In the media, women are constantly ridiculed or praised based off their appearance, particularly so in films and movies. Male characters, on screen, regularly taunt the “overweight” or “unattractive” woman and applaud the attractively dressed and good looking woman, using words that encourage dressing a certain way, looking a certain way, acting a certain way just to please men. These subliminal messages encourage females, from young girls to grown women to give up who they are to please the other sex. Women have progressed far beyond serving and pleasing men, but when actions such as the aforementioned are propagated through the most invasive form of media, we must reconsider if that is so. In magazines targeted towards young girls or women, articles discussing the enhancement of physical appearance are innumerable and those that focus on the male gaze are not lacking either. The most obvious form of objectification in print is female targeted advertisements that vary in how they “empower” women that also focus on objectifying women to the male gaze. In her piece “Empowerment/Sexism: Figuring Female Sexual Agency in Contemporary Advertising” Rosalind Gill, a British media commentator and feminist, describes an ad for a popular brand of lingerie as so: “ Situated between the breasts is the following slogan: ‘I can’t cook. Who cares?’ – making the point that her voluptuous body is far more important than any other feminine skills or attributes she may or may not possess.” Language as such accentuates and perpetuates the idea that women look good for and desire to please men, but now and since the dawn of time, women have always had a more important role than to lay subservient to men. Language as such is oppressive because it enforces this ideal on women that to be
In the media, women are constantly ridiculed or praised based off their appearance, particularly so in films and movies. Male characters, on screen, regularly taunt the “overweight” or “unattractive” woman and applaud the attractively dressed and good looking woman, using words that encourage dressing a certain way, looking a certain way, acting a certain way just to please men. These subliminal messages encourage females, from young girls to grown women to give up who they are to please the other sex. Women have progressed far beyond serving and pleasing men, but when actions such as the aforementioned are propagated through the most invasive form of media, we must reconsider if that is so. In magazines targeted towards young girls or women, articles discussing the enhancement of physical appearance are innumerable and those that focus on the male gaze are not lacking either. The most obvious form of objectification in print is female targeted advertisements that vary in how they “empower” women that also focus on objectifying women to the male gaze. In her piece “Empowerment/Sexism: Figuring Female Sexual Agency in Contemporary Advertising” Rosalind Gill, a British media commentator and feminist, describes an ad for a popular brand of lingerie as so: “ Situated between the breasts is the following slogan: ‘I can’t cook. Who cares?’ – making the point that her voluptuous body is far more important than any other feminine skills or attributes she may or may not possess.” Language as such accentuates and perpetuates the idea that women look good for and desire to please men, but now and since the dawn of time, women have always had a more important role than to lay subservient to men. Language as such is oppressive because it enforces this ideal on women that to be