Retro, sexist ads...

[ButteMT61]

My wife sent this to me this morning...
http://www.businesspundit.com/10-most-sexist-print-ads-from-the-1950s/
I'll withhold comment for now. I don't think she'll be making lunch today lol

 

[Undertow]

Some of those are obviously over the top, but others don't seem unreasonable, and a little light-hearted.

I don't know that I like the tone of the commentator.

I can't decided if the person who wrote this article is actually being serious, or if they are truly an ignorant sap trying to raise some kind of banner for "women's rights". If the latter, I'm quite disappointed in the writer's apparent lack of historical reference.

Examples:
Bell and Howell's Sabrina: "Perhaps it’s just my inexperience talking, but I’ve certainly never seen a lady with mammary glands shaped like that."

Maybe it's just my inexperience, but having seen the effects of certain underclothes of that era, her chest shape isn't entirely grotesque. Certainly, the point of the ad was to present a busty female with a little oomph pushing outward, but it's not totally freakish. That's what those bras did. [huh]

Dormeyer: "...it makes it clear that a woman could never buy such an item for herself, but would have to rely on her husband."

Well, yeah, I guess if the lady of the house was not employed, it certainly would suggest that. Many women were employed in the 1950s, but plenty were not. The rest of the drivel about "preoccupation" and "emotional wrecks" is just asinine.

Hoover: "women getting domestic appliances for Christmas gifts, something which most people in the 21st century would consider to be reasonable grounds for divorce."

What's wrong with someone, anyone, wanting a new vacuum cleaner? Sure, I get it, women should be asking for something they REALLY want - because obviously no fool woman would want a vacuum cleaner.

Schlitz: "This ad is but another example of women being seen as prisoners of their own fragile emotions, completely incapable of doing anything without breaking down into fits of sobbing when confronted with the slightest of dilemmas. How can a woman bear to let her husband down- especially when cooking?"

Again, is there something wrong with anyone taking pride in their ability to cook a meal for the family? Perhaps the missus should have taken a drag from her cigarette, looked up from her cell phone and yelled at the kids, "Microwave some spaghettios if you're hungry," before muttering, "...little brats." There! That would have solved this utterly helpless ad, no?

Sure, I get it - women shouldn't be at home. EVERY SINGLE WOMAN should be out in the workforce. And any woman stupid enough to play Suzie Homemaker ought to be ashamed.

And yes, this is probably supposed to be some kind of light-hearted, tongue in cheek banter about some silly ads. But it's this kind of unresearched *DUH* stuff that perpetuates actual ignorance on a subject.

 

[Feraud]

Media doling out another line of b.s.!
Quoted from the article.

These ads stand as relics to a bygone era, one in which sexism as well as racism and other forms of intolerance were commonplace. Studying these print ads helps us reflect on today’s society and shows just how far we’ve come. Printing ads like the ones below, complete with their preposterous female stereotypes, would be unspeakable these days, and I, for one, am very thankful for that.

Which is so unlike today..

I'll leave it up to the reader to Google American Apparel ads..

 

[LizzieMaine]

Yes indeed, We've Come So Far (R)

Personally, I find the modern ads even more offensive and stupid, but then I'm a long way from being their target market.

 

[Feraud]

Yes indeed, We've Come So Far (R)

a.k.a., "You've come a long way, baby". :eusa_doh:

 

[AtomicEraTom]

I agree. The more modern TV I watch, the more sickening it is. The only time I look forward to a new episode of anything these days is when it's on the History Channel or sometimes AMC.

The ad's are far more dumbed down and unclassy than their earlier counterparts.

Yes indeed, We've Come So Far (R)

Personally, I find the modern ads even more offensive and stupid, but then I'm a long way from being their target market.

 

[ButteMT61]

We were jsut laughing here talking about them. That's the difference, generally speaking. The old ones, taken into context of the time (with some exceptions) aren't nearly as bad as the new ones.
But with what makes a "star" today, this is not a shock, is it?

 

[Undertow]

Feraud, awesome post, thank you!

I think it's interesting to compare the two sets objectively and out of context. The difference is one is modest, the other pervasive. Such would be the difference in a sexual harrasment case; i.e. it's one thing to make an inappropriate joke, it's another thing to force yourself on to someone, or create an atmosphere of unrelenting sexual behavior.

