Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wildbluesun)
    I think that either it's okay to sexually objectify people in order to sell products, or it isn't. Gender is irrelevant.

    Right now, women are very frequently sexually objectified in order to sell products, and men are only occasionally objectified for the same purpose. So the solution is presumably to sexually objectify more men, until men and women are objectified equally in the name of profit. So this advert would therefore be a step towards a gender-equal world.

    Either that, or we objectify no one.

    That's what feminism means: men and women get treated the same, even if they are being treated equally badly.
    But you can objectify someone by getting them to model what you're selling, or you can really objectify someone by getting them to stand half naked doing nothing relevant at all to your product.

    Men are already objectified in the former way when selling clothes, look at the jeans adverts where the guy is always topless and under 5% body fat.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (NB, I have mixed feelings about sexual objectification to sell products as a whole. I think it's pretty harmless so long as people are aware that it's just an advert and pretty meaningless overall, that the person in the advert is acting a role and that they shouldn't look at real people the same way they look at advert people. And I think most people are aware of that, so overall it is quite harmless. But I think problems arise when you have homogenous depictions of females/males/any other group you care to name, which I think can sometimes be the case with this type of advert. Anyway, blither, blather, ramble ramble...)
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wildbluesun)
    I think that either it's okay to sexually objectify people in order to sell products, or it isn't. Gender is irrelevant.

    Right now, women are very frequently sexually objectified in order to sell products, and men are only occasionally objectified for the same purpose. So the solution is presumably to sexually objectify more men, until men and women are objectified equally in the name of profit. So this advert would therefore be a step towards a gender-equal world.

    Either that, or we objectify no one.

    That's what feminism means: men and women get treated the same, even if they are being treated equally badly.
    Therefore we should rape men more then instead of finding the root of the problem behind the men that are raping women. So instead of stopping objectification, we should objectify everyone.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    To be honest, whenever I see that pink advert my primary thought is how nasty do they look? I just think it's ghastly to look at.

    Yes perhaps it objectifies men, but I don't think that that is so big a problem here, because I don't think it really changes people's opinions of men. It is meant to be humorous - whether it is funny is a different matter of course.

    I think the American Apparel advert does objectify women also, but do I think that it's unacceptable? Well not really, I think it's important that people have some freedom to make an advert like this. And also, companies get away with a lot worse than this. Like someone said, women are objectified in womens' magazines, they objectify their readers! I do understand that people worry that photos like this can contribute to the changing of people's perceptions of women.

    I think greater focus should be on getting rid of the airbrushing culture that we see all over the media. Why is it that everybody we see on the TV must have a perfect looking complexion? Why must they not have any spots? Why do even men have to wear makeup if they're starring in a TV drama? (they aren't even playing themselves, what does it matter if they have the odd blemish on their face?) To me, this desire to look perfect is a worse problem, it makes people feel bad about themselves if they aren't perfect like the celebrities they see on TV. It causes people to be more judgemental of others. I would argue that this is a bigger problem.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wildbluesun)
    (NB, I have mixed feelings about sexual objectification to sell products as a whole. I think it's pretty harmless so long as people are aware that it's just an advert and pretty meaningless overall, that the person in the advert is acting a role and that they shouldn't look at real people the same way they look at advert people. And I think most people are aware of that, so overall it is quite harmless. But I think problems arise when you have homogenous depictions of females/males/any other group you care to name, which I think can sometimes be the case with this type of advert. Anyway, blither, blather, ramble ramble...)
    In addition to being relevant/not relevant, you also have the target audience. If you're selling women's clothes to women, it make sense to have a woman model it. If you're selling gambling to women, I don't see where "topless men pointing to the left" comes in except to objectify them. If you're on about men vs women like in your previous post, then the clothing advert is women vs women, and the gambling advert is women vs men. In the interests of 'fairness', it would make sense to not complain about the clothing advert whatsoever since if there's any oppressing/objectifying of women going in, it's self inflicted.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pandabird)
    But that pink advert is meant to be funny, a bit of a piss-take.
    Adverts objectifying women are often serious.
    It's comments and ideas such as this that makes it difficult for men's rights to be taken seriously as womens.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guru Jason)
    It's comments and ideas such as this that makes it difficult for men's rights to be taken seriously as womens.
    But they're wearing pink trousers and pink belts. How can anybody take it seriously!?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    In addition to being relevant/not relevant, you also have the target audience. If you're selling women's clothes to women, it make sense to have a woman model it. If you're selling gambling to women, I don't see where "topless men pointing to the left" comes in except to objectify them. If you're on about men vs women like in your previous post, then the clothing advert is women vs women, and the gambling advert is women vs men. In the interests of 'fairness', it would make sense to not complain about the clothing advert whatsoever since if there's any oppressing/objectifying of women going in, it's self inflicted.
    It's a unisex jumper. It's being sold to both men and women. It could just as easily have used a hot man to sell the jumper, but it used a hot woman instead.

