CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Do magazines victimize women?
Just go through the supermarket check-out and peruse the latest magazine covers. If you don't know what this does to the male mind and the way it victimizes women you are numb.
Do magazines victimize women in their depictions? And as a follow-up, what effect does this have on the male mind?
The sexual portrayal of women on magazine covers promote Hugh Hefner's view of women. And his view is that women are simply playthings that are to be used and discarded. The promotion of this view train men to see women in this way and men begin to treat women this way. I could write a book documenting the serious ramifications this has on women and society. But I don't need to, just go read the paper or watch the news. And you will see what men think of women and how they treat them, like playthings. If that is not the victimization of women, I don't know what is.
And if you are one of those women who have been endowed with beauty, think what you are saying about yourself by the way you portray yourself: this is all there is to me and I'm only something to be used for your pleasure. I'm not a woman, just a plaything
I disagree. And a book you may be interested in is Female Chauvinist Pigs, about women who perpetuate this sort of stereotyping.
Perhaps I give women too much credit, but I don't think so. I think the women in the industry are smart enough to know that they are a marketable commodity and smart enough to use that. It does not say "I am a plaything but not a woman," but rather, "I am selling images of myself because they will bring you pleasure and bring me lots of money". So, in essence, they're preying off men's undying lust. I guess it really comes down to, who do you blame? The demander or the supplier?
EXACTLY as you say -- women aren't PEOPLE, they're "marketable commodities." And commodities, as we all know, are things, not people. Commodities exist to be acquired and owned; they have no autonomy, no independence, no individuality. That is EXACTLY the problem with media stereotyping of women.
Here is an article highlighting the effects of the sexualization of our culture. So I ask, were did these kids learn this behavior they are acting out?
So I would further add that not only do magazines victimize women, they also lead to the victimization of young girls.
Absolutely. Women are portrayed in a sickening fashion by advertisements and it's such an internalized attitude that many men and women alike don't even notice anymore.
Burger King has run more than one ad campaign that is overtly sexual and offensive to woman (among many other demographics; just google 'burger king offensive ads'). Women are often the brunt of mean jokes and deceit (Mitchum man ads: http://www.safercampus.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/mitchum-rapist.jpg) ) or are nothing more than an accessory for a successful man.
Sit down and watch TV for a few hours. Tally up how many times a woman is shown taking care of children, cooking, or cleaning. Tally up how many times a woman is shown naked, partially naked, or in her underwear, in an ad that has nothing to do with naked women. This isn't even touching on the absurd beauty standard regarding weight and personal grooming.
These stereotypes are damaging to women, who are rarely shown as capable, competent, or successful human beings, and to men, who receive their own share of stereotyping in media, and learn to expect inaccurate and ridiculous things from female.
That attitude is insulting to both genders. Women do not need to be put up on a pedestal, or be regarded as having some sort of mystical power over men. Men do not need the implication that they are easily enslaved by a women, and not responsible for their own actions when it comes to what they do for her. How many men do you know in real life who will do 'ANYTHING' for their wives or girlfriends? I know men who truly love the women in their lives and are willing to make certain sacrifices for them, but a well-adjusted person draws the line somewhere.
You do have a point that these ads are harmful to men, as well, because they prey upon the male desire to get attention from desirable women. But in these harmful advertisements, women are portrayed like objects, accessories, rewards; not people. The men, and their desires, are the true focus of the ads. The women are just a tool to get their attention.
So it just exploits people? Same argument for porn. It exploits people. But people like it. The women get the attention and the money while the guy gets a temporary high.
These advertisements are meant as "rewards". They're meant to get their attention... that's the sole purpose of marketing. To grab the consumer's attention. When selling a product that men tend to like, what grabs their attention? Hot chicks. This is just normal. You can't really change the male mind. It's part of natural selection. They constantly want to fuck women; so hot women get their attention.
Advertisements differ from pornography in that they exploit fears and insecurities. Porn fills a demand of society and in my opinion, is fairly straightforward. People watch porn by choice and know exactly what they are getting; sexual gratification. People are bombarded by advertisements involuntarily, and ads are aimed at convincing people to spend more, sometimes without them totally realizing it.
When I said rewards, I didn't mean that the advertisement itself is a reward. I meant that the advertisement implies that if a man buys a particular product (beer, candy, deodorant, cars, whatever) he will 'win' a women, or women, not because she likes him but because she is so mindlessly attracted to the product he's bought. You don't win people, you win objects. There are plenty of companies of all types that are very successful without engaging in sexist advertising, so obviously that is not the only way to do things.
I think it is unethical to use attractive or barely dressed women to get a man's attention in an ad, especially when a) the product has nothing to do with naked women and b) the woman is presented in any of the negative ways previously mentioned. The message to men in these ads is that women will only like them if men spend money on them, and the message to women is that men will only like them if they are impossibly beautiful.
I can't speak for women in general, but what gets my attention in an advertisement is originality, honesty, and humor.
The hot chicks in beer commercials are meant to get guy's attention. It would be stupid to actually think that people think "if I buy this beer, women will like me". It's just to get the eyes focused on the product: "Girls? Hot ones? Interesting."
And with stuff like deodorant spray, let's face it, woman love good smells more than bad smells. Deodorant spray is SUPPOSED to convince guys that this one will attract more females than the competitors. It's part of advertisement. Same thing with clothes and "male enhancement". The whole purpose of guys wearing nice clothes, smelling good and using penis pills is to attract females. It is really the best way to advertise these products cause it goes directly for the reason why these guys are buying this crap in the first place.
