viz.
Visual Rhetoric - Visual Culture - Pedagogy
Site informationRecent Blog Posts
|
Reply to commentReplyYour contribution to the blog: Please Read Before PostingThe viz. blog is a forum for exploring the visual through identifying the connections between theory, rhetorical practice, popular culture, and the classroom. Keeping with this mission, comments on the blog should further discussion in the viz. community by extending (or critiquing) existing analysis, adding new analysis, providing interesting and relevant examples, or by making connections between that topic and theory, rhetoric, culture, or pedagogy. Trolling, spam, and any other messages not related to this purpose will be deleted immediately. Comments by anonymous users will be added to a moderation queue and examined for their relevance before publication. Authenticated users may post comments without moderation, but if those comments do not fit the above description they may be deleted. |
TagsRecent comments
|
I like your interpretation -
I like your interpretation - including some kind of sports equipment would have contextualized these injuries in a way that certainly challenged gender norms. But unfortunately, I don't think that's what they were going for. The product being sold in these ads (sport bras) seems to imply that the women's injuries are caused by out-of-control cleavage - hence, the need for these (better and more containing) support bras. I think that's another reason of what grosses me out so much about these, the idea that women's bodies could cause this kind of battery.