Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site ucbcad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!wivax!decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!ucbcad!ucbesvax.turner
From: ucbesvax.turner@ucbcad.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Gender Advertisements - (nf)
Message-ID: <125@ucbcad.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-Jun-83 07:37:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.125
Posted: Wed Jun 22 07:37:06 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 27-Jun-83 11:46:35 EDT
Sender: notes@ucbcad.UUCP
Organization: UC Berkeley, CAD Group
Lines: 75

#N:ucbesvax:10300013:000:3979
ucbesvax!turner    Jun 22 02:20:00 1983

	Noted sociologist Erving Goffman has written a book called
"Gender Advertisements".  Unlike his other books, this one is short on
text and consists mostly of magazine ads.  It is a pictorial exposition
of advertising's image of the sexes, which is an amplification (in the
interests of marketing) of society's image of them.

	Goffman is an unusual sociologist, in that many of his treatises
quote widely from works of fiction, rather than relying on "studies" and
statistics.  This methodology has its good points: life can often be
stranger than fiction, but fiction is sometimes "truer".  Fiction does not
attempt to reduce phenomena beyond simplicity into tautology, as
scientific studies of society often do.

	In "Gender Advertisements", Goffman "quotes" widely from what is
perhaps the most pervasive form of fiction that our society has to offer.
The magazine ads span several decades and are grouped around a number of
interesting themes.

	One striking theme is the relative elevation of men and women
appearing together in photographs.  Women are almost always pictured
lower than men, often leaning against them.  Goffman does not go so far
as to actually measure the discrepancy between the real average height
difference between man and women and the difference as pictured, but
certainly directs the readers attention to it.

	Women are also almost always shown as physically more intimate
with their (posed) children than with men, and more intimate with men
than men are with any other person or object.  Women touch, while men
passively receive these attentions.

	In a sense, using scantily-clad women as magnets for men's
attention is a more honest sort of exaggeration of sex differences.  We
don't really know how much bias is instilled in much subtler ways.  In
consumer societies, there are marketing advantages both in dividing a
market along the boundaries of sex-roles, and in pursuing both sides.  But
sharp divisions will definitely favor the former strategy, which can also
have a positive feedback effect (however slight) on the division itself.

	I see in many computer/kid advertisements a tendency to relegate
little girls to observer status, or leave them out entirely.  The boys
are the ones who get their hands on things--the female presence is more
often "schoolmarmish" than actively involved.  This has *some* statistical
basis, but criminally neglects an obvious, spontaneous counter-trend.
One wonders just how significant this is.  Is the neglect intentional
(as in "boys are the target, girls will put them off", or "parents are
the target, parents want successful children, they see boys as more likely
to succeed") or is it merely habitual?

	(The worst examples aren't always pictorial: a DEC micro service
here in Berkeley made the awful mistake of targeting one series of ads for
men, and another for women.  The difference between the two was that the
men were offered services "for you" (themselves), but the women were
offered services for "you and your boss".  This was repeated several times
through-out the blurb.  They changed it later, of course, no doubt after a
number of nasty phone calls.)

	I suppose that advertising as a profession *is* changing, but
rather hesitantly.  In a way, it can capitalize on the redefinition of
women's roles, but to do so it must somehow take much of the initiative in
this process, or risk losing certain markets altogether.  Merely blurring
sex-roles involves at worst a blurring of identity, and at best building
one's identity on terms that make it less accessible to advertising. 
Advertising (of the "fictional" kind, at least) offers identities to people
who feel something missing.  It is harder to identify with an ambiguous
image of sexuality.  After all, one's sexuality is integral to one's
identity, even it's not stamped in one of society's standard molds--but
so much the better if it is, from a marketing point of view.

	    Michael Turner
	    ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner