Greetings classmates,
The article I have chosen for this assignment is titled "Dove's 'Real Beauty' Backlash" by Jennifer L. Pozner. The question in specific I have chosen is the final, namely, "Characterize Pozner's tone in this selection, particularly in her comments regarding male critics of Dove's ads. What effect does it have on your response to her essay?"
That being said, I would primarily characterize her tone as that of anger, bigotry, and hypocrisy. My response to her essay is that of disgust, revulsion, and dismissal. She openly refers to Richard Roeper on page 195 as a sexist "who wears gender-based bigotry as a badge of pride." To boot, while Richard was certainly impolite in his comments that she quoted, in no way did he ever state that heavier women are inferior nor did he "demand that women be displayed only in the hyper-objectifying images they feel is somehow their due," (196). He only stated that he was not aroused by the images of heavier women and that he prefers thinner women. Ironically enough the only person in this article who used demeaning language against women was Pozner herself, who refers to thinner women as "the bags-of-bones in competitors' campaigns," (194). Exercising a preference is not demeaning. And while Richard's preferences are not representative of all men, he is certainly more qualified to make such statements than Pozner a woman. If exercising a preference as Richard has is an insult, then certainly women themselves are more to blame for this than men. The average male will encounter rejection in his life far more than women will ever encounter from men. Otherwise there would not be mass shooters like Elliot Rodger who left behind an entire 151 page manifesto explaining the role that rejection played in his life and the pain that women caused him.
Being thin is actually a very easy thing to do. With the exception of disabled people and those with certain medical conditions, the majority of people can do it through diet and exercise. This is in stark contrast to the insanely high standards that are placed upon men. Not only do you have to have the perfect muscular body, but you also have to be extremely wealthy, tall, and possess confidence, charisma and wit. Pozner continues her diatribe on page 196 when she states "Certainly, these men so quick to demonize 'the Dove girls' show no understanding that those 'fantasy babes' of traditional ads have a profoundly negative impact on the health of girls and women in America." Are the the same 'fantasy babes' that she earlier refers to on page 194 as "bags of bones"? I have been short my entire life and no matter how much I diet or exercise that is something I will never be able to change. I receive no sympathy whatsoever from women like Pozner for that. Yet weight is something that is perfectly within the control of most individuals and women like Pozner expect sympathy from me.
Pozner commits a logical fallacy on page 196 when she states that because the women in these advertisements are actually "smaller-sized than the average American woman" that it must mean they are healthy. In Latin this is called the Argumentum ad Consequentiam, it means to suppose that because a proposition would have negative consequences that the proposition must not be true. In reality though the consequences of a proposition have no bearing upon whether or not it is true. It is perfectly conceivable, for example, that the majority of average American women are unhealthy, and thus the arguments against these sort of advertisements as normalizing an unhealthy lifestyle of obesity are perfectly legitimate whether Pozner likes it or not.
In conclusion, I believe that if Pozner had not resorted to personal insult, demonized men like Richard for exercising a preference, and openly insulted smaller women as "bags of bones" while simultaneously expecting sympathy for larger women she could have formulated a valid argument. She could have argued that featuring heavier women is a positive simply for the sake of diversity, but instead this was lost through anger and insult.
James.
Thursday, July 5, 2018
Week 3, Chapter 2, Craig
Greetings classmates,
I have chosen to respond to the fourth and final question. Namely, "Why does Craig believe that 'a threat to patriarchy is an economic threat?"
The answer to this question can be found in the conclusion of the article. Here Craig states rather bluntly, "Entire industries (automotive, cosmetics, fashion) are predicated on the assumption that men and women will continue behaving according to their stereotypes," (192). What this means is that if people stop conforming to certain patterns of behavior then they will no longer purchase products marketed in such and such a way as to exploit that behavior.
