I agree, except for the last sentence. It isn't almost as bad as being that way yourself. No way do I agree with that.

What is it that you hate about it, @Ryjkyj ? I love that you see so clearly how non-gendered the original Carlin quote is -- I think you "get it" -- so I wonder what it is about this that bugs you?

>> ^spoco2:

Just gotta say that to those that can't see her point and wonder who she's talking to, she seems to mostly be talking to those who stand by, not so much those that rape (because how many of them would be watching slam poetry?), but for those that just let slide all the comments, all the macho shit, all the objectification of women. Letting other men think that it's fine to be that way is almost as bad as being that way yourself.

Just gotta say that to those that can't see her point and wonder who she's talking to, she seems to mostly be talking to those who stand by, not so much those that rape (because how many of them would be watching slam poetry?), but for those that just let slide all the comments, all the macho shit, all the objectification of women. Letting other men think that it's fine to be that way is almost as bad as being that way yourself.

hell yea we do. I don't know why I responded how I did. I think I made up for it later in the fuddie-duddie of a sift talk. So anyway, I've wasted a lot of my power points before this whole business started up, but I spent my last one promoting a wonderful exposition of objectification. I recommend doing the same.
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I don't think I even commented on that video except to say a couple irreverent lowbrow comments, but nothing particularly sexist. But on the Sift Talk post? Absolutely. I have to get my joke in and hopefully set the tone for the rest of the discourse.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
I think what blankfist meant to say—but lacked the time between bong loads—is that he doesn't feel the same way you do about stuff. He is ok with it, and you should become ok with it.

@dannym3141

Nice talking with you, but i don't think we're having the same conversation.

In your original post, you expressed disbelief that objectifying women leads to violence against women. You also seemed to think the speaker was arguing that ads directly cause violence against women (as in, some guy sees it and decides to smack his wife or something). This seems to me to be misrepresenting the speaker's argument. She's not arguing that if we get rid or these ads violence against women disappears. Nor is she arguing that violence against women didn't exist before advertising. In other words, your original statement, which you seem so intent on defending, is based on completely false assumptions.

I was just trying to point out to you where you were mistaken in these assumptions. I gave you evidence that objectification is indeed one of the first steps on the path to violence. And I showed you in the video where she directly contradicts your assumption that she believes ads directly cause violence against women (around 2:20). I then tried to reword her argument, as I understood it, so that maybe you could better see where she was coming from and why these ads have a connection to violence against women (but not a direct causation). I recommend you do read the "snippets" I provided because they are highly relevant to the conversation.

I really do appreciate your comments--you've voiced your opinions constructively and contributed meaningfully to the conversation. I restored the comment upvote balance on your comment because I'm pretty sure there was no malicious intent involved on your part--there certainly isn't any in mine.

>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^dannym3141:
@sgundamx I still think my comment stands - article or no article. Unless you can categorically state that there was no abuse before advertisements, there's no evidence for the sentiment that she's insinuating.
There's so many people in this thread arguing with other people, often times even two people in agreement are having some sort of tiff. I'll tell you why;
Firstly, males are less likely to notice sexism towards females because it doesn't affect them, doesn't even happen when they're around perhaps.
Secondly, women are more likely to notice sexism towards females because it only happens to them or around them, and women who are aware of sexism (or perhaps anti sexism campaigners) are more likely to see false positives, times when there was no sexism, just plain ignorance or rudeness, and it's chalked down to sexism.
Thirdly, everyone is different - some guys think they wouldn't be bothered if they were a girl and all they saw were skinny girls, and then you'll get girls saying "how can you say that? oh yes you would!" and then they'll get a reply saying "how can you say i would? oh no i wouldn't!" and so on.
But let's at least be fair about the matter. People saying "how would you feel if ALL YOU SAW was toned and fit handsome guys?" - this is not the situation. If that were the case, all your friends and relatives and everyone you ever saw or knew about would have to be skinny, and you were the only one that wasn't. In actual fact, advertisements display something utterly bullshit but then you go out into the street and see a load of perfectly average people. I'm not saying whether you should or should not get offended, but at least make the argument fair - it is advertisements and media, not everything

