XML Feeds
Advertising Strikes Again
It is my first day at NOW. I have been waiting for this day since I heard I got the internship. I am armed with topics and ideas, but none of them seem good enough for my first blog post. So like any other twenty-something I take to the Internet. I want to write an uplifting piece about loving one's self. Disclaimer: This is not that piece. Like any other twenty-something, I am easily distracted when on the Internet, and I stumble upon a whole different issue.
Love yourself. Sounds simple and complex all at the same time but fear not WikiHow has 10 simple steps for you to love yourself better. While I don't have a problem with Wiki's tips, I do have a problem with the ads on the page. Immediately, after step 1, "Treat others with love and respect," appears an ad for relationship advice directed only at women entitled "Why Men Pull Away-10 Ugly Mistakes Women Make That Ruins Any Chances of a Relationship." Oh, the irony. As if that is not offensive enough, there are two more ads at the end of the article. One entitled "Make Him Addicted to You" and the other offered symptoms for depression, which leads the reader to believe that only sad, depressed women are interested in loving themselves. Why is that? Do men already love themselves? Do they not care to love themselves better? Or are they born and raised in a society that accepts and loves them already and that should be enough for them?
Not only is it offensive that the male-dominated advertising world assumes only women need to love themselves better, but the ads themselves are just plain offensive. I would not be as put off if the ads were for shoes or clothes. Honestly, I probably would not have even noticed. It is, however, hard to ignore these ads. The fact that women need to change or to avoid certain behaviors to keep a man seems contradictory to a page dedicated to loving oneself better.
While this may not be as glaring as a problem as other issues, the problem lies in its subtlety. It lies in the fact that no one in the male-dominated advertising world was trying to be offensive, but that they just didn't think about it. Before there can be a change in society there needs to be a change in thinking. That is what is so damaging from these ads. It perpetuates the idea that a woman can only really love herself if she catches a man and changes to keep that man.
Physiology also points to women wanting to 'deal' with problems more openly. Thus the thousands of mag's written and operated by women dedicated to 'feelings' and 'relationships'. From birth girls and boys deal with the world differently. There may be some stereotypes, there may also be some training (nurture) involved, but it isn't all about male "domination" of the world.
There is probably a lot you do not know or do not what to know about your sex. For instance, the top fantasy women have is to be ravaged (not pc to say raped). It's a fantasy of course) by a man or men. As a man I just cannot understand that, but study's say it has to do with dominance roles. Yet, many women want to dominate men also. It's a duality most men cannot get their heads around. Women also love to down other women and to fence talk (gossip). They've been doing it since before Biblical times (it's actually in the Bible). They've also been decorating themselves for thousands of years as well. Men did not 'force' women to do so. It very well may be rooted to women's genes; a method of capturing men and keeping them since they cannot do so physically.
With all their new found social power women seem to be getting more unhappy by the year. Perhaps we "should" treat each other differently instead of as complete equals. We hare not equal emotionally, physically, hormonally, biologically. What you see as weaknesses or society's view of 'traditional' women may actually be the right way. Women may be physically weaker than men, they are by no means the weaker sex. As long as women keep fighting their nature they will continue to be miserable. Personally, I always thought women were the saner of the species, so why would they want to be more like us unreasonable men?
It is a matter of privilege and ignorance on your part to 'speak' for women. Again, where is your evidence to state "With all their new found social power women seem to be getting more unhappy by the year." Since when and in what culture have women been treated 'as complete equals"?And again where is your evidence that women are weaker than men physically? Women and men have different physical areas of strength, but that does not mean a woman is not able to defend herself from male violence.
The National Bureau of Economic Research is just one of several organization’s conducting study’s monitoring the decline of women’s happiness. Just Google “The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness.” The Parents Television Council has also done a study which points to women being their own worst enemy’s - not men. Other study’s show that men treat their friends better than women (Joyce Benson - Psychological Science). Women are also more likely to suffer from depression than men (again, with rising numbers) (Journal of the American Medical Association).
Sexual Submission (e.g. forced sex, rape, etc) is pretty well known phenomenon. I guess it could be forgiven if you have not taken psychology classes. Other fantasy’s include lesbian, having multiple male partners, dominating men, being a bad girl (spanking/slut) and so on. Like I said, it is a fantasy and probably not likely to be fulfilled and if so, in controlled situations (being tied up by partner, being told what to do, etc.).
