Reflexivity and Feminist Rage

[wolven7]

Point of feminist rage, for the day: Women aren't a minority; they are merely endemically and systematically shat upon.

Seriously, if you care about the actual making of Television, and quality writing from the perspectives of women, then Read This Article: http://t.co/X7fjIH8

There's a lot, in there, to be angry about, make no mistake. For instance, doesn't it fucking bother you that in 2011 it's simply fucking accepted that all ads for cleaning products and most ads for kids' cereals/foods are STILL targeted to "moms?" For fuck's sake, the slogan is still "Choosy Moms Choose Jiff!" What about choosy dads? What about choosy grandparents? But Whatever. That's not even the real point, right here.

Why is it so hard to reccognise that our expectations at the very least colour our actions? Why is it difficult to recognise that what we expect to be the case influences those situations and potentialities for which we provide a space. If I think the world always will and must look and behave a certain way, then I will only provide a social structure in which those appearances and behaviours can arise. Whether I do this consciously or unconsciously matters only in regards to how long it will take to change the structure, but either way there will be resistance.

Gender-nomartive advertising presupposes that the world as presented in the commercials is the way that things are supposed to be, and by reflecting those suppositions, reinforces them.

Stop Doing It.

[Edit 8.29pm: Yeah, kind of like this: http://youtu.be/9swKKZy0CCM ]

Comments

[karishi.livejournal.com]

Surprisingly related: check today's Penny Arcade rant from Tycho.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Very related. "Culture Creators" indeed.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

no.

Ads on TV and in print from corporations have millions of dollars invested in them. They do research out the butthole and back in again before they figure out their marketing campaign. The reason - for example - cleaning products and kids' cereal is marketed to women is because women overwhelmingly buy them. Its simply not in their interest to market most things gender-neutral.

Not saying its right but frankly when your product has no rational advantage over someone elses product then you must use psychology to sell.

And no offense but I don't think you know a lot of moms. I have known tons and I go online places where other moms go to talk. And believe me, moms aren't the ones buying the peanut butter because the tv fucking tells them to, they buy it because its a part of being a mom; feeling like you are nurturing your kids. I'm certainly not the only mother who gets a weird sense of satisfaction out of grocery shopping. Its not the "shopping" part that I like (I hate it) its the providing sustenance for my family that I enjoy. Most of the moms I know feel the same way. Our husbands just generally want to buy something to fill the belly, there's no spiritual "connection" for them in buying food. But many a father admits a weird enjoyment in knowing his family can afford to buy whatever they need. Its intrinsic to fatherhood; wanting to keep your family safe an secure.

These aren't just stereotypes, there's real rationale behind them. Sure the media distorts and exploits those feelings and tendancies but only because there's a grain of truth in them.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I actually do know a lot of moms. I was primarily raised by women. They're the predominant gender on both sides of my very large family, and almost all of them have kids. This isn't to get into my friends who are parents, and so on and so forth. I know a lot of parents, all around.

That sense of satisfaction is precisely what I'm talking about: That is a cultural value-- one based in a set of biological urges, yes, but still culturally controlled-- and cultural values are constructed by effects and pressures within and throughout the culture. If we were to place more cultural importance on Fathers being the ones who sustain and nurture, then that would be the predominant cultural mode. They would be the ones gaining more of this "sense of satisfaction."

And obviously these are all generalisations: Some mothers are utilitarian and efficiency minded, and some fathers nurture and sustain their families in an emotional and spiritual way. Most parents do some combination of all of the above and more.

I don't think that people are being duped. I think that there are particular culturally-created gender norms which are being leveraged, sustained, and reinforced for the sake of-- at the very least-- advertising dollars. And i think that's sick.

No, it's not sick that we have an idea that Parents Nurture. What's sick is the assumption that Mothers Do, and they do it in These Ways, and the intimation that if they don't try to do it in These Ways, then they're bad mothers, wives, Women.

And the same can be said for male-targeted advertising.

[plantyhamchuk.livejournal.com]

You think it's sick that advertising uses culturally-created gender norms? Advertising uses whatever works, whatever identity or stereotype or fear or congnitive bias or insecurity. This is what pays for all those tv shows. Even the article you linked talks about how the advertisers call the shots on the tv shows.

Tv programs exist MERELY to sell advertising time. That's why the tv execs couldn't give a crap less about how many women are hired for a given show - it's simply not relevant to the bottom line.

