Two Ways a Woman Can Get Hurt

Kilbourne argues that it is dangerous to depict men and women as sex objects due to the fact that it dehumanizes them, and when you view someone as less than human, it is much easier to victimize them. We would be extremely unlikely to injure someone who we saw as an equal, someone we respected and felt empathy for. A prominent historical example can be found with Nazi Germany. The Nazi regime portrayed the Jews as subhuman; this was the only way they could justify the slaughter of millions of Jews to themselves. To admit that Jews were equal to them in their humanity would have introduced doubt into the scenario, and made it impossible for the Nazis to do what they did. Kilbourne views the objectification of women as more troubling than that of men due to the fact that our culture is already highly stilted towards mysoginism even without the latest trends towards objectifying women. I agree with Kilbourne's assertion. Trends in advertising to objectify women tend to be more troubling than the male equivilant in advertising - however, in a sense these ads can be as damaging for men as they are for women. They try and convince men that they need to be dominant at all times, and that to "score" with a woman, they should treat her poorly. In this sense, men are victimized by these advertisements as well. Obviously this is not the same circumstance as it is with women - the objectification of women is much more immediately concering. However, in the end, such mentalities are unhealthy for everyone; men and women alike.

Superbowl Ads

Each year, there has been a perceptible dip in the quality of super bowl advertisements, and this year was no exception. Most of the advertisements I saw were non sequiter, and virtually impossible to gain any sense of. Budweiser built an entire ad campaign based off of their ad tagline "Drinkability" as well as the antics of a horse that manages to get up to all sorts of hi jinx, which relates to beer somehow? In a revelation on par with when we discovered Darth Vader was Luke's father, we finally discover what this "Drinkability" business is all about. "Budweiser has drinkability" a bro chirps in the ad, "it's easy to drink!". Well that was certainly... expected. Regardless, enough about alcohol. There were plenty of other non-beer related ads that caught my eye. Such as a pepsi advertisement that was really quite smashing. It featured Bob Dylan's "Forever Young" being performed by him, as well as a more contemporary artist. The song was dubbed over images of 60s nostalgia: hippies, flower power and the like. These are contrasted with more modern images of youth today doing what they do best - being youthful. The ad ends with the tagline "Each generation refreshes the world". Well isn't that profound. Unfortunately for pepsi, I don't see how this relates to pepsi at all. Am I required to drink a soft drink to refresh the world? If my changing the world is contingent on drinking a pepsi, I think I'll prefer to let the world be. I've never really cared for pepsi. At half time we were treated to a delight, three dimensional advertising! What struck me about these ads was the fact that the ads themselves had virtually no substance whatsoever, aside from the fact that they were in 3D. One featured lizards dancing and trippy visual effects. Aside from the obvious fact that they were in 3D, these ads were even worse than the worst of the other superbowl ads. It was a sad commentary on where advertisements in general are heading if this becomes the norm.

The Bias of Language

This article brought up points that we discussed at the very outset of AP English. Chief among these points was the idea that language is an extremely individual thing. One person may utilize certain words to mean something, but another person may use the same words in a different context. Specifically we looked at the "blue" chair; but what is blue exactly? What one person defines as blue may appear as more of a teal to another person. It is entirely subjective. The article brings up this point with the example of the three people who go to dinner. If the three of them were to write two paragraphs about their experience, it is highly unlikely that you would see the same words and phrases or the same impressions. What they wrote would be very different, despite the fact that they had all been attending the same dinner. These are all discussions that fit in nicely with our original discussions at the beginning of the year - however, The Bias of Language ventures into largely uncharted territory for us when it begins to discuss the bias of pictures. The article challenges the common assertion that while a picture may be worth a thousand words, a word can easily be worth a thousand pictures as well. Without words to ground a picture, there is absolutely no context. It is impossible to display abstract ideas with a picture, you can only create a sampling of the whole. That is why it is vital to use both pictures and words to communicate ones meaning, for pictures alone are unable to communicate ideas that words are.

Progress 12/8

Worked on the paper some more today. I did some research into the opposing views in terms of Separation of Church and State, so that I could make my paper better balanced. It's interesting reading - one side has got a clear constitutional advantage, while the other main support comes from other sources. I'm learning plenty of new stuff - I must admit I didn't know as much as I would have thought I did going into the project. The issue seems quite simple on the exterior, but once you really get into it, it become extremely complex. There are a lot of legal issues that have yet to be resolved. Every time I come across some new info, I'm simply pulling back another layer to this extremely complicated issue. Hopefully I will be able to shed some light on this in my paper, I am already feeling more knowledgeable about it considering my most current research.

Contract Progress 12/3

Finished up working on my proposition this evening, and did some research into the opposing side of the Separation of Church and State argument. It is really quite baffling that there is such confusion around this topic. It seems that a great deal of the confusion emanates from the fact that the phrase "Separation of Church and State" is never found in the constitution. The idea of freedom of privacy is not specifically addressed either, but I certainly contend that it is a freedom we all possess, whether or not it is guaranteed in the constitution.

Just because the phrase "Separation of Church and State" is not found within the Constitution, the idea certainly is. Turn your attention to the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...

This clearly states that Congress will not endorse one religion over another as the state religion. It also states that no person will be denied the ability to exercise their own religion. Try to reconcile these two notions in a public school - it can't be done. You can't hold prayer in school without violating the Establishment Clause, unless you're willing to allow every single religion the ability to pursue their religion in school with impunity. This is simply an impossibility.

If one has any doubt that the Founding Fathers intended our nation to be a secular one, take a look at The Treaty of Tripoli dating from 1797, with was unanimously supported by the Senate.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Contract Progress 12/2

I did additional research tonight in regards to Separation of Church and State. A common myth that was quickly dispelled upon research of the topic was that our founding fathers intended the United States to be a Christian nation and that the United States was founded upon Christian ideals with Christian values in mind. I've recently come across a fair amount of evidence that contradicts several of these points. Be you Christian or otherwise, it is certainly something to take a look at and think about.

The first person to coin the phrase "Separation of Church and State" in its current context was Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, and an avid supporter of keeping the government secular. I'll post some of my sources when I get around to it. For now, sleep.

Progress on Contract 12/1

I settled on the topic for my contract, one I feel very strongly about: the issue of separation of Church and State. Anyone who knows me has a fairly good idea of where I stand on this issue. I've spent the evening researching, and there are a fair number of websites supporting both sides of this issue.

Also, something only loosely related, but very interesting I found tonight. This website contains a bunch of information which breaks down religious denominations and where they fall geographically and ethnically within the country. Worth taking a look at for anyone who has interest.