Advertisements and Journalistic Images - What Worldview is Being Sold?

Advertisements are often extremely sexist. Advertisers seem to believe that any product will sell better if a women is being sexualized and/or degraded, from clothes to food to beer. Evidence suggests that this is not accurate. Sex does not, in fact, sell (unless the item being sold is sexual in nature). Despite this, advertisers continue to flood the public with images of half naked women holding unrelated products, or suggestive images like the one below.

In this image, hamburgers at Arby's are being sold. Although beef is not something one typical sexualizes, the advertisers chose to place the burgers side by side with a woman's arms covering them as if they are breasts. The tagline reads, "we're about to reveal something to drool over." 

The worldview they are selling here is that women are pieces of meat, and no more valuable than a fast food burger. Women are merely objects to be drooled over. The aim here is clear - they are gearing their argument towards men who may want to enjoy a cheap hamburger with a side of misogyny. It is meant to evoke feels of lust and hunger and men, simultaneously.  

One might believe (or at least hope) that journalistic images are less biased than advertisements. Sadly, this is not always the case. Just as advertisers are trying to sell us products, news sources are trying to sell us one version of the truth.

And unfortunately, news sources can be just as sexist as advertisements - and even more damaging. The New York Post, which is the 7th most widely circulated newspaper in the US, printed the below image of Hillary Clinton, with the accompanying title: "NO WONDER BILL'S AFRAID Hilary explodes with rage at Benghazi hearing." 

This title, and accompanying picture, plays into the narrative that women are irrational, hormonal creatures that the men in our lives must simply learn to deal with. Hilary Clinton's passion about her chosen profession has caused her to be painted as overly emotional, while a man with the same reaction would be respected. This newspaper is suggesting that Bill Clinton, a former president of the United States, if afraid of his wife because she's so "crazy,"as sexists love to deem women. The worldview being sold here is sadly one that no doubt contributed to Clinton's loss in the 2016 presidential election. The media has called her boring, angry, and old. It has commented on her outfits and her appearance, and shamed her for her husband's indiscretions. Despite what many may believe, our country is still extremely sexist, and Hillary Clinton is proof of that.

Political Proposition - Who is Funding and Benefiting

When you take the time to look into propositions and pieces of legislation (and who is donating to them and why) you may find alternative, selfish motives, or logical motives, that nevertheless propel an agenda of the donator forward. 

I looked into California's Proposition 60. Voting "yes" on this prop. meant that voters supported "requiring the use of condoms and other protective measures during the filming of pornographic films, as well as requiring pornography producers to pay for certain health requirements and checkups." Voting no, on the other hand, meant a voter opposed the use of condoms and other safety measures during the filming of pornographic films. 

Surprisingly, "no" won with a 53.67% majority, meaning Prop. 60 was defeated, and porn actors are not required to wear protection or practice sexual health when filming. 

Curious as to why a proposition meant to help adult film workers from disease and have a safe workplace environment would be shut down, I looked into the amount of money given to each side. I was shocked to find that those in support of the prop actually donated far more money, and still lost. ($4,687,830 compared to just $555,354). 

Those who donated in support of the proposition included: Aids Healthcare Foundation and Healthy Los Angeles, a corporations in favor of sexual health. The main contributor against was California Against Worker Harassment, Sponsored by the Free Speech Coalition. 

While the passing of this bill would have reduced state and local tax by several million dollars a year, it would also increase state costs (to a lesser degree) to license and regulate adult film production.

So why did people vote yes on a prop. that would make them pay more in taxes, and increased adult film workers chances of disease? It seems that people feel regulating porn infringes on free speech: 
According to one case: "The measure also required producers of adult films to pay an annual fee to Los Angeles County's Department of Public Health. Vivid Entertainment, a pornography firm, initiated a lawsuit in an attempt to get Measure B overturned. Kayden Kross and Logan Pierce, pornography workers, joined as plaintiffs. Paul Cambria, the plaintiffs' attorney, viewed the initiative as violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. He argued that the measure imposed an unconstitutional restraint on workers' freedom of expression."

This was never the aim of the proposition, according to supporters. Their goal was to hold producers/agents/directors accountable, not performers. But according the the argument against, on voterguide.com, "The proponent wants you to believe this is about worker safety. But this disguises the real impact of the measure: the creation of an unprecedented LAWSUIT BONANZA that will cost taxpayers "millions of dollars" and threatens the safety of performers."

Those against claim that, "The proponent wants you to believe this is about worker safety. But this disguises the real impact of the measure: the creation of an unprecedented LAWSUIT BONANZA that will cost taxpayers "millions of dollars" and threatens the safety of performers."
And perhaps they were correct, because the proposition was not passed, despite having far more funding. 

Sources:

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_60,_Condoms_in_Pornographic_Films_(2016)

http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1356566&session=2015

http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1385139&session=2017

http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/60/arguments-rebuttals.htm

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/09/501405749/condom-mandate-for-porn-industry-falls-short-in-california