Women and Advertising
2AHIFA? JELAI It’s the Image that Is Imperfect Advertising and Its Impact on Women Advertisements and media images have a stronger impact on shaping gender images than books on feminism and scholarly experiments on gender equality. Stereotypes and generalisations in ads continue to objectify women, and place stress solely on their appearance, thus devaluing their innate worth. INDHU RAJAGOPAL, JENNIFER GALES Prologue I n examining higher education, there is a tendency to assume that all students have equal opportunities and only merit matters. There are, however, some unique factors that mitigate chances for qual treatment for all groups because of different ascriptive characteristics of students who wish to access, and achieve merit in, higher education. Gender is one such ascriptive characteristic that blocks girls and women both socially and academically from realising their fullest potential. In this paper, we will examine how gender-based social images that are transmitted through the media act as barriers to realising students’ full potential in their life. Could higher education intervene in and vitiate these media images? As far as gender issues are concerned, it can be proven that the power of advertisements nd media images has a stronger impact in shaping gender images than what books on feminism and scholarly experiments have on gender equality. On the assumption that education shapes our intellect, we proceed to explore in this paper how media shape the images, especially those of girls and women. The Image-Making As we sit here watching the new Levi’s commercial – yes, the one with the catchy tune with the singing belly buttons – we find ourselves becoming a victim to the Economic and Political Weekly power of advertising. We were thinking how good these jeans would be especially for someone with my body type as we hum he song and do the dance. Then it hit us we are turning into the advertiser’s best friend – the one who believes anything they say. Furthermore, we are getting ready to tell our friends about the new ‘item’ on the market and how there are jeans to fit women with the wide hip too! The power that advertisements carry with them is sensational. They have the ability to change and shape people’s opinions of themselves with one picture of an image that is technologically modified to represent the advertiser’s perspective of what is seen as perfect by viewers. The key word is advertiser’s perspective because often he person who has created what she or he deems as the ideal image has also created the model. Often advertisements do not correctly represent the majority of society or even a small percentage of how women actually look. This analysis is intended to enlighten readers on the effect advertisements carry with them, specifically on women. First the discussion will expand on the societal milieu that ads hold, and then continue to explain the effects consumerism and promotional messages on this group of individuals. By looking at advertisements, and at theoretical and scholarly literature as well as popular culture material on the topic, this nalysis will show how the images advertisements allude to can influence and shape a woman’s perspective of herself. Matlin (1987) explains how the media’s misrepresentation of women in advertise- August 10, 2002 ments has created plenty of stereotypical representations of women. She lists seven empirically documented stereotypes that have been created by advertisements. Matlin’s1 sixth stereotype states that women’s bodies are used differently from men’s bodies in advertisements [Matlin 1987: 43]. In advertisements, men are shown accompanying the female and looking directly into the camera whereas females are portrayed with their eyes ooking away from the camera. Women are often shown in a sexual or vulnerable position in order to sell the product, whether it is an advertisement for shaving cream or alcoholic beverage, for instance, Edge Shaving Cream, Pepsi-Cola or Absolute Vodka. Is this a reasonable representation of how women act and dress? No, it is not; but these types of ads are able to change what women think they should look like. When magazines feature pages on “make your butt look good in every outfit”, you have to wonder whether your butt does not look good now. You think: “I must have had a problem all along and I never noticed! Then, as you read on, you see some skinny and obviously attractive woman is advertising this article, which makes you think, “I will benefit and look like her if I read this article and buy the product”! Matlin illustrates how, when women look at advertisements showing beautiful female models, they tend to be less satisfied with their own attractiveness [Matlin 1987:44]. It is evident that the media will be the catalyst for these women to have body image problems. But do you blame them? Anyone would be self-conscious of his/her image after looking through a magazine filled with attractive women who portray unattainable images.