I agree with the principle of Craig's argument although I strongly disagree with his example. In short, I do not believe that the differences between male and female behavior are purely the result of nurture nor do I believe that patriarchy is synonymous with oppression and evil. I would agree that advertisements tend to exaggerate these differences and perhaps present them in such and such a way that can be unhealthy for society, but in the end I do not believe that the role of nature can be ignored. Even so, it cannot be denied that advertisements have taken these very real differences between men and women and set them up in such and such a way to maximize their company's profits.
Craig states on page 192, "Advertisers seem quite willing to manipulate these fantasies and exploit our anxieties, especially those concerning our gender identities, to sell products." I like his use of the word 'manipulation.' That is what I believe advertisers have done. They manipulated that which already exists for the sole purpose of making a profit. And therefore any threat to the manipulated image they have erected is one that would cost them money. Advertisers need to maintain these fantasies because people purchase their products in order to conform to them.
James.
I have chosen to respond to the fourth and final question. Namely, "Why does Craig believe that 'a threat to patriarchy is an economic threat?"
The answer to this question can be found in the conclusion of the article. Here Craig states rather bluntly, "Entire industries (automotive, cosmetics, fashion) are predicated on the assumption that men and women will continue behaving according to their stereotypes," (192). What this means is that if people stop conforming to certain patterns of behavior then they will no longer purchase products marketed in such and such a way as to exploit that behavior.
I agree with the principle of Craig's argument although I strongly disagree with his example. In short, I do not believe that the differences between male and female behavior are purely the result of nurture nor do I believe that patriarchy is synonymous with oppression and evil. I would agree that advertisements tend to exaggerate these differences and perhaps present them in such and such a way that can be unhealthy for society, but in the end I do not believe that the role of nature can be ignored. Even so, it cannot be denied that advertisements have taken these very real differences between men and women and set them up in such and such a way to maximize their company's profits.
Craig states on page 192, "Advertisers seem quite willing to manipulate these fantasies and exploit our anxieties, especially those concerning our gender identities, to sell products." I like his use of the word 'manipulation.' That is what I believe advertisers have done. They manipulated that which already exists for the sole purpose of making a profit. And therefore any threat to the manipulated image they have erected is one that would cost them money. Advertisers need to maintain these fantasies because people purchase their products in order to conform to them.
James.
Week 3, Chapter 2, Twitchell
Greetings classmates,
I have chosen to respond to Twitchell's first question. "What do marketers mean by 'positioning' (para. 3), and why is it an important strategy to them?"
The answer to this question can actually be found in the preceding paragraph. Here Twitchell defines positioning as "to convince different sets of consumers - target groups - that the quarter they observe is somehow different in meaning and value than the same quarter seen by their across-the-tracks neighbors," (178). In other words, what this means is that marketers need to present their products in such and such a way as will appeal to a certain customer base. This is important because it can maximize a company's profits depending upon how their product is presented.
Twitchell continues his explanation in the next paragraph, "The object of much consumer research is not to try to twist their feathers so that they will flock to your product, but to position your product in such a place that they will have to fly by it and perhaps stop to roost," (178). What this means is that positioning works by gaining an understanding of the target audience and then presenting a product in such and such a way as will exploit that knowledge to make a profit. For example, different sports fans might prefer different beers because of the association with certain teams, or a suburban housewife might want to feel wealthier than she actually is so she will purchase the product that is associated with wealth and affluence.
James.
I have chosen to respond to Twitchell's first question. "What do marketers mean by 'positioning' (para. 3), and why is it an important strategy to them?"
The answer to this question can actually be found in the preceding paragraph. Here Twitchell defines positioning as "to convince different sets of consumers - target groups - that the quarter they observe is somehow different in meaning and value than the same quarter seen by their across-the-tracks neighbors," (178). In other words, what this means is that marketers need to present their products in such and such a way as will appeal to a certain customer base. This is important because it can maximize a company's profits depending upon how their product is presented.
