gendered perception of adverts

nat2301

hi all,

i'm currently carrying out a research on male/female perception of adverts on tv and in the cinema.
any comments or opinions on how women and men are presented in adverts?
looking forward to your posts!
please also state your own gender, so that i can group your replies in my research, thanks!

Loxosceles

nat2301 wrote: »

hi all,

i'm currently carrying out a research on male/female perception of adverts on tv and in the cinema.
any comments or opinions on how women and men are presented in adverts?
looking forward to your posts!

I always found it annoying that when a (woman) was doing the wash, that a (man) blasted in with Woolite or Daz or whatever to save the day, because women are washers and men are experts? Yeah ok. And all product scientists in adverts seem to be guys too, often typecast as clueless looking geeks. Women can be geeks in hornrimmed specs...believe me. It's getting better re that, but the washing-up seems to be womens work...same for floor, kitchen, and bathroom cleaners...Mom is scrubbing her poor knuckles on that kitchen grime and then here comes (bugles) Mr. Miracle!!!

And if someone's making you a soup or sandwich to advertise bread or cheese or whatever to make you happy, it's Mom doing it, when Dad could make you a cheese toastie too, you know.

And why is it that it's always women who have bladder problems later in life to advertise the invisible disposable undies? Unfair!! Old guys pee their pants just as often.

And most 'leading experts'...well, they're all guys, aren't they...and Mama makes the Dolmio, and Barbie says that 'Math is hard', except for the fact that if women were encouraged equally to become doctors, physicists, mathematicians, the gender parity in colleges would be equal. But the thing is, only Chinese and Indian women become doctors, physicists, mathematicians...Western women are told culturally to be Barbie. So we're advertised pink fluffy girly toys as kids, while boys toys get to build trucks and buildings and learn civil engineering 101, or fly through space and split atoms.

I wanted to fly through space and split atoms and build rockets and crash trucks. I got Barbie. Meh. I had to be a rebel and tell society where it could get off. Advertising is bullsh!t and it's a lie that uses psychology to achieve its ends. And being a little girl who wants to crash trucks or split atoms does not make me a lesbian. So people afraid of giving gender-role specific toys for girls and boys are being massively unfair. If I asked for a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle for Xmas, dammit, I want one, and it's not going to make me gay if I'm not gay already.

Oh yeah, and what about fast food? You don't see any sexy skinny women chomping into a Big Mac. Just eating one french fry that their boyfriend is feeding them, while laughing and 'lovin it'. You never see good looking women eating fast food...only kids and men. But the burger is made to look so enticing that if you're on a lifetime diet, it's like being waterboarded. Unfair, unfair, unfair.

That's all I have to say about the subject of advertising and marketing, which Bill Hicks suggested was a profession worthy of immediate suicide. LOL!!!!!!! Hopefully as a sociologist you won't be going into it anytime soon.

nat2301

wow, what a fantastic first reply, thanks a lot!
also, i'd be interested in what people think about this particular advert:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP0ZxnRG3ZY

great? hot? sexy? inspiring? appalling? offensive? degrading? sexist?
- be honest!

Loxosceles

nat2301 wrote: »

wow, what a fantastic first reply, thanks a lot!
also, i'd be interested in what people think about this particular advert:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP0ZxnRG3ZY

great? hot? sexy? inspiring? appalling? offensive? degrading? sexist?
- be honest!

No. I like lingerie and she looks great. But sociologically the ad is meant to appeal to men and make women get to work. Men will see the ad alone or else with their other half, and his reaction is usually just one of "oh look she's sexy". But the ad is psychologically designed to naturally trigger women to either get the lingerie in order to appeal to men, or get men to mentally compare their other half to Kylie in the ad and overlay her image on them versus his self esteem as a man who can score a hot woman. And either a) trigger the woman to buy the product in a subconscious, jealous panic of self-comparison in order to stop her man from dumping her, or b) the man buys her Agent Provocateur as a gift in order to tell his girl that he loves her and she can be just as hot as Kylie, which would be the more flattering option. Unless the woman in question is single, and just enjoys looking sexy on her own, which is actually fairly rare because most young women socialise to each other, and independent sexuality usually only appeals to single women in their thirties.

So then we have 3 target groups: 1) nervous women with low self-esteem looking to impress the boyfriend, 2) men who want to tell their gf that she's as sexy as Kylie, or 3) self-styled sexually independent women.

And as a single woman who is rocketing about on a velvet bull, I think Kylie could care less about appealing to anyone but herself, which unattached men idealise and attached women dread.

As for the perfume, meh, I don't much care for it.

Advertising is all psychological politics. I love being able to break that sh!t down to the bare lies beneath.

nat2301

how about the advert objectifying women for the (visual) pleasure of men?

Loxosceles

nat2301 wrote: »

how about the advert objectifying women for the (visual) pleasure of men?

Well, see, I consider myself a feminist, and that's a very simplistic feminist answer intended to appeal to female college students, but the fact is that sexuality should be viewed independently of equal rights. If a young man holds inherently sexist views of women as sexual objects and conquests, it's because he's emotionally infantile and has a lack of self-discipline and role models. It isn't really the job of Agent Provocateur to exist or not exist as stimulus, since anything can be a stimulus, (for example women's ankles in burka cultures).

