Today, my heart was broken. Oh the woes of a broken heart. I'm sure we've all experienced it. And if you haven't yet, fear not, your time will come.
Or if you, like me, have been in love with Seth Rogen, the bearded beauty with the goofy laugh, since you saw Knocked Up years ago, that heartbreak came with his proclamation that the film American Sniper, a movie about the life and military service of U.S. Navy Seal Chris Kyle, is propaganda.
Now, let's take a step back and realize that he didn't exactly say this in the January 18th tweet he sent out that has since sparked controversy. What he said was that American Sniper reminded him of a scene in Inglorious Basterds, the 2009 Brad Pitt film about Nazi occupied France. As the Hollywood Reporter wrote, "That movie in the Tarantino film was a Nazi propaganda film called Stolz der Nation (Nation's Pride) that showed a German sniper killing Allied soldiers from a clock tower."
Rogen isn't alone in the belief this Academy-Award nominated movie was a way for a murderous sniper's name to be cleared as a hero defending his country. In her article "American Sniper is Dangerous Propaganda That Sanitizes a Mass Killer & Rewrites the Iraq War" Films For Action's Rania Kalek states, that the movie portrasy a "psycho" as a hero. The article goes on to analyze passages from Kyle's book in which he defends the shots he took in his time on the front lines, even when those shots killed children and women. Is this troubling? Of course. Is it difficult to hear a man say that he is regrets not killing more "savages" who were out to harm him, his comrades, and his country's well-being? Yes...but I argue it is understandable.
Now hear me out. I am in no means defending U.S. involvement in the Middle East. If anything I'm stating quite the opposite. War is a barbaric, atrocious, monstrous, and despicable thing. It is an evil that has plagued our world since the beginning of time and will continue to do so until the day the world ends, no matter which way you believe that will happen.
What I am saying is that we should not as a country blame the soldiers that go off to fight these wars for our involvement. Yes, they are the ones killing people. But soldiers are killing people whom our power-hungry leaders tell them it is patriotic to slaughter in order to defend our freedoms.
Therefore, the passages Kalek has so boldly chosen to highlight and rip the late Kyle apart for (read them all here,), displays a devout nature that was drilled into him even further in boot camp and SEAL training. Of course he'd want to kill more people whom he has been taught are the enemy, the enemy that attacked U.S. soil on 9/11 and killed his fellow soldiers. Given the circumstance, I don't believe any courageous man or woman would do differently.
This is why, as a child of a man who served our military for over 20 years and underwent a tour in Afghanistan, it makes my blood boil that Americans are completely fine attending a propaganda film such as "The Interview" with grotesque and stereotypical depictions of another foreign country because it's all in good fun, but when it comes to "American Sniper" it's a story of a blood-thirsty killer who loves killing people with turbans. This tells me Americans are so ignorant as to believe we're being patriotic by releasing a Rogen/Franco movie that gives North Korea the middle finger, but are monsters for supporting a movie about a real man and the story of his sacrifice for his country. Some would rather call him psycho than deal with the fact that his actions were a result, NOT a cause, a war our country's leaders created.
To clarify my stance, "Amrican Sniper" is a great movie. Fantastic. Gruesome. Disturbing. Terribly sad. But I'm glad the movie didn't skip out on the aspects of war, I'm glad it showed what Kyle went through in his time overseas, even if that meant showing the killings of America's enemy, because it told his story. Kyle was not a man out for blood of women and children. He was not a natural born killer. The fact of the matter is he was a solider. A man who was conditioned and raised on the belief that to keep freedom, you had to protect it, and protecting it meant killing anyone who threatened his country. And it is not as if the movie doesn't show his human side...this statement is just obscure and misleading. Kyle, as many soldiers do, suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder upon returning from Iraq. Are critics of the movie really going to say he was a murderer who felt no remorse for the death he saw and caused when we know for a fact this isn't true? In the end, his fierce loyalty to the United States is what caused him, and all other soliders, to bring down anyone they were told was the enemy of America...and if you're gong to criticize him for that you might as well criticize every other man and woman serving in the U.S. military for participating in the protection of this land you live and are free to smoke your weed on (looking at you Seth Rogen...)
