Yitz aka Isaac Wasileski ([info]agnoster) wrote,
@ 2005-08-02 16:57:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
What Ginger said. Summary: Men criticizing Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty, showing normal-looking women instead of emaciated heroin addicts (which, granted, is almost certainly no more than a publicity gimmick, but I'll try to be charitable because the results, if not the intentions, are good). "If I want to see chunky women, I'll go to Taste of Chicago" is a direct quote, and a fairly good representative of the caliber of critique they level. They also seem to feel that advertisement should be fake, and that women are no more objectified than men. I call BULLSHIT. You see average-to-downright-homely guys on commercials for anything from beer to cars (less so for expensive-type cars), or anything else: but how often are the women anything less than stick-thin supermodel types? About as often as we'd see guys who could actually scare dogs with their faces. Hardly parity, I feel. Moreover, advertising may shape our view of the world more than the real world does, especially with a culture raised on TV as much as this one. The unrealistic expecatations it saddles people with is probably a good portion of the reason that people in the western civilized world experience such tremendous senses of unfulfillment. Damn, I need more shit!

Now, it's not like me to froth at the mouth when people show women their proper place: as pleasant-to-look-at, subservient sex objects, of course. Did I forget baby-making and cooking? It's worked for thousands of years, and there's no reason to spoil the fun now.

Ok, but seriously, what bothers me is that no matter how pissed off I get at men and women alike for perpetuating the system, I a) have no idea what to do about it and b) don't really, when it comes down to it, have the foggiest clue of what it's like to be a woman. Sure, I can gather some experience second-hand, but I wouldn't presume to know what it's like to be in battle just from watching Saving Private Ryan or talking to a veteran. It's impossible for me to actually fathom, on an intrinsic level, what it's like to grow up as a girl, constantly bombarded with messages of what to be like to please my man. Or what it's like to be black, to have people assume you're a threat, to be subjected not just to out-in-the-open racist hatred, but the completely subconscious discrimination of mass society. I don't know what it's like to be poor, or handicapped, or homosexual - I'm a goddamn educated, middle-class white straight male, and every single break in life goes my way. And, fuck, we're the vanishing minority, but we still get it all. What's up with that? It pisses me off for all the people less fortunate than me, but on a selfish level it pisses me off for me, because my hatred of the system and my dedication to changing it can never be as genuine as from someone who knows what it's like to suffer, not just in the gravest injuries, but in the million tiny indignities of every day. I don't have shit in the way of authenticity - but fuck it, I'm still mad as hell.



(29 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]hydrobromic
2005-08-03 01:20 am UTC (link)
I'm a goddamn educated, middle-class white straight male, and every single break in life goes my way.

be grateful for what you started off with, don't be ashamed of it. God knows you started off in life with a better boost than, say, an Ethiopian child, but you went so far with what you were given. You are thoughtful and hard working which is all that can be expected of a person, all things the same.

the foggiest clue of what it's like to be a woman.

despite how Heinlein talks about it, I don't think there is that big of a difference. it's such a fuzzy scale between "man" and "woman" that it's almost not worth trying to separate out.

I wish we could talk about characteristics of people in general (like "cares about own appearance" or "likes to have a lot of sex" or what have you) instead of lumping them in "typically male" or "typically female" categories.

at any rate, even if you cannot directly empathize with women, you can recognize the unrealisticness of media portrayal despite your penis. :P

but you, unlike a woman, are not inclined to be embarrassed about your copious facial hair.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]agnoster
2005-08-03 01:26 am UTC (link)
despite how Heinlein talks about it, I don't think there is that big of a difference. it's such a fuzzy scale between "man" and "woman" that it's almost not worth trying to separate out.

see, that's the thing... I feel like there is a whole lifetime of experience of being treated as female or black or whatever, just as your self-image is probably shaped by cultural indoctrination (like blacks imagining the hero in a story without race description to be white) - figure for self-esteem show, for instance (god knows how you measure this accurately and precisely, but social science is hardly a science) that in this country, hispanic women show the lowest self-esteem of any group studied. I'm not saying it makes a huge difference if you're a woman or a man, but how you're treated. If you treat smart kids like stupid kids, they won't learn, and if you treat the problem children like the bright ones, they'll excel. We respond, either consciously or subconsciously, to the way we're treated by society, culture, individuals... I don't think there's any escaping that.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]hydrobromic
2005-08-03 01:39 am UTC (link)
good point. also, I'm the last one to argue that (well, not stereotyping, but) prominent expectations in popular culture won't wreck a person (like the idea that women 'should' be gorgeous all the time).