Please don't refer to my opinions as stupid. Insults do nothing to further your argument. I feel like I adequately addressed all the points you were trying to make - which one did I miss, exactly?
Advertisements insinuate a lot of things that, plainly presented, people would consider foolish. But when these messages are subliminal, and presented to impressionable minds a hundred times a day, they do have an effect. This effect is observable in many ways, such as the sad prevalence of poor body image and eating disorders in teenagers and young girls ( http://www.state.sc.us/dmh/anorexia/statistics.htm - http://www.annecollins.com/eating-disorders/statistics.htm ) Where do you think these insecurities come from? Could it possibly be from the constant deluge of super-skinny, Photoshop-gorgeous models and actresses that young girls are exposed to from babyhood? Could it be the literal thousands of beauty products that she is told she needs in order to be beautiful?
'It's just to get the eyes focused on the product: "Girls? Hot ones? Interesting."'
Thank you, that is the point I am trying to make. Women are not people, to be portrayed in a variety of roles by a variety of people in all shapes and colors. They are flashy tools, nothing but pretty things to get you to look this way. We are just decorations designed to get men to buy 'crap' they don't need.
If you are truly willing to have a debate about this, as in you are actually open to seeing things from someone else's perspective, take some time to look through that presentation and really think about the way you see women and men in advertising. Who gets to wear clothes more often? Who gets presented as clever, funny, powerful, and who gets presented as vulnerable, submissive, or simply as a prop? Which gender is permitted a wider range of 'looks', from tall to short, scruffy to neat, heavy to thin, geeky to good-looking, and which gender is restricted to the narrow 'look' of tall, shapely, long-legged, and extremely skinny?
1. Anorexia comes from insecurity of weak people. How pathetic does one have to be to starve themselves just because their are skinner people than them? Don't blame people who just want their shit to be sexy. Sexy is good.
2. Advertisements are all about getting people to focus their attention. What get's guy's attention the most? Hot chicks. To suggest that they're tools just because they get guy's attention is a little low. If anything, this puts men into the position of being easily manipulated.
1. The vast majority of women afflicted with eating disorders are very young. They are not weak; they are impressionable and they are suffering from a mental disorder. Your assertion that they are 'pathetic' seems callous and demonstrates a near complete lack of compassion or understanding for the mechanics of eating disorders. I find that disturbing. Girls as young as 7, 8, 9 years old see themselves as fat or ugly. Their self esteem is under attack before they can defend themselves, and it never stops; they are too fat, they are too short, body hair is disgusting, skinny lips are ugly, blemishes are ugly, wrinkles are ugly, gray hair is ugly, short lashes are ugly...all these completely normal imperfections that men also have, women are pressured to remedy with expensive products, unsafe diets, and plastic surgery. Why? Because the way they look is the most important thing about them.
2. Yes, the argument that men are being manipulated has been part of my point from the first post. That has been established.
Beyond that, your main argument seems to be that this is okay because it is effective, and that doesn't follow. There are better, more ethical ways to attract customers. Perhaps, even, sheerly through the merit of the product? Just because something achieves the intended result does not mean there are no victims, or that no harm has come of it. I have never argued that it does not work, but it is still wrong.
I am going to go out on a limb here and guess you didn't even glance at any of the sources I offered. In fact, from that response, I have to wonder if you read my reply beyond the first few sentences.
Yes they do. Our society is horrible for portraying women like they do in magazines. Women are shown like they are sex objects for a mans taking. It disgusts me and wonder how the media can get away with exploiting women like they do. It is wrong and shouldnt be done. It is done more so to women then it is to men.
Many people rationalize male magazines as a form of entertainment and a source of information. Although these are true, a crucial social implication is backfiring. Male magazines diminish the role of women in the society. Although women are gaining power in all aspects of life, other aspects especially in print media are still under fire. Women commercialization is very eminent to magazines targeting male consumers. Its purpose is to lure a prospective buyer by putting sexy women in their front cover, thus, these women or sexy models act as a boost to a magazine’s over-all packaging.
Consequently, women are virtually seen as whores or pleasure-givers to the readers. This kind of art propagates erotic attitude towards women in general. Since media has a vast influence over the society, the effect is very damaging. If this kind of negative publicity to women continues, it would not be surprising that we will go back to the age where female are seen as inferior compared to its male counterpart.
I honestly think YES the media, magazines... it makes women out to be skanks or all really thin and elegant. I don't really have much to say on this topic my opinion goes deep and I could go on for hours I think it should all stop.
I mean seriously what kind of country are we when little 5 yr old girls are going into a depression because they don't look like a pretty young women that everyone envy's or why mommy hates herself when her daughter thinks shes the most beautiful thing that she's ever seen.
I am female and I can't stand the way they make women out to be playthings. But like I said that's my opinion.
Pyg, the portrayals of women that you refer to don't make you "love" them. They just make you want to screw them. In your words: "dude, check out Megan Fox on the cover of Cosmopolitan, I'd so bang her". I think you've given us a clear example of what media representations of women do to the male mind, thanks.
Are media portrayals of the genders sexist? Oh hells yeah. Especially when it comes to women? Oh hells yeah.
