ucbesvax.turner@ucbcad.UUCP (06/22/83)
#N:ucbesvax:10300013:000:3979 ucbesvax!turner Jun 22 02:20:00 1983 Noted sociologist Erving Goffman has written a book called "Gender Advertisements". Unlike his other books, this one is short on text and consists mostly of magazine ads. It is a pictorial exposition of advertising's image of the sexes, which is an amplification (in the interests of marketing) of society's image of them. Goffman is an unusual sociologist, in that many of his treatises quote widely from works of fiction, rather than relying on "studies" and statistics. This methodology has its good points: life can often be stranger than fiction, but fiction is sometimes "truer". Fiction does not attempt to reduce phenomena beyond simplicity into tautology, as scientific studies of society often do. In "Gender Advertisements", Goffman "quotes" widely from what is perhaps the most pervasive form of fiction that our society has to offer. The magazine ads span several decades and are grouped around a number of interesting themes. One striking theme is the relative elevation of men and women appearing together in photographs. Women are almost always pictured lower than men, often leaning against them. Goffman does not go so far as to actually measure the discrepancy between the real average height difference between man and women and the difference as pictured, but certainly directs the readers attention to it. Women are also almost always shown as physically more intimate with their (posed) children than with men, and more intimate with men than men are with any other person or object. Women touch, while men passively receive these attentions. In a sense, using scantily-clad women as magnets for men's attention is a more honest sort of exaggeration of sex differences. We don't really know how much bias is instilled in much subtler ways. In consumer societies, there are marketing advantages both in dividing a market along the boundaries of sex-roles, and in pursuing both sides. But sharp divisions will definitely favor the former strategy, which can also have a positive feedback effect (however slight) on the division itself. I see in many computer/kid advertisements a tendency to relegate little girls to observer status, or leave them out entirely. The boys are the ones who get their hands on things--the female presence is more often "schoolmarmish" than actively involved. This has *some* statistical basis, but criminally neglects an obvious, spontaneous counter-trend. One wonders just how significant this is. Is the neglect intentional (as in "boys are the target, girls will put them off", or "parents are the target, parents want successful children, they see boys as more likely to succeed") or is it merely habitual? (The worst examples aren't always pictorial: a DEC micro service here in Berkeley made the awful mistake of targeting one series of ads for men, and another for women. The difference between the two was that the men were offered services "for you" (themselves), but the women were offered services for "you and your boss". This was repeated several times through-out the blurb. They changed it later, of course, no doubt after a number of nasty phone calls.) I suppose that advertising as a profession *is* changing, but rather hesitantly. In a way, it can capitalize on the redefinition of women's roles, but to do so it must somehow take much of the initiative in this process, or risk losing certain markets altogether. Merely blurring sex-roles involves at worst a blurring of identity, and at best building one's identity on terms that make it less accessible to advertising. Advertising (of the "fictional" kind, at least) offers identities to people who feel something missing. It is harder to identify with an ambiguous image of sexuality. After all, one's sexuality is integral to one's identity, even it's not stamped in one of society's standard molds--but so much the better if it is, from a marketing point of view. Michael Turner ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (06/28/83)
A line in a recent article by Michael Turner caught my eye: "after all one's sexuality is integral to one's identity" I wonder if it is. I also wonder if what is termed "one's sexuality" is something learned. My "identity" seems to be linked to people whome I like or respect -- we have the same "identity" so to speak. I have very few women friends but a fair number of male friends. The sorts of things which generally appeal to women (at least according to the advertisers) soft colours, cute things, children, fragrances, women's fashion, makeup et all... dont really appeal to me. On the other hand, any complicated gadget (be it a cuisinart or a new lineprinter) I find fascinating even if I dont buy it. The thought of TAKING things APART and SEEING HOW THEY WORK -- traditionally a "male" thing fills me with joy... When people complain to me "but dear havent you lost all your feminity by working with those nasty, inhuman machines" I reply that I never had any femininity to lose. This keeps them quiet, at any rate, and I have done this argument too many times already. maybe I dont have any "femininity". I can guarantee that I have sexuality, though, and it's "male-oriented" at that. In any case I find it hard to recognise how my sexuality has influenced my concept of identity, perhaps because I am too close to the problem. I believe that I have more identity in common with male members of my (white, English speaking, from Ontario) culture than with any random female, and have much more in common with scientific thinkers than non-scientific people of either sex. Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
mat@hou5e.UUCP (06/30/83)
Well, this is a welcome subject. I am fairly well handicapped by such things as social roles, etc. I am also pleased to be able to add (maybe) something to Laura's article. The sorts of things which generally appeal to women (at least according to the advertisers) soft colours, cute things, children, fragrances, women's fashion, makeup et all... dont really appeal to me. On the other hand, any complicated gadget (be it a cuisinart or a new lineprinter) I find fascinating even if I dont buy it. The thought of TAKING things APART and SEEING HOW THEY WORK -- traditionally a "male" thing fills me with joy... I believe that I have more identity in common with male members of my ... culture than with any random female, ... Hmm. Well, as a male living with a mess of stereotypes that I occaisionaly begin to understand, let me offer this: There is a woman in the area where I work who LOVES cars (in fact there are several but) this person is RESTORING a recent classic motorcar. I have no problem with the idea of ~~~ working on an automobile --- EXCEPT when I see her in some frilly or especially ``feminine'' outfit. Wonder how many other guys have a similar block? Wonder what Madison Avenue and company may have done to help it along? Mark Terribile Duke of denet