Alysse's Gender & Pop Culture Blog

Friday, May 28, 2010

The Unreal World

Thursday, May 20, 2010

The Impact of Sexual Images on Women’s View of Themselves through the Gendered Marketing of Victoria’s Secret Lingerie

Blog Post 3

Advertising has a strong impact on the way the female gender views itself based on the images used to sell certain products and the underlying messages they convey. In terms of Victoria’s Secret lingerie, it is marketed to women which advertisements use women to sell this product through sexuality. The images that are used are thin and beautiful women who are wearing the lingerie, and therefore, the marketing strategies utilized are to express to women that by buying this product, they can be just as sexy as the Victoria’s Secret models. Although, these images give the female gender messages that influence their sense of self regarding how they must exist in the world. This product is marketed and sold on the basis of gender in terms of the notion that women have sex appeal. The gendered marketing of Victoria’s Secret lingerie illustrates how our culture is infatuated with sex, giving women and girls the idea that they must look a certain way to be accepted which can be detrimental to their health.

From the images, it is evident to see how Victoria’s Secret lingerie is marketed on the basis of gender regarding the tactic of female sexuality to sell this product. Each of the women is seductive, in a sexy position, thin, and gorgeous which reflects how our culture places a strong emphasis on sex appeal to reach out to consumers. In “Image-Based Culture: Advertising and Popular Culture,” Sut Jhally states, “The end result is that the commodity is part of an increasingly eroticized world—that we live in a culture that is more and more defined erotically through commodities” (253). It is apparent through the Victoria’s Secret lingerie advertisements that this product is gendered marketed based on women’s eroticism being used, confirming how our world is defined by sex. This company as well as the rest of our culture prides itself on utilizing sex to sell a product, which the goal of the advertisements is to make women believe that they will feel sexy by buying the lingerie. Yet, it is because of this gendered marketing strategy that young women are unhappy with who they are, since they are surrounded by images and messages that convey how they must look like the women shown in the ads.

The way Victoria’s Secret lingerie advertisements emphasize beauty and thinness causes young women looking at the images used to sell this product to view their bodies from the wrong perspective and therefore detrimental effects come about. In “‘The More You Subtract, the More You Add’: Cutting Girls Down to Size,” Jean Kilbourne states, “This tendency to view one’s body from the outside in—regarding physical attractiveness, sex appeal, … and weight as more central to one’s physical identity than health, … —has many harmful effects, including … the development of eating disorders….” (260). Since this product is marketed and sold based on the female gender, women are influenced by the underlying messages that the sexy model images express which are to be sexy is to be thin and flawless. Young women are lead to only consider their physical appearance as most important rather than what is on the inside due to the stress placed on women’s bodies and sexuality. By constantly being surrounded by advertisements such as those marketing Victoria’s Secret lingerie, which never utilize any other images except women who are thin and attractive, it impacts the female gender’s sense of self, causing women to take drastic and harmful measures to alter their bodies according to our culture’s ideals as well as obsessions.

Works Cited

Jhally, Sut. “Image-Based Culture: Advertising and Popular Culture.” Gender, Race, and Class in Media: A Text-Reader. 2nd ed. Ed. Gail Dines and Jean M. Humez. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2003. 249-57.

Kilbourne, Jean. “‘The More You Subtract, the More You Add’: Cutting Girls Down to Size.” Gender, Race, and Class in Media: A Text-Reader. 2nd ed. Ed. Gail Dines and Jean M. Humez. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2003. 258-67.

Victoria’s Secret Advanced Bra. Advertisement. 18 May 2010
<http://blog.lib.umn.edu/raim0007/gwss1001/2007/04/>.

Victoria’s Secret Bombshell. Advertisement. 18 May 2010
<http://www.victoriassecret.com/>.

Victoria’s Secret Catalogue Cover: Free Gift. Advertisement. 18 May 2010
<http://myfashioninsider.blogspot.com/2009/11/victorias-secret-christmas-catalog.html>.

Victoria’s Secret Catalogue Cover: Holiday. Advertisement. 18 May 2010
<http://www.polyvore.com/victorias_secret_catalog_covers_2005/thing?id=6427943>.

Victoria’s Secret Catalogue Cover: Pink and Black Bra. Advertisement. 18 May 2010 <http://img443.imageshack.us/i/vsfallpreview2003cover0xy.jpg/>.

Victoria’s Secret Catalogue Cover: Resort. Advertisement. 18 May 2010
<http://www.jademountain.com/reviews2.html>.

Victoria’s Secret Christmas Catalogue Cover. Advertisement. 18 May 2010
<http://waiversharks.com/blog/2008/12/18/free-fantasy-baseball-rankings-3/>.

Victoria’s Secret Diamond Bra. Advertisement. 18 May 2010
<http://www.codenuit.com/article/jewelry/242>.

Victoria’s Secret Panties. Advertisement. 18 May 2010
<http://www.victoriassecret.com/>.

Victoria’s Secret Push-Up Bra. Advertisement. 18 May 2010
<http://stereogum.com/archives/commercial-appeal/joanna-newsom-victorias-secret_063052.html>.

