Gloria 1/5/11
After flipping through some magazine pages and studying the many sexist ads I came upon an ad that caught my attention. I found this ad in the September 13, 2010 US Weekly magazine on page 47. The ad is promoting Schick’s Quattro trimmer for women and it states, “The only four-blade razor and waterproof bikini trimmer in one. Shave, trim and transform with just the flip of a handle. Free your skin.” It demonstrates a colorful green botanical garden with a roman sculpture of a woman. This woman is nude and has a smooth texture in her skin, and there’s a green bush shaped like a triangle in her vagina. The woman holds a pose that demonstrates insecurity; she is looking down towards her body as of questioning her body parts. Before the body sculpture and the triangle bush in her vagina, there is a square and a circular bush. However, what is this add trying to say? There are implications in this ad that demonstrate sexist depiction and the beauty standards women are expected to follow. First of all, the text on the ad is a direct indication of a beauty standard; that of smooth and hairless skin. With that being said, this ad is a circumlocutory sexist ad that reinforces the American beauty myth.
To begin with I will like to bring out the body stance the female sculpture has. Like mentioned earlier she is looking down at questioning her body. She has a look in her face as of lacking self-confidence because she has pubic hair. Not to mention, the green bush that is supposed to represent her pubic hair, stands out when placed in her smooth white skin. That was done with the intension of making the pubic hair look as if it is not suppose to be there. The public hair looks as of unnatural and degrading. My question is why? Everyone has or will get them growing. Little do womyn know that pubic hairs do “keep out any dust or dirt that could enter the vagina. Those particles are caught in the hair and when we wash are washed out” (Scheiman). In the last Feminist Unite meeting we talked about alternative menstrual care and the discussion soon led to that care of the vagina. A nurse from the health center attended the workshop and she mentioned that pubic hairs help avoid yeast infections. In conclusion, pubic hairs hold a purpose and should not be looked upon as unpleasant hairs.
Why is hairless skin seen as attractive? Pubic hairs are seen as a sign of being an adult; in other words, a mature being that is capable of choosing for them self. Having no pubic hair is a trait of pre-puberty in other words little girls. Women are portrayed as little girls instead of womyn because it makes them look weak and as of easy sexual targets. Innocence and mindlessness have become key factors that make up traits of attractiveness in ads. This is all done with the purpose of supporting gender roles and an unequal social system. Women have to play the stupid, weak, and submissive little girls because that continues supporting the patriarchal system. Men can continue being the dominant ones and women remain unintelligent so they can easily be overpowered.
The most sickening part of it all is the association of the infantilization of women has with child pornography. Is as of the sexualization of children is furtively being accepted in mainstream media. When has abusing the rights of a child and ending a childhood started being considered sexy? Parents would not want to see their five year old daughter in sexually provocative clothing nor poses. After all, that is that is one of the purposes of making women look like little girls, it is to make associate infantilism with sexuality. It would be absurd not to link the connection between child pornography and women’s infantilization in the media. Another thing that bothers me is that the media is influencing the individual’s definition of attractiveness! People absorb the media with little to no knowledge of them doing so! Little would some men and women acknowledge that a magazine ad of a pubic hair trimmer would have a longer meaning than that of only cutting off pubic hairs. They would not understand that the media is telling women to cut off their hairs because women need to look like little girls. They people behind the ads, implement fear on womyn. It is as if their message is “Hey ladies, if you don’t cut off your cha-cha’s hair you will be hella bushy, ugly, and unhappy. So buy our product and cut it off!” In conclusion, women are told to look like little girls because women need to fill in the inferior role so men can continue being the leaders of the world.
Another ad I found in the same magazine was that of Skinny Cow Ice Cream. The ad has a wiener dog floating in the air by a balloon and it is giving a giraffe an ice cream cone. It states, “Loving you in that delicious low-fat (150 Cal.) way.” Although at first appearance, it may seem not to have any sexist implications, it does have indirect sizeist messages. “Skinny Cow” can be a term connected to “heifer” which is a derogatory term reefing to overweight womyn.. Without doubt, this ad was for the female consumer; the green and pink pastel colors and feminine font with hearts is a obvious indication. Why would they name this low fat ice cream company “Skinny Cow?” The company wanted to target womyn because they are already insecure with their weight. Nonetheless, the little Weiner dog is giving an ice cream cone to the larger giraffe making it seem that the smaller animal is rescuing the larger by the statement, “feel the love.” Again, all these messages may not be picked up immediately but the sizeist implications given to the female audience all tie down to sexist gender standards expected out of womyn.