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]jigsawjazz
2005-08-03 02:19 am UTC (link)
men have it pretty tough too, albeit in a different way. exhibit a. society is all about systematically stunting men emotionally. exhibit b. categories of gender and sexuality are as rigid for men as they are for women--in fact, some would argue that the consequences for men who blur these categories face more difficult consequences than women who do the same (although as queer eye becomes mainstream that is changing). exhibit c. circumcision is barbaric.

we've all got it rough.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


(Anonymous)
2005-08-03 07:50 am UTC (link)
So does that mean that if I'm an upper middle-class, uncircumcised, white male who doesn't feel emotionally constricted and loves to blur the sexuality boundaries (b33r = t3h s3x with tr33s!), i finally and truly have an excuse to feel guilty for having absolutely nothing wrong with my life/place in society? I alone DO NOT have it rough, and therefore I feel guilty and therefore I DO have it rough?

White man's guilt rocks, and none of you circumcised bitches can claim to truly feel it! Look at how deep I must be!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]jigsawjazz
2005-08-03 01:09 pm UTC (link)
you are deep. that is so hot.

can i watch you make out with boys?

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]joaniechachi
2005-08-03 02:46 am UTC (link)
Now, this is not to say anything about your position. This is to react to those people who look at the new Dove campaign and call those women "chunky."

Those women are, for the most part, averagely sized women. They are normal, healthy, and attractive sizes. As much as I used to try to get around it, photography can and does make people look heavier. Most people I know would describe me as a resonably attracative woman, but I can show you pictures that make me look overweight and gross. (There's a pic from Scav this year, in the bunny outfit, that serves well to make my ass and thighs look abnormally enormous.) So those women in the ads are not "chunky." They are not fat or heavy or overweight. They are the women that most men are hitting on in real life. Just because they haven't been in advertising campaigns before doesn't mean anything.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]jigsawjazz
2005-08-03 04:51 am UTC (link)
They are not fat or heavy or overweight.

which is why this whole "controversy" is so confusing to me. IMO, these women are hot. they're not even slightly overweight. IMO. maybe my taste is just weird.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Anonymous)
2005-08-03 07:40 am UTC (link)
Very clever, but I already knew that Joanie loves Chachi.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]phoebs
2005-08-03 06:59 pm UTC (link)
What she said. Those women are normal, not overweight or "obese" (as one of those reporters claimed). My god. Since when is a size 6 or 8 fat?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]agnoster
2005-08-03 07:10 pm UTC (link)
Well, the thing is, one of 'em even admits that these are women who you would be hitting on in a bar, but it's a little too "real" for him, I suppose. Which is half of the problem - wanting a magical fantasy world of advertisement that creates unrealistic expectations... and I don't know what those sizes mean, but I know that even in the real world, women who have really stunning bodies will look in the mirror and think "I need to go to the gym more often..."

You know, actually, maybe if women stopped doing that all the time, it would help. I figure some men are just thinking "Well, I know all the women who look healthy to me say they're fat... so maybe it's better to be skinny." I'm kidding in the sense that it's not like women are solely to blame, but it's a vicious cycle. The more we get women to show they're comfortable with their bodies, the more men can either breathe easy, or deal with it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

thats not a bad point...
[info]crayonfaery
2005-08-03 09:09 pm UTC (link)
folks who identify as women should be able to decide whats healthy and good for them without fucked up advertising. similar advertising also creates weird ideal-types for men, which isnt a good thing, but men dont seem to take it that seriously (i could be very very wrong, of course). if women didnt take it as seriously, well, i know... gosh... entirely too many of them (who have or have had an eating disorder) who'd be better off.

but yeah. one solution is to fix the advertising. another is to get women to not internalize the advertising like that.

