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.