I have to admit, my degree is in marine biology, but I did take anthropology, sociology and psychology classes and there’s no consensus where some behaviors arise from. That you would be so certain makes me wonder where you are getting your information. Over thousands of years, all around the world, in literature and study, there are differences beyond the physical.
It’s pretty disgusting there are still places that treat women like meat. I have visited several such places (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Bahrain). Bad behavior does not however discount science or thousands of years of evolution. Genes are powerful and as near to immortal as any living thing on this planet can be. Why do bee’s know at birth how to build a nest identically? What is instinct? How does it influence behavior? We have barely scratched the surface of our brains functions.
Put the hate and anger away and try to look at it from a logical and studied position. You’ll find that your debates will go far better (for Lauren as well). For instance, being a biologist I know the differences in men and women’s muscle structure. Being in Special Forces (90’s) I know exactly what the best physically fit women are capable of - I trained hundreds of them during cadet training at Fort Bragg, NC. Study’s (NCIB GOV) showed a 20% - 58% difference in muscle strength between men and women, depending on muscle location. The largest differences of course were in the upper body where women have less muscle fibers than men.
I’m sorry you take this so personally, but like I said, women have their strengths and their weaknesses. Same as all other creatures on this planet. That does not mean that people cannot learn to overcome some of these weaknesses. If you have certain study’s to present I’m willing to read. Just be sure to exclude anyone with an obvious agenda (lesbian, religious, anti-gay, anti-strait, etc.).
Do you really think a blogger raised in the computer age doesn't know about cookies and ads? Obviously, those ads are NOT well tailored to her--or many women--b/c she finds them offensive. Or did you not read that? Your comments were rude, disrespectful, and based on a complete inability to "hear" what she was saying, not on any lack of insight of hers. There is a lot of blanket, sexist advertising and insulting article suggesting for women on the net, that has nothing to do with the actual interests of the woman using that computer. Any woman knows that. Regarding the topics you introduced, any scientist should know it is up to the writer to supply supporting evidence, not for others to look up your sources for you. Regarding saying women are taking things personally, or telling us to be "logical," that is classic sexist belief/arrogance (that men are logical, and women emotional.) I suggest reading Anne Wilson Schaef's book, Women's Reality, for a good overview of White Male System thinking.
Usually when men claim they're being logical, it is actually a passive-aggressive way of (poorly) dealing with their own feelings about being challenged: by attacking the woman involved as illogical or more emotional than he is. Classic male defensiveness and passive-aggression of men with who don't know how to deal with their feelings in debate. Of course, you would know this if you had read any feminist books that discuss core patriarchal beliefs, i.e. men believing they are rational/logical and women are emotional.
Another sexist set of beliefs you have is the assumption that these various studies you cite are magically objective and aren't adding in their own unexamined patriarchal assumptions. No shortage of social research just regurgitates the unexamined, dominant patriarchal beliefs as fact. Because without providing more detail about them, they sound like they are just regurgitating traditional sex stereotypes and beliefs in their conclusions. That's what feminist studies help people to become aware of, all those unquestioned patriarchal beliefs and values we are raised with.
Patriarchy has been around for at least 5 millenia, possibly since human evolution. That does not mean it is genetic, however. Men have been saying for thousands of years that women and men have differences in capabilities that have been debunked. That was the rationale for forbidding women education, literacy, participation in almost all fields men claimed for themselves, or to develop those fields, themselves, vs. being forced to do domestic work as slaves for men. Yet women have steadily debunked those myths. Even in sports, women's times are increasing faster, and in some cases already exceeding men's, especially in endurance sports. Since there is no way of knowing for sure if any trait differences, other than reproductive, between women and men is due to nurture or nature, a rational approach is to give nurture the benefit of the doubt to explain the differences. Why? Because when we lazily (or fearfully) fall back on the belief that differences are due to nature, we stop investigating or challenging nurture explanations and discovering what about nurture is holding people back and what helps us move forward. If women had accepted the male b.s. that they couldn't study, lead, or achieve athletically as men could, they would have never tried and proved those theories wrong. If men believed they were genetically not programmed to do housework, they wouldn't have learned. It is simply lazy (and defensive patriarchal) thinking to try to chalk everything up to nature as you have. Classic sexism. You sound like you've been reading too many "Men Are From Mars" books by John Gray, a massive sexist, who lazily and conveniently spews advice based on assumptions about "nature."
Comments are not allowed from anonymous visitors.