"Bang"

I have a big question for all of you. What is it with perfume/cologne ads and sex? Seriously. I wear perfume all the time. When I put on my Vera Wang perfume I don’t do it so that I can end the day with the bottle between my legs. I mean come on. I wear it so that I smell yummy. Yummy doesn’t always have to mean sex.

Marc Jacobs, a noted fashion designer, has named his new fragrance for men “Bang.” His advertisements for “Bang” features him lying naked with a big bottle of cologne between his legs. Let me just put it out there- “Bang” is in between his legs so that you can… well…. Bang!

Cologne advertisements (for those of you who are uneducated in the toiletry of men, cologne is essentially perfume for men) are usually always hyper-sexual. Perfume advertisements make me think of soft-core porn. I mean you may not see the deed itself but you certainly get the point. I know that smell is supposed to heighten and arouse certain senses- but those senses don’t always have to be the desire to have hot and dirty sex. There is such a thing as intimacy without sex. Every man that I have dated has always loved how I smell. After they say this they normally kiss me or rub my face or something really sweet. They don’t pounce on me with the anticipation of having sex.

I think that these kinds of advertisements limit what it means to be either male or female. If you are a male you are a sex starved and perfume addict pervert. If you are a woman you are a slave to your senses and expect sex to accompany your scent. I mean don’t get me wrong- I think scent can be incredibly sexy. Duh. BUT that’s not all it is.

Alright let’s focus on the Marc Jacobs advertisement for “Bang.” First off- the name. The name itself is conjures sexual and violent feelings. Bang. The sound of a gun. Bang. An adjective for sex. Bang. Secondly, the fragrance is for men. Since we associate men with stereotypical masculine characteristics, it seems like a fitting name. A real man wears “Bang.” Right?

This advertisement is meant to shock people. And it does. I was flipping through Elle when I saw this. I definitely stopped. And then I wondered why this was in a woman’s fashion magazine. Are we supposed to think that if we buy the men in our lives “ Bang” that our sex lives will improve? I guess women can have it all. Great fashion and great sex- thanks to “Bang.”

If men look at this advertisement they might feel a little repulsed because Marc Jacobs is gay and they don’t want to be associated with it. At the same time they probably trust him. After all, women love Marc Jacobs. We trust him. We will buy his products for ourselves and the guys in our lives. I am going out on a complete limb here but bear with me. I am basing this off of what men in my life have said or implied. They probably feel less threatened by designers like Marc Jacobs because they are gay. They probably assume that they identify with women and therefore have some kind of insight to what women want. SO women must want what Marc Jacobs is advertising right? “Bang.” Women want lots of sex and violence in their lives. Yes please.

I haven’t blogged in a LONG time so I understand that this is probably not that amazing. These are just my thoughts.

Rolling Stones: True Blood

Really?
I have only watched on season of “True Blood.” That was season 1 and I can tell you that was enough for me. Don’t get me wrong; the show definitely has an element of sex that is intriguing and captivating. All in all- that was sort of it. The storyline was somewhat interesting but also a little too much like “Twilight”, only raunchier.

This cover reminds me of pornography. It is much like a fetish. The splattering of blood, nudity, and touching of intimate body parts suggests that this is sexy. This may indeed be the case for some people. My problem with this cover is that it IS the cover. It is available to the massive amounts of people that read magazines. Rolling Stones being the popular cultural dictator that it is is essentially telling people that this kind of image is a cultural norm. This is not a societal norm. The undertone of sexual violence is scary. It is not normal. Rolling Stones is telling people that the idea of sexual violence is alluring and desirable.

Why is nudity such a commodity? I agree that we should embrace our bodies and not be ashamed of loving who we are made to be, but I do think that there is a limit to parading nudity around in the public sphere. I particularly feel this way in regards to children. Children might see this image and begin to think that this is normal and acceptable. This could translate into how men treat women and women treat men. People could think violence is sexy and want to act in a way that fulfills this kind of longing.

I would like to clarify that this is my opinion. I may be totally out of place. What do you think?

Orbit Gum

Orbit gum. At first glance, this advertisement looks quite simple. Generic even. There is a woman standing there in the true style of a game show hostess who is presenting the winner with the grand prize. The prize, in this case the Orbit gum package, looks bright and shiny. The contrast in the dull colors of the woman’s clothing and the bright, vibrant colors of the product make it obvious that the gum is more exciting than the woman and should therefore be seen as the key focus of the advertisement. There is no spotlight on her.

The caption at the bottom of the advertisement, “If you like surprising reveals, check out the back cover.”, draws our focus back to the spearmint Orbit package. On the right hand side of the package we can see that the wrapper is starting to be ripped off. It is almost as if the gum is teasing us to tear the whole plastic wrapping off to see the whole product exposed. Essentially, the gum is seducing us. It looks so bright and shiny… and if we pull back that tab, will we see the surprise that the caption assures us is there?



Why yes. Yes, we do. The gum is liberated from its packaging. Hell, the woman is liberated too. Instead of being cloaked in black nylons, a scarf, a button up jacket, and a modest skirt, she is now in white see through lingerie. Her clothes are at her side. Apparently unwrapping the gum made her want to unwrap herself. She is somehow now the more noticeable focus of this gum advertisement. While the gum package is still patterned and attractive it is no longer the focus. The spotlight is gone. What I find most interesting about this advertisement is that the caption suggests that unwrapping gum is like undressing a woman. Hm. Let’s break this down. Gum: you put it in your mouth, soak up the flavor, and spit it out. Is Orbit likening their product to how women should be treated? Probably not. Nonetheless the message has been sent.

“Unwrap the new Orbit packs to reveal something surprising underneath.” NEW. Orbit gum wrapping has been made over. Therefore the product is, for all intents and purposes, completely different than the original creation. The woman and her transition from the former advertisement to the current one show how she herself has changed. She has undergone a makeover. She is still in a passive position but she is now unwrapped, revealed, and completely interchangeable with any other advertisement because her position is not unique to the product being advertised.

At the bottom of this advertisement we can see all the different kinds of Orbit gum packages. The fact that the woman is almost naked and that the gum packages are all different colors makes me feel like this advertisement could be parodied to advertise condoms. “Unwrapped? Fabulous?” Come on consumers, pick a color- any color. You will find “something surprising underneath.”

