Culture + Politics
Killer Advertising
by Kate McGuinnessJanuary 24, 2012
At the beginning of each year, most of us consider changes we would like to make in our personal lives. I decided to bypass the usual weight and fitness resolutions and focus on institutions I’d like to change. The list is long, but I have prioritized mass-market advertisements because they are pervasive and have the power to shape viewers’ attitudes toward much more than the products they are promoting.
I hope after reading this piece, you will join me in a campaign to improve advertisers’ practices.
My particular concern relates to advertisements that objectify women. If a woman is objectified, she is made less than human. Once she is less than human, violence towards her becomes more acceptable.
The hallmarks of objectification include: (1) interchangeability; (2) reduction to appearance; (3) being an instrument for someone else’s purpose; (4) inertness or passivity; and (5) capacity to being violated or lacking bodily integrity.
Many current advertisements meet most, if not all, of these criteria. Consider this promotion:
Because we do not see the woman’s face, she is fully interchangeable with another well-portioned model. She has been reduced to her appearance with her body used as a display platform, an instrument. Her pose is a passive and vulnerable one.
The advertisements below take objectification further by dismembering the models in addition to containing the other characteristics described above.
A woman who is objectified becomes something and ceases to be someone. She has no autonomy, much less inherent value. She is a thing to be used, abused, and discarded as a man chooses.
If that seems extreme, consider advertisements that portray violence against women or the death of women, showing just their corpses.
Advertisements depicting violence against women are harmful for several reasons. One is that they may be seen as mocking the serious consequences of violence. Another is the possibility that the scenes will inspire a copycat to re-enact them. Most damaging is their message that violence against women is acceptable.
Andrea Dworkin stated that “pornography functions to perpetuate male supremacy and crimes of violence because it conditions, trains, educates, and inspires men to despise women, to use women, to hurt women.” I believe advertisements depicting violence against women have the same effects.
This conclusion is supported by recent research on mirror neurons, those switches in our brains that operate virtually outside our consciousness to cause us to mimic others’ behaviors that we witness. (Yawning is an example.) Clever marketers play on mirror neurons to incent us to engage in the behavior they desire. One would have to study the psychology of the ad executives who envision portrayals of violence against women to know if they intend to engage mirror neurons to that end. But regardless of their motive, that may be the effect of their hateful creations.
Using the power of our pocketbooks and social media, we have the ability to discourage the publication of advertisements that objectify women or depict violence against women. Don’t buy products that are promoted in these ads. Don’t buy magazines that publish them.
Use Twitter to register your revulsion. Post a photo or a description of the ad on Twitter with the hashtag #NotBuyingIt and include the actual Twitter handle of the seller of the product or the name of the publication.
Feel the power of Margaret Mead’s words: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
Let’s do it!
Kate McGuinness is a lawyer who spent 17 years at Biglaw before becoming the general counsel of a Fortune 500 corporation. After leaving that position, she studied creative writing and is the author of a legal suspense novel Terminal Ambition, which will be published early in 2012. She is an advocate for women and tweets as @womnsrightswrter.
Related Links:
-
By Emily Heist Moss
-
By Role/Reboot Staff
-
By Emily Heist Moss
-
By Jean Hannah EdelsteinDo Weddings Exist Today Just So We Can Document Them On Social Media?
Archives
- » May 2013 (38)
- » April 2013 (50)
- » March 2013 (48)
- » February 2013 (45)
- » January 2013 (53)
- » December 2012 (43)
- » November 2012 (47)
- » October 2012 (54)
- » September 2012 (44)
- » August 2012 (54)
- » July 2012 (55)
- » June 2012 (52)
- » May 2012 (52)
- » April 2012 (47)
- » March 2012 (50)
- » February 2012 (52)
- » January 2012 (40)
- » December 2011 (31)
- » November 2011 (27)
- » October 2011 (25)
- » September 2011 (30)
- » August 2011 (28)
- » July 2011 (22)
- » June 2011 (23)
- » May 2011 (12)
- » April 2011 (15)
- » March 2011 (18)
- » February 2011 (23)
- » January 2011 (33)
Want to Start Talking?
Sign up now to access Turn the Page, our kit for the next generation of “book clubs.”
Check out Turn the Page now
Comments
01/30/12 at 06:41 PM #
I think this article would have been more effective if you’d actually given the names of the companies that these ads were for. I can only make out the names in a couple of them. The ads are disturbing, but it’s difficult to boycott this kind of advertising if I don’t know who it is I’m boycotting…
01/29/12 at 08:47 AM #
This is a good article, but the fight against media and advertising misogyny has been going on for years. I’m retweeting the link to your article though as it’s one of the most lucid I have seen and avoids academic language, which many find off-putting.
If you’re serious about activism against objectification, try having a look at Object’s website here http://www.object.org.uk/
01/27/12 at 02:20 PM #
Thanks, Kate. When it seems like all the world is against you in your beliefs and efforts to restore dignity to half the population, please remember that you are NOT alone.
01/25/12 at 12:30 AM #
Great article- you made your point well on all counts.
I find it silly that everyone is pointing to the Chanel ad— I never knew he was fghting with his own shadow and I would guess many would not realize that either. In any event- the point is why all this violence to sell supposdely lovely things? Now let’s get back to the main point and forget about the detraction of the Chanel ad controversy.
You asked"I hope after reading this piece, you will join me in a campaign to improve advertisers’ practices." And you laid out plenty of good reason why we should. I will join you. Where do we start?
"
01/24/12 at 03:34 PM #
Great post, but I agree with Reba; you shouldn’t use the Chanel “Egoïste” advert to exemplify – I have always interpreted that as the shadow of the man himself. He’s an egoist, he doesn’t want to share anything even with his own shadow.
01/24/12 at 01:59 PM #
Feel so enlightened on the actual points of objectifying images, thx
But yes he is supposed to be fighting his own shadow – stupid ad anyway!
01/24/12 at 01:30 PM #
Agreed. What makes me even more sad are the women who agree to pose for such ads.
However, I do want to bring something up about the Chanel Egoiste ad: I think that the man is actually punching his own shadow, and not that of an anonymous woman. From what I see, the shadow “took” the bottle of cologne, and the man fights it to get it back.
01/24/12 at 01:18 PM #
I am with you all the way, conceptually, but son’t get the same read on the Chanel ad. The man is wearing a towel, and the shadow seems to be a version of his own: broad shoulders, no breasts.