Now I realize there's already counterpoints to what I'm saying, but to prove just how much people hate and blame this SINGLE man for his involvment in Iraq this article by Margaret Kimberley tht states the world is better off now that he's dead and that his racism and delusion is the reason he basically deserved to die.
Are his thoughts and musings problematic? Yes. And I do agree. But, what I've hopefully made clear, is that he is not the one the blame should lie with. If you want to blame conflicts of war that's fine. Heck, blame our imperialist government or disturbing U.S. military practices that teach soldiers anyone threatening their leader should be killed.
But don't tarnish a dead solider's reputation because he was doing what he was told was the way to protect his family, his comrades, and his America.
As far as I'm concerned Kyle was not a psycho, he was a solider, a job not cut out for anyone like me who is anti-war. I believe war is incomprehensibly ugly. And I hate it. But as much as I hate and despise war, I will never hate and despise the soldiers fighting in it.
I will always be pro-solider.
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Sunday, December 7, 2014
The Power of the Tweeters
Hello there wonderful reader. I hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving last week, and I wish you every last bit of luck for the upcoming weeks if you, like I, are quickly approaching college finals.
I also hope that you have been keeping up with the news lately. Specifically the social unrest in our country over the tragic deaths of Mike Brown, Eric Garner, and Tamir Rice that have brought attention to the growing tension between the police force and the black communities. If you are active on social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook, you've most likely kept up with these events mostly through these media sites, exposed to articles and opinions about police brutality and racism shared by friends/acquaintances/that one girl you talked to once in high school.
Regardless of how you feel about the protests in Ferguson, the police, or even if you admit institutionalized racism still exists, what matters is that when you see these articles you're witnessing activism. More specifically online activism.
But what is activism? The formal definition is "an intentional action to bring about social or political change." This involves advocacy that brings awareness to an issue and often speaking on behalf of groups that are pushing for change in government or other societal institutions. A lot of times when we hear someone described as an activist, we have a negative connotation. We think of them as radicals, speaking and acting irrationally to evoke anger in people and blowing issues out of proportion.
At least that's the case during a social movement...not always afterwards. Because when you think about it no one says Martin Luther King Jr., a civil rights/human rights activist, isn't thought of today as being "too radical". The protests, sit-ins, and boycotts organized in the 1960s to advocate for civil rights were just as much forms of activism as the protests in Ferguson are. But the difference now is that we have different outlets and tools to be activists. Online activists.
Social media, like Twitter, is accessible to A LOT of people and allows for an individual, a group, or organization to communicate with a mass audience, spreading their messages far and wide to people around the globe. Without social media, organizations could not connect with similar-minded people for support outside of their physical surroundings, spread a reactionary alternative reading of dominant culture and ideology and current events, or even raise awareness, funds, and organize events.
But does tweeting out your opinion on Ferguson really make you as much of an activist as someone who marched on Washington with Dr. King in 1963? Does sharing articles about racist cops make you as much of an advocate for change as black students who sat at the lunch counters in Greensboro? According to Malcolm Gladwell, an author and journalist for the New Yorker, in his article "Small Change" the answer is no. He argues this because social media is so much less risky, to put it so simply. Tweeting out your opinion doesn't really put your life in danger like marching through the streets among people who literally hate you're doing would. The most risk you face when sharing a controversial opinion is an unfollow or fight in the comment section of your Facebook status.
Although this is a fair point, it is foolish to ignore the amount of power social media wields in modern social movements. Even if it may not be as risky and physically demanding, it is by no means worthless. When examining the events in Ferguson, it is clear that Twitter actually jumped on the story of Mike Brown before major news networks did, according to the Pew Research Center.
(http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/08/20/cable-twitter-picked-up-ferguson-story-at-a-similar-clip/)
Tweeters were active in not only discussing what had happened in Ferguson, but why it was happening and the implications of it...what does this show about racism in the U.S.? Why are people defending the white cop? Why are people labeling Mike Brown as a criminal who got what he deserved rather than an 18 year old victim of homicide? The conversation on social media outlets has been non-stop. Hashtags such as #Ferguson an #IfTheyShotMeDown assisted in spreading awareness about the prominence of racism in America at a time where we have believed ourselves to be a color-blind society. The speed of Twitter and its ease of use is key in putting something out there for people to read, acknowledge, and spread themselves to their followers.
