You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby … or Not
by
Tom Neven
on Jan 30, 2008 at 8:20 AM
Madison Avenue hates women. Can I say that without controversy? The female physique has been used to market everything from cars to power tools. In fact, this blog title derives from Big Tobacco's generous decision to allow women to share in the same ghastly death as male smokers.
But even with today's crass exploitation of the female image, it's hard to believe that we live in a relatively enlightened age when it comes to women and advertising. Have a look at some really cringe-inducing advertising from the not-so-distant past. Every stereotype is exploited. The Palmolive soap ad plays on many women's fears and reinforces the belief that beauty is, literally, only skin deep. And the ones for Chase & Sanborn Coffee and Bitney-Bowes postage meters are just mind-boggling. Imagine trying to run something remotely similar today. (More such ads have been collected in a gift book called You Mean a Woman Can Open It...?)
But as I think about it, Madison Avenue hasn't become more enlightened. It's just changed its target. In place of the Helpless Woman is the Doofus Dad. Ward Cleaver has been replaced by Homer Simpson. How advertisers expect to be successful by insulting half their intended audience is beyond me, but apparently it works; they keep doing it.
So, in the end, maybe we haven't come a long way at all. So why am I not surprised?
1. Tami had the following to say on Jan 30 at 9:01 AM:
Those are pretty extreme examples. But I don't know. I'd rather be fearful about dishpan hands than have the constant barrage of unrealistic and blatantly sexist ideas and images that parade across the screen today.
And of course I would much prefer not to hear, in detail, about the benefits of "male enhancement" while I'm innocently watching Food Network or whatever.
2. michelle had the following to say on Jan 30 at 9:51 AM:
First, thank you for bringing this up. This topic came up in one of my classes in university but in relation to film more than advertising, although that was part of the discussion. We now live in a world where being a white male is actually made fun of? Ie Homer Simpson (yes, he's yellow...but...) Advertising has gone from one extreme to another. So, no, I would disagree with Tami above, that these examples are not extreme, but just in line with how what the world of advertising has become.
Advertising is a powerful medium and backed up by TV and movies that reinforce similar stereotypes! I look forward and commend companies like Dove, HSBC, Nivea who are not using and conforming but doing their best to further a positive image of all types of people.
And...I reckon we can do our part and not buy products that advertise like this...why not?
3. Dana had the following to say on Jan 30 at 10:28 AM:
I concur...
You are a fantastic writer.
Thanks for using your gift.
4. Lucie had the following to say on Jan 30 at 10:43 AM:
I'm curious as to whether viewers of the time these ads aired found them as offensive as most present-day viewers would.
5. Tami had the following to say on Jan 30 at 10:44 AM:
Michelle - I was referring to the ads in one of the links Tom provided. Not every ad of the past was quite so extreme in saying, "Is it always illegal to kill a woman?" if she missed the mailing deadline, or spanking her for buying the wrong coffee.
And of course I hate the "Doofus Dad" stuff. It seems like EVERY ad features "Doofus Dad." It gets old... as does seeing women used as sex objects to sell something as mundane as Internet domains or what have you.
The essence of consumer advertising is to play into our fears and our "subconscious desires." It's not really an industry designed to drive us to pursue Kingdom values.
An interesting thing to do is observe advertising in Christian publications (and on the Web). I did a project in college where I reviewed a few years' worth of ads in Christianity Today. Mostly, I studied the Bible ads. I think I counted between 20-30 different kinds of Bibles in those ads alone. Most of the ads had quotes from well-known Christians saying why this or that Bible was most appropriate.
Step back a bit and think: They are advertising *Bibles* in a *Christian magazine.* As they say, "like selling ice to an Eskimo," no? Presumably most of us own Bibles. If you have one, you probably don't *need* another. (Even though it can be helpful to have another version on hand; and, some of the editions have helpful notes -- is it necessary?)