the latter is probably a healthier option for the individual, psycho-spiritually, if you will, but for all of my friends (men and women, actually) who've gone through or are going through some self-image issue thats largely because of society, i do appreciate anything that'll give a healthier image.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Maxy-B From Hell to Thee
(Anonymous)
2005-08-03 07:39 am UTC (link)
What, substance in a livejournal (i.e., anus of the internet) blog post? I must be drunk! (I am.)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Maxy-B From Hell to Thee
[info]agnoster
2005-08-03 11:26 am UTC (link)
Ah, the weekend...wait, whu? Nah, just kidding. But it only ensures me that I will win our drinking contest... I'm already in strict training. Foolish American!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]crayonfaery
2005-08-03 02:20 pm UTC (link)
I...b) don't really, when it comes down to it, have the foggiest clue of what it's like to be a woman.

i recommend drag (from my and others' experience). not necessarily on your own, but going to a drag party or show something. It likely won't answer NEARLY all of your questions, but if you really pay attention to the little details of what's happening (which you're already psychologically prompted to in the getting in drag process, which alone is really enlightening, and really fun.), you can learn a helluva lot about societal conceptions of gender, and your own ideas about it as well. and you can experience it, at least in a superficial way.

aside: i was at a drag show once and you couldnt tell the gender of most of the people there. not just the performers. it was strange at first, as i tried briefly to figure out folks' genders, but then it was just extremely refreshing.

if you don't think you could handle/pull off drag, and/or if you want more, i recommend trying swing dancing as a "follow"-- the traditional girl part. i've never had more penis envy in my LIFE than from that; you REALLY experience a lot of strange societal concepts firsthand that way.

last, and sorta sorry to call you on this, but re: emaciated heroin addicts, heroin isn't all bad, and i feel like that was def a connotation of what you were sayin. check out the Brompton cocktail (fourth-to-last paragraph). i think that could be a pretty excellent idea.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]agnoster
2005-08-03 02:54 pm UTC (link)
For drag - well, I just don't make a very good girl. I could shave (hell, I'd have to shave more than just the beard to get the full horror!) and stuff, but despite my best attempts at genderfuck (the only occasion in the last 3 years I shaved for, thank you) I simply do not make a convincing member of the fairer sex.

With dancing, I don't know what the fuck I'm doing, so I prefer to follow.

And I'm not sure if you're serious about the last paragraph. I'll assume for a moment you are - to which I'd say that there is a distinction between someone who drinks and an alcoholic, a marijuana user and a pothead, and someone who casually uses heroin and an addict. At least in theory (are the people who just use heroin socially, or on special occasions?), and this was primarily my point: we're not looking at a terribly healthy beauty ideal. If I was deriding redneck alcoholics, you could hardly conclude from this that I have a problem with alcohol, per se - on the contrary, I have a problem without it! I don't really have a personal opinion on heroin because I've never tried it or heard from anyone who has, but I'm generally not sure where I stand on the whole drug thing... I think anything should almost certainly all be legal, so that impurities can be controlled, people can have safe venues, money isn't just funding crime, taxes on profits can go to social programs, etc. - but at the same time, I'm personally less drawn towards so-called "harder" drugs. The world is plenty weird without needing any kind of hallucination :-)

Some people turn to pills and things
To help them throught the day
To take them up or down or just
To ease the blues away
But me I really want to feel
The ups and downs of life so real
Happy or sad emotions reign
My tears flow just the same

- Lamb, "I Cry"

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

oh, excuses, excuses...
[info]crayonfaery
2005-08-03 04:15 pm UTC (link)
but that's ok. yitz is a badddd grrrl. yeah. riiight.

i would still recommend the dressing in drag thing, even if you don't go out in it, because you can get a lot out of dressing in a way you consider female, or that you think the world perceives as female.

especially given "the fairer sex"?! i could bad-punnify that and say go look at josh the vegan and how fair he is, or i could say that, damn, guys can be hott. with two "t"s. yes.

dancing: swing dancing following is particularly LIKE WHOA gendered, i've found. i'll write more about this on my journal, maybe. or else i can talk to you about it.