Sorry, what?
I don't see anywhere in my comment or the video where people are insinuating that there was no "abuse" (I'm not sure what you mean by the use of this word) before advertisements. I stated--in several posts--that the advertisements are both a cause (maintaining the status quo) and an effect of a societal norm that makes it okay to objectify women. And both I and the presenter in the video pointed out that objectifying a person is one of the first steps taken when someone wishes to commit violence against another person. Therefore, these ads are basically fostering a social atmosphere where it is okay to dehumanize women, to value them only for their appearance, and that seems extremely dangerous to me.
The objectification of women is a problem that extends way beyond just advertising--it pervades all of our mass media: movies, tv, and music. And why does it pervade our mass media? Because it works. Because we've accepted it as normal. It's no fluke that the cosmetics industry is a $1.9 billion dollar industry with around 3% growth a year and fantastic profits or that the diet industry rakes in $55 billion dollars a year (as of 2006) and is still growing. It's not a coincidence that rates of eating disorders in adolescents are rising. It's not solely the ads that are responsible for this, but the message--that gets reinforced constantly by the media and often by our own peers--that our worth as a human being is directly related to how well we fit the images we are bombarded with daily. Like she said in the video, we may walk out the door and see that what is being presented is impossible to obtain but that doesn't seem to stop us for striving for it anyway as the statistics I presented above show.


In the same way - sorry, what?

I originally stated that insinuating that abuse came from adverts objectifying women was a poor argument, and then when you replied saying abuse comes from objectification, i replied saying that it wasn't fair to say adverts cause abuse. I haven't read your massive post because the snippets i skimmed through didn't even seem to relate to what i was saying.

Nice talking with you, but i don't think we're having the same conversation.

>> ^dannym3141:

@sgundamx I still think my comment stands - article or no article. Unless you can categorically state that there was no abuse before advertisements, there's no evidence for the sentiment that she's insinuating.
There's so many people in this thread arguing with other people, often times even two people in agreement are having some sort of tiff. I'll tell you why;
Firstly, males are less likely to notice sexism towards females because it doesn't affect them, doesn't even happen when they're around perhaps.
Secondly, women are more likely to notice sexism towards females because it only happens to them or around them, and women who are aware of sexism (or perhaps anti sexism campaigners) are more likely to see false positives, times when there was no sexism, just plain ignorance or rudeness, and it's chalked down to sexism.
Thirdly, everyone is different - some guys think they wouldn't be bothered if they were a girl and all they saw were skinny girls, and then you'll get girls saying "how can you say that? oh yes you would!" and then they'll get a reply saying "how can you say i would? oh no i wouldn't!" and so on.
But let's at least be fair about the matter. People saying "how would you feel if ALL YOU SAW was toned and fit handsome guys?" - this is not the situation. If that were the case, all your friends and relatives and everyone you ever saw or knew about would have to be skinny, and you were the only one that wasn't. In actual fact, advertisements display something utterly bullshit but then you go out into the street and see a load of perfectly average people. I'm not saying whether you should or should not get offended, but at least make the argument fair - it is advertisements and media, not everything


Sorry, what?

I don't see anywhere in my comment or the video where people are insinuating that there was no "abuse" (I'm not sure what you mean by the use of this word) before advertisements. I stated--in several posts--that the advertisements are both a cause (maintaining the status quo) and an effect of a societal norm that makes it okay to objectify women. And both I and the presenter in the video pointed out that objectifying a person is one of the first steps taken when someone wishes to commit violence against another person. Therefore, these ads are basically fostering a social atmosphere where it is okay to dehumanize women, to value them only for their appearance, and that seems extremely dangerous to me.

The objectification of women is a problem that extends way beyond just advertising--it pervades all of our mass media: movies, tv, and music. And why does it pervade our mass media? Because it works. Because we've accepted it as normal. It's no fluke that the cosmetics industry is a $1.9 billion dollar industry with around 3% growth a year and fantastic profits or that the diet industry rakes in $55 billion dollars a year (as of 2006) and is still growing. It's not a coincidence that rates of eating disorders in adolescents are rising. It's not solely the ads that are responsible for this, but the message--that gets reinforced constantly by the media and often by our own peers--that our worth as a human being is directly related to how well we fit the images we are bombarded with daily. Like she said in the video, we may walk out the door and see that what is being presented is impossible to obtain but that doesn't seem to stop us for striving for it anyway as the statistics I presented above show.

I'm a little late to the party, but my $0.02 on this topic is that I think most feminist groups are focusing on the wrong things. It's not that advertising has such a relentlessly high standard on female beauty, it's that our culture seems to accept and reinforce people making judgments about women based on their appearance.

