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?