Week 3, Chapter 2, Craig

Greetings classmates,

I have chosen to respond to the fourth and final question. Namely, "Why does Craig believe that 'a threat to patriarchy is an economic threat?"

The answer to this question can be found in the conclusion of the article. Here Craig states rather bluntly, "Entire industries (automotive, cosmetics, fashion) are predicated on the assumption that men and women will continue behaving according to their stereotypes," (192). What this means is that if people stop conforming to certain patterns of behavior then they will no longer purchase products marketed in such and such a way as to exploit that behavior.

I agree with the principle of Craig's argument although I strongly disagree with his example. In short, I do not believe that the differences between male and female behavior are purely the result of nurture nor do I believe that patriarchy is synonymous with oppression and evil. I would agree that advertisements tend to exaggerate these differences and perhaps present them in such and such a way that can be unhealthy for society, but in the end I do not believe that the role of nature can be ignored. Even so, it cannot be denied that advertisements have taken these very real differences between men and women and set them up in such and such a way to maximize their company's profits.

Craig states on page 192, "Advertisers seem quite willing to manipulate these fantasies and exploit our anxieties, especially those concerning our gender identities, to sell products." I like his use of the word 'manipulation.' That is what I believe advertisers have done. They manipulated that which already exists for the sole purpose of making a profit. And therefore any threat to the manipulated image they have erected is one that would cost them money. Advertisers need to maintain these fantasies because people purchase their products in order to conform to them.

James.