bashoGWSS1

Both pictures show women as submissive and less than human or men. The first picture represents women as submissive nothing less than a housewife. She is there to make her husband a nice meal after he gets home from work. She is leaning on him who can be translated into she leans on her husband for support as well as for survival. This picture is what looks like a happy white suburban husband and wife with all the new appliances yet what she is really for is to run the appliances for her husband and she is not capable of doing anything else. The headline also confirms the idea that wives are for cooking and that is all. This picture also shows the gleeful look upon the wife’s face, making her look happy to be in the housewife position. As for the other picture it shows the inhuman qualities of the model. She is dressed in animal print in a kind of exotic sexual position. The idea is that she is more of an animal than a human because of her position clothes and because she is black. It gives the message that women of color are nothing but sex looking animals. It also focuses on her body, you can count every rib and it just looks unhealthy. In both pictures they degrade women but what is more shocking is that it takes time to even realize what the add is for. I still don’t know what they are trying to sell because the focus is not on the product but on the models.

Posted by robin593 at 4:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Both pictures are portraying very degrading images of women. The first seems to be targeted towards the white middle/upper class. Even as simple as having both persons being white sends a message of what every couple/family should look like (white, middle/upper class, nicely dressed). The way they are dressed also sends a powerful message. The man is dressed in a nice suit and tie, probably just coming home from work because that is what men do. However, women typically stay at home, right? They do the house work, and work in the kitchen and always wear chefs hats like the one the women is posed in the picture with. Although she is dressed as if she is doing cooking/cleaning work, she still has perfectly painted nails, make-up on, and is nicely dressed. This sends the message that all women no matter what type of work they are doing, they must look and present themselves as being beautiful. The posture of both is also a signifcant part of this image. The man is facing away from the woman, while the woman clings on to the man. This shows that women cannot be independent and that they must always be dependent on the man. The caption also highlights these ideologies when it says "that's what wives are for" (image 1).

The second image directly compares African American women to animals. The woman is tied onto the wall as if she is nothing more than the left over body of an animal when they are hung on walls. The viewer does not even think of this woman as having a personality or "spirit", the image strictly focuses on her body and posture. Her leapord clothing relates to her African American descent by showing native animals. Her body posture and body image also says a lot about this photo. For one, she is a very thin female. Is this image trying to say that in order to be chic you must be extremely thin? Her eyes are either closed or very close to being closed to also show that she is not really a person, she is just a body. It also shows how seductive and sexy she is, trying to sort of sell her body as she is selling the clothing. Her posture also has to do with being attractive in order to draw attention to her. All of her body parts are open and out from her, her legs are open and she is trying to be seductive through her body stance.

Posted by nels5858 at 3:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The first image is amazing! There are many, many things playing out in this, in terms of gender ideals, images of black women, and sexual desire. The first thing that jumped out at me was this woman’s pose. Her body is contorted to look like a mounted animal’s head, complete with dramatic lighting from the top down, and pins holding her to the wall. Talk about equating (black) women with animals! She is wearing leopard print, which puts her literally in animal skin, along with having shiny oiled skin, which speaks about large African jungle cats among other things. Her eyes are closed, which doesn’t allow the viewer to identify with her on an individual level. Her position is extremely sexualized, chest pointing forward, butt jutting back, insinuating sexual desire, underlined by the closed eyes. The gold lettering “moschino� I instantly read as “machismo,� which could just be my eyes being dyslexic, or it could be me reading what it wants me to read. And “cheap and chic�? Class issues abound here, cheap meaning that “anyone� can look like this because it is cheap to buy(?), but still “chic� a fancy French word that usually talks about high fashion, unattainable to most class groups. Whew.
The second image casts the woman as an object instantly because of the language of the caption “that’s what wives are for!� as well as her leaning on her husband’s back as the perfect doting wife, subject to all her husband’s whims as to what he wants to eat for dinner. She can make anything for him, now that she has her latest gift, an addition to her kitchen, her favorite place to be, completing her appliances. Am I projecting here? It is casting the man as a giving thoughtful husband, knowing that he can give her presents (a class issue—how many people can spend 250 bucks on a mixer as a little present to please the wife?) and a patriarchy issue (he is in control of everything down to the menu, but cooking? He doesn’t need to get his hands dirty; he’s got a wife for that). The presence of ingredients around the table imply class as well, nice wine glasses, fresh oranges, natural brown eggshells. The wife is also looking directly at the viewer, and look how happy she is! She’s staring straight into my eyes, telling me if I had one of these mixers I’d be happy too, right? Heterosexism, fo’real.

Posted by fith0001 at 1:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In image 1, you can see that the model is positioned and pinned to the background like a fashion doll, along with her accessories. Barbie, arguably the most famous fashion doll of all, has helped to perpetuate the beauty myth to young girls for decades. To obtain a body even close to Barbie’s, one is forced become a consumer of the “$33-billion-a-year diet industry� and “the $20-billion cosmetics industry� Wolf mentions in her essay. The emphasis on the cheapness of the clothing implies that it is targeted toward low income women, primarily black women. Whether Moschino clothing is cheap or not, in the quest to be fashionable it is clear that consumption is inevitable. Also, most likely because the model is black, she is depicted as an entertainer (positioned next to a microphone), drawing upon the images of the sexualized video girls mentioned by Riley in her essay, further targeting young, black women. The woman is scantily clad and exoticized in leopard skin print, reflective of the way most African American women are when present in the mainstream media.