Therefore, despite allegations that social media is only good for "slacktivism" (lazy wannabe activism), I believe its been key in a lot of social movements. Twitter especially is a platform for people to bring awareness to events in society we need to be talking about and spreading ideas that need to be nurtured and supported. Social media allows movements to grow in size. It plants the seed of thought. That thought sparks action. And the only way we can ever achieve change is though action.
I also hope that you have been keeping up with the news lately. Specifically the social unrest in our country over the tragic deaths of Mike Brown, Eric Garner, and Tamir Rice that have brought attention to the growing tension between the police force and the black communities. If you are active on social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook, you've most likely kept up with these events mostly through these media sites, exposed to articles and opinions about police brutality and racism shared by friends/acquaintances/that one girl you talked to once in high school.
Regardless of how you feel about the protests in Ferguson, the police, or even if you admit institutionalized racism still exists, what matters is that when you see these articles you're witnessing activism. More specifically online activism.
But what is activism? The formal definition is "an intentional action to bring about social or political change." This involves advocacy that brings awareness to an issue and often speaking on behalf of groups that are pushing for change in government or other societal institutions. A lot of times when we hear someone described as an activist, we have a negative connotation. We think of them as radicals, speaking and acting irrationally to evoke anger in people and blowing issues out of proportion.
At least that's the case during a social movement...not always afterwards. Because when you think about it no one says Martin Luther King Jr., a civil rights/human rights activist, isn't thought of today as being "too radical". The protests, sit-ins, and boycotts organized in the 1960s to advocate for civil rights were just as much forms of activism as the protests in Ferguson are. But the difference now is that we have different outlets and tools to be activists. Online activists.
Social media, like Twitter, is accessible to A LOT of people and allows for an individual, a group, or organization to communicate with a mass audience, spreading their messages far and wide to people around the globe. Without social media, organizations could not connect with similar-minded people for support outside of their physical surroundings, spread a reactionary alternative reading of dominant culture and ideology and current events, or even raise awareness, funds, and organize events.
But does tweeting out your opinion on Ferguson really make you as much of an activist as someone who marched on Washington with Dr. King in 1963? Does sharing articles about racist cops make you as much of an advocate for change as black students who sat at the lunch counters in Greensboro? According to Malcolm Gladwell, an author and journalist for the New Yorker, in his article "Small Change" the answer is no. He argues this because social media is so much less risky, to put it so simply. Tweeting out your opinion doesn't really put your life in danger like marching through the streets among people who literally hate you're doing would. The most risk you face when sharing a controversial opinion is an unfollow or fight in the comment section of your Facebook status.
Although this is a fair point, it is foolish to ignore the amount of power social media wields in modern social movements. Even if it may not be as risky and physically demanding, it is by no means worthless. When examining the events in Ferguson, it is clear that Twitter actually jumped on the story of Mike Brown before major news networks did, according to the Pew Research Center.
(http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/08/20/cable-twitter-picked-up-ferguson-story-at-a-similar-clip/)
Tweeters were active in not only discussing what had happened in Ferguson, but why it was happening and the implications of it...what does this show about racism in the U.S.? Why are people defending the white cop? Why are people labeling Mike Brown as a criminal who got what he deserved rather than an 18 year old victim of homicide? The conversation on social media outlets has been non-stop. Hashtags such as #Ferguson an #IfTheyShotMeDown assisted in spreading awareness about the prominence of racism in America at a time where we have believed ourselves to be a color-blind society. The speed of Twitter and its ease of use is key in putting something out there for people to read, acknowledge, and spread themselves to their followers.
Therefore, despite allegations that social media is only good for "slacktivism" (lazy wannabe activism), I believe its been key in a lot of social movements. Twitter especially is a platform for people to bring awareness to events in society we need to be talking about and spreading ideas that need to be nurtured and supported. Social media allows movements to grow in size. It plants the seed of thought. That thought sparks action. And the only way we can ever achieve change is though action.
