The most interesting piece of the gender debate in advertising is the difference between men and women and the supposed biased towards the female image. When looking at a situation like modeling for an advertisement, you consider what the model is doing and what other media is included with that model to make an advertisement.
Many paying jobs in this country, and around the world, can be characterized as situations where a human makes his or her self vulnerable for the benefit of others. Someone who sits on a street corner with a sign for a "free oil change" at the local Jiffy Lube is putting him or her self at risk socially in exchange for pay. Modeling is much the same whether you're a male or female. As a model you don't have control over where your image goes or what is paired with it, just like the guy on the corner doesn't control what's on his sign. The man stays at that job because he doesn't care what goes on that sign. I don't believe most models care what goes with their image on an advertisement either. I believe that most models know exactly what's going to happen with their photo or they simply don't care what happens.
The advertiser is paying for control over that image, and they will use it how they wish because that's how the system works. If the model doesn't like what happens with that photo, they will quit. As an outsider you might say that the image is being used in an inappropriate or negative manner, but I think that choice is ultimately up to the model.
Mistreatment of women shouldn't be blamed on advertising, the blame should sit where it belonged from the beginning, on the ignorant males who support or partake in a social and physical campaign against women. Saying it's the "industries" fault instead of the people is ignorant in itself. Society was this way before advertising became so sexist. We need to look at the faults within ourselves, not within the t.v. screen or the magazine pages.
No comments:
Post a Comment