![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Aka "I hated Bill Gates before it became so fashionable" [from a web comic]
Killing Us Softly – Advertising's Image of Women
This serious theme is shown in an original & very humorous way in the 30 minutes long video.
Note: I used * standing for the letters “e” and “o” in some words due to fear (hopefully unreasonable) of lj’s banning policies. Do you think I’m paranoid or was it the right thing to do?
In the comments here, one user said (translation from Russian):
"The problem isn't really connected to gender. The real problem is announced at the forth minute, but isn't identified as a problem, since such identification could be dangerous for that person.
"It [Advertising] sells values, it sells images, it sells concepts of love, s*xuality, of romance, of success, and perhaps, most important, of normalcy. To a great extent, advertising tells us who we are, and who we should be".
It's painful to live in a society, in which advertising tells people who they're and who they should be. But it's improper to fight that. It's easier to engage in feminism".
Another person answered:
"If the gender component is 95% of "who we should be", may be it isn't meaningless to fight with feminism?"
*Quoted from the second edition of the Carnival Against P*rnography and Pr*stitution:
In Flesh and Bones: P*rnography and High Fashion as Complementary Mediums for the Dehumanisation of Women, in Off Our Backs Sascha Cohen explains how both these mediums objectify women equally.
"The p*rn industry capitalizes on the s*xual aspects of male resentment toward women, while the fashion industry knows that women can be counted on to loathe themselves, if adequately primed. Thus one could argue that high fashion incorporates aesthetics that no living woman could ever achieve, while p*rn includes exaggerated versions of the way many women already look."
Lots of good stuff there.
