Archive for the ‘gender’ Category

Yogurt: The Official Food of Women

May 23, 2008 - 12:03 am 3 Comments

Hilarious.

Yogurt: “it’s substitute for human experience good.” There is nothing wrong with yogurt as a product, if you like to eat it, but there is something so very, very wrong with yogurt marketing.And marketing food as medicine. And all other marketing aimed at women. But for now, yogurt ads. And if you forget everything this video has to teach you, just remember this: Yogurt eaters come from every race, but just one socio-economic class. The class that wears grey hoodies. It’s that ‘I have a Master’s but then I got married’ look.” Hilarious.


Link shamelessly stolen from Kate Harding.

Women and Media

May 7, 2008 - 10:41 pm No Comments

Of late, I have become very interested in representations of women in the media, as part of my ongoing theme of interest that can be best described as how women consume media, and how media consumes women. Tell me what is wrong with this soundbite, from an interview in Elle magazine (scroll down to the headline, “Ashton Kutcher talks sex, drugs with his stepdaughters.”

(more…)

Women in Games

May 5, 2008 - 6:52 am 1 Comment

My new HP desktop came loaded with game demos, most of which I will never play, but I got curious about them last week and started clicking around, which is when I found Diner Dash, which is the happy story of a woman who was so frazzled by her ordinary office job that she had to run away from corporate life and wait tables for a living.

joesdiner.jpg

That sound you hear is my forehead, hitting my desk.

(more…)

Lurking and fuming

March 31, 2008 - 10:40 pm 4 Comments

On a HigherEd specific online forum, a post that was meant to exhibit how odd academic life looks to non-academics told the story of a recent proposal defense. I am a consummate lurker there, although I don’t have a login, which is probably for the best, because the post that took my breath away describes how the Chair of the student’s committee decided to invite the defender’s husband to her proposal defense. And I cannot quite wrap my head around that. Does he also invite the wives of male students who are defending their proposals? If he does, well, consider my feminist ire placated. But I suspect that he does not, and I cannot understand why the responses to this post don’t start out questioning why a woman’s Chair would invite her husband to what is, essentially, her workplace and her professional life.

If the student herself had invited her spouse, well, her choice. But that her Chair decided to do it without her knowledge makes the action very different, and not a little patronizing. This notion of spousal deference always hits a sour note for me, probably because I live it every time I make a major purchase, or generally try to conduct business with a man when my own partner is in the same room.What is next, really - should women bring notes from their Dad in to school, giving them permission to attend, which was often the case as little as 40 years ago at some schools?

Dear R1 Institution,

Please accept this note as permission from me that my daughter be allowed to READ BOOKS and WRITE STUFF. Call me if she gets uppity, or starts thinking on her own - we try not to encourage independence in her, in the vain hope that she will come to her senses, drop out of school, and marry a nice doctor.

Linkfarm: 1.15.08

January 15, 2008 - 6:14 pm No Comments

What Are You Looking At?

December 25, 2007 - 8:09 am 9 Comments

Over on Multicultclassics, a nice example of the most overused African-American stock image in the ‘families’ category. I believe these two were also on a United Way poster recently. This is not a critique of the models, by the way, but of the advertisers and marketers who chose those models, and who appear to have one ‘go-to’ black image, one which incorporates very, very light skinned people as representative of African-Americans, and is comfortable with representing an AA family as one with a child and one female parent. I notice more and more lately, especially after reading excerpts of model Alek Wek’s recently released autiobiography, how oddly African-Americans are portrayed, especially in American advertising and marketing communications, and I can’t help but wonder how we all internalize that representation. Wek made the cover of Elle magazine in November 1997, and at the time that was considered a very daring choice, since the traditional assumption about covers is that magazines with dark-skinned models sell fewer copies than covers with caucasian or light-skinnned models. Think about that for a moment - in 1997, it was considered a daring move to put a woman with dark skin on the cover of an American magazine. In 1997.

On Marketing Conversation, perhaps an explanation. At a national marketing convention, the speaker notices that there is not one African-American participant in the room , and the blog writer makes a good point - that people hire in their own image, to validate their beliefs, and when similiar people make media, it isn’t surprising that that media they all make is also similiar. But what does this say about how society communicates its cultural standards and beliefs if the voices that decide that communication are overwhelmingly caucasian?

Its beginning to look a lot like…

November 30, 2007 - 12:16 pm 10 Comments

….that pagan holiday where we consume ceremonial depictions of men, in ginger, to celebrate the tauroctony. I love December 25th! You non-classics majors may have another use for that day.

It doesn’t take a genius (good thing!) to see the heavy-handed marketing aimed at children, who already see 40,000 advertisments a year and have a difficult time differentiating between advertising and media content. Speaking of which, I am a big fan of the Commercial Free Childhood.  Nonetheless, it is heartwarming (dare I say that, since ’tis the season for heartwarming acts?) to know that other people share my abject horreur of the Bratz phenomenon. Best of all, that post lead me to a great op-ed on the Bratz movie, which is really about all movies aimed at pre-teen girls, and how those movies all have the same elements, and virtually interchangeable frames.

 If you think the sexualization of little girls via marketing isn’t really a problem in America, well…can you tell me how the marketing goals of these two images differ?