Matlin describes how the medium is an important force in shaping reality [Matlin 1987: 43]. It is these stereotyped representations that help to shape womens’ opinions of what they should look like. Often girls and women forget that, and become sensitised by advertisements. They do not realise that they are conforming to what the ads show by reading the magazine ad’s prescription that will help them look like the woman in the ad in just three weeks! Realistically, these gender stereotypes only create more barriers for women. By creating 3333 these unrealistic images of women both genders are affected by these unreasonable nd often unattainable expectations and goals. The power of ads shapes men’s expectations for finding women who are over five feet and six inches tall, but still weighing less than 100 pounds, who look great in tight clothes, and demure and submissive. This is not a practical or reasonable expectation. In real life situations, it creates a downward spiral of disappointment and disillusionment. We live in a world where the goal of many North American women is to look like the next model in the Victoria’s Secret advertisements, which is one of the few catalogues a man generally grabs from the mail pile nd eagerly reads. Kang tries to answer the question: what messages do magazine advertisements on women transmit to society (1997: 979)? Following closely on Erving Goffman’s original study on gender analysis, the findings in this article are quite similar to the original survey that not much of a change has occurred over the years in the way women’s roles are portrayed. Advertisements have consistently confined women to the traditional role of a mother, or beauty, or sex symbol, and these do not represent women’s diversity [Kang 1997: 981]. This is similar to what Matlin refers to as gender stereotypes in ads.
Ads use women not as humans but as objects. Stereotypes and generalisations in ads continue to objectify women, and place stress solely on their appearance, thus devaluing their innate worth. Kilbourne (1995) points out that a picture ad by only looking at one part of the body, for instance, the breasts, dismembers the woman’s body and objectifies her. This effect is demonstrated in alcohol or beverages or perfume ads that use a women’s body as the bottle. Ads seem to show more often skinny women cleaning the bathroom, making dinner or even worse putting on make-up; the women in these pictures are never heavy or even verage in size. The ads are made to portray unrealistic and over-exaggerated images. Women may indeed be engaged in such tasks; but how many women at home are organising their husband’s clothes and dusting antiques, wearing the latest makeup collection or the newest and trendiest outfit? These ads are so reminiscent of the 1950s image of June Cleaver waiting for her husband Ward to come home, while she cooks dinner and waters the plants wearing her pearl necklace. Again, we 3334 see the emphasis on the woman being attractive, no matter what role she plays. Once more, we see that advertisements ranslate and portray attractiveness as being tall, skinny and with flawless skin to condition the onlookers and attract them to such representations made in the ad. Kilbourne is a pioneering researcher on the topic of misrepresentation of women in advertisements. She is an avid lecturer, and has produced many videos on the topic of her lectures. Her most recent book Can’t Buy My Love (1999) talks about the way advertising can influence women and mould their opinions. Just as we are more vulnerable to the glory and heartbreak of romantic love than we will ever be again, at no time are we more vulnerable to the eductive power of advertising and of addiction than we are in our adolescence [Kilbourne 1999: 129]. Thus, we are shown how a woman is actually influenced by ads and can end up physically trying to change to fit what she sees as acceptable because the advertisers show her that she needs to be skinny. In her video ‘Killing us Softly 3’, Kilbourne continues to look at magazine advertisements and the images they promote. She looks carefully at what Goffman outlines as his “categories” to analyse advertisements. 2 Kilbourne’s mandate is to make people take ads seriously because they do have an effect on humans and specially marginalised groups in this case, women. In her video, she touches on the obvious, but often forgotten, fact that technology plays a part in what we view as the perfect-looking person [Kilbourne 2000]. It is impossible to remove every line or blemish to create the illusion we viewers try to create. That is why I feel that ads are not healthy for women because they give that fond hope that we could look like that person if we just, do/use ‘this’ and take ‘that’. What many viewers do not realise, as Kilbourne so quickly pointed out, is that often what we see are advertisements that have been air-brushed or created from a atabase of physical parts of various attractive human beings [Kilbourne 1995]. So Kilbourne asks the real question: when only 5 per cent of women can look like models why do we rush around to look like something we cannot be? [Kilbourne 2000]. Kilbourne’s research proves that young girls are easily influenced by these ads and will do anything to create the look granted as attractive. Cultivating a thinner body offers some hope of control and success to young women with a poor self- image [Kilbourne 1999: 132]. The image of beauty in thinness is often the only body type ever advertised, and therefore shown to women.
