Posts filed under 'media literacy'
One of the most vivid memories I have from high school was when I was shopping for prom dresses with a good friend. What started as a bonding experience quickly turned into something much more isolating.
Selena Gomez and Tori Spelling
We had completely different bodies. She was tall, thin, and had no hips, and I was shorter with decent-sized thighs. In high school we would bring in a bunch of dresses and trade off trying them all on. Most dress styles were tailored for the body type my friend inhabited, and because of this, she looked “better” in the dresses than I did. Needless to say, my attitude level dropped a few points below annoyed, and I walked out of the mall that day with a new-found dislike for my body, and for my friend.
Why do we hold one body type above all others? Why do we let the fact that people come in different shapes come in between us? That bitter day, years ago, was in part due to women’s magazines. Not only do they allow these body comparisons, women’s magazines encourage readers to pick apart how different women look in the same dress.
This notion has entire sections in magazines devoted to it. The section has gone by many names, but on the Us Weekly web site, it is called “Who Wore It Best?” This section features photos of two or three celebrities wearing the same thing. Sometimes it’s a jacket or a blouse, but most of the time it’s a dress. In the online version, visitors are encouraged to click on the celebrity they think looks the best.
Jessica Simpson, Blake Lively, and Lily Collins
Letting ourselves look at other women this way can seep into our everyday lives. We may start to compare ourselves to others around us, whether it’s the women on TV or a friend in the changing room next to us. This outlook can foster a kind of body competition between women, distracting us from more pertinent issues, such as positive relationships with the people around you or doing well in school or at work.
There is always something that we can find to be envious of — the way that woman can pull off that spunky haircut, or that other woman’s long eyelashes, or maybe the way she can fill out her blouse. What would happen if we stopped being envious of these things and started admiring them? What if we knew that when we said “you look great” that it wouldn’t take anything away from our own beauty?
My challenge to you is to do just that; notice when you may feel jealous or envious and turn it into a compliment for that woman. It is also just as important to recognize the uniqueness and beauty in yourself. Our relationships with other women and our own bodies are too important to fall apart over dress sizes.
If you want to let Us Weekly know how you feel about the “Who Wore It Best” section, you can contact them through their web site.
-Ashley
June 30th, 2009
Take a look at this segment that aired on Good Morning America on June 15th. The piece is called “Young, Fat, and Fabulous,” and it seems to advocate for women to have a healthy self-image at any size, but the message may not be so clear…
Did you notice the uneven general tone of this segment? Is it positive or negative?
This segment seems to flip-flop between supporting women who are happy and healthy at any size and then in a negative tone also highlights all the dangers the show’s producers believe are associated with obesity. Although these women have a clear bill of health from their doctors, at the end of the segment, Diane Sawyer tries to emphasize that they will have health complications later on… but if you listen carefully, the response is that these health risks increase due to age, not due to weight.
The piece talks about yo-yo dieting while at the same time sending a yo-yo message.
The first half of this segment is dedicated to telling viewers that being fat is OK and that these particular women are happier and healthier than they’ve ever been. Then the last half sends the opposite message — that being overweight leads to deadly health problems. Yet then they go on to say that yo-yo dieting is bad because it can also lead to terrible health complications.
I think this is reflective of our society’s overall indecisiveness about weight and health, and represents the tension that exists between wanting to be thin and wanting to be healthy and happy and love ourselves as we are.
Is it OK to be fat and fabulous? Can you be overweight and be healthy?
According to the Association for Size Diversity and Health (ASDAH), health is measured by many factors, including the right to be peaceful in one’s body. ASDAH has also done research that shows that the amount of fat on a body is a weak indicator of life expectancy and overall health.
Despite its mixed message, once you sort through the confusion, this piece does have some healthy points to take home:
Health comes in different sizes.
Acceptance of one’s body type can ultimately prove beneficial, especially when that acceptance is paired with a healthy lifestyle.
As Gabrielle mentions, the most important thing is to stay active, eat a balanced diet, and accept your weight where it stabilizes.
I think it’s fabulous that Marianne loves what she sees when she looks in the mirror. How many women of any weight and body type can actually say they love how they look? I hope that one day every woman will love herself as she is. No woman’s self worth should be determined by the scale or the size of her pants.
So I commend Marianne for telling the world that:
The good in accepting being large far outweighs the bad.
and
The only thing I’ve let go is the self-hatred that I felt.
Shouldn’t we all try to feel that way?
-Jaimie
[By the way, everyone, the fat activist movement is not a new grassroots movement. Fat activism has been alive and well for at least 15 years. Check out this site, Fat!So? for more. -Jennifer]
June 19th, 2009
For the past few weeks, I’ve seen this link for the 15 Sexist Vintage Ads floating around cyberspace, shared among Facebook friends and highlighted on humor and culture blogs. It takes you to a web site that showcases 15 “sexist” ads from the early and mid-twentieth century. With overtly sexist tag lines like “The harder a wife works the cuter she looks,” “Blow in her face and she’ll follow you anywhere,” and “Men are better than women,” these ads look different from what we’re used to seeing today.
Or do they?
Take a closer look.
In this first group, notice the vintage ad’s placement of the women’s lips and the lipstick. Then notice the similarities to the modern ad. Both ads portray the sexualization of women.
In this next group, notice how both ads portray women as less than human.
In this last group, notice what both ads insinuate — that women are dumb, or should strive to be so.
In both worlds, decades apart, women are portrayed the same: as unintelligent, as submissive, as sexual fiends, and as objects.
Sure, the vintage ads are a little different. Advertisements today don’t have blatant, wordy warnings, stating that if women don’t smell good or feel soft, they risk having their husbands literally not come home that night. But look around. Look at fashion magazines, billboards and TV commercials. The overall message of nearly every single ad is that we women are imperfect and need to strive to keep a man’s attention.
Advertisements — those from 1949 and 2009 — never let us forget that a woman is judged only on the basis of her appeal to men.
And even though we don’t see sexism spelled out, as in the vintage ad that reads, “Men ask ‘is she pretty?’ not ‘is she clever?’ ” we see that sexism when ads continually warn us to slim down, whiten teeth, curl hair, smell better, shave, primp, yet never to — get this — be strong, brave, intelligent, and powerful. In the twenty-first century, women are absolutely still being told to be pretty. Forget clever.
Also, notice the disconnect in the ad on the left: How is spanking a woman at all related to selling coffee?, you might be asking. But I would ask the same thing today of the ad on the right: How is a naked, faceless woman at all related to electronics?!
Furthermore, these vintage ads are nowhere near as sexually explicit as ones today. These ads don’t feature extreme closeups of women’s breasts, butts, and unrealistic and unattainable body images, all to sell a product and make girls feel ashamed. Ads back then may have been sexist, but ads now are sexist and sexually explicit.
So before you pass the 15 Sexist Vintage Ads link onto your friends, laughing at how much things have changed, think again. Have they?
Let us know what you think, About-Face blog readers. Go through the vintage ad web site and About-Face’s Gallery of Offenders to find similarities and differences yourself. Leave your findings and thoughts in the comments.
-Kate
June 12th, 2009
For a company that prides itself on making all its attire in the United States, American Apparel deserves no congratulations when it comes to its ads. American Apparel already has one ad posted in our Gallery of Offenders and the obviously have done nothing to improve there act–they seem to have gotten worse!
Just take a look at these four recent advertisements from American Apparel.
American Apparel Ad for Socks
American Apparel Ad for Underwear?
American Apparel Ad for ???
American Apparel Ad for Opening in Japan
What is the first thing you see in these pictures? Certainly not the apparel. What kind of position are the women in? What are their faces saying? What does it mean when you can’t see her face? Where are the men? What does their absence mean?
What kind of language is used in the advertisements? How do these words reflect the photos in the ads, and how do they connect to the ads’ messages?
Socks and underwear aside, what are the ads really selling?
