Originally Posted at WomenUndefined.Com
Hey Women's Studies majors, no need to take those extra sociology courses - If you watched last night's Super Bowl and the accompanying advertisements, you're an expert in sexism and misogyny!
You can now say with confidence and pride: "I aced Sexism and Misogyny in Society 101". Well, you can only say that if you didn't break your TV after the whole shibang was said and done, no doubt some of us failed the course, myself included.
If you haven't taken this course or are interested in applying please see course features, prerequisite requirements and goals of the course below.
The cost of this course is monetarily free (cost upon society unquantifiable and unaccountably negative-for certain reverberating for generations, as the course will be reenacted every day.)
The Time and Date of Course: Super Bowl 44 - but if you missed it, there will be another Super Bowl next February!
Course Features : Reified notions of gender, race, class and sex. Dehumanization through sexualization of women to sell a product. Reassurance of masculinity and power, perpetuated notions that these "values" have been lost in recent years. Objectification of minorities and women. Displaying the paternal complex between a hetero-normative couple and even a scripted 30 second short film on how to be a heterosexual, hetero-normative , man and woman in our society! (Such a cute wedding and birth scene... )
Prerequisites for the course include owning a television (over 90% of America qualifies!) , being born (or having a mother like Tim Tebow's , who chose life!) and possessing the ability to use all of ones senses (ie: hear, see, smell etc.) No further requirements are necessary, although most people will either be unaware of their presence in class or not care about the content.
Intended goals of the course are to display how sexist our society is and portray mass media's (owned by a scant 8 corporations) role in reifying notions of gender and class.
What you will gain : nothing
Okay, maybe not "nothing" (I am being dramatic again). Students will gain the reaffirmation that sexism, misogyny and gender constructs/norms are alive and well in society. That the content viewed in advertisements during the Super Bowl are deemed acceptable by mass media and society in general. That advertisements for Gay Dating Websites are denied for being too "scandalous" while GoDaddy.Com can buy 6 spots all featuring a woman ripping her shirt off- literally. That it is okay to use lines such as "take your skirt off, man" to convey the reclaiming of one's masculinity, even though dehumanizing women are completely trashed in the process.
Legal Disclaimer: Participants in course may obtain a "passing grade" ,but if you are a Super Bowl ad buyer- you receive an automatic F.
Sophia | Twitter: @sophiabiabia | sophiabiabia@gmail.com
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Super Bowl 44: Sexism and Misogyny in Society 101.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/18205
Yes, but will there be a midterm?
Entertaining and true, except for the ableism inherent in listing as a prerequisite "the ability to use *all* one's senses". The visually impaired can listen and have described to them what they can't see. The hearing impaired can watch, and read transcripts or closed captioning. But by listing it as you did, you excluded and Othered these people. Not cool.
There is no ableism there.
Obviously using all of one's senses means, of course, using the ones that the person has, be they just hearing, sight, ect.
If anything, I think you were being albeist by posting that the hearing impaired can watch and read transcripts. What if they're blind as well?
Sometimes, I think people sift through these community posts with a fine toothed comb, and just try to find some thing to go all "language-police" about.
In this case, it just borders on ridiculous.
lol I agree, I'm not very politicially correct. I was just responding to the language police if anything.
They're on the level of people who're all over your shit if you use "lame" or "dumb".
That's nice that you don't have to worry about ableism. However, those of us who do have disabilites- or simply care about people who do- do worry about oppressive language and how it marginalizes people. Particularly on a feminist site, I think it's pretty important to consider intersectionality and oppression.
It's awful nice of you to assume that we don't have to deal with it.
Frankly, if you give a damn about marginalized groups other than *just* (white, cis, currently-abled, straight, etc.) women, you don't *have* to go over things with a fine-toothed comb. Shit like this jumps out at you. For me, I read this in my Reader feed, and that one sentence jarred me out of my enjoyment of the piece. At which point, the question wasn't whether it was offensive or not. It was simply whether I was going to come say something, and face people like you and the others whining about the "language police", or whether I was going to stay silent and let it pass unchallenged.
Out of curiosity, has it occurred to you, or anyone else who agrees with you for that matter, that your dismissive "you just look for things to get offended by" is TEXTBOOK derailing, and is exactly the same thing that MRA trolls and misogynists often do to feminists - ie, "Oh, that's not sexist. God, you just LOOK for things to get offended by, don't you?" Does it give you pause to realize you're turning around and doing the exact same thing to other marginalized groups? I'm genuinely curious.
Yes, I agree totally on the ableism. I wish people would think about things like that.
Community Moderator here. Lame is actually an offensive word: http://disabledfeminists.com/2009/10/12/ableist-word-profile-lame/
We try to create a safe space here at Feministing and that means calling out offensive language. It might seem like fine-tooth combing, but just because you don't find something offensive doesn't mean someone else doesn't.
- Anna
Thank you so much for this=)