An independent woman can enjoy her sexuality and enjoy lingerie on her own, and yet still be professional, educated, and powerful. If people think that sexy advertising encourages men to objectify women and hold an unrealistic standard, then fast food advertising encourages obesity much more often and has far worse side effects, and alcohol advertising is the absolute worst. I'd rather see fast food and alcohol taken off the airwaves before sexuality. Sensuality and sexuality is not the issue...the issue is any cultural tendency for it to be _abused_.

Advertising doesn't per se turn women into sex objects. Culture does. And the disparity of sexual roles in youth tend to seriously equalise when we hit our thirties and forties, this I can attest. The fact is, the high-strung object sexuality of young men needs to be seriously controlled by self-discipline early in life, and high levels of self-discipline and standards of lifestyle maintained on male candidates by young women, otherwise young women will end up miserable. Sexual equality has to include the power to say no to a young man and not feel bad if he dumps you for saying no. It is the job of men in youth to maintain a disciplined standard of their own behaviour, because testosterone-addled sexism is a sign of nothing but ignorance, and young women who are attracted to ignorant, undisciplined, posturing alpha males will be miserable in the long run.

So to people who are ignorant enough to be programmed by advertising, it would be upsetting to feminists, perhaps. But advertising is only a thing in itself; inculturation, ignorance and instinct are something else entirely. The responsibility of advertising and the responsibility of society have to meet in the middle.

I want free pizza rung in to Dominoes for mine and my daughter's night in if you get an 'A' on this project lol.

lox.

Thoie

I'm female, and that ad doesn't really do much for me. I neither like it nor dislike it, but I think it has certainly failed on me, as it leaves me with no desire to buy underwear. If Agent Provocateur was a new name to me, it might help me remember them, but as a well established brand I don't think it needs that kind of ad to remind women of its existence. It might possibly work on the male market if they weren't already aware of the brand.

Kylie Minogue is a grown adult, so I don't see any problem with the sex aspect.

Loxosceles

I had an evening to think about it and my view is that sexism and sexuality are 2 very different things. Since sexuality is an appetite like the ones we have for food and anything else, it would be logical to appeal to that since advertising is intended to stimulate an appetite to go for a product.

But sexuality, if that is defined as what we do in the bedroom, only becomes sexism if any passive sexual role in the bedroom is imposed on a woman or women as a whole, _outside_ the bedroom. Which is why a lot of feminists make the mistake of taking their ire out on sexuality as the source of sexism, when in fact it is the common bad male habit of imposing his own psychology of dominant conquering sexuality on everything else that isn't sexual.

By that definition, in my opinion, there would be a lot more men in less enlightened cultures who would be far more offended at an advertisement where a woman is a) not submitting to any man, b) owns her sexuality without concern for reputation and c) has her own money, success, career and resources in order to do so.

I can think of a whole continent and half of another one who would find the ad offensive from that point of view.

So the advert in your link isn't really sexist at all, in my opinion. Kylie obviously owns her sexuality, and she is not taking a passive role by any means; not only that, but she is not fawning all over a man and telling him that she lives for his pleasure, which would be the only sexist way that this advertisement could be presented. Especially since not all women are passive and live for men. So this advert is very sexual...but I certainly think it's not sexist at all.

If anything, a certain non-female-ordaining male-dominated cadre of religious authorities here would be feeding the idea that it's sexist due to the rampant sexuality, and disguising that idea as being feminism. Be sure to watch out for that because I'm very wary of that bad habit, and I won't be sucked into that silly way of thinking. Don't let those ding dongs tell you that sexism and sexuality are the same thing. You own your sexuality, and the opinion of men about how you express it is completely tertiary, if not meaningless, to how you feel about yourself.

Crumble Froo

argh, for future reference, could you please not format the colour of your text? not everyone uses the standard skin.

Macha

If you're doing some research, you might find this website helpful - although it does look at US adverts mostly:

http://contexts.org/socimages/

You can search by tagline, ie "gender" or "advertising".

994

Loxosceles wrote: »

If a young man holds inherently sexist views of women as sexual objects and conquests, it's because he's emotionally infantile and has a lack of self-discipline and role models.

Of course, if a woman sees men as sexual objects and conquests, she's liberated and independent and empowered. Because if you're a man, just wanting to have sex with a woman is evil.

Loxosceles wrote: »

The fact is, the high-strung object sexuality of young men needs to be seriously controlled by self-discipline early in life, and high levels of self-discipline and standards of lifestyle maintained on male candidates by young women, otherwise young women will end up miserable. Sexual equality has to include the power to say no to a young man and not feel bad if he dumps you for saying no. It is the job of men in youth to maintain a disciplined standard of their own behaviour, because testosterone-addled sexism is a sign of nothing but ignorance, and young women who are attracted to ignorant, undisciplined, posturing alpha males will be miserable in the long run.

