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.
To be the devil's advocate, I would say that the sexualization of the newer ads at least allows for some, if minimal, autonomy. By not demonizing feminine sexuality, there is some instance of power. I mean, obviously advertisers are not depicting the type of girl you'd bring home to your mother, so there's an entirely different brand of subjugation.
ReplyDeleteBoth are pretty wretched, though, and I don't think advertisements about what is "masculine" help any.
Interesting blog :-)
I agree-I think that some of the newer ads (not the ones posted on this blog though..) can sometimes be viewed as more progressive in that there is some instance of feminine sexuality, as opposed to females being viewed as beings with no sexual desire whatsoever. But this is a slippery slope, because it's also very easy to exploit female sexuality.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, these ads work.. and have for years. Advertisers see sexy depictions of women as a way to sell to men, and with this over-sexed culture its not going to change. It seems advertisers have not caught up with the time however, as more and more women are working and purchasing goods. Most of these ads are probably made because the advertisers believe men will still be doing most of the purchasing.
ReplyDeleteYou have to take a closer look as to who the advertising agencies employ.. i would bet its more men then women!
I dont find these offensive particularly, but i can see how women would.. i think it would be really hard to change quickly though. it seems to be embedded into our culture.
But as the saying goes.. Sex Sells!
It is extremely interesting how the theme of subordination stuck throughout the decades in terms of these ads. It was interesting to see how the relationships between the sexes are unequal in advertising; usually what people focus on is raising awareness on the exploitation of women in advertising (which is also important)
ReplyDeleteThe newer ads seem to be designed to lead us to think we've got power now...the power of sex...but to me it's just the same old same old. Seems to me advertising hasn't improved much over the years in terms of how women are depicted.
ReplyDeleteIn a way though we don't even have the 'power of sex' in some ads because even when the woman is barely wearing clothes, looking highly sexual, the man is still towering over here and shes in a vulnerable position like the ones posted here. This isn't the case with all sexualized ads though, but most.
ReplyDeleteSeeing these ads over and over can lead to a very warped sense of what sex is, since it is rarely depicted as consensual or equal in the media. Women learn that this is their place, and men learn that it is a man's job to be bigger, stronger, more powerful than women.
ReplyDeleteI don't mean to be repeating what everyone else has said, but I agree that from looking at these ads, I would say that the theme of subordination is similar in today's ads as well as the ads of the 50s. The biggest difference between the two is the sexuality. Women are portrayed still as the weaker sex in todays ads but they are portrayed as sexual and vulnerable to men. They seem to be offering themselves to the men. While I do believe that not ALL sexualized ads are demeaning women, I think there are some out there that show women's power through their sexuality. Unfortunately, sex is a major symbol of the advertisement world. I'm curious if the majority of heads in the advertisement world are men... It's not just ads too; look at TV. TV is even more infamous for portraying highly sexualized female figures as way to gain viewers, as advertisements do to sell.
ReplyDeleteFrom my friend Laura:
ReplyDelete"Even before I took my WST class, I never liked advertisements. This is mostly because in virtually every ad in magazines targeting my age group, the women are these skinny, emotionless objects. You know my deal, and you know why I think it's ridiculous that women HAVE to be shown as sickly-thin. After the recent assignment in my WST class, I started to think about how the media not only plays a role in girls' body images, but the way they understand what it means to be man or woman.
Those ads on the second page, for example. First of all, the girls, as I mentioned, are extremely thin and devoid of emotion. This says a lot about what it means to be a "real woman." These images are sending the message that women have to be skinny and powerless. That women have to be inferior to men. In all of the ads on the second page, the faces of the men are not showing. I'm not sure exactly what this means, but to me it's like this mysterious authority. Some higher power the women need to answer to. And as for men, these ads say they have to be violent and almost dangerous to be "masculine." Especially the first Dolce & Gabbana advertisement. They are no doubt about to gang rape her. And this is what it means to be masculine in this world."