Right now, it's socially acceptable for women to hold high-paying jobs, or act in a professionally aggressive manner, but only if she's attractive. If you're plain, or god forbid, downright unattractive, you're just a bitch, possibly a "cast-iron" bitch if you attain a position of power, and assert that power in the aggressive way men are always encouraged to.

There's a heavily reinforced cultural undercurrent that a woman's worthiness as a person is tightly connected to her attractiveness. Part of that comes from the pervasiveness of female beauty in American media -- even the "ugly" women are beautiful (take Tina Fey on 30 Rock as a prime example), because actually plain or unattractive women aren't allowed to be cast as anything but totally unsympathetic bitches, or maybe some sort of lovable grandma character if she's grey haired and wrinkled.

But I think this particular screed is missing the point -- the issue isn't advertisements with their objectification (of EVERYTHING), with overt sexual imagery, and impossible standards of beauty, it's the way that gets carried over into all the other aspects of mass media. There are no plain female musicians rocketing up the top 40, no average looking female news reporters, no sitcom with a normal-looking female character, no dramas where the sharpest intellect is a unremarkable-looking woman in her 40's...that's the real issue, not what they're doing in the ad world.

>> ^bareboards2:

I agree that it is terrible that this is happening to men now. I don't think that is progress, I think it is a disease that is spreading.
The point you are missing, though, is that these are the VAST MAJORITY of the images that women see. Pay attention to the next movie or TV show you watch. How many "normal" guys are cast in parts? How many "normal" women?
While you are watching, switch the genders in your mind and imagine a woman who is of the same attractiveness level as the men. I think it will shock you when you realize that you see normal looking men ALL THE TIME and rarely do you see normal looking women.
What percentage of all posters/images are JUST male body parts? What percentage of men in the media fit this impossibly high standard?
You can count on one hand the number of "normal" looking women on TV.
It is so pervasive you guys who think we are whining don't even see it.
Compare that to British TV. Men and women both are routinely ... normal. They are chubby, plain looking, balding if they are male. It is a relief to watch British TV.
And I didn't tell you to shut up, @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/ala_bala" title="member since February 9th, 2007" class="profilelink">ala_bala. I said think for ten minutes and then speak. Which clearly you didn't do.

>> ^schlub:
They definitely do this with men in advertising. Just watch any Gillette commercial. Huge bulging muscles and a penchant for ridiculous technology. A very poor representation of the majority of men.



Thank you for posting this, because i was just about to say - from what i see on tv, there is a roughly equal number of "perfect" men in adverts about aftershave, deodorant, shaving utensils, alcohol adverts, etc... If i compare, on the tv i watch, the number of perfect men to women? I'd say it was equal. Then i was about to say - does this say something about the difference between the sexes if it's only women who cannot help but judge themselves?

So there was my rant which never quite was, because i appreciate your comment and maybe i'm spoiled after all, perhaps it's not so bad here.

However, i really don't like the direction her argument takes, and i had to stop the video because i was that pissed off with it. "Objectifying is the first step on the road to abuse!" I'm sorry, but i can't buy into that and i never will. I don't like the logic whatsoever. It reminds me of the "violent video games cause violence" nonsense. There's always been violence, always will, video games won't change that.

In the same way, there's always been abuse and i would argue that abuse nowadays is far less accepted in our society than ever before. Racist, homophic, whatever. We are completely intolerant of those things now. Historically "raping" your wife wasn't really seen as rape, you were allowed to beat your wife if it was deemed reasonable, that kind of thing.

Absolutely unacceptable nowadays since the ADVENT of the objectification of women in advertisements - the evidence is hardly on her side. Cmon lady... I *hate* that argument.

The fact that women can think for themselves and not be effected negatively does not negate the problem that we allow and passively encourage the distortion and objectification of men/women in our media, nor does standing against that suggest you feel all men/women are stupid.

I don't think she's a particular good speaker and I find her strenuous link to violence rather baseless. Though no one was really deconstructing her views with any thought, it just went straight to "feminist!" as if it was wrong to be one.