It's a bit odd that you say female sexuality must be free and unfettered, but men need to "seriously control" themselves, ignoring their own needs, in order to please a woman. You also complain about sexist views of woman, but have no qualms in describing men as "testosterone-addled" and "emotionally infantile" - isn't that how colonialists described "the Negro"?

she is not fawning all over a man and telling him that she lives for his pleasure, which would be the only sexist way that this advertisement could be presented.

I don't see how that would necessarily be sexist; most love poetry by men involves fawning over a woman and telling her he lives for her pleasure

OP, if you want to look at views of men, see http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/03/10/brandweek-again-criticizes-anti-male-ads-cites-our-campaigns/ and http://www.askmen.com/top_10/entertainment_300/327_top_10_list.html.

K4t

nat2301 wrote: »

how about the advert objectifying women for the (visual) pleasure of men?

Because that's so wrong????

And btw there's many ads showing men with few clothes on. If I remember correctly, he directly communicates with females when he says 'Ladies'. It was an aero ad. I'm a straight male and I don't mind that.

Feminists need to get over themselves.

Macha

K4t wrote: »

And btw there's many ads showing men with few clothes on. If I remember correctly, he directly communicates with females when he says 'Ladies'. It was an aero ad. I'm a straight male and I don't mind that.

The number of ads that have scantily clad sexualised men doesn't even come close to the number that have scantily clad sexualised women. Not even close.

allabouteve

taconnol wrote: »

The number of ads that have scantily clad sexualised men doesn't even come close to the number that have scantily clad sexualised women. Not even close.

Too true, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. And when ad's like the Aero one are shown, its got an element of humour than the more traditionally sexist ones don't.

Personally, I have a bigger problem with advertisments depicting men as clueless idiots when it comes to things like operating a tumble dryer than I do with advertisments like Kylies, which I think is sexy, not sexist.

taconnol

taconnol wrote: »

The number of ads that have scantily clad sexualised men doesn't even come close to the number that have scantily clad sexualised women. Not even close.

I'm a guy, so i don't really know what turns a woman's eye when watching adverts. But i would say that there's quite a bit of showing men to please women. If anything i would say that its on par with showing women. Men react most strongly to seeing women in lingerie or short skirts. Do women react on a similar level to seeing a man's bare chest? The thing is that there are piles of adverts out there that show men without their shirts, in tight tousers/jeans, etc. Check out the adverts during Desperate Housewives, or a similar show. :rolleyes:

allabouteve wrote:

Personally, I have a bigger problem with advertisments depicting men as clueless idiots when it comes to things like operating a tumble dryer than I do with advertisments like Kylies, which I think is sexy, not sexist.

Me too. With adverts it seems that men are to be the idiots in all things. I find its rare that I'll see a woman portrayed in a similar light.

Men need cornflakes or some other rubbish to turn from cavemen into "normal", whereas the whole family watches on in "normal" condition. It seems to be a favorite template for adverts these days.

I find terribly funny though are the womens hygiene products. Tampons and such. Can you imagine if an advert appeared directed at men with a similar theme? Lynx is probably the closest, and yet they don't depict women as idiots as part of the advert. I guess its because women would be far more vocal about their disapproval than men.

luckat

Believe me, if washing machines bought products, there would be ads targeted to the tastes of washing machines!

Ads that target women attempt to reflect their supposed tastes; ads that target men attempt to target their supposed tastes. It's a sociological cliché that both men and women find beautiful young women attractive, because both (this is the theory) had their first ideal love for a beautiful young woman (the mammy).

The only ad that's ever truly moved me is the one with the young lad spitting the rivets into the supertanker under the benign influence of Irn Bru, mind you.

Blisterman

I'd have to disagree with Loxosceles. It seems in most ads nowadays with a man and a woman, the woman inevitably is the more savvy one, while the guy tends to be the clueless one.

Zombrex

nat2301 wrote: »

how about the advert objectifying women for the (visual) pleasure of men?

It isn't objectifying women for the pleasure of men, men don't buy women's underwear.

What it is doing is targeting women buy saying they can be as sexy as Kylie is they simply buy lingerie from Agent Provocateur.

It is interesting to contrast this ad (aimed at women) and say the Lynx ads (aimed at men). Both have similar messages, buy/use our product and you will become more attractive to the opposite sex. But they go about it in different ways.

The Lynx ads do not put really good looking men in them, this would alienate the men who believe they aren't that good looking but they don't need to be to have women, they just use Lynx (yes I know no man is actually dumb enough to be consciously thinking that, it is subconscious reenforcement). They show the man being successful not by looking good, but by having lots of women in a way that doesn't require much effort. This appeals to men because of insecurities and feelings of lack of control of men. We want lots of women, don't know how to get lots of women, so we buy this product, something we can do. It is selling the empowerment of men to become sexually successful (measured by how many women find them attractive) by buying this product

The Kylie ad on the other hand doesn't try to tell the woman she can get lots and lots of sex by buying this product, because that is not how women judge success or self worth.

The ad is telling them they can be as sexy as Kylie by buying this product. How many men they get is some what irrelevant, women judge their attractiveness not by how men see them but by how other women see them. A woman will buy these products to feel as sexy as Kylie even if they never show them to men.