The advertisement in image 2 also links beauty and perfection to consumption. The target of this ad is married men. They are told that they should buy this product for their wives as a “gift�. This ad calls to mind the post industrialization period that Wolf writes about. The ad implies that a woman’s role is one of domesticity and a man’s is to make the money and buy the product. In a way, this ad is representative of the backlash of first wave feminism. Like we talked about in class, this ad enforced the message given to couples in the post World War II era and encouraged structured gender roles present in the modern nuclear family.

Posted by wake0064 at 12:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The first ad plays on the ideology that women are objects and that it is the husband’s priority to keep their “objectified� wife in good working order. First, the ad clearly explains that The Chef the product being sold does everything and anything else that the Chef mixer cannot do and the husband dose not want to hassle with the “wife� is for that. The woman is leaning on the man in the ad almost waiting for him to push her “on button� to work and be perfect to help with his life and represent him well. This ad is clearly an ad that speaks to middle class, Western culture men and women. Like I sated before, the ad tells the man that his wife is an object and to the women it is the user manual on how she should act to be a “non-broken�, working, perfect wife.
The second ad exemplifies what we spoke about in class. That every or nearly every ad with African American women in it plays on the racial ideology that women of color are close to nature and represents them as animals. The woman is not only an animal she is also chained to the wall and tied up which can directly symbolize the racial slavery of the past. The ad is directly trying to address upper class Western women. I do think that it is ironic that it says cheap and chic with an African American woman tied to the wall. Not only does the ad seem to suggest that women of color are like animals that should be caged it also seems to call them cheap as well.

Posted by knol0059 at 12:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the Kenwood ad, there are definitely some direct and subliminal messages being portrayed. Judging by the woman’s hair and makeup, it looks like this may have come from the 60s/70s era. She is very done up and pristine, and of course she’s wearing a wedding ring because she is a “perfect� image. The man, too, is well-dressed and business-like because he is a “perfect� husband. The way they are positioned, too, is very telling about how a perfect relationship should be (for the sophisticated, upper-class white couple). She has her hand on his shoulder and leans into him affectionately from behind, like she needs him for support and leadership. At the same time, it says that she will support him from a submissive standpoint, because, as the wife, she does the actual cooking. Her body language and expression almost says “Thank you for the Kenwood Chef, Honey! Now I can be a better cook for you!� I think the ad is directed at men because it says “I’m giving my wife a Kenwood Chef.� It’s like the next line should be “…and so should you!� The man even has an expression that is just short of a wink toward the other men looking at the ad. All that it takes for someone to have a perfect wife like his is to buy her a cooking instrument. It puts her back in the kitchen, and not only does she love you for it, she loves her role as your personal cook.
The Moschino ad also conveys a message about submissive women, but in a much more sexualized way. The woman is very dark-skinned, and her hair and clothing are used to play up her ethnicity. She is made to look more exotic, sexual, and animalistic in this way. Her body position, with an arched back and spread legs, also are used to personify sex. She is bound to the wall, like the sunglasses, and like them is just something to behold and own. Holistically, the model is just sexually objectified. Her being tied and sexual also asserts the submissive nature a woman (should) have toward her male, dominant counterpart. Her race and the bondage being used on her also implies slavery to me. The ad makes it ok to look at a modern black woman still as an object. The clothing line is even described as “cheap and chic�—does this mean the black woman is beautiful/sexy and easily attainable as well? I couldn’t even say what item in this ad is being sold, unlike in the Kenwood. Clearly, the only thing a person should come away with is “Moschino� and “Sex.�

Posted by jorge287 at 12:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It is significant that in the first image the woman is an African American who is depicted alongside animal images like the leopard print and nature like the lightening. This gives her an exotic, very animalistic look as though she is one with the world rather than just a human being. This brings up the concept of using human and animal dualisms. Although it may seem intriguing and exciting for her to been seen as an animal, it actually alludes to the concept that she is inferior and completely brought back to her animalistic nature. African american women are usually portrayed as animals, which I think is unfair because in a way it makes their culture seem thoughtless and emotional like animals. I think it’s all about grabbing the attention of men and women to make them desire whatever product is being sold because it brings them down to their raw, sexual nature.
With the second image it is almost to eerie like Pleasantville or something. It always bugs me when ads depict the women as a happy servant to her husband cooking him a meal on their new must have appliance. Honestly, how can Kenwood think that women want to be seen as such a mindless slave in an ad then go out and buy their product? These ads make people believe that the only for them to be happy is to follow this stereotypical norm that has been passed down through countless generations and that they only way to achieve that norm is to buy some stupid product. This ad is trying to grab men by saying look at how great it will be to have your wife cook for you and it plays off of women’s insecurity that if they do not please their husband, boyfriend, etc then they will never live happily with their suitor. The problem with most ads now a days is that they play off of everyone’s insecurities and they fuel the belief so that people will buy things to make themselves better.

Posted by baile344 at 12:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Blog image 1 is an easy image to classify. It's obviously based off the racial idea of black during the Motown era, with big afro hair and leopard skin clothing, furthermore painted dark black much like the ads we saw in class to emphasis her skin color. It also uses a relatively attractive women who is so thin, one can see her ribs. She's also chained to the wall like a slave “tied� to his or her master, perhaps a reference to the past when poor black slaves were indentured to their masters. The ad appears to be exploiting stereotypes about African-Americans to sell sunglasses.

