KEEPING US DOWN: The Subordinate Position of Women in Advertising

The subordinate position of women in our culture is an important issue, currently and historically. But what does the “subordinate” position actually mean?

sub·or·di·nate
[adj., n. suh-bawr-dn-it]
1. placed in or belonging to a lower order or rank.
2. of less importance; secondary.

The term “subordinate” can mean many things.  Often, when you think of women as “subordinate”, you might think of the wage gap between women and men (women earn 77% of what men earn as of 9/16/10)*, or you might think about the overwhelmingly disproportionate statistics about rape (99% of rapists are men)**.

This blog will focus on a more literal interpretation of the word "subordinate." The subordination of women is an extremely intricate subject matter; there is evidence of it all around us. But what happens when you take a closer look at the subordination of women in advertising? We noticed a pattern…

Remember that part of the definition of “subordinate” that has to do with something being lower? Check out these old magazine advertisements from the 1950s. Though women have gained more rights than they had in the fifties and sixties, the advertisements we have today are not that different from the ones that were common back then.

Take a look at these two advertisements, both of them from the 1950s. They both feature women lying on the floor, in positions that are either implied or directly subordinate to men. The first is a woman lying on the floor next to a shoe, with the copy reading “Keep her where she belongs…” It’s implied that this woman has less value than a man: where she belongs is on the floor. There’s also a hint that the woman’s only interest is in shoes and trivial things that a man can’t be bothered with—she belongs in a position where her only concern is for shoes and fashion.

The second ad is even worse. The copy reads, “It’s nice to have a woman around the house,” and depicts a woman, her body turned into a fur rug, on the floor, while a man’s foot holds her head down. This ad takes the theme of women being lesser than men several steps further. She has no body; she is a rug, turned into a furnishing. The only part of her body that’s left—her head, her brain—is being stepped on. The only thing she has left that can be considered valuable is being degraded as much as her body was by being turned into a rug. She’s not smart; she’s just there to look pretty. When we add all this to the copy, we can infer that it’s nice to have a woman around the house… as long as she’s not too smart and just sits around looking pretty, not getting in the man’s way.
 
Then there’s an ad like this one, which takes the theme almost as far as it can go. A man is portrayed as outright beating his wife for “getting flat, stale coffee.” It’s meant to be humorous, but instead becomes disturbing. It trivializes the problem of domestic violence in order to market a product. One would think we’ve moved past that mentality, but today’s ads prove that we haven’t. 

Take a look at all of these and notice the positioning of the women's bodies, and compare it to the man's. They are always lower, always subordinate. Isn't that sending the message that a woman isn't as valued as a man?

Based on these ads, would you think today's advertisements are better or worse? Click "Older Posts" for the next entry and get a look at the advertisements of today, and keep these themes in mind.

The Ads of Today

In this ad, you can see clearly who has control over the situation. There's four men looming over one woman, who's in a compromising position, beneath the men. The men outnumbering the woman makes the situation seem menacing and brings to mind a gang rape.

This ad is even more obvious about the difference in position between the woman and the man. The man is towering over her, caging her in with his legs on either side of her. His body language is clearly dominant. The woman is wearing a skimpy swimsuit, while the man is wearing a suit. He is probably a businessman or in some other position of power, while the woman is sunbathing, only meant to be decorative. Since she's only involved in frivolous activities, she's never going to reach a position of power like the one the man occupies.

For this ad, no man is necessary to show that the woman is in a subordinate position. She is on all fours, in a submissive position, being used as a table. She's not even a woman; she's a piece of furniture, an object. In this ad, being that low to the ground implies insignificance and a willingness to let people walk all over you.

Yet again, the body language in this ad shows dominance. He is in the "power stance," legs apart and standing over the woman, while she is in a vulnerable position below him. Her purpose is clearly to please him; you can guess from their positions what they're close to doing.




Now that you've seen both sets of ads, which ones do you think were worse? How do you feel when you look at these ads? Do they make you angry? Do you think we should make an effort to market products without objectifying women? Do you think such an effort would work?

Click "Older Posts" to see the message of our campaign and what we hope to achieve.

Can't Bring Us Down: Our Campaign

You've now seen several ads where women are used as decorations, lower than men, and where men are in positions of power, standing over the women and sometimes actively restraining them. We supposedly have the same rights as men, but advertising would still have us believe that we are less important, less valued.

It is important to understand that this type of attitude pervades our society, and that it also perpetuates violence. Women are being shown that they aren't as important as men, and men are being shown that they should control and dominate women. Maybe advertisements aren't the cause of violence against women, but they are an important factor. Media reaches almost the whole world, and its messages are influential. If we can change what's in the media, maybe we can begin to establish gender equality and lessen the impact of gender violence.

We decided to blog about this issue because we wanted to use the media in a positive way. Just as it can be used to perpetuate violence, it can also be used to spread awareness and work towards change. If we want to change the media, we're going to have to start the movement ourselves. We might not be able to affect the workings of the big corporations, but we can use our own resources and work our way up.

How do you think advertisements perpetuate gender violence? Did seeing our interpretations of the ads shift your thinking in any way? What do you think we can do to change advertising and its inequalities?