Advertisements have always been about manipulating people, and playing off their attitudes and insecurities

allabouteve

Deleted User wrote: »

I find terribly funny though are the womens hygiene products. Tampons and such. Can you imagine if an advert appeared directed at men with a similar theme? Lynx is probably the closest, and yet they don't depict women as idiots as part of the advert. I guess its because women would be far more vocal about their disapproval than men.

I don't know about that, I've never joined a stampede of women down a beach to get to a guy dousing himself with Lynx...

Or beckoned a man over in the supermarket to the tune of ''Bom chicka wawaw...''

But yeah, I hate those tampon adverts, especially - and I don't know if it plays in Ireland - the one where the advertiser tells us to ''Have a happy period''

Flup off!!

Zombrex

Blisterman wrote: »

I'd have to disagree with Loxosceles. It seems in most ads nowadays with a man and a woman, the woman inevitably is the more savvy one, while the guy tends to be the clueless one.

In advertisements targeting women that certainly seems to be one of the old tricks ads use to relate to women, particularly married women.

The idea of the dumb husband who tries to do house work and makes a mess of it appeals to women who feel resentment to their partners for not sharing work (which evidently an awful lot do). Despite being completely generic the ad then appears to "get" the house wife who is normally the person deciding what washing powder or cleaner the house will buy.

Interestingly though, as already pointed out, the "expert" is normally always a man himself, again feeding off stereotypes that (the ads assume) we all have about products. Scientists/Engineers are men, so a house wife will want a man telling them their new floor cleaner is proven 10 times better than the next leading brand.

Just remembered I recently saw an ad that seems to try and turn the tables on the idea of the dumb husband a bit. It was a car ad where the (still attractive) wife/girlfriend was nagging the driver of a car about asking for directions or something. As she nagged he was going the wrong way the driver just smiled and at the end he turned a corner and was in the right part of town or something. The (again very attractive) woman smiled meakly and apologised or something.

The idea I assume was to appeal to men who are annoyed at this whole idea that women are great at stuff and men are bad/lazy/ignorant, who have an (attractive) girlfriend/wife who naggs them and have sort of revenage fantasies where they prove that they were right all along and the girlfriend is forced to apologise.

So even the back lash against ads can spawn ads themselves

nat2301

Wicknight wrote: »

It isn't objectifying women for the pleasure of men, men don't buy women's underwear.

What it is doing is targeting women buy saying they can be as sexy as Kylie is they simply buy lingerie from Agent Provocateur.

@ Wicknight: Are you sure?? who is this ad aimed at? women or men? because yes, men do buy women's underwear (for their girlfriends or wives). therefore, the ad could well be aimed at men!

nat2301

some comments have been made in relation to adverts that are specifically aimed at either women or men and the respective gender representations in them.
How about this advert though?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Is7-TiLtCXw

This is a car advert, a material object.
Although the advert itself is pretty funny, how about the use of gender stereotypes?

nat2301

nat2301 wrote: »

Wicknight wrote: »

It isn't objectifying women for the pleasure of men, men don't buy women's underwear.

What it is doing is targeting women buy saying they can be as sexy as Kylie is they simply buy lingerie from Agent Provocateur.

@ Wicknight: Are you sure?? who is this ad aimed at? women or men? because yes, men do buy women's underwear (for their girlfriends or wives). therefore, the ad could well be aimed at men!

The Victoria Secrets adverts tend to be targeted at men, because its the men that buy them for their gf/wives/mistresses/etc. I've lost count of the amount of female friends who have said that the VS lingerie is just not what they would buy for themselves (to please their men). They would buy from other brands which were more comfortable and pleasing to their realistic bodies.

On a side note. I have bought VS lingerie in the past for one of ex's. But she did ask for VS specifically over the others.

Macha

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm a guy, so i don't really know what turns a woman's eye when watching adverts. But i would say that there's quite a bit of showing men to please women. If anything i would say that its on par with showing women. Men react most strongly to seeing women in lingerie or short skirts. Do women react on a similar level to seeing a man's bare chest? The thing is that there are piles of adverts out there that show men without their shirts, in tight tousers/jeans, etc. Check out the adverts during Desperate Housewives, or a similar show. :rolleyes:

I can't believe people still question whether women react to visual stimulation. It's absolutely insane that the myth is still clinging on, that only men are turned on by sexualised images of the opposide sex.

My point still stands that there are far fewer images of men as sexualised objects in advertising than women. No way it's on a par. Citing one or two examples is no argument. Which are these "pile" of adverts with topless men?

People talk about how sex sells but the reality is that it's primarily the sexual desires of heterosexual men that are considered most in advertising.

Deleted User wrote: »

Me too. With adverts it seems that men are to be the idiots in all things. I find its rare that I'll see a woman portrayed in a similar light.

True but there are examples. There's ad for driving on the radio where the woman says "You're driving in the middle of the road!" and the guy says "that's because it's a one-way street", etc etc.

This one was actually banned because it portrayed fathers as total idiots:

This is an ad that portrays both genders in a bad light! Men are lazy and women do all the housework:

Although I have to admit that some ads that highlight gender differences are funny:

luckat wrote: »

It's a sociological cliché that both men and women find beautiful young women attractive, because both (this is the theory) had their first ideal love for a beautiful young woman (the mammy).