BMW

Cars are often referred to as "she." "Isn't she a beauty?" "She is a fast car." When the word "she" is referred to as a car, it implies that women are property. Just as cars are the property of people, women are supposed to be the same thing. Historically women were objects that could be purchased for marriage. In a sense that did make them property of their husbands.

In the modern world the purchasing of women has become much more covert. From prostitution (which is by no means modern but is more publicized and exploited via media) to the enforcement of gender roles, women are faced with a glass ceiling. Gender roles are enforced in a whole new way since they are under attack by modern forms of feminism and progression of equality. In earlier times gender roles were never under question and were a seemingly normal part of how society was set up. It seems to be no coincidence that when women gained social agency the idea of men owning them became more of desired aspect of life. If men could "own" women they were kept in a position of power. Most men own corporations and are CEO's of the places that women work for. Few too little women have positions such as these. This distinction enforces the idea that women are still a kind of property. Men (and even some women) refer to their artifacts as "she's." This further enforces the idea that women are objects for women to own or be dominated by men.

This BMW advertisement is a good example of what it means to objectify women not only as objects but sexually as well. As I have discussed, women are associated with cars. This ad shows that this woman is essentially a car. I also see this ad as telling BMW consumers that women come second to cars. The type in the middle of the advertisement says, "The Ultimate Attraction." This says that women and cars are one in the same. BUT it also still implies that women are supplemental to cars or other objects of ownership. I believe that images such as this keeps women from being equal to men. I can see how some people can see images such as these as empowering to women. After all, they are exposed because of their own will and can choose their status as a sexually desirable woman. Although this may be true, I still see this kind of image as a "glass ceiling." They can choose their status- but they cannot truly reach above the glass ceiling to be more than sexual. The advertisement enforces idea that sex, while enjoyable, would be more enjoyable in a car. In addition, this advertisement implies that women's company would be even more enjoyable if their faces looked like cars.

Personally, I would like to be seen as more valuable than a car. The fact that BMW is preying on sex as a means to sell their cars is slightly revolting. I believe that car companies need to see that by sexualizing the idea of their products they are also devaluing possible customers. I doubt that this one advertisement truly has any effect on how much business they have. BUT in the long run advertisements like this in large quantities could turn people off to the image that BMW is portraying. As a result they might look elsewhere to buy their luxury cars.

What do you suggest that BMW should use to make their marketing more friendly to both sexes.

*Sorry for the randomness of this blog. I was just rambling off my thoughts about this advertisement.

Yogurt!

I found this advertisement for yogurt when I was thinking about what to blog about. Let's talk about the rhetoric of yogurt advertising for a minute. Many television advertisements for women suggest that if they eat yogurt in the place of some daily meals, they will loose weight. This advertisement suggest that if you are fat, which I don't think this woman is, you need to eat yogurt to make you socially acceptable. I would like to open this up to discussion...

As we know, America has a high percentage of those who are obese. I believe that for health reasons this issue needs to be addressed. But I don't think that a persons weight, no matter what it may be, takes away from their value as a human being. I believe that the issue of weight should be discussed not through advertisements that tell them they are unacceptable but by a discussion that addresses WHY obesity is a growing epidemic in this country. Let us look at how we can change certain parts of culture that promote unhealthy lifestyles. Alright, on to the visual rhetoric deconstruction.

Red, according to Sheila Jeffreys, is the ultimate sign of femininity. This advertisements suggests that obesity is only pertain-able to women. Also, the reference to the birth of Aphrodite is distinctly feminine. She is covering herself in a way that was much like Aphrodite when she birthed from the water. These elements further comment on how women need to eat yogurt to either release themselves from female stereotypes OR to yield and believe that they are not worthy of social acceptance because of their weight. This woman's body is exploited. She is barely covered. I believe that the underlying message is that woman are mere objects that need to perfect.

This advertisement got to me. I myself am not a super skinny woman, but over the past year I have grown to like myself. But images like this make me question my worth for about five minutes. I guess that is often the intent of various yogurt ads. I think that more modes of activism need to promote a healthy body image. As of right now the most popular campaign hails from the Dove product line. The interesting thing about Dove is that it is marketed by Unilever. Unilever also markets Axe. This situation makes me question whether Dove truly believes in their message or if they use the campaign as a means of making money. Perhaps it is a bit of both? I am not sure. But there is a lot I don't know.

Burger King Part II

I could not find the exact date that this advertisement debuted. But according to my attempts at figuring this out, I am going to venture a guess and say that these advertisements were promoted around 2006. In this particular campaign Burger King presented some pretty offensive ads. The image above, let's not lie, clearly alludes that the "Real Big Burger" can be likened to a real big male part. The band aids around her mouth also suggest that eating a burger is like performing a sexual act that may cause your mouth to spread to the point of breaking the skin.

Perhaps I am looking at this image too literally. Perhaps I am just too cynical. What I do not understand is that this advertisement is for fast food; yet there is no fast food featured. It describes their fast food as "Real Big Burgers" with the Burger King logo off to the side. But this advertisement, because of the lack of Burger King products, could easily be a pornographic advertisement. I mean, this would be a bit kinky... but nonetheless, it does suggest a certain kind of sexual undertone.

So what do we do? Well considering that this image is a bit old and therefore cannot be undone, I am perplexed. As my professor, Dr. Michael Karlberg, told me, "For every one advertisement there are a thousand critics." This has stuck with me. His words have motivated me to move beyond ranting... don't worry I am still going to rant. BUT I also need to think of productive ways to deal with this offensive advertisement. SO I am attempting to be more productive... wish me luck.

First off, I believe that in fast food advertisements, there does tend to be more sexually suggestive messages. Meat and male genitalia are often intermixed. I believe that we need to let these restaurant chains know that we will no longer stand for these sex implied messages. I say this not only for my own sake but for the sake of children who see these advertisements. Young and developing children often tend to take these images and store them away in their minds. Essentially these images become part of their collective memories. For some, not all, these images can construct ideas of femininity and pornography that may encourage them to act in certain ways. These actions may degrade women. This degradation could lead to violence and a perpetual cycle of unfair treatment. As I said, this is not the case for everyone. But considering the amount of violence that is inflicted upon women and children, we do need to consider the possible connection. In no way am I stating that advertising affects or causes these ideas/actions. What I AM saying is that advertising is a major part of social institutions that many citizens are exposed to. As a result, it is an important function of gender identity, consumerism, and stratification of the "other."