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Why Kim Kardashian (and her booty) is a Gift to Social Media Sites and Societal Conversations
Twitter. Facebook. Instagram. Tumblr.
How many of us have a love-hate relationship with our social media outlets? I know I do.
I've deleted my Facebook numerous times out of frustration of friends oversharing, spam, and creepy friend requests. However, every time I delete it...I miss it after a while. And, finally, I came to the conclusion that Facebook, even with all its petty annoyances, does more good than harm for me as someone who aspires to work in the media, or at least very closely with it, when I graduate college.
Although some of us may believe the only benefit to social networking is to keep tabs on ex-loves and that cute classmate from freshman year, the truth is most people actually use social media sites to see breaking news (this is why journalists love it), share their interests and hobbies (ding ding ding advertisers!) and, my personal favorite, use it as a platform for resistance discourse.
What is resistance discourse you ask? Well, I'm glad you asked dear reader! Let me explain this fancy term for something we all do every day with an example.
Remember a couple weeks ago when Kim Kardashian tried to break the internet? If you don't let me expose your eyes to a censored version of the image you'll never be able to forget. You're welcome.
This was Paper Magazine's winter cover, and in the actual photo (the uncropped version) the most famous Kardashian sister exposes her even more famous derriere in an EXTREMELY photo-shopped picture. The cover also claimed to have a goal of "breaking the internet", a term we've used recently to describe newsworthy events that generate so much views and/or controversy that the general public of internet users basically blows it way out of proportion. This Kardashian stunt did exactly that. But...maybe not in the way Kim Kardashian expected.
As maybe with most other people, I heard about this on social media. And if I had a dollar for every opinion about it that's popped up about on my Twitter timeline, Facebook newsfeed, and even my Tumblr dash, I'd have enough money to pay for a semester of college tuition.
But why does this matter? It's a stupid publicity stunt by a stupid celebrity we made famous for no reason, right? Well, dear reader, once again I'm so glad you asked!
Actually, whether you like Kim Kardashian or not (if you take the latter opinion I can relate...) this whole public freak out about this most recent photo shoot is the perfect example of how we use social media to put our opinions of popular culture out there in the internet universe for everyone to agree or disagree with. Thus, the platform for resistance discourse is born and we learn a lot about what society thinks of certain events. These events (like a naked celebrity photo shoot) may not seem important...but reactions and opinions of people talking about it actually allow us to gauge where our society stands on issues like feminism, motherhood, and even in this case, sexual expression.
A lot of the criticism for these photos has been aimed at the fact Kim K. is a mother now, and thus, apparently that means she no longer is a sexual being or allowed to display her body. One of the other big issues people have with Kim K.'s photos are that they seem to be very racially offensive, imitating those of old photos mocking black women's curvaceous bodies with the fact her butt is big enough to hold and balance a champagne glass on it.
But for as much criticism of the cover as there has been, there's also been plenty of fun, less intense, mockery with memes and impersonations by average Tweeters and celebrities alike. Chelsea Handler, for one took to Instagram to point out how ridiculously photo-shopped Kim Karashian's body is by posting pictures of her own, unfiltered buttocks, stretch marks, tanlines and all.
Kim K. has also become the "butt" (haha see what I did there?) of altered and hilarious memes.
(Google them for some fun.)
So when you start to loose all hope with social media, and the way it makes stupid people famous, stop and think about how it also is used as a tool to MOCK those stupid people we're making famous. How it criticizes events we SHOULD be criticizing as a society, and how useful it is as a platform to talk about our thoughts about society with other people we may not have come in contact with otherwise.
How many of us have a love-hate relationship with our social media outlets? I know I do.
I've deleted my Facebook numerous times out of frustration of friends oversharing, spam, and creepy friend requests. However, every time I delete it...I miss it after a while. And, finally, I came to the conclusion that Facebook, even with all its petty annoyances, does more good than harm for me as someone who aspires to work in the media, or at least very closely with it, when I graduate college.
Although some of us may believe the only benefit to social networking is to keep tabs on ex-loves and that cute classmate from freshman year, the truth is most people actually use social media sites to see breaking news (this is why journalists love it), share their interests and hobbies (ding ding ding advertisers!) and, my personal favorite, use it as a platform for resistance discourse.
What is resistance discourse you ask? Well, I'm glad you asked dear reader! Let me explain this fancy term for something we all do every day with an example.
Remember a couple weeks ago when Kim Kardashian tried to break the internet? If you don't let me expose your eyes to a censored version of the image you'll never be able to forget. You're welcome.
This was Paper Magazine's winter cover, and in the actual photo (the uncropped version) the most famous Kardashian sister exposes her even more famous derriere in an EXTREMELY photo-shopped picture. The cover also claimed to have a goal of "breaking the internet", a term we've used recently to describe newsworthy events that generate so much views and/or controversy that the general public of internet users basically blows it way out of proportion. This Kardashian stunt did exactly that. But...maybe not in the way Kim Kardashian expected.
As maybe with most other people, I heard about this on social media. And if I had a dollar for every opinion about it that's popped up about on my Twitter timeline, Facebook newsfeed, and even my Tumblr dash, I'd have enough money to pay for a semester of college tuition.
But why does this matter? It's a stupid publicity stunt by a stupid celebrity we made famous for no reason, right? Well, dear reader, once again I'm so glad you asked!
Actually, whether you like Kim Kardashian or not (if you take the latter opinion I can relate...) this whole public freak out about this most recent photo shoot is the perfect example of how we use social media to put our opinions of popular culture out there in the internet universe for everyone to agree or disagree with. Thus, the platform for resistance discourse is born and we learn a lot about what society thinks of certain events. These events (like a naked celebrity photo shoot) may not seem important...but reactions and opinions of people talking about it actually allow us to gauge where our society stands on issues like feminism, motherhood, and even in this case, sexual expression.
A lot of the criticism for these photos has been aimed at the fact Kim K. is a mother now, and thus, apparently that means she no longer is a sexual being or allowed to display her body. One of the other big issues people have with Kim K.'s photos are that they seem to be very racially offensive, imitating those of old photos mocking black women's curvaceous bodies with the fact her butt is big enough to hold and balance a champagne glass on it.
But for as much criticism of the cover as there has been, there's also been plenty of fun, less intense, mockery with memes and impersonations by average Tweeters and celebrities alike. Chelsea Handler, for one took to Instagram to point out how ridiculously photo-shopped Kim Karashian's body is by posting pictures of her own, unfiltered buttocks, stretch marks, tanlines and all.
Kim K. has also become the "butt" (haha see what I did there?) of altered and hilarious memes.
(Google them for some fun.)
So when you start to loose all hope with social media, and the way it makes stupid people famous, stop and think about how it also is used as a tool to MOCK those stupid people we're making famous. How it criticizes events we SHOULD be criticizing as a society, and how useful it is as a platform to talk about our thoughts about society with other people we may not have come in contact with otherwise.
Sunday, November 16, 2014
A Costume Can Be Distasteful AND Racist...But it Really Shouldn't Be Either
Halloween was not too long ago...but time is moving fast and it already seems as though it was months ago as we prepare for upcoming holiday season.
As I'm sure many of us were witness to not just this Halloween, but every Halloween, is the unspoken rule that somehow the more offensive a costume, the better. This celebration of costumes and candy (and sometimes alcoholic beverages, if you're of age of course) sometimes brings out the best as well as the worst of people. Particularly when it comes to costumes.
This year I saw more than my fair share of sexy nurses and adult babies (always a weird choice), yet what I really noticed this year that I hadn't before was all the offensive racial/cultural costumes such as "Indians" (Native Americans), geishas, Egyptians, and the like. Although these costumes are often adorable and not worn with cruel intent of mockery, it may certainly be taken that way by those who belong to the culture one is simply dressing up as for one night of the week.
Offensive stereotype costumes, therefore, fall into a problematic place and may even be labeled as taking place in cultural appropriation. Cultural appropriation, in its simplest definition, is taking an act, physical appearance, and/or even the language and dialectic of a minority group without real permission or understanding of what one of the aforementioned might mean and portraying in such a way that seems tasteless and even harmful to the cultural group its supposed to be representing.