Don't get me wrong -- as I said elsewhere, I love my Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible. And I understand the value in comparing the different translations. But honestly, how many of us NEED multiple Bibles? Especially when you reflect on the sad fact that some countries/peoples have one Bible in the whole town, or they don't even have a full New Testament yet.
I also get it. You have to sell what you make in order to stay in business. Still, it's a little weird to me.
6. Fran had the following to say on Jan 30 at 10:51 AM:
I am also tired of the 'male-enhancement' and the innuendo of that marketing ploy while watching tv.
7. Holly had the following to say on Jan 30 at 11:52 AM:
Here's an interesting article. Looks like the fashion industry might start using women who look more realistic:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/105585
8. Anna had the following to say on Jan 30 at 12:00 PM:
I completely agree. The pendulum seems to have swung almost entirely in the opposite direction. Men are constantly put down through media.
9. Sara had the following to say on Jan 30 at 1:31 PM:
Putting down the president and putting down someone who's physically disabled are two different things: the latter is worse in that it's oppressing someone who's already at a power disadvantage.
Negative media portrayals of men, I'd argue, may superficially be as morally repugnant as put-downs directed at women, but they aren't as dangerous.
Sometimes I think women are so quick to agree that things have gotten better for women in ads, and so quick to express concern over the portrayal of men, just because they don't want to be labelled 'feminist' and by extension, 'contentious and unattractive'.
10. DannieA had the following to say on Jan 30 at 2:18 PM:
Oh I don't know...if you ask me, I think the "Doofus dad" comes from the fact that women run the home and then Dad doesn't really know how much it takes to have everything in order. Notice that on some of these shows the woman is a competent stay at home mom. At least the shows that I watched...not so much anymore.
And when it comes to running a home and keeping things in order and in routine and making sure the house doesn't become a pack-rat home...well let's face it...we women are pretty good at that.
11. NeedACatchyName had the following to say on Jan 30 at 2:48 PM:
I think this is a rather interesting article, especially when considered with the "child men" and "single young female" articles we saw her yesterday. I think these articles show a trend I've been noticing lately--stereotypically "male" recreational preferences are viewed as being childish, immature, and boorish, while stereotypically "female" preferences are viewed as more hip, mature, and trendy.
Think about some of the items mentioned in the "child men" and "SYF" articles of yesterday. "Child men" like football, action movies, robots, and video games. "Single young females" like ski resorts, gourmet coffee, modern fashion, and trendy clubs. Read those traits to a hundred random people and they would identify the SYF traits as having far more positive connotations than the child man traits.
Unfortunately, the items in neither list are necessarily more constructive (or less) than the ones in the other list. I mean, when you get down to it, is shopping for the latest fashions really all that better (or worse) than playing video games. Or is sipping trendy coffee with friends really more mature than watching football with friends? Not really, but society has defined it that way, thus further pushing the stereotype that stereotypically male activities are somehow less mature than stereotypically female activities.
12. Andrew (tlw) had the following to say on Jan 30 at 3:42 PM:
Sara,
I am a bit wary of your suggestion that negative portrayals of men are somehow less dangerous. Can you expand on this a little. Is this because men are somehow more empowered to begin with, and are meant to be able to deal better with a little panhandling? Are men less sensitive to a few words of criticism? Or should men just suck it up and quit whining about a few “harmless” ads on TV because that’s what men should do?
It is true that men are different to women, and were designed to have a different role in creation. But men are still made in the image in God and are worthy of respect … even from the media. As idealistic as that hope might be.
I’d be interested to hear other women’s perspectives expressing concern about the portrayals of men. It’s not clear to me how expressing concern for men’s portrayals immediately renders a woman innocent of being a contentious, unattractive feminist. Comments please, ladies?
13. pds had the following to say on Jan 30 at 5:09 PM:
I do not agree that "the pendulum has swung to the other extreme." While I do not condone negative and/or stereotypical portrayals of any group, men are hardly victims in our society. It's interesting, isn't it, that the OP included links to a number of ads demeaning women, but no comparable, visible examples of men (except, arguably, a cartoon character)? I also don't think that sit-coms are comparable to advertisements. The women in the advertisements were not only supposed to show how women "were," but also to dictate how they were "supposed to be." Nobody is claiming that the "doofus dad" characters are a standard for men.
I'm all for eliminating lazy, stereotypical portrayals of other human beings. But I'm offended at the claim that men are being ridiculed on a level at all comparable to that which women have experienced, as well as the implicit suggestion that women are no longer targets.
And given the examples above, will the anti-feminist readers of this blog please concur that perhaps feminists had (at least) a point or two?
14. Sarah had the following to say on Jan 30 at 6:03 PM:
I think so many women in North America have this passion for power. I think a lot of this stems from what society teaches us, empowering us to rise up to our equal status with men. Yes, women were oppressed and something had to be done about it. But when I observe women around me (not ones from my church, I go to a brethren church!), it's almost like women are trying way too hard to gain that power. Another thing I've observed in women is a lack of emotion in a lot of them. It's almost like if we show weakness, then we lose our power. Another point I want to add is about the negative portrayal of men in the media. I find that when men don't have as much control in the home, it's because the women seem to have taken that role completely so that there's nothing left for the man to do. I think mild feminism is the main culprit. (I made that term up. I am guessing that almost every woman is at least a little passionate about women's rights; they're just not as public about it) Actually (forgive me guys for saying this) but I think the media does somewhat portray men accurately. I'm not trying that men being idiots on tv shows depicts men accurately. I just mean, in the way, women seem to have more control now. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've just noticed this with the people I know.
15. Rachael had the following to say on Jan 30 at 6:50 PM:
Andrew wrote:
"I’d be interested to hear other women’s perspectives expressing concern about the portrayals of men."
--> I'm not in the TV loop as much as perhaps most of you since I haven't watched TV regularly in a couple years and don't own one...and I'd agree with pds in his/her comment that "I'm all for eliminating lazy, stereotypical portrayals of other human beings." I also wish there were no stereotypes, yet I also think I've heard that behind the stereotypes there is are reasons for why that stereotype exists. There may be sometimes observed common trends among certain people with certain shared characteristics (I don't want to loosely say "groups of people", but to give an example: "male" or "female") which lead to those stereotypes. While it doesn't make sense to think every member of a particular "group" are ALL a certain way, it might not be the best to ignore certain trends that may need to be addressed.
As for male/female stuff, it does seem to be deemed more culturally acceptable to bash males than females, especially if the speaker is a female. And I don't think that's fair to men. Sinful trends can be "bashed" or "addressed" or "dealt with" in love...but never out of disgust or anger for the person him/herself.
As for very very subtle direct potential 'men-bashing' humor/fake awe (which may be more tied into the personality of the particular individual)...I'm not sure of my opinion on that. While I think it's a good quality to laugh at oneself and be willing to be poked fun of, I'm not sure how okay it is for other people to do that of others...the thing is, sometimes it can be so subtle (commenting on a man's ability to hold a baby...humor related to one's lack of cooking skills...). Subtle comments such as these might be acceptable if the object of the humor is okay with it. But you'd have to know that person very well...I don't know.
16. Jacob M. had the following to say on Jan 30 at 8:00 PM:
How does use of the female physique to market cars and power tools constitute "hatred" of women?
The only thing concerning about this post is that our society has become so liberal that even a professing Evangelical Christian and former marine considers expression of traditional gender roles "cringe-inducing."
17. pds had the following to say on Jan 30 at 9:18 PM:
Jacob M.:
I would say that any "use" of a human being is dangerous, at the very least. Using "the female physique" to sell something says this to a woman: 1. your body is what is deemed valuable 2. your body is only valuable if it conforms to this standard. That's a pretty hateful message. As to what it says to a man? I can't say for sure, but it seems logical that the product being sold and the woman are conflated in the man's mind-- "buy this product and it's like you've bought this woman." Can you see the problem with that?
