gendered perception of adverts

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.