Twitchell continues his explanation in the next paragraph, "The object of much consumer research is not to try to twist their feathers so that they will flock to your product, but to position your product in such a place that they will have to fly by it and perhaps stop to roost," (178). What this means is that positioning works by gaining an understanding of the target audience and then presenting a product in such and such a way as will exploit that knowledge to make a profit. For example, different sports fans might prefer different beers because of the association with certain teams, or a suburban housewife might want to feel wealthier than she actually is so she will purchase the product that is associated with wealth and affluence.
James.
Week 3, Chapter 2, Solomon
Greetings classmates,
I have chosen to respond to the third question. That is, "Why, in Solomon's view, has McDonald's been so successful in its ad campaigns?"
The answer to this question can be found on page 171. Here Solomon states, "McDonald's success can be traced to the precision of its advertising. Instead of broadcasting a single 'one-size-fits-all' campaign at a time, McDonald's pitches its burgers simultaneously at different age groups, different classes, even different races." What this means is that McDonald's has succeeded not by appealing to a particular niche market but by making itself appeal to everyone. That is, marketing itself to as broad of an audience as possible. In the paragraphs that follow, Solomon continues to discuss the specifics of how children, adolescents, teenagers, adults, and even senior citizens are targeted in their ads. What I find interesting, however, as Solomon himself also notes, is that sex does not come into play despite being one of the most powerful and widely used advertisements of all. He states on page 172, "This is understandable, given McDonald's desire to present itself as a family restaurant."
For the most part I would agree with Solomon's assessment. Each of his arguments are solid and it makes sense that by appealing to as large of an audience as possible an advertisement campaign would also maximize its success. However, I believe that social factors like lack of access to healthier alternatives and people not having as much time to cook anymore also contributes to their success. For many parents in particular, fast-food is a matter of convenience. I have no doubt that McDonald's advertisement campaign has played a huge role in their success, but I believe that the importance of the aforementioned external factors cannot be undermined.
James.
I have chosen to respond to the third question. That is, "Why, in Solomon's view, has McDonald's been so successful in its ad campaigns?"
The answer to this question can be found on page 171. Here Solomon states, "McDonald's success can be traced to the precision of its advertising. Instead of broadcasting a single 'one-size-fits-all' campaign at a time, McDonald's pitches its burgers simultaneously at different age groups, different classes, even different races." What this means is that McDonald's has succeeded not by appealing to a particular niche market but by making itself appeal to everyone. That is, marketing itself to as broad of an audience as possible. In the paragraphs that follow, Solomon continues to discuss the specifics of how children, adolescents, teenagers, adults, and even senior citizens are targeted in their ads. What I find interesting, however, as Solomon himself also notes, is that sex does not come into play despite being one of the most powerful and widely used advertisements of all. He states on page 172, "This is understandable, given McDonald's desire to present itself as a family restaurant."
For the most part I would agree with Solomon's assessment. Each of his arguments are solid and it makes sense that by appealing to as large of an audience as possible an advertisement campaign would also maximize its success. However, I believe that social factors like lack of access to healthier alternatives and people not having as much time to cook anymore also contributes to their success. For many parents in particular, fast-food is a matter of convenience. I have no doubt that McDonald's advertisement campaign has played a huge role in their success, but I believe that the importance of the aforementioned external factors cannot be undermined.
James.
Week 3, Chapter 2, When You Come Home
Greetings,
I have chosen to respond to the second question. Namely, "To whom is the ad directed? What emotions does it play on? Be sure to provide evidence for your answers. What are the "dearest possessions" the ad refers to?"
Upon first glance, this advertisement appears to be directed toward housewives and stay-at-home mothers who may have encountered it in a magazine or something while their husbands were at work. I can only speculate given the historical context that since this advertisement was made in 1914 that the men were working extremely long and hard hours, so they probably would not have had very much time to devote toward reading. However, it is also worth noting that both of the adults are depicted as being immaculately dressed and in an extremely spacious home at that. This was not the reality for the average person at the time at all. From what I learned in one of my history classes a few semesters go, the majority of people at this time were very poor, forced to work long and dangerous hours in grueling working class occupations, and living in crowded, abysmal conditions.
