Ideal? or Unreal?

http://www.msmagazine.com/jan01/hooked_jan01.html

"The image projected behind her, a larger-than-life Revlon ad, is of a woman who is neither breathless nor smiling, but instead presents a lacquered, doll-like blankness.'We are surrounded by such images of ideal beauty,' says Jean Kilbourne, reminding the audience—as she has in more than a thousand college lecture halls around the country—that we are all being judged against this porcelain perfection. And that when we are compared to such a standard, 'failure is inevitable.' . . . As one of the preeminent scholars on the effects of advertising, Kilbourne has shown, through lectures, films, and a book, how marketing has perfected the science of seducing us. How its glossy allure can leave us feeling somewhat less than human. In the ideal presented by advertising, 'our face becomes a mask,' she says to the assembled students, as she clicks through slides of cosmetics ads, all featuring flawless faces. 'And our body becomes a thing.' . . . Her voice is calm, even a little sad now that she's flashing picture after picture of women with impossibly smooth, overwhelmingly Caucasian features onto the screen. 'And turning a human being into a thing,' she continues, 'is often the first step toward justifying violence.' The next series of ads begins by showing women as props, intended to make cars or apartments more attractive; it then shifts to tight shots of butts and thighs, and finally mere parts. Dismembered limbs. Meat."

This article was written by Clea Simon for Ms. Magazine. The speaker, Jean Kilbourne, makes a very good point. The ads we see, especially those geared to women, present this insane ideal that is impossible to reach. They breed a culture of dissatisfied, over-achieving women that do everything they can to attempt to appear like the thousands of images of "beauty" that are thrown in their faces everyday. Its really ridiculous, though, when you analyze these advertisements and bring them to their logical conclusions. Women, dressed up so pretty, are seen as pieces of meat, used to get attention, sell products, and make money. This representation and view of women are products of our 1st world culture--our consumerist, "progressive" society.

The Women We See

http://www.ltcconline.net/lukas/gender/pages/roles.htm


"As we unfortunately see in all forms of media, the roles of women in print advertising are stereotypical and limiting. Studies such as Courtney and Whipple (1983) and Barthel (1987) confirm that the association of women and specific domestic roles has been solidified in popular culture, particularly advertising. Courtney and Lockeretz’s important analysis of magazine advertising (1971) indicated that women have been portrayed as domestic providers who do not make significant decisions, are dependent on men, and are essentially sex objects. A second study found that offensive ads had declined, but that women were still seen as belonging to the private sphere of the home (cf. Venkatesan and Losco 1975; Wagner and Banos 1973). The messages of popular culture also ironically reflect the multiple roles that women have to play in western society. Hochschild’s Second Shift is just but one dimension of the strains felt by women as a result of work and home duties. Wolf also addresses how some ads in women’s magazines reflect “the ambivalence that women feel about their stressful new roles” (1991:116). Role strain is exhibited in many situations in popular culture and advertising. The roles offered to women are very limited. Many involve a woman’s confinement to the domestic sphere—caring for children, cleaning the house, shopping for groceries and making meals for a husband. Nancy Chodorow makes the point that the maintenance of gender subordination in world cultures is very much due to the universal functions and values of the family (1974). Men too are the subjects of confusion and psychological conflict as the construction of the “good-provider” role is maintained in contemporary understandings of masculinity (Bernard 1995)."


This picture is used as an example in The Gender Ads Project by Scott A. Lucas, PhD. I'm not exactly sure what article this picture was being used for, but I think it's ridiculous. It is degrading to woman and only enforces the warped view that the dominant male world has on women. It depicts females as sexual objects that can only use their "assets" as ways in which to raise their position in society, in their career or to get what they want in life. Images like this, unfortunately, are very common. The reason I highlighted this particular one is because someone actually had the nerve to break it down: labeling her "career climber", and going on to describe "carefully calculated cleavage", "very visible panty line", "garter", "slit skirt". I'm beginning my blog series with this so that the viewer will have these particular words in their head while they see images that aren't so outspoken in the way they present women. Images that we see throughout our day and just accept as the representation of women in our "modern world of equality."