.

[professorfoxtrot]

You're jealous of well-paid models who get by on their on displaying their gorgeous bodies. As for hookers, all women are hookers in some form and if you have sex with a woman you're paying for it one way or another. So yes feminists are failed hookers who hate the players of the game which is why they are such killjoys when it comes to everything.

[tinkerbellgirlblue21]

Don't make this personal. You don't know me. And by saying all women are hookers in some form you are calling your own mother a hooker. Do you still stand by your opinion then? How about sisters? Would they appreciate that comment? And, by your definition, men are also hookers. You can not say something of one sex and different for the other. That is a double standard. If men pay for it one way or another, then so do women and, through your paradigm, we live in a world of hookers.

[professorfoxtrot]

What I'm saying is 100% true. Woman are indeed whores who are very effective at spending men's money, thus men are not hookers, but women. Men pay for women's sex through marriage, alimony etc. Men do not marry women for money but vice versa. What is so difficult to undestand about this? It is a double-standard and it's absolutely true, so yes you can say it about women and not men. Women are paying with their sex ergo, women are whores.

[tinkerbellgirlblue21]

Oh shush! XD You just need to get laid and can't afford it lol

[professorfoxtrot]

Women look for 2 types of partners, providers and mating partners. I'm young so I can get laid but I know when I'm an older gentlemen it will be my wallet they're after.

[IronWinged]

@professorfoxtrot

Sounds like quite a society you're surrounded by there. I feel sorry for you, you must come off as the type of male that can only attract immature, clingy women and nymphos. Until you talk to a real woman, please keep your post-sabre misogynic rattlings to yourself.

Thank you.

[WestWindsFlame]

@professorfoxtrot

Why the fuck do I, as a woman, want to emulate someone who thinks with their reproductive organ, exactly? I also consider myself somewhat of a feminist (partly, I admit, in response to people like you) and I am not fat, nor am I a slob. I do not think women should try to 'be' men. That's ridiculous. And women talk - that's how we heal. It's called communication. And hey, if you're not bitching right now, you're definition of the word is different from most people's.

[professorfoxtrot]

@WestWindsFlame Indeed our definition of "bitching" is vastly different primarily because I'm not crying 'unfair" nor am I claiming to be a helpless victim (a.k.a. like a bitch) as Kilborne seems to protest. For the record women are awful communicators. A man says more in three words than a woman does in 500- that's efficiency. FYI, Skyscrapers are the result of men thinking with their penises in mind. Conversely, when has anyone created a monument in the form of vagina?

[radkatiee]

you are disgustingly misogynistic. pull your head out of your ass, dumbfuck.

[professorfoxtrot]

who says I hate women? I' m just laying out a little common sense. Feminists are very offended when it comes to facts because they all lead the conclusion that men are better than women. It's something they intend to change through censorship and force.

[professorfoxtrot]

It always amuses me when people believe that opposing feminism equates to opposing women as if feminism is the voice of all women. Ironically, the notion of feminists claiming to speak on behalf of all women is a pretty disenfranchising concept, just as Kilborne speaks on behalf of the women in these advertisements despite making their own personal choice to be in them! As they flounder in their own absence of logic feminists are so helplessly stupid.

[alrune8]

@professorfoxtrot What I don't understand is what you're trying to prove. If you say all women are whores, then your mother is a whore, your father is a pimp and you're the son of a whore and a pimp. Your sister is a whore as well, and you share the same blood.

If that's what you need to believe to get through the day, good for you. But why would you try to oppose something that doesn't even concern you? Can't women talk about something else than babies and clothes?

[professorfoxtrot]

@alrune8 Women can do what ever they want but that's not called feminism, that's called freedom of choice. Through freedom of choice women choose to marry wealthier providers but feminists don't want freedom, they want power. Feminism is a business that seeks to acquire as much wealh as possible.

[alrune8]

@professorfoxtrot If you miss the time when women didn't work and stayed at home, sorry but past is past and it isn't coming back, now less than ever and there's nothing you can do about it. Now, women are free not to work outside the home if they want to. But if we prefer not to take this hazardous route, we have the right to. And I'll expose why it's a little hazardous to take this route in the next comment since there is not enough space here.