These factors combined with the title, "When You Come Home," leads me to believe that this advertisement was specifically directed toward wealthier couples who could afford to dress nice, live in a spacious home, and be able to go out every night while their children are presumably left under the care of a nanny. The second chapter of the book defines connotation as "the feeling that the advertiser wishes to associate with the product," (158). With the image of children and fire in the upper right corner of the advertisement, it is safe to assume that the feeling this advertisement is trying to sell is that of safety itself. It is preying upon every parent's fear of losing their children - in this specific instance, to that of a fire.
Upon closer inspection of the upper right corner, the woman using the extinguisher appears to be the wife herself and not a nanny. I am beginning to question whether or not this advertisement was truly made for upper class wealthier people even in light of all the other historically inconsistent factors like their spacious home and nice clothing. This could possible be an example of what the book defines as the commodification of desire, "In other words, desire itself becomes the product that the advertiser is selling," (161). That is, it is possible that this advertisement is trying to sell the image of wealth and prosperity to the struggling working class masses at the time.
There are honestly so many possible angles for this advertisement and arguments that could be made, but in conclusion, I still stand by my answer that the dearest possessions are the children and that it plays upon a parent's fear of losing their children. To whom the ad is directed to is where I am still a bit confused.
James.
I have chosen to respond to the second question. Namely, "To whom is the ad directed? What emotions does it play on? Be sure to provide evidence for your answers. What are the "dearest possessions" the ad refers to?"
Upon first glance, this advertisement appears to be directed toward housewives and stay-at-home mothers who may have encountered it in a magazine or something while their husbands were at work. I can only speculate given the historical context that since this advertisement was made in 1914 that the men were working extremely long and hard hours, so they probably would not have had very much time to devote toward reading. However, it is also worth noting that both of the adults are depicted as being immaculately dressed and in an extremely spacious home at that. This was not the reality for the average person at the time at all. From what I learned in one of my history classes a few semesters go, the majority of people at this time were very poor, forced to work long and dangerous hours in grueling working class occupations, and living in crowded, abysmal conditions.
These factors combined with the title, "When You Come Home," leads me to believe that this advertisement was specifically directed toward wealthier couples who could afford to dress nice, live in a spacious home, and be able to go out every night while their children are presumably left under the care of a nanny. The second chapter of the book defines connotation as "the feeling that the advertiser wishes to associate with the product," (158). With the image of children and fire in the upper right corner of the advertisement, it is safe to assume that the feeling this advertisement is trying to sell is that of safety itself. It is preying upon every parent's fear of losing their children - in this specific instance, to that of a fire.
Upon closer inspection of the upper right corner, the woman using the extinguisher appears to be the wife herself and not a nanny. I am beginning to question whether or not this advertisement was truly made for upper class wealthier people even in light of all the other historically inconsistent factors like their spacious home and nice clothing. This could possible be an example of what the book defines as the commodification of desire, "In other words, desire itself becomes the product that the advertiser is selling," (161). That is, it is possible that this advertisement is trying to sell the image of wealth and prosperity to the struggling working class masses at the time.
There are honestly so many possible angles for this advertisement and arguments that could be made, but in conclusion, I still stand by my answer that the dearest possessions are the children and that it plays upon a parent's fear of losing their children. To whom the ad is directed to is where I am still a bit confused.
James.
Week 3, Chapter 2, Intro
Greetings classmates,
The advertisement I have chosen for this assignment is attached below.
Originally I saw this advertisement in a magazine although I was able to find the exact same image online. It is for a men's fragrance by Guess called "Dare" and it features Texan supermodel Hannah Ferguson riding on the back of a motorcycle with another extremely well looking male model. I have chosen it because I believe it represents the supreme cultural myth of our name. Namely, that of materialism, youth, and the fast and furious lifestyle. It is being shown to a male audience like myself in order to convince us to purchase the fragrance in the hopes that it will make us resemble the man in the image. That is, to be extremely and unrealistically attractive with an extremely and unrealistically attractive woman in tow, young, daring, and living out that sort of fast and furious lifestyle on a motorcycle that is reminiscent of James Dean. It is worth noting that the female model Hannah Ferguson is wearing what appears to be leather, which evokes images of the Mad Max universe, further cementing the anarchistic biker mythos surrounding this advertisement.
