Elisabeth R., Rebecca H., and Kalani R. all sent in a Volkswagen commercial produced for SuperBowl weekend that they found striking, both for the commercial itself and reactions to it. In the commercial, a child dressed up as Darth Vader tries using The Force on various items around the house. What struck all three of the submitters is the ambiguous gendering of the ad:
At no point is the child’s gender made clear. If we just went with the information in the ad, we might conclude the child is a girl, based on scene in the stereotypically super-pink bedroom. But given the usual clear gendering of toys, Elisabeth, Rebecca, and Kalani all enjoyed seeing an ad in which this didn’t occur.
But the possibility that a girl might dress up as Darth Vader seems difficult for a lot of people to grasp. In the pages and pages of comments on the commercial on YouTube, the child is repeatedly referred to as “he” or “the boy.” In one comment thread, when someone brings up the possibility the child is a girl due to the pink bedroom, someone else says no, it was a boy in his sister’s room.
There’s no particular reason to assume this child is a boy except that we associate Star Wars with boys (and generally see males as the default if gender isn’t otherwise specified). I think the reactions to the video are a good example of the power of gendering: because viewers have pre-existing ideas about gender, kids, and what they’d be interested in, they’re likely to apply those assumptions even in the face of potentially contradictory information and to come up with explanations that leave the pre-existing ideas intact.
UPDATE: I forgot to mention when I was writing the post that none of the commenters who saw the child as a boy seemed to think the pink room was his — I read several different comment threads and when it was brought up, people assume it’s a sister’s room. Also, reader Angie thinks the stuff in the pink room looks too old for the child, since the toys look like the type an older kid would collect. I am clueless about that, which is why I struggle to buy gifts for kids: I no longer have a clear sense of what types of things kids are playing with at what age.
UPDATE 2: This is separate from what the gender of the role of the child in the commercial, but VW has confirmed that the actor who played the child is a boy.
On another note, the fact that VW is using Star Wars nostalgia in its ads as a way to appeal to adult customers makes me feel very old for some reason.
Comments 108
Fernando — February 6, 2011
Well, I'd assume the child is a boy because Vader was a man. Honestly, the pink room isn't contradictory information and it doesn't require any mental gymnastics to assume that the sister's room. We are never shown who's room is that.
It is just that knowing society, and its gender roles, and gender expectations, and how media portrays boys and girls, and all of the context we are inserted in, the safest assumption is to see little Vader as a boy.
The same explanation from the above paragraph could be applied to say why someone would think the room belongs to a girl.
We are never told who sleeps in that room and we are never told Vader's gender. Assuming the room belongs to a girl because it is pink and has dolls it is the same as assuming that little Vader is a boy because Star Wars and Darth Vader are mostly associated with boys.
Angie — February 6, 2011
I don't think that the pink bedroom is supposed to be mini-Darth's room, but not because I'm sure of Darth's gender. I think based on mini-Darth's size and the fact that he/she can actually possess "the force" that he/she might be 5-7. Although you're never too old to use your imagination! I think it's supposed to be a sibling because of the stuff in that room looks like it belongs to a child that's maybe 10-12. Even though there are plenty of stuffed animals, there aren't any little kid toys in it, but there are tons of prize ribbons hanging off...aren't those usually given to "tweens"? My nieces and nephews are about those ages and their participation awards for when they were younger were plastic medals to wear around their neck or mini trophies. When they got older to 10-12, they prize ribbons, certificates, and real medals and trophies. That's also a pretty big desk chair for mini-Darth. And look at the sweater hanging off of it, it's too big for mini-Darth too.
Emma — February 6, 2011
I agree that the sweater looks too big for mini-Darth. Though in my experience a baby doll like that would typically belong to a 3-5 year old, not an older child. Even if mini Darth is a boy, it's interesting that they chose to show 'him' playing with a doll as opposed to an action man or something more gender neutral such as a teddy.