[professorfoxtrot]

@alrune8 Feminists in their hearts miss the time when they didn't have to do work and spend the day shopping with their husbands money and loathe the idea of having to work for it. Today this is a privelege enjoyed by attractive women who marry wealthy husbands. However, wretched feminists seek other ways of trying to acquire men's money without having to work for it.

[alrune8]

@professorfoxtrot Any proof of this? I'm sorry but I don't have any cravings for spending a man's money. I have my own money and I use it when I want to buy something. If you want to be wealthy and marry a trophy wife, that's good for you. I know some women who will indeed fit in this place. But just because we're not interested in this kind of life, which I could live if I wanted to BTW, doesn't make us bad persons or jealous.

[professorfoxtrot]

@alrune8 I like that adage, "which I could live if I wanted to BTW" All women say that after they're 30. Just remember, every time you see a woman driving an expensive car, she's bought and paid for. Feminists are incredibly jealous of both men and women. The only people they want getting more money is themselves. That's why prostitution pisses off feminists where their jealousy supercedes the choice of women.

[alrune8]

@professorfoxtrot Well that's nice. I'm not 30 yet... Whichever, I don't despise prostitutes, nor do I despise sex workers in general, I sympathize with them and the harshness of their jobs, which I already told you BTW. It's a very dangerous job that exposes you to violence and STD's. Also, I never said that I knew better than other women, everyone is free to choose their lifestyles. I just believe men have no business telling women what they can or can't be and what they can or can't do.

[alrune8]

@professorfoxtrot As I said in the previous comment, it's nothing I'd like to do since it's a little risky in my view. Let's say you marry at age 25. What happens next if you stay at home? You sacrifice your life for your children for at least 18 years per child, you support your husband, do menial chores etc. all the way til you're 50-something and your husband leaves for a younger woman. What's left for you? Nothing. You're too old to be hired and your children no longer need you.

[PureSMOOTH1]

@tinkerbellgirlblue21 are u serious, or just stupid? i dont agree with the person ur talking to, but surely you can see the stupidity of ur statement...."you can not say something of one sex and different for the other".............please tell me ur joking........men and women are different and that is a fact......

[professorfoxtrot]

@tinkerbellgirlblue21 Yes you can because men and women function differently. And the proof, women don't generally marry men who make less money than themselves. Men do all the work, build all the citiies and women run into men who come in contact with money. Prostitutes are more honest and an open about the business they run which is why I like them. Other women live in a heap of lies.

[professorfoxtrot]

@eppinee Thirdly, messages that make people feel bad about themselves? Suck it up! When people with fit bodies they go about it in two ways, they can either take it as inspiration and work harder to accomplish their goals, or they can sit around and sulk about it whlle loathing people who have more. Feminists are mostly losers because they choose the second path, a road of jealousy and contempt of free choice so they may bring others down to their level.

[tinkerbellgirlblue21]

For once, something I can agree with you on. We should encourage high self esteem in men and women from an early age. People do need to look inside, but that does not mean society can not improve. All things must continuously improve.

[c3ssy891]

whoaaa mama,

i had already seen this film

in my women history class but boy o' boy

it pisses me off, because as a women

everything she says

i know its ture!

and becuase ive seen it happen many times!

HOPE ALL THE MEN REALIZE WHATS REALLY GOING ON, IN THIS SOCIETY!

[professorfoxtrot]

@c3ssy891 This feminist is a disgrace. What about the women in the advertisements who consented to have their pictures taken so they could show off their figures after working hard at the gym? This feminists just infers that these women are completely helpless and exploited. She is making a name for herself by dragging women in the mud and implying that they should be ashamed of themselves.

[c3ssy891]

although i still think that

media is portraying women

the way it does is a bad thing

this video doesnt

necesarily

say that a women should be ashamed but it certainly should

help them realiza what they are doing!

[professorfoxtrot]

@c3ssy891 Help them realize what they're doing? That's quite a condescending statement coming from feminists. It supposes that these women don't know what they're doing and are too stupid to decide for themselves hence they require feminists to manipulate them into believing that they're being exploited.