There is a whole movement dedicated to fighting against the hypermarketed world we live in, you might be interested in Adbusters as a starting point, in case you aren't already familiar. Marketing is usually more regressive than progressive, because it's more profitable that way.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Advertising uses whatever works. . . This is what pays for all those tv shows.

Exactly correct, and I think that's short-sighted, and does long-term damage to the collective psyche of our species, and the cultures we generate from here on out, yes.

And Ironically? I find Adbusters to be engaging in the same kind of negative actions and effects they try to take down.

We need a nuanced reading of the interconnectedness of culture and behaviour, and too many people don't get the opportunity to learn about that.

And we need a model that doesn't take advertising revenue into account, so to speak, but instead takes quality and viewer engagement. If we can show how that can work, then we can change a great deal of things about marketing and advertising.

Pay per view?

[plantyhamchuk.livejournal.com]

How about HBO? There's also public tv. Culture is transmitted countless ways, and old media (tv, in this case) is struggling to find any model to remain relevant. It's my understanding that there's strictly online shows, which if it's pay per view, might be a more modern take on HBO's model that's been around for quite some time now.

I view marketing as a choice, it is possible to avoid (though not 100%), I'm much happier when I avoid it. Hence, adblock. Tivo's been allowing people to fast-forward through commercials for years, no?

This all looks like bread and circuses to me - and this is why. I've been continuing to digest it ever since I first read it almost a week ago, and nothing else has come close to fueling my attention or outrage, so I apologize if I'm approaching this from a fairly jaded POV. It's just that while Rome is burning down everyone's complaining that the circus isn't nuanced enough.

Re: Pay per view?

[wolven.livejournal.com]

There are a number of existing models which can be altered and leveraged. We just need a bit more of a push to Do so.

So far as Bread and Circuses go, I can understand that perspective. There are a great number of things wrong in the world, today, all of which need to be addressed in some non-trivial way, but I think that US politics and culture are not just symptomatic, but are in fact the most likely inroads for change. If we can inundate people with cultural representations that express more than a culture of fear or repression-- a culture which is using our worst natures against us for poling percentages-- then we can use that inundation to make the vast multiplicity of those cultures seem not just plausible and possible, but Likely, and Necessary.

It's my hope that the cultural vantage can be used to spark a desire for overall structural change.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

I don't wholly agree. Then again, I'm thinking in nuance and it feels like you're being just as extremist in your sociological proclamations as the ads you denounce. Yes, mothers gain satisfaction from feeding their kids. This isn't fucking cultural, its goddamned biological - we have the milk. Even a woman who's not breast fed her child feels this primal urge because its built into our bodies we carry the goddamned food around on our bodies, that's how primal it is. I deal with mothers who mourn their inability to breastfeed and all my comfort in the world can't really fight the primal urge to feed your child with your body. All the rationale in the world doesn't erase that urge. It extends past weaning too. Meanwhile, men are the ones standing over breastfeeding mom makign sure that magic dance isn't interrupted. That's his primal job and that's encoded in their bodies as well - they have the muscles and size to shield us.

I understand you look at ads and think they are creating a lopsided picture but that's only because you're stratifying each ad as a stand-alone. Ads geared towards fathers play upon their protective instincts. put the "nurture with food" together with "protect with force" and that's pretty much all the stereotyping needed. Because when it comes to parenting, those two things get at the heart of it all. I find it interesting you don't notice the ads that portray parents with older children, strapping them into car seats, reading stories to them, carrying them while they sleep, -all that gets shown too. But when the product is straight-forward, like cleaning products or food, well that's going to appeal to WOMEN so that's where the ads go. Notice fast food ads usually are geared towards men. Because usually men are the ones who respond better to the idea of "just eat something that tastes good, don't worry about the rest" - women don't.

Those gender norms are being reinforced because people LIKE THEM. Sorry but not all feminists are running around being power brokers in suits or going rock-climbing. There's a sizeable chunk of womanhood who are quite happy to be SAHMs and they are no less feminist.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

and from everything I've read and heard, the power-broker moms are STILL the ones doing the grocery shopping and cleaning the floor after work.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I never said that being a stay at home mother makes anyone less of a feminist. I said that the Presupposition that that's what they WILL DO is anti-feminist, and that what modern advertising has done and continues to do is reinforce that presupposition.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

and I'm saying that's NOT the presupposition; WOTHM and SAHM both are overwhelmingly in charge of the feeding and overall care of the children. This isn't some 50s stereotype that the media is MAKING them do, its what happens. That's the point i'm making. Women are the huge majority of shoppers and cooks and childcare-givers. This isn't supposition, its the truth. And there's reasons why that's true. It may not always be FAIR but it is true.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I disagree.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

as I said, its not FAIR but its true:

2 page in WaPo (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/gender/gender22a.htm)

aggregate study (http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/45606/1/11199_2005_Article_BF01544202.pdf)

I don't know the conclusion of this paper but the given is that gender inequalities in division of labor has not been altered despite many approaches and attempted explanations ()

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

bah, third link did not show:

third link is one page (http://www.jstor.org/pss/800637)

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I don't disagree that it's a standing fact, I disagree that it is Necessarily So. Just because something is the case doesn't mean that the fact that it is the case isn't influenced by what people are reinforced to believe that they should feel.

What we think we can and should do is influenced by the structures of our society. That's generally accepted sociology and psychology. What we do is influenced by what we think we can and should do, even if we're aware of those influencing factors.

If we ignore the fact that everything we do creates our culture and propagates attitudes and beliefs further into the next iteration of the culture, then it will be that much harder for people to be able to have a wider field of choice.

It's not that it's not a fact that women may also do these things, it's that it Need Not Be So, and assuming that it always must and should is a failure of imagination as to the realm of different ways we can construct our society so that women aren't expected and enculturated from birth to expect the same things of themselves.

Why not start every person with as blank a slate as possible, and let them find and fill their own roles?

And, in the service of money, and of having neatly categorizeable demographics to whom they can sell products, modern media culture doesn't allow for that. That's all I'm saying here.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Those gender norms are being reinforced because people LIKE THEM.

And people continue to like them, because their culture tells them that it's okay to like them, that this is what they're Supposed To Like.

It's a self-perpetuating cycle.

[opalblack.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure I've heard the same thing said about slavery, reservations/missions, ghettoes, life expectancy disparity, education disparity, poverty, famine, HIV/AIDS, war, ethnic cleansing, and most everything else that harms human beings.

Never by anyone with two functioning neurons to rub together though, so I don't see why it's any more acceptable to say that people like gender conformity than it is to say that people like being poor, or being denied access to health care and education, or watching their children die because of IMF sanctions, or any other bullshit.

Call me an extremist if you like, but I think institutional oppression is wrong, no matter who it's directed towards.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

whoa, enjoying being a mother harms human beings? excuse me?

I really dont' think the "stereotype" of nurturing females is comparable to slavery, ethnic cleansing et al good gawd


Regardless of the sociological impact of the PRESSURE to conform to that stereotype ONLY, the fact remains that its not just a stereotype; its a large part of reality. just because not ALL women like becoming mothers doesn't mean it isn't true for the vast majority of them. And to say they only enjoy it because the media tells them so is really far more cynical and disparaging of humanity than I can possibly entertain.

[opalblack.livejournal.com]

Now I'm sure you're trolling. Either that or you're a clinical moron.

There's no other explanation for you reading that into what I wrote.1

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

so what you're really saying is that women take care of babies and men provide for their families because they think they're supposed to. By the media.

Hellava thing.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

No, that's not what I'm saying, at all, and I've gone to great pains to explain why that's not what I'm saying.

People do what they want to do. But what they want to do is influenced by the structure of the culture in which they live. The more accepted variance there is, within a culture, the wider the wants of the individual. When we are exposed to options other than our own, it causes frisson and cognitive dissonance.

It isn't wrong to want. It's wrong to have your wants limited. It's wrong to have your desires presumed.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

telling people its okay to like them and telling them that's the ONLY option is two different things. I don't think even the almighty advertising media tries to imply that all there is for anyone is the gender stereotypes of the 50s. I don't watch much TV but I see tons of gender-flex and gender-neutral stuff going on in ads. most notably I see women in business suits and men caring for their kids. THe fact that I also see women buying cleaning products and men drinking beer does not mean the other side doesn't exist.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

The vast majority of advertising and television media presume the desires and cultural situation of their audience, and those that don't are the exception. That is changing, obviously (everything changes), but those changes are still small against a vast, strong, and entrenched structure of presupposed ideas about gender, as represented in advertising and media.

The more often we have as the backdrop of our lives a particular kind of relationship or role that we are expected to fill, the more likely we are to take that as true. Again, this is not to say that there's not some truth To it, but that the truth Of it has been over-exaggerated to the point of it becoming the background noise, and the assumed foundation of the very society in which we live.

This Need Not Be The Case.