Look at, for example:
- The number of women who are screaming about nothing (bleach, rodents, I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Butter) in advertising as a return to images of women as "hysterics"
- The number of women in magazines and print ads who are looking at the men in the picture versus looking at the camera
- The number of photos of women that show them as body parts (just boobs, just legs, just an ass) instead of as people
- The never-ending parade of slutwear worn by every female celebrity from Miley Cyrus to Helen Mirren
- The increasing sexualization of female youth and the de-sexualization of female adulthood and aging
- The use of images of violence or degradation of women to sell products
Do the models get paid? Sure. Do they control the imagery? No. So whether or not they get paid is rather beside the point. Nobody is arguing that, say, the Olsen twins have personally been victimized by dressing slutty on TV -- but women as a class are routinely degraded by media imagery which presents women as primarily as stereotypes.
"Fortunate and smart," Spooner? Because they feed into stereotypes that are ultimately harmful to women? If 99% of the portrayals of the male gender were dudes who looked like Al Bundy scratching his balls and mowing the lawn, would you say those were the "fortunate and smart" men because they catered to female needs -- or would the "fortunate and smart" men still be guys like Bill Gates and Rupert Murdoch and Donald Trump, who succeeded at the goals they set for themselves instead of by splashing a photo on the cover of People of themselves looking like a stereotype?
On the Al Bundy question, I most certainly would not categorize them as fortunate and smart.
"Victims" of media portrayals of women are fortunate because they have killer looks that rake in big bucks, and smart because they use them to that end, preying on society's lust.
Al Bundy is not fortunate in the looks department, and so could not be smart in the same sense either.
But you're still missing the point. The point is that women as a class are degraded by media stereotyping. We could get into a long involved discussion of the ways in which media stereotyping creates a culture of abuse to which specific women are susceptible in various ways, but the crux is that media stereotyping of women is harmful to women as a group.
But I wasn't answering this point. I was answering your Al Bundy question which was an inappropriate analogy for media portrayals of women.
At any rate, let's get into that long involved discussion of the ways in which media stereotyping creates a culture of abuse to which specific women are susceptible in various ways. And the further argument that media stereotyping is harmful to women as a group. But let's also acknowlede that media stereotyping is not a one-way street.
Totally agreed on that last point; it's not a one-way street.
The problem is essentially that media stereotyping still places women overwhelmingly in servile or dehumanized roles. The parcelling-up of the body, for example -- it's a picture of just boobs, just legs, just a tummy, just an ass -- is especially problematic in that it encourages the viewer to objectify the female body, and in representing women as discrete parcels of flesh it robs women of their humanity. This in turn feeds a "rape culture" because women's bodies are depicted as objects, and objects have no rights in themselves but rather are meant to be possessed and owned.
The consistent portrayals of women in domestic and "pink collar" roles is likewise disturbing in that it subconsciously reinforces viewer's notions that this is women's "natural" or "normal" place. Take a look at any ads for household cleaners, for example (laundry soap, dish soap, floor cleaners, dust cloths) and see how many men versus women appear in those domestic roles -- and then try the same thing with high-end automobiles and see how few women appear (or, if they do, how they appear as arm-candy rather than as potential car purchasers).
Pay attention to where women in advertising are looking -- is it at the viewer, or at men in the ad; who is the center of attention here and why? How are women emoting -- is it in a "hysterical" way (e.g., screaming, crying) or is it in a more normative manner? And finally, pay attention to the body imagery and how it impacts young women by promoting early oversexualization, body hatred, eating disorders, and all that not-so-good stuff.
This is harmful to women as a group becaue it continues to promote a view where women are invisible as human beings and are instead seen merely as visual (and sexual) accessories. It is harmful to individual women because it minimizes visibility of women in the professions, dichotomizes women's multiple life roles, and promotes unhealthy views (in both genders) of women's bodies and what they should look like and how they should be treated, all under the guise of this being "normal" or "mainstream" behavior of our culture. The woman who does not conform to these stereotypes is thus abnormal and subject to ridicule or social stigma for failing to fulfill the "viewer's" expectations (who is still at the core seeing women as objects to be viewed rather than as individuals because that attitude is so pervasive in media as to drill itself well into one's subconscious perceptions).
Media stereotyping of men is equally insidious in pigeonholing certain gender-behavior stereotypes but is less dangerous to men as a class because it does not consistently relegate men to positions of less social power. Given that, I do not particularly see how the Al Bundy stereotype is an inapt analogy, other than in that it de-sexualizes the image to the extreme instead of oversexualizing it to the extreme; it nonetheless caters to a stereotype which is limiting and ultimately demeaning when it becomes the dominant or exclusive perception of a gender that it represented in our culture, and thus to me it seems very apt.
I'll just dispute this since you ignored everything else and just want me to dispute this, specifically:
1. Hysterics. Any psychologist will tell you that women are much more emotionally unstable (not as a dis, but as an actual personality trait, "Unstable Extroverts", easier said as emotionally unstable).
In REALITY, women tend to be more afraid of rats and shit and men tend to be less afraid. Hell, in REALITY, men will usually pick up the rat and scare the shit out of the women with it. Hysterics, better yet, histrionics, are emotionally unstable. so it would make sense to depict REALITY in commercials.
2. As I described before, pictures naturally look better a certain way. Destroy art, if you want.
3. Read muscle magazines. All you see our male biceps and pecks. But even so, people like to see boobs, legs and asses. Do you have a problem with people liking boobs? pfft, women.
