Jean Kilbourne: Killing Us Softly 4 - Advertizing's Image of Women

[Shucks]

JEAN KILBOURNE: KILLING US SOFTLY 4 - ADVERTIZING'S IMAGE OF WOMEN

Jean Kilbourne’s pioneering work helped develop and popularize the study of gender representation in advertising. Her award-winning films Killing Us Softly (1979) and Still Killing Us Softly (1987) have influenced millions of college and high school students across two generations and on an international scale. In this important new film, Kilbourne reviews if and how the image of women in advertising has changed over the last 20 years. With wit and warmth, Kilbourne uses over 160 ads and commercials to critique advertising’s image of women. By fostering creative and productive dialogue, she invites viewers to look at familiar images in a new way, that moves and empowers them to take action.




(click image)

[michael_kard]

Thanks for sharing Shucks. This is film presents many issues of the representation of women in a very concise and understandable way. Some of the ads presented are genuinely shocking.

It's always nice to see gender-related material on SZ.

[Shucks]

i would like it if this place was a bit more clearly welcoming also to both women and anyone queer. things like various danish fucktard posters and that 'dating' thread really mess that up though.

but yeah, jean kilbourne obviously knows her stuff and puts it across very well. ad agencies (as do big corporate clients) tend to be dominated by white heterosexual males, and that obviously spills over into the junk they produce. i feel this is part of the root of the problem. (obviously it doesn't quite explain the imagery in fashion publications.)

kilbourne's examples are from mainstream brands and/or mainstream 'high fashion' - it's gotten me thinking about whether such sexism/exploitation is much less prevalent avant-garde fashion (where there is also less above-the-line marketing). or is this sexism just more covert..?

[Faust]

i would like it if this place was a bit more clearly welcoming also to both women and anyone queer. things like various danish fucktard posters and that 'dating' thread really mess that up though.

I could not agree more.

[Verdandi]

It's always nice to see Jean Kilbourne's work getting posted, so thank you Shucks!

This ties is nicely with 'Female Chauvinist Pigs' and 'Porn Chic' by Annette Lynch.Ultimately most things in our society cater to the heterosexual male gaze and more often than not it is done under the umbrella of 'sexual liberation for girls'.

Female sexuality could be about many things, yet in the mainstream it is depicted as a young woman in lingerie (nothing wrong with lingerie), bikinis or even less. Now, I don't think this is wrong per se as there clearly are women who get off by doing this yet it bothers me that this seems to be the only option that is frequently depicted in advertising and pop culture and I don't think it's a coincidence that it is also the one that the general audience (straight guys) seems to prefer.

I often get the impression that exposing our bodies (by our I mean women) seems to be the primary choice and other options are often (not always of course) not even considered in popular culture.
For example, I volunteer at the equivalent of Planned Parenthood here and the number of girls and young women who think that masturbation is 'gross' or 'for desperate old hags who don't get any otherwise,' yet have no problem with sending nude 'selfies' to a guy they barely know or engage in sexual acts they don't necessarily enjoy, never fails to baffle me.

I too am curious how this ties in with the niche of culture and/or fashion discussed here. Who first came my mind is of course Yohji Yamamoto. He has often talked about clothes that rather protect than expose and his idea of what is 'sexy' differs a lot from what is depicted in mainstream high fashion. Yet, the problem that remains for me is that he still is a straight man offering his opinion on this matter. I would love to hear what female designers think about this, or even better queer female designers.

[Shucks]

Oh, I posted about Lynch’s ‘Porn Chic’ in the Fashion Porn thread – did you see that? If not, have you read the book and was it good? I am going to order it, I think.

As for queer female designers, I have to admit I don’t know so many, or at least don’t know their sexual orientation (or gender identification)… The only one that comes to mind is Jil Sander.

Sander didn’t really do ‘avant-garde’ as such, but I’d call her an extreme essentialist. I am by no means an expert on her work or her history, but one thing that’s always struck me with Jil Sander is how ‘asexual’ her whole oeuvre is, if by ‘sexual’ one means the classic male gaze (which you mention), and how this in a way also fit her tendency to not do interviews or to be very curt when discussing her work.

It is as if she didn’t/doesn’t trust the fashion system in general and fashion media in particular to correctly represent her and her ideas – which would be perfectly understandable, since fashion media (as Kilbourne clearly shows) gives women very little freedom to express themselves as anything other than as objects of desire. I believe (I’m speculating here) that the image of female sexuality that is represented in fashion industry, clashes with Sander’s own and therefore she felt it not relevant to discuss overtly – rather, the ABSENCE of what we would see as female sexuality in her work, could in itself be seen as a presentation of an ALTERNATIVE female sexuality based on the language of dignity and empowerment. It is the way we are used to representing male sexuality (an empowered subject rather than a passive object) but because of the gender norms in western culture, we (‘the non-queer mass’) don’t perceive any references to sexuality when similar esthetics are proposed for women.

