While I can see validity to Kilbourne's argument, the way that she goes around it just irritated me. Instead of focusing on the issues with good examples she over-generalizes and talks about all men and the how all teens think when she really has no expertise in either. I'm sorry, but the only way to know how a guy reacts to ads it to be a guy. Those ads don't provoke any violent thoughts in me. Call me crazy, but it seems like she is saying that guys can't take a provocative ad as simply that, an ad.
Instead, she assumes that guys will see pictures of a watch ad or a perfume ad as an excuse to treat women badly. I can't remember ever having walked by a billboard like that and thinking, hmmm while that tie looks nice, I have a sudden urge to go tie up a girl and take advantage of her. Let me go wait in the dark alley over there for someone unsuspecting to walk by.
I actually get offended when people start making generalizations like that. While she was on her soap box about men treating women as objects, Kilbourne completely missed the irony of her own argument. People should be treated as real people, but men are all dangerous knuckle dragging degenerates that use any excuse from popular culture to take advantage of the opposite sex. Ok, I see the pro's of treating people as real people. Too bad according to Kilbourne it only needs to go one way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment