While I was watching reruns of a family-friendly sitcom the other afternoon, a commercial came on advertising longer and fuller eyelashes. Usually commercials with promises of pumping up eyelash volume are reserved for mascara. This commercial, however, was for the prescription medicine, Latisse. The commercial informs the viewer that one must consult a doctor before using the beauty product.
Though the common side effects are relatively harmless (itchy eyes and redness), the fact remains that the Latisse advertisers are selling doctor-prescribed medicine to improve one’s appearance. Through the bumping music, the before-and-after shots, and the spokesmodel Brooke Shields, the commercial lures viewers into thinking life would be better with long eyelashes. With the long eyelashes Latisse would give them, they too could have fun at parties and flirt with men as Brooke Shields would.
It really took me aback that a medical body “enhancement” procedure is being advertised on daytime television. Not only was this medical cure to a non-existent problem being sold to viewers, it was being sold during a family oriented show! With the beginning of summer comes a sharp increase in the number of children watching television during the day. The chances of tweenagers watching this commercial are high.
No woman needs to be told her lashes are “inadequate or not enough” but especially young girls should not be subjected to the notion that their bodies need fixing.
If you want to make your voice heard about these advertising techniques, you can contact the makers of Latisse through the Allergan web site.
-Ashley
June 17th, 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
Way back in August ‘08, I had the pleasure of catching this little indie film, “America the Beautiful,” as it showed briefly in San Francisco. I thought to myself “If About-Face made a film, this is the film it would make.” And I sure had a lot to say about it when I walked out of that theater, as evidenced here! From that blog entry:
There are just so many pertinent, poignant bits in this film, one being that the whole thing flows really well and nails the problem of our culture’s beauty obsession in a way that no somewhat-smart woman can deny.
Left to Right: Carol Normandi (co-founder of Beyond Hunger), Darryl Roberts, me, and Laurelee Roark (co-founder of Beyond Hunger)
Even more than the gratitude I felt in August that “America the Beautiful” had been produced at all, I wanted (no, needed) to help bring it back again to San Francisco so all of our About-Face supporters could also see it. So you know what? We did that on May 27 and 28. It took some instigation from a firebrand community member (Christa! Yay!) and her fellow yoga teacher Vajra (yay!). We added many planning hours and joined up with Beyond Hunger, another great org that helps women, teens, and men with severe eating disorders. Then we stirred it all up.
Two screenings followed — one in San Francisco and one in San Rafael (up in Marin County), and we had such an outpouring of support for the film, and for About-Face and Beyond Hunger. Our awesome founder, Kathy Bruin, took her rightful place as an About-Face schmoozer, all our supportive board members (Mara, Kelly, Kristen, Jennifer, and Vivian) supported us, and my wonderful friends came (Trish! Kim! Alison! Kendra!) too.
Our beautiful audience at the Clay Theatre.
The best part, really, was that 350 more people got to see “America the Beautiful” in our area.
Darryl Roberts, the filmmaker (a tall man with a heart of gold) did a Q&A session after each screening, and told some great stories (yes, Oprah was mentioned). Basically, everyone was just hanging on his every word.
I heard from so many friends, acquaintances, and strangers after the screenings, saying they’d never considered how much our culture damages young women with messages about “beauty.” I even ran into one friend on the street the day after she saw the film, and she was still thinking about it, and mulling over how to talk to her very young daughter about body image issues.
Get this film to your area! Click here to go to the site.
What’s that? You say you missed it this time? Or you’re not nearby? “America the Beautiful” is not on DVD as of this writing, but it will be soon. Here are some other ways to see and bring “America the Beautiful to your community:
- Head on over to the film’s web site and sign up to be alerted when the DVD is released
- When the DVD comes out in the fall, contact us, and we’ll help you throw the party so you can show friends the film at your home
- Go to the film’s web site and invite Darryl Roberts, the filmmaker, to speak to your group after a screening
And a little extra goodness: How fun would it be to have an “About-Face film series” in San Francisco or nearby, made up of some of the best media/body image/women’s self-esteem movies out there? (Jean Kilbourne’s “Killing Us Softly 3,” anyone? “Lovely and Amazing” anybody?) If you’re interested in attending or helping organize that, e-mail me directly and be sure to comment below to register your support!