[saguarospine]

Whoa. Are you seriously criticizing someone for being condescending? Out of any of your posts (and you posted MANY on every single section of this lecture), when were you NOT condescending? In what instance did you say something with any intention other than to degrade the lecture itself or those who understood it? Your arguments were full of arrogance (and what's more, full of assumptions labeled as evidence). And when your arguments fell apart, you turned to insults as silencing instead.

[professorfoxtrot]

Anyone who claims to know what's best for other individual women and reduces them to children who are incapable of forming their own decision, then claims to speak on behalf of them as an ends to their own personal pursuit of power demands a special kind of condescension. The very idea is worthy of degradation and ridicule. Secondly, unlike the feminists I have not resorted insults in place of the facts as surely reality itself is bound to offend feminists.

[saguarospine]

You present the same offense when you comment here and tell people that what they think is wrong and stupid. You offer no help, only arrogance and condescension and you're STILL claiming that you know what's best for other individuals. You are speaking for them by silencing them - making sure YOU have the last word, that they know their opinion is inferior yours.  There's only so many ways to analyze these images. What exactly are you scorning? The critique is not of the women themselves.

[professorfoxtrot]

I do contend that many other ideas are absurd but I don't think it's fair to say that I tell people what's in their best interests. I'm not the one who's claiming to speak on behalf of other women, nor specifically the women in these advertisements. I can however infer by the nature that these models are not oppressed by the very nature that they've consented to participate in creating them. Additionally, making a compelling argument is hardly stifling anyone's freedom of speech here.

[professorfoxtrot]

Jean Kilbourne is neither interesting nor is she presenting anything new or relevant. She's simply cherry picked a cross-section of advertisements while inventing any premise she wants to suit conclusion that women are victims. For example, if a man is taller than a woman in advertisement, disregard genetics, it's to show that the male is better than female. If there's a man playing sports it's because he needs to be tough so he can use his strength to oppress women.

[saguarospine]

A compelling argument would be a logical, respectful analysis of what she's saying and a proposal as to why she's wrong or how to fix it. All you did (which is absolutely nothing new or original) was lump her into a stereotype, which you then insult as being unfit for sexual interaction, physical attractiveness, or even having a valid voice or opinion... which in part is the foundation of her argument. Youre certainly being more oppressive than she is - she's NOT critiquing individual women.

[professorfoxtrot]

@saguarospine Jean Kilbourne is an unelected demogogue and gender opportunist who has made a living of off contempt for individual choice under a smarmy guise of "what's best for women" which roughty translates to "what's best for Jean Kilbourne." While I'm not respectful of bigotry I confess that the solution I offer of stop pretending to speak on behalf others is somehow going to fall upon deaf ears. To be fair I wouldn't characterize Kilbourne nor I as oppressive,

[saguarospine]

Okay, but all of your criticisms are on the basis of subjective insult. Most people realize that a change needs to happen in society when they realize that not only are they disadvantaged in a real hierarchy that exists, but here everyone is being harmed by it. Again, your tactic is to insult rather than inform when you say that you have a solution to offer but, alas, it would just "fall upon deaf ears." Slinging claims of inferiority and degradation isn't a good way to go about it.

[professorfoxtrot]

@saguarospine The solution I offer is the medicine no one wants to hear. It is the ungratifying conclusion of self-responsibility and abstaining from pitting one's insecurities, jealousies and shortcomings on society and others. An idea that if you want to be regarded as beautiful you have to go out and work for it, hit the gym rather than eating a bag of doritoes and trying to change the world's conception of beauty to suit you.

[saguarospine]

I agree with you up until it's your responsibility to fit the "world's" expectations. By all means, WORK to take care of your body, self-esteem, and whatever makes you happy and work hard to sustain it in the best way you can. But that doesn't stop the fact that there are people who cannot obtain societys standards, no matter how hard they try. And what makes those standards automatically right? The bootstraps scenario IS a myth for a LOT of people.