Blog image 2 also appears to be a reference to the philosophy of yore, where after World War II, women were expected to stay home and cook dinner for their husbands. Even with advances made in equality for women, this image of the “barefoot and pregnant� woman in the kitchen is still a somewhat pervasive view, especially amongst the upper class where women may not need to work to help support the family they are raising.

The ad pines that Chefs only run the kitchen and don't actually cook. The ad claims “that's what wives are for.� It's references what I said above, as well as a nod to the idea of men's dominance over women. It touches on the ideology that men go to college, get a job and make money for his family, while his wife stays at home, bearing and tending to his children. Judging by the picture quality of the ad, it looks to be around a time when women's right may have recently been obtained, perhaps sometime around the late 70's. I'm not sure if the ad has any racial commentaries, but it does seem to follow the image of the white family enjoying a good time, something not often depicted with black people in ads.

Posted by Alex Hoss at 11:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In comparing images 1 and 2, we see a very clear distinction between race, culture, class, and sexuality.

The author of The Beauty Myth says that “beauty� is the “best belief system that keeps male dominance intact…The beauty myth is not about women at all. It is about men’s institutions and institutional power.� Image 1 shows this just by placing the phrase “Cheap and Chic� in front of the animal-like black woman. Her body is pressed up against the wall in a vey sexually inviting way. Together, this image is saying that black women are cheap and available. Image 2 keeps the male in control because there is a message there saying that men can give women everything they need.

Image 1 shows a seemingly single, thin, black woman who has that animalistic look to her (she’s literally wearing animal prints) and “ghetto-fabulous� as Riley would say. This image immediately connects me with Riley’s words, “Being ghetto-fabulous is all about going from rags to riches.� This woman appears to have everything under control, with the world at her fingertips. Interestingly, Riley also says “Obesity is associated with poverty.� The woman in this image is stick-thin, yet somehow strong. She probably has an eating disorder, which is a sign that a person feels a lack of control in their life.

Image 2 shows a white, middle-upper class couple who appear to be living the beautiful, American Dream. The generous, bread-winning husband buys his wife a Kenwood Chef, implying that she will be the one to use it to make all of their meals and she will love every minute of it. This image looks to be taken from the 50s or so, and I believe The Beauty Myth brings up the point that beauty ideologies continuously change over time. Today, we don’t see as many images of the stereotypical perfect white couple/family, but we do still see male domination and assumptions that women take care of the housework, whether or not they have their own careers.

Posted by bute0023 at 11:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The kenwood ad speaks to a number of ideologies. First is that the users depicted appear to be fairly affluent; the man is dressed in a suit and the surrounding area is full of aesthetically pleasing food displays. It can be inferred that one must be middle or upper class to enjoy the product, or that having it will provide the illusion of happy and wealthy like the couple. It is also notworthy that the couple is a heterosexual one. Finally, there is the fairly blatant sexism manifesting itself in a number of ways. The most obvious is the 'wives are for cooking' message. Somewhat more subtle within the same text is that man is being refered to as the chef. Chefs inherently have authority over their cooks, and are teh ones to claim credit for a well-made meal despite doing very little of the actual work (work that the cooks are doing). So not only is there the message of men having an authority over women, it also makes the statement that women should be behind the scenes making everything work, but not receiving the credit. And last, there is the fact that the woman is holding onto the guy. This nto only reinforces the aforementioned power situation, but also implies that women need a man.

The moschino ad spends a lot of energy exoticizing people of color. While it is not necessarily bad that something is exotic, to portray a person or group of people as exotic reinforces that they are not familiar, not part of the norm; that they are different and do not readily belong with everyone else. This is done first by choosing a leopard skin outfit; the leopard being not only being an animal, but an exotic animal (specifically from africa). to continue with the animalization, the model is posed in an agressive sexual position. additionally, she is surrounded by rock star gear. lastly, the woman appears to be pictured as part of some sort of kit in a box. this is an obvious nod to the ideology that women and perhaps people of color as well, are simply objects and not wholly human.

Posted by dojan002 at 11:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The first ad appears to have been an ad in the 1950’s, an era in which men were ideally the breadwinners of the family and women cared for the children as well as the home. Everything done by a woman during this time was to please her husbands, leaving little or no room for her own happiness.

The ad represents the ideals of the 1950’s in many more ways than one. The woman clings to her husband as if she has no independence, no ability to stand on her own two feet. She is perfectly done-up: nails perfectly manicured and painted, presentable makeup with red lipstick, curled hair, and she is wearing a very nice black outfit. Her husband wears a suit and tie. Poor guy! He just returned from a long and grueling day at work. He’s in luck, though, his wife has been working all day in the kitchen to prepare him an ever-so-delicious after-work snack including wine and freshly baked pastries! Not only is the image derogatory, the text is as well. It portrays the machine higher than the woman: the machine does not cook, the wife does. “I’m giving my wife a Kenwood Chef� has a negative connotation as well: the wife is financially dependent on her husband and is unable to buy her own Kenwood Chef.

