An interesting article--I had no idea advertising was targeted so young, and the article's purpose was to explain advertising techniques and the results thereof. I am kind of curious as to how many people don't know about these advertising strategies: I feel like I was always aware of how they operated, even as a kid. Of course they wanted to sell me something, and if it was something I wanted to buy, I bought it with the allowance my parents gave me.
Parents: there's something we shouldn't forget about. Children have whined for toys since they were first made (both toys and children)--I'm not sure if advertising has aggrandized that, but a material culture in general. It's a parent's job to teach their kids about advertisements and about money management. I'm not sure if we should make laws to compensate for lacking parenting. My Uncle Sam should never be my father. It is scary seeing how often children watch TV, but again, that's a parent's problem. Nabisco or Star Wars advertisers didn't plant a TV in that child's bedroom--their parents did.
Sex, Lies, and Advertising
This article kind of infuriated me. Not what she was saying--as convoluted and rambling as that was--but how she said it and the message she delivered with it. I gather the essential point was that advertisers perpetuate female stereotypes and refused to bend to the author's desire for a new feminist magazine. Ms. is a great idea built on a better cliche: "Written by ______, for _____." Again: great idea, and her frustration with the corporate advertising machine is understandable. However, in the name of keeping prices of magazines low, one has to endure ads that aren't the greatest.
Now for what bothered me: the divisiveness of her speech. There is nothing wrong with equal rights--men and women should be totally, 100%; judged not by the contents in their pants, but by the content of their character. However, Steinem transgresses the line often, almost waging war on men--her tone is not one of equality, but separation. Separation is, to degrees, natural and healthy; everyone likes to be an individual and relate to an individual group. But for a magazine with aims of equality, saying things like "when statistics show that women's rate of lung cancer is approaching men's, the necessity of taking cigarette ads has become a kind of prison." Why is that its only a matter of worry when the statistics is near men's--oh, it doesn't matter if THEY'RE dying. No, that's awful. Any statistic should be faced as an equal enemy. Even further, Steinem undermines and divides even women--there are Ms. women and then there's the rest.
As a man, with feelings and a beating heart just like Steinem's, this article bothered me. Reverse prejudice--prejudice equal to that which it reacts--is an ugly creature.
No comments:
Post a Comment