4. I don't know Helen Mirren, and I don't keep up with Miley Cyrus's wardrobe, but I'm pretty sure she's kept a very teenage look to her clothing style. If you really wanna complain about someone... well, I don't know what's considered slutty nowadays. I guess Lady GaGa? But she tries to dress up strangely and shit. The way Rihanna dresses is how Marilyn Manson has been dressing since Mechanical Animals. And why shouldn't celebrities wear "slutwear" (you'll have to define it: revealing, tight, etc.). would you prefer that they all wear turtle necks and baggy pants? Please, explain.
5. This is just wrong all together. Cougars and MILFs are becoming more and more popular, so there's no way that aging females are becoming de-sexualized. Although, I'm not a MILF hunter. Sorry, but women do get less sexy as they get older. But, the entertainment industry definitely isn't de-sexifying them.
6. WTF? Wear? Are you referring to that thing that happened wear women were dead and shit as models? That was invented by a gay dude and a lesbian. If not, than what? AberCrombie and Finch did that once and got in trouble for it (their ads are mainly dudes, anyway).
The people who control the imagery are mainly gays and women. Except for porn, of course (but in porn, gays are usually the photographers and they set the scene, but lets say that the fact that it's a man and men are sexist pigs, okay).
Wait a fuckin' minute, all of that was merely a response to what YOU were saying. In fact, evidence isn't possible for this. And, you never cited a credible source for your shit (which YOU actually need, because you are saying that "the number of this and that" when it could all not exist in the first place). My response to it was an assumption that if you are right, here's the reason for it.
Describe where, exactly, I need sources. Do you want me to post pictures from muscle magazines? Hell, you didn't even answer my questions that I was asking (that's another thing, most of my response was me asking you what you were referring to, exactly, because you know... you didn't cite sources).
Evidence against? "An exaggerated, phobic fear of mice and rats has traditionally been depicted as a stereotypical trait of women, with numerous books, cartoons, television shows, and films portraying hysterical women screaming and jumping atop chairs or tables at the sight of a mouse — for example, Mammy Two Shoes in Tom and Jerry. Despite the gender-stereotyped portrayals prior to the 21st century, Western musophobia has always been experienced by individuals of both sexes." -- The Wiki.
ART? Where the hell are you getting art from? What pictures "naturally" look better a certain way, why, and according to whom? If this is "natural," you should be able to find the exact same beauty standards in any and every society capable of making a picture through all of history, so please prove this is true.
"Muscle magazines" are, by definition, looking at "muscles" -- and they are for MEN, not women, who want to look at muscles. Nor in general do they parcel up the body except in specific contexts like "20 days to better abs: Before/After." They do not put the male ass in a bikini to sell sunglasses or cheeseburgers.
The issue with clothing, like that of imagery, is not one of personal choice but of pervasive stereotyping.
Who says women get "less sexy" as they age whereas men become "distinguished"? Why are grey hair, wrinkles, liver spots and saggy skin deemed acceptable in one sex but not the other?
And 6, no, I was actually thinking of Guess Jeans, but thanks for adding two MORE examples that support my point.
Now if you'd care to provide ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to support yours . . . ?
1. Emotional Instability is THE OUTWARD EXPRESSION OF EMOTIONS. That's what EXTROVERTS are... which I explained. Please read my entire argument next time.
2. That is not evidence against... that just shows the stereotypes. It doesn't say that men and women share it equally, just that both have been known to experience it.
3. Ask photographers why they have women do what they do in pictures, not me.
4. I've never seen an ass to sell sunglasses. I've seen a face... never an ass. The only time I've ever seen just an ass in an ad is maybe for underwear... there's an obvious reason why. Now, if you're referring to the very fact that maybe women wear revealing clothing in beer commercials... that's their entire body and they create a persona of men wanting women. Big deal.
5. Explain more on clothing.
6. I guess you don't see the "just for men" commercials (when it comes to gray hair)... and as I said before, cougars and MIFLs are highly popular and they are older women that younger guys find sexy. No one finds liver spots or wrinkles sexy on anyone. And in my personal opinion, women aren't as sexy when they get older... it's part of evolution, if anything. The point of sexual attraction in the natural world is to increase reproduction. As women get older, they are less likely to reproduce, which is why they become less sexually appealing to men. Men, on the other hand, do not lose their sperm count when getting older, so sex for them is still useful in the natural world. I recommend books on Evolutionary Psychology for more in depth analysis on sexual appeal. They're quite insightful.
7. Guess Jeans? So YOU had one example (trying to somehow apply it to the rest of the world) and my examples were showing how it's a failed concept. The dead women was created by a gay guy and a lesbian and the abercrombie and finch ad was considered unacceptable and they had to take it down.
By your own argument, men are just as victimized as women in the media. Look at the sitcoms. King of Queens, Everybody Loves Raymond, etc. They all show the men as dumb, lazy, sports-watching goofballs who need their wives to keep them in line.
So stop with the "females are the only victim" stuff. Men are portrayed in just as bad, if not worse, stereotypes in the media.
That's really not my argument. Are men socially disadvantaged by these "stereotypes"? Not like women are, no. Men aren't victims of sex discrimination, sexual harrassment, or sexual abuse in the way that women are. Men don't find their social roles constrained by inappropriate gender norms in the way that women do. So as I have said before, while both genders are to some extent stereotyped by the media these stereotypes are nowhere near as overtly dangerous to men as they are to women, nor are the images of men so one-dimensional. At the same time you have "Everybody Loves Raymond," you also have "The Apprentice." Men in GQ are clothed; women in Cosmo, just barely. Men do not appear in advertising as "arm candy" or as body-parts used to sell unrelated products. So no, by no stretch of the imagination is media stereotyping of men "just as bad" as that of women.
