Archive: 2008

Morgan A. sent in a photo of this poster, seen in the Paris Metro in 2002:

The text says, more or less, “No women’s bodies were exploited in this ad.”

Looking around online, I was able to find another version (found here) with the same text:

Both are ads for Eram, a French shoe company. One way to read them would be as a clever way of criticizing the use of women’s bodies in ads. But it’s also possible they’re ridiculing concerns about how women’s bodies are used, rather than trying to undermine such objectification.

What do you think?

Thanks, Morgan A.!

In this series I have offered five explanations of why people of color are included in advertising. Start with the first in the series and follow the links to the remaining four here.

I am now discussing how they are included. Already I have shown that people of color are often whitewashed and that they tend to be chaperoned.  Here I show that, when people of color are included, they are often subordinated through placement and action.  That is, they tend to be literally background or arranged so that the focal point (visually or through action) is the white person or people in the ad.  You’ll see a lot of this in the previous posts in this series if you go back and look again.

Darin F. sent in this example from a poster for McDonalds Happy Meals. He noted the way in which the women were arranged, closest to furthest, by skin color:

NEW! I found another example of this skin color hierarchy, this time on a CD cover:

More instances in which people of color are background:

In the next two ads, the center of attention–or the action–is where the white woman is: 

Notice how in this ad, while there are three women of color (an exception to the tendency for people of color to be chaperoned), the woman front-and-center is clearly white:

Something similar is going on in these next two ads:

The hierarchy of height:

As Jean Kilbourne points out in her docmentary, Killing Us Softly, this visual representation of racial hierarchy tends to be found unless another axis of hierarchy is at work:

NEW (Mar. ’10)! Anina H. sent in this New York State flier advising mothers on feeding their babies.  Notice that the flier includes women of three different races, but the ideal mother (“YOUR PRICELESS BREASTMILK!!!”) is white:

NEW (July ’10)! Naomi D. saw this welcome banner at the entrance of a Methodist Church.  Notice how the racial hierarchy is represented on the banner with a White woman and child on the top, an Asian man below her, and a Black woman at the bottom of the banner:

As always, I welcome your comments!

Next up: Interracial dating, the last taboo.

Also in this series:
(1) Including people of color so as to associate the product with the racial stereotype.
(2) Including people of color to invoke (literally) the idea of “color” or “flavor.”
(3) To suggest ideas like “hipness,” “modernity,” and “progress.”
(4) To trigger the idea of human diversity.
(5) To suggest that the company cares about diversity.

How are they included?
(6) They are “white-washed.”
(7) They are “chaperoned.”

In this ad, the copy, which reads “Who said you can’t have it both ways,” refers explicitly to both “play[ing] it safe” with condoms and having “a great time” with “great sex.”  Of course, implicitly, it also means not choosing between black and white women.  Women are, in the subtext, objects to “have” and black and white women are very different kinds of objects. 

Ben O. brought our attention to a series of sexist ads for Griffen Microsheen boot polish. Here’s one for your Christmas viewing pleasure:

I’m sure Santa was pleased that he could see her nipples through her nightie.

Lots more Microsheen ads at Found in Mom’s Basement.

Thanks, Ben!

Eva M. sent in an image (found here) of a Beauty Smile Trainer:

Presumably you’re supposed to wear it regularly to train yourself to smile the big, wide smiles needed to win beauty contests. It’s another example of how we no longer think of beauty as something “natural,” but rather as something that you get through products, training, and, if necessary, surgery. I guess you can wear this along with your teeth-whitening treatments to get the perfect smile.

Thanks, Eva M.!

In The Gendered Society, Michael Kimmel argues that women often have to be very careful how they dress, lest they be seen as too frumpy, too old, too slutty, too smart, trying to hard, etc.  In comparison, men can often just go as a guy.

Two examples:

Nancy: The invitation says black tie, I guess you’ll wear your tux?

Frank: Yup.

Nancy: Mr. Easy.  Once choice, one look.  I have to ponder endless combinations of hair, makeup, gowns, shoes, jewelry.  I have to decide if I want to look sultry, subdued, glittery, basic, bright, dark, modern, traditional…

Frank: Hon, who do you want to please?

Nancy: You, of course.

Frank: I stopped listening after “sultry.”  There, Mr. Easy to the rescue.

Nancy: Gee, thanks.  Sultry’s the hardest one.

The fact that women can’t just be a “person” at the bar or the black tie event is related to the fact that women are a marked category, while men are culturally neutral.  That is, women are women and men are people.  For more posts on this idea related to gender and other categories, see this post on toys for kids and our post on that famous real bodies exhibit.

(I found the first image here; the LuAnn cartoon was given to me by Myra M. F.)

In a previous post, I shared some photographs by Edward Burtynsky of oil fields and mines.  Burtynsky takes pictures with an eye towards the modern global economy. This set documents massive piles of waste sorted for recycling:

Three pictures of the Oxford tire pile in Westley, California (1999):

Densified Oil Drums in Hamilton, Ontario (1997):

Metal for recycling in Hamilton, Ontario (1997):

Metal for recycling in Hamilton, Ontario (1997):

Plastic toy parts in Guiyu, Guangdong Province (2004):

Circuit boards in Guiyu, Guangdong Province (2004):

Recycling work station (I believe the worker is taking apart computers) in Zenguo, Zhejiang Province (2004):

Stephen W. sent us a link to a Walmart YouTube channel that recreates the supermom mythology.  The website encourages moms to submit videos of themselves explaining how they’ve figured out how to save money while shopping, cooking, and cleaning.  The website reads:

With creativity, ingenuity, and Walmart’s unbeatable prices.  Moms can do anything.

(I bet they can’t coupon us out of this economic crisis though.)

Here’s a screen shot:

My first thought was: So apparently the wife is the one doing all the spending and, if she is a good little wife, she’s frugal and makes her husband’s hard-earned money go further.  This would reproduce the husband as money-earner/wife as money-spender stereotype.

But then I realized: There’s no mention a dad or any earner anywhere on the front page.  It’s nothin’ but moms.