Sender: 0.0 (spamval) -- NONE
In-Reply-To: <59270926-C9CA-436D-8C31-5E5D16EA0E8E &AElig umich.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0603140931580.9892 &AElig celan.pirateship.org>
References: <d2fd17ebd60e778f3ea09fafaa6c0571 &AElig umich.edu>  <59270926-C9CA-436D-8C31-5E5D16EA0E8E &AElig umich.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 18:49:52 -0500 (EST)
To: Robert Felty <robfelty &AElig umich.edu>
Cc: Dave Morris <thecat &AElig umich.edu>, improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
From: Bethany Soule <bethany &AElig pirateship.org>
Subject: Re: The Naked Truth: Advertising's Image of Women
Status: O

Rob,

That's a very astute and valuable observation about the way we define
sexual explicitness. I suspect that this is a direct byproduct of
trying to regulate the use of sex in the media. If you're going to make
rules about anything, you have to a definition of the thing you're
regulating. Luckily we as a country have tried to avoid making rules like
"don't offend anybody" (luckily, because that's either impossible to
enforce, or highly destructive to those pesky little 'civil liberties'),
but then that leads to needing a precise definition of "sexual explicity",
and so we end up carving up the human body, and the english language up
into bits and pieces.

Of course, I'm a little confused as to how this whole "regulation" thing
fits in with that "freedom of speech/press" thing... And don't anyone "But
think of the children!" me.

Bethany.

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, Robert Felty wrote:

> Dave,
>
> You pose some very interesting questions.  I wish I had seen the
> lecture.  I certainly can't claim to have a good idea of how
> advertising in America compares to advertising in other countries
> (except Germany maybe).  I have a few possible answers to your
> questions:
>
> I am not so sure that our weird stance on sexuality has something to
> do with capitalism.  Perhaps somewhat.  I think it has to do with two
> factors:
>
> 1. what we consider sexually explicit.  The "wardrobe malfunction"
> was a good example of this.  For some reason, we have decided that
> women's breasts are sexually explicit, but basically only the
> nipple.  Likewise, a thong, which really doesn't cover much of the
> butt at all, is good enough to be not naked in many circles.  The
> censors are mostly concerned about what parts of the body are
> displayed.  They are less concerned with the types of acts that are
> portrayed, or how people are represented sexually.  The same goes for
> language.  The censors are concerned with what words are used, but
> not necessarily the context in which the words are used.  Howard
> Stern fought against this greatly.  I am not saying that Howard Stern
> is the greatest guy ever, but he probably would never have gotten so
> popular if he weren't so controversial, i.e. if the censors didn't
> exist.
>
> 2. our stance on violence.  In general, there is far more explicit
> violence in American media than most other countries.  Popular tv
> shows such as Law & Order show lots of graphic pictures, and tell
> stories about absolutely horrible acts.  They certainly don't try to
> glamorize the stories at all, but I question whether we need to be
> seeing and thinking about that all the time.  So when it comes to
> violence towards women, the censors are not so much looking for
> this.  I remember a particular episode of Sex in The City, where the
> main female figure is confronted by her ex-boyfriend in an elevator.
> She tells him that she is with another guy, and she that doesn't want
> to be romantically involved with him anymore, but he forces her
> against the wall of the elevator, and kisses her, and she melts in
> his arms.  What did Grandpa Reeves tell us - "No means maybe".
> Apparently, that is what a lot of the media is still telling us.  So
> what was basically date rape, is portrayed as the woman not really
> knowing what she wants, and the strong man sweeps her off her feet.
> What kind of message is this sending to men?
>
> How we came to have these two general stances in the U.S. I cannot
> say.  Maybe capitalism has something to do with that, or maybe it is
> just some sort of strange long chain of events.
>
> Eager to hear other people's ideas.
>
> Rob
>
>
> On Mar 13, 2006, at 10:58 PM, Dave Morris wrote:
>
> > Tonight I saw: "The Naked Truth: Advertising's Image of Women", a
> > talk by Jean Kilbourne, sponsored by SAPAC and half a dozen other
> > UofM groups focusing on women's issues, and it led to some questions.
> >
> > She covered the concepts of how women (and now men too) are
> > objectified in advertisements to a more and more extreme extent,
> > how sex is used to sell everything, how these advertisements also
> > encourage violence against women, sexualization of children, and
> > other not so desireable things (the point is not to remove
> > sexuality, it's to remove abuses of or bad applications of sexuality).
> >
> > These things are all true, and I feel that talks like hers (it was
> > well done), where she makes this idea clear and encourages people
> > to think about, recognize, and reject such suggestions, are the
> > only real force against them (assuming you like ideas like free
> > speech and don't trust the government to dictate morality). But the
> > question arose in my mind:
> >
> > Why is the United States of America, one of the most conservative
> > and Puritan societies on the planet, so far out on the cutting edge
> > of the use of sexuality and the objectification of women and people
> > in general in our advertising? I feel that the use of sex and
> > exaggerated images of beauty is a natural trend in capitalist
> > advertisements- but why is Europe not way ahead of us in this,
> > being as they are more sexually progressive?
> >
> > Is it that our repression makes us more susceptible to such ads and
> > thus it's simply their efficacy pushing their development?
> > Is it because we have a stronger concept of free speech, so
> > advertisers have had here more free reign to push this to it's limit?
> > Is it because we are more strongly capitalist than any other
> > country, and thus selling by any means necessary has become accepted?
> > Is it not actually true that we are the leaders in this and we're
> > just given the impression that we are by people who are trying to
> > support their anti-objectification agenda?
> >
> >
> > I lean towards the capitalism running rampant explanation, and I
> > think we're actually objectifying all aspects of our lives in a
> > very bad way, but I think they're all factors.
> >
> > How do you fight this? How do you balance between supporting free
> > speech and controlling the use of imagery that is damaging our
> > children? Education is good, but exposure starts so young, when we
> > are the most susceptible. Tough questions. I'd be curious to hear
> > anyone's opinion.
> >
> >
> >
> > More info on the talk I went to from the original announcement in
> > case you care:
> >
> > Ads sell a great deal more than products. They sell values, images,
> > and concepts of success and worth, love and sexuality, popularity
> > and normalcy. They tell us who we are and who we should be.
> > Sometimes they sell addictions.  With expert knowledge, insight, and
> > humor, Jean Kilbourne brings her audiences to see that, although ads
> > may seem harmless and silly, they add up to a powerful form of
> > cultural conditioning.
> >
> > Jean Kilbourne, Ed.D., is internationally recognized for her
> > pioneering
> > work on alcohol and tobacco advertising and the images of women in
> > advertising. Her films, slide lectures and television appearances have
> > been seen by millions of people throughout the world. She was named by
> > The New York Times Magazine as one of the three most popular speakers
> > on college campuses today and has twice been named Lecturer of the
> > Year
> > by the National Association of Campus Activities.  Her book, Can't Buy
> > My Love: How Advertising Changes the Way We Think and Feel, won the
> > Distinguished Publication Award from the Association for Women in
> > Psychology in 2000. She is also known for her award-winning
> > documentaries Killing Us Softly, Slim Hopes, and Calling the Shots.
> > "Jean Kilbourne's work is pioneering and crucial to the dialogue of
> > one
> > of the most underexplored, yet most powerful, realms of American
> > culture - advertising. We owe her a great debt."
> > Susan Faludi | author, Backlash and Stiffed
> > "As timely and important as ever. . .A must for everyone who cares
> > about media literacy and gender equity."
> > Susan Douglas | author, Where the Girls Are: Growing Up With the
> > Mass Media
> > "I just saw Killing Us Softly 3 in my sociology class and was
> > absolutely amazed, inspired and outraged!"
> > Leigh Ann
> > "Jean Kilbourne is a prophet calling out in the wilderness for
> > fundamental change in the way we communicate publicly with one
> > another."
> > Adweek
> >
> > This event is co-sponsored by the Sexual Assault Prevention and
> > Awareness Center (SAPAC), Department of Communication Studies'
> > Howard R. Marsh Center for the Study of Journalistic Performance,
> > Institute for Research on Women and Gender (IRWG), Residence Halls
> > Association, University Health Services, Coalition of Action
> > Regarding Image and Body Image Issues (CARE), Peers Utilizing
> > Leadership Skills for Education (PULSE), U-M Hillel, Jewish Women's
> > Forum, and Women's Studies.
> >
> > ***Questions regarding the presentation may be directed to the Sexual
> >
> > Assault Prevention and Awareness Center: (Ann Arbor, MI)
> >
> > Business Line:  734-998-9368
> >
> > Crisis Line:  734-936-3333
> >
> > SAPAC Fax Number:  734-998-9380
> >
> > David P. Morris, PhD
> > Senior Engineer, ElectroDynamic Applications, Inc.
> > morris &AElig edapplications.com, (734) 786-1434, fax: (734) 786-3235
> >
> >
>