    (American Apparel have a long history of this type of stuff - sexually objectifying women to the nth degree just so can they sell socks, or whatever. In fact they've had a few adverts banned because they used very young-looking models in very sexual poses. I think that's biasing me against the advert somewhat.)

    (Original post by Hopple)
    But you can objectify someone by getting them to model what you're selling, or you can really objectify someone by getting them to stand half naked doing nothing relevant at all to your product.

    Men are already objectified in the former way when selling clothes, look at the jeans adverts where the guy is always topless and under 5% body fat.
    In this particular example, I think you're probably right - despite it being a unisex jumper - the jumper needs a model, a bingo site does not.

    However, as a whole, attractive women get used to sell products much more than men are, even for completely random products like cat food.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmSTWWWFwT8
    What has Eva Longoria shimmering across a table got to do with cat food? x.x

    Overall, thinking about the whole issue as opposed to these two adverts in isolation, I think women are objectified in adverts more than men. Attractive women are used to sell to women a lot as well, I'm guessing because they're meant to be aspirational. You've also got the whole booth babes thing at car shows and conventions and suchlike, which is a different type of advertising, but equally objectifying. I'm not aware of a male booth babe equivalent.

    Um yeah basically women get objectified more than men in advertising. I think that the two valid points of view are that we should objectify both and men and women equally in advertising (so we need either more objectification of men or less objectification or women), or we shouldn't objectify anyone. Take your pick.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pandabird)
    But they're wearing pink trousers and pink belts. How can anybody take it seriously!?
    I don't see why the advert shouldn't be taken seriously. It portrays an image of what it thinks men should be like, muscular, short hair etc aspects which are not all attainable by men.

    If adverts containing skinny, anorexic female models are used then the complaint is that they are reinforcing a gender sterotype that this is the ideal woman. This advert can be viewed as doing the same for the male sterotype.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wildbluesun)
    It's a unisex jumper. It's being sold to both men and women. It could just as easily have used a hot man to sell the jumper, but it used a hot woman instead.

    (American Apparel have a long history of this type of stuff - sexually objectifying women to the nth degree just so can they sell socks, or whatever. In fact they've had a few adverts banned because they used very young-looking models in very sexual poses. I think that's biasing me against the advert somewhat.)
    I'd assumed it was for women because of the other adverts on that page - I think only the fingerless gloves were obviously unisex. Even so, so what? They probably have better ties with female model companies so it's easier to get one in to model something. In addition, that advert is targeting women, it certainly hasn't swayed me to buy it in the slightest.



    In this particular example, I think you're probably right - despite it being a unisex jumper - the jumper needs a model, a bingo site does not.

    However, as a whole, attractive women get used to sell products much more than men are, even for completely random products like cat food.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmSTWWWFwT8
    What has Eva Longoria shimmering across a table got to do with cat food? x.x

    Overall, thinking about the whole issue as opposed to these two adverts in isolation, I think women are objectified in adverts more than men. Attractive women are used to sell to women a lot as well, I'm guessing because they're meant to be aspirational. You've also got the whole booth babes thing at car shows and conventions and suchlike, which is a different type of advertising, but equally objectifying. I'm not aware of a male booth babe equivalent.

    Um yeah basically women get objectified more than men in advertising. I think that the two valid points of view are that we should objectify both and men and women equally in advertising (so we need either more objectification of men or less objectification or women), or we shouldn't objectify anyone. Take your pick.
    Women buy more stuff than men do, so women are used more to sell that stuff to women. I think that's reasonable. People on TV are generally more attractive than the general public. Men typically buy razors, alcohol, cars and bet on stuff - these are the adverts aimed at men and typically they don't objectify anyone at all. Shaving's the most objectifying out of the lot but even then you get all the graphics of hairs being cut off, leaving the scene where a bloke's OH rubs his chin and kisses him as an afterthought. Alcohol regulations mean you can't imply sex. Car adverts are just stupid these days, effectively selling on shape (of the car) and name alone. As for gambling, you get Ray Winstone's decapitated head wobbling around. There are some exceptions, but in general people don't get objectified in adverts targeted at men.