This also ties into Sarah's comment at 6:03. Plenty of women seek power-- granted. What many feminists want, however, is not to gain power (as traditionally understood), but to escape it. They want recognition. I don't mean recognition in terms of fame-- I mean women want to be recognized as human beings, not as objects to be admired, used, bought, or sold.
As for women wanting power-- some feminisms argue that power is a male prerogative and that the lust for power is exactly what has landed us in such a mess. Such feminists don't want to grasp power for themselves, but seek instead to question the mindset that worships power. They want to find an entirely different paradigm that is not shaped by the masculine lust for power. Those feminists don't want to imitate men, but escape the need to measure themselves against men.
18. Tami had the following to say on Jan 30 at 9:19 PM:
Jacob M, did you look at the ads Tom linked to (Daily Mail link)? Surely you don't count spanking a grown woman for buying the wrong coffee, or pondering the ethics of killing a woman because she messed up a mailing, as "traditional gender roles" that anyone, Christian or otherwise, would uphold. I don't think it's liberal in the least to consider those ads "cringe inducing."
For the record, I think both men and women are portrayed in unflattering (at best) and vile (at worst) ways in advertising today. The *aspects* of the negativity are different, but both are negative.
19. Tope had the following to say on Jan 30 at 9:34 PM:
Jacob M -
Hold up. Not that I'm a great defender of such ideas myself, but which part of "traditional gender roles" involves spanking one's wife and joking about killing her because the mail went out late . . . ? Or suggesting that women are too stupid to drive cars or too weak to open ketchup bottles?
20. Michelle had the following to say on Jan 31 at 12:25 AM:
Really interesting discussion here. Just wanted to note to Tami that I would agree with her note about bibles advertised in Christian magazine. As I said, I work in advertising...those adverts are sold into the magazines and I reckon the advertising sales person just targeted the easiest possible options. bibles, christians, perfect! I work in that industry...it's how they sell adverts. :) just an insiders opinion!
21. Eliza had the following to say on Jan 31 at 7:50 AM:
The article said that more women view sitcoms then men, and so the sitcoms are just reaching out to their target audience...which apparently prefers to see the women being the smart ones ;). I, personally, had a lot of issues with the way women were portrayed on Fox's 24. Even the strong ones made stupid decisions because they couldn't control their emotions. Again, target audience.
Perhaps the sitcom writers are working out their own daddy issues on screen. All the best cowboys have daddy issues...
22. Tami had the following to say on Jan 31 at 8:40 AM:
Hi, Michelle, I agree. I'm in marketing & advertising myself. :) It just amazes me (saddens me, really) that, in some quarters, Christians are regarded as such an easy "target audience" or "demo". Beyond Bibles, into "Christian this" and "Christian that." I could get started on my little song and dance about the moneychangers in the temple, but I'll refrain...
[For the record, I see nothing wrong with providing the Bibles and books that Christians are looking for, which can be regarded as ministry, in some ways. However I do question the the methods of marketing and promotion that some folks use. Anyway! I'll stop before I get too off topic!]
23. michelle had the following to say on Jan 31 at 10:20 AM:
Tami, totally!
we could go on for ages eh?
now they're setting up a Christian theme park here in the UK...stating that it's big in the US.
Thoughts? maybe for another thread?
24. Tami had the following to say on Jan 31 at 10:42 AM:
Christian theme park? In the US? Never heard of it! Who sold them on that one! ;)
25. Sara had the following to say on Jan 31 at 10:55 AM:
Andrew, I don't mean men are more empowered in that they're more thick-skinned; I'm talking economic and political power. If it's true that women have less power than men, and that one acheives power in part by reputiation and recognition, then women stand more to lose by being denegrated in the media or anywhere else. (A criticism of this is that I'm painting women as victims, of course).