This really is a social construct of our society and one that is reinforced by the media to a huge extent (and sociological theorists..). In Ancient Greece, women were thought of as men that had sort of gone wrong and the male body was considered the pinnacle of human physical beauty.

taconnol

taconnol wrote: »

I can't believe people still question whether women react to visual stimulation. It's absolutely insane that the myth is still clinging on, that only men are turned on by sexualised images of the opposide sex.

You're jumping the gun a fair bit here. I said I didn't know what turned women on from visual stimulation, not that it didn't happen.

My point still stands that there are far fewer images of men as sexualised objects in advertising than women. No way it's on a par. Citing one or two examples is no argument. Which are these "pile" of adverts with topless men?

And where is your argument? You haven't given examples, or anything to support your point. Sure, i acknowledge that there are plenty of adverts with scantily clad women in them... but i believe there's a similar number showing men in such circumstances.

People talk about how sex sells but the reality is that it's primarily the sexual desires of heterosexual men that are considered most in advertising.

I'd agree with that, but more because mens desires are more commonly known and acknowledged. Thats changing over time though.

Macha

Deleted User wrote: »

You're jumping the gun a fair bit here. I said I didn't know what turned women on from visual stimulation, not that it didn't happen.

Yes but you quite clearly questioned the reaction that a woman might have when faced with the sexualised image of a male, while stating that men most definitelydid react to sexualised images of women.

Deleted User wrote: »

And where is your argument? You haven't given examples, or anything to support your point. Sure, i acknowledge that there are plenty of adverts with scantily clad women in them... but i believe there's a similar number showing men in such circumstances.

You want examples? OK:

http://www.peta.org/feat/alicia_psa/index.asp

Note the young, attractive woman but the old, unattractive man:



Note most of the women are wearing high-heels and even the woman going to a meeting is wearing 3-inch stilettos:



This one is insane..:

http://www.eckomfg.com/ (nsfw probably..)



I mean this is an ad for organ donation!!:



We even do it to little girls:



It's not as simple as just portraying one gender in sexualised images more than another. It's also about the other messages that come through:
-women are told their bodies are their best asset, so use them to get drinks, jewelry etc
-very often their bodies are shown as tools for men:
-there are many images glorifying violence against women (NSFW):

http://contexts.org/socimages/2008/11/27/the-fear-and-suffering-of-women-as-a-sexual-turn-on/#more-4545

-women are whingers or naggers
-women do all the cleaning



-Men are told it's cool to be violent, aggressive
-men are portrayed as idiots
-men are the heroes or saviours
-men are active, sporty, strong
-if men get involved with anything "female", they will turn into women (in this ad, the man starts growing breasts and has to kill a shark for them to go away:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=504OzK-VZjA

)

Another example:


To see funny analysis of ads aimed at women, Sarah Haskins is excellent:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=target+women&aq=f

taconnol

taconnol wrote: »

Yes but you quite clearly questioned the reaction that a woman might have when faced with the sexualised image of a male, while stating that men most definitelydid react to sexualised images of women.

Let me remind you what I said. Personally I think what i said was very clear, and I don't know why you want to read between the lines with it.

I'm a guy, so i don't really know what turns a woman's eye when watching adverts.

Seems obvious what i said. :rolleyes:

You want examples? OK:

Yup. Seems fair.

Note the young, attractive woman but the old, unattractive man:



Note most of the women are wearing high-heels and even the woman going to a meeting is wearing 3-inch stilettos:

I fail to see how these support your point.

This one is insane..:

http://www.eckomfg.com/ (nsfw probably..)



I mean this is an ad for organ donation!!:

Now we're getting somewhere. I'd agree that these two fall into the category which you originally described.. The organ donation is just messed up.

We even do it to little girls:

Do what to little girls? That advert is directed at mothers who want to dress up their children in somewhat adult-like clothes.

It's not as simple as just portraying one gender in sexualised images more than another. It's also about the other messages that come through:
-women are told their bodies are their best asset, so use them to get drinks, jewelry etc
-very often their bodies are shown as tools for men:
-there are many images glorifying violence against women (NSFW):

http://contexts.org/socimages/2008/11/27/the-fear-and-suffering-of-women-as-a-sexual-turn-on/#more-4545

And if you look at the comments about the link above you'll see that most posters were fairly disgusted at the images. Personally, I thought them quite disturbing. But what were they advertising? Or was it some form of weird artwork?

-women are whingers or naggers
-women do all the cleaning

No argument there. Advertising does portray this kind of belief.

-Men are told it's cool to be violent, aggressive

Really? I don't see it. The only aspect I see of anything similar of that is the promotion of sports... if anything i would say that there are more adverts out there asking for men to stop being violent..

-men are portrayed as idiots
-men are the heroes or saviours
-men are active, sporty, strong
-if men get involved with anything "female", they will turn into women (in this ad, the man starts growing breasts and has to kill a shark for them to go away:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=504OzK-VZjA

)

Another example:


To see funny analysis of ads aimed at women, Sarah Haskins is excellent:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=target+women&aq=f

You have shown some images and vids of various things. But you said

"My point still stands that there are far fewer images of men as sexualised objects in advertising than women. "

You haven't shown how there are less adverts or images of men as sexualised objects... I don't think you can actually prove it either. Posting a few vids doesn't really cut it.

