Gendered images, the history of marriage and bromance

[greenie_breizh]

A couple of serious links for tonight:

Jean Kilbourne's Killing Us Softly 3 about images of women in advertising - it's worth watching even if there are no groundbreaking points that are being made in there, and there's some funny. :)

The one quote I really liked was one when Jean was talking about the fact there's been a rise recently in images that objectify men, as well. And how sometimes that's used to say, look, men are treated just as badly as women.

The problem? Apart from the fact it doesn't happen with as much frequency, it is that the structure doesn't work the same for men and women. "There are no consequences to men for being objectified." The images that we circulate that perpetuate an image of masculinity as necessarily violent and unemotional have much more power, and are much more dangerous.

--

An interesting post, An exegesis on same-sex marriage, in particularly because it goes over the history of marriage as an institution.

--

And I'll throw a lighter link in there, Nathan Fillion and Joss Whedon being adorable together. RL bromance FTW. :D

Comments

[greenie-breizh.livejournal.com]

I get the idea that the working/operational definition for a perpetrator of violence here was someone who gives a blow to someone else. Is that not concrete enough, and if not, why?

The scientific method means those numbers have been obtained using control groups and controlling for all kinds of aspects (I would assume that means gender, obviously, age, race, sexuality, ability). How is that not rational and/or truth?

(I'm mostly asking because I'd just like to understand more about what you're saying.)