Sexuality Feminism and Advertising

Gender, Consumption and Ideology: A Look at Three Ads
Introduction
When the nephew of Sigmund Freud, Edward Bernays became the father of advertising, he used a simple trick that he learned from his uncle: sex sells. Bernays understand, as Freud did, that sex is one of the most powerful motivating forces of human nature (Jones). Sex and gender thus took center stage in advertising over the years. In this paper, the way that gender, consumption and ideology are tied together in advertising will be shown. This paper argues that sex and gender stereotypes persist in advertising media and that sexuality has become more provocative over time. This has happened in spite of feminist movements. Today, sexuality is something that women feel they can use to dominate men. These ads show that sex and gender in advertising is still a powerful force no matter what ideology is held by men and women. Human nature appears to still be the same, and so do the ads. They have gotten more sexual over time and they may not be as sexist, but they are definitely sexual. In this way, advertisers are more sensitive to the idea of equality but also more aggressive about the idea of getting the “male gaze,” as Laura Mulvey called it (Turrow 195). So whether women are empowered by ownership of their sexuality is hard to say because the object still seems to be to get the man to feel good. It is uncertain how that benefits the woman in terms of gaining power, unless the idea here is to enslave the man to his desire for the woman, as E. Michael Jones says is the idea. Looking at some ads of the past few decades can help to at least see how gender, consumption and ideology intertwine to communicate a message, whatever it may be.
Schlitz: “Don’t Worry Darling, You Didn’t Burn the Beer!” vs. Budweiser Sexy
The first advertisement to look at is this ad from beer maker Schlitz. It was produced in 1952 and features a woman in a blouse and skirt weeping at the stove where she has obviously just burned dinner. Her husband dressed in a dark suit is happily consoling her with a hug while pointing out the plus side—his beer on the table—as he says, “Don’t worry darling, you didn’t burn the beer!” She looks up at him with gratitude as though she were thinking what did I do to deserve such a wonderful man! The ad recommends that the viewer buy Schlitz beer. The ad uses humor to convey the message about gender. The ad is both condescending to women and funny in its appreciation of a commonplace—the idea that a wife might burn a husband’s dinner. Instead of getting angry about it, he himself is consoled by beer. So a woman is consoled by a husband and a husband is consoled by beer. The woman is there to serve the husband, and the beer is there to serve the husband. The ad indicates that all things are there to serve the husband. He looks neat in his suit and tie and is very handsome. It appears that the whole world is at his feet and he is the master of all. The ad makes the man looking at it feel very comfortable. But what does it say about women?

Beside it, just for comparison, is a modern day beer ad. Notice the difference. In the old ad, woman is not sexualized but from the standpoint of feminist ideology a sexist sentiment is expressed in the Schlitz ad. In the modern ad, the feminist ideology would be uncertain. Some would argue that it is a picture of an empowered woman taking ownership of her sexuality to get a man to desire her. Mulvey, an older generation feminist, would say it was demeaning towards woman because it made her into an object. Feminist ideology is therefore not clear with respect to how gender, sex and consumption should go together. Does it matter if the woman thinks she is empowered by being very sexual in an ad? Feona Atwood states the progression in these terms: “Where once sexualized representations of women in the media presented them as the passive, mute objects of an assumed male gaze, today women are presented as active, desiring sexual subjects who choose to present themselves in a seemingly objectified manner because it suits their liberated interests to do so” (100). So the question is not answered—it is up to the woman to decide for herself whether she is liberated and able to be a sexual subject if she wants, or whether she is oppressed by a male gaze that forces her to be sexualized or at least take a submissive role either as an object or as a housewife like in the Schlitz ad. Either way it is difficult to say. Mary Celeste Kearney states that “media are sites of considerable ideological negotiation and contestation, that is, sites of struggle over meaning and values” (3). The meaning will be different for different people, both men and women.
Sansabelt and the “Action Zone”
Another ad that helps to show the way that gender has been used in advertising in the past in his ad from the early 1970s by a pants company called Sansabelt. The ad shows a man up front wearing a comfortable pair of slacks. Behind him is a woman who is approaching, walking a poodle. The pants are called “Action Pants” at the top of the ad and the man is turned to the viewer with his hands out to show them off. Over his crotch area is a label that reads “Action Zone” which is an obvious sexual reference. The woman is bent at the waist as though trying to see around the man to his action zone. She is wearing a knee-length skirt that is shorter than the woman’s skirt from the Schiltz ad two decades prior. It indicates that woman’s fashion has become more accepting to sexuality and woman showing off more of her boy. Still in this ad she is placed behind the man and is not on an equal footing with him. He is leading her from behind. In the Schlitz ad the man is also in the foreground and the woman is slightly behind him. Both ads indicate that the man is the leader and is the most important part of any man-woman relationship because his pleasure is what matters most. Even the dog in the ad seems to recognize this importance as it has lifted its head to acknowledge the man’s action zone as well.
All three of these ads seem to say that the man is the leader, he is the professional, and he is the most important thing in the world. The woman is there to serve him—either his food or his action zone. His beer is there to comfort him too. And it helps to have a woman on the beer to help sell it today. What does this say for gender roles or for the idea of sexual equality? Has feminism turned into post-feminism where women accept this idea of being sexual beings and instead of feeling like servants of the male gaze they want to feel like they are the dominators of the male gaze? Is that why they embrace their sexuality in modern ads like the Budweiser ad shown above?
Sexuality is different today and Evans and Riley try to explain what has happened this way: they say that post-feminism is here and it “refutes feminism itself as a spent force, relegated to history and a time of structural inequality when women were not able to make claim to the kinds of consumer citizenship to which they are currently entitled” (16). The ideology has changed, they say. Now sex and gender have to be viewed differently because women are now part of the consumer citizenship—so it is not necessary to see woman from the point of view of the male gaze. Instead, ads can be seen “as a fusion between neoliberal subjectivity and a feminist politics reimagined through the logic of consumerism” (Evans and Riley 16). What matters then is that everyone is buying—and that is all.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is difficult to see how sex and gender ideas have changed over the years in advertising. Ideology has changed and the way women think of themselves, their ownership of their bodies and the male gaze and their relationship to it. But in the advertising the ideology disappears. One is left with just the blunt object—the woman on the beer bottle, sex selling beer—just as Bernays figured it would. Sex is the motivating force of human behavior, Freud taught. While there are other forces no doubt, sex is still a powerful one. The fact that gender is still depicted according to this idea in ads suggests that ideology is only something that people talk about. When it comes to consumption and to actually spending dollars, men are still lured by women and by ideas of being the leader and the most important thing. Ads seem to say that men are what matter most. However, there is an argument that can be made about the women too, for they are the ones who using their sexuality to help sell the products. So maybe they are happy to be sexualized. Maybe they are empowered. Maybe they are dominating the man. Or maybe the companies know that sex sells and they want women to think they are empowered because it is easier to get them to sexualize themselves that way.
Works Cited
Attwood, Feona. Mainstreaming sex: The sexualization of western culture. IB Tauris,
2014.
Evans, A., & Riley, S. Technologies of sexiness: Sex, identity, and consumer
culture. Sexuality, Identity, and Society. UK: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Jones, E. Michael. Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control. South
Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 2000.
Kearney, M. C. (Ed.). (2012). The gender and media reader. NY: Routledge.
Turow, J. The advertising and consumer culture reader. NY: Routledge, 2009.