Margaret McE. sent in an image of Gro-Shu kids’ shoes (found at Hoyden About Town), which are sold at Payless Shoes in Australia. They’re a great example of the gendering of products: notice that the boys’ shoe is called Maths and the girls’ is Drama.
I mean, really?
The ad depicts a horde of completely insane women, screaming with excitement… if, as the ad claims, these packs are “goodies for grown-ups,” then why are women the only ones going crazy over the cookies in this ad? The men in this ad react to the woman with a mix of “WTF” and “oh my god, you’re crazy” which only serves to make the women look even more pathetic and ridiculous.
This commercial tells a similar story: women totally lose it in the face of low calorie sweets.
NEW (Nov. ’09)! And, of course, there is holiday shopping (found at Ad Freak):
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wer7b29mreA[/youtube]
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Taylor D. sent in a link to a collection of vintage ads that includes this one:
From Vintage Ads:
Holly M. sent us this one:
NEW! Larry Harnisch, of The Daily Mirror, sent us this one:
The fact that these girls were considered “chubby” is only slightly more distressing than the fact that polyester blends were considered fashionable.
What do they call sizes for “larger” kids these days? I know they don’t say “chubby,” but I don’t think they use the “plus-size” term for kids–am I wrong? Is there a standard industry term?
D. Cho sent in these t-shirts, which make fun of Asians who speak accented English:
Found here. The buck teeth, squinty eyes, and hat are a nice touch.
Found here.
The face on this one is supposed to be Kim Jong Il, and I believe the “Oh Reary?” references the movie “Team America, World Police,” though I bet a lot of people won’t get the reference and will think it just makes fun of how Asians supposedly speak:
This one (found here) might appeal to the man in your life you enjoys sex tourism to Thailand, if you’re looking for gift ideas:
This photo is interesting because they put the t-shirt that has a camel on it (and that plays on the derogatory term “camel jockey” often used for Middle Easterners) on a model who I think we are supposed to view as Middle Eastern–not quite the ethnic diversity in models that I’ve hoped for:
Why he is wearing four shirts, I do not know.
You might use them to talk about stereotypes and racial humor, or why people never tire of t-shirts with tired puns on them.
Via Adverbox.
Maggie B. says:
I was shocked and appalled when I saw these posters hanging above the children’s shoe section in a FootAction store in Jensen Beach, FL this weekend.
In her book, Bad Boys, Ann Ferguson argues that while white boys are seen as naturally and innocently naughty, black boys are seen as willfully bad. This is possible because teachers attribute adult motivations to black, but not white, children. Ferguson calls this adultification. Essentially this means that many teachers and other school authorities see black boys as “criminals” instead of kids. And black girls–also adultified, but differently–are seen as dangerously sexual. Adults, of course, are held 100% responsible for their behavior. There is no leeway here, no second chances, and no benefit of the doubt.
These pictures do more than just sexualize the young children pictured (who appear to be black and mixed-race), they also adultify them with their expressions, postures, fashion, and implied contexts.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
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 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.)