As an example, look at how Pyg claims with a straight face that "any psychologist will tell you that women are much more emotionally unstable [than men]." In fact, pretty much any psychologist will tell you that's just complete and utter bullcrap. Pyg doesn't cite any psychologists, he just adopts this totally erroneous claim as fact because that's how women are represented to the public mind in media imagery, so therefore it must be true. I don't see any equally outlandish claims about the inherent traits of men being advanced. So again, no, by no stretch of the imagination are the effects of media stereotyping of men "just as bad" as the effects of the stereotyping of women.
1. Do you blame the media, or the women that allow themselves to be in Cosmo? I mean, it's not like men are MAKING them pose for these pictures. They CHOSE to do it. To me, that's not a victim.
2. The ONLY reason men aren't in mags and tv wearing little to no clothes is because it doesn't sell all that well. The reason? Men are much more visual than women. If women were as visual as men, and enjoyed looking at pictures of men wearing little clothes, believe me, it would be all over the place too.
My point is there is no real victim here. It is win/win/win. The women who do it enjoy doing it, and make money off it. The companies that use the pictures and images sell their product. The men that like looking at the women's pictures like getting the opportunity to look at them. Win/win/win.
I agree women should not be victims of sexual discrimination, harrassment, or abuse (just like men shouldn't either, but it happens). But I don't think you successfully argue that it's directly related to Cosmo magazine.
You are again missing the point. I'm not worried half as much about the impact of media sexism on Tyra Banks as I am concerned with the effects of media stereotyping on ordinary women. While certainly there are elements of victimization within the modeling industry itself (hullo, eating disorders!) the problem is not that the models are themselves personally victimized so much as that media stereotyping (in conjunction with a number of other gender-perception issues; I'm not saying it's 100% the fault of "the media") puts women as a group in positions of victimization by making women invisible except within narrowly-circumscribed roles such as "sex object."
Always have and always will...today is no different than it was 40 years ago. They use women to sell a product or themselves through revealing photos, sexy getaways, expe4nsive as well as household products. Nothing sells better than a woman wrapped in luxury.
Let's ask someone who has first and experience with this. Ted Bundy, what do you think?
"I have lived in prison a long time now and I've met a lot of men who were motivated to violence just like me. And without exception, every one of them was deeply involved in pornography, without a question, deeply influenced and consumed by an addiction to pornography". Ted Bundy, convicted killer hours before his execution.
Or let's ask convicted killer, Arthur Gary Bishop
Pornography is a widespread social problem, so prevalent that many people accept it as normal...During my trial, Dr. Victor Cline testified about the adverse effects of pornography. As I listened to his explanations, I could discern how my own life desires escalated. These normal feelings become desensitized, and they tend to act out what they have seen. So it was with me. I am a homosexual pedophile convicted of murder, and pornography was a determining factor in my downfall. Somehow I became sexually attracted to young boys, and I would fantasize them naked...I would need pictures that were more explicit and shortly the images became commonplace and acceptable. Finding and procuring sexually arousing materials became an obsession. For me, seeing pornography was like lighting a fuse on a stick of dynamite; I became stimulated and had to gratify my urges and explode. The day came when I invited a small neighborhood boy into my apartment, molested him and then killed him in fear of being caught. Over the few years I kidnapped, sexually abused, and murdered four other boys. I lost all sense of decency and respect for humanity and life...If pornographic material would have been unavailable to me in my early stages; it is most probable that my sexual activities would not have escalated to the degree they did. Convicted Killer, Arthur Gary Bishop
And finally;
In Springfield, Illinois a 43 year old man was baby-sitting 11 year old Jim and three girls. He sexually molested the three girls, ages 7, 11, and 13. Then he murdered Jim. When police searched his home they found a pair of one of the girls underwear, a stun gun and six pornographic magazines. One of the magazines included an advertisement for a TV program, unspeakable acts about sexually molesting children while baby-sitting them. Anonymous
I see a lot of female celebrities who have jumped into the fight to stop sex abuse and sex trafficking, only to turn around and wear provacative clothing that bares way too much or pose provacatively on the covers of magazines. I wish they could see that this only serves to propagate and sanction the very practice that they wish to eradicate. It helps along the view that a woman's value is only in her body, that her body is something to be bared for all the world to view if it is their pleasure to do so, and that she (or what her body offers) is a commodity to be bought and sold. When we, women and men, buy even a Cosmo or Covergirl, we are paying money, or sneaking a peak, at what is inside. This woman has put herself on display and so we believe it is our right. But it is not. Society has perpetrated the idea that this is ok, especially if the woman consents. Consent or no consent, this is NOT ok. It is harmful. It is hurtful. It supports exploitation. Take it from a survivor of exploitation. It only serves to tell men that a woman's body is a commodity, something to be lusted after and used, in whatever way possible.
I've never understood this viewpoint. The media does tend to sex women up. How that equates to victimization is the part I've never quite gotten. Because they sex men up too. And sex sells, so it's obviously not offensive to us, to the contrary we seem to enjoy it (even if we don't want to admit it outloud).
Women who are able to make money off of men's desires for them are anything but victimized. They are fortunate and smart.
