Men and Military Advertisements

What are military advertisements telling us about gender?

The subject of military advertising is very complex, as it raises issues of nationalism and state propaganda, but can also exploit gender stereotypes in a very intentional manner. Recruiters and other advertisers use the insecurities of the “new man”, who has to reform his identity in light of the changing social hierarchy (which now includes women and minorities in the power structure). Many men have begun to reevaluate what it means to be a “man” if the “others” are gaining more political and economic power, and societal roles aren’t as obvious.

According to one article by Jackson Katz called “Advertising and the Construction of Violent White Masculinity”, men who are experiencing these changes can be comforted by advertising’s use of clear-cut masculine roles. Those roles are characterized by men’s physical size and strength, and their "ability to use violence successfully." It is one definitive aspect of being a “man”. Military advertisements like the one below offer the military’s idea of what masculinity means, to entice male audiences to recognize a longing for this traditional role (even though that longing is, in my opinion, a social construct):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJRthpxDM10

This ad states a very clear message about the link between masculinity and how the military provides a very unique outlet for these characteristics. It glorifies the modern image of battle and links it to two of the most revered conflicts in American history: the Revolutionary War and D-Day at Normandy. They generally go unquestioned in regards to justification, and so this ad uses the comparison to inspire Americans into the military. But it also draws on that history in regards to gender roles, by relying on the traditional images of a violent and heroic man. In the ad, we see men playing football, protecting and nurturing a woman and child, flying helicopters and tanks, and shooting weapons. In an age of insecure identity (without gender-exclusive roles), the military offers a stable identity for young men to latch on to. They are saying, “Real men fight in battles for their loved ones, and have been for hundreds of years.” The ad offers young men a role model in past soldiers, yet naturally leaves out the complications of that comparison.

I wish I could know exactly how this advertisement affects its intended audience [Mike, want to post a response?]. It's hard for me to have an opinion about the effects, since as a woman I'm not the target audience. Are men really looking at this saying, "This is what a man is supposed to do"? I see this and it seems as though it could appeal to a large majority of the male population that finds glory in violence and feels fulfilled in saving others by imitating "heroes" like past soldiers.

Joss Whedon's Women

I recently read a magazine article called “The Buffy Effect”, which describes the feminist messages in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer television series. Joss Whedon wrote and directed the show, and he intentionally created a strong female lead that “never denigrates herself, nor is her girlhood ever depicted as a detraction. By contrast, it’s the very source of her strength.”

I’ve never actually watched Buffy before, but I have watched Whedon’s other TV series called Firefly, which I now realize has very feminist characters. The show follows the adventures of a ship crew with cowboy-esque lifestyles in outer space. All of the women onboard are very interesting, intelligent, and strong (in both a physical and emotional sense).

There is Zoe, the second-in-command on the ship, who fought with Captain Mal in a past war. She is a beautiful warrior that is married to the pilot, who is clearly attracted to her despite potentially intimidating characteristics. Inara is a courtesan that is often on the ship, who is a good example of the difference between “sexy” and “sexist”. While the nature of her profession is controversial, she has taken control of her body and is never afraid to speak up against the men in charge of the ship. Kaylee, my personal favorite character on the show, is the ship’s mechanic. It was great to see a woman in such a traditionally male-dominated role and profession. Kaylee was an unsuspecting young woman that happened to have great intuitive mechanical skills and, while not particularly beautiful, was never “butch”.

Until reading this article Whedon’s feminist perspectives never really occurred to me (perhaps because the women he portrayed felt natural to me. Stereotypical women in TV and movies are actually way more distracting because I don’t identify with them at all). But his explanation of his intentions with Buffy also applies to his Firefly show:

“If I can make teenage boys comfortable with a girl who takes charge of a situation without their knowing that’s what’s happening, it’s better than sitting down and selling them on feminism.”


Cast of Firefly (http://bookreviewsandmore.ca/2008_02_01_archive.html)

Hip-Hop Women

After watching MTV or VH1 for any length of time, it is clear that many music videos are especially objectified representations of women. Hip-hop music videos in particular have potential to specifically effect African American women, as they are the most common sexual objects portrayed. We’ve all seen rap videos where a man is surrounded by dozens of half-naked women, and this is actually an interesting version of sexist representations. The men go beyond being a “Don Juan” (as Imani Perry describes in the article “Who(se) Am I?”) where women are used, yet still maintain some semblance of humanity, to being commodities on the same level as “property, not unlike the luxury cars, Rolex watches, and platinum and diamond medallions that were also featured.”