Reginald Twigg has a clear interpretation and description of the "other." Considering I read about him in my Visual Rhetoric class about a year ago, the specific details are fuzzy, BUT the general idea still stands. Essentially, photographs of those who are stratified in society, whether it be those who are poor, women, children, or people of a different race and ethnicity who are not White, can be "othered." A really good example of this is through images. In a lot of cases, the images that we see of those who are part of the "other" peoplehood are exposed via pictures, advertisements, and media facets. Many of these images, due to how society is set up, are only seen by more privileged individuals who have access to these kinds of areas of social institutions. This means that those who are exposed via these images, advertisements, and media facets are seen by the privileged. The gaze of the privileged further engrains the idea and image of what the "other" is considered to be. This kind of gaze can further stratify those who have no sense of agency to change their circumstances or advocate social issues. The interesting part? The gaze is not a two way thing. The gaze is only relevant to those who are privileged enough. Ideas of social and political power then take form in the minds of these individuals.

There is a parody of this Burger King advertisement that promotes Durex condoms. As misogynistic as this ad is, it makes the same point that I am attempting to make. You can easily make this image sexual. Hm. Instead of saying "Real Big Burgers" the caption has been changed to "Really Big." Once again, hm. There is a connection between burgers and sex. Who knew? We are so socialized to see these images as harmless and funny. BUT really? There has to be some kind of limit.



So dear readers, what do you think?

Ralph Lauren: Romance

First off, I love Ralph Lauren perfume. In fact, I used to wear Romance all the time. Then I decided I needed a new smell.

This advertisement intrigues me. The man is on his knees, seemingly worshiping the woman. I like it. Normally women are on their knees worshiping males. I am not saying that Ralph Lauren has all woman friendly advertisements. He doesn't. But I do like that this advertisement is a soft representation of love. I feel that most often there is this hard and rough representation of lust that is defined as love. This advertisement is loving, tender, and welcoming. It represents "romance." This is something that is not often seen in media. It represents men and women as something more than typical gender stereotypes.

To top it all off, the clothing is not skankilicious. It is modest. This modesty shows that women don't have to always be oversexualized. This Romance advertisement shows that love can beautiful. Love and lust don't have to be male dominant. Even though the man is on his knees- I don't think of him as being submissive to the woman. I see him as being soft. There is no look of dominance or submissiveness. It's simply- romance. On both parts.

The end. Too uplifting? What can I say, I am attempting to find more positive images.

Feminism... ooohhh scary.

A few weeks back I discussed what it means to be a feminist. Everybody has their own interpretations, and that is wonderful. That's the joy of living in America. We can interpret our own ideas and not conform to one person's belief.

In recent weeks people have poked fun at me for being a feminist. Even though I know it is in a loving way- I still feel as if I am stereotyped for my beliefs. To some degree, this bothers me. Why is this word so stigmatized? Naomi Wolf rights in the "The Beauty Myth" that women are trapped by stereotypes. This entrapment still gives men power- even though we live in an "equal" world, right?

Whenever women show any sense of intelligence in regard to women's, minorities, and children's rights- we are seen as crazy opinionated freaks. Or we are laughed at. I know that many of the people who have made fun of me- don't really mean it. But the fact that they have all been men says something. It says that they have the power to do that. They have agency to make jokes about being a feminist. I mean, if a woman makes fun of a man for being "manly," we are bitches. How is this fair? It isn't. It just further stigmatizes who I am.

I know that men that surround me don't intend to be serious- BUT the fact that they have the agency to do so further enforces why women need to be taken seriously. What often starts out as a joke can turn into the creation of permanent attitudes. In the case of the wonderful men that surround me, I know that this would not happen. But this does happen to some men.

I am not asking the jokes to stop. I know that these men love me as a sister. But I do ask that other men just think about it. Think about how this affects the cultural stereotypes of women. I am not asking you to change your ways. I ask that you be aware of what this does to women.

MTV advertises safe sex

This MTV ad was featured in the Portugal media this past year. The point of the advertisement was to convey that safe sex is essential. Without using a condom or some other form of protection, it is like shooting a vagina. In some respects- this is brilliant. Counter violence with violence. The point that they are attempting to illustrate is very true. If you don't use protection you are putting yourself at risk for STD's and pregnancy. My question is this- is this really the best way to advertise this idea?

This image, though unintentional as it may have been, reinforces the idea of violence. Why? Because this actually happens to women. Sadly, pointing a gun at a woman's genitalia is not uncommon. Women around the world are notoriously known to be sexually oppressed and the most at risk victims of domestic violence. In a sense, this advertisement is right on. It makes a statement. It sums up rather shockingly the risks that women face just for being women.

While the intent of this advertisement was to promote safe sex it also reinforces the idea that women are submissive and let it happen to themselves. I find it interesting that the advertisement implies that sexual safety is in the hands of the woman. WHAT? Okay it takes two. Therefore, two people need to be in charge of the safety and consequences of sex. God forbid that the man has to go buy his own condoms or ask the girl if she is on the pill. He is the gun- he is the danger. Hm. If there were another advertisement that was reversed with a mans legs spread wide open and a woman pointing the gun, there would be a sense of sexual equality. That is fair. That is normal. Women are sexual beings too. Not just men. Women need to be in charge of their own safety just as much as men do.

I actually think this advertisement is brilliant in some ways. For it to be more relevant and powerful, there needs to be a counterpart advertisement (as described above). MTV is known for the shock factors portrayed in their advertising campaigns. If you are going to use shock measures- then at least make them meaningful. Don't half ass it.

Addendum to "Anti-Aging Advertisement" Rant

Readers,

I would like to clarify a point I made on the blog in which I talked about anti-aging advertisements. In that entry, I wrote of a young man I had met at my favorite bar. We have some mutual friends and got to talk last night. He clarified his point of view on acne and pores for me. Essentially this young gentlemen feels that an obscene amount of zits and skin problems are not attractive. I don't care who you are- I think we can all agree that we do not want to make out with a scabby face. BUT I would like to say that I would never turn someone down simply because of their skin. I think I feel that way because IF I was ever that person, I would want somebody to "take a chance on me." (ABBA reference anyone?)