I can post various images & vids, but its not going to be enough to prove anything significant. There is simply too much advertising out there to say that one side is more affected than the other. From my own viewpoint, I believe these days we're equally affected.

Macha

You "fail to see" how the first 2 images supported my point but you fail to make any attempt to argue your case. They are clear examples of where the sexual attractiveness of men is irrelevant but the women in each case are most definitely sexualised.

-"Do what to little girls?" Make them into sexual objects!! I think that is incredibly obvious. It doesn't matter who the advert is aimed at. Also, why are you assuming that it's only mothers that buy clothes for their daughters?

-The violent images were from the Pirelli calendar.

-You asked for examples: I gave them. You're now effectively asking me to carry out full-scale research on the topic to prove my point. I don't have the time, nor do I have full web access to academic journals on the topic anymore. While stereotyping of both genders exists, I still think that women are subject to far more sexual objectification than men both in advertising and, more broadly, in the media in general. I have often taken a copy of the Metro or Herald AM and gone through it, counting pictures of sexualised men or women. WOmen always come out far ahead. I suggest you try it.

Edit: I also remember reading a study on the images of women in the sports pages of newspapers. More women appeared in advertising than as photos of actual sports women.

Blisterman

Well in fairness, women's sports are not nearly as popular as men's (with the possible exception of tennis), so the paper's coverage would reflect that.

Macha

Blisterman wrote: »

Well in fairness, women's sports are not nearly as popular as men's (with the possible exception of tennis), so the paper's coverage would reflect that.

True. However, it is still a message that is sent to the reader that women's sporting activities are not important and that women are more successful as models for adverts than as successful athletes (in whichever sport).

Sure was anyone really bothered which gender was taking part in the Olympics last summer? For me, if the swimming was on, the swimming was on. Athletics the same. It was nice, if only for a short amount of time, to see women's sports getting the same airtime as men's.

I guess what I'm saying is that much of our ideas about gender are social constructs and for them to continue to exist, they have to be replicated and repeated in our day-to-day lives. I mean I don't fit the stereotype of a woman perfectly and I doubt one single Boards user fits all the stereotypes of their sex but these ideas persist.

taconnol

taconnol wrote:

-"Do what to little girls?" Make them into sexual objects!! I think that is incredibly obvious. It doesn't matter who the advert is aimed at. Also, why are you assuming that it's only mothers that buy clothes for their daughters?

I can't see too many fathers spending the time to teach their little girls how to dress like that, and how to apply makeup to themselves. Traditionally it was the mother who taught their girls how to put on makeup. Are you suggesting that fathers have changed in this?

I'm basing my opinions on family, and friends who have children. I don't know any fathers that have that much influence over what their children wear, at least until they hit the teenage phase.

-The violent images were from the Pirelli calendar.

Which is more "artwork" than advertisement of anything.

-You asked for examples: I gave them. You're now effectively asking me to carry out full-scale research on the topic to prove my point. I don't have the time, nor do I have full web access to academic journals on the topic anymore.

I asked for you to prove your point. I didn't ask for examples as such. You chose to provide them as if to suggest that a few examples would show the whole picture. It doesn't.

While stereotyping of both genders exists, I still think that women are subject to far more sexual objectification than men both in advertising and, more broadly, in the media in general. I have often taken a copy of the Metro or Herald AM and gone through it, counting pictures of sexualised men or women. WOmen always come out far ahead. I suggest you try it.

Wow, you do that on a regular basis? You don't believe that if you actively look for wrongs you'll find wrongs?

I have been looking through adverts across the board since this topic came up, and there are alot of adverts with semi-clad muscled men in them. I was actually suprised by just how many adverts portrayed men in a certain light, and kept hammering away at it. The strong male stereotype which frankly I know very few men having such a body.

Also how do you explain completely female products like facial creams which display semi naked young & beautiful women? Its not like these ads are targeted at men...

taconnol wrote: »

You "fail to see" how the first 2 images supported my point but you fail to make any attempt to argue your case. They are clear examples of where the sexual attractiveness of men is irrelevant but the women in each case are most definitely sexualised.

Yes, i fail to see how the first two images support your case.

As for me arguing my point, i believe its impossible to show the whole picture. But you showed a few sexualised images/vids, so I guess i should do the same...

http://www.ltcconline.net/lukas/gender/pages/males.htm
- Collection of male ads. Go back to the main page, and it has ads showing both sexes in various forms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asMS8MgZx4Y&eurl=http://whiskeys-place.blogspot.com/2008/08/advertisings-disdain-for-white-male.html
- Stupidity of men?

Out of curiousity, have you looked at any of the women's mags or their websites? The images that they have surely objectify men, and lets face it considering the lack of clothing involved they surely sexualise them. It may have been the case a decade ago that there were less womens magazines out there than the mens but I'd say there's probably somewhere near the same these days. And any womens mag I have looked in shows semi naked men all over... and not normal men, but the extremely masculined type of men...