Women and men should have the fullest range of options presented to them, as often as possible, so that children, adults, and all in-between can be constantly reminded not that women usually clean clothes and care for kids, and men usually drink beer and eat crap food, but that... People do these things.

And, beyond that, a thing which advertising will never have cause to say, but which most people should: People should question why.

You seem to be saying that advertising doesn't influence people's behaviour, doesn't change what they think they can and ought to do. That's patently false. Millions of dollars are spent every Day to make sure it Stays false.

And if advertising didn't alter what people think-- didn't leverage a complex array of tools appeal to some kernel of something inside of people, and then twist that, change that, and use it to influence what they do-- then presidential campaigns wouldn't need to spend hundreds of millions dollars on advertising.

We would-- and we should-- be able to have a conversation about things based on facts. But the emotional appeal is more immediate, easier to manipulate with a narrative.

What I consider to be the "best" advertising, today, recognises the absurdity of this situation, and presents it for everyone to see. Old Spice commercials, for instance.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

but that the truth Of it has been over-exaggerated to the point of it becoming the background noise, and the assumed foundation of the very society in which we live.


That's exactly how I feel. But I also feel that to point a finger at advertising media as if it somehow represents the bulk of cultural normative definitions is myopic.

Advertising most certainly influences people. But that doesn't mean its the sole root cause of cultural stagnation by any means. Advertising capitalizes on cultural generalities, but from my sociological perspective, it doesn't dictate them. Its often lamented that television in general and advertising in particular lags behind reality in spotlighting social progress of any kind.
The issue of presidential campaigns isn't quite the same as basic product ads in that most people get the bulk of their information about politicians via the boob tube. I think the internet is changing that for good. But the point is that gazillions are spent on political TV campaigns because its the surest way to reach the widest audience with the message you WANT to give, rather than whatever ten second sound bite the news MIGHT give you. *shrug* politicians used to rely on pamphletting through private couriers. since political candidates have a limited time frame with which to get their message across, they try to cast the biggest net possible in the shortest time frame. Not quite comparable to hawking a product that's been around for a few decades and will be useful to consumers year-round.

[opalblack.livejournal.com]

The problem is that when you start seeing people as a collection of generalities, you negate their personhood.
Advertising is predicated on the negation of humanity, because advertising is based on identifying and creating target markets/demographics, and pitching a concept to them, not matching up goods and services with people who require them. I don't believe it can be reformed. Advertising which treats people like people would be impossibly complex, and would be the opposite of advertising.
What advertisers sell is attention. The audience, not the ad, is the product advertisers sell to their clients. Thus there can be no advertising which dignifies the humanity of individuals, because to dignify individual humanity would preclude treating people as a commodity.
If most leaves are green, and some cars are green, that doesn't make green cars leaves, no matter how you slice it. But if you're an advertiser, and the brief is to sell to the green demographic, do you give a fuck that cars aren't leaves? It's in your interests not to.

When your brief is to reach mothers, it's in your interests to ignore the fact that primary caregivers aren't all mothers. It's your job to negate fathers, siblings, grandparents, uncles and aunts, and everyone else who provides primary care, and also to negate all mothers who aren't primary caregivers and all women who aren't mothers. Your job is also to negate and overrule the individual needs and interests of all primary caregivers, in order to convince them to buy the product.
So I don't see how advertising can ever be reformed to treat people as people, instead of stupid generalities that can be used to pigeonhole market sectors and shoehorn human beings into consumer demographics of one stripe of another. It's not about reaching out to groups of people who like or do or want the same things, it's about homogenising complex human beings into faceless masses that can be bought and sold without their consent or involvement, or in most cases even their awareness.

Fuck that noise.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

In the end, it's all about how we draw our groupings.

[bakeneko.livejournal.com]

I'm with you. Let's kick the Patrirchal Corporatacracy in the face.

http://womenintvfilm.sdsu.edu/research.html

It is such a bummer that TV is generally more egalitarian than movies (which also reach a majority-female audience), and it's still such a shitty industry for women to try to succeed in. And people can make all the this-is-how-it-is arguments that they want, but it's still morally atrocious that the culture creators cater to white men because they have the money, and then white men get more economic opportunities because the rest of us are culturally programmed to respect their expertise and favor their experience over other peoples'. That there is a cycle of oppression. The fact that it is self-sustaining through financial motivation doesn't make it not a shitty thing which we should fight to tear down.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Yes. Precisely. And Thank you for that link. :)