Opinions

Women objectified

First of all, let's get a few things straight. Yes, I am the Emily Elder who has been raising stink about some of the Gauntlet's advertising, for reasons you'll soon learn if you finish this article. Yes, I am a feminist. No, I do not hate men, or sex, or porn.

Let's talk about advertising. Let's start with one particular ad that has now been pulled. There are lots of problems related to this ad, but not confined to it. It showed a young, buxom, scantily clad woman holding a cigar. Originally, she also wore a button, reading "Get me drunk! And then see what happens." In the context of the image, this drew a link between alcohol and sex that poses a threat to women. After all, if the same button had appeared on an image of a nun, would it carry the same image? I don't think so.

In what world would anyone consider this acceptable? Clearly, since it appeared in the ad, someone did. Apologies were gracefully given, and the text was edited out of the ad, replaced by a smiley face. But did that change the message of that ad?

I don't think the explicit message telling male viewers what to do is necessary. This, and similar images in bar advertising, say it implicitly. Su-zen Harris, a PhD student in the Department of Education, explains.

"It's insulting to us as readers to claim that this is a neutral image when advertisers want us to believe that certain images don't carry a message," Harris states. "That's how they work, we come with a certain kind of literacy because we've seen them repeatedly. To remove the text didn't cleanse the image of its sexism. Those sexist ideologies are embedded in that ad and other ads are all part of the same system of images."

Feminists have been struggling to get sexually objectified images of women out of every form of advertising for 40 years.

"I agree with the idea that on some level this kind of linkage between sex and alcohol stays with us. It gets to the point where we don't question it anymore," says Harris. "That's what's problematic here. We've come to normalize these images as acceptable images of women."

Why, on a university campus, are images sexualizing and degrading women still so common that no one even blinks at seeing them in a school paper?

As a matter of fact, these kinds of ads mostly appear in campus newspapers. This particular ad ran in the Gauntlet, the Mount Royal College Reflector, and the SAIT Emery Weal and nowhere else. Hyper-sexualized imagery is being aimed solely at students.

What are we being told about ourselves? That all we care about is partying, booze, and sex? Aren't we paying too bloody much for our degrees to care about nothing but a good time?

Let's talk to you, boys. Rather than being snagged by the hot chick technique, when you think about it, they're talking about your sister, your girlfriend, your best female friend. Do you want any woman you care about to go to a bar, and get looked at like she's a piece of meat? Do you want to look at women like they're pieces of meat? You're being told your penis thinks more clearly than your brain. Is that how you want to think about yourself?

Girls, one in four Canadian women experiences sexual violence at some point in her lifetime. That's you, or your sister, or one of your best friends. These exploitative images are linked to that. You're taught to be more accommodating and submissive than boys, so when you're approached by a guy who has learned to be aggressively sexual, you may not know how to keep saying no, or to fight off sexual attention you aren't sure you want, especially after some drinks.

This is especially true when the images we receive about ourselves, even in our place of study where we should be safe and equal, tell us implicitly the only interesting or useful thing about a woman is her body. We should all be bikini-clad and wet, or undressing after some drinks, or "girls going wild." The sexualization of the school girl outfit again tells us, "who cares what your brain is doing, honey? It's your boobs I want."

Now, I'm all for sex and feeling sexy, but not to market drinks for someone else's profit.

Fiona Nelson, Director of the Women's Studies Program in the Faculty of Communication and Culture, agrees.

"It's problematic for women who deserve to be here on campus on equal footing to be surrounded by objectifying imagery," Nelson explains. "Women are not equal on campus in ways that are pervasive. The fears women feel on an empty floor in the library or walking alone across campus really make for unequal access to education. These inequalities are insidious and invisible to men. Women can feel nervous alone at night, in the library, can feel offended by professors making innuendoes or sexist jokes, and not leap to 'that's inequality' and that's an issue."

Why do women not protest advertising like this?

"Part of the problem is that girls are given the message early and clearly that our primary worth lies in our sexual attractiveness," Nelson continues. "For women at university, even career women, this still remains priority number one, so it doesn't seem that odd for women to look at sexualized images of women. Women have been constructed in our culture as the sex, so many women are not looking at those images and feeling alienated by them."

Ads like this aren't aimed at women. Why not? Women constitute over half of the University of Calgary's undergraduates. Why would bars choose not to advertise to women on a campus where most undergraduate students are women?

"There is also a dialogue between businesses and heterosexual males, to the exclusion and exploitation of everyone else. That's just as problematic, the fact that women are not part of that dialogue, that no one thinks, 'what would bring women here?' It's like we're not even part of the public realm," Nelson states.