One celebrity contantly under fire for being a cultural appropriator is Katy Perry. Now, I'm going to admit my bias here...I am a HUGE fan of Katy Perry. I think she's gorgeous and talented and, well I could go on for days about her awesomeness. However, that being said, the singer has made some not-so-great choices in performance themes in the past few years, and people have definitely noticed.
A couple incidents that come to mind of this are in her "Dark Horse" video, where she dresses up in stereotypical "Egyptian" costume and dances with black mummies with rather large backsides
A live performance that gained a lot of criticism was Perry's American Music Awards performance of "Unconditionally". The performance was "inspired by Japanese culture" yet only really focused on geisha costumes and cherry blossoms. Perry came under fire for using a stereotype that represents a very tiny portion of Japanese culture for entertainment reasons, a sure sign of cultural appropriation and exploiting a part of a culture that wasn't her own to enhance her stage act.
So, be aware of cultural appropriation. Knowing it is actually a thing helps avoid offending minority groups and keeps you from perpetuating problematic stereotypes.
Basically, but the sombrero away for Halloween. Dress up as a super hero next year instead.
*Pictures and quote from http://mic.com/articles/95444/5-reasons-katy-perry-is-pop-music-s-worst-cultural-appropriator
As I'm sure many of us were witness to not just this Halloween, but every Halloween, is the unspoken rule that somehow the more offensive a costume, the better. This celebration of costumes and candy (and sometimes alcoholic beverages, if you're of age of course) sometimes brings out the best as well as the worst of people. Particularly when it comes to costumes.
This year I saw more than my fair share of sexy nurses and adult babies (always a weird choice), yet what I really noticed this year that I hadn't before was all the offensive racial/cultural costumes such as "Indians" (Native Americans), geishas, Egyptians, and the like. Although these costumes are often adorable and not worn with cruel intent of mockery, it may certainly be taken that way by those who belong to the culture one is simply dressing up as for one night of the week.
Offensive stereotype costumes, therefore, fall into a problematic place and may even be labeled as taking place in cultural appropriation. Cultural appropriation, in its simplest definition, is taking an act, physical appearance, and/or even the language and dialectic of a minority group without real permission or understanding of what one of the aforementioned might mean and portraying in such a way that seems tasteless and even harmful to the cultural group its supposed to be representing.
One celebrity contantly under fire for being a cultural appropriator is Katy Perry. Now, I'm going to admit my bias here...I am a HUGE fan of Katy Perry. I think she's gorgeous and talented and, well I could go on for days about her awesomeness. However, that being said, the singer has made some not-so-great choices in performance themes in the past few years, and people have definitely noticed.
A couple incidents that come to mind of this are in her "Dark Horse" video, where she dresses up in stereotypical "Egyptian" costume and dances with black mummies with rather large backsides
A live performance that gained a lot of criticism was Perry's American Music Awards performance of "Unconditionally". The performance was "inspired by Japanese culture" yet only really focused on geisha costumes and cherry blossoms. Perry came under fire for using a stereotype that represents a very tiny portion of Japanese culture for entertainment reasons, a sure sign of cultural appropriation and exploiting a part of a culture that wasn't her own to enhance her stage act.
"Between the lack of Asian women on stage, the heavy-handed use of bowing and shuffling around in the choreography, and the ethno-confused set and costume design, Perry presented her viewers a one-dimensional Eastern fantasy drawn by a Western eye right out of the gate," wrote Mic contributor Phyllis Heitjan at the time. Heitjan, who is half-Korean. "Perry's 'geisha' get up is a flat, inaccurate, sexualized identity that has nothing to do with Asian cultures," she said.
As mentioned earlier, sometimes this isn't done (at least I hope not) maliciously, but when someone wears culturally-specific clothing without knowing the cultural significance behind it, it can be taken as perpetuating a stereotype. Furthermore, participating in cultural practices without taking the social responsibility to state it is not the whole culture being represented is important. When one DOES obtain permission from those inside the referenced cultural group to convey this part of their culture to an outside audience for them, it is critical to actually understand where this part of the culture comes from and that one genuinely wants to know about it...rather than just using it as a homage to a foreign, exotic land.So, be aware of cultural appropriation. Knowing it is actually a thing helps avoid offending minority groups and keeps you from perpetuating problematic stereotypes.
