Eric S. drew our attention to an ad campaign for Jawbone, a noise cancelling headset. Eric was disturbed by the way the women were used in the advertising. Take a look:
It is interesting that a product that must be actively used (it’s for talking) is advertised with such passive women.
Some scholars, Jean Kilbourne among them, have noted that ads often include women who appear to be dead (see here, here, here, and here). If these women do not appear to be dead, they at least appear doll-like. Their eyes are blank, staring at nothing. It seems to me that one or both of these are going on here… in either case, the strategy dehumanizes the women, making them into objects.
Also in women as racks on which to place product: men’s shoes and accessories.
Comments 27
Larry C Wilson — May 4, 2009
Give me a break! Deconstructionism run rampant.
More women looking dead in advertisements « The Gender Blender Blog — May 4, 2009
[...] women looking dead in advertisements 4 05 2009 Sociological Images has a new post up featuring advertisements for Jawbone noise canceling headsets where (shockingly) women are [...]
Vettekaas — May 4, 2009
those look very unlikely to cancel noise.
maybe they look dead because they no longer are receiving signals from the outside world thanks to their noise canceling headphones!
I am more disturbed by the general trend of being surrounded by silent crowds all in their own, private sound bubbles texting to people miles away and ignoring the people around them.
Dr. Robert Runte — May 4, 2009
So maybe I live at the outskirts of civilization, and don't 'get' modern fashions, but quite aside from the fact that these women are doll-like or legally brain dead, they all look like Aliens. Does anyone you know actually look like this? Would they want to? It's like the ad said, "Put on our headset and be replaced by a pod person!" I get their wanting to associate their colorful product (with its boring rectangular shape) with high fashion, but at some point high fashion slips over the line into embarrassing silly. "Put this colored rectangle on your head and look stupid" does strike me as a successful sales strategy.
But yeah, necrophilia seems pretty explicit here. Note strangle motif in purple ad. and the too white make-up. Gives me the creeps.
Sociological Images » Passive And On Her Back: Advertising A Headset — May 4, 2009
[...] Read more: Sociological Images » P... [...]
George — May 4, 2009
This looks more like they're trying to be geishas...so..."Asian culture" fetishism?
yikes — May 4, 2009
Maybe they're getting transmissions from Ziggy Stardust.
Maybe they're plotting world domination.
Maybe they're only *pretending* to be passive, and if you get too close, they'll pounce!
TM — May 4, 2009
A headset isn't just for talking. Don't forget, listening is an important part of conversations. (This ad was made to create dialogue about it.) And the point of the ad is that it's beautiful looking. Eye candy is slang for something attractive, earcandy is play off that. (If you look closely you can see the heatsets match what the women/mannequins are wearing.)
It would be unusual for a handsfree to hang like that horizontal and notice the lighting, look where the shadows fall. This woman is vertical to catch the eye, and the product is more striking as a / or a \ than a slightly off _. Whether one assumes she is on her back or not was also probably intended, to get people talking.
Is a mannequin an object? Are mannequins human?
I wonder if you or anyone you know talk to street performers pretending to be robots or statues to stop objectifying themselves. Would putting giving them money contribute to their dehumanization or be a positive donation to an oppressed person?
Ellen — May 5, 2009
TM, If this ad were in isolation, without a history of advertising objectifying women which seems to be getting worse, I might agree with you. But since we see passive, taken apart, dead looking, used, stepped on, strangled, being used as furniture, and and infantilized women everywhere we look, I don't.
Elena — May 5, 2009
And the point of the ad is that it’s beautiful looking. Eye candy is slang for something attractive, earcandy is play off that.
That you're assuming a male subject and female object(s) of desire is exactly what this thing called "male gaze" is all about.
If you look closely you can see the heatsets match what the women/mannequins are wearing. [...] Is a mannequin an object? Are mannequins human?
Talk about objectification, sheesh. Would you be having this kind of conversation about male models?
Fernando — May 5, 2009
Give me a break! Deconstructionism run rampant.²
Endor — May 5, 2009
"Give me a break! Deconstructionism run rampant."
Translation: I'm privileged! You must listen to me! Nevermind that I'm totally totally clueless, arrogant ass - I have a penis and therefore I'm right!
(lol - you goofy pig-ignorant boys are always a laugh).