on heroin. i was completely serious, good call. and yes, theres a difference between an addict and someone who's not, but i feel like heroin has this universal badness overly assigned to it, which you seemed to reluctantly reinforce in the end of what you were sayin. and that combined with my excitement about this Brompton cocktail (did you read the stuff at the bottom of the link? i can paste the important bits if you want) thing i found made me want to share the idea that universal badness shouldn't be assigned to heroin, that it has a damn good use.

lamb- yay lamb, yay yay yay, but i like Little Things better.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: oh, excuses, excuses...
[info]agnoster
2005-08-03 04:25 pm UTC (link)
I did read about the Brompton cocktail, and I don't know what to think. On the one hand, I'm a little horrified by it: my grandmother was doped up for her last days/weeks of cancer before she died... she didn't recognize my father at all, was really out of it, just kind of staring vacantly. I'm just not sure that's how I would want to go. I don't think drugs are a good way of getting out of pain or suffering... maybe to enhance the wonder of the world, ok, but... I'd rather go in a lot of pain than go like a vegetable. Personally.

And yeah, heroin leaves a bad taste in my mouth (not literally, obviously) - I know it's supposedly less addictive than morphine, but that's really not saying much. "Hey H-bombs aren't so bad, they don't cause as much permanent radiation as A-bombs." Treatment for addiction is horrendous and excruciatingly painful. Show me someone who has a healthy relationship with heroin, and I may re-think this position.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Advertising. steals. the artists.
[info]crayonfaery
2005-08-03 09:54 pm UTC (link)
(but thats something completely different)

To address the second paragraph first, cause its simpler... check out the heading to that part of the page: "When is it Best to Take Crack Cocaine?" which continues, "As a rule of thumb, it is profoundly unwise to take crack cocaine...." if you're curious as to why, check out the pages it links to (or if youre curious in general, that site and the websites at the bottom of the page are extremely well-crafted, in my opinion), but i think, without making absolute judgments, that heroin can be put on a similar boat, of things that are generally a bad idea to do. But not always, according to the article...

so your first paragraph... theres a lot you said, and i'm not sure how much is particular to what we've been talking about. Well, first, it sounds like your experience with your grandmother was an awful one, and i'm sorry for that. But i feel like the Brompton cocktail is presenting something very different. It seems to basically ensure one's death, rather than prolong the suffering or let you be in a "doped up" vegetative state for awhile, and it seems to give you a bang before you go out, so you go out from a peak experience, not from being vegetative or out of it. It jives a bit weird to me too, but i think, for those that're terminally ill with a basically known time left... why not go out as a person full of life, rather than as a person being slowly strangled by death?

So basically i'm sayin that, being the possibly too-gullible person i am and buying the description i read of the Brompton cocktail, it *would* "enhance the wonder of the world", which you mentioned as a "maybe" reason for drugs, and it wouldnt have the individual going "as a vegetable". you seemed to think there were two choices: going in pain, or going as a vegetable. what if a third choice is added-- going in ecstasy? That last one seems to be the option that the cocktail is trying to present (although call me on a slippery slope if it tickles your fancy)

I dunno, i wrote a paper on euthanasia/doctor-assisted suicide back in the day, and this seems so novel and profound in comparison to, say, a lethal injection of an...er... "ordinary" sort. of course, it depends on the situation. you can always say that. but i wouldn't rule out the Brompton cocktail as an option in the (non-existant) "good" category a priori. unless of course theres some chemistry i'm missing out on, which is quite possible.

and now, the "general" part... i am baffled, monseiur, if you meant this in a general way. "I dont think drugs are a good way of getting out of pain or suffering." Senor! i am sure you've taken painkillers before. personally, i avoid the allopathic stuff for the homeopathic when i can, because i'm a dirty hippie like that (we can talk lots more about homeopathic stuff if you want), but its all the same. there are better and worse times for putting chemicals of any sort into your body, but... i am confused. are you saying taking any sort of drug/chemical/etc is bad for getting through pain or suffering, universally (call me on the substitution of "through" for "out" if you want)?