I was watching Sky1 earlier today and virtually every ad shown had some degree of nudity involved. Topless men, men in boxers or briefs, tight jeans on both sexes, women in bikini's, women in sexy skirts, etc. The only exception was an ad for "Mr Muscle" which had an extremely skinny man doing housework.

Macha

Deleted User wrote: »

I can't see too many fathers spending the time to teach their little girls how to dress like that, and how to apply makeup to themselves. Traditionally it was the mother who taught their girls how to put on makeup. Are you suggesting that fathers have changed in this?

I can't see too many mothers teaching their little girls how to dress like that. Are you suggesting it is the mothers "fault" that adverts like this are appearing? I'm not suggesting it's either parents fault. I'm not talking about parents, I'm talking about advertising.

Deleted User wrote: »

Which is more "artwork" than advertisement of anything.

They are images of women in the public domain. I'm talking more generally than just advertising.

Deleted User wrote: »

I asked for you to prove your point. I didn't ask for examples as such. You chose to provide them as if to suggest that a few examples would show the whole picture. It doesn't.

What you said was

And where is your argument? You haven't given examples, or anything to support your point

So I gave examples and other suggestions. THe alternative you seem to be demanding is a full-on research project which, as I have already stated, I don't have the resources to carry out. I still stand by my point as it is based on my experience.

Deleted User wrote: »

Wow, you do that on a regular basis? You don't believe that if you actively look for wrongs you'll find wrongs?

You initally suggest I provide some more comprehensive research so I give an example of a quick, easy, informal exercise that can be quite revealing and now you accuse me of "actively looking for wrongs"?? Make up your mind.

Deleted User wrote: »

I have been looking through adverts across the board since this topic came up, and there are alot of adverts with semi-clad muscled men in them. I was actually suprised by just how many adverts portrayed men in a certain light, and kept hammering away at it. The strong male stereotype which frankly I know very few men having such a body.

Oh it most definitely is there and it's definitely growing. Both genders being made feel insecure about their bodies is not the sort of equality I exactly cheer for.

Deleted User wrote: »

Also how do you explain completely female products like facial creams which display semi naked young & beautiful women? Its not like these ads are targeted at men...

Oh sure. Beautiful women are used to sell things to men and women. Go into a newsagents and look at the magazine covers. Those for women have women on the front and those for men have women on the front!! (with a few exceptions like Men's Health). When targeted at women, the message is "You want to be like this woman (therefore buy this product)". When targeted at men, the message is "You want this woman (therefore buy this product)". There are very few ads that address the issue from the point of view of the heterosexual female as the subject and the heterosexual male as the object (let alone homosexual or other orientations..) The Wispa ad is an exception that is famous in its uniqueness for this. I'm not saying it's the only one, but there are very few others.

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, i fail to see how the first two images support your case.

And again you fail to explain why.

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.ltcconline.net/lukas/gender/pages/males.htm
- Collection of male ads. Go back to the main page, and it has ads showing both sexes in various forms.

Yes, I know the original website as:
http://genderads.com/Gender_Ads.com.html

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asMS8MgZx4Y&eurl=http://whiskeys-place.blogspot.com/2008/08/advertisings-disdain-for-white-male.html
- Stupidity of men?

I totally agree - it's a shockingly common theme.

Deleted User wrote: »

Out of curiousity, have you looked at any of the women's mags or their websites? The images that they have surely objectify men, and lets face it considering the lack of clothing involved they surely sexualise them. It may have been the case a decade ago that there were less womens magazines out there than the mens but I'd say there's probably somewhere near the same these days. And any womens mag I have looked in shows semi naked men all over... and not normal men, but the extremely masculined type of men...

No I don't read these magazines but I know what you're talking about. Yes, the images of men in them are increasingly objectified. I need not remind you about the content of lad's magazines...

taconnol

taconnol wrote: »

I can't see too many mothers teaching their little girls how to dress like that. Are you suggesting it is the mothers "fault" that adverts like this are appearing? I'm not suggesting it's either parents fault. I'm not talking about parents, I'm talking about advertising.

No, I'm not blaming mothers for these kinds of adverts.... But mothers predominately buy their childrens clothes, and decide the "fashion" that the children follow. I've seen kids in the UK wearing similar clothes to that advert, although not with the makeup.

And it is you that has introduced fault into this. I never mentioned it.

They are images of women in the public domain. I'm talking more generally than just advertising.

Why? This thread is about adverts...

Art has its own rules regarding what is allowed and acceptable. Somehow it has different guidelines as to whats acceptable. I don't particularly understand it, but its there all the same.

What you said was
So I gave examples and other suggestions. THe alternative you seem to be demanding is a full-on research project which, as I have already stated, I don't have the resources to carry out. I still stand by my point as it is based on my experience.

Ok, so its based on your experience and its an opinion, rather than a fact. Just as, its my opinion, that there are similar levels being applied to men and women these days.

Oh sure. Beautiful women are used to sell things to men and women. Go into a newsagents and look at the magazine covers. Those for women have women on the front and those for men have women on the front!! (with a few exceptions like Men's Health).