Jil Sander has always said she had the body in focus - but she has clearly not designed in such a way as to decorate or expose it as an object of desire. Rather, value (and thus attractiveness) should stem from the actions of the woman as a subject, not from her status as a physical object – and this is what Sander has supported in her designs. She focused on materials (and used the absolute best ones) and cuts instead of on decoration, in order for the wearer rather than observer to reap the full benefits of her design. Her designs allowed the wearer to choose for herself how (and to what degree) to be personal with her environment, rather than have the clothing present a normative sexual message ab initio. Very much in the way Jil Sander the person has also selectively presented herself. It is a manner of self-presentation which certainly can be said to be highly attractive precisely because it is NOT blatantly sexual (as witnessed by her own horrible experience with stalkers…).

Although there doesn’t seem to be all that much interview material about Sander on these issues, I just found this which I think illustrates my thoughts:

I think women have experienced that they are free to be girly, sexy kitten, gross, provocative, whatever, if they like to. But they may also have understood that in the long run, life is much more rewarding if they choose a more dignified look.
…
Since childhood, I have been interested in men’s clothes. Fabrics, cuts, colors — everything there seemed less flimsy and whimsical. This may have given my work an androgynous edge. But I like femininity, not of the devout, but of the self-assured, cool and sophisticated kind. I have the impression that lines get more and more blurred between the sexes. You see much more fashion consciousness and a desire for individual outfits in the male population, while many women prefer uniformity with their sex, be it the girly style, the denim plus Chanel jacket outfit, gothic, or what have you. But there are great examples of women dressing with attitude. A personal, grownup style often seems to come with professional success and an autonomous lifestyle. There are times in life when a non-sexualized attitude is important. I hope to provide clothes which underline the attractiveness of character, intelligence and personal charisma.

[Verdandi]

Oh, I posted about Lynch’s ‘Porn Chic’ in the Fashion Porn thread – did you see that? If not, have you read the book and was it good? I am going to order it, I think.

Yes, was referring to said post. I read 'Porn Chic' some time ago and it makes an interesting read for sure and Lynch certainly offers new insight as well.

Sander didn’t really do ‘avant-garde’ as such, but I’d call her an extreme essentialist. I am by no means an expert on her work or her history, but one thing that’s always struck me with Jil Sander is how ‘asexual’ her whole oeuvre is, if by ‘sexual’ one means the classic male gaze (which you mention), and how this in a way also fit her tendency to not do interviews or to be very curt when discussing her work.

Jil has a reputation for being very controlling. She even did the bookkeeping herself at one time. In an interview with German GQ (I think?) in 2012 she said she is involved in almost every step of production. She buys the rights to almost every photo ever made of her so that only the ones she likes and that fit well into her brand get published.

She gave quite a few interviews to the German media when she returned for the third time and I remember distinctivly she said in one that she doesn't really care for androgynity in fashion and that she also doesn't follow what men do in general. She then said that all that is relevant are the proportions of the body and the materials, she doesn't need to know more.

I know that people say there is little design present in her womenswear. Jil refers to herself as a textile engineer and not a designer. She also once said that women who wear Jil Sander are never fashionable but modern.
That pretty much is the essence of the label Jil Sander to me. It's the reason I didn't like Raf Simons there. His last collection for the label was anything but modern. It was fragility displayed by having to clutch your coat and shoes that aren't practical for everyday life (now don't get me wrong, I LOVE a good stiletto but there is a difference between a Raf Simons stiletto and a Helmut Lang one).

It is as if she didn’t/doesn’t trust the fashion system in general and fashion media in particular to correctly represent her and her ideas – which would be perfectly understandable, since fashion media (as Kilbourne clearly shows) gives women very little freedom to express themselves as anything other than as objects of desire. I believe (I’m speculating here) that the image of female sexuality that is represented in fashion industry, clashes with Sander’s own and therefore she felt it not relevant to discuss overtly – rather, the ABSENCE of what we would see as female sexuality in her work, could in itself be seen as a presentation of an ALTERNATIVE female sexuality based on the language of dignity and empowerment. It is the way we are used to representing male sexuality (an empowered subject rather than a passive object) but because of the gender norms in western culture, we (‘the non-queer mass’) don’t perceive any references to sexuality when similar esthetics are proposed for women.

In my opinion you hit the nail on the head with the bolded part. It certainly is an alternative view on sexuality. Obviously queer women are not a singular entity but to a lot Jil Sander's designs are 'sexy'. It is not just 'dressing like a man', there is something alluring about the clean lines and the way her clothes are cut. Of course, alternative views on sexuality, especially when it comes to clothing, often fly under the radar. The media and even more the fashion media doesn't care about queer women since we are generally seen as 'unfashionable'. Add to that that queer women obviously don't care what men think about them (as in not seeking some sort of approval when it comes to their satorial choices - not saying that straight women only dress for men) and it doesn't suprise that alternative views on female sexuality in fashion are next to invisible.
Staying on the topic the way queer women are represented in fashion: When you look at editorials that showcase 'lesbian undertones' it's almost always catering to the male gaze. It's feminine women that seem to evoke some sort of male fantasy.

But enough with the queer ladys. Since Jil doesn't exactly belong to the group of designers frequently discussed here I would love to hear more opinions about others. Like I meantioned in another post: There is Yohji. Rei comes to mind as well. But what about Rick for example? I also noticed that you wrote that you don't percieve sexism as overt in this particular niche. What makes you say so?