The image of African American women in these videos has implications for female viewers that perhaps watch them, taking ideas of “beauty” from the unrealistic images. “The beauty ideal for black women presented in these videos is as impossible to achieve as the waif-thin models in Vogue magazine are for white women”. For example, there are black women with very light complexions and long, straight hair that “contrasts sharply to the real hair of most black women”. For a long time young black girls have had, in general, better body image because they were represented less in the media and therefore had less people telling them what “sexy” is. Now, it is possible that the self-esteem of these girls might start to suffer because of the increased negative representations.

However, unlike a lot of music genres, there are quite a few female artists in the hip-hop industry that counter such images. The article used the example of Missy Elliot, who “presents a glamorous and stylish image but never is presented in an objectifying manner”. Also, the author talks about Alicia Keys, who seems to be very comfortable with her own identity without exploiting herself in sexual images in her music videos (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK8t0gP4isE). Apparently, this is a genre with extremes, from the women portrayed as property to very self-assured female artists.

Mixed Messages in Women's Magazines

In my last blog post, I was a little simplistic in my opinion of women's magazines like Cosmopolitan. However, after reading a chapter in David Gauntlett's book Media, Gender, and Identity and having a discussion in my media class, I kind of rethought some things.

First of all, I haven't really spent enough time reading a magazine like Cosmo to really recognize different nuances...I usually get frustrated after flipping through for a couple seconds and want to throw the magazine out. But today I actually spent a couple minutes looking at the articles and, even though I still felt frustrated, it turned out to be a little more complex.

I never realized that there are so many mixed messages in these magazines. This must confuse some readers, or at least make a homogeneous decoding of the material basically impossible. There are multiple articles about maintaining a healthy diet, being independent, and saving money to avoid debt. However, on the opposite page there are representations of incredibly thin women, articles about molding yourself into someone else's ideal "woman", or tips on spending money to buy fashionable clothes. So what are they really trying to say?

Guantlett describes this strange juxtaposition of messages by stating that "the magazines spell out the secrets of beauty, but then encourage readers to disregard it all in the name of emotional and physical health; but, in any case, it's true that these elements don't sit comfortable together."(Guantlett 205)

There is also a section of the chapter that displays a selection of women's personal interest in or reactions to magazines. These varied from what I suppose is the intended purpose of a magazine like Cosmo, feeling inadequate and dissatisfied with their current image and possesions, to reactionary feelings of superiority over superficial models. Some can simply read these magazines as a fantasy disassociated from their actual life and decisions.

I would have originally said that women's magazines have no effect on me, but during my class I realized that that is not entirely true. Instead, it must be a reactionary view of the magazine. Briefly looking at articles and images in these magazines, I sometimes decide exactly what I don't want to be because I'm so frustrated at how they represent women. It makes me so angry to see the shallowness of the magazine that I don't even want to touch it. I realize this is somewhat irrational because, as I mentioned before, a lot of women may just read it for fun and it doesn't dictate what they do every day. But still, just seeing someone flipping through Cosmo makes me want to turn around and buy Foreign Affairs.

I think it is important that we recognize that media can effect us in different ways, even if its the unintended outcome of the people encoding messages into the advertisements and magazine articles. I would hope the formation of my identity would be completely unrelated to a magazine, but sometimes it can happen in a roundabout way. Its not really being independent to form parts of my identity just because I'm reacting in opposition to someone or something telling me what to be.

The Cosmo Girl and You

Some women view Cosmopolitan magazine as a symbol of women's liberation, but is it really accurate to say that it supports feminism or equality for women? I don't personally see the appeal, even though I know a lot of people thinks it promotes a form of "independence".

Writers at Cosmo may think they are helping girls or young women to become upwardly mobile through their self-help and self-improvement articles, but what is the basic implication of this attitude? Laurie Ouellette in her article "Inventing the Cosmo Girl" states that from the beginning of the magazine "Expenditures on clothing, cosmetics, and accessories were presented as necessary investments in the construction of a desirable (and thus saleable) self (p 120)."

They still are promoting this consumerist mindset, as if you are only your absolute best when you buy certain things to create their constructed ideal. It may seem liberating to have a magazine dedicated to helping you become a rich and fashionable individual, but why is that a goal for so many people? Ouellette also called Cosmo "a framework that legitimated capitalism, consumerism, and patriarchal privelege (125)."

Even their supposedly empowering articles I find ridiculous, Like this recent article on "10 Things Women Do Better than Men" (which they call an ego boost):

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/advice/tips/women-better-than-men-things

Most of these things are incredibly trivial like "we evolve hotter than men", or "We're better at seeking comfort". Is that actually empowering someone, or treating them like insecure children that will find satisfaction in knowing they'll age more beautifully?

I personally see Cosmo's focus on sexuality, fashion, and consumerism as damaging to women, but is there anybody (I mean, anyone reading this blog) that disagrees? Why does the magazine appeal to so many readers?