Marilyn Monroe was a national sex symbol, but was a size 12! [Kilbourne 2000]. It was originally thought that the extra skinny women would wear clothes well for a designer, and that way the audience would only see the outfit not the body because there was not much to see. Unfortunately, that plan backfired and the media had a field day with stressing the beauty of the women under the supposed item in question, the outfit. In the past, women who were skinny were not attractive, and were even thought of to be living a povertystricken life because they were so thin. In the present day, many young girls do not ee that these images of being thin are unattainable, and turn to being anorexic or bulimic [Stemple and Tyler 1974: 272]. Having advertisers choose what is sexy is not correct or healthy for a society. Girls live day by day on what is cool or not because the latest issue of Cosmopolitan dictates what is cool. Their life revolves around the new ‘get fit diet’, or around the top that makes them look like they have extra big breasts. The advertisement in the Martha Stewart magazine (January 2002) is an example of how women of all ages can become the new target audience. It would be logical o assume that ‘Billi Jo’ can be seen as a middle-aged person (shown in the picture of herself in the inset before she lost weight). Following her use of the Jenny Craig Ultimate Choice Program, she was able to lose weight and feel good again. Keep in mind that it does state that results are not typical, but still the persuasive language and attractive picture only assist in making the advertisement truthful. The advertisement was featured in the prestigious Martha Stewart magazine. This magazine personifies a specific image of good taste and sophistication, which is another way to promote these ad images s acceptable. Kilbourne talks about the objectification of women. This is a common advertising tactic often used. “Many ads feature just a part of a woman’s body – a derriere, a headless torso” [Kilbourne 1999:258]. An article in Newsweek explored the truth of stereotypes and how these stereotypes affect the genders. In the eyes of Cross (1996), this can be seen as gender typing: the process by which we identify not only people, but also vocabulary and speech patterns, gestures and behaviours, objects Economic and Political Weekly August 10, 2002 and activities as either masculine or feminine [Cross 1996: 94].
By allowing this to happen, stereotypes are formed and perpetuated by the people who believe in these gender stereotypes. Claude Steele, a Stanford University psychologist, showed something more important – the impact on targets of a stereotype whose behaviour is most powerfully affected by it. A stereotype that pervades the culture the way ‘ditzy blondes’ and ‘forgetful seniors’ do, makes people painfully aware of how society views them – so painfully aware, in fact, that knowledge of stereotypes can affect how well they do on intellectual and other tasks [Begley 2000: 66]. This in turn emonstrates the truth of how gender stereotyping contributes to this problem and sustains its existence. Generalisations of this nature can be seen to have a role in advertising campaigns. Either they are the ads that create the gender stereotype or sustain it through pictures and catchy slogans, such as ‘you’ve come a long way, baby’. The ad for Victoria’s Secrets shows a woman, but all you see is her body with a caption of ‘all you see is curves’. This model’s gestures and behaviour are portrayed as feminine, and she only helps to further the idea of women as objects and more so as merely shadows in the dark.
Another example of how popular culture material only encourages the stereotypes to exist is e-mail that defines what are seen to be the differences in male and female vocabulary patterns; this is a demonstration of what Cross defines as gender typing. Stemple and Tyler (1974) are able to give a brief synopsis of the historical changes of women in advertisements, ultimately showing how the portrayal of women has not changed very much over time. There is still the emphasis placed in the ads on what we should be, but not what we are. The ever so prominent theme still jumps out to the reader of how advertising elped to create an obsession with a woman’s physical appearance. The obsession became so deeply imbedded in women in a short span of time that they began to believe that if they did not work to look like the women in the advertisements – beautiful and youthful – they would never get or keep a man [Stemple and Tyler 1974: 272]. The most surprising aspect of this article was the survey conducted on how 30 college women interpreted these advertisements. Stemple and Tyler found that these women were not affected by the images the ads showed and felt no real Economic and Political Weekly negativity.