Another thing i've been thinking about... there seems to be this fucking WEIRD duality our society has set up between "conquering of bad" and "enhancing the good," thats especially prominent in ideas about drugs. i mean, take words... "medicine" falls into a "conquering of bad" category, i'd say. its meant to "heal" things. but "drugs," for, well, some users at least (you know, excluding the crack addict who deserts the rest of hir life), fall into an "enhancing the good" category. but then they're "drugs." and how are drugs different from medicine, really? sure, take a spectrum and say one gets you back to the zero-mark and another puts you above it, but well, first, how solid is that zero-mark, and second, why is it bad to go above it?
in general, what i'm asking here is why are so many good things (and really, not just drugs, although the stuff that particularly annoys me is stuff thats associated with drugs, but has so much more to it. like hemp, for example. man i'm a stereotype) stigmatized? dammit. thats a stupid question.

umm... i'm going to shrink off now and catch the bus... see you soon. hahaha.

-heather

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Advertising. steals. the artists.
[info]agnoster
2005-08-03 10:08 pm UTC (link)
Senor! i am sure you've taken painkillers before.
Well, I got a local anesthetic when I had my wisdom teeth out, but that's it. Unless alcohol or tobacco counts, I guess, but I really hate medication. Didn't have painkiller when they set my broken wrist, didn't take fever medicine when I had a 41-degree fever... I'm like one step short of being a Christian scientist. If I need it, I will take it, but if it's just to make things easier, no thanks, I'd rather deal with it. And then on the other hand I want to be cyborgified, and have glands that can secrete custom drug cocktails to make me more alert or sleepy or energetic or whatever... ah, the contradictions. I'm personally more in favor with dealing with life on a mental level, really. My pain is fleeting, relatively speaking - I just tell myself that, and it doesn't make getting your teeth drilled or whatever pleasant, or even less painful, but you realize that, as a rational being, it does not concern you. You're getting feedback to your brain for the specific purpose of minimizing damage, and right now, those signals are wrong, so fuck 'em. I'm still a coward and a wimp (I'm not going to inflict pain on myself for any reason, thank you very much), but I don't see why we can't just deal with our problems without pills or whatever.

And medicine, for the most part (the part I agree with) is for patching your body up, not for altering your mind -brain surgery counts, the brain is part of the body. (Psycho-whatever is, for me, in a different category, which is why some shrinks can prescribe psychoactive drugs.) But medicine is for fixing physical problems with the body. I don't think the zero-mark is all that hard to see here - if your body is spilling blood, you have a malfunction. I think all too many things which are natural (yeah, like the disgusting acne of puberty) is just something to deal with. What, are we going to invent a cure for voice breaking? Please. People need to realize that part of living is dealing with what life throws at you, and drugs, in my opinion, are not for "dealing" with it. Not sure what they really are for, but I'd take a guess and say the broadening of aesthetic experience, which is all life really boils down to for me, anyway.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Advertising. steals. the artists.
[info]crayonfaery
2005-08-04 06:07 pm UTC (link)
on that first paragraph... oh, the contradictions, yeah. i feel you though on it, though, really.

but yeah-- i dont know that the zero mark is always clear. yeah, bleeding, stop it, back to zero. but why is zero fixed? take the cyborg thing, yknow? and take... gosh, take random mutations.

oh man. i am too caffeinated to think. we'll talk about this on the bus tomorrow, because i'm skipping work today, cause the damn bus is evil and i went to the 1015 one at 1010... to see it pulling away.

yeah. later!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]annabananaface
2005-08-03 05:28 pm UTC (link)
Not that I might not do this myself (choose this set of words without noticing, or intending harm), but this wording jumped off the page at me, so I have to say something. You said "but how often are the women anything less than stick-thin supermodel types?" I have this to say. Most of us are so much more than stick-thin supermodel types. And not just in voume. In fact, the average person in those photos isn't even what they appear to be. We are all three dimentional (much as some may to try avoid this fact). And none of us get professionally airbrushed upon getting out of bed in the morning, but we all have personalities and opinions and real lives, which are more than the picture on the cover of some dumb magazine.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]agnoster
2005-08-03 05:39 pm UTC (link)
Okay, sort of poor choice of words, I admit. In fact, one could argue without trying particularly hard that I'm still insinuating that "stick-thin supermodels" are, in fact, better than everyone else. However, I was working from the frame of reference of the people who describe *my* ideal body type as "obese", the average as "chunky", and skeletons as "hot". I was just trying to point out that men in advertising do not conform nearly as often to society's idea (not mine!) of beauty. And yes, the women you see in the picture are not even the women that really exist - they're still smoothed and nipped and tucked with the airbrush. It's unfair to take out my aggression on those women, except to the extent that they're playing a willing part in the charade. But I bet the money's good, so we'll just leave it up to the market, shall we?