I don't make this final point to say that the man in question would turn someone down. I have no idea. Nor do I really care. He was nice enough to listen and to clarify his point when he didn't even have to.

Enough said. Sam, thank you for clarifying and listening.

Shame on me

WOW. That's all I can say. Shame on me for being a woman. Shame on me for not checking for fresh coffee. God forbid I serve my husband stale coffee. What is most offending about this ad is that it is not reversible. If this was a woman slapping a mans butt, we would be told we were violent bitches. But the man is just "doing his job" as a proper husband. Sick.
Shame on me... stale coffee is a horrible sin. God, forgive me?

Anti-Aging Advertisements

Do you ever find it interesting that women today who are of a certain age are able to maintain their youthful charms? I find it empowering that you can be fifty and still be hott. That's awesome. It's a sign of progress. Women can be beautiful (and therefore considered useful) when they are at their peak. I say that beauty= usefulness and competency because it's true. I don't like it, but nonetheless, it is true. For example: when two women apply for a job and one is considered culturally beautiful and the other not- who, upon first glance, would you think is more competent? For further discussion of this issue, please read "The Beauty Myth" by Naomi Wolf. She goes into great depth about what beauty means to our society and how beauty is valued in a woman above all else. Anyways- back to the issue at hand.

As a woman, I often get frustrated by all of the contradicting images that are thrown in my face. I am told to be sexy. I am told to be innocent and "pure." I am told to be promiscuous but by no means a slut. I am encouraged to take care of myself yet indulge in rich foods. To show the effects of age though, is the mortal sin of sins. I mean Dove tells us to accept our natural selves; don't conform. YET at the same time I am bombarded by anti- aging advertisements. Various skin care lines tell me to reduce my fine lines, hide age spots, and smooth out my skin. WTF? I thought I was supposed to age with grace and embrace myself. Apparently not.

The most interesting part about anti- aging advertisements is that they tend to use famous actresses and models to promote the numerous skin care products. So when Eva Longoria (an already BEAUTIFUL actress) graces the pages of Vogue in promotion of a prominent make-up and skin care line, I think- Oh no! If Eva uses this product and she is already flawless then my skin must be absolute shit.

I'm sorry but no wonder women have major psychological issues. If we have acne, we have to hide it. EVERYONE has acne. I have acne. I heard a guy at my favorite bar in Bellingham say that he doesn't like women with bad skin; zits, bumps, bad pores, etc. I am thinking the best match for him is a mannequin. They don't have pores, zits, or bumps! Hearing this guy- who was super attractive- tell me this stuff made me super self-conscious. I mean, I want to embrace who I am naturally. But I am scared if I do that and eat those rich delicious foods that lead to a zit or two, then I am a failure. Since Vogue (one of my favorite magazines) is dominated by advertisements that help fund the magazine, I understand some of the absurdity of the ads. I mean, everyone needs money. What I don't understand is how you can have a Dove ad and an anti-aging ad in the same magazine.

*These particular advertisements I am using to illustrate my point were not featured in Vogue together... as far as I know. The images I wanted to use that appeared in this year's Vogue Shape issue were difficult to find. Therefore I resorted to these two images. You get the picture.



Do not get me wrong- Dove has a lot of problems that I will not address in this post, but at least the intent is to promote a healthy sense of self perception. Anti- aging advertisements tell me that who I am is not enough and I must correct this inherent error in myself before it is too late. Too late for what? Desirability? Love? Women more often than men have eating disorders, consume beauty products, and fall into a trap of self-doubt. In no way does an anti-aging ad cause this. But think about it. I mean I have a collective sense of myself that is based on the images around me. Advertisements like this enforce the idea that I am not good enough. And that is unacceptable. I am currently working on what it means to accept myself. At present I have a zit on my face. Does this mean I need to go buy a product of a skin care line to take care of it and be acceptable? Does it mean that I fail because perhaps that cheese quesadilla last night might have caused my zit?

The interesting thing is that advertisements are catered to those of middle to upper class white individuals. Even if the advertisement features a person of color, they are considered to be lucky to even be seen. Come on. Admit it, when you see the Dove advertisement of the Black woman exposing her curves, you think- wow! This woman who is already minimized simply by her color is now being exploited for her curves. Embrace yourself right? Eva Longoria is a woman of different ethnicity but she is accepted as sexy,acceptable, and worthy of our attention in various media facets. Mind you that very rarely is she seen as a soft, feminine woman but as a sexy and animalistic creature dominated by the male gaze. Her skin and weight are flawless. Whereas the Black woman in the Dove advertisement will never be seen elsewhere. If a white or Black woman who were considered to be of normal size and skin type promoted a skin care line in your favorite magazine, would you be more likely to use it? No. Because that makes you common and not part of the elite. Celebrities make their status acceptable in the form of a skin care line. I mean, if you use a particular skin care line then you will look like Jessica Biel, SJP, Drew Barrymore, or Halle Berry.



Perhaps my train of thinking is totally off. What do you think?

Accuracy

Some notes-

My blog is a compilation of my thoughts and interpretations. I state in several blogs to correct me if I am wrong and to share your thoughts. This is a learning experience for me. I don't really write this blog for the sake of pleasing the world. It's a blog- not Al Jazeera. Some things may be off- but none the less my interpretation is what it is.

Apparently my school newspaper told a friend that my blog is inaccurate about certain things- and your point? This is my place to share my thoughts. Yes they may be inaccurate, but I don't always know. Trying to find the history of each advertisement or thing
I rant about is particularly hard. I am not writing a paper. I am sharing. I often take concepts I have heard about and evolve them- is that illegal? Hm.

Anyways- if you have a true problem with the accuracy of my blog then I am sorry that you feel that way. Here are two solutions to end your confusion: a) don't read it or b) ask me. challenge me. I am all for it. I want to learn and hear others' thoughts.

Stay tuned... if you dare.

Marc Jacobs Advertising

In the Spring of 2008 Marc Jacobs launched his new ad campaign that featured Victoria Beckham. The creation of this advertisement campaign was used not only in the spring but also for the summer 2008 collection of Marc Jacob fashions. I love Marc Jacobs. I love Victoria Beckham. At present, they are some of the most important fashion icons. What I love about Beckham is her fashion style. It ranges from classic to eccentric. For women who love and adore fashion, these are admirable qualities. You are probably asking... okay Kendall, what's the problem?