Kim — February 6, 2011
Growing up as the middle child in a sea of hand-me-down toys, clothes, furniture, etc., I can't reject that the room could be little Darth's. And now I'm a bit ashamed because I automatically assumed that little Darth was a boy, despite being a Star Wars fan-girl at that age. I really do like this ad!
Russell — February 6, 2011
I agree that gender assumption works both ways. If it is ok to assume that the room belongs to a girl, then it has to be ok to assume that the main character is a boy.
I assumed the character was a boy because dressing up in Darth Vader costume and going around trying to teleport things is a typical boy thing to do. I am always marveling at how boys do things and get into things that girls want no part of.
My family was at the beach last summer and I watched 2 little boys catch and absolutely terrorize a sand crab. A little girl wanted no parts of it. Just yesterday in the grocery store I saw 2 boys doing all kinds of crap, while little girls were more tranquil and helpful. I once say a boy take a running start and try to jump in one of those grocery carts that has the little car in front of it. He thought he was Batman. Of course he didn't make it, fell and hit his little head. He cried for about 30 seconds before he was up and trying to give it another shot. Man I could go on and on about how little boys and little girls just do different stuff.
Boys are obsessed with the family car, and machinery. I wish I had space to tell you how I dismantled the family washing machine, and hot wired our car at about the commercial character's age.
But back to the commercial and about the room. I thought it was odd because of color scheme and the doll. But then I thought again. He is a boy, and he must be wanting to terrorize his sister and abuse her beloved toys. Very Darth Vader, very boy.
Dvd Avins — February 6, 2011
On NPR yesterday, I heard one of the people involved with creating the ad interviewed. He referred to the child as a boy.
Darek Vadeer — February 6, 2011
earth to bleeding hearts: it's a volkswagen commercial. shouldn't you uppity basket cases love it unconditionally?
Neill — February 6, 2011
Were this a real situation it would be fair to say that Darth Vader could be either a boy or a girl, but keep in mind that this commercial was made by a crack team of advertisers. Part of creating an affective add campaign is expecting what the viewers will think when watching the commercial, and without further analysis most people would assume: little boy, sisters room. Therefore there is no doubt in my mind that this child was intended to be male and the room was intended to be his sisters. Seeing as how this was not a real scenario all we can try to guess is what the advertisers intended.
Rachel — February 6, 2011
I assumed the character was a girl due to the room (not that it was a boy and his sister's room). I guess I spent too much of my childhood playing dress-up as all sorts of characters, including "male" ones.
Sara — February 6, 2011
Regardless of little Darth's gender, the rest of the commercial traffics in traditional gender roles. The mother is in the kitchen making lunch, the father is coming home from work (with briefcase in hand). If the parents' roles were reversed, that'd be truly interesting.
Lars Fischer — February 6, 2011
The first thing to observe, I think, is that the add is depressingly full of gender stereotypes as far as the adults are concerned (homemaker, coming home from office, driving he nice car, blah). It doesn't look like an add made my people with a subversive gendering message.
That said, there's absolutely nothing in the look and behaviour of Little Vader that says it's a boy. There's only the expectation in the audience that "only boys play with Star Wars" or "only boys dress up as Darth Vader". In my experience that doesn't hold. I have a 9 year old girl in the house; she would have loved that outfit when she was 5 or 6 - and certainly other of her visiting friends (boys and girls) would have been dressing up in it. My girl has - and always had - a ton of Star Wars Lego, and she can still draw up a big list of kits she'd like to have.
So - you'd be wrong to assume that in the real world only boys would play like that. But I think it's a pretty safe bet that in the fantasy world of advertising, it's a given that Little Vader is a boy.
PS: I agree it's not Little Vader's room or doll. The room belongs to an older kids, the doll is a much-loved toy kept from long ago as a memory. In the fantasy world of advertising, no doubt it's meant to be a girl's room.
Em — February 6, 2011
Huh. I've never seen this commercial, but on the phone the other day my mother was talking about it, and she called the kid a little boy. I didn't know you never see their face. Interesting.