>> ^rottenseed:

>> ^yellowc:
Look can you stop associating "feminism" with bad/crazy/bitch/whatever other bullshit you want to sprout, it's getting old. First of all, she is completely level-headed and talking in a clear and concise manner, she didn't belittle the models choice of career, she isn't ranting, she didn't do anything to deserve your "feminist" comments.
All you see is a women talking and instantly turned to hate. Ridiculous.
Also you men who think you're amazing for being a man with no influential problems of this nature. When was the last time you cried publicly or even cried? Guess why you don't? Guess why you don't talk to your mates about your problems? You've had "be a man" drilled in to your head since birth...guess what you're a product of.
Disclaimer: I'm a male, I'm also a feminist.

The fact that she's got these people's attention with this self-important non-issue is annoying. The undertones are simply: She thinks women are dumb enough to be affected negatively by these obviously distorted ideas of beauty.
If you think this way too then you're no feminist. You're pandering to women as if they're dumb pets that can't think for themselves.

>> ^The_Ham:

Of course not...You're right! Men are not objectified like women! Especially not in Calvin Klein ads!
Oh, wait....
http://ficdn.fashionindie.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/jimmy005.jpg


>> ^ctrlaltbleach:
^Mainly because men are not objectified like women are although I have been hearing a lot of criticism lately about men always being shown as stupid in ads.
also promote



This is a tiny bit of a longer speech (which used to be here, but has been pulled from youtube ) and she covers the objectification of men too, but also points out that by and large they are shown as strong, empowered etc. where women are the opposite.

The talk in whole is fascinating, scary and can really open your eyes, and should be required viewing for anyone with a daughter.

People saying here that it's all just a bunch of ugly, whining feminists really need to have a look at themselves and the sort of chauvinistic dick they really are.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'advertising, women, sex, objectification, violence, kate winslet' to 'jean kilbourne, advertising, women, sex, objectification, violence, kate winslet' - edited by xxovercastxx

Tags for this video have been changed from 'advertising, women, sex, objectivity, violence, kate winslett' to 'advertising, women, sex, objectification, violence, kate winslet' - edited by calvados

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Well, I don't know about you, but I'm starting with the man in the mirror - I'm asking him to change his ways - and no message could have been any clearer - if You wanna make the world a better place, don't glorify a picked on kid who body slams another dweeby kid.

>> ^draak13:

Spoco et al keeps posting that this kind of situation shouldn't happen, that both sides are bad in this fight, and that we need to address the social and societal issues that lead to this event. However, that's where it stops; the social and societal issues are never addressed, but merely stated in paraphrase that, 'the social atmosphere is bad, shame on you for contributing to the problem.' I see no offering for a social or societal resolution that would prevent a situation like this.
If you think the solution to this problem is to have all of the onlookers come out and try to break things up, then why don't you go dress up in a scuba suit and call yourself kickass. I don't think the world works that way.
Really, I challenge and beg any poster for a solution that would actually work. If you're going to call shame on the people who have condoned the actions witnessed in this video, back up your claim to a better world by offering some preventative resolution, and then we'll actually have something to discuss.
>> ^dag:
Count me with Spoco et al on this one. It's natural for us to cheer for a Kenny Rogers Coward of the County type outcome - but really you don't want this situation to happen in the first place. You also need to think of what has led to this situation. Here's what I know for a fact:

Spoco et al keeps posting that this kind of situation shouldn't happen, that both sides are bad in this fight, and that we need to address the social and societal issues that lead to this event. However, that's where it stops; the social and societal issues are never addressed, but merely stated in paraphrase that, 'the social atmosphere is bad, shame on you for contributing to the problem.' I see no offering for a social or societal resolution that would prevent a situation like this.

If you think the solution to this problem is to have all of the onlookers come out and try to break things up, then why don't you go dress up in a scuba suit and call yourself kickass. I don't think the world works that way.

Really, I challenge and beg any poster for a solution that would actually work. If you're going to call shame on the people who have condoned the actions witnessed in this video, back up your claim to a better world by offering some preventative resolution, and then we'll actually have something to discuss.

>> ^dag:

Count me with Spoco et al on this one. It's natural for us to cheer for a Kenny Rogers Coward of the County type outcome - but really you don't want this situation to happen in the first place. You also need to think of what has led to this situation. Here's what I know for a fact:

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Count me with Spoco et al on this one. It's natural for us to cheer for a Kenny Rogers Coward of the County type outcome - but really you don't want this situation to happen in the first place. You also need to think of what has led to this situation. Here's what I know for a fact: