Dear Interested
Reader,
What is more
appealing, a beautiful body or a beautiful mind? Most would want to say a
beautiful mind, but unfortunately this day and age it just so happens that the
latter of the two is the more common answer whether one says it or not. Our
society is fueled by individual image and appeal while it should be driven by
individual creativity and uniqueness. It is well known that current media plays
a very large role on the lives of everyone that it touches (specifically young
adolescents who are still learning who they are), and needless to say, that
nowadays the media finds a way to touch just about everyone’s life in one way
or another. Billboards, magazines, commercials, buses, milk cartons, blimps,
t-shirts, and even pens are just a few of the items and methods that major
corporations use to spread their logos and get their names into peoples’ minds
in order to make a sale. These methods may work for their initial purpose, but
it is clear that they have many very negative outcomes towards the
visualization and importance of the female gender and their potential roles in
society.
Advertisers draw
upon the inner desires in people, and then they play off these desires by
creating a sense of appeal in the ads in which they design. At first it seems
like they are being creative, but when looking at current day ads it is clear
that consequently their methods objectify men and women but specifically women
much more often. The mainstream structure of current day advertisements appeal
to sexual desire, which is believed to be innate in every human being, and by
playing off this desire ads create an image of physical beauty and sexiness in
order to grasp the attention of those who see their ads. Now that sex in
advertising has been so consistent it gives viewers the idea that it is all
that matters and in order to be happy they must look for physical beauty rather
than inner beauty in their significant others.
Distinguished
author Jean Kilbourne has written many articles pertaining to this exact topic
and one in particular “Two Ways a Woman Can Get Hurt” talks about some similar
points. For example Kilbourne’s opening sentences, “Sex in advertising is more
about disconnection and distance than connection and closeness. It is also more
often about power than passion, about violence than violins” (575). Kilbourne
sets the stage by drawing a major parallel in ads and pornography, trying to
degrade the value of the ads themselves and point out the clear difference in
the feelings and ideals in which they present. This is where the line for
objectification begins. Another article written by Naomi Rockler-Gladen titled
“Media Objectification of Women” gives a clear definition of what media
objectification is, “Media that objectify women
portray women as physical objects that can be looked at and acted upon-- and
fail to portray women as subjective beings with thoughts, histories, and
emotions” (Rockler-Gladen 1). So by advertisers using sex in advertising and portraying women
as objects diminishes their unique values and puts all women on the same level,
which is that of unimportance and value based solely on sexual image.