[professorfoxtrot]

@saguarospine Advertisements always depict the unobtainable and no matter how hard people try they will often never achieve it. Like superheroes people can never practically fill their shoes but they can still draw inspiration from them and better themselves if they manage themselves properly. This is what advertisements do, they inspire people with fantasy and associate that fantasy with their products. Advertisers don't sit around a table thinking to themselves "how can we harm women today?"

[saguarospine]

Advertising is only a facet of the problem, and it's not even ALL advertising by any means. I don't believe that adverts plot evil with the intention of psych harm. I do think economic power outweighs importance of consequences of those mass produced images. Ads need to be appealing in some way, but many that are NOT empowering and suggest reaching out to the material world to console emotional problems or or to reinstate the need to fill a gender role to find acceptance - man OR woman.

[professorfoxtrot]

If you seek empowerment from ads then you've lost the battle right there. Jane Kilbourne's presentation could have been summed up in a few words, "If you rely on advertisements for emotional well-being, you're an idiot." Instead we get a chirade of endless bantering about how horrible advertisers are.

[saguarospine]

It's not so much seeking empowerment from the ads as being handed these images and told this is "just how things are." This is normal, these are expectations for yourself & relationships, this is reality (when it's not & doesn't have to be). I'm glad you're above that, but many people can't see/don't want to hear that media can be so infiltrating. I'm not calling others stupid - I don't think this is visible until it finally strikes as being out-of-the-ordinary or exclusive.

[saguarospine]

Speaking only of physical appearance, who exactly is deciding what's attractive? It's certainly not anyone considered marginal, or lesser within the society. To attribute practically zero human worth to a person just by SEEING them (fat, thin, of a certain perceived ethnicity, perceived sexuality, or class/status) is pretty horrible. Categorizing is something a pretty uncontrollable thing that people do, but its definitely something to be re-evaluated in most cases.

[professorfoxtrot]

Advertisers decide of course, if they're paying for the advertisement that's their choice. Feminists don't seem to understand that there is such a thing as physical beauty or sexual appeal and no it's not determined by ethnicity. If you were to put a picture of Rosie O'Donnel beside a picture of Tia Carrere, people would obviously choose the latter. That render Rosie valueless, I'm sure she has plenty of worldly political views to offer but consulting advertising for them is the wrong place.

[saguarospine]

Shes pointing out how the media is inundating people with these images and what they imply. Her examples are a pretty fair array that cant really be taken out of context seeing as how theyre mostly 1-frame pictures. Youre so busy trying to insult the lecture and feminist beliefs that it seems like youre not even listening to whats being said. SHES cherry picking? Your example of height was picked out of the air. No one is denying biological differences between men and women.

[professorfoxtrot]

She is indeed cherry picking advertisements to suit her agenda and again she contrues her premises to suit her conclusion. Take the part where she comments on a picture depicting a women with her mouth closed.... she simply assumes that the message is inteded to make women shut up much like a skitzophrenic interprets everything as a personal front to himself. FYI The part about height can be found in video 3/5 at 2:20... again she actually offers this as part of her argument.

[saguarospine]

At 2:20 the height comment is not a complaint about using biological differences to display sexism - it's a critique of the construction of the advertisement itself. The point is not neurotic nitpicking - it's analyzing patterns in a money-fueled and carefully constructed collection of images and asking why - and there's a consistent answer that shes presenting.

[professorfoxtrot]

@saguarospine To illustrate the fact that men are typically taller than women as proof of conspiracy against women is incredibly lame. The answer to the question of asking why is biological. Why do women have to bear children? Is it because of a heirarchy, I should think not. Just for the same reason height differences as a result of biological traits have nothing to do with conspiring against women. What Kilbourne offers is paranoid delusion.

[saguarospine]

First, you're still not hearing the point of the analysis. She is NOT critiquing the men and women in the image - the point being emphasized is the way the images are designed to sell the product and what the relationships among the people in the image ultimately reveals about the culture. What I said was totally rearranged. I never said that biological factors lead to hierarchy. Biology is NOT the reason men can be seen through one lens and women a complete other.