And here it is.

You have three choices here. As the audience member of this advertisement, you can either 1) tell me there is nothing wrong, or 2) tell me this is a brilliant and shocking advertisement and that's why it's awesome or 3) tell me that yes, there is a problem that goes deeper than fashion.

So as far as a fashion sense goes- it's a fine advertisement. It's not even that shocking. If you look deeper into how advertising works and how women are often stereotyped, then you will see a problem. This was my first impression of the ad- GREAT SHOES. In fact, I have even tried them on. I loved them. But instead I bought another pair of heels. I have a few fashion savvy friends who find this ad to be funny and genius. I agree it is on a surface level.

Upon closer inspection, I see a few things wrong with this ad. First off, her vagina is a shopping bag. Hmm. You do not see her face. All you see are her legs. Women are often represented as sexually passive and shop-o-holics. Retail therapy and fake orgasms are the pinnacle of the female stereotypes. This advertisement tells me that shopping is the only thing that gets a woman off; specifically, Marc Jacobs. It's kind of insulting. I doubt that Marc Jacobs intent was to tell this to its viewers. This is just the effect. It doesn't matter though. Social issues regarding women are swept under the rug. And if they do see the light of day- they are seen as being too sensitive. God forbid that I am sensitive. Should I apologize that I take offense to a woman being represented as walking shopping bag? Oh wait! I am a woman- that's all I love to do. My sincerest apologies.

My idol, Jean Kilbourne, writes that advertisements tell us that these objects will love us. So who needs human companionship? Marc Jacobs will happily substitute. This advertisement masks female sexuality and objectifies it as consumerism. Once again, this is only my opinion. I welcome your thoughts.

Female Beauty- Oh How The Years Go By

Once upon a time having thighs was sexy. Once upon a time having natural breasts was oh I don't know... natural. Once upon a time having hips was preferable.

Then the "beauty myth" came along. As women moved up the various ladders of social institutions, advertisers had to start changing their approach of how to reach women. Domestic advertisements slowly started to loose their mass appeal to women. There was no longer a need for a vacuum to make a woman feel feminine. Fashion became one of the dominating forces of femininity. Don't get me wrong. I love fashion. I find couture to be a fascinating art form. My problem is this: over the years, fashion became all about constricting women. Since the corporate world could no longer keep women in the home, they had to think of a new way of to hold women back. Fashion. Women with natural bodies became grotesuque. The thinner you become. the more feminine and valid you are. The enforcement of thinness has become a prison of hallucination. Naomi Wolf calls this this Iron Maiden effect. Back in the day, women would be put into an iron casket to die either from starvation or from pokey things on the inside. They were forced to fit into the casket, despite the shape of the woman. I feel like beauty is a modern and updated version of the Iron Maiden.

Now, women hate themselves for not being thin or tan or having the right hair. Even my girlfriends (who are some of the most amazing beautiful women ever) talk about how they dislike something about themselves. I am guilty of this too. When someone tells me I am beautiful- I think they are full of shit. Why? Because I don't fit the modern Iron Maiden look. No matter how hard I try, I cannot fit into the casket. And the sad thing is that no one really can. Very few people naturally fit into this frame. But as women gained some sense of agency, they became locked into a casket. This entrapment became enforced by advertising. Specifically fashion has become a forceful way in which to convey what it means to be a true Iron Maiden. The picture of the very skinny model is considered by some to be the ideal look of beauty. To me, I think she is beautiful- but sort of creepy. I mean, you can see her bones. I think that is not always natural. Since fashion models have been known to have serious eating disorders and self-image problems, it would not be off for me to assume that she suffers from these things.

Marilyn Monroe was and is the pinnacle of a sexy woman. She was gorgeous. She was a size 13 (this may be off but more often than not she was talked about as being this size). That is bigger than me; that is bigger than most super models. YET, she surpasses them all. She represents a kind of beauty that is no longer recognized as acceptable. If you are over a size ten, you are considered to be overweight; which by the way is complete and utter shit. Who made this rule? Why do people actually care? I mean I am all for women being healthy and feeling good. What I am not for is women saying that they just want to feel better but really just want to loose weight to look like a model. I know plenty of women who hide behind this argument but still have a motivation to look culturally acceptable. You can still look hott at a size 13 and up. If you love yourself others will love you. If you rock who you are, you will be a legend. Marilyn Monroe did this. AND she is still hotter than pretty much any woman most of us know.

My point here isn't to talk about Marilyn Monroe. My point is to simply show you how beauty standards have changed. Very few women of shape are considered beautiful- they still get ridiculed or made fun of; Jennifer Lopez's butt and Beyonce's hips and thighs. While people say look, they are shapely and they are successful, they are still falling in to the trap. Why should it even matter? It shouldn't be unique. What should be unique are eating disorders that make your bones visible. But that is just my opinion.

Ladies, which woman would you rather look like? I say Marilyn. I mean, the modern model IS gorgeous- I don't want to diss her. I just want to say that beauty has changed. Think about it.

Burger King

So essentially- this advertisement tells women that if you eat a Burger King Super Seven Incher sandwich- it will be like giving a blow job. Hm. Right. Am I supposed to get a sense of pleasure out of this? Is this sandwich only for women? Can men eat it too? Because I would just like to say, EAT IT. Seriously.

There are so many things wrong with this. First off- of course her lips are red to highlight the shape of her open mouth. Red lip stick is found in many suggestive ads. I love red lip stick. So does this mean that every time I wear red, I am asking to give a blow job... even in the form of a sandwich? Please. What's more is that she looks dead. She even looks like a blow up doll. Now we have progressed past being objectified, but now apparently, I am better being dead or plastic. That's the best kind of sexual gratification. I am kidding.

Burger King is selling women's sexual submission for $6.25; meaning that for that amount, you can do whatever the hell you want to a woman. Wow. I mean while we are at it, shove the fries in her mouth for effect. Yum. At the top of the advertisement it says, "It Just Tastes Better." Essentially, this seven inch sandwich tastes better than the real thing. This objectifies men. It tells women that this sandwich is better than sex. Hmm. I highly doubt this.

