Thursday, January 13, 2011

Blog Post #9 Question I Repsonse


I guess I really never took serious thought about the advertisement using females to show a patriarchy of masculinity.  The ads that Jean showed with women in bathing suits and the label of a beer bottle on their stomachs is a prime example of using advertisement to uphold the patriarchy of masculinity.  She also showed other images including that of women in color, portrayed with advertisements about animals.  These images intersect with not only sexism now, but also racism.  Why should women of color be considered animals?  Or why should they be used in ads about animals?  I myself find that on the verge of sexism.  I feel there are many other ways to help the system of consumer capitalism. 
                I found it amusing when Jean compared the ad of a male Calvin Klein model wearing very little to that of an ad with a woman wearing very little as well.  She explained that some products poke fun of those women with breasts that are too big, too saggy, too flat, too full, too far apart, too close together, and so on.  But the ad involving the male model wearing nothing holding a rag over his penis doesn’t say anything about his penis being too small, too droopy, too narrow, too fat, too jiggly, and so on.  So how can these ads be perceived that advertisers are doing the same thing to men that they are to women? 
                I think it’s sad that those who look at these images within depth are women.  They think these images are the way they are supposed to look and try their best by using extreme measures to look that way that are usually not healthy.  Today they use more extreme ads such as Axe where one commercial has women calling men to see how they clean their “dirty equipment”.  One guy responds talking about his shoulders rather than another area that would be considered more private.  Now if this was about a woman, it would most likely involve the woman talking about her breasts. 

4 comments:

  1. I also found i very humorous when Kilbournes mentions how the woman was scrutinized for her breasts but the male model was not. Clearly in advertisements men and women are treated greatly different.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's really sad that the media portrays women being valued primary for their bodies and looks. No wonder so many young girls in our society have poor body images. We are pressured at such a young age to look and act a certain way, where as boys don't experience the same pressure from the media.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm surprised you used the term "on the verge of sexism" because the rest of your post says it is sexism...and I agree.

    I would argue however that children are not getting their body image ideals from these ads, they are getting them from their parents and the television shows they are exposed to. So there is an answer to changing the way girls view their bodies. Girls are not (or perhaps should not) be reading Vogue and other fashion magazines primarily driven to adult women. And I think it is interesting that ads directed at younger girls were not shown in her presentation to give balance. She does show two Abercrombie and Fitch ads but again to give balance to her argument she should cite where they came from. Because I don't see too many of those ads in the teen magazines and the commercials I see between episodes of Hannah Montana and iCarly aren't so racy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I also agree is it interesting that women are judged mainly on her most private body parts, where as mens are rarely spoken of. I do think men are also scrutinized by advertisements though, just differently. They need to have broad shoulders, a six pack, somewhat tan, and handsome. It goes back to the old standard of "tall, dark, and handsome".

    ReplyDelete