These clothing ads from 1928, featured on Jezebel, portray an ideal female form that is wildly different than the one we have today. Note the straight lines (no hips or boobs) and very short hair cuts:
I also like how the first image reads “Summer 1928 Apparel.” Seasonal fashion, it appears, is nothing new.
In the Girl and Boy Scouts, merit badges represent the acquisition of skills and knowledge. Artist Mary Yaeger tries to draw attention to the skills and knowledge that girls and women in America aquire, whether they be scouts or not, with her own set of embroidered merit badges. They feature things like tolerating menstrual cramps, shaving armpits, taking the birth control pill, suffering through gyn exams, using mascara and lipstick, learning how to walk in high heels, wearing sexy underwear, and more.
The project nicely reminds us that women have to work hard to appear properly feminine, as well as the unique things we experience as women.
Via Jezebel.
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.
Mercedes DeM. sent in this Vanity Fair cover (for April 2009)…
…spoofing this previous cover:
The women on the original cover are sex symbols. We should expect gratuitous nudity. The men in the spoof, in contrast, are comedians and so a direct comparison, arguing that men’s bodies are more off-limits, would be misguided. (Not that I think an argument couldn’t be made, but I don’t think this set of images supports it.)
Nor do I think that these images support the idea that we’re more accepting of variation in men’s bodies than women’s. If that were so, I think the men would actually be nude. Instead they’re covered up. My sense is that they’re covered up because their bodies are, according to rigid cultural standards, gross.
The relevant comparison, I think, would be between the spoof cover and a similar spoof cover featuring non-skinny women in nude body suits. The fact that the former is funny points to how men are allowed to be many things. They can be good-looking and fit, OR they can be not-so-good-looking, but rich, nice, or funny. And we still like them. There is no disdain for these men. We may even like them MORE because they’re willing to pose in ways that reveal how imperfect their bodies are.
I think we would be unlikely to see a similar cover featuring women, even women comedians, because women are allowed to be rich, nice, or funny but they must ALSO be good-looking and fit. A cover featuring chubby women would JUST be gross. It wouldn’t be gross and funny.
Being good-looking and fit is ONE way for men to be admire in our society. Being good-looking and fit is a REQUIREMENT for women to be admired, no matter what else she brings to the table.
I asked myself: in the entire history of Vanity Fair, would we be able to find three women with a similar body type to those men on the cover?
I found two, both featuring Roseanne Barr (images here and here):
The covers feature a comedian who is well-known for being successful while bucking social expectations for women. She’s the exception to the rule that proves the rule. Or is she? I certainly think so. That “Oh, Roseanne!” is about how crazy she is.
In any case, notice that she’s still a sex symbol, while the men in the spoof are decidedly not. They’re spoofing such symbolism. Roseanne, despite her wacky resistance, still has to abide by it.
Rei N. sent in this vintage Wonder Bread ad from 1968, found here:
Text:
A pretty girl knows how to succeed with boys without half trying. But she’s got a lot going for her–marvelous new cosmetics, smashing fashions, and Wonder Bread. Wonder Bread? Wonder Bread! Wonder’s the neatest way to trap a boy since…well, since apples. Try tempting him with his favorite Wonder sandwich. He’ll bite. And–ZAP!–you’ve got him.
Well. Huh.
As Rei says, there’s the nice cultural trope about women “trapping” men (ZAP!), apparently since the time of Eve and her apple (nevermind that, according to Genesis, she was made for him because he was lonely, and she didn’t use an apple to trap a boyfriend, and all the other logical stuff). It’s also interesting that they don’t even bother to imply that some of the things she’s “got going for her” might include personality, manners, etc.–they’re all external, purchased assets.
Apparently Wonder Bread put out a whole series of these types of ads. Here are there others, which I found in this paper:
The whole “the way to a man’s heart is through his stomach” message, as well as the clear assumption that women prepare meals and men consume them (note the man on the right is the only person seen eating as opposed to offering a sandwich), is nice too.
Thanks, Rei!
The New York Times has a fascinating peak into marketing logic. The team at Frito Lay discovered that women prefer to snack on veggies and fruit, but that didn’t deter them. They’re on a mission to sell more chips to the ladies.
Through market research, they discovered that women feel guilty. A lot. The article reads:
Though Frito-Lay had often tried advertising snacks as guilt-free, this led to the conclusion that “we’re not going to alleviate her guilt,” Ms. Nykoliation said. “This is something in her life. So the question for us was, how do we not trip her guilt?”
Part of the strategy was to follow the success of SunChips by toning down the packaging and showing off healthy ingredients in the snacks.
“She wants a reminder that she’s eating something better for her,” Mr. Jones said.
Baked Lay’s will no longer be in a shiny yellow bag, but in a matte beige bag that displays pictures of the ingredients like spices or ranch dressing.
So Frito Lay is attempting a guilt-detour. You don’t have to justify eating the bad-for-you-chips because they’re good-for-you-chips. The bag is a natural color instead of neon orange and there are actual food stuffs on the front instead of a Cheetah!
(image via)
This is a nice example of the appeal to nature as a marketing strategy. Of all of the marketing strategies out there designed to make us buy things that we don’t need and perhaps don’t even want, I suppose this is rather innocuous (though I could argue that it makes it more difficult for us to actually evaluate what foods are and are not “natural”).