The problem of this is that the objectification of men and women is planted in the viewers mind. These kinds of pictures do not go away. They stay there- hidden in the mind. And the more you see it or ads like this, it becomes a normal part of your perception of culture. Messed up.

An ethical code of advertising needs to be created. Jean Kilbourne says that advertisers aren't selling a product, they are buying a consumer. How messed up is that? This is where Aristotle and Edmund Burke come in. Intent vs. Effect of rhetoric. This can extend into the realm of visual rhetoric. I am sure the intent wasn't meant to be offensive, just shocking enough to make the audience want to buy a hamburger; to remind people that Burger King is a great place. Instead the EFFECT is the degradation of men and women. It reduces sexual empowerment and lessons the value of liking sex. Thanks Burger King.

The "F" Word

Feminism... oooohh scary!

First off- I hate you break it to you, but most of you are a feminist in some way or the other. Do you think women should have the right to make their own choices about how they live their lives? If so- yes, my friend, you are.
I have taken a lot of crap since I started this blog. Apparently, I take media images too seriously and am just trying to make a "feminist" noise.

And your point?

I am a feminist. What does that mean to me? I want women to be able to make their own decisions. While I may not agree with certain political issues, I still think that women should have a choice to speak their minds. I want to be able to make my own decisions about my life. Is that wrong? If so, please tell me why. I am not going to start burning my bra (which NEVER actually happened by the way) or start hating men. First off, I like my bras and I love men; especially good men. Sorry to burst your bubble of feminism.

Everybody has a right to their own opinions. I am simply here to defend myself. I will continue to write about women; in advertisements, movies, songs, television, etc. I have said it before and I will say it again, I know that men are often stereotyped too. I choose to write about women, because well I am a woman. I have been socialized a certain way- and by analyzing these images, I can deconstruct my own understandings of what it means to be a "woman."

I know many of you- friends, family, viewers, etc- will judge me. Go right ahead. I don't particularly care. If you have the time to judge me based on my dialogue in this blog- then you must be extremely bored. I am glad I can entertain you. But- I have obviously gotten to you.

All I ask is that you consider what I have to say. You don't have to agree or even like it. Just think about it. Draw your own conclusions- oh wait, isn't that a form of feminism?

The Rhetoric of Puma

"At PUMA, we believe that our position as the creative leader in Sportlifestyle gives us the opportunity and the responsibility to contribute to a better world for the generations to come. A better world in our vision—PUMAVision—would be safer, more peaceful, and more creative than the world we know today. The 4Keys is the tool we have developed to help us stay true to PUMAVision, and we use it by constantly asking ourselves if we are being Fair, Honest, Positive, and Creative in everything we do. We believe that by staying true to our values, inspiring the passion and talent of our people, working in sustainable, innovative ways, and doing our best to be Fair, Honest, Positive, and Creative, we will keep on making the products our customers love, and at the same time bring that vision of a better world a little closer every day.

Through the programs of puma.safe (focusing on environmental and social issues), puma.peace (supporting global peace) and puma.creative (supporting artists and creative organizations), we are providing real and practical expressions of this vision and building for ourselves and our stakeholders, among other things, a more sustainable future."- The Puma website... seriously... see it here: here

Amazingly enough, Puma also says on this page that they describe themselves as fair, honest, creative, and positive. Now first of all, how are these ads- fair, honest, creative, and positive? While sex is something that should be all of these things, we have to ask ourselves at who's expense?

The woman in this advertisement is blatantly engaged in a sex act. Now, there should be no shame in this. The shame of this sex act is that they are using her submissive position of being on her knees with substance on her thigh to sell shoes. Sex, in my opinion, should be a little bit more respected. For far too long, women's bodies and submissiveness have been marketing tools to sell products. Naomi Wolf writes in the "Beauty Myth" that women have been stripped of their style and even their faces and are now presented as mere bodies. A body to painted by advertisers. Rhetorically, this image suggests that she is a body- used for a man's pleasure and to sell whatever product she is told to.

If you remove the Puma shoes, you could easily change her clothes to sell Gucci. Or you could put some jewelry on her wrists and fingers. You could change her puma bag and make it a Kate Spade bag. That is this sad thing about this image- is it is sadly not unique. How many ads can we name that have a woman in a similar position selling a product? Several.

From a rhetorical stand point, this image says to me as a woman, "you are disposable, you are objective, and you can never be too sexual." After all, this pose is not shocking. AND- how often are women told that their job is to satisfy a man. Well, it looks like she did her job. In her Puma shoes. Well done- she must be talented at modeling and sex. That is a honest, creative, and fair depiction of women, right? What about positive? Well- it's positive in the sense that she is seemingly liberated to do whatever she wants. BUT is she liberated enough that she can change this image of herself? Based on the advertising world past and present techniques, no.

I am boycotting Puma.

Jessica Simpson- The Price of Beauty/ The Body Project

Props to Jessica Simpson- I am loving the direction that Simpson's new show is going. The public scrutiny of her physical appearance has dominated much of her life. I appreciate her desire to travel the globe to see what lengths what women will go to to be beautiful. "The Price of Beauty" will be shown on VH1 beginning March 15th. I don't know if the show will be too exploitive. The trailer is interesting. The theory behind the show has great potential though. I am hoping for the best.
Props to feministing.com for posting this on their blog- the link to the blog is below. I highly suggest checking it out.
http://www.feministing.com/archives/020255.html#more
The more I have been researching my senior thesis, the more I feel saddened. Decades of women have been fighting to be seen as more than just a "beauty." What about their intellect? Their desires? Their goals? It is disheartening to know that we still have SO far to go. I am reading this book called "The Body Project: An Intimate History of American Girls." The book focuses on diaries and media images beginning from 1830 to the present. The attitudes of women's desires to beautiful literally makes me cry. The author, Joan Jacobs Brumberg, writes that 53% of young girls in America are unhappy with their bodies. The worst part of this statement is that this statistic becomes truth for young women by age thirteen.
You want to know what pisses me off most about this statistic? It's true. My own experience as a young girl growing up with family pressures, comparisons to my friends, and media telling me what is normal- I know this statistic to be true. And that is unacceptable. I am SO over seeing some of the most beautiful women I know hate themselves because they don't meet cultural standards. It's even harder to see them work endlessly to achieve the "normal" image of what women should be. One, the work never pays off because no one can stay that perfect forever. Two, at the end of the day, what have they really achieved? Does it really make them happier? Woopti Doo. At what expense to their self-esteems and inner voices have the achieved this dream? They work tirelessly trying to keep themselves in this state of "perfection." And all the while, they are stressed about that. Women can't win. You either have it and are stressed about keeping it, or you don't have it and "fail."
Fuck it.