[professorfoxtrot]

@saguarospine I am hearing the point that she is critiquing the industry but you're not understanding that it takes two to tango.and it begs the obvious question, if women are so oppressed what are they doing participating in such commercials? Kilbourne claims ownership of these women the moment she interprets it as a personal attack. Biological and hormonal differences account for many behavioral differences which are in turn reflected in these advertisements.

[saguarospine]

Ugh. There is no middle ground here. I think that the participation of these women is their own deal. They can do whatever they want and I don't criticize them as individuals or think they should have guilt. As for Kilbourne, I didn't necessarily get too much of that feeling in her lecture. I agree there are bio/hormone differences, but there is so much more evidence for sameness than difference, for gender conditioning, & I do think the difference is exploited for whatever social phenomena.

[saguarospine]

By the way I really liked considering what you proposed about super heroes as being similar to people or things or situations featured in advertising. I don't think they're the same, but I appreciated the comparison. I hadn't really considered it. 

Truce, have the last word, there's no where else to go from here, there is no middle ground and no moving.

[saguarospine]

Gender roles are responsible for that gap in who and how people can be viewed, and as long as we are classified into groups and subgroups based on these expectations (and this goes for race, class, and sexuality), THAT supports hierarchy. The typical genetic difference in height is not the point its the fact that the images have individuals posing to emphasize that difference between. Theres a lot of money saying these images will sell products as well as any mindset that will lead it

[professorfoxtrot]

So what you're saying is that advertisers are emphasizing something that's already true and to do the opposite would be to emphasize something that is false. Doesn't that aptly describe a feminists goal? To make fat women sexy, to have girls taller than boys, to show female power over a man's. Men and women are fundmentally different, part and counterpart so as long as feminists try to mould a new reality in their own image they will fall flat on their faces.

[saguarospine]

A.  Not the goal of feminism. Totally your connotations and blown up imagined stereotype. I would never ever want to be the reason patriarchy was driven into the ground & replaced by matriarchy. What I think is definitely a feminist goal is to break through hierarchies and make qualities aside from physical appearance more valued.

Riane Eisler describes the importance of this the best in her theories.

[saguarospine]

B. No, not emphasizing "something that's already true". It's emphasizing harder and harder that individuals should adhere to their gender role and redefining it, in many ways for the worse, over and over again.

The women who ARE in these ads? Why should they have to be concerned about the consequences of their place in it (I mean this sincerely)... They ARE the unattainable, they are assumed to a higher status. I don't blame them.

[professorfoxtrot]

@saguarospine Commercials aren't forcing anyone to adhere to any role or to buy their products. If you want to adhere to a non-gender role and adopt asexual behavior there is nothing preventing you from doing it except perhaps your own reproductive system. It seems feminists do nothing but criticize these industries then expect them to bend over backwards to make them happy when they've given them nothing in return.

[professorfoxtrot]

@saguarospine As a defense mechanism feminists will often fall back on "well that's just a stereotype"but what they don't acknolwedge is that feminism is itself a stereotype of women who label themselves. The idea of an ever-villainous patriarchy is a stereotype, capitalism as culprit is a stereotype. If collectivism is a belief of people clinging on to a value system of pro-group's rights then its motivations are bound to be stereotypical but not false.

[saguarospine]

I dont understand how shes grabbing at straws with her evidence they are still images that were produced. They can't be taken out of context. Its a huge mistake to underestimate the power of these images. I have critiques of her presentation for sure, but to write off what shes saying is ignorant. I think this equally impacts men. It's important to ask what the ad would be like if it was a male instead - and if it's strange, why? (minus sex-specific products; i.e. tampons/birth ctl)

[saguarospine]

It's a critique of a culture that allows these images to become normal. Media has become an influence on people in the most eerily personal ways. Its example is not totally explicit - & it's everywhere. The lecturer combats this by analyzing the source. Media doesn't exist in a vacuum - it is produced by those with power in the culture and infiltrates the consciousness of everyone inside it, regardless of sex or gender. Here, it's on the very basis of how men and women relate to each other.

[saguarospine]

I never said that physical attraction didn't exist, or even that it's an unimportant factor in relating to people. You've spouted entire scripts of unoriginal feminist stereotypes and pretty misogynist attitudes - which is a little strange to me, considering the first part of your argument was some sort of concern for the voices and individual choice of some women featured in ads being stifled! And then it was okay to act like you're simply offering "engaging conversation."

