I have not come to a final decision about what my research paper will be. I do, however, have some brainstormed topics. I think it would be interesting to explore how ads for food products have changed over time. This would embrace the changing gender roles and diet-consciousness in our society. Also, it could be fun to see how fashion has changed, especially in a particular clothing store that has been around for awhile (such as Abercrombie and Fitch, Sears, etc.). Also interesting could be the fashion and appearance of the Barbie doll over-time, and how it has become increasingly risque and negatively influential in young girls’ views of what it means to be pretty. I would go about my research by googling, looking up advertisements on adflip.com and in the library to find images demonstrating the obvious changes. Also, I would look up the changing political and cultural aspects of society in the various decades to compare and contrast time periods and their effects on advertisements.
Questions for a Second Reading on Bordo October 25, 2006
1. Susan Bordo has an agenda. She goes into explicit detail about some of the text, whereas other areas serve as being “just a tease.” A lot of this is shown in her placement of the pictures in the text. This is a way for her to sort of “control the pleasure” of the reader. Bordo will go into great description on how Fashion icons like Calvin Klein explore sexuality in clothing (jeans, in particular) and how Berger says that “men act and women appear” (p. 190). Then, however, she’ll throw a picture of a half-naked to 3/4-naked man and throw the reader for a loop. Here Bordo is, going into great detail about her opinions and analysing our culture and its view of men’s sexuality. The reader understands what she is talking about and follows her points of view, but is still surprised when an actual image of what she is talking about pops up. Perhaps this is the whole point at which Bordo is trying to get: that our culture still is not ready to make men as vulnerable in ads as they are for women. In this way, the layout of her text helps to further define her argument. Also, Bordo goes more into detail about examples of occurrences of ads and description of the male body than she does about the philosophy or psychology is why the examples are as they are. This is perhaps to prove to the reader that we are more interested in seeing things than knowing why they happen. She understands people’s attention spans.
2. Bordo uses subsections in her text in order to keep the reader interested. She tries to intrigue the women and gay male readers by first displaying the “well-endowed” Calvin Klein model. Bordo explains how men are becoming sex objects in advertising more and more, like women have been for the past decades. Next, she goes on to explain how more and more male nudity in advertising has made men appear more vulnerable. These ads approach a subject where no one before had dared to suggest. She then goes on to explain how Calvin Klein discovered ways to accentuate the men’s frontal and backsides with his jeans. After that, Bordo explains the poses of front-facing and leaning, and what the body language implies about the men’s attitudes. Her last three bold-faced sections explain how men have continued to grasp the fashion world and become more accepted in it. Bordo expresses her thoughts on the matter by stating, “I, however, tend to see consumer capitalism rather than women’s expectations or proclivities as the true motor driving male concern with appearance” (p. 209). All of these subsections help to set the pace for Bordo’s text. The beginning ones mention the details of the male body, how women and gay men appreciate them, and how they are becoming more and more acceptably placed into the ads of society. These are the loudest subsections, because Bordo puts everything and all of her opinions on men, what she thinks is sexy, etc. in a somewhat blatant way. In the later subsections, once she has grasped the readers’ attentions with this somewhat still “hush-hush” topic, Bordo goes on to explain how society has in fact molded our opinions and how men have struggles overcoming obstacles such as the stereotypical macho male and the anti-narcissist. These ending subsections are a bit slower than the first ones, because they are not quite as descriptive and “raunchy” per say; rather, they express the changing society in the world we are living in, and how we adapt to them.
