Creating Notions of Gender

   

     The first time I looked at this advertisement I was drawn in by its simple sexiness- now in the media and advertisement we’re told to set these sort of “raw” raw images to a new standard. They create a seemingly refreshing change from all the outlandish and over the top images in high fashion we’re bombarded with every day.  However, it’s just the image that is simplified- if anything, this diptych promotes even more straightforward and unapologetic statements about our society’s notions of gender.

     Let’s start with the most obvious here: The ad clearly sells “Men’s Shirts”…but a woman is modeling it. Topless. She clutches like she could take it off at any second. This is not rare in any fashion ad- we all know “sex sells”. And yet, this ad says a lot more about the expectations of males and females in society’s sexual relationships than the act of sex itself.

     So this ad implies that if a man buys this shirt, he will own it. It is now an extension of him. When a woman puts his shirt on, it’s almost like she belongs to him as well. This could go as far back as when woman were considered property, and still are in some parts of the world. Either way, a woman wearing a man’s shirt and nothing else sort of simultaneously supports stereotypes about male dominance and sexual prowess, as well as female sexual availability and willingness. If a man looks at “his girl” wearing his shirt, he sees it as attractive because it’s a piece of him on her, almost as if marking his territory. It feeds into the stereotypes of masculinity that rule our popular culture: it is overpowering, it cloaks femininity, in this case both literally and figuratively.

      I mean, think about it. The idea of seeing your girlfriend in nothing but one of your big shirts is sexy. But ladies, does the idea of him in your pink turtleneck turn you on? If it does, more power to you. But there is some very interesting double standards that arise when we start to cross so called masculine and feminine characteristics. Putting a female’s shirt on a man would almost seem to degrade him. A male, especially heterosexual, might feel embarrassment or loss in confidence because with the shirt comes a decrease in masculinity. He doesn't actually lose any testosterone, no. But a male with female qualities is generally noted as not as sexually attractive and maybe even “weak”. Femininity taints masculinity whereas adding the right touch of masculinity creates sexiness.

     It’s just like crossing “masculine” and “feminine” actions and emotions: If a woman can fix a car, or works as a cutthroat, high powered executive (and she can do it all in heels) there’s a certain amount of sex appeal that comes with that. If a man wears is “oversensitive” or works in fashion or even has a sense of style that is unique from other males he identifies with, his sexuality is questioned and he is viewed as less attractive.

     You could blame all of that on human nature, but the fact of the matter is, gender is a social construct. Its ideals are fabrications of society that divide people into two hegemonic categories- anyone pushed outside or between the two is a marginalization. There are expectations pushed at us from all sides. Ads like this try to tell us about ourselves, try to construct our desires by giving masculinity a transferable power and then telling men that they can have this masculinity along with the shirt. This image just sort of defaces the individual woman in all her complexity and instead markets her as something to own and dress and look at. It also expects a lot of a heterosexual man’s masculinity and sexual being, while at the same time marginalizing any other type of sexual relationship but heterosexual.  All of this construction of what it means to be male and female in popular culture is built into these images, and the fact that we walk by them every day without even stopping to ponder what they say about us as we identify ourselves in society is a fascinating and somewhat alarming thing. 

Solomon's "Master of Desire"

             

     Solomon's "Master of Desire" gives an insightful look into the world of advertising, with common themes of desire, fear, sex, and societal paradox. I found the latter most interesting. Solomon makes a reference to Alexis de Tocqueville's observation that as Americans we identify with both a sense of belonging and a sense of ambition.This desire to belong to a nation, a community, to find our niche within it, and "fit in". This ambition being the desire to be thought of or recognized as part of a higher social strata, even in a society where all social, political, and economic success supposedly comes from completely equal opportunity. 

     In perusing the internet for an example of an advertisement that screams all of these themes, an interesting ad came up that caught my attention. This was the first indicator of a powerful advertisement-the fact that it caught my attention at all. 

     The image depicted is actually two different ads, part of the same campaign,

which makes the relation to Solomon's ideas about belonging, elitism, and desire all the more enticing. Just initially taking a glance at the name of the product, "Gucci Guilty" already appeals to that promiscuous, "oops-I-did-it-again" mentality. Already we look at the name of the product and feel like it could empower us do something crazy, wild- completely unlike ourselves. 

     These images are in fact ridiculously common in the beauty industry (one of the biggest, most successful advertising industries in the world-there's a reason they're common). A man and a woman, seemingly naked, deliciously close and yet not close enough. We look at these people and it appeals to so many different parts of our minds. Being touched, envied, lusted after, desired, beautiful, sexy. We want to be part of this sexy society of beautiful people who smell good and as a result, (we are left to conclude) have lots of sex. We look at them and see that they possess an otherworldly charisma. The product is expensive, the packaging is exquisite, and they just seem so damn cool. This ad tells you that everyone wants sexy, good smelling people, but that only sexy good smelling people want each other. But wait! You're in luck- you can be one of them (for around $62.00). 

     Beyond creating this good smelling secret society of perfume owners, these ads do interesting things to each other when placed side by side. On the left is an ad "pour homme". The colors are dark and muted, Chris Evans stares half scary, half sexy back at us. The woman is beneath him, begging him to look down at her, taking in his scent. 

     Gucci had interesting things to say about their product for men: "The juice has top notes of sparkling Italian lemon, pink peppercorn & lavender. The dry down features hallmark Giannini note patchouli and cedar wood. Gucci Guilty is the perfect exterior for the image of the man who also wears it: a sexy, fearless risk-taker." 

     And then we have on the right, the fragrance for women. The man has similar submissive body language to the woman in the image on the right. The color is brighter, more glowing. You look at the woman and envy everything she has, you look at the man and see that she is desirable- and that your envy is justified.

      In both images, a sense of empowerment through sexuality is so present. Looking at these images creates a sort of envy for said empowerment. The consumer is told that by purchasing this product, they can promote an image of themselves that will then elevate their societal status and appeal. And with that, become what people most often want but will never admit: to be both desirable and enviable, with the lines blurring between the two. So while we all want to belong to this exclusive club, we all want to be just a little bit better than everyone already in it. This is the paradox that Solomon speaks of and the desire that is constructed from the cultural visual signals we pass by everyday, just as I did with Gucci's "Gucci Guilty".