Alongside this makeover, Frito-Lay is also starting a website and animated cartoon serial designed to appeal to women. I’ve embedded the “trailer” below. Notice how it affirms the idea that women are obsessed with food and their weight, at the same time that it is carefully crafted so as to encourage women to “cheat.” As the woman in the video says about her cookie: “So if I eat it standing up, it doesn’t count right?” And her friend replies: “Absolutely.” Everyone knows that it still “counts,” but when the one friend eggs on the other, we all feel more comfortable “cheating.” Frito Lay foods for everyone!
So the commercial reproduces the stereotype that women are boy crazed whiners with a deranged relationship to food and an embarassing obsession with shoes. [By the way, Gwen and I are, like, totally like this. It’s amazing we even have time to be sociologists, what with all the traipsing around in high heels, discussing diet fads, and oogling cute boys!]
Okay, so it reproduces rather repugnant ideas about women. What’s the harm?
On the first day of Sociology of Gender I ask students to introduce themselves and answer a few questions including: “Are you a stereotypical man or woman? Why or why not?” Inevitably the majority of students will say that they do not conform to the stereotype, that they both do and do not have characteristics associated with it, that they display human characteristics, not just ones associated with their sex. I then ask them: “What percentage of your friends and family fit the stereotype?” They respond similarly. I follow up: “How many of you regularly find yourself starting sentences with ‘Women are so…’ and ‘Men are so…’?” They all raise their hands.
This, I suggest, is interesting. Gender stereotypes don’t come from us and aren’t validated by our actual experiences. Yet, we still talk as if they were true. If we don’t affirm the stereotype, where do they come from and why do we believe that they are true?
Well, here’s part of the answer: We know what men and women are like because we are constantly told what women and men are like. This Frito Lay campaign is one source of this particular stereotype about women; more can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Another question, and one I’d love to know the answer to, is: Why is it that, when cultural messages and actual experiences contradict each other, we come out endorsing the cultural messages?
Strawberry Shortcake socializes girls into a man-crazy, materialistic, mid-life disguised as liberation:
Via Jezebel.
Wandering through the junior section of the Palo Alto mall after Christmas this year, my stepsister Holly noticed the suggestive nature of some of the brands. We took pictures:
Bri A. sent sent in photos of two ads found in complimentary magazines provided on a recent flight she took (she doesn’t remember the names of the magazines). Both have some interesting gender aspects.
The first is for Magnolia Hotels:
Notice the suggested reasons women might be visiting the hotel: party, wedding, reunion, shopping, weekend, date, meeting, girl’s night, skiing (maybe? They’re light purple…). For men: big contract, date, presentation. Bri says,
The only professional woman presented to us in the ad is a woman who is going to a “meeting”. The woman’s shoes however, are a little racy for business and unlike her male colleagues, one of which is doing some sort of jig and the other which has forgotten his pants, she is giving us a little flirty heel raise rather than being humorous or professional. Another interesting difference that stuck out to me was the attire of the man and woman going on a date. The man going on a date is wearing a nice white suit, while the woman is wearing a much less formal and good deal more provocative outfit.
Actually, almost all the female feet are doing flirty little heel raises or half-kicks or something, which somehow doesn’t have quite the same effect as the kick the “big contract” guy is doing.
From another complimentary magazine Bri found on the same trip, an ad for Selective Search, a dating service for the business class:
The company technically serves men and women. But notice that the image only depicts women, and in the second paragraph we learn that “we hand select the must-meet women for our clients.” Close-ups of the lists for “selectively single” men and women:
Notice the men are described as “clientele,” while the women are described as “candidates.” Here are two screenshots from the website, the first from the women’s section, the second from the men’s section:
So ladies, they’ll find you a guy who is commitment-minded, but there aren’t many other specifics–he’ll be a quality, eligible guy, but that could mean a lot of things. Guys get some more specifics–she’ll be attractive and desirable. Somehow a “guy who brings just as much to the table as you do” doesn’t sound quite the same to me as a woman “who meets your exacting standards and criteria.” Bringing as much to the table as you do implies equality. But having exacting standards that must be met doesn’t imply anything about equality–you can have standards for other people even though you couldn’t meet most of them yourself.
Aside from the specifics of the two images themselves, you might talk about the seeming assumption that though the dating service caters to both male and female customers, the people most likely to be reading an ad placed in a business magazine on an airline will be male, and thus the ad should target a male audience (by having images only of women and stressing meeting women in the text). The presumption is either that business people who fly aren’t women, or that women remember to bring their own reading material so they aren’t stuck reading the complimentary magazines the airlines provide.
Thanks, Bri!
UPDATE: In a comment, OP Minded says,
My brother has been in the dating service industry for about 10 years and he tells me that their internal research on this stuff is compelling and very very clear. In searching for a date on a dating service:
95% of women care most about 1) Educational level, and 2) Income.
95% of men care most about 1) Looks, and 2) Weight.Other issues come in to play later in the process, but at the beginning, this is what most of the folks are looking for.
In another comment, Sandra points out,
…I do remember being taught in my undergrad speech department classes that, for instance, in studies on gender effects, when asked to fill out surveys on the street by either a male or a female, women are more likely to respond to the women poll-takers, but the men are also more likely to respond to the women poll-takers [than] men [poll-takers]. So perhaps the marketing move behind the photograph in this dating service ad was based on the idea that, women appeal to women, and women appeal to men. Hence, the women in the image. It could be the women are intended to see themselves in the photos, as people using this service, and men are intended to see the women as possible dates.
Good point, Sandra!