It's also disturbing that we're seeing pornography used as advertising. Yes, I said pornography. The specific ad I described was originally the cover of Playboy, November 1980.

Think about that.

Softcore pornography is being used to market booze to people who are supposed to be intelligent and critically minded. And yet, there's no outcry on our campus. As soon as this ad appeared in the Reflector, MRC's Womyn In Action organized a petition calling for sexist ads to be banned in their paper. They were also the organizers of a protest at the Whiskey nightclub Fri., Sept. 26.

Finally, anyone who either isn't straight, or doesn't fit the woman/man gender categories, you're being told that your business and your money doesn't count. Harris sums it up well.

"This isn't simply a women's issue and it's not just women who find this offensive."

So, what are you going to do?

Any further questions? Direct them to eelder@ucalgary.ca.

Tags: 

Section: 

Issue: 

Comments

Nicely said, Emily. Just one small point: the one in four stat for women being attacked is based on *reported* incidents. Most experts guess that it's probably closer to one in two or possibly even three in four, though that's based purely on their anecdotal evidence and really can't be supported. Either way - one of the things that contributes to violence against women is the continued objectification of them in advertising; another is the refusal to talk about it. Thanks for speaking up...keep fighting the good fight!

Great work, emily! Thanks for giving a public voice to what many women were saying.

why don't you campaign against detours for their 'wet wednesdays' ad which depict a young man in brief grabbing his crotch

or

better yet...the SUN for their use of the sunshine girl...

or maybe even temptation island or paradise hotel....

also, you'll realise that the ad was a 'univeristy of whiskey' promotion...where else did you expect them to market? oil magazines?

sure...no one wants rape and abuse, etc...but you're so far off the mark here in grabbing one particular ad, and extending it's message that it's ridiculous...i hope you're self-promotion has reaped you rewards in your community, because in other communities...namely those of realists, you're like the doctors saying we shouldn't drink milk cause it'll cause cancer.

what's worse...questionable advertising or allowing someone with such an outlandish opinion to be voiced out of political apathy by select news agencies?

i hope you've grabbed enough 'attention' for now and you can crawl away again.

This is directed to 'disgusted' who wrote the previous comments:

I will address the questions you raised in your rant, although this might be a futile effort ñ considering how invested you seem to be in perpetuating the sexualized objectification of women in advertising.

You ask why the author doesn't campaign against a number of other advertisements objectifying both women and men. Well, the fact you posed this question raises doubt in my mind you even read the article. That is the point, my friend. Let me repeat ñ that is exactly the point being raised! This article is not protesting
one advertisement in particular and extending it across the board for no reason, but is rather commenting on the whole paradigm of advertising that diminishes women to nothing but tits and ass.

I assume you've visited the men's room during a bar night, and stood their at the urinal, tipsy in your drunkenness; mindlessly staring at the advertisements of women - with bosom in focus, and head out of the picture, and of course an alcohol logo somewhere in the mix. "Get Lucky!" it says. Get Lucky is the message - because you deserve it. Go get her tiger. What kind of behaviour do you think this promotes? This ties in with your next comment and I quote: "sureÖno one wants rape and abuse etcÖbut you're so far off the mark here in grabbing one particular ad and extending its message that it's ridiculous."

First off, I would like to comment on how easily you dismissed "rape and abuseÖ etc." Etcetera!? Excuse me? What else do you mean by etcetera?! Perhaps you missed the point in the article regarding the frequency of abuse on women. Where do you think this stems from? Now of course it would be naÔve to suggest it is entirely a function of advertisements in newspapers and above bar urinals. But would you perhaps admit it may play a part?

No? Well, that's ok, I'll move on to the next point you raise about "communities of realists". Well, you might want to question what it is that comprises your own sense of realism. This article deals with real issues, most likely which have touched yourself or your female friends and family. And, I might be so cruel as to ask you honestly and openly whether you have ever touched a female without her due consent? Realistically, it is fellows such as yourself, who so adamantly seek to oppress open and informed critique such as this article, who are in the process of suppressing something inside themselves. You might want to sit down and ask yourself what exactly that is; and why, my friend, you are so fiercely attacking this article.

Please feel free to respond. But only doing so if you have taken the time to seriously reflect on yourself, your relationships with females, and further, to specifically address the questions I have raised.

Thank you,
Jay

I'm doing a research paper on the objectification of women and this article was very useful to me. I loved the in-your-face tone to it. It really made me think.
Publication YearIssue Date