Basically, but the sombrero away for Halloween. Dress up as a super hero next year instead.
*Pictures and quote from http://mic.com/articles/95444/5-reasons-katy-perry-is-pop-music-s-worst-cultural-appropriator
Axe: Objectifying Women for the Sake of Selling Body Spray
Have you ever had that moment where you're sitting watching TV with your family and a super awkward commercial comes on? I'm talking about watching the Broncos game with your dad and a Viagra commercial comes on kind of awkward.
Well, personally, that's how I feel whenever an Axe commercial comes on. I'm uncomfortable when an Axe advertisement comes on my screen when I'm by myself...but it's even worse when there's men and boys in the room with me.
In case you aren't familiar with Axe commercials, they basically all have the same premise involving a heterosexual male (most often white) becoming more appealing to women with the use of the product, whether it be hair care, deodorant, or body spray.
Although it has used different story lines in its ads over the years, Axe always plays on the assumption that women are possessions to be gained and achieve status. Women are there for men's pleasure and self-confidence. Even an average looking man with an average body becomes irresistible to the sexiest women when he wears Axe.
I won't explain every little sexist detail I find in Axe commercials, only because that is not the goal of this post. It's true that as a woman, I find such advertisements offensive, uncomfortable, and alarming on behalf of females everywhere. However, it doesn't really matter what I think about these ads, because I'm not the target audience for Axe...I'm not the one buying the products.
Based on the products sold and the content of the commercials, Axe targets 18-24 year old heterosexual males. Since this is a very prominent group in society, I think it's safe to say Axe is not concerned with multicultural advertising. If it was, these commercials would appeal to non-white minorities and women.
Axe crafts its marketing messages based on the audience it is trying to sell its products to. The company uses language and cultural references/awareness of the way things are to sell not just a product, but also assimilation to cultural norms that can only be achieved using Axe.
In this specific case, the norm Axe is promoting is a heterosexual male desire to attract women (potential sexual partners). But the way Axe does this is through images and language that integrate the target audience's desire to be desired. Playing on the cultural belief that men must attract women, and attempting to exploit insecurities of men that they may not be attractive enough to females.
So Axe commercials and advertisements may be offensive and distasteful to a part of the female population that feels objectified by them...but to Axe that doesn't completely matter because its not looking for approval of a multicultural audience anyways.
Well, personally, that's how I feel whenever an Axe commercial comes on. I'm uncomfortable when an Axe advertisement comes on my screen when I'm by myself...but it's even worse when there's men and boys in the room with me.
In case you aren't familiar with Axe commercials, they basically all have the same premise involving a heterosexual male (most often white) becoming more appealing to women with the use of the product, whether it be hair care, deodorant, or body spray.
Although it has used different story lines in its ads over the years, Axe always plays on the assumption that women are possessions to be gained and achieve status. Women are there for men's pleasure and self-confidence. Even an average looking man with an average body becomes irresistible to the sexiest women when he wears Axe.
I won't explain every little sexist detail I find in Axe commercials, only because that is not the goal of this post. It's true that as a woman, I find such advertisements offensive, uncomfortable, and alarming on behalf of females everywhere. However, it doesn't really matter what I think about these ads, because I'm not the target audience for Axe...I'm not the one buying the products.
Based on the products sold and the content of the commercials, Axe targets 18-24 year old heterosexual males. Since this is a very prominent group in society, I think it's safe to say Axe is not concerned with multicultural advertising. If it was, these commercials would appeal to non-white minorities and women.
Axe crafts its marketing messages based on the audience it is trying to sell its products to. The company uses language and cultural references/awareness of the way things are to sell not just a product, but also assimilation to cultural norms that can only be achieved using Axe.
In this specific case, the norm Axe is promoting is a heterosexual male desire to attract women (potential sexual partners). But the way Axe does this is through images and language that integrate the target audience's desire to be desired. Playing on the cultural belief that men must attract women, and attempting to exploit insecurities of men that they may not be attractive enough to females.
So Axe commercials and advertisements may be offensive and distasteful to a part of the female population that feels objectified by them...but to Axe that doesn't completely matter because its not looking for approval of a multicultural audience anyways.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)