Calvin Klein

Calvin Klein is famous for his outrageous advertisements and commercials. He uses sex and gender stereotypes to sell his product. Very rarely does he use anything else. Even his child advertisements convey a sense of gender roles and replication of adulthood. The advertisement above is recently new and received a lot of public opinion. Of course, this is what Klein wants. I heard from several online blogs and news reports that this advertisement was created to target Klein's younger audience. So I, as a young woman, must crave sexual activity with three men WHILE wearing my Calvin Jeans. Oh yeah.
My analysis of this ad involves using the work of M. Gigi Durham, titled, "The Lolita Effect." Essentially the book talks about how young women are sexualized in the media. Klein is known for using barely legal or underage models. When he uses these models, he has historically portrayed them in a pornographic fashion. His use of younger models has created this image of what young women are taught and socialized to be. From a very young age, girls are shown images of what femininity is. Durham writes that these images are over-sexualized and therefore serve as "sex bait" for young women. And what with Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, and Willa Ford running around, this bait becomes normalized in the eye of the beholder. Klein uses these kinds of hyper-sexual images in his work to create a feel of what his brand symbolizes. So being young and sexual is what everyone should want to be when they see his ads. There is nothing wrong with being young and sexual- there is something wrong with being young and sexual because Calvin Klein tells us to. The sad thing is, is that this sexualization is sooo NORMAL. It should not be. The fact that the girl in the ad above looks like she is sixteen doesn't bother a lot of people. Why is that? Because compared to other ads, commercials, and media forms- it "isn't that bad." Well the cultural effect is bad because the ad is only one of many that lends itself as an example of how to reach young people.
The following youtube clip further explains this controversy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n9bTSwgCIc

Tom Ford- I don't even know

I debated putting this image on my blog for a long time. It is insanely graphic. Be prepared.
Since when did pornography become a means to selling mens clothing? This advertisement was stated to be a defining moment for manhood- at least in regards to the brand. Ford has used male nudity before in his work for other companies but not in his own. Until this advertisement, he had only used nude women. In 2008, Ford introduced this advertisement. As I said before, this was supposed to define manhood. So let me just ask this question, "Since when did manhood become about having sex with a woman blindfolded on a park bench while other males lounge around in expensive clothing?" Now in my mind, manhood is totally objectified here. What does this tell men? What does this tell women? Dear God. I mean the obvious answer must be that it tells them this is how society works. Men are sex craved beings. Women are submissive. I feel sad for both genders. Men must feel degraded when looking at this. OR do they feel empowered? Do they feel that this is liberating? As a female, I have no idea. I only know that this makes me feel sad.
Fortunately, many of the men I know are not at all like this. They do not consider manhood to be a state of exerting sexual dominance. Thank goodness.
This image is not fashion. It's pornography- that happens to have a few swanky suits pictured. I believe this ad was banned. I am not sure. At this point, I don't even care.

Ralph Lauren

This image literally made my heart ache. I am currently reading a mass amount of literature concerning women in the media and the sexualization of young girls. I am also reading a novel called "The Beauty Myth" by Naomi Wolf. Her first chapter, SPOT ON, describes this image.
Wolf writes that when women started gaining political and economic power, social institutions moved to create a stricter hold on women. So while we have progressed from being controlled by rules and laws that prohibited us from being able to vote, work, or have our own reproductive rights and choices, we are now controlled by the Beauty Myth. The Beauty Myth is, "a violent backlash against feminism that uses images of female beauty as a political weapon against women's advancement." Wolf also states that since the Beauty Myth has become a dominating social force, women's eating disorders and cosmetic surgery have held women back from truly being free and/or liberated. The popularity of eating disorders has become a problem of exponential proportions in the United States.
Interesting enough this advertisement encompasses, in my opinion, everything that the Beauty Myth represents. Yes, this women has a sense of agency- she is modeling for a famous clothing brand. We can assume that because she is a model she has a substantial amount of money. But what of her body shape? Maybe this is her natural look, but I doubt it.
Upon further research, I learned that this advertisement was photo shopped. In a statement made by Ralph Lauren this past fall, he stated, "For over 42 years we have built a brand based on quality and integrity. After further investigation, we have learned that we are responsible for the poor imaging and retouching that resulted in a very distorted image of a woman's body. We have addressed the problem and going forward will take every precaution to ensure that the caliber of our artwork represents our brand appropriately."
So while the model is, apparently, not as thin as she is portrayed, she was still photo shopped to appear that way. What angers me about this is that this was done for shock value. While shocking, this still seeps into the minds of women as a norm. Even for me, I struggle that I am not as thin as many famous women I admire. Ads like this reinforce it. At the end of the day, I know enough to say fuck it. But for those women and men who are not aware of how to read the media- this is normal. And that is a dark thought.

Old School Ads- how I laugh.

This image makes me laugh- but not for joy. I am offended by the stereotype of the man as the smoker who symbolically is represented as a sexual maniac. Side note- smoking and sex? Why? The woman in this image also offends my sensibilities. She looks like a blow up doll. With her wide eyes, protruding breasts and submissive stance- apparently she will follow you anywhere- so long as you blow in her face.
Now, this image could mean just that- blowing smoke in her face.
OR this could have sexual meaning. If I need to explain the cultural term of blow- then you really need to visit urban dictionary.

Essentially- this advertisement says- "Treat her as an object. She will love you."
In the words of my friend Shelby Scott- "Whaaaat?"

