Advertising is Everywhere...

I really like the part in Jean Kilbourne's Killing Us Softly where the author talking about how women are pressured to remain less than, to be less powerful than, take up less space than, to be quieter than. There are super strict definitions for not only women but men as well in regards to how they ought to be seen as a window to what they ought to me. Women should be waify, subdued, objects, and men ought to be dominate, active, and muscley. These ideas in my opinion can become quite harmful when they're so omnipresent and as mistaken as the only way you can be successful as a woman or a man--even the idea you must fall exactly at either pole or you are unacceptable is highly problematic.

I chose a few ads. The first one is an older ad with the copy “Though she was a tiger lady, our hero didn’t have to fire a shot to floor her. After one look at his Mr. Leggs slacks, she was ready to have him walk all over her. That noble styling sure soothes the savage heart! If you’d like your own doll-to-doll carpeting, hunt up a pair of these he-man Mr. Leggs slacks. Such as our new automatic wash-wear blend of 65% “Dacron” and 35% rayon – incomparably wrinkle-resistant. About $12.95 at plush-carpeted stores.” The image is of a man in slacks stepping on a woman’s head who is attached to a tiger skin rug. The misogynist tone of the ad is overtly clear. The “tiger lady” was wholly subdued by the powerful masculine power of the man who is powerful just by being men. His power is so complete she wants him to even walk quite literally all over her. Finally, the ad says that if you want your own lady slave of your own, you can get one, you just need to buy Mr. Leggs men’s slacks.



The second ad I chose was a Burger King in which a submarine sandwich is positioned next to the profile shot of a woman with her mouth painted with red lipstick in a receiving manner as in a “blowjob mouth.” Some of the more obvious characteristics are that not only does the woman’s presence in the ad not really have too much to do with the actual product being sold (besides being a mouth, which is where typically food, among other things is allegedly inserted) but she is decapitated and presented as only a small and very meaningful portion of her entire existence. She is also made to look almost like a sex/blow-up doll with her eyes crisp white, popping out of her head in a frozen manner. Maybe the advertising representatives would argue she is simply in a state of shock over how good the sandwich is, I don’t know. In addition to the sexualized more or less arbitrary image, the accompanying text is also quite sexual in nature. I don’t think sexuality represented in ads is the evil of all evils, or is even that terrible, but do take issue with the ways in ways it is laid parallel with marketing messages that are not at all sexual and require no sexual imagery to consume the product, such as a sandwich. The text, “It Just Tastes Better” along with “It’ll Blow Your Mind Away” and “BK Super Seven Incher” all elude to sex, specifically heterosexual oral sex. Finally, look at how meaty that sub is!




I chose my next ad because it is interesting in that it integrates hypersexism with animal politics. There is a shocking closeness between the ways we see and treat/consume women and the way we see and treat/consume animals. This particular ad is a remake of classic work that segments a female body into a series of different cuts of meat. Not only is the human body meant to look like a good to be used up and literally consumed, but it is actually divided into distinct portions thus disallowing “Pamela’s” bodily integrity—she is nothing more than a collective of products just waiting to be used up. The point is to draw a parallel between women’s bodies as they are divided up as consumable/consumer goods and animal’s bodies as they are literally divided up into bits to be sold as consumable/consumer goods.



There are, however, some ads that challenge historically sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist etc ads. Even if Nike isn’t exactly my favorite company in the world, this particular ads shows some “progressive” glimmers. On the surface it shows a fit muscular woman celebrating her strong curves, saying that working out made her butt rounder but not smaller and she is more than okay with that as it can be used as a source of power. However, it is arguably still a portrayal of many other typically sexist themes in advertising such as “to-be-looked-at-ness” as well as the fact she is shown in a more sexy position with very little clothes on and is averted from the camera looking down at her hand—she is not actively engaged in the shot at all. So it’s not perfect, but there are more harmful representations out there.




Another promising ad campaign is Dove’s Dove Men+Care campaign. It realizes there is a notable lack of space for men’s self-care and pampering products that are devoid of the frou frou and attached mockery that was the sole past campaigns targeted at men specifically such as Axe Body Spray, Old Spice, super expensive men’s colognes etc. Men don’t really have a space in which they can be comfortable caring for their own bodies in a manner separate from working out, taking supplements to make bigger muscles, shaving products. Not only are Dove’s products aimed at and for men, but the the advertisements show them being cuddly and intimate with their young children and families, often waking up on a “Sunday” morning or stepping out of an innocent shower.

Source: Killing Us Softly
Image 1:http://www.mediamixtape.com/index.php/2008/05/12/mr-leggs-ad-from-the-70s-shows-a-man-walking-all-over-a-woman/
Image 2:http://bougies.wordpress.com/category/funny/
Image 3:http://www.rightcelebrity.com/?p=9555
Image 4:http://sosickwithit.com/?p=12807
Image 5:http://www.informabtl.com/2010/marketing-viral-y-crm-para-el-target-masculino-de-dove.php