Sex Object
Background: Barbara Trees’ research suggests that pornography involves multiple levels of oppression and violence (1997c). Dworkin’s global understanding of the problems with pornography sets a clear agenda for agents of change working for a free gender society. Trees’ work illustrates the profound levels in which pornography works to attack the social fabric of society, even outside the realms of sexuality. Her indication is that the mere presence of pornographic materials in the workplace, in her case the construction trades, allows males to force females out of the industry. Donnerstein and Linz’ analysis of different types of pornography and negative depictions of women may surprise some individuals who believe that only extremely violent and sexual depictions of women, such as smut films or Hustler type magazines, cause an increase of violence against women (1997d). In fact their study indicates that exposure to media depicting women in degrading and subordinate situations, even if not explicitly sexual or violent in nature, will lead to increased violent behavior of men against women in society. The Ads: The following ads all share one thing in common-they view women as base, without any meaning other than a sexual one. Consider just one ad, number 61, and focus on the dehumanization related to the imagery and context of the ad. Would anyone want her or his daughter or son represented as the women are in ad 61? If you can answer no to this question, consider joining the fight against sexism in popular culture. Discussion Questions: (1) What are the political and social reasons for the fact that women are commonly depicted as sex objects in advertising? (2) Why is it that some men (and women) view the sexualization of women as all right? What must be done to convince people that the sexualization of women has negative consequences for all of us? (3) What types of ads use sexualization in their imagery? Are there common themes of this sexualization?