So, apologies if this got taken the wrong way. But you see how I'm arguing against their point, thus use their sick hierarchy that says 3-dimensional women are indeed "less" than stick figures. I'm not agreeing with or endorsing this view, and I'm pretty sure it's clear I'm disgusted by it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]talentedmrraber
2005-08-03 07:46 pm UTC (link)
Riddle me this:

Who said advertising was even remotely supposed to be realistic? Some ad campaigns do fashion themselves as having elements of realism. For instance, a headache medicine might use a made-up situation to emphasize that their product works on REAL headaches. But most ad campaigns are not attempting to be realistic, and a good reader/viewer should recognize that fact. I'm not just talking about model-wise, either. Consider the ad for movietickets.com in which a family trying to go to a movie is attacked by ninjas. Now, nobody is going to complain that that ad is insufficiently realistic or that it perpetuates the damaging notion that families frequently have to contend with ninjas in order to see a movie. People understand that the ninjas are being used to stand for an IDEA, in this case the difficulty of getting movie tickets by conventional means. It seems obvious enough to me that companies selling beauty products similarly want to invoke the IDEA of "beauty." They don't want to show the viewer actual beauty as it is found in everyday life, in size 8, much as movietickets.com doesn't want to show a family standing in a long line for a sold-out show, simply because that's insufficiently dramatic. Now why is a cosmetics ad with a supermodel cause for alarm while the ninja ad isn't? Simply because in one case people are always able to make the distinction between realism and fantasy, and in the other they aren't.

But an attentive reader/viewer who is sensitive to the difference between a figuration of an ideal and the way that ideal is manifested in everyday life shouldn't have a problem here. I, for one, understand that The Incredible Hulk and his ability to throw tanks is a figure for bodily strength, but I still feel pretty good about myself when I can bench 200 pounds. Why can't women similarly recognize that an airbrushed professional model photographed under ideal conditions is The Incredible Hulk of beauty? I'm sure there are nuances to the situation that I'm not seeing, not being a woman. . . but still.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]agnoster
2005-08-03 07:57 pm UTC (link)
Riddle me this: who said advertisement should even exist? I'd like to reference Bill Hicks here:
By the way, if anyone here is in marketing or advertising...kill yourself. Thank you. Just planting seeds, planting seeds is all I'm doing. No joke here, really. Seriously, kill yourself, you have no rationalisation for what you do, you are Satan's little helpers. Kill yourself, kill yourself, kill yourself now. Now, back to the show. Seriously, I know the marketing people: 'There's gonna be a joke comin' up.' There's no fuckin' joke. Suck a tail pipe, hang yourself...borrow a pistol from an NRA buddy, do something...rid the world of your evil fuckin' presence.
No offense, of course, in case anyone reading this is, y'know, into advertising. But I think it's safe to say Adam Smith himself would be sick to see people artificially inflating demand. If we didn't have advertisement, good lord, we might only buy stuff we actually would otherwise want/need! And I think it's important not to lose sight of the fact that the ideal world is not one in which corporations pay huge sums of cash to manipulate our minds and egos and thoughts and feelings and insecurities just to make a buck. But enough of that.

Another question: How often do you see The Incredible Hulk appear? Maybe if every single depiction of a man, EVER, was big musclemen, you would feel inadequate. And there's more to it than just the advertising - say that 95% of all male actors were also musclemen, what then? How about if you were expected to shave and oil up your muscles all the time? Well, things might be a little different.

