What I would like to change about the society that I live in is the increasingly noticeable presence of modern sexism and the acceptance of sexism that is apparent to me, even in people that I would normally view as enlightened individuals. It has been my view for many years that sexism against women is the oldest negative "ism" that we have, and thusly, it seems to be the form of social injustice that will be the most difficult to eradicate. What I believe to be the most irritating aspect of sexism is that it is a commonly ignored problem when you compare it to the reaction that people have against racism, and to a lesser extent, homophobia. Racism seems to be the first issue that comes to the minds of many when faced with the subject of the oppression of large groups of people. This is confusing to me, since sexism, racism, and homophobia seem to be different parts of the same ugly animal. All three forms of oppression have one trait in common: people are discriminating against others based on a trait of that can either not be changed or would be extremely difficult to change or hide.
One simply needs to think critically while watching commercials on television to see why anti racist sentiment takes precedence over being against sexism. Take for example, the ad campaign currently being run by the Seven Up/Dr. Pepper company. A few years ago I saw a Dr.Pepper commercial that filled me with a rage so strong that I started laughing hysterically, mostly because I couldn't believe that the concept would make it past the board room that I imagine the creation of commercials takes place in. The product advertised in this commercial is for Dr.Pepper 10, a version of the popular soft drink that has only 10 calories. The commercial is narrated by a masculine figure wearing camouflage who is running around in the forest doing various "manly" things. What is so disturbing about this ad is the dialogue. In the commercial the main character addresses the women that may be watching, asking "enjoying the movie, ladies? Of course not". He implies that all women hate action and the commercial ends with him saying "you can keep your romantic comedies and your girly drinks, we're good. DR. PEPPER: IT'S NOT FOR WOMEN". "What could be more blatantly sexist than this ad?" you may be asking yourself. The answer: the fact that the company made an official facebook page for the drink...and didn't allow people that listed their gender as "female" to play the games on it. Now think for a moment about what the reaction may have been if the excluded group was a ethnic minority. Imagine the words "DR.PEPPER: IT'S NOT FOR BLACK PEOPLE" emblazoned on your television screen. I think the reaction would have been a lot different and I don't think that the commercial would still be on the air.
I'd like to mention that this commercial was also sexist towards men, since it reinforced male stereotypes that may not ring true with all males. Many commercials have sexist themes that are aimed at men, especially if the commercial is for a cleaning product or involves shopping or cooking. Women are typically viewed as being superior at domestic duties and better at saving money, while the simple minded men track dirt into the house, spend their savings on birds of prey, and stick entire avocados into blenders. I think it's safe to say that both women and men could do without these heavily enforced stereotypes. The elimination of sexism against either gender (and those genders in between male and female) would make friendships and romantic relationships a lot easier for many reasons, the most obvious being that we could stop accusing one another of taking shots at us for something as small as a difference in genitalia.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Sunday, April 14, 2013
RR "Killer Culture" by David Kupelian
What I find the most surprising about this article is how I was able to agree with a few aspects of the author's opinion. He manages to draw even the most atheistic reader in by starting off slow when it comes to making his Christian beliefs blatantly obvious. There is a progression of what I can only refer to as "insanity" that occurs in this article. The author begins by appealing to the reader by portraying MTV and bands like ICP in a negative light. This is something that almost anyone over the age of 18 who has watched MTV or heard ICP's music can get behind. Ask the most average college student if they still think that MTV stands for "music television" and you'll likely receive the same answer: NO. What this author has done is brilliant. He keeps the non-Christian reader from dismissing the article immediately by appealing to their cynicism regarding pop culture.
The author's ignorance when it comes to subcultures is apparent in many instances. He refers to Satanism on page 656, a religion that almost anyone would find silly, to say the least. The problem is that many people confuse Satanism with legitimate devil worship. True Satanism is worship of one's own ego, and has nothing to do with Satan other than having him as a mascot. When it comes to fashion statements such as piercings, tattoos, and chokers for men, it's as if the author saw each of these fashion trends once or twice and then based his article on those few occurrences. He looked at a few magazine articles written by people in the body modification community and made ill informed guesses as to why they would hang themselves from hooks.
Whether or not these people "rebel" due to having issues with their parents is none of Kupelian's concern. He suffers from the same "disease" that many hardcore Christians suffer from. He has an inability to tolerate what is going on in the privacy of other people's homes. In the beginning of the article Kupelian says "a fun loving and thoroughly decent kid, the cousin didn't have a mean bone in his body. One little thing, though. He wore a choker around his neck"(647). He's describing a child who had an effect upon his own son, who wanted to dress like him afterwards. He then gives his son a lecture about the necklace and it's various "negative" connotations. Not only does the author care about what strangers wear or do, but he assigns negative traits to a child he described as "decent". The fact that his son wanted to emulate a "decent" child should have been acceptable to him despite his taste in clothing. Instead he instilled a hatred of women in his son (because wearing "girl" clothing is "bad") and sent him this message: it doesn't matter if you're a good person. Wearing "weird" clothing trumps this and makes you a "sinner". Now that's what I call great parenting.
Kupelian, David. The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-experts
Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom. Nashville, TN: WND, 2005. Print.
The author's ignorance when it comes to subcultures is apparent in many instances. He refers to Satanism on page 656, a religion that almost anyone would find silly, to say the least. The problem is that many people confuse Satanism with legitimate devil worship. True Satanism is worship of one's own ego, and has nothing to do with Satan other than having him as a mascot. When it comes to fashion statements such as piercings, tattoos, and chokers for men, it's as if the author saw each of these fashion trends once or twice and then based his article on those few occurrences. He looked at a few magazine articles written by people in the body modification community and made ill informed guesses as to why they would hang themselves from hooks.
Whether or not these people "rebel" due to having issues with their parents is none of Kupelian's concern. He suffers from the same "disease" that many hardcore Christians suffer from. He has an inability to tolerate what is going on in the privacy of other people's homes. In the beginning of the article Kupelian says "a fun loving and thoroughly decent kid, the cousin didn't have a mean bone in his body. One little thing, though. He wore a choker around his neck"(647). He's describing a child who had an effect upon his own son, who wanted to dress like him afterwards. He then gives his son a lecture about the necklace and it's various "negative" connotations. Not only does the author care about what strangers wear or do, but he assigns negative traits to a child he described as "decent". The fact that his son wanted to emulate a "decent" child should have been acceptable to him despite his taste in clothing. Instead he instilled a hatred of women in his son (because wearing "girl" clothing is "bad") and sent him this message: it doesn't matter if you're a good person. Wearing "weird" clothing trumps this and makes you a "sinner". Now that's what I call great parenting.
Kupelian, David. The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-experts
Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom. Nashville, TN: WND, 2005. Print.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)