This is what we're supposed to blog about, right?
I thought everybody had some really good points about this. Most people basically were in agreement that the article's main idea- that the objectification of women in ads happens and is bad- was true. Not everyone agreed on whether Kilbourne wrote well or not, among other things. It's my opinion that she did write a good article. It's funny, that her essay-thing was like the ads she rails against. Her writing is up on a soapbox, borderline offensive, exaggerated and over-analyzing. However, it has great shock value (especially seeing the pictures, most of which were definitely disturbing), and it made you remember and think about the article. Just like the ads were shocking and made people remember the product. (And those ads do work- otherwise it would be a waste of money to air them, so the producers wouldn't if they didn't work, so since they're there, they work. Did that make sense?) So while the article was good rhetorical writing, I don't agree with all of it and can see why others don't as well. It sort of reminds me of that torture essay earlier this year, which was good writing but in my opinion idiotic.
I also just thought of something. We talked about billboards, signposts and TV. What about the Internet? Popup ads sometimes have weird pictures on them, too. Especially those weird ones for dating services. What would the role of Internet ads be in objectifying people?
Thursday 31 January 2008
Wednesday 30 January 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday 29 January 2008
Ads on TV: Mucinex!
Describe the rhetorical appeal of one ad you saw
I watched many ads. Many were very confusing. I saw one about Mucinex- which is a medicine you take to get rid of phlegm (mucus) in the lungs to clear up coughs. The ad was set with Shrek-like animation in an Old-West town. The 'big bad sheriff' was a fat green thing that represented mucus. Then a box of Mucinex appeared, and the 'sheriff' went flying away and dissolved in a string of sparkly blue light. The ad said something at the end to the effect of 'Mucinex clears up mucus!'. I can't remember exactly what it said.
The style animation and setting of the ad was meant to make it more interesting to viewers. The ad would be directed to adults, since teens and children don't think of buying mucus-defeating-medicine. At least, most don't. The ad plays up how good the Mucinex is at getting rid of mucus by comparing it to the hero in Old West shows. Viewers would not think of the possible side effects of the medicine, but of the fact that it works in the commercial.
I watched many ads. Many were very confusing. I saw one about Mucinex- which is a medicine you take to get rid of phlegm (mucus) in the lungs to clear up coughs. The ad was set with Shrek-like animation in an Old-West town. The 'big bad sheriff' was a fat green thing that represented mucus. Then a box of Mucinex appeared, and the 'sheriff' went flying away and dissolved in a string of sparkly blue light. The ad said something at the end to the effect of 'Mucinex clears up mucus!'. I can't remember exactly what it said.
The style animation and setting of the ad was meant to make it more interesting to viewers. The ad would be directed to adults, since teens and children don't think of buying mucus-defeating-medicine. At least, most don't. The ad plays up how good the Mucinex is at getting rid of mucus by comparing it to the hero in Old West shows. Viewers would not think of the possible side effects of the medicine, but of the fact that it works in the commercial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