Strange, cause I've seen plenty of men being shown on the cover of mags like Cosmo... But other than that, i'd agree with you. Men's mags usually have women on the front to catch mens attention.

When targeted at women, the message is "You want to be like this woman (therefore buy this product)". When targeted at men, the message is "You want this woman (therefore buy this product)". There are very few ads that address the issue from the point of view of the heterosexual female as the subject and the heterosexual male as the object (let alone homosexual or other orientations..) The Wispa ad is an exception that is famous in its uniqueness for this. I'm not saying it's the only one, but there are very few others.

Really... cause Cosmo had an issue with a front cover which showed a man in boxers/briefs with caption suggesting that the mag could tell women how to get into his shorts. Women's mags regularly show pictures of "hot" guys, and say that they will give insider tips on how to pull such men.

And again you fail to explain why.

because you continue to refuse to actually explain how they support your statements. The first image showed a naked old man, and a naked woman each on a chair. In fact i couldn't figure out what they were trying to sell/promote. The second image showed shoes/boots/heels as a repesentation of the types of people who might come to the hotel. Neither advert particularly showed who the adverts were directed at.

Yes, I know the original website as:
http://genderads.com/Gender_Ads.com.html

Regardless, they show plenty of adverts regarding men..

No I don't read these magazines but I know what you're talking about. Yes, the images of men in them are increasingly objectified. I need not remind you about the content of lad's magazines...

I haven't bought a lads magazine since i was in my early 20's. Frankly there's nothing that interests me. But i remember the type of content displayed.

Have a look at the cosmopolitan website for a bit of reference. Look at the images displayed, and the articles written. There's very little difference between them and FHM IMO.

[I point out Cosmo simply because I'm looking at my mums copy right now. Its a good reference for ads about men]

smileykey

I have to say I'm usually one of the first people to complain about adverts being objectifying but I don't find the kylie one offensive. I think it's done very well. Kylie is displaying herslf as a sexy and powerful woman who won't be belittled or degraded by anyone so the objectification issue isn't a problem, in my opinion.

Generally Ads annoy me. I agree with the first poster that the women use the household products, while men design and creat them theme is often apparent. When men do the cleaning they are doing it knowing that the woman will be inspecting it making sure its done right because after all its our responsibility to ensure its done, the man is just giving a hand.

I HATE HATE HATE the emphasis put on being skinny on ads. Products like breakfast cereals are now weightloss regiemes. They prey on women insecurities by making usthink we can't wear swimwear unless we drop down to a size 10 before our holidays. I try my best not to buy products who use this tactic in advertising. Advertisments tell women to do things for the sake of men and tell men to do things for the sake of women. What ever happened to anyone doing something for themselves?

994

smileykey wrote: »

IGenerally Ads annoy me. I agree with the first poster that the women use the household products, while men design and creat them theme is often apparent. When men do the cleaning they are doing it knowing that the woman will be inspecting it making sure its done right because after all its our responsibility to ensure its done, the man is just giving a hand.

Or that a man should obey his wife and constantly seek her approval because she's so superior... so it really offends everyone.

DadaKopf

Has anyone talked about the gendering aspect of children's toys themselves? I know someone who insists on giving her son both 'boy's' and 'girl's' toys to ensure he gets a balanced understanding of gender.

Another thing: has anyone heard of certain tampon ads appealing to women by eliciting culturally-ingrained rape fantasies/fears? It's just that someone once said to me that this was a psychological aspect underlying these ads.

smileykey wrote:

I have to say I'm usually one of the first people to complain about adverts being objectifying but I don't find the kylie one offensive. I think it's done very well. Kylie is displaying herslf as a sexy and powerful woman who won't be belittled or degraded by anyone so the objectification issue isn't a problem, in my opinion.

You're looking at it literally. Of course, that's how it seems. A woman 'expressing' here independence and sexuality. I enjoy the ad, but I'm not fooled by the message. It's an advertisement, so it's instructive to analyse it symbolically. The ad is not about Kylie as a sign of an independent woman, she is a second-order sign of male sexual desire. Reinforcing this meaning are the obvious references to sexual intercourse (riding the rodeo and her movements) and lingerie, which plays a fetishistic role in Western society in relation to gender relations and sexuality. Additionally, the ad was screened in cinemas, which is an activity couples (or male/female friends) do. Clearly, this was aimed to elicit sexual desire in men. The advertisement is intended to elicit feelings of shame or embarrassment (depending on the couple) about which the woman may feel curious, excited, frustrated, angry; the final segment also elicits some insecurity in the male, too. This may motivate the couple to discuss it. If it is not a couple watching the ad, the ad would remind a single woman of her single status (her lack of a man) and this might motivate her, through insecurity or sexual desire, to buy the product. Ultimately, the advertisement hinges on the man's desire becoming a sign for the women; male desire is a sign for her desires and fears; the intention (and ultimate meaning) of the ad is to make women buy the lingerie or provoke a discussion between them which leads to the products being purchased by either.

That's my interpretation, anyway. Mostly explained on page 1. I suppose I just rely on Roland Barthes and Jacques Lacan a bit too much.