The female represents the sort of hyper idealized standard of Western beauty that girls in our society aspire to while the male stands for the ultimate image of the rebel action hero that boys aspire to. For both sexes this advertisement is going reinforce the idealized, gender specific standards that our society imposes upon them. More than that, it glorifies our nation's very cultural ideal itself. The United States was founded upon rebellion against the British Empire. Our national heritage was defined by the Wild West. We are the only nation in the world I am aware of where private firearms ownership is a guaranteed right via our Constitution and Hollywood fathered the action film. Each and every last one of those elements comes into play in this advertisement.
On a more negative note, it is telling that for men the primary "accomplishment" being sold through this advertisement is the idea of having an extremely attractive female partner. That is, masculinity is being defined through sex and having the most beautiful woman on the block even more than anything else in this advertisement. The inverse is also true, that for women the primary "accomplishment" being sold through this advertisement is the idea that their worth is defined through being as beautiful as a supermodel and likewise having an extremely attractive man. For both sexes this sets up unrealistic expectations both for themselves and for a partner.
The male appears to be partially Hispanic like myself and I believe that Hannah Ferguson may also be of mixed descent, so I do not think that race is really applicable to this advertisement. But again, both parties are extremely young and attractive, so older people are being excluded as well as the overweight, short, and pretty much anyone who does not conform to that standard of beauty.
James.
The advertisement I have chosen for this assignment is attached below.
Originally I saw this advertisement in a magazine although I was able to find the exact same image online. It is for a men's fragrance by Guess called "Dare" and it features Texan supermodel Hannah Ferguson riding on the back of a motorcycle with another extremely well looking male model. I have chosen it because I believe it represents the supreme cultural myth of our name. Namely, that of materialism, youth, and the fast and furious lifestyle. It is being shown to a male audience like myself in order to convince us to purchase the fragrance in the hopes that it will make us resemble the man in the image. That is, to be extremely and unrealistically attractive with an extremely and unrealistically attractive woman in tow, young, daring, and living out that sort of fast and furious lifestyle on a motorcycle that is reminiscent of James Dean. It is worth noting that the female model Hannah Ferguson is wearing what appears to be leather, which evokes images of the Mad Max universe, further cementing the anarchistic biker mythos surrounding this advertisement.
The female represents the sort of hyper idealized standard of Western beauty that girls in our society aspire to while the male stands for the ultimate image of the rebel action hero that boys aspire to. For both sexes this advertisement is going reinforce the idealized, gender specific standards that our society imposes upon them. More than that, it glorifies our nation's very cultural ideal itself. The United States was founded upon rebellion against the British Empire. Our national heritage was defined by the Wild West. We are the only nation in the world I am aware of where private firearms ownership is a guaranteed right via our Constitution and Hollywood fathered the action film. Each and every last one of those elements comes into play in this advertisement.
On a more negative note, it is telling that for men the primary "accomplishment" being sold through this advertisement is the idea of having an extremely attractive female partner. That is, masculinity is being defined through sex and having the most beautiful woman on the block even more than anything else in this advertisement. The inverse is also true, that for women the primary "accomplishment" being sold through this advertisement is the idea that their worth is defined through being as beautiful as a supermodel and likewise having an extremely attractive man. For both sexes this sets up unrealistic expectations both for themselves and for a partner.
The male appears to be partially Hispanic like myself and I believe that Hannah Ferguson may also be of mixed descent, so I do not think that race is really applicable to this advertisement. But again, both parties are extremely young and attractive, so older people are being excluded as well as the overweight, short, and pretty much anyone who does not conform to that standard of beauty.
James.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)