The Moschino ad, on the other hand, portrays cultural and racial ideologies. The woman is of African descent and wearing a leopard print outfit. The image relates African women too closely to nature, as if African women roam in the wild, completely uncivilized. The text reads “cheap and chic,� implying that African women are cheap, unimportant, and lesser than white women.

Posted by kube0037 at 11:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Blog Week Seven

The depiction of a black woman in leopard print in the advertisement for Moschino is an excellent example of what we discussed in class this week. We talked about how there are fewer ads with black people but that most often they are exhibited in ways displaying blacks as animalistic. In other words, depicted as less than human in this photograph. For instance, she is dressed in leopard print in a very sexual pose and underneath are the words “cheap and chic.� She is also tied down at her ankles and wrists as if possibly her animalistic tendencies can be tamed by subduing her. It definitely states that black woman are subhuman and should be hunted and objectified.

The advertisement about the “The Chef� minimizes the role of women as compared to men. Even in the stance with him before her, she takes a less important role. He is dressed in a professional manner and like so many advertisements (and the unnatural expectations that developed from these advertisements) from this time period (probably the 60s) there are expectations of a woman having make up on, nails done even after she has been working in the house all day. The statement “I’m giving my wife a Kenwood Chef� seems to state that because he makes the money, he has the power to give her things, which she couldn’t otherwise have. She is equated to another appliance in the house but she can’t even perform as well as “The Chef� except to cook. I felt it also looked at woman in a way that they are so limited and narrow in their outlook that they could possibly be content being an object just simply to please a man and also be so delighted in an object – the appliance.

Posted by cmaclean at 10:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The first image is of a skinny black model. The lighting and the patterns of her clothing make her look exotic. The leopard print alludes to the animal/human dualism, making her, of course, wild and inferior. A smaller detail is that she is actually pinned to the wall – her wrists and elbows are held back by the ties. She’s also really skinny, probably unhealthily so. This is a common image in the media, for all women. In all honesty, I have no idea what this advertisement is for. Possibly for the clothes? It is important to note that this is also a black woman. Black women are portrayed as exotic, again striking on the animal/human dualism.

The second image is of a husband and wife, advertising for Kenwood Chef – a kitchen appliance. The statement says that the appliance does everything but cook, and that’s what wives are for. The wife in the picture looks really happy – happy to please her husband, is the message. The couple looks perfect and happy, and somehow, we get the idea that this is how things are supposed to be. The wife cooks for the husband, and all is well.

Of course, both of these images also play into class roles. You have to be able to buy something to get to these points. You have to buy the clothes to be sexy and exotic. You have to buy Kenwood to make sure your family life is smooth. What if you don’t have money for these sorts of things? Too bad. The slogan on the bottom of the Kenwood Chef advertisement also states, “I’m giving my wife a Kenwood Chef.� Basically, you have to have enough to be able to give your wife a Kenwood Chef in order to ensure happiness and order around your home.

Posted by schei144 at 10:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This first image shows the ideology that women's place is in the domestic sphere, where the husband can use her for whatever he needs. It completely demoralizes women by equating them to machines, and implying that the machine can do more than the woman can, or that the woman is just needed for the smaller things that this extravagant machine cannot do. It also shows the ideology of woman as "chief emotional and physical nurturer" (Bordo 171). While it says man needs woman for cooking his food, it also shows the woman holding the man at his back and the man leaning into the woman as if for physical support. This ad shows men as the consumers, by saying "I'm giving my wife a Kenwood Chef". So by buying this product for his wife, the man is being a "real" man and keeping his wife “in her place�. I think this ad is also directed towards the middle and upper class in the way the man is wearing a suit, the woman's nails are done and that you need to be able to afford this product.

The second image shows the stereotyped ideology that African Americans are exotic, and almost flora/fauna- like. It shows this by the leopard print outfit, as well as how she is tied down with her lips curled up (almost snarl-like), as if she was a wild animal being restrained. This image also illustrates Wolf’s "Beauty Myth" in the model’s thin figure, and we are to believe that this body type is what all women should strive for. It also portrays her as a Barbie doll, in the way she is tied down at different places on her body with accessories tied down around her. This gives the impression that others can manipulate her, and that she is defined by having others do things for her. The look on her face, while it could almost be a snarl, also looks like she is getting some sort of sexual satisfaction from being tied up and made to look like a doll, telling us that women want to be dominated like this and that they get turned on by it.

Posted by ender032 at 10:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The first advertisement implies many things about society. When first analyzing the photo, you notice that the woman is clinging to the man. This shows that women are needy and also that this is how they should act, if they want to be a loving wife. Also, the man has his back toward the woman instead of facing her and possibly embracing her as well. This shows the man's superiority over the woman's inferiority. It hints that maybe women are supposed to show all the affection in the relationship while the men look powerful, needed, and respected. Both of the people in this ad are in more formal wear while in the "kitchen," which is kind of odd, but in turn shows that appearance is a big deal and that both man and wife should always look at their best. The suite shows that the man has power and lives in the business/ job world and the formal wear of the woman shows that even when she is doing housework she should still look good for her husband. Aside from the things we can pull from the image like body language, attire, and appearance, they also give us some text. "The chef does everything but cook-that’s what the wives are for," implies a few things. It shows that women's place is in the kitchen and that a "good" wife cooks for her husband. It also implies that women are still useless in the kitchen without some sort of "manmade" mechanism. It shows that men do all the work, but that wives should follow their lead and be at their husband's every beck and call. The smaller text saying "I'm giving my wife a Kenwood Chef," is saying that men control the money and the buying of goods and that women don't have a say. Also, it makes women seem inferior, helpless, and needy because the husband has to "give" the wife everything.