The mainstream media not only has the capacity to perpetuate, but does perpetuate phallocentric ideas that reduce "the woman" to object, and subliminally reinforces classical gender associations that betray modern wisdom. Because we live in a male dominated society, the sexualizing of women becomes systemic, a part of the cultural institution that the sexualizing of men does not lead to. Sex sells when it involves women, primarily--because they have become objects. And in spite of the female contribution to modern society, we have historical baggage that is now lengerie'd and gussied up by the media to sell to men. Moreover, despite the fact that some women are in positions of power, and some make money off of men, it does not mean that they--as a group--are not victims of a greater system of stratification, objectification and oppression.
I don't think I see how women are being victimized by being used in advertising.
If its an issue of setting an unattainable standard for beauty then I don't think its a valid concern. First of all feminists don't want the task of pleasing men to be a priority, so they shouldn't care if men are looking for perfect 10's or not. Secondly men deal with this too. I'm no James Bond and will never be one. I don't know any males in person that are as attractive as movie stars, but I still feel the need to wish I had bigger guns and a perfect abs. Just because perfection isn't attainable doesn't mean acknowledging its beauty is victimizing of those that are unable to attain it.
I think valid concerns of feminists include things like equal pay, equal opportunity, and an equal right to not be beaten and raped. I don't think that imagery of attractive women chasing down a guy that's spraying himself with axe directly inhibits women rights. The exact reason i buy scented deodorant and axe body wash is to have attractive women wearing almost nothing chase me down. That's not oppression that's just good advertising.
There will always be extremes and that burger king commercial does seem to be enforcing gender roles and shouldn't be aired. Most advertising however, in my opinion does not make women victims.
I know the biggest problem for woman's rights is the existing negative mindset and women in lingerie selling golf clubs does go along with this mind set rather than against. This does not mean that the ad is causing that mindset though. The mindset existed before TV, before magazines, and before anything that resembles modern media. In middle eastern countries where women seem to have it the worst, women aren't even allowed to show their faces or hair, let alone pose nude to sell some AK-47s in a magazine. Not only is sexism present in this culture that doesn't use women sexuality to advertise, it is far worse than sexism here. Of course this is yet another extreme but it definitely proves the point that ceasing to use sex to advertise will not end sexism.
edit: I think people concerned with woman's rights should worry more about women in other countries that have no rights than about magazine ads.
'Feminists don't want the task of pleasing men to be a priority.'
Advertisers try to do their best to make this a woman's priority. That is part of my argument. Try as they might, most women are affected by the small subliminal (and not so subliminal) messages they receive thousands of times over their lives.
'Secondly men deal with this too.'
So because men experience it too, women are not being victimized? I won't deny men are pressured to look and act a certain way as well, but please try to understand that it is far worse for women. For every James Bond, there is a John Goodman, an Al Roker, a Patton Oswald, a Woody Allen, a Bill Gates, a Donald Trump. Men have lots of examples of powerful, successful, famous men that are not tall or thin or young or good-looking. Women have some, but many, many less; our beauty standard is much more rigid, far more expensive and a lot more painful and time consuming to maintain. From cartoons to celebrities, males can be goofy, fat, short, ugly, and old and still be portrayed positively. This is far, far less true for women. So few of us will ever reach anything close to the female ideal, and we are made to feel bad about it every day.
A common argument from males in this debate has been that men suffer too. And I haven't seen anybody deny that. But men are not the marginalized demographic in this debate. It can be hard, or nearly impossible, for a man to understand what it is like to be a woman, and it is much, much easier to write off our concerns as just being complainy or oversensitive. This in itself is pretty insulting, especially considered there is a lot of factual evidence to support these claims.
You are talking about this as if it's one ad or one single company that is single-handedly at fault, and that's not true. But when a hundred companies publish a thousand magazines, produce dozens of television shows, hundreds of movies, with women in lesser roles like this, what do you think children grow up thinking?
I understand people in a position of power are resistant to change and often deny there is even a problem. It's not pleasant to have it pointed out that sexism still exists, because lots of people would like to claim it doesn't. Often, looking to closely into it can make men realize that they have sexist tendencies, even if they mean the best, and that can be a nasty epiphany. You cannot possibly understand all the small ways in which women are discriminated against, and how they add up, because you have the fortune of never having to experience them first hand. This is male privilege, and here is a list of just some of the many, many minor advantages you have over women in American society.
As for your final point, I am well aware of how lucky I am to be born a woman in America. I realize that women in almost every other country have it worse off, and I do my best to support those efforts as well. However, I am not going to ignore sexism in America just because it is more blatant elsewhere.
I do think that women have it harder than men here. I don't think that just because men face similar circumstances that everything is fair. If I thought that I would have made a very different post. But I don't think its because the portrayal of men isn't as extreme or because we face less of it. I think its all in the eye of the beholder so to speak.
Since men do have significantly more successful role models that aren't 50% silicone and botox, when men and women alike see a pitiful al bundy or perfect james bond it is much easier to realize that it is not reality. Women don't have the luxury so it is harder to distinguish between what is being embellished and what is based on reality.
I don't think role models are the only reason that these ads are perceived negatively. I think the most important reason has more to do with tradition. Even without TV and magazines, children grow up with the expectation that boys will get good jobs and find attractive wives while girls will try to impress the boy with the best job so they can make his dinner and watch his babbys.
With those expectations already in our head, we open a magazine and turn on the TV. The boys are looking for ways to become successful and ways to recognize attractive girls. The girls are looking for ways to attract boys and ways to raise children. The damage has already been done. The problem isn't that they found what they were looking for; the problem is that they were looking for it.
If the topic here was the morality of advertising itself then I would not once defend it. I am very much against people trying to influence me into buying things. The question here though is whether or not magazines victimize women and I am under the assumption that we are mainly referring to ads. I really don't think that it is the ad or magazine itself that makes women victims. I definitely don't think that censoring these ads will end sexism.
Having sex is something that drives humans without rationality; this will probably always be the case. Even if gender roles were abolished, ads that depicted a women as nothing more than an object to have sex with would still be effective and would still be used. These ads wouldn't be offensive however because being well educated we would recognize them as an advertisements and embellishments. We would not be looking for a definition of 'woman' and we would not be influenced be viewing them.
If these types of ads exist in both sexist and non sexist societies and also do not exist in some societies with very evident sexism, how can anyone conclude that the are one of the causes of sexism or victimization or however you want to put it?
Yes, ads are not the only problem, but that is also not the argument here. Every form of media that constantly and strictly relegates women to a submissive, inferior role is the problem. Advertising is one of those forms of media. It further reinforces these stereotypes, and inundates daily life with them. Just because the harmful effects of ads are already in place doesn't mean there is no point in trying to make people see them for what they are. That is the only way to really change things.
I am not advocating censorship by any means, because that would be simply covering up a symptom of a disease. I believe that if women were truly equal we would see a dramatic drop in these ads, or perhaps a disappearance altogether. I'm not arguing its effectiveness, but I believe if people all saw how insidiously wrong and disturbing many of these ads are, they would find another way to go about things. Racist caricatures and a far more obvious brand of sexism were once common and accepted in media, but as the general mindset made a shift, they disappeared and most people today would find these old portrayals appalling.
Which non-sexist society are you referring to?
Parts of the world where you do not see these advertisements are often plagued by a different incarnation of sexism. In many parts of the Middle East, women are invisible. They are hidden rather than broadly exhibited because they are the private possession of their husband, for his eyes only, something he can do whatever he wants with. In America, a woman's body and personal life is constantly on display for public consumption. The anti-abortion effort, the countless weight-loss pills, various forms of hair removal, anti-aging solutions, and plastic surgery are just a few of the ways that women are made to feel bad about the way they look, or people in a position of power are trying to remove control from them.
I'm referring to a hypothetical society. I think that if sexism was non existent, people would still use sex to sell products or entice viewers. I'm saying that without the sexism already there, these uses of sex would not promote sexism since they would be viewed differently.
That magazine exists in the form it does right now because that is what a large number of women want to read. If women weren't interested in those topics that exact magazine would not exist. If that magazine re-enforces sexist ideas then the women reading it are the ones that are doing the victimizing, not the magazine.
I disagree with your first point, or at least I think that it would happen in a way that did not portray women as just sex objects or second-class citizens. Again, blatant racial stereotypes were once perfectly acceptable in all forms of media, advertising included, but now, in a society that has made some progress in that area, they would not achieve the same effect and in fact would probably be rather harmful to business. In a hypothetical culture where the objectification of women is recognized and never excused or dismissed, sex may still sell but objectification would not.
Women who conform without introspection, and do not question America's stereotypes are part of the problem. But I do not think women are naturally predisposed to want to read the kind of vapid and vaguely insulting articles Cosmo is offering. Unfortunately, this, and other magazines like it, is the default entertainment offered to young girls who are looking to the world around them for reference as they develop an identity and explore their role in society. Ideally, girls would have a large variety of strong female role models for inspiration, but that simply is not the way it is. The disproportionately small amount of empowered women in the public eye are drowned out by the women in publications like that magazine, which is chiefly concerned with sex, fashion, and celebrities. Eventually, an affinity for things like that become so ingrained in a young person's persona that it really does become a part of them; a 'fake till you make it' effect, sort of, except most of these girls do not even realize what is happening to them. I don't doubt that the people who publish this type of media are totally aware of that and capitalize on young people's desire to fit in.
Portraying women in a way that makes us love them isn't really victimizing them.
Look at muscle magazines with dudes with HUGE FUCKIN' ARMS. No one's complaining about how it victimizes men.
Anyone who complains about this shit just has too much time on their hand and they want to feel relevant (and, very possibly, they're an unattractive female who's envious).
What do women in magazines do to the male mind? They create a conversation piece: "dude, check out Megan Fox on the cover of Cosmopolitan, I'd so bang her". If that magazine never existed, we would still be talking about how we wanna bang Megan Fox (even though she's a dumb whore who can't act for shit).
No offense and not trying to make you feel like an idiot or anything but the only reason nobody complains about the men is because dudes with really big arms or the ones on the magazines as you say, are really gross not attractive at all it makes me sick to my stomach.
Personally I don't want to date a guy who can't touch is face... also just because someone has an opinion doesn't mean that they aren't attractive or have too much time on their hands.
granted I do have extra time on my hands after work and exercise but! ... I am attractive I am thin and I'm far from envious I don't want to be on a magazine almost completely naked. Though I do agree with you that Megan fox is a dumb whore lol so here here on that.
Rebuttal is in opposite column and begins with "Pyg, those images don't make you 'love' women; they just make you want to screw them . . ."
What a big assumption you make about your rightness and the motivation behind a down-vote! Didn't even occur to you that you might have been downvoted because your proposition was too outlandish to require rebuttal or simply because someone flat-out disagrees, huh?
