Let's face it. Advertising wasn't very gender-friendly about 50-60 years ago. Society itself wasn't very gender-friendly either. The men were bred to get married, have a family, and be a responsible career man. Women on the other hand were often taught that their place was in the home catering to their husband's every whim while raising a family and keeping the house orderly and tidy. Who's job was it though when it came to preventing any unwanted consequences while having sex? This ad here clearly advertises to men that they need to protect themselves from these unwanted consequences (pregnancy and mostly venereal disease).
This advertisement depicts a white woman who is dressed in a fashion that was considered to be moderately conservative. She isn't dressed in a flowy "June Cleaver" dress, but she isn't in capris and a tank top either. Basically this illustrated woman is made to represent the majority of the women of that time. This "everyday woman" also has her body positioned in a way that would suggest that she's slightly suspicious of something. She may also be conversing with another man that isn't visible in this ad. This advertisement would have most likely been published in magazines and newspapers that catered to men. After getting a good glance at this ad most men would start to question what diseases their partners at the time might be carrying.
It almost seems that the goal of the marketers creating this ad at the time were trying to get the message out to men everywhere that women are promiscuous, disease-riden sexual beings. They were also sending men the message to protect themselves from these women (but don't stop your sex life because of it). About the only absolute truth to this advertisement is that prophylaxis (condoms) prevent venereal disease (if used correctly of course). To say that women are the only ones carrying diseases and spreading them to their partners is a bit one-sided to say the least.
That's the way society was carried then and is still carried today. Women in our society are damned by this double standard placed on them by the Patriarchal system. Either a woman is a "good" woman or a "bad" woman, the virgin or the whore- the woman that men will want to marry or the woman that men will fool around with (Women's Sexuality 151). The system controls what marketers put in their ads. Showing that a man needs to "protect" himself from the all too vunerable woman was something that was widely accepted during the time of this ad's publishment. Nowadays the marketers of this ad would be frowned upon and receive some negative critisizm.
Advertising today has definately made a giant leap for the better from where it stood 50-60 years ago when portraying gender equality. Commercials and advertisements for condoms in today's society show more of a sex-positive attitude for men and women. They also place the responsibility for using their products correctly in the hands of both partners involved in the sexual relationship (whether they be gay, straight, or otherwise). No one gender is carrying more venereal diseases than the other and yet both men and women should take equal precautions to protect themselves from these unwanted diseases.
Johnson, Allan G. "Patriarchy, the System". Gwyn Kirk and Margo Okazawa-Rey. Women's Lives: Multicultural Perspectives. 5th Ed. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2009. 68-76.
"Women's Sexuality". Gwyn Kirk and Margo Okazawa-Rey. Women's Lives: Multicultural Perspectives. 5th Ed. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2009. 149-160.
I enjoyed your thoughts on how the men were raised to get married, have children and to be good career men. I feel like these days it is very different. This ad is a classic because the woman is dressed up, with heels and done up hair. Her legs are crossed and she isn't facing the camera. She seems ashamed to me, therefore she must be.. right?
ReplyDeleteFunny how women are portrayed as the "dirty" ones here when in that day and age it was the men who were sleeping around...
ReplyDeleteI think you made an excellent note when you said that men shouldn't disrupt their sex lives because of disease. It feeds into the notion that they're able to have copious amounts of sex without ramifications, and ignore the possibility (and likelihood) that their promiscuity may in fact be to blame for the spread of VD. I thought it was an easy piece to read :)
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of this article, but I'm not sure that advertising for this type of thing today is as egalitarian as you make it sound. I feel like now, all the responsibility is placed on the girl to protect herself from everything.
ReplyDeleteI swear to all that is holy that I've seen an ad exactly like this one plastered on a bulkhead in Rapture.
ReplyDeleteOn a serious note, one of the first things I noticed about the ad was the way the woman was dressed. A short (for the time) skirt hiked up to the knee, visible stockings, what appear to be heels, hair pulled up and back and what looks like the tiniest cigarette in all of Marlboro's empire in her right hand are all symbols from the first half of the 20th century used to indicate a woman who is "everyone's pal", to use the vernacular used in the ad. Visually, we see a woman in control of her sexual agency, "modern" (she smokes!), and dressed in a way that allows for freedom of movement. However, the text of the ad sells the patriarchal judgement of women's sexual agency: dangerous.
Also, there's an interesting modern parallel to the ad's additude of women as dirty and men in need of protection: HPV. Although generally anyone with an STI, regardless of sex or gender, is stigmatized as "dirty" in US society, the "high-risk" (cancer causing) strains of HPV can currently only be detected in females. While males can carry the virus and spread it, current testing in the US is only approved for people with cervixes.
If it wasn't obvious by the length of this comment, I really enjoyed the ad and the post. Pip pip, cheerio!
Excellent discussion you all!
ReplyDelete