Kilbourne

Do you agree or disagree with Kilbourne’s argument?

I agree with her general idea- that the ads help to objectify women and men (in different ways). I do think, though, that she's reading too much into the subject. She picked the most drastic ads possible, in my opinion. Maybe those are common on TV, which I don't watch, but in normal life, on billboards and the Internet and signposts and some magazines and thing, ads aren't quite that overtly sexual and offensive. And she makes too much of some of the less intense ads, such as the one that shows a man (heartbreaker) and a product (a razor, I think?). Looking at that ad, I would never have thought it offensive in the way she makes it out to be. I think she says something like 'it makes desirable men seem bad' or something. I suppose that's how you could look at it, but most people don't analyze ads like that. They'd just maybe be amused by the ad, and move on. Not all ads are offensive, and I don't think she gets that.

However, I do agree that there are ads that objectify women (and men). The fact that there even are ads like some of the ones she shows is disturbing. I can see how people could come to think that that attitude is normal, if they are exposed to so much of it. Her later points about women being more at risk than men are true, I think. Of course, I'm not male, so I don't know how much men think about protecting themselves from sexual attack. But generally, it's women who are warned to be careful and not walk around alone. And anything that promotes that type of behaviour is certainly not a good thing.

So, yes, I agree with her argument. I also think, as lamags said in class, that she gets up on her soapbox a little too much.