Thursday, May 13, 2010

Constructs of Femininity and Masculinity in an Aspect of Popular Culture

Blog Post #2

Masculinity and Femininity in Everybody Loves Raymond Regarding the Characters of Raymond and Debra

Based on the characters of the television sitcom, Everybody Loves Raymond, the norms associated with masculinity as well as femininity are both supported and challenged. The roles and characteristics of males and females are evident, yet what is expected of each gender is also counteracted. Therefore, masculinity and femininity are portrayed as normative on the one hand and unusual on the other. Through the characters of Raymond and Debra, an understanding of masculinity and femininity is constructed which results from their actions, responsibilities, and relationship to one another. These characters provide insight as to what it means to be a man and a woman by how Raymond and Debra carry out their roles as well as deviate from them.

In the show, the norms of masculinity and femininity regarding females keeping the house and caring for the children, while the males are out making a living for their families are supported. Debra is the stay-at-home mom who depends on Raymond for the household income. She is often seen doing the laundry, driving the children to their extracurricular activities, and making dinner. In contrast, Raymond is busy working on his column as a sports writer, he is honored for his work by notable people and companies, and he goes on business trips. These characters construct an understanding of masculinity and femininity in terms of illuminating the different roles and responsibilities of each gender. To be a man is to have the duty of making the money, whereas to be a woman is carrying out the role of a housewife and caretaker.

These normative perspectives of masculinity and femininity are highlighted in “Portraying Difference: Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality in Language and the Media” by David M. Newman. In terms of how gender is depicted in the media, it is stated, “In addition, males are more likely to be portrayed in some kind of recognizable occupation, whereas females are more likely to be cast in the role of caregiver (Thompson & Zerbinos, 1995)” (Newman 90). This is the case for Raymond and Debra as they exemplify how the media and popular culture perceive men and women. They construct an understanding of masculinity and femininity by making it apparent that the man is the one who works outside of the home, while the woman is the one who takes care of everything within it. In this sense, Everybody Loves Raymond has maintained the typical notions of masculinity and femininity based on these characters.

Looking at these characters from a different perspective, Raymond and Debra do not fit the gender norms that have been constructed by society as well as the media. In terms of masculinity, Raymond is not the typical aggressive and tough man. He is actually portrayed as inferior to Debra who consistently speaks her mind and puts him in his place. Therefore, femininity is not represented as passive and weak; rather, Debra is the one who wears the pants in the family. To be a woman is to be strong-willed and outspoken, and to be a man is to be the one who is controlled. Raymond and Debra switch gender roles and deviate from what is expected of their masculinity and femininity.

Based on Raymond’s inability to establish power over his wife, it is clear that he does not possess the qualities men typically have in a patriarchal culture. In “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us” by Allan G. Johnson, he states, “To have power over and to be prepared to use it are defined culturally as good and desirable (and characteristically ‘masculine’), and to lack such power or to be reluctant to use it is seen as weak if not contemptible (and characteristically ‘feminine’)” (94). Through Raymond and Debra, masculinity and femininity are portrayed as the opposite of these norms. These characters do not support their constructed gender characteristics; rather, they disrupt them by him not acting as a man should and her not acting womanly. In this way, Raymond and Debra construct an understanding of masculinity and femininity by showing that not always do men and women meet gender standards.

Although Raymond has deviated from the conventional aggressive male image, this character does support and represent a different image of the male gender which is less flattering. He is often seen acting like a child in terms of having to always be taken care of by either Debra or his mother, being unaware of what is taking place around him, and having strong sexual desires. Raymond differs greatly from traditional male characters who have power over those around them, which masculinity is portrayed as the gender that should be joked about. The character of Raymond illustrates that to be a man is to not be taken very seriously based on his immature behavior.

Newman gives insight to this portrayal of masculinity which contrasts to Johnson’s explanation of men within a patriarchal culture. Johnson states, “It’s about … the ‘naturalness’ of male aggression, competition, and dominance…” (94). Raymond does not have these attributes; instead, this character’s masculinity is represented as how Newman describes men in the media. He states, “It is not uncommon for men in prime-time comedies to be depicted as rude, crude, sex-crazed, childish, egotistical, and stupid” (Newman 94). Most of these characteristics that are associated with the male gender relate to Raymond, which he constructs an understanding of masculinity in a way that shows how this gender is not always intimidating, harsh, and tough.

The characters of Raymond and Debra both support and go against the norms of masculinity and femininity, making me better understand what it means to be a man and a woman. It is evident that Raymond exemplifies how being a male is to be the breadwinner, but clueless and dominated. In addition, Debra shows how a woman is the caregiver while also being strong and powerful. Their genders, which are portrayed typically on the one hand and differently on the other, provide a sense of how the standards of masculinity and femininity can be deviated from just as easily as they can be met.

Works Cited

Everybody Loves Raymond. By Philip Rosenthal. Perf. Ray Romano and Patricia Heaton. CBS. WCBS, New York. 13 Sept. 1996.

Johnson, Allan G. “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us.” The Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy. Temple UP, 1997. 91-8.

Newman, David M. “Portraying Difference: Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality in Language and the Media.” Identities and Inequalities: Exploring the Intersections of Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality. New York: McGraw Hill, 2007. 71-105.