There was a discussion awhile ago about divorce and alimony: many women expressed (maybe rightly) outrage at men being shafted in alimony cases, yet no one spoke out about children getting shortchanged (via their mothers losing out on alimony), which I'd say is more dangerous because children have less power to pull themselves back up. If morality could exist in a vacuum with no politics involved, then yes, putting down men would be just as bad as putting down women--but it doesn't.
It just seems to me than some women are more eager to align themselves with wronged men than with wronged women or children. Maybe it's to avoid seeming contentious; maybe it's to align themselves with power to protect themselves; I don't know.
26. Sara had the following to say on Jan 31 at 11:22 AM:
pds,
I don't see how all power could really be radically redefined. It takes power to escape [traditionally defined] power, to garner recognition, to shift paradigms, and so on: Maybe I'm way off here...... but if you literally try to drown a woman, she still struggles with all her might against the oppression: that struggle when she's trying to save herself, how is that any different from what you call a male lust for power? Isn't it innate? I don't get how traditional male power could be considered only a cultural thing.
There could be a cultural revolution where, say, people who relate well are valued as much as people who dominate well, but I don't see how that kind of 'feminist' power could ever be as stable--could ever be as powerful--as the 'lust' for control we have inside us. Am I looking at non-human animals too much?
27. pds had the following to say on Jan 31 at 11:35 AM:
Sara,
I agree that I have a hard time envisioning a world where we are not all subject, to some degree or another, to power. However, I'm not willing to accept it as good just because it's all I can imagine. I also wouldn't argue that power is "only a cultural thing"-- I think it is a human thing. I still believe, though, that the way to escape being subject to power is not to have more power than anyone else, but to step out of that paradigm entirely. I think that is a huge part of what Jesus does. He is remarkable because he refuses to play by the rules of this world. I think that's what he asks of his followers, too. That's why he told so many parables about the kingdom of heaven-- where God is love, not power.
28. Andrew (tlw) had the following to say on Jan 31 at 7:14 PM:
Sara,
Thank you for expanding on that.
I offer the observation that men and women are different. We obtain economic and political power because of who we are, but also what we do, and the opportunities we have.
Given the choice, men and women often choose to make radically different work choices that lead to different economic and political outcomes. For example, women in the labour force are often concentrated in lower paid “caring” industries, such as nursing or teaching.
We start our lives with a range of potential and our experience pushes us one way or the other in that range. Whom we become is influenced by what we do. A woman who chooses to become a teacher may well develop a different character to one who chooses to work in law enforcement.
The bible refers scathingly to those who take advantage of widows and orphans, for precisely the reasons you offer. Jewish society was highly patriarchal (sp?) and influence depended on a lot on your family ties.
I see the validity of what you are saying, but still suggest we take seriously the false media images of men. All negative portrayals of men and women are essentially lies being perpetuated against us. The research shows clearly that we if we continue to hear the same lies on a frequent basis, we eventually believe them. We may even begin to act them out, consciously or otherwise. This is deception.
Whilst there are men who possess significant economic and/or political power, there are many of us (self included) who do not. To those of us who make up this large group, the sting of a thousand arrows in movies, books, and on TV, erodes our character, our determination to stand for what is good, and right, at all times. That doesn’t excuse us from making good choices; but it does make it harder.
Maybe this also explains why I choose to avoid most TV these days.
29. michelle had the following to say on Jan 31 at 11:54 PM:
tami: apparently in florida...holyland?
30. Netanya had the following to say on Feb 1 at 9:37 PM:
Sarah, Thanks for several of the comments you made, complemented by Andrew's comments on widows and orphans. I'm just sad that more men didn't make Sarah and Andrew's connection.