    It is women who buy into the objectification. If they like doing it to themselves then I'd reluctantly accede, but don't try arguing that because they do it to themselves they're entitled to do it to men to the same degree.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    I'd assumed it was for women because of the other adverts on that page - I think only the fingerless gloves were obviously unisex. Even so, so what? They probably have better ties with female model companies so it's easier to get one in to model something. In addition, that advert is targeting women, it certainly hasn't swayed me to buy it in the slightest.
    Most big model agencies have both male and female divisions, there aren't that many that focus on just females or just males. (And they tend to be boutique agencies that specialise in a niche, like plus size.) It's no harder to book a male model than a female model.

    Having said that, I think AA normally use shop assistants rather than pro models in their ads, but it's not like they're a gender segregated workplace.

    (Original post by Hopple)
    Women buy more stuff than men do, so women are used more to sell that stuff to women. I think that's reasonable. People on TV are generally more attractive than the general public. Men typically buy razors, alcohol, cars and bet on stuff - these are the adverts aimed at men and typically they don't objectify anyone at all. Shaving's the most objectifying out of the lot but even then you get all the graphics of hairs being cut off, leaving the scene where a bloke's OH rubs his chin and kisses him as an afterthought. Alcohol regulations mean you can't imply sex. Car adverts are just stupid these days, effectively selling on shape (of the car) and name alone. As for gambling, you get Ray Winstone's decapitated head wobbling around. There are some exceptions, but in general people don't get objectified in adverts targeted at men.

    It is women who buy into the objectification. If they like doing it to themselves then I'd reluctantly accede, but don't try arguing that because they do it to themselves they're entitled to do it to men to the same degree.
    I think you're over-simplifying massively.

    Some adverts aimed at men definitely DO objectify women. (These image links are fairly NSFW, so be warned.)
    Men's perfume - http://tinoschwanemann.files.wordpre...rd-for-men.jpg
    Men's shower gel - http://theintermetagency.files.wordp...nedlynxad.jpeg (Lynx objectify women aaaaall the time in their adverts)
    Men's accessories - http://thesocietypages.org/socimages.../2009/04/1.jpg (actually from a magazine editorial, but same difference)

    And in what universe do only men bet on things, buy alcohol, or own cars. The objectifying men advert at the very start of this thread is selling a betting website! (Bingo.) Women also buy a lot of cars and alcohol and bet on a lot of stuff. Face razors? Possibly not so much, but your premise that adverts aimed at men don't objectify people is just wrong.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wildbluesun)
    Most big model agencies have both male and female divisions, there aren't that many that focus on just females or just males. (And they tend to be boutique agencies that specialise in a niche, like plus size.) It's no harder to book a male model than a female model.

    Having said that, I think AA normally use shop assistants rather than pro models in their ads, but it's not like they're a gender segregated workplace.
    They're selling predominantly female clothing to a predominantly female audience. It makes more sense to have a female model, even for the unisex stuff.


    I think you're over-simplifying massively.

    Some adverts aimed at men definitely DO objectify women. (These image links are fairly NSFW, so be warned.)
    Men's perfume - http://tinoschwanemann.files.wordpre...rd-for-men.jpg
    Men's shower gel - http://theintermetagency.files.wordp...nedlynxad.jpeg (Lynx objectify women aaaaall the time in their adverts)
    Men's accessories - http://thesocietypages.org/socimages.../2009/04/1.jpg (actually from a magazine editorial, but same difference)
    As I said, there are some exceptions, but in general they don't. Perfume adverts tend to objectify the gender they're selling to, though there are a noticeable amount of female perfume adverts where a man is all but sniffing around her like a dog. The lynx advert I notice from the URL was actually banned, so I don't know why you think that's a valid example - also note that Unilever also sell Impulse to women with similar adverts having the gender roles reversed. As for accessories, wtf is that? If that's not a freak exception then I don't know what is - I mean, it's not even an advert, is it?