3. Bordo addresses how people react to certain subject positions. She explores the face, the lean, where the head is placed, what the subject is doing, and which body parts are accentuated. Bordo explains that the face is supposed to be used to present macho men and intimidation. The lean, on the other hand, usually shows casualness and is often found with younger men who are laid-back. Bordo explains society’s opinion on men by exploring the meaning behind the placement of the head. When the men are facing the camera, it shows that they are more vain and want to watch people’s reactions to their bodys. Bordo explains, however, that society often teaches us that it is more manly for a male to look away from the camera instead of at it. This expresses that the men is comfortable with himself and that he does not need positive reactions from girls to prove this to himself. An example of a man looking away is found in the Nautica advertisement, on page 191. The man is working on a boat, a masculine activity, and does not have time to worry about his looks. Society has taught us that this is what it means to be a man. The Calvin Klein ad poses an interesting topic. The man is leaning in the picture somewhat and has rather effeminate features. The reactions from Bordo, her female, companions, and gay men, however, have taught us that the picture can still arouse people. Bordo writes, “His body isn’t a stand-in phallus; rather, he has a penis-the real thing, not a symbol, and a fairly breathtaking one, clearly outlined through the soft jersey fabric of the briefs” (p. 170). Though he is not a Superman figure, the bulge in his briefs and his body stance presents sex and movement. Here, therefore, the lean is used as a sexy body placement, rather than one for younger boys. Bordo does well at explaining how certain stances cause different reactions from their audiences. She does not do as well with explaining society’s opinions though, much because I am given the impression that she has yet to decide for herself what is truly sexy for men. For example, at the end of her writing, she explains that she finds Clint Eastwood’s chest sexy, even though he is older and not very muscular. This is because he is a real man, and, to her, that is sexy in itself. She explains how it is not considered manly by society to be Narcissistic, but she also notices that these viewpoints have changed over time. John Travolta’s character in Saturday Night Fever, for example, is eg0-centered, yet still looks good and still contains that quality sex appeal. It is not Bordo’s fault that she cannot outline a definite view of what is sexy in a man from society, because that view is constantly changing with our culture.
Advertisements October 11, 2006
Each of the two advertisements dealing with Kotex feminine napkins which we explored in class has a different sales technique. The first ad, the one with the almost-cartoon strip, appeals to its audience that the thing which they are selling is etiquette advice. The consumers should choose Kotex for their brand because it is simply the proper thing to do. Kotex is sensible. It is just the best, and there is no other way to put it. In the second advertisement, the one which uses Cybil Shepherd as its spokeswoman, Kotex uses a different sales appeal. Instead of simply having cartoon drawings sell the product, this advertisement focuses on Cybil Shepherd, a famous face in the 1970’s. The technique here is similar to the one used in the first ad, because, in both circumstances, the “masterminds behind it all” try to entice the consumer by expressing that buying Kotex napkins is simply the right thing to do. Everyone is doing it. The one in the 1970’s simply goes a bit further by using a famous starlet to sell the product. They hope that the results from women will be, “Oh! Cybil Shepherd uses Kotex? Then I have to, as well!” Though similar in this mass-appeal regard, the advertisements’ techniques are different. Much of this is because they come from different eras. The 1940’s and the 1950’s, the time period in which the first advertisement came out, focused a lot on proper decorum for women. The cartoon strip is none other than a Miss Manners guide for the proper thing to do in all situations (in this case: wearing Kotex!). It appeals to the typical woman of the time, who was stereotypically a housewife who took pride in her husband, cooking, and appearance. The time period revolved around being proper and polite. Explicitly the ad appears to be a guide on what to do in what situation. Also, it is a somewhat practical ad in the sense that it lists the sizes in which the pads come, and it gives a statistic about how Kotex is the leading brand. Implicitly, however, it is just a method of propaganda, telling women to wear Kotex. The 1970’s ad with Cybil Shepherd also appeals to the women of it’s time, in the ’70’s. By this time, women were more liberated from the typical housewife role. They were not as expected to be proper in all situations, and they were more open to ideas of being themselves. The ad affective embraces this by trying to appeal to all sorts of women in the ’70’s, rather than one type, as the other ad does. It appeals to women who are “questions, answers, and beautiful stor[ies],” but it implicitly implies that all sorts of women, no matter who they are, should use Kotex. Unlike the other advertisement, this one does not give any sort of statistic for why women should use Kotex. This shows that, over time, the advertisers have found ways to draw in their audience and almost “trick them” into buying things, without giving out any factual information about the product. The Cybil Shepherd one relates some to the other ad, as well, because it mentions the release of a feminine deodorant; therefore, in the ’70’s, advertisers were still somewhat concerned with appealing to the female beauty and decorum. Both of these ads, therefore, take us into the historical context of the time period, which explains why which advertising mechanism worked best when.
Different Budweiser advertisements show a similar pattern of changing its way of appeal over time. The comparisons I have found certainly prove Douglass’ warnings to be true, since there is a definite change in advertising methods over the years. Thanks to adflip.com for the following images.