If I can hop along a bunny trail, my Dad (awesome guy!) is one of the few men I know who's constantly looking out for women -- my mom, myself, the old lady at church with a flat tire. Even ballroom dancing, he's concerned first for Mom's safety and then for making her look good. I'd have to say, however, that he (and Mom) have always said, "Which child do you love the most?" "The one that's sick" -- And apply it to a range of circumstances. It's the widows and orphans thing entirely -- Watching out for the reputation/welfare of those less powerful than yourself - and caring even more for them than your own welfare.
31. Katherine had the following to say on Feb 2 at 6:51 PM:
Eh, what can I say? Unfortunately, sexism sells. It's atrocious, and demeaning, and I doubt it will ever go away.
32. EM had the following to say on Feb 2 at 8:36 PM:
Fascinating discussion. I do believe women are not portrayed as helpless in the media nearly so often as they used to be. And, men are not portrayed as invincible gods who have no weaknesses anymore. Generally, gender portrayal seems, (may I suggest?) slightly more balanced in today's media than in the "good 'ole days." Yes, there are shows that make fun of men - but there are still a few that place typically female weaknesses on full display (has anyone seen "bridezillas?") and favorably portray strong men (can you say "24"?).
On TV we can find lots of sensitive men and tough women today. In the past women on TV were almost exclusively portrayed as hyper-sensitive and men as hyper-tough. But it's not like tough guys and sensitive women have disappeared from the entertainment culture of the day. There are shallow girly girls all over modern TV (can anyone say Sex & the City?) and there are responsible, caring, protective, intelligent men too (see CSI leads or Air Force One).
Maybe all we are seeing is a little correction in the market...
33. Farmer Pete had the following to say on Feb 3 at 2:59 AM:
A few observations, if I may.
Firstly, there doesn't seem to be a lot of Bible in this debate, which is a pity, because the God who made us had something to say about roles, about authority, and about value. In God's economy, authority has nothing to do with value. Authority is - or SHOULD BE - a function or a job, not an indication of who is loved or valued. Authority is given more for the benefit of those who are under it, than those who exercise it, and those who are given it are required to exercise more responsibility. I see people talking about the "lust for power", but biblically speaking, authority was given first to men. That it has been abused does not alter this any more than it makes men more important. Equal in value, different in function. That's us.
Secondly. I have seen a "Doofus Dad" in real life. He was a hard worker and a good provider, but when he got home, he handed his wages to his wife and goofed off. The results were not pretty. He is now divorced, most of his grandchildren are illegitimate, and his son had a huge gap in his understanding of manhood. This in an ostensibly "Christian family". Our teenagers have enough difficulty growing up without being presented with thousands of examples in which rebellion is justified and the stupidity of parents - especially fathers - is the norm.
Thirdly, if you ladies ever want your husbands, fathers or boyfriends to be loving, sensitive and emotionally communicative, then do not treat us as though we are bulletproof. There is a large and growing body of evidence that respect is more important to us than love, and that the two are strongly liked. The insight for you is this; that if you do not respect us, then we will conclude that you also do not love us, and withdraw. Given the number of single lasses who visit this site, it should give you pause.
Next time you have are tempted to approve something degrading to the "generic male" in front of the lad that you're dating (or your husband or sons if you're married), can it! He may laugh at it with you, but at a certain level, you've hurt him in a way that you are probably not equipped to understand. (Mars,Venus, we're different, OK?) Not only that, but you've also given him reason to *not* trust you to hear how he really feels. Is that what you want?
Oddly enough, we men are capable of learning. Hit us often enough with that particular stick, and we will react. Some will hit back. Others will retreat, whether it is to another woman (where he is appreciated) or into his emotional cave.
This a blog about marriage, kiddos. One of the most formidable weapons that you girls have in your hunting quivers is simple, old-fashioned appreciation. You don't even have to be dishonest about it. Just refuse to accept stereotypes that are degrading to the man that you love or desire to attract.
Happy hunting........ Pete