Whereas Bell and Howell's "Sabrina" stands with her chest thrust forward in a sweater, American Apparel has a model on a ladder without anything on at all. The messages are both quite clear, but one is modest and the other prevasive.

Unfortunately, we as a society have come to accept blatant sexualization as somehow acceptable.

 

[sheeplady]

I can’t imagine the wife doing much cooking with those nails!

I find that line by the author to be as insulting (if not more so) than most of the ads. So women with long nails can't cook? Yeah, how non-sexist of you. Now I do find the rug one humiliating and degrading, but that would be for a man or a woman. It makes me wince every time I see it. There was obviously sexism then and there's sexism now.

As far as the spanking one, I always thought that one was weird. She's obviously smiling (suggesting a fetish) and that's kind of disconcerting. I get fetish out of that more than domestic violence. Maybe I have a dirty mind, but I always thought that ad was sexually suggestive. Men who are abusive don't typically spank their smiling wives, but there are plenty of non-abusive men who spank their smiling wives in the bedroom.

The modern Dolce & Gabbanna ad upstream is sickening. It seems to be suggesting gang rape (look at the girl's expression and position, and how she is being held by one of the men while the others' watch). That's just sick.

 

[LizzieMaine]

What's really offensive in that blogger's comments is the assumption that we *have* in fact come so far. When someone says that to me and I point out that in fact we've gone in the other direction they look at me like I'm insane. But really, that's the question every single person should be asking and very few of them do: Just How Far *HAVE* We Come??? We may have changed words and we may have changed pictures, but has there truly and honestly been even the slightest change in *attitudes?* The fact that such ads as Feraud posted exist prove that they haven't. In the eyes of commerce, women are still commodities to be marketed, and insecurities to be exploited, and nothing more.

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

I don't see how this thread is more or less political than the one about "gay interest" advertising on ebay.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

I always thought this ad had dirty undertones, as well.

As far as the spanking one, I always thought that one was weird. She's obviously smiling (suggesting a fetish) and that's kind of disconcerting. I get fetish out of that more than domestic violence. Maybe I have a dirty mind, but I always thought that ad was sexually suggestive. Men who are abusive don't typically spank their smiling wives, but there are plenty of non-abusive men who spank their smiling wives in the bedroom.

 

[MissMittens]

Ads were/are sexist. Whereas before, some were probably meant as a joke, some were also serious. It's easy for us to pick them all out as blatantly offensive now, but people saw things differently back then. Some ads quite rightly so, would have offended most women, some ads would have made them laugh. The ones now aren't quite as blatant, but it's still there

http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/10-sexist-ads-made-total-pigs-133401

What bothers me more is when advertisers try to hide it........because then it definitely strays from humor into something much, much darker. It's 2012, and I won't buy any product from an advertiser that uses sex or sexism to sell their products, but that's my personal opinion. I also believe women should be paid the same as men in the workplace for doing the same work, for example. I truly believe that I would have felt the same way had I been around in the 50's just as I do today.

 

[Undertow]

I don't see how this thread is more or less political than the one about "gay interest" advertising on ebay.

Was there a thread about gay interest advertising on the Lounge? I must have missed that. Was it taken down?

 

[John in Covina]

Since TV shows every dad to be an idiot...

 

[Paul Roerich]

Was there a thread about gay interest advertising on the Lounge? I must have missed that. Was it taken down?

The Boys from Marketing have always been canny. They've never left a lucrative market untapped. Here's a shirt ad from the early 1960s:

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Just search for anything involving vintage swimsuits or Cary Grant (note for the estate of Cary Grant: I am not suggesting that he was homosexual … but …)

Yes, there was a thread. Something about white buckskin shoes hit the FLounge social conservative buffers, sadly.

Was there a thread about gay interest advertising on the Lounge? I must have missed that. Was it taken down?

 

[LizzieMaine]

White bucks are gay? Has someone told Pat Boone?

 

[Paul Roerich]

White bucks are gay? Has someone told Pat Boone?

No and no. But before the Duke of Windsor made them 'acceptable', black suede oxford lace-up shoes were considered gay by those who made it their business to 'monitor' these things.

 

[Mario]

Was there a thread about gay interest advertising on the Lounge? I must have missed that. Was it taken down?

It was. Without any further notice. Simply gone. Reminds me of Soviet history...