'Rick Liebling's Reaction to the post 'The People Who Approved These Ads Have A Lot Of Explaining To Do'...

Representations of Gender in Advertising

To quote what Rick Liebling wrote when he shared this blogpost "The People Who Approved These Ads Have A Lot Of Explaining To Do"

'I'm not arguing against the point, as it is quite valid, but here's what I don't get: Why do they juxtapose the images of beautiful women with clearly unattractive men? I think that totally blunts the argument by making it a bit of a goof.

Showing a fat, hairy man in the place of a beautiful woman makes it an absurdity. But objectify an incredibly handsome man, then the men making the ads would, in theory, have to deal with it on a deeper level.

Of course the problem with that is, impossibly handsome men are objectified in ads all the time. Look at a Dolce & Gabanna or Versace underwear ad, look at Calvin Klein ads, look at the cologne ads, look at the David Beckham ads.

The problem is that the men who objectify men AND women in ads have no moral problems with using men OR women in this way. Hey, if it sells product, it sells product.

Now, the ads that promote, subtly or not-so-subtly, what looks to me to be a culture of rape, as seen in many of those ads, is a different matter entirely. You never see ads of a woman in a dominant position, sexually threatening a man. That to me is the better argument. Switch the genders in those situations and I think some of the people making the ads would become uncomfortable.'