Again with the big assumptions. Sorry, but I downvoted it because I thought it was a lousy argument. And the main reasons I think it's a lousy argument are that it was (1) premised on confusing "love" with "screwing"; (2) dismissive towards those who critique media sexism ("anyone who complains about this shit just has too much time on their hand and they want to feel relevant"); (3) lacking analysis of any depth or significance; and (4) blatantly sexist and offensive to women ("very possibly, they're an unattractive female who's envious . . . we wanna bang Megan Fox even though she's a dumb whore").
1. Love is merely a chemical reaction within the brain. I was referring to us "loving" the images.
2. That's because it's true.
3. You're wrong :) It did contain depth. Sorry you couldn't see it...
4. Offensive to what women? Jealous cunts who just like to rain on our parade? Men can be this way too, and they piss me off just as much. In order to be sexist, I would have to see women as a lesser gender than mine. I would have to see them as not worthy of equal treatment. I believe that they should be granted the same rights as men are (which they are), so there's no way I can be a sexist. Those who complain are VERY POSSIBLY an unattractive, envious female. And, Megan Fox is a dumb whore who all guys wanna bang. This is a natural feeling that has been around since the invention of the mammal. If Megan Fox were smart, I would also be interested in dating her. But since she isn't, I would just rip and dip (if I even had the chance). Not sexist, just natural.
You can be and still are acting like a sexist. You have twice in your last post reduced women to their genitals and then proceeded to demonize women's genitals -- first by calling us "jealous cunts" and then by referring to Megan Fox, whoever the hell she is, as a "dumb whore." (Is this person actually a prostitute and have you seen her SAT results? No? Well then.)
Let's see if you think your own words ring true with gender changed to race:
"In order to be racist, I would have to see black people as a lesser race than mine. I would have to see them as not worthy of equal treatment. I believe that they should be granted the same rights as white people are (which they are), so there's no way I can be a racist . . . Offensive to what black people? Nigger jigaboos who just like to rain on our parade?"
Oh, yeah, no way on earth anybody could POSSIBLY argue that was racist. And so too with your sexist language. Crying "I am not a sexist you cunt" does very little to affirm that you are not a sexist.
No, you weren't. You said: "portraying women in a way that makes us love them . . ." and the only noun that could possibly serve as the grammatical referent for "them" in that clause is "women." Nowhere in the sentence did you say "images," and "portraying" is a bleedin' participle.
2. That's because it's true.
People who argue for civil rights and social justice have "too much time on their hands"? If you believe that, then as extension you must also believe that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, Asians should not be allowed to own property, gays should not be allowed to screw, and black folks should still be "separate-but-equal," because the only reason those things changed was that people agitated for civil rights and social justice.
3 is just not worth responding to . . .
And 4 --
(a) see above post on your use of sexist and offensive language.
(b) your "parade" does not hold a candle to my social dignity. Nor, as a side point, did I ever say that sexy pictures should be removed from media. To the contrary, I am in general pro-porn.
(c) your qualifying language of "VERY POSSIBLY an unattractive, envious female" is way too little, way too late. I am neither envious of Megan Fox (whoever the hell she is, again) nor unattractive. As it happens, I am a smart and successful young hottie. And I still think you are totally, 100% wrong and that your argument is puerile.
1. Sorry you don't understand intended points... I can see where your confusion came from, but after I explained it you should have gotten the point by then... damn.
2. Right to vote, sure. Right to do the same as your opposite, of course. I don't really see what civil rights are being violated here... I mean, please explain how exactly the government is discriminating against women. If the media likes to portray hot women or w/e, I don't really see the discrimination. The media is a private organization that isn't even paying women less. Real discrimination would incite that one isn't receiving as good treatment as the other because they're different.
3. Thanks
4. a. A whore can be referred to anyone who has a lot of indiscriminate sex. Man or woman. Charlie Sheen is a whore. Russel Brand is a whore. In the literal sense, of course, whore is someone who fucks for money. Definitely not the same as the word nigger. Even so, I use the word nigger, cunt, whitey, spic, kike, chink, heeb, frog, flip, whop, and basically every other offensive term because it's fun. In order to be racist or sexist, you have to actually think that you're superior and that they don't deserve rights. If you like to use offensive language, that just makes you Un-PC. Hell, I don't even discriminate cause I make fun of all races and sexes and such.
b. Then what the fuck do you want and what are you bitching about in the first place? What is my parade and what's against your social dignity? If it ain't porn or sexy pictures, then wtf do you have a problem with magazines? The fact that women look at me while men look at something. Maybe because women's faces are more camera family than men's faces. Are you saying that we should eliminate artistic photography just cause YOU feel that your social dignity is in jeopardy? Can't it be possible at all that women look better certain ways and men look better other ways? Do you really have to fight down all the way to the direction that someone is looking? And if it isn't about the direction that someone is looking, than wtf are you talking about?
You really are dense. Read my other posts concerning the systemic stereotyping and distortion of women. That's the problem, numbskull -- ubiquitous disempowering distortion. It's part of the reason your head is so obviously f!cked when it comes to what is and is not sexist behavior.
I've drank enough booze to disregard the debate. But, I will state that most all women want to be victimized.
Why?
Do females want to screw or do they rather want to have their brains screwed out? (no explanation)
Who is being penetrated? (no explanation)
See, women want to be ravaged, they just don't want anyone to know that they like it. (No, I am not refering to a rapist, I am refering to a female who loves being ravaged by a man of her own liking, while at the same time having reservations about not being ravaged well enough.)
