Sociological Image: Objectification of women in the media

Sociological Image: Objectification of women in the media

The first entry I have decided to include in my “objectification of women in the media” topic is the Add-vantage add (http://contexts.org/socimages/2010/01/03/conflating-love-ability-and-large-breasts/ ) that has been identified as a 50’s bra add that related having larger breasts to being more lovable. Obviously, this is a very good example of how women have been and continue to be objectified in the media in order to sell products to other women. The add is telling potential customers that larger breasts will bring about more attention from men and make you seem more “lovable” but love has nothing to do with it, the bra is designed to give you more sex appeal. So in essence, you can only be sexy if you have large breasts and you can only be loved if you are sexy. The 50’s advertisements are full of these types of ads probably because even the government during those times were pushing for women to be more feminine and take care of “the man of the house.” We live in different times now, but our ads still reek with degrading suggestions that females are limited to being sex objects which could definitely be looked at as “exclusion” in the terms of discrimination in our Parrillo text books because these ads are not only limiting women in the media to certain kinds of depictions but also excluding them from others. For example, you don’t normally see a burly type of woman on the cover of any magazine or on any billboard, they are usually models that have been photo shopped, plucked, and primped.

The next add I would like to discuss is the ESPN add of Serena Williams the tennis professional of their body issue (http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/10/23/serena-williams-on-the-cover-of-espn/). It is the front cover of the magazine with Serena sitting in a position that covers her private areas but otherwise she is stark naked and smiling with bright red lipstick and nail polish. It’s another great example of how women are pigeonholed into certain media depictions. As one commenter mentioned, ESPN rarely puts women on their covers and here they finally do and she’s naked. How does that make ESPN look? It doesn’t seem to matter to them because they’re selling magazines. Again, this can be looked at from a discriminatory viewpoint because Serena is being depicted as a submissive, naked female which is a very vulnerable state for anyone to be in when in reality she is one of the most strong tennis players in the world and even though she’s on the cover of a sports magazine, it has nothing to do with tennis or her accomplishments.

Lastly, the commercials made by Reebok are good examples of using sex appeal and ideas of what a woman should look like, to sell products (http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/11/15/reeboks-easytone-marketing-jumps-on-the-objectification-bandwagon/). The girl in the first commercial is trying to explain the product to the viewer but the camera zooms in on her gluteus maximums, distracting the viewer and honing in on the results one could get if they worked out a lot preferably while wearing their shoes. The commercial states that you can get “better legs and a better butt with every step” and when they zoom in on her butt, she nudges the camera up and says, “I take it you agree?” The background has a couple props including a graph but she’s bending and stretching to show off her butt in her tiny shorts so it really is a depiction of sex appeal to sell shoes and has nothing to do with facts or research. Discrimination in the form of exclusion also applies here because the woman is selling a product based on her “butt” and nothing else. She is being used for her outer appearance instead of her intelligence or accomplishments to sell a product which excludes her from being wanted for anything else than her body image. She could be a rocket scientists but the company has chosen instead to objectify her to sell their product. This happens in most media depictions of women and this pattern of discrimination can be found in many places.

The exclusion pattern of discrimination can also be found in politics. During the presidential elections, the media often focuses on the women behind the men running for the presidency and both Hilary Clinton and Michelle Obama have both gotten major publicity and a lot of media exposure. Hilary’s exposure has been much different and more negative as far as personality goes than Michelle’s has but they have both faced discrimination; Hilary in that she was bit of a nasty addition to the White House and Michelle because she is black. Given, Barrack has also been discriminated against because of the color of his skin but im sure, it’s not easy being the first black first lady either. She tries very hard to appear as a loving wife and mother, a humanitarian and advocate for the country and her powerful husband. When your life is always under a microscope, it is more likely that all of your shortcomings will be publicized to the nation. These women took a lot more heat than the average female and it is understandable. We expect a lot more from women in power because they are role models for our country and therefore are placed on pedestals that are very easily toppled over by any negative publicity. They are therefore excluded from being average citizens and placed into an elite category where they become objects owned by the public.