From: egilmour@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels
Subject: Re:  Effects of Ads (Was Re:  Elle MacPherson Causes Rape?
Date: 15 Nov 92 14:13:46 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

danga.caltech.edu!magney(Michael Agney) writes:

>In article <1992Nov13.182924@ac.dal.ca> egilmour@ac.dal.ca writes:
>The movie "Still Killing Us Softly" is excellent in pointing out that the 
images
>ads promote are particularly harmful to women and men.  One ad says
something
>to the effect that "You can treat a woman better than your boots, but why
would you?", another ad pictures a woman stuck in a gargage can with her
>feet sticking out, the caption "some people would kill for these shoes". 
>Another ad shows a woman lying dishevelled on the floor as if she has
been
>raped, another shows a woman laying on the floor in a room that has been torn
>apart while the dark figure of a man strides out the window, another ad
>shows a man ironing over the prone body of a female.  There is an 
>endless display of advertisements that portray women as victims, or objects
>and in which the serious situation of violence against women is trivialized.
>But not only do these ads give an impression of women, they also stereotype
>men who are pictured in some ads as agressive monsters with horns or
>compensating for "inadequacies" with a large cigarette.

>>My God, where were these ads?  If they were in any magazine besides
>>Playboy, or Penthouse, or Hustler, or some such, that magazine would
>>have had their mailbox swamped with irate letters.  Same goes for TV.

These ads, among many others of the same sort were found in a diverse 
selection of magazines from Chatelaine to Business Week.  Although some
of the ads do come up against protest, it is amazing not only that they get
printed in the first place but that they continue to be printed even after
undergoing protest as with the "Some people kill for these shoes" ad.   

It is true that some of the examples given were from magazines about ten
years old, but today women are still protrayed as submissive or as only 
amounting to the sum of their body parts.

I also have something to ad to the "beautiful women are used in ads instead
of average women because who would want to buy a product that an average 
woman is advertising", or "these types of models are used because they 
photograph better" debate.  How come the restrictions that apply
to female models (ie:  must be at least 5'10" with big hair, chest, and ass
and must be under 23 years old) do not apply to men?  Compare some male
and female cologne ads such as Guess? for example.  In the ad targetted at
women you see a beautiful scantilly clad Claudia Schiffer with all the
above listed attributes, and nice young smooth skin.  But you do not see
a young pumped up male with smooth skin and scantilly dressed advertising
the men's cologne, you see a wrinkled old man with rough skin and thinning 
hair.  The same goes with numerous other ads.  Rarely do you see an 
eighteen to twenty-three year old male advertising much.  For
some reason it is more acceptable for old men to be pictured in advertisements
than it is for women.  I think this
is part of the women as sex objects, men as success objects syndrome
in advertising that I've read about.

Janet    
Xref: sparky alt.supermodels:1977 soc.women:19868 alt.feminism:4675 soc.men:19531