These results were questionable, but still useful in showing the different assumptions that can be made on this topic. Not knowing the criteria or specifics of these individuals, I speculate that the sample that saw these ads was small, and maybe these women have been exposed to this type of ad so often that they are immune to the message and image from these ads. As mentioned earlier in this paper, Kilbourne talks about how ads need to be taken seriously and not disregarded because there is a larger picture that results out of the message the advertisements give off; the idea of ‘perfection’ for women.
She has shown how women’s obsession with body image has been nurtured by the advertising industry, and how historically this has not changed the idea that only skinny and pretty women live on earth. Women have to remember that it is the image that is imperfect, not the body [Wrinkler 1994: 231]. Sullivan and O’Connor give you an idea of alternative bias on the topic of advertisements influencing what women think. Results indicate that current advertisements in some ways reflect more acutely the true diversity of women’s social and occupational roles than did those of earlier time periods (1988: 181). This is not to say that hanges have not occurred in the area of advertising. We have seen an increase in the appearance of males in magazines, but they are still not being degraded in the same manner as women are usually portrayed. This is an extreme limitation to a controversial argument that ads create an unrealistic image of what women should look like and in turn causes women to feel a large sense of insecurity about themselves. One reason for the findings could be that this article did take its conclusions from the late 1950s to the early 1980s. On the contrary, the earlier article by Stemple and Tyler (1974) concluded that not much as changed in the way women are shown in ads. Sullivan and O’Connor looked specifically at the connection between social changes and the way in which the media has reflected these changes in advertisements since 1910. These authors are able to argue that ads have gone against what they have been stereotyped to do; show women in the home, needing the help of a male, and as decorative pieces. They feel that those responsible for the creation of magazine advertising have begun to recognise the increasing economic and social status of women in America [Sullivan and O’Connor 1988: 188]. The reasons for August 10, 2002 hese assumptions could range from their choice of magazines analysed to the nature of sample group they used. Even though they were able to state that changes had occurred on the image and the way women are used, they still felt that there was room for improvement. How many ads realistically depict women in their true form? The argument would seem to centre on whether advertisements have changed to realistically portray women or that there is no change in their portrayal. But both sides will agree that there can always be more improvement in this area. The true goal of advertisers is to create an image hat will generate profits for the product they are selling. The question remains whether these advertising executives are conscious of the societal problems created by them or whether they have intentionally created them as part of their selling strategy. We will never be told. We do know is that they do profit from advertisements that encourage girls to want something more, something difficult to attain/achieve in the context of where they are now. Looking through various current magazines, it was apparent that the stereotypes are evident, but maybe not to the extent that we have seen in the past. Could a hange be taking place? Sullivan and O’Connor feel that advertisements are changing with time. Women should be better represented, and not as Matlin would say, stereotyped characters. Kilbourne disagrees with this so-called change, and feels that much larger problems have been created by advertisements. Her research has shown that women’s selfesteem goes down at adolescence due to advertisements that portray a fake reality of women to these susceptible teenage minds [Kilbourne 2000]. This is not to say that men are left out of this process of stereotyping. They are stereotyped too, but men are usually generalised as being too ld or extremely wealthy [Kilbourne 2000]. Advertisements for men often do not degrade them by comparing them to objects, or focus on their thighs being too large and hence needing the new cream to create longer legs in four days or less! Advertisements and Their Impact A recent article in a York University student newspaper, Excalibur (January 2002) illustrates the feeling the university student experiences with advertisements and the allure of new products. The caption defiantly uses gender-specific terms to only 3335 emphasis the stress of being a woman these days. If people do not ‘smooth their wrinkles or improve their pigment’, they ay not feel like a woman or even a person. This ad seems to carry plenty of sarcastic overtones of hate for this type of environment at York University. It seems that institutions such as a university are a focal point for advertisers to market their new ideas and watch if the trends take off. Another article in the university newspaper contributes to this materialistic critique of the university environment. The title, ‘You are What You Wear’, sums up the basic point of how the York students feel that clothes, and in a larger sense looks and appearance, shape the views of others. The interesting point of the article is that t is written from a black woman’s point of view on the topic of ‘label’ dressers. The author seems to be more embarrassed that black students follow the trends and sport the labels because, “wearing these name brands gives the wearer an elevated status” [Barnes 2002:8]. Her argument seems to be similar to mine, that if you know yourself, then you may not be caught up in this fashion trend. But when looking at university students and this fashion environment, I cannot help but question whether this is a problem only for this age group. Advertisements have now changed their target towards multi-audiences with ne ad. Why would we think that this label issue affects only our demographics? Well it does not, and the message sent through ads is that everyone should be a part of this cultural trend of dressing well. Advertisements have the power to make the poor, rich, fat or skinny students feel insecure about their selves. If they did not, then what good would these ads be? The insecurity created by pictures ensures that the consumer will be spending or trying something to fix their appearance. Labels are just another area where advertisers use a name to target the audience. A name goes a long way, especially when ttractive individuals wear the advertised clothes. Klein (2000) attacks this problem created by advertisers. A major reason why these advertisements are placed in schools is due to one basic fact. The advertising agencies are aware that students form their opinions in this environment, and take them with them wherever they go. Is it not better to start at this easy, impressionable age and have students edified into believing what the advertisements preach? They want conformity and lack of decision on 3336 the consumer’s part. That is what I see as so ironic, we are in an institution to learn and form our own views and not try to be haped by others. Oddly enough, in a university or college, there is an effort made in using other people’s views, and then shaping our own, for example, to learn about Freud’s or Erikson’s theories on child socialisation and then creating your own point of view. The use of popular cultural material creates a vehicle that makes it a lot easier to shape a person’s point of view. This is second nature to the advertisers producing this abundance of ads in magazines. The university is seen as an ideal starting point. Klein focuses on the university as a tool/ venue used by brand-name companies to establish themselves.
For example, many universities will turn to the scientific community for funding of new university building and locations, such as the University of Western Ontario’s 3M Centre devoted to research in the sports medicine field. Or they will accept donations placing these company names before the university name on the large sign that greets students before they enter their new learning environment. Klein concludes by saying how, “university campus in particular with their residences, libraries, green spaces and common standards for open and respectful discourse play a crucial, if now largely symbolic, role: they are the one lace left where young people can see a genuine public life being lived” [Klein 2000: 105]. This seems to be ideal but not evident from our conversation on advertisements and the power they hold to possess individuals to create unrealistic goals for themselves. Universities are filled with logos – ideals and images to follow which only create a larger plain of unrealistic pictures of what women should be like. The difference between viewing an image and hearing or imagining is that ones imagination can create an unrealistic image in a person’s mind. Itamar Marcus is the Canadian director of the Palestinian Media
Watch, which is a privately funded organisation that monitors the media’s influence on the citizens of that country. Through his presentation on the topic of media and the powerful influences they create, he demonstrates the power pictures and words have. He explains that the media has shaped the lives and views of these people. People believe what they have been told, and furthermore what the specially edited books tell them [Marcus 2002]. In this case, Marcus shows how the school books have been rearranged to teach the youth a history different from what is taught elsewhere in the world. The Palestinian ids learn that Israel is not a country, and they are told that cities like Jaffa are a part of their land. By viewing these distorted maps or pictures they believe what they are told even more. This shows the power that words carry and the effect that images have on a group of people. Another example is the manner in which the youth of Palestine are taught to hate westerners. With pictures of westerners raping and killing their people, they are made to believe what they are told to be the truth about the western world. Marcus points out how images such as these are so “powerful” that the youth are socialised to become martyrs or their country because they see it as the right way to act. The government is using its power to create images that are not necessarily true. Verbal or written images will coerce individuals to use their own reference to imagine the truth, but pictures show exactly what they want us to believe. This is a situation illustrating how the way an image when projected with design has power and an undeniable appeal and validity. In North America, the advertisers use their power to create unrealistic images for whatever products they are hired to advertise. These images have the power to create an impression, a desire and a reality that ay not always be true. By creating a possibility, a hope and a dream, women are made to hear and then see pictures of other attractive women achieving these goals through using or having these products. These images have a strong and somewhat subliminal effect on them. It is easy to forget that we need to celebrate the differences among human beings and the uniqueness of each. We are not ‘transformer toys’ or ‘robots’ that can change body parts with a snap of the wrist and a new outfit. Advertisers hope that we will buy into these changes. Unfortunately, this misconception is perpetuated by the advertising industry.