Anon — February 6, 2011
I assumed it was a boy because of the description under the video:
------
The spot features a pint-sized Darth Vader who uses the Force when he discovers the all-new 2012 Passat in the driveway. It leverages humor and the unforgettable Star Wars™ score to create an emotional commercial.
------
Notice the "he discovers."
Julie — February 6, 2011
stereotypically and in all the situations that I've encountered, boys do not like their sister's dolls -- little vader is trying to do something bad to the doll... point being made: little Vader is meant to be portrayed as a boy.
Piper — February 6, 2011
I was glad that the child never took the mask off, leaving it up to the viewer. The first kid I thought of was this kid. ( http://dandelionmama.wordpress.com/2010/04/25/happy-birthday-abby-2/ ), who caught some attention at last year's comicon ( http://dandelionmama.wordpress.com/2010/05/22/comicon-and-skirting-the-subcults/ ).
SamR — February 6, 2011
If it was a girl playing Vader the commercial would be written in such a way that when the car starts the girl would not be as surprised because commercials tend to portray girls as sassy in that way.
Ian Osmond — February 6, 2011
Am I the only person in America who just assumed the child was a girl?
No particular reason why. By random chance, most of the kids in my family who are likely to dress up as Darth Vader and dry to Force-Push the dog are girls. I noticed pretty soon that I had no particular reason to assume that she was a girl, so I realized that it was actually gender-neutral.
The REALLY fascinating thing here, though, is the reaction of people who feel that they're absolutely certain that Darth is a boy. Even people commenting right here. It just shows how pervasive gender assumptions are, that people assume that the only way the child COULD be a girl would be if the PURPOSE of the ad was gender subversion.
And honestly, I can sort of see their point.
In real life, little girls occasionally go around dressing up as Darth Vader and attempting to Force-control their dolls, the dog, and the washing machine, but gender roles are reinforced by media, so, naturally, unless a commercial was deliberately playing with stereotypes, yeah, a media production is going to be reinforcing them.
Yeah, the people making the commercial probably put a boy in that suit. Yeah, on set, they probably referred to the character as "he".
But, as a viewer, it's really interesting to notice that there are no internal cues to point that way. And that everything that makes the kid read as male is brought to the commercial BY the viewer, and the viewer's assumptions.
And because, by random chance, I personally brought the emotional resonance of a niece who would TOTALLY dress up as Darth Vader and try to Force-control things -- and she's ten -- I just saw it that way instead.
Kelley — February 6, 2011
Well, I'm a 40 year old Female, a total star wars fanatic who never identified with Leia (personally I identified with Luke and Han Solo). I would also be one to dress up as Darth Vader even today... So to assume this is a boy is wrong. I like that it is ambiguous, because ALL kids and parents can identify...
Al — February 6, 2011
How many of those commenting above read the video description before making assumptions about other people's assumptions?
rhea d — February 6, 2011
I used to do this all the time with automatic doors in airports and hotels and stuff as a kid. It worked.
Ollie — February 6, 2011
Darth Vader was a dude.. I don't think the entire series is associated with boys - the character in that was the costume was male.
Russell — February 6, 2011
Did you see the other commercial with the little boy, little girl and the frog? It's an age old story.
Sure you can pull out counter-examples of tomboys and what not. Of course we all know that there are nearly no absolutes.
Byron — February 7, 2011
The pink room should also be noted for what it does not include: There is not a single item of Star Wars brand or anything else having to do with sci-fi of any kind.
That's one heck of a costume and a very strong fascination with the Force for a kid that otherwise doesn't possess so much as a single vaguely related item.
m — February 7, 2011
The bedroom was probaby not Darth's since the bed seems far to big for him/her to climb into on a daily basis. On the other hand, that doesn't exclude that it could be two sisters. On another note, is anyone else bothered by how condescending everyone (including the dog) is to Darth in this ad?
