In reference to the highly controlled and contrived production of women’s magazines, Gloria Steinem asks the question, “Can’t we do better than this?” (Steinem, p.10). The simple answer is “yes”; the more complicated one is “maybe…”. I say maybe because changing women’s advertising means uprooting the entire advertising system. We must acknowledge that these cajoling advertisers and their marketing tactics are ubiquitous before we attack them for manipulating women’s magazines. While it is conceivable that women’s magazines are the hardest hit, I do not believe that ads in men’s magazines or themed magazines are any less targeting or conniving in their nature. Steinem’s argument would be stronger if she persuaded her readers to scrutinize the interplay between editorial articles and advertising in general, not only as it relates to women’s magazines.
This is not to say, however, that Steinem’s essay is weak. In fact, she points to some incredible statistics about female consumerism, “But long after figures showed a third, even a half, of many car models being bought by women, U.S. makers continued to be uncomfortable addressing women…Perhaps that’s why some foreign cars still have a disproportionate share of the U.S. women’s market,” (Steinem, p.3). To me, this illustrates that it is not women’s magazines that should be outraged, but rather the CEOs of car companies and electronic brands who are losing out on half their potential consumer population. Women, as shown here, should simply continue to support those corporations that recognize their market share and play to it.
Yet the question still remains whether or not all products should be marketed as “people products” or “one-sex only products". This is a hard line to draw. On the one hand, it seems progressive and liberating to advertise products to all potential buyers. On the other hand, this seems to fight basic, albeit stereotyped, patterns of consumption. Would putting Revlon nail polish ads in Hot Rod magazine help to dismantle our two-sex advertising system? What about Phillips screwdriver ads in Cosmopolitan? If this sounds absurd, it is. Yet this idea only seems strange because, for years, we have been programmed to participate in separate-sphere advertising.
I believe that Steinem has a point, and one that everyone should take seriously if we want to change the way all people, not just women, are a product of their advertisers. After all, I own a Phillips screwdriver and it is way more useful than my nail polish.
Wonderful thoughts on all three of these readings, and particularly on Brumberg and Steinem. You've all made really interesting points about both where these standards come from and how they're enforced. As you point out, this is an industry-wide issue that we, as individuals, both choose and are compelled to buy into. Julia, you bring up a couple of the most fascinating parts of Brumberg's chapter at the end of your post, specifically the relationship between private bodies and public bodies, and the ways in which this effects our understanding of sex. How might this notion of the public body construct our raunch culture?
ReplyDeleteHilary makes a very interesting point and i agree with her all the way. Yes, car CEOs should be concerned about their product missing a major or even minor market because isn't the goal of any corporation to make as much money as possible. At the same time it does seem counterproductive to market a phillips screwdriver in Cosmopolitan, as she says. I believe that, much like everything else, there is a happy medium, but that can be somewhat difficult to attain.
ReplyDelete