he media reduces women to a collection of body parts through pornography.” (Christensen, 74) But why then are their no complaints of advertisements in magazines displaying only ears, for example, or a nose, or feet? The reason is a simple one; society considers certain body parts to be “shameful” or disgusting and once again, the media can be “let off the hook”.Realistically, the only way to prevent women from being seen as sex objects is for them to be seen as other things as well; but to say that “women are not sexual beings would be misleading because both men and women are very much sexual.” (Hawkins, 42) Similarly, to say that women are “singled out in the media is misleading due to the many examples of media where men are seen catering to the needs of women; something known as chivalric sexism.” (Howitt, 73) Take, for instance, a recent television advertisement portraying young men groveling at the feet of supermodel Tyra Banks, almost begging to be the “one” to cater to her needs. There were no lineups of men aching to announce their displeasure with the sexist ad; and this is precisely why male stereotyping in the media often goes unnoticed. Similarly, it is pornography in the media that is noticed and shunned by anti-pornographic and censorship organizations because it seemingly singles out females for their bodies. It should be well noted, however, that paperback romance novels, which make up an incredible 40% of total paperback sales (Malamuth, 15), depicts males as sexual objects, performing what is called “Sweet Savagery” (rape), just as pornography depicts females as sexual objects. But once again, this goes unnoticed. It is fundamentally important to realize that “the media does not deliberately create images of hate or disagreement.” (Howitt, 80) They just influence the more appealing things in society (thus directly incre...