[professorfoxtrot]

What have I said that was misogynistic? Think about it for a minute, you have hastily written off my all my views as "stereotypes" of feminism but then you seemingly fulfill the stereotypes you imply are false by retreading every cliche including calling me a misogynist for merely voicing a disagreement. Remember, I am speakingly only for myself, unlike Kilbourne who claims to voice her opinion on behalf of billions of women who never authorized to have her speak on behalf of them.

[professorfoxtrot]

Lastly what Kiilborne has done in this video is worse than misogyny because with her lobby she has chosen to pick on the most defenseless of us all - individuals who never asked to be paraded in a shamefest to promote an agenda they never endorsed. And did it ever occur to you that droves of women don't want to take part in feminism because they don't want to reduce themselves to nothing more than walking stereotypes of an alliance that places no value on their individual lives.

[saguarospine]

I can't see that you have any other motive here than to degrade and humiliate with some pseudo-intellectualism and hatred. You've refused to even acknowledge sexism when you've clearly used it as reasoning. I dunno, I mean what's the point if feminism is just the worst, most worthless, stupidest thing that had the audacity to exist in your world? And if you want to call me out on being immature or stupid for these responses, by all means, accept a dose of what youve dispensing.

[professorfoxtrot]

I don't believe I have denegrated feminists at least not beyond the disgraces they have warranted upon themselves. On the subject of denial I have not denied the existence of sexism. Nature is inherenlty sexist, our drive for heterosexual relationships is sexist. Sexism is the foundation of human genetic variance and survival. Applying the term :"sexist" stereotype and cliche used to conscribe people into endorsing their agendas in order to prove that they're not what they accuse them to be.

[saguarospine]

Seriously, if all this is just a platform for some verbal masturbation to the fetish of trying your best to attack others, maybe its time to re-think why youre arguing so much. And if that IS what this kind of exchange does for you, I would say thats clear evidence enough that patriarchy has done you no favors. And this time youll totally get that last word, I promise. Im sure itll be totally original and biting and full of unimagined insults.

[professorfoxtrot]

@saguarospine I am arguing because I believe my ideas are worth defending. While everyone has a stage to present their ideas those who actually believe that all ideas are equal usually have terrible ideas to begin with or perhaps worse no sense of value of ideas. But this is what happens when we let feminists enter the political sphere. We sideline matters of substance like economics and liberties so that we can make way invisible enemies like terrorists and patriarchy.

[professorfoxtrot]

@saguarospine patriarchy hasn't perforneda no moor re fewer favors fo rme than God, the Easter Bunny, the Boogyman or Al Qaeda, so let's stop the chirade that patriarchy is lurking in the bushes waiting to strike us down with its fists. Every power-hungry movement seeks to identify a villain as the bane of human existence. Nazis will accuse Jews, Al Gore trolls will accuse SUV drivers, Bush trolls will acuse terrorists.... it's the same tune and it sucks.

[saguarospine]

Okay, I let this go like a week ago. If I'm supposed to listen, and I think you're responding for more masturbatory and insecure reasons than actually convincing me or anyone else of anything, stop using condescending, less-than original insults for an argument that you aren't even nailing correctly.

Patriarchy has done damage. As a matriarchy probably would. It's not lurking. It's out there and it's blatant. That being said, it's not entirely evil, either - but there's a harmful side.

[professorfoxtrot]

@saguarospine Insecure? I don't recall ever recall conjuring false enemies to instill fear, and indeed patriarchy is a false enemy. But first you must realize that any -archy demands absolute rule of the governing prefix. Thus a patriarchy would require absolute 100% male governance which simply doesn't exist. Let's suppose female candidates held 51%+ the electorate, would we be living in a matriachy? Of course not. The truth is both men and women are responsible for voting for these people!

[saguarospine]

Pretty sure you characterized feminists as a group of women who just want control for the benefit of themselves only. Sorry but if you get to call patriarchy a "false enemy", you've had PLENTY of accusations to fuel that same definition in your sentiments toward feminism. Also that is not the definition of a patriarchy. As far as who's voting, you're not telling me information I don't know or that I'm even fighting.