After rubbing my eyes a couple times and staring at the computer screen with my mouth agape and my face flushing with anger — incidents that are probably happening to you right now — one of the first things I noticed was the candid-photo style of these photographs. The odd lighting, the grainy-ness — doesn’t the style of these photos give you the feeling that the women were unsuspecting subjects in the photos? There’s a sense in the ads that a man is snapping photos of the woman — helplessly left to be the object –and we are lucky enough to voyeuristically view the results. Gee, that makes me want to go buy socks!
So what are the ads actually getting at? American Apparel advertisements — advertisements that are plastered all over magazines and weekly newspapers nationwide — aren’t selling clothes. They’re selling the notion that scantily clad girls in compromising positions are hip. American Apparel caters to a hipster clientele, and the company is equating coolness with sexualized positions, and the idea that it’s okay to treat women as things that should be stared at.
The women have become the products, not the clothing. We’ve all seen the countless advertisements in fashion magazines and on billboards — women in shopping bags, women without faces, women’s body parts taking up the entire photo. American Apparel wants to be trendy, but they need to step away from this current advertising trend. They need to stop objectifying women to sell socks.
Congratulations, American Apparel. You make clothing in a socially sound manner. For that we thank you. Now please stop using half-naked models in inferior positions to convince us all to buy your company’s underwear.
If you’re as furious as me, please send your thoughts to
American Apparel Inc.
747 Warehouse St.
Los Angeles, CA 90021
United States
Or contact them directly on their website by clicking here.
-Kate
May 18th, 2009
Yet another awful Carl’s Jr ad:
OK. Here’s what I learned from this advertisement:
1. Men like buffalo wings.
2. Men want to be cool and macho.
3. Eating Buffalo wings, ogling waitresses, and disrespecting your girlfriend are all a part of being cool and macho.
Wait. What?
I’m sorry Carl’s Jr., but I just don’t follow your logic. Since when does a high-calorie diet equal manliness? And why does Carl’s Jr. feel determined to align its product with misogynistic clichés?
Curious to learn how Carl’s Jr. interprets its own ad, I referenced the press release for this commercial. Here is the message consumers are meant to take away after viewing:
The 30-second spot…features a young, hungry guy enjoying Buffalo wings at his local sports bar. The wings are hot but the waitress is even hotter. The ad ends humorously when the guy is busted by his girlfriend for taking a little too much interest in the waitress.
There are 3 major messages in this article I find troublesome:
1. The clear oversexualization of the waitress. Everything from her risqué outfit to the way she flirts with Hungry Guy promotes the idea that she is a sexual object. Carl’s Jr. is effectively promoting their ideal attractive woman: a young blonde who will prance around seductively for strangers.
2. Hungry Guy’s lack of sensitivity and respect for his girlfriend. Even though he knows she will be upset, Hungry Guy cannot look away from the waitress because she is sexually attractive. Basically, the idea is that macho men are incapable of ignoring a seductive woman, even if they know their ogling may hurt their loved one.
3. The Them vs. Us mentality. By marketing their big, meaty sandwich to men, Carl’s Jr. promotes the idea that men with big appetites, the bad boys, and the kind of guys that make their girlfriends upset, will like this product. Of course, this is ridiculous, but young men watching this commercial may learn to think that when you’re a stud who likes big burgers, treating women as sexual objects is normal.
Hopefully, men and women will take a long second look at this commercial and see it for what it is. Eating a sandwich does not make you more of a man, but avoiding media manipulation and sensing the sexist attitudes behind everyday advertisements definitely does.
If you are fed up with Carl’s Jr. advertising please let them know by clicking here to send your comments directly to Carl’s Jr.
-Nikki
Nikki Roddy is a freelance writer based in San Francisco. After getting her start in magazine publishing in Southeast Asia in 2007, she returned to the United States, where she writes on culture, fashion, and music for various print and online publications, such as SOMA magazine and CountryMusicGoodness.com. In her off time, she enjoys making nachos, walking around the city, and watching live music performances.
April 24th, 2009
Previous Posts