Granted, I wish women would just realize there's no point in following along, but it's not easy - you can't just change your self-image because you know it's irrational. It does piss me off that they often purposefully reinforce... whatever. The shaving argument comes up over and over on my lj, I feel, so I won't go into it. Hey, at least we've got a lot less corset-wearing going on... so we're making progress. Who knows, maybe someday women will feel good about themselves the way they wake up in the morning. Wouldn't that be sweet?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]talentedmrraber
2005-08-03 08:45 pm UTC (link)
I think that participating in the ad industry is kind of like selling guns. Guns can be used for good or for evil, to help one or another side in a conflict. Ads similarly promote one product over another. And they are further similar in that society would certainly benefit if everyone stopped selling guns and making ads. But you just know that somebody's gonna do it. So some people are OK with being in that situation, others not.

I realize that the position I took earlier reflects my sometime desire to see society become a rational utopia, and that of course people are wonderfully and terribly irrational. I guess what I'm trying to say overall is, yeah, maybe it's kind of bad to have such a ubiquitous proliferation of unrealistic female images. . . but people also have to take the responsibility to recognize that these images are not realistic for most people. As with most individual responsibility versus social conditioning questions, the blame lies everywhere and nowhere, depending on how you look at it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]agnoster
2005-08-03 09:02 pm UTC (link)
First, I think your analogy between ads and guns is apt: they're both ways to get people to do what you want them to do. Guns can be a little more forceful, but a barrage of ads is in some ways more insidious and effective because you get people to think they want to do it of their own free will. Perhaps in conflicts one may beg a necessary evil, but I really hate that line of rationalizing. The greatest victory is when you win without fighting. Coercion is evil, even when used by good.

As for assigning blame - I kind of like my model of using probability mass to assign blame, so I'm trying to figure out how that plays out here... basically, I think the blame lies only partially with those who are brainwashed by advertising: if we look at the percentage of people who seem to be taken in, it's highly improbable that one would be unaffected by the constant barrage of programming. So, good on you if you're an intelligent, rational, discerning individual, well-skilled in the art of slicing through propaganda - but if you get taken in, it's hard to blame you. On the other hand, the dangerous fucks who produce it... well, they know what they're doing, and choose not to look at the ethical ramifications - or they do, but they don't care or, worse, approve of the process. I agree there is individual responsibility, and I want a rational utopia at least as much as you do - but if we want to get there, something has to be done about the forces who stand to benefit from continued mass suggestibility and docility.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]talentedmrraber
2005-08-03 09:34 pm UTC (link)
I think that to a certain extent your probabilistic model makes a lot of sense. But there is also a point at which quantitative models break down. To use a time-honored example, what about the guilt of the entire society of Third Reich Germany in the actions of their nation? Probabilistically, it's hard to blame any one individual. But sometimes you can, say, "blame" an entire group, or blame a system of thought that is all screwed up overall. And when it comes to questions of which systems are more screwed up than others, I don't see how probability can enter into it.

So back to ads and womens. Yes, it's difficult to blame individual women for participating in a flawed system of wanting to be like ads. But it's still possible to say that that system itself is a problem, just as much as the ads themselves are. Nonetheless, I agree that those who use ads for evil are quite distinctly evil.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]agnoster
2005-08-03 09:41 pm UTC (link)
See, I think my model works quite well there: huge helping of blame for the architects, but it wouldn't have been possible without the broad mass support, which means society as a whole carries a shitload of blame. The Germans are acutely aware of this, even though few living people today are in any way directly responsible - they realize that, while an individual may have gone along with things without necessarily being personally Hitler, the system would not have been possible without everyone acting like that. So you have an emergent system, which means that, probabilistically, we can see that practically an individual may not have been to blame much (what difference would one individual make? if they had the opportunity to save a life personally, of course, that's different) but collectively the blame is huge. I concede it gets tricky, of course, but my point is again that it makes a difference if you were in the guard tower at Bergen-Belsen or if you were a German too scared shitless of the police, your neighbors, the gestapo, the ss... well, I wonder how many of us would acquit ourselves bravely under those circumstances. German society still feels collectively guilty, and perhaps rightly so, but the role you played, and how probable/expected that role would be, determines your portion of quantitative blame (to distinguish that this isn't all-encompassing blame, but just the quantitative part of it).

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(29 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…