The third magazine ad I found, that enforced the regular pressures on women, was on Bali bras. In this ad there was a model that was turning her back and making direct eye contact with the viewer. It states, “When you’re Wearing a Great Bra U Just Know. The Signature Comfort-U Design. Stay In Place Straps & Back.” Bras seem to be a mandatory clothing expectation for women but, who placed this in womin’s heads? Why must we wear brassieres? One of reasons why bras have appeared to be a necessity is because there is a social pressure for breasts to be large. Bras provide the padding and support to make the breast appear bigger. Another comfort bras give is, the assurance that nipples won’t transcend outside the clothing. Since breasts have become such a sexualized body part, it is improper for nipples to appear. Breasts have to either be purposely provocatively showed or modestly covered. Little is put into consideration that the nipples are as regular as any other body part. They fill a purpose an dit may not necessarily suit solely for sexual appearance. Breasts come in all different shapes and forms; there is no need to standardized one universal attractive standard. Bras should be optional and breast should be allowed to let be free.
As it is women carry many body insecurities, and ads for treating acne do little in benefiting their self-esteem. The fourth ad that implied women’s oppression is one on Noxzema Clean Blemish Control. There is a model carrying a sign that says the following, “No! I will not double up on foundation. Don’t cover up the problem. Fix it with New Noxzema Clean Blemish Control. It’s oil-free, gentle formula with salicylic acid treats acne and prevents blemishes, and glycerin leaves grown-up skin feeling smooth and hydrated. So throw out those cover-ups. Come clean.” The terms “problem”, “fix”, “formula”, “prevents”, and “cover-ups” give the indication that acne is unnatural. Yet what is not told is that acne is not curable and completely normal. Not to mention the model is covering her mouth with the poster. This is an indication that her acne problem is so strong that it silences her. Yet again, disempowering women and cutting their voices.
The fifth ad that implied sexism found in the same magazine is on Slim Shot ad which is a weight lost drink. It is almost unheard of for mainstream magazines to contain no weight loss product ads. Slim Shots is a small drink that is supposed to be taken in the morning to reduce hunger. There is a woman carton with a quote box that says, “That’s right…I just take a little Slim Shot in the morning and I eat up to 30% less all day!” Plus, it demonstrates a pizza with color, making it stand out from the rest of black and white cartoon. However, the woman in this add is slim with large breast and wide hips; there is no need for her to lose wait! So should slim people also have a need to lose weight? Most importantly, the makers of the ad forgot to announce the importance of a healthy diet. This ad sends mixed messages and it helps to reinforce the weight-loss focus that really does not help women.
Racist and colorist principles don’t fail to appear in magazine ads. In a Hellcat television show ad, the lightest person is placed in the center and in the front. Meanwhile, the colored people are placed in the back. The second to the front is a tanned white girl and the last two are black people. Ironically, on top of the actors “Being here doesn’t mean you belong here” is stated. When televisions shows and movies are studied closely on the basis of race, most of the time the leading role is acted by a light toned person. People of color have secondary roles; they either portray exaggerated racial stereotypes or are completely anglicized that they have little representation of their culture. Sexism is not the only injustice showed in advertisements but racism is highly enforced.
Under the strains of a capitalist system, we are all consumers. Nevertheless, as consumers it is important to question and not to follow what is being fed around us with commercialism. Ads like the one just criticized are reminders of the daily struggles womyn face. It is ridiculous that womyn are being told what to in every angle. We are told by the industries to “wear this”, “smell this way”, and “be this way.” We are even told what to do with one of more intimate and private parts of our bodies; our vagina. That is exploitation of our bodies and this is unacceptable.
Back to TopPornography
Gloria 2/1/09
There is something that is corruptive yet unnoticeably passed on as inoffensive; pornography that subjugates women.
How?
Pornographic material that shows women under dominance, submission, bondage, punishment and/or torture to conquer the viewer. There is women being chained, tied, bruised, spanked, slapped, punched, chocked, cut, and/or burned (sadomasochism.) Females being placed in uncomfortable, downgrading positions. Films or photo shots associated with bestiality or stool/urine usage (Coprophilia/ Urolagnia) which clearly is an act of subordination. Pornography that performs prostitution, rape, or murder. Even in the most basic porn, there is trace of unequal power; the female is the one performing most of the sexual acts to fulfill the male partner’s pleasures.
Something is obviously wrong when aggression is acceptable and seen as normal from the male.
Fierceness, brutalization and brusqueness, just seems to be part of their masculinity. Truly do women need to conform to this inequity?
Should domestic violence and sexual assault be passable due to this “aggression”? Why should porn that contains violence and assault against women be any less offensive and wrong than these crimes?
Sex should produce mutual pleasure. It should be harmonious and have NOTHING to do with pain. Respect and empathy should be given and received.
Unfortunately this discrimination and mistreatment in pornography goes unthought-of and unrecognized by many. How is this oppressed and insulting porn, productive for the viewer?
Whether all pornographic material should be banned or classified as indecent is not the main point. Where the problem lays is what kind of porn we are accepting, buying and supporting as INDIVIDUALS. Please lets not support any pornography that portrays inequality and violence towards women (or men). Lets speak out, spread the word, strategize, and organize against corruptive porn.