The second advertisement is a little less obvious than the first. At first glance it just looks like a model, but if you look closer and think about the ad you can get a lot more out of it. First, the woman seems to be pinned to the wall along with the other material goods. This implies that women are just another material good like a microphone or sunglasses; that women are just objects to be bought and sold. Also, like in many ads, since it is a woman of color she is dressed in a more exotic print. This is stereotyping that both women are animals and also that women of color are exotic and different from white women. The way in which the woman is positioned says something more about her status as well. It could mean that she is helpless, but also that maybe she is somewhat risqué, sexually seductive, or whorish. This goes along with the wording on the bottom "cheap." Having her arms and legs spread and pinned down is showing male dominance over females. Lastly, this ad, like the first, shows something about appearance and how people should look. This woman is very skinny, so skinny must be beautiful.

Posted by orrxx072 at 10:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The first advertisement for Kenwood Chef portrays this image or ideology that 'every man needs a woman in the house to care for his needs.' In this case, the woman of the house needs to know how to cook, and her husband will supply her with the appliances that are needed to fulfill that role. Of course, the male would be known as the chef, leaving the woman to be discredited for all of the work she has done. She plays a 'behind the scene' role. The woman, or wife, also looks very happy about what she is doing, like that is the role she is supposed to play and she is wiling in doing so. Obviously, this really wouldn't be the case, but it's used to make the appliance that is being advertised more appealing because it creates happiness and love in the household. The advertisement also states at the bottom, 'I'm giving my wife a Kenwood Chef' as if she should feel very lucky and privileged to have one of her own. Overall, it is showing how the woman provides for her man of the house and will accommodate all of his needs and wants with delight. I believe the ideology of this article relates to white, upper-class individuals, but also between the separation of where women and men 'stand' in the household.

The second advertisement for Moschino portrays an ideology of a black woman who is pinned down. She is being used for a display that everyone can look like. As we talked about in class, black women are related to animals or plants in advertisements. This is a prime example with the black woman dressed in a cheetah print outfit. The statement at the bottom of the article says, 'Cheap and Chic' possibly having a relation to the woman being of color, meaning that she can look good even though she has to buy cheap clothing. I think the ideology of this article is directed towards women of color and possibly lower class women who can't afford expensive clothing.

Posted by kell0956 at 10:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the first advertisement, I see a few important ideologies at work. First, I see that the word “Chef� is written with a capital C. I recognize that “Chef� is the name of the product the advertisement promotes, but I wonder if there is a more important statement being made. Perhaps the “capital C Chef� communicates the dominance of the male role in the woman’s life. We see the same concept in Lorde’s writing—Lorde capitalizes the words “Color� and “Black� to draw our attention to our self-imposed norms. I think this same concept applies to “Chef�—we self-impose the dominance of the male in the woman’s life.

Also, the article says, “I’m giving my wife a Kenwood Chef.� If we interpret the article by concluding that men decide the role of the women in their lives, then we can support that conclusion by noting how the phrases “that’s what women are for� and “I’m giving my wife a Kenwood Chef� are connected. Perhaps we can assert that if the phrase about the man giving his wife a Chef was not included in the article, the message about male patriarchy would not be as strong.

In the second advertisement, I notice that the black woman is portrayed as an exotic animal, which is a trend we discussed in lecture. Although I do not entirely understand the reasoning behind this, I think that we can tie it to Riley’s “The Black Beauty Myth�. One of the messages within that article is that the white bourgeois American Dream has not only permeated into capitalism, but into black women’s body images as well. I think the way that the white bourgeois have been able to interpret black women through the lens of capitalism is by branding her as something “not us�, and therefore, “exotic�.

Posted by hippe015 at 9:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

For the top picture with the man and woman, the particular ideologies that are present include the feminine subjugation through marriage and gender specific roles. Although there is no subjugation in the actual image, the words that accompany the ad convey the stay at home wife/mother reality. The bright red nails and lipstick shows that there is an ideal of beauty at work that the woman must wear bright colors to be beautiful. The use of the honorific ‘Chef’, referring to the man, is an example that even though the wife is probably the one who does the cooking the man still takes credit for the ‘intellectual part of the work. The other image is unique because it shows how Blacks are portrayed in media as inanimate or related to nature and the wild. Her pose is very unnatural; she seems to be ‘pinned’ to the wall like the other objects in the picture. This helps to dehumanize her and make her into an object that they are trying to sell. To make her more exotic and ‘natural’ looking she is wearing a leopard print that invokes the jungle and Africa and nature in the extreme. The lack of concealing clothing also sends the message that Blacks are more objects of sexual desire.