It's blatantly obvious that not only are the meant to look passive, they're meant to look vacant. It's a perfectly useless advertisement.
theunbeatablekid — May 5, 2009
to me, the goal of this series of advertisement is to make a common electronics device transform into a fashion accessory. high tech meets high art. as TM notices, the earpieces match the models' makeup and clothing as if they were earrings. this makes the models look very much like every other runway/fashion mag model.
i would think that this ad is targeting women and not men by attempting to establish a female gender for the technology. in other words, this earpiece will enhance your femininity, not detract from it.
Ellen — May 6, 2009
theunbeatablekid, that is exactly the problem. What is femininity - Vacancy, being eye candy, passiveness? Or just matching your ear piece with your make-up and clothes?
theunbeatablekid — May 6, 2009
i never meant to imply that it wasn't a problem and i'm sorry if i wasn't clear about that. i was more interested in the source of this kind of imagery - in this case high fashion - and the idea of the gendering of technologies.
i believe that these images are not so much constructing a femininity as they are drawing from an already established idea of femininity to make their product more "female friendly." of course, reproducing an idea is a form of construction.
for an old ad that gets at this same concept but this time with male gendered cigarettes, check this out:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hab3045/3089694067
wiggles — May 6, 2009
Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that posts here which point out sexism receive more adamant defense, denial, and rationalization in comments than any of the other posts?
this makes the models look very much like every other runway/fashion mag model.
Except for the part where they're lying down with cold, vacant stares on their faces.
Bagelsan — May 7, 2009
If you look closely you can see the heatsets match what the women/mannequins are wearing. ...Is a mannequin an object? Are mannequins human?
Mannequins are objects. Women are humans. The fact that you can't distinguish between the two easily is telling.
Evan — May 7, 2009
"Everything that looks like a penis is bad"
That line from the Simpsons reminds me of the deconstruction of these ads.
Everything in an ad is an object - so what? They are selling an idea and a product... both of which are supposed to seem "attainable". To attain something it needs to be objectified.
They are selling the idea of this fashionable hyperworld. How is that a problem?
al oof — May 7, 2009
this reminds me that when i was in a strip club recently, one of the performers was wearing a bluetooth earpiece. i thought it was strange, but maybe she was just plugging into the same fetish these ads are plugging into!
i can't believe there are people who read a blog about sociology who think that deconstructing an ad campaign where all the women look dead is over the top.
h-jg — May 9, 2009
"I am more disturbed by the general trend of being surrounded by silent crowds all in their own, private sound bubbles texting to people miles away and ignoring the people around them."
Yeah, no, you're right. The sexism in the ad is really just a side issue that is secondary to the issue of the death of face-to-face communication. I completely agree.
Sarcasm aside, kudos to what al oof, Bageslan, wiggles etc. have said
Ellen — May 10, 2009
Evan, that depends on what you are trying to "attain." If you are trying to attain the object in the ad, and the object is objectified, fine. If the ad is selling a lifestyle, in which women are objectified, not so fine. And just the fact that you used the word attain instead of obtain, tells me you think the latter is fine.
Evan — May 14, 2009
Hi Ellen, You caught me on the misuse of attain, thanks.
And yes, I do not think there is a problem with portraying human beings as sexual objects. Sometimes we are just the animals we are, and should not demand that social context be spelled out in every representation of us.
h-jg — May 16, 2009
"And yes, I do not think there is a problem with portraying human beings as sexual objects."
Perhaps it's better if you just don't comment at all :)
Uamao — December 29, 2009
Are you all crazy? What is wrong with you? Do you need to see sexism everywhere? When you rave about the sexism in advertisements like this all you're doing is taking attention away from real sexism, and linking feminism to hypersensitive gibberish. When you look at these images not everyone, probably very few, think that they seem like 'dead women'. The women's sexuality isn't even particularly emphasized. This ad says that this product is cutting edge, fashionable and futuristic (the appearance of the women is more sci-fi than anything). If anything it de-masculinizes the technology. The women's horizontal bodies simply make it work well on billboards, more attention is drawn to the earpiece, being vertical. Some of you are unbelievable, pull your heads together.
Putting a Moratorium on Dead Girls in Ads « The Lackadaisical Blog — February 22, 2010
[...] not the first to notice this disturbing trend. The site Sociological Images explores a variety of ads and the meanings [...]
Candice — October 28, 2010
"This guy treats objects like women..man.." - The Dude