[professorfoxtrot]

I stand by my characterization of feminists and this video certainly just reinforces that feminists are opportunists of victimization. Again, as long as they are motivated purely by power, greed and underserved sense of entitltement they are in of themselves destined to be cliches. Secondly, patriarchy is the rule by men. Lesson in logic, you either have a rule by men or you don't, saying that men hold more positions of power simply doesn't cut it.

[saguarospine]

I've thought about this a few times and you've made me re-evaluate my arguments on a few things for sure, but this is ridiculous.  I just want to hand you a copy of anything by Riane Eisler. I think your arguments are ignorant and entirely based on insult and not a whole lot else. If you're still holding onto this a week later, maybe find a different tactic to get your point across. I don't know why I responded to this. Oh wait it's because you're trying to pick a fight a WEEK later.

[professorfoxtrot]

Secondly, you tell me that I'm being directly insulting but at least I've had the courtesy to defend my position instead of saying to you, "oh well, you're just ignorant and what you're saying is just masterbatory" while making no tangible rebuttal. I think it's impossible not to offend a feminst. Reality is offensive to feminsts. The fact that men are stronger than women offends feminists. Sexual gratification of men offends feminists. The list is endless.

[saguarospine]

I defended my position. You're hardly logically opposing me because the majority IS insult and condescension. When it keeps going with zero progress, I don't feel any obligation to respond to you with courtesy b/c that was never given. It's impossible not to offend ANYONE if you come at them with only insult or to deem them crazy or stupid. I have no problem with men being sexually gratified. I just think there's better, more appropriate places and reasons to masturbate.

[professorfoxtrot]

You're supposing that feminism isn't condescending? How about Jean Kilbourne''s presentation. She's inferring that these women are helpless to make their own decisions as to what type of advertisements they should participate in and that society and advertisers are to blame. But don't worry helpless women, Jean Kilborne will use your images and do the speaking on your behalf! Quite ironic when she uses pictures of women with their mouths sewn shut!

[professorfoxtrot]

Lastly, you're not making logical rebuttals considering that your rebuttals fall into four categorically irrelevent talking points: "oh that's just a stereotype" or "patriarchy did it" or " you're just insulting" followed humorously by "you're just masterbating" Writing any response to you is like playing a game of planko just waiting for the chip to fall on any of these typical responses.

[par0nnoyed]

It's impossible not to offend someone who has emotional responses to a part of reality if you talk disrespectfully of that. It is definitely true. But that doesn't make the argument less valid. The one thing which is really offensive is generalizing on ideological terms. Who says all men are stronger than women? It's absolutely false as an empirical statement. It's true as an ideological belief though. And that's what advertisements sell.

[professorfoxtrot]

Never made the claim that all men were stronger than all women just as there are outliers in every case. However, feminists will often taken a majestic leap of logic in the other direction by claiming that the correlation between more stronger men than women is "just a stereotype" (and therefore false)

[professorfoxtrot]

The difference between men and women is as complex as the human genome itself yet many feminists will merely insist that any existing differences are the result of oppression and discrimination and that's the end of the argument for them. Any attempt to formulate scientific explanations will often be rebuttled with "well that's just a stereotype."

[spinkwotzer]

2.58 absolutely made my jaw drop

[VoluptiousVibration]

Great video thanks for posting, I am aware of this but watching the video has made it very clear to see the social conditioning that is taking place.

[professorfoxtrot]

@VoluptiousVibration Feminists like this are engaging in social conditioning. Instead of allowing these women to speak for themselves, she's speaking on behalf of them, then distorting the context of the advertisements to humiliate them as victims, despite that they had agreed to participate in the ads.

[roobinne]

I love this

it realy makes me think about what effect the media has on me. I am determened to change the image of myself and to not be a slave of television and advertising.

[ilovejakehoggard]

Amen!

[purplestreakpunk]

We watched this in my Women's Lit. class. It was really enlightening. I pay a lot more attention to commercials and ads now.

but, I was wondering,.. (and people in class were wondering too) "Elevators are dangerous for women."