Posted by meuwi027 at 8:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Moschino add pictures a black woman in leopard print pinned to the wall with other Moschino accessories in much the same way one would pin an insect in a butterfly collection. Along with the sense we're given that this woman is "cheap and chic" like Moschino products, the other most obvious effect of this image is its dehuminization of black women in general. Because, as Professor Bashore has said, advertisments attempt to sell everyone particular "right" ways of acting, thinking, and feeling, this image and others like it apply to all black women at once, not just the woman in the photo. This image tells black women (and everyone who sees it) that they are subhuman and animalistic, only worthy to be violently hunted and displayed for other's pleasure, and indeed the way she's pinned up suggests that she must be restrained or killed in order to be presentable to white civilization. The large afro and the way her skin has been digitally altered to look darker and glossier serve to further mark her out in a world of eruocentric beauty as "exotic" and exciting: worthy of male conquest. This image is a good example of how eurocentric beauty standards have a special effect on black women different from that of their white counterparts, as discussed by Riley in The Black Beauty Myth. Black women must engage in the diets and fanatic attention to appearance that white women must, but they must also maintain the stereotypes assigned to them specific to their race as white people expect (and often demand) to see them.
The Kenwood advertisement above all reinforces the proper and divergent roles of man and woman, husband and wife. The woman in the photo clearly embodies the perfect woman: white, married, beautiful, and scrupulous to her unpaid duties as a domestic houseservant of a the perfect, middle class, working man. This is made obvious in her conventional beauty, the wedding band clearly visible on her finger, the chef's hat perched on her blonde head, her innocent smile, and the way she leans in towards her husband, showing her willingness to pander and serve. Turning to examine the man, we see that his character and possible activities are far more ambiguous and left to the imagination than are his wife's; he has far more options open to him. He is dressed in a business suit, a symbol of power and wealth; he is clearly portrayed as "a man of the world." But he is faced away from his wife, leaning away from her, and we cannot see his hand where his wedding band might be. He gives the camera a knowing, self-confident smile. We know he is the god-like bestower of desirable goods (the Kenwood chef) to his childlike wife, but that he is not expected to engage in the dirty work of actually providing sustinance. The caption says: "The Chef does everything but cook - that's what wives are for." These words almost beg the question, "well, what IS he doing, then?" were we not supposed to assume from the start that he must be engaged in terribly important matters of business in the masculine public sphere and that the great role of men as creater of civilization and provider made possible the luxury his wife lives in.

Posted by moria065 at 7:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The first image creates the ideology that the man is supposed to work outside the home and earn the money and the woman is supposed to stay home and cook for her husband. The lower righthand corner says "I"m giving my wife a Kenwood Chef," like he's doing her a big favor by buying her this appliance. The two are displayed as the perfect happy couple. He's in a business suit and she's all dolled up and cuddling up to her husband. This is supposed to be the norm for an upper middle-class white couple within society at the time of this ad. The ad is telling women that they should cook for their husbands and be pretty for them so when they come home from a hard day of work they have something to eat and a pretty wife to look at.
The second image portrays the black woman as animalistic with wild hair, the animal print outfit, and in the way she stands. Underneath her it says "cheap and chic," and it seems like they're aiming this ad to a black audience who may not have as much money. The woman is also tied or pinned up to the wall somehow, making her seem caught or helpless. This ad is definitely generalizing that African americans don't have as much money as white people do and need a cheaper but still stylish line of clothing.

Posted by richt229 at 6:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The first advertisement, the one for the Kenwood Chef mixer, definitely gives the impression that the woman in a relationship does the cooking, not the man. It seems to depict the average, middle class couple who are very happy with their roles in their lives. Like we talked about in class, the woman also is very eager to be next to the man which seems to show that yes, she is dependent upon him. This advertisement also implies that cooking is all that wives are for. It seems like it is trying to define what a woman is, or what she is good for, by defining a job that women in general do, or should do if they want to be the proper wife. Even the clothing that both the man and woman wear point towards the man being the hard working, bread winner in the relationship while the wife stays at home. He is wearing a suit as if he is getting ready for work or just got back, clearly implying that he has a job, while she is in a chef's hat and very casual clothing, not something she would probably wear to work if she had one.

The second advertisement, however, goes in another direction entirely. It is trying to give the impression that people of color are more animalistic than so-called 'normal, white people' and plays into a lot of the generalizations that are thought of when many people think of blacks. For instance, the animalization and exoticness due to the leapord print clothes and the fro...both are things that seem to automatically pop into a person's head when thinking of people of color. What degrades/generalizes this advertisement even more is the fact that it is an advertisement for cheap clothes. It seems to say that people of color are the only people who do or could ever want to buy cheap clothing. No one would have possibly ever thought to have put a white woman in this advertisement, because supposedly no normal white woman would want to buy cheap clothing, or clothing that blacks would buy, because that would appear to be degrading to her current status.

Posted by orcut014 at 6:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The first picture claims that wives are for cooking; implying that at least part of their purpose is to feed their husbands. This is an overt itemization in which it dehumanizes the concept of a wife to exactly what is being sold here, a household appliance. The appliance, which is implied to be a gift in this case, is being given to a women to help her cook for a man. This reinforces stereotypes that women belong in the kitchen, which his suit enforces the idea that mean belong in the workplace. On top of the idea that this appliance is clearly intended to be used in the kitchen by a women, the add is still directed at men with the “I'm giving my wife...� comment. In summary, this add gives multiple signs saying that women are less then men, and there to serve men.

