- continuing from the book thread - I've recently talked to two Women (one with a Bach & another with a Masters) that are telling me that this commercial is disgusting, objectifies Women and preserves "rape culture". And this isn't a minority opinion, in my estimation, among the average female.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_e8DKVnrIY
The question over whether it objectifies women is almost not worth having; of course it objectifies women. The problem is over whether they find it offensive. I'm sure some women do, and some women probably don't. And the ones that do probably despise the ones that don't.
Advertising objectifies everything. It doesn't care about perpetuating rape culture; that isn't something that can be traced intentionally to the advertisement itself. It can, however, be detected. I'm not surprised that a commercial like this throws off such traces. I mean, if you look at the imagery, you can see that it's women in bikinis versus males who are all clothed. There's a clear dynamic.
Now, on to the larger issue ('cause you asked for it, Jimmy
):
I disagree. I think It's everywhere. This I feel is the problem. It's like when I hear black people talk about reparations or the use of the word my pals (who can or can't say it). I had nothing to to with it, it dies with the people and culture that perpetuated it (as far as the individual goes, socially it's a different story). You know the saying - two wrongs don't make a right - So Women were treated badly therefore I can't call a woman a cunt without possibly being hit (reverse this btw and I go to jail) and/or socially ostracized for using a "bad word", or make a joke about rape within the context of the joke itself without hearing how I'm a misogynist pig and condone "rape culture". This part of the culture wants to control your language and limit your freedom.
It doesn't matter whether or not you had anything to do with it. It's the difference between being intentionally guilty and socially responsible, and it doesn't die with the people who perpetuated it, and it particularly doesn't die with the culture that perpetuated it (primarily because the culture that perpetuated it is the culture we still have).
This, again, is a symptom of the individualist ideology, which feels a need to trace every emotional "affect" back to an originary source. So, if a black person claims that there's a racial element to the Trayvon Martin case, then there must be someone who acted in an intentionally racist manner; or, if a woman feels that a commercial perpetuates rape culture, it must be out to intentionally perpetuate that sentiment. The task lies in seeing these as problems of socio-symbolic inscription as opposed to problems of individual agency/intention.
We can't simply move past these problems by claiming that they die with those who more directly perpetuated them (which amounts to brushing them under the rug). The reason is because even while we (i.e. white, middle/lower-middle class, American males) may very be entirely intentionally innocent, we cannot possibly empathize with those on the receiving end of the issue (lower-class blacks, women, etc.). It is extremely easy for us to brush it under the rug, but it is difficult, if not impossible, for them to do so. They cannot help but feel the bigotry in the occurrence; not because someone is intentionally acting in a bigoted manner, but because bigotry is inscribed into the event.
Dak and I hashed out this same argument over gmail.