[LEB]

Maybe interesting:

In the video it says the german magazine "Brigitte" is not using professional models anymore.. this is only partly true.

This was introduced in 2010 and they went back to using models in (I think) 2012.

Here are apparently quotes from women (Brigitte readers that they wanted Brigitte to use pro models again):

"The idea is really good, but sometimes you just want to see the fashion."

"I am sometimes distracted from the fashion, when a normal woman is shown. And, yes, also pressured. When a normal woman from the streets already looks so beautiful it gives me inferiority complexes ... "


So Brigitte is actually now using both models and "normal" woman. (But no size 0 models).

This at least was the official statement why they use models again.

The ZEIT (german newspaper) says the following:
- they sold less magazines after using normal women
- it was a lot more stress and possibly more expensive to work with unprofessional models

Sources:

http://www.brigitte.de/mode/ohne-models/ohne-models-faqs-1038523/

http://www.zeit.de/lebensart/mode/2012-09/brigitte-professionelle-models

[Faust]

I too would appreciate this. I like to assume the people who post the... well, the rubbish, are just naive kids. But would prefer this be a forum that educated them, and not one that humoured or tolerated them, which latter some few posters seem to do.

I mean, I know I'm no old-guard here, but that's my (strong) feeling. Free speech shouldn't ever extend into the shouting down of all others/women/queers.

Again, I could not agree more!

[Faust]

Verdandi and Shucks: It just occurred to me that Jil had been simply making clothes for herself, kind of power lesbian gear that she'd wear, and then just put it out there. It makes sense. If this so, then what is frustrating is that she is just as stereotypical as anyone else (i.e. this is the stuff that power lesbians are supposed to wear, borrowing menswear elements because those are perceived powerful).

I don't see why there can't be a compromise, like the aforementioned Yohji. Or Rick for that matter. Or Ann, a perfect example of a strong female designer who was equally comfortable covering and uncovering the female body. Or Veronique Branquinho with her sexy librarian look. I'll take any of them over Jil any day.

I don't think the problem is some nonsensical PC notion that sexes are no different from each other. They are. Equality is not the same thing as difference. The real tragedy is that both the conservative male (white, black, doesn't matter) and radical feminism have both created the war of the sexes. Whatever happened to men and women being friends and partners? Now it's all about fault-finding.

There is no doubt that plenty of women find strength in being sexy and alluring, the way plenty of men find strength in either being physically strong or wealthy or connected. I know PLENTY of women who use their sexuality to manipulate and ride on the coattails of a rich man's success. It's been thus since the dawn of civilization. What I am trying to say is there is something prima in human wiring (sexual urge) that pop culture is tapping into. If there wasn't, it would not create such a ubiquitous demand for this type of imagery.

Lastly, Verdandi, I find more and more that women dress for other women, at least in fashion. Men don't care if you are wearing Gucci or Prada - they want to see you naked.

[interest1]

Verdandi and Shucks: It just occurred to me that Jil had been simply making clothes for herself, kind of power lesbian gear that she'd wear, and then just put it out there. It makes sense. If this so, then what is frustrating is that she is just as stereotypical as anyone else (i.e. this is the stuff that power lesbians are supposed to wear, borrowing menswear elements because those are perceived powerful).

I don't see why there can't be a compromise, like the aforementioned Yohji. Or Rick for that matter. Or Ann, a perfect example of a strong female designer who was equally comfortable covering and uncovering the female body. Or Veronique Branquinho with her sexy librarian look. I'll take any of them over Jil any day.

I don't think the problem is some nonsensical PC notion that sexes are no different from each other. They are. Equality is not the same thing as difference. The real tragedy is that both the conservative male (white, black, doesn't matter) and radical feminism have both created the war of the sexes. Whatever happened to men and women being friends and partners? Now it's all about fault-finding.

There is no doubt that plenty of women find strength in being sexy and alluring, the way plenty of men find strength in either being physically strong or wealthy or connected. I know PLENTY of women who use their sexuality to manipulate and ride on the coattails of a rich man's success. It's been thus since the dawn of civilization. What I am trying to say is there is something prima in human wiring (sexual urge) that pop culture is tapping into. If there wasn't, it would not create such a ubiquitous demand for this type of imagery.

Lastly, Verdandi, I find more and more that women dress for other women, at least in fashion. Men don't care if you are wearing Gucci or Prada - they want to see you naked.

How about if you're wearing Rick?

[guardimp]

-point taken-
yet the second question seems more relevant to the discussion at hand, is the object of clothes to influence the perception of the wearer, or can the clothes be the object of desire or and the person merely a shell to convey the idea?

[Faust]

Why is the assumption always made that since some men want to see women naked all men want to see women naked? Can the clothes be the object of desire or and the person merely a shell to convey the idea?

If you are referring to my statement, obviously I was stereotyping for two reasons a) for the sake of the argument b) because the subject is stereotypes.

[Faust]

Related. On the travails of fat women in France.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25215641

[SuE]

Related. On the travails of fat women in France.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25215641