- Jennifer Berger, About-Face’s Executive Director
June 10th, 2009
The computer company Dell has recently come under fire for a new ad campaign aimed at women and has taken interesting actions in response. The controversial campaign, called Della, is mostly an advertising push for a range of computers that have fancy graphic designs on their lids.
Yay! Our laptops are pretty!
The Della web site shows different women using Dell computers that match their outfits — apparently every woman’s dream. The web site talks up the computers by discussing features like diet-tracking tools and the fact that the computer can fit in your purse. This is all written in a tone that tries to replicate a conversation between girlfriends, but it borders on condescension.
Now, I’m the first to admit that when looking for a new computer, the fact that computers can come in different colors was appealing. However, this is not something that is exclusively appealing to women. Not to mention the fact that processor speed, memory, and price are more important than color-coordinating one’s computer with her sweater. By underestimating women’s computer literacy and use of a computer, Della really shows a lack of respect for women computer users.
In spite of the fact that most of the information on the web site was about color choices and carrying bags, there is a Featured Artist page to draw in the women consumers. The connection between computers and the artist on the Featured Artist section can be somewhat of a mystery. Not long ago, in the Della Lounge section of the Featured Artist page, visitors got tips on vintage shopping from the author of Practically Posh: the Smart Girls’ Guide to a Glam Life. It leaves me asking What does this have to do with computers?
Dell made a mistake when they based a whole advertising campaign on the idea that women will buy anything if it’s pretty and comes with accessories. While Dell was making assumptions about their women customers, they inadvertently offended and lost some of their target audience.
With in the past few days, Dell changed some of the Della web site’s more demeaning aspects due to the strong responses of the web site’s visitors. The web site’s language is less condescending to women and now uses a more neutral tone and language that may apply to more people. In addition to this change in tone, the Featured Artist section introduces us to the woman behind the designs on some of the Dell computers, with a clear connection to the computers themselves. Because of their outspoken customers, Dell was able to recognize and rectify their mistake.
Although I wouldn’t say Dell’s campaign is now perfect, it is encouraging to see that they actually listen to their target audience. Web site visitors can leave their comments on the different sections for everyone to see (you can too if you go to their web site). Many of the comments are harsh, the fact that they have left those comments up for the public to see is a kind of apology. This, to me, shows progress.
– Ashley Yee
June 8th, 2009
I have always been a fan of Nike commercials. There is something behind their unisex “just do it” slogan that is energizing and empowering. Curious to what Nike has been up to lately, I decided to Google their commercials. I came across this:
I was skeptical at first. Is it going to be sexist? Will it dampen my perception of the company? Of course, most of all I wanted to know: Who are they going to place as the winner of the challenge?
The commercial pins some of the great female and male athletes, such as tennis ace Rodger Federer, Swedish striker Zlatan Ibrahimovic, and long-distance runner Paula Radcliffe; hip-hop dancer Sofia Boutella; Fernando Torres; and NBA player Tony Parker and his wife Eva Longoria Parker.
To my delight, the commercial did not disappoint. In fact, I think it just added to Nike’s vast commercial idea: healthy competition. While the dividing line is apparent in the “Men vs. Women” title, I find it more inspiring rather than divisive or degrading to either sex.
First of all, there is no favoritism among the sexes in the commercial — both groups compete to their best abilities. Most importantly, however, it places the usual gender bias on an even keel, stating: anything you can do, I can do, for we are one.
Of course, this can be argued. The commercial starts off and ends showing the “pink bar,” which represents the female sex, as behind. Even in the end the female is a mere 13 kilometers behind. Are they implying that women are good, yet not THAT good; or is there a deeper meaning: even late in the competition a woman is still very likely to come close to surpassing a man’s achievement?
Although competitions are often about who is better, one should keep in mind that competitions are almost always between equals. You do not pit a champion NFL team against a high school football team, you do not allow a 150-pound person get into a fighting ring with a heavyweight, you will not challenge an Olympian sprinter to a running match (unless you have a really good sense of humor), and so on. By creating this “challenge,” Nike is implying that both sexes are champions; thus, they can compete easily against each other.
The idea behind women being the “weaker” sex is seemingly subsiding, although not as quickly as it should. While I deem the commercial inspiring, I do have to consider that it did put men as the winning sex throughout the commercial; it is hard to detect, but the little pink bar is lagging by a few kilometers.
So how do you feel about the ad: are you inspired by Nike’s creative competition or do you still find it sexist?
-OVK
June 3rd, 2009
Next Posts
Previous Posts
