The Gender Gap in Advertising
From the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848 to the first celebration of International Women's Day in 1911, to the wave of women's suffrage that swept a plethora of countries in the 20th century, the last several hundred years have unquestionably brought about significant advancements in the international campaign for women's rights. While these must and should be recognized, they should also not be seen to the exclusion of contemporary, 21st-century persistence of sexism and gender inequality. While often more subtle now that a hundred years ago, gender dichotomization and unequal portrayal of different genders play a significant role in media and advertisements.
Take, for instance, the Gap campaign for children's clothes advertising boys' clothes marketed as for, "The Little Scholar" and girls' clothes for "The Social Butterfly." Immediately, a difference arises between the framed audiences of the ads. The boys' clothing line is geared toward a smart young boy filled with potential ("Your future starts here") who needs the preppy button-down shirts over Einstein graphic tees (the pairing of which, according to the ad, is a "genius idea") to create a reflection of his intellectual capability. (The graphic tee, ironically, misspells Einstein as "Einstien.") By contrast, the young girls' clothing line paints a young girl as a "Social Butterfly," advertising a pale pink jumper with a large logo by stating that "Chambray shirts + logo sweaters are the talk of the playground"; this emphasizes young girls' supposed social capabilities and completely disregards any intellectual capability they might possess other than cute feminine fashion and socializing. The advertisement creates not only a dichotomy of the appearance of the clothing (preppy, blue, and masculine versus on-trend, pink, and feminine) but also one between the capabilities of the sexes: men being portrayed as academic and filled with potential, and women being portrayed as social creatures filled with gossip.
As someone who appreciates the academic side of life, I was certainly surprised and saddened upon transitioning from the first ad to the second. Seeing how Gap played upon outdated gender stereotypes in an attempt to generate recognition of a new campaign lowered my estimation of the brand. Coming from the perspective of a person who grew up wearing a lot of t-shirts and button-ups, I think that this type of gender break-down to demonstrate clothing style is not only offensive but antiquated and inadequate. In modern society in the United States and elsewhere, there is more freedom of expression in fashion and an increasing overlap between men and women's wardrobe choices. I feel that this ad associates a particular clothing style not only with gender but a specific set of characteristics. This is entirely unrepresentative of the modern age in which feminine and masculine styles of clothing do not necessarily represent either the gender or the attributes of the wearer.
For this reason, I think that this type of gendered advertising rhetoric should be eradicated and replaced with advertising that engages the rhetoric of equality. For instance, why not dress the girl in little button-downs and scientist graphic tees (spelling the names correctly this time), even placing both children in the same photo with the title: "The Little Scholars"? While this may seem a daunting feat in a society where gendered and stereotyped advertising (particularly in the fashion and beauty industry) is so prevalent, I believe that education about ads such as this is a huge step toward generating change. The act of making people aware of the issue of stereotyping in advertising, and by doing so forcing them to confront the choice of whether to support or reject it, could be key in creating the pushback needed to overcome the issue.
'Pushback' comes in many forms, and this blog post is one of them. I was completely unaware of Gap's use of gender stereotyping in advertising before viewing these advertisements. I think that it is easy to slip into a mood of indifference toward brands, to ignore the questionable advertising techniques used by companies and to just look at the products themselves. After viewing these advertisements, my impression of Gap is that marketing strategy is more important to the company than values of equality. When given the choice of infinite positive portrayals of the sexes, Gap chose to portray one as intellectually superior and one as mentally inferior and built only for socializing. But should this bring to the fore the lack of equality in Gap's advertising strategy, or how this reflects the society that it is attempting to cater to? While this ad gives me the impression that Gap has few moral boundaries when it comes to their advertising, perhaps more concerning is that Gap came to the conclusion that sexism would be a successful appeal to the people at all.
Take, for instance, the Gap campaign for children's clothes advertising boys' clothes marketed as for, "The Little Scholar" and girls' clothes for "The Social Butterfly." Immediately, a difference arises between the framed audiences of the ads. The boys' clothing line is geared toward a smart young boy filled with potential ("Your future starts here") who needs the preppy button-down shirts over Einstein graphic tees (the pairing of which, according to the ad, is a "genius idea") to create a reflection of his intellectual capability. (The graphic tee, ironically, misspells Einstein as "Einstien.") By contrast, the young girls' clothing line paints a young girl as a "Social Butterfly," advertising a pale pink jumper with a large logo by stating that "Chambray shirts + logo sweaters are the talk of the playground"; this emphasizes young girls' supposed social capabilities and completely disregards any intellectual capability they might possess other than cute feminine fashion and socializing. The advertisement creates not only a dichotomy of the appearance of the clothing (preppy, blue, and masculine versus on-trend, pink, and feminine) but also one between the capabilities of the sexes: men being portrayed as academic and filled with potential, and women being portrayed as social creatures filled with gossip.
As someone who appreciates the academic side of life, I was certainly surprised and saddened upon transitioning from the first ad to the second. Seeing how Gap played upon outdated gender stereotypes in an attempt to generate recognition of a new campaign lowered my estimation of the brand. Coming from the perspective of a person who grew up wearing a lot of t-shirts and button-ups, I think that this type of gender break-down to demonstrate clothing style is not only offensive but antiquated and inadequate. In modern society in the United States and elsewhere, there is more freedom of expression in fashion and an increasing overlap between men and women's wardrobe choices. I feel that this ad associates a particular clothing style not only with gender but a specific set of characteristics. This is entirely unrepresentative of the modern age in which feminine and masculine styles of clothing do not necessarily represent either the gender or the attributes of the wearer.
For this reason, I think that this type of gendered advertising rhetoric should be eradicated and replaced with advertising that engages the rhetoric of equality. For instance, why not dress the girl in little button-downs and scientist graphic tees (spelling the names correctly this time), even placing both children in the same photo with the title: "The Little Scholars"? While this may seem a daunting feat in a society where gendered and stereotyped advertising (particularly in the fashion and beauty industry) is so prevalent, I believe that education about ads such as this is a huge step toward generating change. The act of making people aware of the issue of stereotyping in advertising, and by doing so forcing them to confront the choice of whether to support or reject it, could be key in creating the pushback needed to overcome the issue.
'Pushback' comes in many forms, and this blog post is one of them. I was completely unaware of Gap's use of gender stereotyping in advertising before viewing these advertisements. I think that it is easy to slip into a mood of indifference toward brands, to ignore the questionable advertising techniques used by companies and to just look at the products themselves. After viewing these advertisements, my impression of Gap is that marketing strategy is more important to the company than values of equality. When given the choice of infinite positive portrayals of the sexes, Gap chose to portray one as intellectually superior and one as mentally inferior and built only for socializing. But should this bring to the fore the lack of equality in Gap's advertising strategy, or how this reflects the society that it is attempting to cater to? While this ad gives me the impression that Gap has few moral boundaries when it comes to their advertising, perhaps more concerning is that Gap came to the conclusion that sexism would be a successful appeal to the people at all.
Comments
Post a Comment