The more that women and even men realise that it is all right to listen and read the ads as long as you realise it is not a way to judge yourself by their standards that you will survive in the advertising war of pictures and words. It seems hard not to be concerned with your appearance when there is such an emphasis to look good, right or wrong. Essentially, this paper has been looking at various literature and current advertise- Economic and Political Weekly August 10, 2002 ments to speculate what effect advertisements have on women’s self-images. There still is another facet of the topic that has roubled me: is it not a question of socialisation? Does the way a woman is socialised as a child maturing into adolescence determine the likelihood of her being affected by the media’s depiction of women? If a young girl is taught to be confident and happy with her own self, would she still be influenced by advertisements? Why should the advertisements have the final say on beauty? The simple answer is that we let them. Can girls be properly taught that these pictures and images are not always truthful and that they should not use them as a mirror? Could self-confidence be the proper tool for teenaged girls to overcome he messages from the advertisements? As Marshall McLuhan said, the medium is the message. We need to teach girls how to deal with the message. The message will continue to be strong and distorted. Instead of fighting the images, we should teach girls that these ideals are unattainable and that they should not literally kill themselves to try to look like something that is impossible to achieve. Possibly these young women have been socialised into a pattern of insecurity or worthlessness even before they view advertisements. When they see these images on paper, the images reinforce what they already assumed about their role and omen’s roles in society. It has been stated, however, that since the early 1900s advertisements have depicted women in an insulting and often degrading manner. Hypothetically if the women who grew up during these periods are now mothers, then most likely they taught these norms to their daughters as well. Then the next generation is influenced by these advertising stereotypes, and in turn transfer these ideals to its youth. It believes in what was shown because it was not taught any better. Socialisation is a lifelong process, but it does not guarantee that a person can change or has the tools to change.
With presentday slogans of ‘girl power’ from the Spice Girls, it seems hard to take them seriously when the same girls preaching girl power are wearing close to nothing on stage and over-made up with exaggerated cosmetics and costumes. Stemple and Tyler touch on how the women’s liberation movement has been devalued. The authors showed, however, that ads are a blatant co-opting of the women’s movement; the offensive ‘baby’ in ‘you’ve come along way, baby’ clearly indicates we have not [Stemple and Economic and Political Weekly Tyler 1974: 273]. It has been shown that advertisements create a vicious cycle that emands an audience to become engulfed with an idea in order to create a profit for their clients. These advertisements and social ideas, rather than education that teaches you to be objective and critical, have been engraved in one’s culture and in the psyche of the general population. It seems to be illogical and naive on the part of any women who feel they need to starve themselves or throw up their food in order to look ‘good’. It is obvious to see how these girls feel that this is what they are supposed to do to deal with societal pressures of looking a specific way. It is difficult to accept, but women have been ingrained with hese pseudo-images. In turn, women and girls buy into this fantasy in the hope of fulfilling their desires and dreams. -29 Notes 1 Margaret Matlin outlines what she views as ‘stereotyped representations’. She states, “Hundreds of studies have been conducted in the representation of women in the media. From these resources we can draw the following conclusions”. She continues on to outline seven stereotypes that target women these are: 1) Women are relatively invisible; 2) Women are relatively inaudible; 3) Although most women are employed they are seldom shown working outside the home; 4) Women are shown oing housework; 5) Women and men are represented differently; 6) Women’s bodies are used differently from men’s bodies in advertisements; 7) Women of colour – when they are shown at all – are often represented in a particularly biased way [Matlin 1987: 43-44]. Her conclusions are helpful in deciphering the reality of how women are affected by advertisements. It was very useful to have these stereotyped representations to add a sense of soundness to the conclusions made on the advertisements and the societal situation that has been created. 2 Kang, Mee-Eun, ‘The Portrayal of Women’s Images in Magazine Advertisements: Goffman’s