    And in what universe do only men bet on things, buy alcohol, or own cars. The objectifying men advert at the very start of this thread is selling a betting website! (Bingo.) Women also buy a lot of cars and alcohol and bet on a lot of stuff. Face razors? Possibly not so much, but your premise that adverts aimed at men don't objectify people is just wrong.
    I think you've misunderstood me. The adverts aimed at men tend to be those categories (clothing's increasing now too though, but as I've said, it makes sense to model clothes with the same gender you're marketing to) - I'm not saying only men gamble, buy cars and so on. Within those adverts, they don't tend to objectify people, rather they focus more on the product.

    Look at the shampoo and makeup adverts aimed at women - they style the models with hair extensions and false eyelashes! It's not their product they're selling, it's effectively "Here's a woman you aspire to be, she's agreed to be in our advert, and despite her enviable appearance owing nothing (or very little) to our product, you should buy it". Women falling for that sort of advertising is encouraging it, not some sexist plan by men.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pandabird)
    Maybe. But I don't think it's the best example, because the advert itself seems to be taking the piss of objectification. Buff men in pink trousers and pink belts...
    Personally I just think it is the colour scheme of the company but I'm not sure. Either way I think the poster has a very good point, objectification definitely works both ways.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guru Jason)
    I don't see why the advert shouldn't be taken seriously. It portrays an image of what it thinks men should be like, muscular, short hair etc aspects which are not all attainable by men.

    If adverts containing skinny, anorexic female models are used then the complaint is that they are reinforcing a gender stereotype that this is the ideal woman. This advert can be viewed as doing the same for the male stereotype.
    They don't all have short hair, one seems to have a bit of a fringe going on. Because maybe it's not meant to be taken seriously?? But I see what you're getting at...


    Although, don't call female models 'anorexic'. It is a serious mental illness, and I really dislike the term being thrown around so lightly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by takingtime)
    Personally I just think it is the colour scheme of the company but I'm not sure. Either way I think the poster has a very good point, objectification definitely works both ways.
    Of course it does. But female objectification is more popular in advertising, you can't deny. Obviously because males have higher sex drives and so it's more effective on males. And also because females tend to be more image-conscious themselves.

    You don't get any Jacamo type adverts for females.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    On a related note, I was having a discussion with a feminist about the double standard of men being legally allowed to go topless and women not. I personally think this is sexist towards both genders; it gives women relative lack of freedom, and conversely it says that it's OK for men's nipples to be seen in public but not women's.

    Her argument against this was than women's breasts are sexual, and thus it is justified that it's illegal for public exposure. Huh?! It's not like you're being forced to expose your breasts if you don't want to - it's just stupid that these double standards are promoted all over, telling everyone that it's OK to see men bare-chested but that women's chests are too sacred and more deserving of privacy; and that it's OK for women to ogle over men all over the place, and to enjoy looking at such adverts in public. Yet we all know that if that advert was five bare-chested women, suddenly it would be sexual and degrading to women; the advert would be banned and the company would get into enormous amounts of trouble.

    Ridiculous double standards.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pandabird)
    Of course it does. But female objectification is more popular in advertising, you can't deny. Obviously because males have higher sex drives and so it's more effective on males. And also because females tend to be more image-conscious themselves.

    You don't get any Jacamo type adverts for females.
    Very true about the Jacamo ads I hadn't thought of that but I think you can find supporting evidence for both sides.
    e.g. you have many creatine adverts for men which has been proven to cause kidney damage with extended use. As far as I'm aware (and you will probably correct me) there isn't such a prevalent damaging equivalent for women of a similar nature.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pandabird)
    They don't all have short hair, one seems to have a bit of a fringe going on. Because maybe it's not meant to be taken seriously?? But I see what you're getting at...
    It's still short, it's just not military grade short. How often do male models have shoulder lengthed hair or even long hair? Hair length is just an example of socially constructed gender stratification.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    As I said, there are some exceptions, but in general they don't. Perfume adverts tend to objectify the gender they're selling to, though there are a noticeable amount of female perfume adverts where a man is all but sniffing around her like a dog. The lynx advert I notice from the URL was actually banned, so I don't know why you think that's a valid example - also note that Unilever also sell Impulse to women with similar adverts having the gender roles reversed. As for accessories, wtf is that? If that's not a freak exception then I don't know what is - I mean, it's not even an advert, is it?

    I think you've misunderstood me. The adverts aimed at men tend to be those categories (clothing's increasing now too though, but as I've said, it makes sense to model clothes with the same gender you're marketing to) - I'm not saying only men gamble, buy cars and so on. Within those adverts, they don't tend to objectify people, rather they focus more on the product.

    Look at the shampoo and makeup adverts aimed at women - they style the models with hair extensions and false eyelashes! It's not their product they're selling, it's effectively "Here's a woman you aspire to be, she's agreed to be in our advert, and despite her enviable appearance owing nothing (or very little) to our product, you should buy it". Women falling for that sort of advertising is encouraging it, not some sexist plan by men.
    The perfume advert I linked to is objectifying the gender it ISN'T selling to...

    The advert was banned AFTER being made public - the ASA received complaints and it was taken down. The point is that females were objectified to sell products to men; the wider point being that men are objectified less commonly than women in advertising, even if Unilever have the right idea and objectify both genders vaguely equally.

    Editorials are a form of advertising; companies lend their products to magazines on the understanding that the magazine will feature the products prominently in their editorials. They're often pretty artsy and interesting adverts, but they're adverts nonetheless.

    It's stupid how cosmetics companies use hair extensions & false eyelashes etc in their adverts; you're right, it is portraying an aspirational appearance. But part of the reason that women are so focused on achieving this aspirational appearance is that women are valued primarily by their appearance from a very young age, and are given female role models and images (including images in adverts) that are portrayed as attractive eye candy over and above all else. This isn't something that men do exclusively; women do it as well, particularly in those stupid magazines which judge other people's bodies and faces and clothes for pages and pages.

    I don't think it's an evil plan by men. That doesn't make any sense; men don't have meetings and go "hmm how can we subjugate women a bit more?". I do think that in adverts, women are objectified more than men, and that this is wrong and there should be equal amounts of objectification (or lack of).

    Is your argument that it's primarily adverts aimed at women that objectify women, and that adverts aimed at men don't use sexual images of women to sell unrelated products?

    Maybe Unilever is the most enlightened of all of us. They use both hot women to sell to men and hot men to sell to women. Sounds equal to me.
    (Although, having a competition with a prize of going into space that is only open to men in some countries is not amazing.)
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wildbluesun)
    The advert was banned AFTER being made public - the ASA received complaints and it was taken down. The point is that females were objectified to sell products to men; the wider point being that men are objectified less commonly than women in advertising, even if Unilever have the right idea.
    So it got banned. You can't argue that it's unacceptable, have society agree with you (assuming ASA's views are in line with the public's), then claim society thinks it's acceptable.

    Editorials are a form of advertising; companies lend their products to magazines on the understanding that the magazine will use the products and provide the company with adverts. They're often pretty artsy and interesting adverts, but they're adverts nonetheless.

    The perfume advert I linked to is objectifying the gender it ISN'T selling to...
    Yes, and they are exceptions. Generally male perfume has just a man in it, and if it does have a woman it's because they're doing a joint advert for perfumes for both sexes.

    It's stupid how cosmetics companies use hair extensions & false eyelashes etc in their adverts; you're right, it is portraying an aspirational appearance. But part of the reason that women are so focused on achieving this aspirational appearance is that women are valued primarily by their appearance from a very young age, and are given female role models and images (including images in adverts) that are portrayed as attractive eye candy over and above all else.
    That's not the whole of it though. I can't think of a direct comparison, but perhaps the closest would be an advert for muscle gain powder where the model had pec implants and/or used steroids, no way is that selling. Part of the reason why attractive women are portrayed so much is because women (for whatever reason) buy into it. It isn't a double standard set by the advertisers, they're just responding to demand, and I don't think we need to aim for an equal amount of men objectifying adverts to 'balance it out' since the vast majority of objectifying women is done by/for women.

    I don't think it's an evil plan by men. That doesn't make any sense; men don't have meetings and go "hmm how can we subjugate women a bit more?". I do think that in adverts, women are objectified more than men, and that this is wrong and there should be equal amounts of objectification (or lack of).
    Most of the objectification of women is 'self inflicted', which I don't think needs to be balanced out by 'attacking' men in an equal amount. I think you have a point when it's one gender objectifying the other, but I don't see the reasoning to ensure that women's adverts objectify men as much as they do women.

    Maybe Unilever is the most enlightened of all of us. They use both hot women to sell to men and hot men to sell to women. Sounds equal to me.
    Maybe. Though I do have some objection to selling a product using a certain thing if the product has nothing to do with that thing. It's their advert, sure, but I think it would be good for society to insist on relevant information and frown on irrelevance.

    (Although, having a competition with a prize of going into space that is only open to men in some countries is not amazing.)
    And I'm not sure what you're referring to here
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.