The second is another obvious example of “exoticness� that we discussed in class. Namely that a non-white individual is portrayed as exotic through symbolisms with rare plants/animals (in this case a leopard as the skin print on her clothing). Granted I'm a little out of touch with product labels, I don't even know what the product of this advertisement is. This add is using a female body simply as a means of attracting attention to the advertisement. Again, this add is dehumanizing; in this case to women of color by relation to animals and this use to simply attract peoples attention via body. The body position also appears to sexual in nature, which doesn't appear to have anything to do with the product (again, I'm not sure what that product actually is, but I doubt it's sexual in nature).

Posted by berz0009 at 6:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In Image number 1 the woman is being displayed as an object. She is attached to the wall making it look like she is some item being sold in a package, like a doll or barbie. She also looks like she is helpless by the position she is standing in. Giving the impression that women in general are helpless and need to be controlled. As an African American woman, she is wearing an animal print outfit. Many ads portray African American women wearing outfits with animal prints showing that they are wild and exotic and uncontrollable. It is showing the idea that she is an animal and not a human being. The wall she is attached to is pink making it more feminine and saying that is the color for women. By the type "Cheap and Chic" the ad is saying that this product is easily obtainable and also saying that women in general and specifically African American women are lower on the scale in our society.

The second ad is portraying a women and a man. The ad is for the kenwood chef. The text is saying "The chef does everything but cook. That's what wives are for." This text is saying that women are only used for certain things in life, like cooking. They are nothing better than an object in the house that do what they are told. It is showing that there are specific gender roles that men and women follow and shouldn't stray from them. The man in the ad is wearing a nice suit and looks professional. His back is turned to his wife and he is not looking at her. The woman is clinging on the husband, she had painted nails, her makeup is done, and she has a fake looking smile on her face like she is forcing it. This shows that the man is always in control and the woman is the desperate object of the household. The woman is also wearing a chefs hat which demotes her and shows that is her actual job in the house. The smaller picture in the corner which states "I'm giving my wife a Kenwood Chef," is also telling that the husband has control over what his wife gets or does. In this his back is also turned to her not looking at her and the wife is still clinging on to him even if she is facing the other way showing us that the woman needs the man.

Posted by coli0009 at 6:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the first image displayed we are able to see the classic stereotype of a home. The woman is, of course, tending to the cooking, while the man is dressed up in a professional business suit. The woman is perfectly done up with absolutely no flaws. The quote at the top of the ad implies that a woman's job is only to cook and perpare meals for her husband. The ideology of this image portrays that women should always look 'perfect' for their husbands and tend to their every need. Another interesting factor of the image is the fact that they both look and seem very happy with the roles they are each given. The woman looks completely content with being a housewife, and the man looks content 'bringing home the bacon'.
The second image is an ideology of women of color portrayed as animals. The woman in the Moschino ad is hung up on the wall, almost like a picture. She is just hanging there, half naked, dressed in animal print. One interesting detail of the picture is the way her mouth is portrayed. To me, it almost looks savage. Her body is so dark and her mouth is highlighted in an animal-like nature. This adds to the ideology of women of color as animals or wildly exotic.

Posted by stolz017 at 5:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The first advertisement for the blender is basically a testament to women in that time period. Women were the bread makers and men were the breadwinners. The saying “The chef does everything but cook- that’s what the wives are for� shows just how valuable women were in the kitchen. It also shows that women were only valuable for serving husbands and taking care of the housekeeping and cooking. The woman in the picture looks happy to serve her husband with such a fine kitchen appliance. I also like that in the corner it says “Im giving my wife a kenwood chef!�- wow what a nice gift? This kind of says that you’re a good husband if you buy your wife the finest cooking equipment to better serve you. Its like buying a slave a new tray to serve food to you on and calling it a Christmas present. The image also shows that you too can be that happy if your food is made with that mixer.
The second advertisement of the woman posing for a clothing line portrays African American women as being animalistic and a part of nature. The fact that she is tied to the wall with a look of pain kind of symbolizes how animals and African Americans are trapped in a white society where they are held back but the limits made by white people. Also, at the bottom it says “cheap and chic� which makes me wonder whether they are talking about the clothes or the woman? This is degrading. Also, she is held against the wall with her legs open and arms back which is somewhat sexual and provocative- maybe that’s what you need to be chic.

Posted by hegyx003 at 2:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Blog 7

The first image of the African American woman nailed against the wall shows the degrading effects of society onto African American women. She is wearing a leopard print outfit and her hair in an “out of control� Afro. This ad shows an African American woman as a savage. It further puts African American women down, makes their culture “savage-like,� demeans African American women to a lower class, while the model’s open legs and sexual posture makes African American women sexual objects. It does not help that towards the end of the ad says “cheap and chic,� thus further demeaning African American as cheap sexual objects. Also as the model is pinned to the wall, it shows how African American women must be controlled and restrained, or their “savage wild� selves will destroy society. Riley’s reading, “The Black Beauty Myth� relates to this image because Riley mentions about how white society “permeates into capitalist material goals, but body image as well, creating a distinctive increase in black women’s body dissatisfaction.� Since western ideal wants women to be tall, skinny, and beautiful, it now expects African American women to be tall, skinny, and beautiful. Thus, it puts further pressure onto African American women to fit this type as well.