Gabi — February 7, 2011
Another interesting point to look at is the gender role distribution of the parents: http://bit.ly/gzNwzL
Kat — February 7, 2011
Aaaaaaaaaaannnnndddd... It is a boy:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/41455621#41455621
Gender and VW’s “The Force” | Euro RSCG Prosumer Reports – Gender — February 7, 2011
[...] Sharp, a professor at Nevada State College offers some interesting commentary on The Society Pages. This entry was posted in Advertising, Culture, Marketing, [...]
Kat — February 7, 2011
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41455377/ns/today/
Meng Bomin — February 7, 2011
Well, if nothing else, this post was an interesting ideological Rorschach test.
Best Art Blog » Ambiguous Gender in VW's “The Force” Commercial » Sociological Images — February 7, 2011
[...] more here: Ambiguous Gender in VW's “The Force” Commercial » Sociological Images Categories: Uncategorized Tags: above-paragraph, all-unusual, bounty-hunter, context, [...]
Sam A — February 7, 2011
Didn't read through all 73 comments, so not sure if it's already been pointed out, but... the sweater hanging over the back of the desk chair in the bedroom looks much too large for li'l Vader.
Pulque — February 8, 2011
Whilst the sizing of the furniture and other items in the bedroom is an important clue, it would seem that if the room was intended to be mini-Vader's there would be other evidence of interest in Star Wars, or at least comparable interests, alongside the uniform pink fluff. I don't think it was ambiguous in the minds of the creative team who made the ad that it was a female sibling's room.
TheBear — February 8, 2011
Not an observation about the Gender-ness of the commercial, but one on Volkswagen; from what I can remember, VW has had a longstanding policy of non-association with "warlike" products, which is why there's never been a Bumblebee Transformer in the shape of a VW since the 80s. This commercial however makes the explicit connection with Star WARS, and with the villain at that (even in harmlessly adorable child form).
Could this be a reversal of VW's earlier policy?
Sorry to get off-topic but that's the first thing I picked up from this commercial.
Also, I agree with Pulque's comment above about the lack of other Star Wars material in the Pink Room is a good indicator that it isn't the kid's.
Bill C. — February 8, 2011
Another assumption that many commenters are making is that the Vader character was trying to "force push" the doll. To me, Vader's gesture more closely resembles the choking that Vader applied to one of his generals in Episode IV (uttering, "I find your lack of faith disturbing"). I found this element of the ad disturbing. Relating this to the discussion of gender interpretation, might the degree of violence of the act affect perceptions of the child's gender?
Jamie — February 9, 2011
The importance of the commercial's non-gendering isn't whether the room is pink/Darth Vader is a male, etc. The commercial is unique and cool because we really cannot tell whether it is a boy or girl (being a girl who loves Star Wars myself, I personally thought it was a girl - but how narrow-minded of me!).
I'm also interested in how it seems much easier to make a child's gender ambiguous (but not an adult's). Gabi points out the gender roles of the parents - why is the mother at home making dinner while the father is (presumably) coming home from work? Rather than looking a this negatively, I'm going to hope that the parents represent a generation where genders are much more clearly defined, but that we are moving into a generation where lines can be blurred and people can be seen as Force-wielding bad asses, rather than males or females who have to act out specific gender roles.
Also, the child is definitely not "force choking" anything - what a terrible way to look at this great commercial!
Bill C. — February 9, 2011
Re: my ("is he choking the doll") comment, I was indirectly criticizing the tendency to identify a meaning in the commercial that probably isn't there. Speculating whether the director intended to create a non-gendered depiction of the child is tantamount to speculating whether the child was intending to choke the doll. The answer to both questions, based on overwhelming evidence, is almost certainly "no."
Bill C. — February 9, 2011
If you are so "pro-diversity of opinion," why make a comment like "what a terrible way to look at this great commercial." What a terrible way to look at a discussion thread!