They are? Seems kinda random...

[MaggieLovesJimmy]

They're dangerous if a woman is stuck in one with someone who intends to harm her. She has nowhere to run.

[Chuny24]

Well the "elevators are dangerous for women" theory comes from the slang "going down the elevator" which is to have sex in an elevator, which is why she states "elevators are dangerous". Hope that helped.

[karinlovesyou]

@purplestreakpunk the reason why they are dangerous for women (elevators) is because of the possibility of getting hurt or raped when on one alone with a man.

[professorfoxtrot]

@purplestreakpunk You pay a lot more attention to commercials and ads now because of this presentation? LOL, way to fight the system feminists, that's the last thing advertisers want!

[arji1982]

Thank you very much for posting this.

[sirasy]

U r BRILLAINT!

THANX for this video!

[aldrynmcauslen]

Thank you!

[shygirl897]

Thank you for posting these :D

[Loreleila]

This is interesting and she makes many valid points. On the other hand she seems entangled in the whole thing, seeing women as victims, men as the perpetatrators, as if all advertisers are men, which of course they are not, nor all women helpless. I totally agree advertising and the media in general is geared to keep humanity as helpless sleeping drones, consumers of items which are of no real use, but men are very much a part of that.

Thanks for your comment on my video btw, it meant a lot.

[maidensnowflake]

She is not at all implying that ALL women are victims and ALL men are perpetrators. She is though, saying that the majority of the time, things tend to be this way. No, not all advertising and media are comprised of men either; women perpetuate many stereotypes and expectations on other women all the time.

[Loreleila]

'She is not at all implying that ALL women are victims and ALL men are perpetrators.'

I didn't think she was.

'women perpetuate many stereotypes and expectations on other women all the time.'

Indeed. We all collude. And not only do women do it to other women, they do it to themselves. None of us have to be unthinking drones or puppets to the media. We all need to learn to decide what really matters, not get sucked in by consumerism.

[brebre1920]

see thats the thing though - men twist this up into one thing - that women are blaming men and thats not it! she is talking about images that are accepted by all of that make women into the victims - it has nothing to do with blaming men....but i know u know this

[IcanSeeAndHearYou]

Sir, please lay down your arms.

In response to your >"They may not be physically abused as result but"... please take 5 seconds and do this ... Google "Karen Carpenter" and be sure to realize when you're "minimizing".

P.S.

Someone said...

"Everybody wanna get a Break,...Nobody wanna give a Break" ha ha i just made dat up...d'ja like it?

[Teodrof]

5:00 "No consequences for men"?? Are you joking?? They may not be physically abused as result but psychological damage, inferiority complex etc is inevitable. great lekture otherwise, but that is irresponsoble comment

[DamnAllSequels]

I totally agree- men are unfortunately conditioned that clear communication and openness with one's feelings is unacceptable and unbefitting. It's sad b/c a close guyfriend of mine has had to live w/ his sexuality being constantly challenged b/c he is an open, sincere communicator (which is such a stinging indictment against the culture- I love this friend of mine as one of the few guys I can have an open conversation w/). So yeah, "no consequences for men" prob meant no physical conseq- rape.

[maidensnowflake]

I agree with DamnAllSequels. By "no consequences", she was talking in the context of physical harm or abuse. Don't spout off so easily.

[Teodrof]

I'll spout you off in a minute you fucking slag

[maidensnowflake]

Whoa there, no need for hostility. You certainly have that quality about you. Starting something with someone over the internet for no reason other than because you have anger issues is not healthy.

[IcanSeeAndHearYou]

Evinna , please stay away from this immature loser Teodorf. There is great evil there and I don't like you getting your hands dirty with it. Some people are just irredeemable. I have many friends at my channel whom I've screened based on quality of character. I welcome you to stop by and meet a few real people who know the meaning of respect.

As for this coward, I'm blocking him now! I simply will not tolerate my guests being disrespected this way.

[maidensnowflake]

Thank you very much IcanSeeAndHearYou :) I really enjoy the fact that you posted this video and are deeply concerned with this issue. It is very commendable.