The second image reinforces the role of a wife as a homemaker and the role of the husband as a breadwinner. The domestic, kitchen product further puts this women into this position, while showing that only white middle class women can live this as well to have such a great husband who gives a “Kenwood Chef.� The man also seems to be moving away from the wife, while her and her perfect painted nails are leaning towards him, trying to keep him, showing that no matter what, the woman needs a man. Also, the slogan on the bottom, “I’m giving my wife a Kenwood chef,� further proves the woman’s dependency on a man, because men are the only one who can give such a thing to a woman. The woman embodies beauty. She has perfect hair, nails, clothing, teeth, and lipstick. In, “The Beauty Myth,� beauty is something “women must want to embody it and men must want to possess women who embody it.� Thus, it proves only attractive white middle class women will be just as happy as the woman in the ad.

Posted by koxxx062 at 12:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Kenwood chef ad demonstrates the patriarchal system in which we live. The advertising slogan “The Chef does everything but cook- that’s what wives are for! reinforces the idea that a man’s wife exists to serve him. The man provides for the woman and in return she must do his bidding. The posture of the couple indicates this also, with the woman pressing herself against the man, her posture and expression indicates gratitude and happiness, and she just wants to be close to him. Her chef hat clearly shows her role is to cook while her perfect make up, nails, and hair show that her job is also to look beautiful for her husband. He, on the other hand, has his back towards her indicating that he does not feel the same about her, his facial expression a smile that does not look genuine or actually happy. The ad also reinforces the idea that white, middleclass, heterosexual couples are the successful ones, and if a couple fits into this category and have a Kenwood Chef then they can be truly happy.

The Moschino ad reinforces popular social conceptions of black women as exotic and wild. She is dressed in animal print clothing to reinforce the idea that she is an animal. Her posture is unnatural, her face tilted upwards with closed eyes that combine to make her seem like an object instead of a person. She is attached to the feminine, pink wall behind her, suggesting she must be tied down to make her safe, as she is a wild animal. The slogan “Cheap and Chic� suggests that the woman in the ad is for sale, objectifying her, and that this object is something easily attained, indicating that black women are of lower rank. All in all, the ad greatly objectifies black women, portraying them as animals that cannot be controlled.

Posted by bodea006 at 8:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the Moschino advertisement the black woman is dressed as a cheetah stuck to the wall. A prevalent ideology that comes to mind when looking at this picture is African Americans being commonly portrayed as objects of nature in ads whether they are plants or animals. The fact that the ad says “cheap and chic� speaks down on black women because it infers that they can be chic but only if they are cheap as well. The ideology of African Americans being portrayed as nature or animalistic objects additionally speaks down to them because both of those things do not have choices in what other humans do the them, they have to take it. It’s ironic to me that they show the woman in the ad as the ideal “perfect� woman. This goes along with the Black Beauty Myth in which Riley states, “black women’s beauty ideals and experiences of body dissatisfaction are often different from those of white women.�
The Kenwood Chef advertisement demonstrates the typical wife ideology: women are expected to cook perfect meals for their husbands at every appropriate time. The wife in this ad appears to be standing behind her husband, with her hand on his shoulder reassuringly. These situations give males dominance despite the fact that they rely on their wives to cook. This demonstrates that if you are a wife and are unable to cook gourmet meals for your husband, then you will be unsuitable as a wife and ultimately fail.

Posted by good0530 at 7:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The first image for Kenwood appliances, basically states that the reason a man is to marry a woman is for her to cook for him. The ideology that is portrayed through this advertisement is that women are good for only one thing, to be a housewife. This advertisement makes it look as if the woman is completely content with that “job title� as well. The couple looks very happy and satisfied with their lives as working man and housewife. The question that the advertising agency is asking is: why wouldn’t you want to be as happy as this couple? Or you must act like this (be a working man married to a housewife) to be happy and “normal�. This advertisement is speaking to the white, middle to upper class. Many people of this time, especially those outside of the white race, would not have been able to afford special appliances for the kitchen. Also, those minorities were also considered abnormal and would not be applied to the ideology placed into this advertisement.
This first advertisement reminds me of the old “Leave it to Beaver�. Mrs. Cleaver stays home all day cooking and cleaning in a dress and high heels, while Mr. Cleaver goes to work and comes home to a five course meal. In this advertisement, they are trying to say that Kenwood appliances will help the wife produce the meal and reproduce the ideas and behaviors of a normal family.
The second image for Moschino Fashions is displaying an African woman looking very exotic and almost safari like. As we talked about it in class, many times Africans are often portrayed as being animals or very exotic beings. The woman in this advertisement is pinned up against the wall, reminding me of someone tying up a pet. This advertisement is placing an ideology upon this woman that Africans are believed to be animal-like or exotic. Also, the phrase at the bottom “Cheap and Chic� makes me feel as though they are degrading this woman. They are saying you are animal-like and are only good for “cheap� clothing.

Posted by Melissa at 5:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Posted by Katie Bashore at 4:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Posted by Katie Bashore at 4:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Blog Seven
Assignment

This week, we talked about the body as cultural mechanism of social meaning and control. We looked at how representations of the body in culture bear ideologies about the subjects they are said to signify as well as how such representations form discourses about how we, as subjects, are supposed to live, act, and feel. We ended the week by exploring how representations of the body in culture are racially, culturally, ethnically, and sexually diverse. Use your readings to examine the two images below. “Read� them to determine what ideologies are at play and how those representations speak to particular racial, cultural, class, and sexual realities.

Posted by Katie Bashore at 4:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)