I'm not anti-textual analysis, but overanalyzing the advertisement to the point of "discovering" an intent that the director essentially confirmed was not there undermines the credibility of the analysis. But then, who am I to be sole arbiter of determining when that line has been crossed? Even as a reigning member of the patriarchy I don't wield that kind of influence.
SettledownJamie — February 9, 2011
Settle down there, Jamers, just trying to comment on the hypocritical post.
Bill C. — February 9, 2011
I think SettledownJamie makes a good point...Jamie needs to settle down!
Taco Johnson — February 9, 2011
Maybe Jamie is right, maybe the child is a wizard, and the doll represents "the future." And the car is former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. And if you put all the clues together you can find the National Treasure Book of Secrets!
marz — February 9, 2011
We don't have a tv, watched the commercial online as i am one of those nostalgic starwars geeks. i was excited about the gender neutral representation of the child, it was what struck me as most significant about the video. we're raising our child in a gender neutral way, and are jaded and weary of the princess/sports dichotomy. i hope the fact that it is ambiguous leads people to question society just a little.
That VW Vader commercial will make you happy… « Speaker's Corner — February 9, 2011
[...] Images gives a run down. So do the Mommy [...]
Derangierte Einsichten - Ratespiel — February 9, 2011
[...] (Idee durch diesen Beitrag) [...]
Cailin — February 10, 2011
The little boy who plays the mini-darth looks just like Mark Hamill!
http://www.buzzfeed.com/awesomer/the-boy-behind-volkswagens-mini-vader
I think it would be cool to see a girl in pop culture role like this without making her a charmingly geeky girl (not that this does). It seems like boys can like Star Wars (these days, it's accepted as pop culture more than geek culture) and just be boys, but if girls like star wars than they are a geek, and this is somehow extremely endearing. I grew up with an older brother and a twin brother so I don't remember thinking there were certain roles. I liked playing with the dinosaurs and cars as much as I enjoyed forcing my twin bro to play barbies with me. He also wore a white slip when we played dress up. Jurassic Park was my favorite movie when I was 3. I knew the weird Al parodies better than the originals. My brothers and I had Batman and Robin pajamas that looked like the actual costumes(we traded according to who they fit at the time). I think I was usually Robin.
Things that make girls geeky but are accepted (maybe even expected) of boys:
-Love of comic book characters
-Playing MMORPGs
-Action figures
-Playing cards e.g. Pokemon, Yugio, Magic
-Liking Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Harry Potter (though HP less so) or any similar scifi or fantasy movie, not including the likes of Twilight.
-remote controlled vehicles
And when girls do things that are categorized as boyish, they are often thought as quirky and adorable. If the boys do something girly, it is hardly seen nearly as endearing as the quirky girls.
Alton — February 12, 2011
The Child is dressed in a Male Characters costume. Thereby assuming the role of a Male. No further assumptions needed. If "he" were in a Princess Leia costume this conversation would be different.
When encountering a Transgendered Person in real life one should refer to said person in the gender of the persona, if one is obvious in presentation. This is the case here. Feel no guilt in the assumption of "Little Darth as a Boy.
Makilex — February 12, 2011
Personally, I believe you have too much free time one your hands.
Everyone who sees Darth Vader, even as a kid, thinks - MALE
Then you can look at the ENTIRE video and observe things, for instance - you would never question that the laundry machines are NOT in his room, so why would you assume the pink room is his? He just tries his magic all over the house, it's a clear conceptual choice for the entire video.
To me, this looks like a classic case of OVER ANALYZING things.
It's al kind of a non-issue.
Please find a more meaningful way to spend the afternoon.
Peace.
AG — March 13, 2011
The room is pink because there is a doll in the room. They gendered the random toy that the kid was dealing with, not the kid itself.
cheap bras — January 29, 2012
Amazing write-up! This could aid plenty of people find out more about this particular issue. Are you keen to integrate video clips coupled with these? It would absolutely help out. Your conclusion was spot on and thanks to you; I probably won’t have to describe everything to my pals. I can simply direct them here!