Last Friday, I didn't have a lot of time to deconstruct the image of the geisha. So here I go-
First off-while foot binding was more common in ancient China, there are several accounts that tell us that foot binding also happened in Japan. Geisha's are a very accomplished women who were often hired to simply entertain men. Sometimes there was sexual intent, and at others, there was not.
A good geisha was graceful, passive, funny at appropriate times, submissive, cultured, and intent on serving.
Small steps and use of their facial expressions to attract customers were some of the most prominent and proper ways in which Geisha's worked.
I find it ironic that their graceful small steps are mocked. After all, she is tied to a man's shoe. What does this say? My interpretation of it is that it mocks geisha's while advertising them as submissive women. Asian women are already seen as passive members of society- this image further depicts a certain kind of reality. If you had no knowledge of how Asian women are represented, what would you think? "Wow, Asian women really are submissive and decorative."
I have issues with this: Women have no in between. You are either a bitch or submissive. What about a kind and active women? Apparently thats rare? I hate to break it to those ignorant citizens of humanity, but you cannot define women as one thing. I mean, do not get me wrong. Men are often objectified too. But men have the agency to change their status; to fight back. Men can be anything. Why can't women?
This image further enforces Asian stereotypes but also expresses something about the cultural belief of what women are. I have a challenge for you- don't think of WHAT women are; think of WHO women are.

What does this mean? Geisha's have long been a sex symbol- but to strap them to a man's shoe? Sick. Especially because she is in some kind of shoe lace bondage. To me- this says women can be stomped all over and are nothing more than sex symbols. Thank your corporate America.

Thunder by Nuttin' But Stringz

I have fallen in love. Buy their album on iTunes. Best investment ever.

LEE Advertisement

MMkay. Someone explain how Lee, a clothing brand, uses this as an ad. There are no clothes featured. Only lip stick. And cum looking substance. Rhetorically, this suggests that women who wear the Lee brand will sit there with their mouths open waiting for white substance to enter their mouths. Sick. Wrong. Confusing. Can anyone offer any other interpretations?

Sisley. Sisley is a messed up brand. What is this even supposed to be? Women get thirsty while milking the cow? This image is like animal/human pornography. Disgusting. And if you want to get technical- this image looks like the aftermaths of a bad porn scene. What is it with women enjoying white crap all over their faces? I mean really. That is SO degrading to me. I just don't even get it. I mean, I am open to interpretations. Bring them on. I would just like my viewers to look at the rhetorical message that it is sending and embedding in society. Media literacy is needed for those who look at this image and think that it constructs some kind of inherent truth about women.
There are more messed up Sisley ads to come.
- Kendall

Jimmy Choo- do you know what you do?

Oh Jimmy Choo. How the heck do you do what you do?
First off- yes, all girls like to hang out in a trunk wearing hott shoes? NO.
Secondly, I know race is a trickly subject for people, but having the African- American male outside of the vehicle while the woman lounges around inside is not usually a good thing to advertise. I say this because Black males are often advertised as violent and over masculine figures. Granted, he himself isn't being violent, but the ad as a whole has a tone that represents some kind of film noir murder mystery suspense.
In addition to this, the car is in a desert. A desert. A girl in the trunk. A man outside. This does not really make me want to buy that shoe- and I do love Jimmy Choo shoes, do not get me wrong. But really. Oh the fashion world, how you annoy me.

"The Purity Myth"

Jessica Valenti wrote a really intriguing book called "The Purity Myth." She writes about how the United States in particular has a monopoly on what it means to be "pure." Purity is a very interesting topic of conversation in the religious world these days. What with purity balls, purity rings, and other purity rites, there is so much hype about what it means to have purity.
I am a all for people living pure lives that they are proud of. But for me, pure doesn't just mean sex; it is so much more. Valenti talks about how purity has become one with the term virgin. If you are not a virgin, you are not pure. Maybe that's true- maybe it's not. Who the hell really knows. What I do know though is that there is this extreme amount of guilt that women carry. Women are supposed to be pure. BUT sexy. And apparently the two aren't socially constructed in the US to go hand in hand. So women face a major identity crisis. Am I pure? Am I sexy?
I do not pretend to have answers. I think when you claim that you are right about something, you ignore arguments from both sides of an issue. I know several people who think the idea of sexual purity is crap. I know others who think it is essential. The point is, you have to listen and know all sides of an argument. I don't agree with everything that Valenti has to say. BUT she has a lot of good points that make you want to critically look at how women are socially constructed to think and act in this country. She makes you think. So I suggest reading it. At best, if you don't agree with her, you will walk away with a better understanding of the oppositions view.

Thoughts on the Tom Ford Advertisements

So yesterday, I was showing some people the Tom Ford advertisements featured on my blog. Ironically, the men, except Dr. Karlberg, laughed. They thought they were funny and just advertisements. I called my father and he said, "that's just the way it is." THIS IS WHAT IS WRONG WITH AMERICA. Images like these should not be normal. Advertisements often use women as supplemental to a product. They do this to men as well- don't get me wrong. But women already have to fight for equal pay and to be taken seriously. Some people will probably just tell me I'm being oversensitive about these ads. I may be sensitive- and your point? There is still a problem that women are being exploited.
Men are exploited yes. But at the end of the day- men have more power. You cannot deny that. Men have the power to choose their positions as that of the "other" or the "gazer." Women, in most cases, do not. Keep in mind that I am talking about the fashion world right now and not all aspects of life.

Tom Ford Advertisements

First off, what the hell? I mean really. Tom Ford. It is no secret that the fashion world presents women in a warped and effed up way. But really? Using women as sexual objects to sell products is getting old. Seriously. I am offended that men are socialized to see women in this way. I mean most men, hopefully, see more than just my vagina as cologne. One would hope. The problem is that even though they may not consciously see women as objects- subconsciously, they begin to process these kinds of images in to a "normal" part of advertising. This is dangerous. Women often see themselves as that. They want to attract men. Is wearing Tom Ford sunglasses going to get me a date this weekend?
The interesting thing about the sunglasses advertisement is that there was a caption with it that said, "Yes, I want those sunglasses." Think about it.

Welcome.

Essentially, this is my place to convey my ultimate inner nerd. My love of media findings and visual rhetoric are a huge part of my life, but there are few people to actually sit down and chat about this stuff with. I just want a place to put it all out there. So- beware. You may not like what I have to say about the world. SO- don't read it.

A few things to come:

Fashion advertisements- their effect on the creation and construction of feminine identity.

This whole Twilight phenomena

Coffee houses in Bellingham

The "F" word

Stay tuned.