Natasha's Blogs

After watching and reviewing this interesting advertisement released by Gillette multiple times, it has become clear to me as to why men all over the world are taking offence to this. When Gillette first released the advertisement, they had positive intentions at heart but did not think of what possibly could go wrong. Gillette had one interpretation of the message they were trying to get through to their audience and in the process of communicating there was a massive misunderstanding. Men from a variety of cultures took an extreme amount of offence to this. I believe there are different things in the advertisement that stood out of different men, each man had his own motive for disliking the ad.  The advertisement stretched its message too far outside the boundaries of its cultural context according to some males expressing their thoughts in the comment section of the video.  Men are saying that Gillette is promoting the wrong images for young boys to follow. In t...

Looking at this print advertisement, the audience for it could potentially be parents who have a toddler(s) between the ages 1 and 3. The image is an advertisement for the company Lezita, who sells frozen meat products. We can tell that the advertisers are directing the product to parents, as the reference "Here comes the car!" is something a mother or father would say to their child when they want to feed them, (hence the fact that the "tunnel" is a child's mouth)It is possible that the advertisers looked to target parents who have sons as they reference a car in the advertisement and usually it is boys that like cars more than girls. This shows potential gender stereotyping within the advertisement. The phrase on the bottom left reads "Car shaped chicken nuggets for kids.", this could suggest that the advertisers directed the ad at parents regardless of the gender of their child. An image of the product is also provided in the bottom left corner of...

Do you think that advertisers have a moral duty to avoid stereotyping people? No matter what an advertisement is about and how they are trying to sell or promote the product, someone in the world will always take offence to it. If the ad has an Asian boy holding a piece of paper that says "A+", there is a chance the Western community would think that this paper would make their child smarter whereas the Asian community might take offence to it as it gives them expectations to fill. The advertisement "Like a Girl" by Always has a broad audience, and all these people watching it could see the ad delivering a different message each time. For women or girls, they could see the advertisement delivering a message of empowerment and showing how to stand up to bullies who believe that "Like a girl" is an insult. For boys or men who watch the advertisement, may think that the advertisement was directed at them for "mocking" and using the phrase "L...

Advertisement 1: In this poster, it is clear to see the stereotypical gender advertisement differences. Even though the ad looks almost exactly the same, as both the male and female are dressed in formal clothes, both are holding sandwiches in their hands and both posters have the same big slogan on the front, there are major differences. First of all, the sandwich the woman is holding the significantly smaller than what the male is holding in his hand. Below the big letters on the male poster, there are smaller letters stating that "It's the SMART thing to do", whereas on the woman's poster it says "It's a PRETTY quick thing to do". Both are trying to deliver the same message of preventing the public from littering but using different words to express their concern. Both the posters are targeted at both females and males but the female poster is possibly targeting the opposite gender, as she has her hair all done professionally, is wearing red lipst...

By looking at criterion A in the rubric, it is asking whether the analysis shows understanding of the text. I believe I showed a good understanding of the text, but I could have been more clear in my writing regarding as to how I explained my understanding of the text. For criterion B, I only showed adequate awareness of the stylistic features and their effects on the text. I mentioned only some of the stylistic features but did not explain them to a fuller extent. My style and structure paragraph was very brief and needed more developing. In relation to criterion C, I had some organization in my paper. I had a lot of ideas on what to write on my paper one -with relation to the text given- but I did not organize and plan my writing properly beforehand causing the organization to be confusing and not easy to follow. My explanations were also very simple and there was little development of the argument. I believe that the language used in the text could have been better. In relation to...

Choose one of the following prompts and write a personal response that explores this idea on your blog.  Your response should indicate your personal impression in conjunction with specific references to the reading. 2-What did medieval linguist Antonio de Nebrija mean when he told Queen Isabella that:  “language is the perfect instrument of empire?”  How has language contributed to colonial power? Focus on a specific example In the article "Speaking In Tongues" the main topic is how languages have evolved over time. The author, James Geary, makes it clear as to how language help can build an empire. He mentions the medieval linguist Antonio de Nebrija and how he took the first book of grammar, which was published in Spanish, to Queen Isabella of Spain. Antonio de Nebrija told the Queen that "language is the perfect instrument of empire". By this, he meant that when everyone has something particular in common, such as language, they tend to come together. By...