The college campus is no doubt a progressive environment. Of all places, UF probably would not suffer from an issue like gender discrimination.
However, is this completely true?
Is it possible there are socially constructed restrictions on each gender, even on a socially progressive college campus?
I believe one of the most influential contributors to social behavior is advertisement in the media.
It is no surprise that the media affects public perception.
However, it tends to be a shock to some that advertisements affect what we perceive as normal.
Most people think they tune out advertisements, but the reality is, subconsciously or not, advertisements ingrain in us what we are supposed to believe is the ideal representation of beauty or normalcy.
Jean Kilbourne, an author and filmmaker, explores the consequences of girls being taught at a young age that the most important thing is appearance.
In her documentary “Killing Us Softly,” she speaks about how failure to look the way models in advertisements do is both inevitable and psychologically harmful.
Advertisements define what is normal and therefore what is feminine: to be beautiful, young and thin.
Advertisements very often sexually objectify women by turning them into the product they want to sell. Lately, there has been an objectification of men as well, but the effects are very different.
When women are sexually objectified, their body language portrays submissiveness, weakness and sexual availability. Men are usually portrayed as strong and powerful. So what are the consequences of this?
Through advertisements, the media teaches us that men always have to be dominant. There are some disturbing advertisements depicting gang rape, such as a Dolce & Gabbana ad of a woman laying down in a bathing suit, a shirtless man holding her down, with several other men watching. Some advertisements even depict sexual battery.
Do advertisers want us to think this is the norm in our society?
The creators of ads probably did not intend this, but they are nevertheless perpetuating it. Sexual objectification leads to “a trivialization of sex,” as termed by Kilbourne. Objectifying human beings leads to a lack of respect toward them. The evidence for this can be found in “slut-shaming.”
Constantly, we are judging women by what they wear, as if they had some ulterior motive. How many times have you seen fellow peers walking at Midtown with a short skirt and had the word “slut” come to mind?
There is a very negative connotation to the word slut because it implies the woman fits the archetype of a sexual temptress and her main goal is to seduce men.
And, of course, as implied by advertisements selling a perfume, men will not be able to control themselves when seeing this woman. Because masculinity is often associated with violence and promiscuity, it is almost as if we are condoning these behaviors.
There is a “boys will be boys” mentality whenever a man gets into a fight or inappropriately comments on a woman’s sex appeal. This can be seen in action movies with a hyper-masculine male, television shows and ads.
Ultimately, this perception leads to a society that accepts rape. Too often, women who have been raped are asked what they were wearing, how much they were drinking or if they “led the man on.”
Too often, we wrongfully blame the victim instead of the rapist. The disappointing part is that it has a lot to do with this idea of “slut-shaming,” of making women feel guilty for tempting men with their outfits, while pardoning the men for “just being men.”
This is the reason why sexual assaults are so rarely reported. Most victims of rape feel ashamed, as if it was somehow their fault.
I am aware I focused on the influence of advertisements in this article, but there are many other things that affect our perception of gender.
I believe these issues need to be addressed or there will never be progress.
Patricia de la Cabada is a biology and anthropology junior at UF. You can contact her via opinions@alligator.org.
