David Gauntlett’s theory of identity suggests that we are now living in a world where the meaning of gender is increasingly open.
To what extent do you agree with this hypothesis in relation to print advertisements in the UK?
Collate a range of UK print advertisements from the past and present and use these as evidence for your opinions.
To an extent, I agree with David Gauntlett's idea that we are now living in a world where the meaning of gender is increasingly open. This is due to the recent changes in many advertisements that now target both genders rather than targeting a single gender based on stereotypes. For example, in the past, advertisements for food products were promoted by female actors/models which suggested that cooking was the job of a woman. She would be classically wearing a feminine outfit such as a floral dress, apron and done up hair- the stereotypical attire of a house wife. This image has been present in 1950s adverts from brands such as Pyrex and Kenwood Chef. However, in recent years this image has been used less and less, and instead both male and female actors have been used to promote food products. For example, the brand Aunt Bessie which is seen to sell traditional food with the image of a woman wearing an apron and stirring mixture in a bowl, has recently produced an advert where a male actor is shown to be the one cooking for his family, an idea that would be ridiculed in the 1950s. This shows how advertisements in the UK have progressed along with society's beliefs about gender equality as it is no longer assumed by marketing teams that woman are the only ones who should be cooking, and instead uses the idea of parents providing food for their families rather than wives for their husbands.
I also agree that we are now living in a world where the meaning of gender is increasingly open due to fashion brands. For example, the clothing brand M&S have recently released a new line of clothing which they advertise as 'kids' clothing, rather than it being gender specific. This change in branding evinces an increase in gender fluidity in modern society and how even clothing brands have realised that gender neutrality is itself a potential USP whereas 15 years ago ranges had to be targeted at a gender group to maximise the effectiveness of marketing. The designer brand Chanel also recently released a line of makeup for men with the name 'Boy De Chanel', which although targets men so may not be seen as gender fluid, it invites men into a market that has always been viewed as exclusive to woman. The brand uses the slogan 'Beauty knows no gender', and the brand even stated 'Beauty is not a matter of gender, it is a matter of style'. This shows that the company have chosen to advertise their new range as something that is not restricted by gender as it has been in the past and disregards this, viewing gender as a factor that should not need to be considered. In the past, makeup has been solely aimed at woman, even using the idea of the consumer attracting men as a selling point of the product such as the flavoured roll on lipgloss 'Kissing Potion' as advertised by the makeup brand Maybelline in the 1980s.
To a lesser extent, I disagree that we are living in a world where the meaning of gender is increasingly open. This is because of brands still using the same stereotypes in advertisements in order to sell their products even if the assumptions made are more subtle then they have been in previous adverts. For example, in the 1970s advertisements for cleaning products used female models dressed as stereotypical house wives to promote their products, suggesting that woman do all the cleaning and it is a wives job to keep the house and dishes clean. This was accepted in the past as woman were expected to hold these responsibilities while her husband works and earns money in order to support his family. However, in our modern society this ideology is seen as sexist and advertisements of this nature would not be accepted and would instead make the brand unpopular to the general public which could cause their business to collapse due to lack of sales. Despite this, the same stereotypes are still made in advertisements for cleaning products today, the only difference being the subtlety. In modern advertisements for cleaning products, more often than not a woman is shown to be the one using the products and although sexist slogans aren't used as they were in the past to point this detail out, it is still assumed that woman are the target market and are therefore expected to be the ones who buy and use cleaning products. As well as this, products such as perfumes are usually clearly targeted at a specific gender, even using the phrase 'for him' or 'for her'. The designer brand Jimmy Choo are an example of this, as in their advertisement for their fragrance 'for men', Kit Harington- a popular male actor- is shown to have a woman's legs draped over his shoulder. The advertisement is clearly solely aimed at men even using the idea that, by wearing this fragrance, men will be able to sexually attract woman and so the product becomes subconsciously more appealing to men, along with the use of grey colours that are seen as masculine. This provides evidence to suggest that we do not live in a world where the meaning of gender is increasingly open as marketing teams still target specific genders in order to sell their products.
In conclusion, to a large extent I agree that we live in a world where the meaning of gender is increasingly open. This is implied by the the significant and noticeable transition from gender role targeted to lifestyle targeted marketing showing a societal acceptance of the fluidity of the roles of either gender. Although the subtle remnants of an age of sexist advertising are still discernible in some adverts it is clear that while these subconscious stereotypes exist in places they are far less prevalent than they were previously. This all goes to show that the meaning of gender, though still somewhat restricted by antiquated ideas, is more fluid now than ever before and as old assumptions fade, the openness of the meaning of gender will only increase.