This ad is from the ’40’s. It does not portray Budweiser as simply a good tasting beer. Rather, it goes on further to explain how Budweiser supported our forefathers at war; therefore, it is a patriotic, traditional, “homey” beer. This appealed to the people’s values during the ’40’s, because it was around the time of World War II. The Budweiser company, therefore, took advantage of the national situation as a way to market their product and reach out to the priorities and values of the time period. People needed someone or something to turn to, in order to feel comforted while in a state of war, and Budweiser stepped in to do just this.
This Budweiser ad is from the ’80’s. It clearly has a different propaganda method behind it from the earlier advertisement. The ad here appeals to the values of the time period in that the ’80’s was a time where people became more interested exploring the depths of comedy. Douglass mentions in her writing that this time period was also a time where people superficially tried to improve their looks. That could be applied here in the sense that, vainly, people wanted to buy products whose advertisements appealed to their own sense of humor. The ad makes references to National Lampoon, famous reading material of its time. Also, the fact that the people in the ad are the actual taste buds sets off the goofy sense of humor often equated with the time period.
Both advertisements show how marketers try to appeal to the values and states of being of their respective time periods. They show just how far companies are willing to go to sell their product.
Second Reading of Douglas October 4, 2006
1. Douglas clearly wants to do away with the typical sexual image of women. All the people towards whom she directs a cynical opinion represent the aspects of woman which she sees as being superficial. In the images which she disparages, all the aspects which she deems “womanly” have to do with the superficial “bratty” traits which go hand-in-hand with woman who obsess only about looking their best. She starts out satirizing the methods of Cybill Shepherd to try to draw in the viewers. Douglas writes, “‘I’m worth it,’ insists Cybill Shepherd in her brattiest na-na-na-poo-poo voice as she swirls her blond hair in my face” (p. 117). Douglas insists that Shepherd’s motive of convincing her audience is acting spoiled and upper-class. The location of this commercial, on a fancy white couch in the middle of a photo-shoot, also implies that the socially elite are the best sources of cosmetic advice. All of the people in the ads whom Douglas satirizes are the people who care very much about their outward appearances, especially woman in the 1980s. They seem to enforce the notion that you can only feel good about yourself if you are beautiful. The people whom Douglas emulates, on the other hand, are the people who argue the opposite about the image of woman. These are the people who support women in the work-world, hard-working moms, etc. who do not solely care about their appearances. She poses the question that supports this, “What if every woman in American woke up tomorrow and simply decided that she was happy with the way she looked?” One to think about, most definitely.
2. Though Douglas certainly shows off her great sense of humor in this piece, she is not simply writing to joke around. In fact, Douglas uses technical terminology throughout the essay to prove that, though she takes on a cynical tone, she also feels strongly about what she is writing. For example, she throws around terms like “yuppie” and talks of elitists to prove her point that people in advertising try to prove to people that women should look their best if they want to appear to be of a high status. She mentions how this beauty contest has been known particularly from Generation X. When these people were of a younger age, they wanted to explore makeup. Now, however, they are all getting wrinkles and sun-marks. Instead of giving into older age, however, these are the people who still want to look their best and are searching for products that will make them appear younger. Douglas implies that people assume women are always supposed to look their best, no matter what they are doing. Souglas is then able to find the root of the problem through many of the women and advertising companies in her own generation. Many of the problems, Douglas finds, are associated with the media and the historical, political, and cultural events on which it focuses. Douglas explains, “Narcissism as liberation gutted many of the underlying principles of the women’s movement.” Advertising companies found ways to express women’s rights in their products, such as Freedom Spray and Virginia Slims, which tell women that it is alright to get lunch cancer- men can! The makes of these products, Douglas writes, tried to appeal to both feminists and anti-feminists, depending on their particular approach. Another strategy Douglas explores is the one used by intellectual females who figured out how to select good wine and which books to read. Certain labels, like Hanes, clung on to this and tried to adapt to it. Douglas at least appreciates their attempt. She shows this when she writes, “These women were huge successes at managing the impressions they gave to others, coming across as distinctive, nonconformist women who nonetheless conform perfectly to dominant standards of beauty.” Douglas, though she does see the difference between these ads and the aforementioned ones, still is able to note that they cause women to be reliant on the approval of the opposite sex. According to Douglas, once women can simply accept their own intelligence, the bags under their eyes, and their not-so-perfectly-bronzed skin, this is when they can truly make a new name for themselves.