Gender Analysis Revisited’ Sex Roles: A Journal of Research 37 11/12 (1997): 979-996. pp 984985: The following theoretical definitions in Goffman’s Gender Advertisements are utilised in this study: (1) Relative size: One way in which social weight (eg, power, authority, rank, office, and renown) is echoed expressively in social situations is through relative size, especially height. The male’s usual superiority of status over the female will be expressible in his greater girth and height. It is assumed that differences in size will correlate with differences in social weight. (2) Feminine touch: Women, more than men, re pictured using their fingers and hands to trace outlines of an object or to cradle it or to caress its surface or to effect a “just barely touching”. This ritualistic touching is to August 10, 2002 distinguish from the utilitarian kind that grasps, manipulates, or holds. (3) Function ranking: When a man and a woman collaborate face – to face in an undertaking, the man is likely to perform the executive role. This hierarchy of functions is pictured either within an occupational frame or outside of occupational specialisations. (4) Ritualisation of subordination: A classic stereotype of deference is that of lowering oneself hysically in some form or other of prostration. Correspondingly, holding the body erect and the head high is stereotypically a mark of unashamedness, superiority, and disdain. The configurations of canting postures can be read as an acceptance of subordination, an expression of ingratiation, submisssiveness, and appeasement. (5) Licensed withdrawal: Women more than men are pictured engaged in involvements which remove them psychologically from the social situation at large, leaving them unoriented in it and to it, and dependent on the protectiveness of others who are present. Turning one’s gaze away rom another’s can be seen as having the consequence of withdrawing from the current thrust of communication (p 62). The individual can also withdraw his/her gaze from the scene at large, and be psychologically “away” from the scene. References Barnes, Alicia (2002): ‘You are What You Wear’ Excalibur, February 1. Begley, Sharon (2000): ‘The Stereotype Trap: from ‘white men can’t jump’ to ‘girls can’t do math,’ negative images that are pervasive in the culture can make us choke during test of ability’, Newsweek, November 6, p 66, downloaded from: Gale Group Database, January 30, 2002. Cross, Mary (1996): Advertising and Culture:
Theoretical Perspectives, Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT. Kang, Mee-Eun (1997): ‘The Portrayal of Women’s Images in Magazine Advertisements: Goffman’s Gender Analysis Revisited’, Sex Roles: A Journal of Research 37, 11/12, 979-96. Kilbourne, Jean (1995): ‘Slim Hopes: Advertising and Obsession with Thinness’, videotape, Cambridge Documentary Films. – (1999): Can’t Buy My Love, Touchstone, New York: Simon and Schuster. – (2000): ‘Killing Us Softly 3: Advertising’s Image of Women’, Videotape, Cambridge Documentary Films. Klein, Naomi (2000): No Logo, Random House, Toronto. Matlin, Margaret W (1987): The Psychology of
Women, Orlando, Florida: Harcourt Brace and Company, pp 41-45,461-70. Marcus, Itamar (2002): The Encouragement of Suicide Bombers and Terrorists in the Official Palestinian Authority Newspapers (a speech) January 22. Stemple, Diane and Jane E Tyler (1988): ‘Sexism in Advertising’, The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 34. 1, pp 271-73. Sullivan, Gary L and P J O’Connor (1988): ‘Women’s Role Portrayals in Magazine Advertising: 1958-1983’, Sex Roles: Journal of Research, 18. 3/4, pp 181-88. Winkler, Mary G (1994): ‘The Model Body’, The Good Body: Asceticism in Contemporary Culture, Yale University, Connecticut. 3337