Yeah Kilbourne

I feel like I am the only one who really agrees with Kibourne's argument. I thought she presented her point of sex/violence in advertisements well and backed up most of with sources. The fact that in some instances she went a little over board, like with the shaving ad, didn’t change my opinion that most women are dehumanized and made into objects in advertisements.

Edit: Thinking about this now though, maybe I was a bit wrapped up how women are seen as objects because I was frustrated with my brother and wanted to think that all males thought about is sex when it comes to women and these ads. Who knows?

In Kilbourne’s article she mentioned how it is typically the women’s fault if she gets raped or something bad happens otherwise because she was wearing the wrong clothes, was in a dark alley, or had been drinking. And it’s totally true. I suppose the only instance you don’t see that is in bromance movies when the guy gets drunk and sleeps with what he thinks is a really attractive women, but when he wakes up… she’s definitely not. Then it is blamed on him.

She also points out the ads in which men are encouraged to not listen when a woman says no. I’ve never seen those ads before and it really bothered me because it’s most likely men made those. It just kind of makes me sick to see what people come up with in their heads when it comes to sex and how much money they can make off of explicitness.

I think Kilbourne has some really interesting and dead on things to say about sex in the media and how women are targeted. Although yes, she did over anyalize some things, I feel that if say a person had been in one of those situations we saw in the ads, like with the man over the women and she laughing but over her head it says no, then they would be thinking like Kilbourne too.

Oh and P.S. I totally read this article before our debate I just didn't have time to blog about it afterwards.