To an extent, I agree with David Gauntlett's idea that we are now living in a world where the meaning of gender is increasingly open. This is due to the recent changes in many advertisements that now target both genders rather than targeting a single gender based on stereotypes. For example, in the past, advertisements for food products were promoted by female actors/models which suggested that cooking was the job of a woman. She would be classically wearing a feminine outfit such as a floral dress, apron and done up hair- the stereotypical attire of a house wife. This image has been present in 1950s adverts from brands such as Pyrex and Kenwood Chef. However, in recent years this image has been used less and less, and instead both male and female actors have been used to promote food products. For example, the brand Aunt Bessie which is seen to sell traditional food with the image of a woman wearing an apron and stirring mixture in a bowl, has recently produced an advert where a male actor is shown to be the one cooking for his family, an idea that would be ridiculed in the 1950s. This shows how advertisements in the UK have progressed along with society's beliefs about gender equality as it is no longer assumed by marketing teams that woman are the only ones who should be cooking, and instead uses the idea of parents providing food for their families rather than wives for their husbands.
I also agree that we are now living in a world where the meaning of gender is increasingly open due to fashion brands. For example, the clothing brand M&S have recently released a new line of clothing which they advertise as 'kids' clothing, rather than it being gender specific. This change in branding evinces an increase in gender fluidity in modern society and how even clothing brands have realised that gender neutrality is itself a potential USP whereas 15 years ago ranges had to be targeted at a gender group to maximise the effectiveness of marketing. The designer brand Chanel also recently released a line of makeup for men with the name 'Boy De Chanel', which although targets men so may not be seen as gender fluid, it invites men into a market that has always been viewed as exclusive to woman. The brand uses the slogan 'Beauty knows no gender', and the brand even stated 'Beauty is not a matter of gender, it is a matter of style'. This shows that the company have chosen to advertise their new range as something that is not restricted by gender as it has been in the past and disregards this, viewing gender as a factor that should not need to be considered. In the past, makeup has been solely aimed at woman, even using the idea of the consumer attracting men as a selling point of the product such as the flavoured roll on lipgloss 'Kissing Potion' as advertised by the makeup brand Maybelline in the 1980s.
To a lesser extent, I disagree that we are living in a world where the meaning of gender is increasingly open. This is because of brands still using the same stereotypes in advertisements in order to sell their products even if the assumptions made are more subtle then they have been in previous adverts. For example, in the 1970s advertisements for cleaning products used female models dressed as stereotypical house wives to promote their products, suggesting that woman do all the cleaning and it is a wives job to keep the house and dishes clean. This was accepted in the past as woman were expected to hold these responsibilities while her husband works and earns money in order to support his family. However, in our modern society this ideology is seen as sexist and advertisements of this nature would not be accepted and would instead make the brand unpopular to the general public which could cause their business to collapse due to lack of sales. Despite this, the same stereotypes are still made in advertisements for cleaning products today, the only difference being the subtlety. In modern advertisements for cleaning products, more often than not a woman is shown to be the one using the products and although sexist slogans aren't used as they were in the past to point this detail out, it is still assumed that woman are the target market and are therefore expected to be the ones who buy and use cleaning products. As well as this, products such as perfumes are usually clearly targeted at a specific gender, even using the phrase 'for him' or 'for her'. The designer brand Jimmy Choo are an example of this, as in their advertisement for their fragrance 'for men', Kit Harington- a popular male actor- is shown to have a woman's legs draped over his shoulder. The advertisement is clearly solely aimed at men even using the idea that, by wearing this fragrance, men will be able to sexually attract woman and so the product becomes subconsciously more appealing to men, along with the use of grey colours that are seen as masculine. This provides evidence to suggest that we do not live in a world where the meaning of gender is increasingly open as marketing teams still target specific genders in order to sell their products.
In conclusion, to a large extent I agree that we live in a world where the meaning of gender is increasingly open. This is implied by the the significant and noticeable transition from gender role targeted to lifestyle targeted marketing showing a societal acceptance of the fluidity of the roles of either gender. Although the subtle remnants of an age of sexist advertising are still discernible in some adverts it is clear that while these subconscious stereotypes exist in places they are far less prevalent than they were previously. This all goes to show that the meaning of gender, though still somewhat restricted by antiquated ideas, is more fluid now than ever before and as old assumptions fade, the openness of the meaning of gender will only increase.
Agree:
-food adverts. current adverts show men cooking. past adverts had woman cooking, even the brand aunt bessie is traditional and the logo but current adverts are changing
Disagree:
-cleaning advertisements. female actors used in advertisements subtly suggesting they should be the ones cleaning. links to adverts from the past e.g. 1970s where cleaning products are clearly targeted at females who are dressed as stereotypical house wives.
No comments:
Post a Comment