The use of stereotypes has been used and used over time in the history of advertising media, marketing, visual communications and popular culture. The stereotype that Iâll be focusing on the ad from 1972 for Weyenberg Massagic shoes will be gender/appearance which is the image you see above. Sexiest ads were widespread in the 70s but however this was the beginning to a great social change, women were beginning to increasingly challenge traditional gender roles, seeking greater equality in the workplace, and fighting for reproductive rights and personal autonomy. This ad would have represented a stark contrast to the feminist ideals of the time and could have been seen as reactionary and oppressive ideas about gender relations. Ads like this one likely contributed to the growing feminist critique of how women were portrayed in the media. This kind of imagery makes it harder for society to accept and embrace more complex, empowered representations of women.
Women began to call into question gender and cultural norms and their representation in the media/advertising world. At the time advertisements only had one goal to reach and that was capturing attention by using stereotypes, since advertisers intentionally use stereotypes because they are effective in quickly communicating ideas or emotions that are already familiar to the audience. Advertisements are meant to be seen but also meant to communicate a meaning by having coded signs which this advertisement has a bunch of codes to be decoded. The 70s were a golden age for advertisements but having advertisements like this today, how would that fit in todayâs world where cancel culture exists. The 1972 Weyenberg Massagic shoes advertisement perpetuates harmful gender stereotypes by visually aligning masculinity with power, control, and dominance, while subtly reinforcing traditional ideas of male superiority through its imagery, positioning of the female figure, and language, reflecting the broader social and cultural norms of the era.
The core of this advertisement from Weyenberg Massagic shoes uses the use of gender stereotypes reinforces specific biases about women’s place in society and men’s dominance. This advertisement made a feature on Playboi Magazine in December 1974 which drew negative depictions of women in advertising, it made this ad be widely critiqued for its portrayal of gender roles. You can see the advertisement focuses on the pervasive gender stereotypes of the time but how did the use of stereotypes in media intentionally or unintentionally reinforce societal biases? As said earlier advertisers often intentionally use stereotypes to communicate an effective message much quicker since itâll go unnoticed. If we travel back the 70s for a second we can see that advertisers were targeting men through advertisements which leaned into showing men as being dominant figures while women were often shown as submissive or dependent. Looking at the slogan that is shown in the image “Keep her where she belongs,” directly reinforces the belief that womenâs natural or rightful place is beneath men, both literally and metaphorically. That slogan alone promotes what I’m trying to inform you of, male dominance and female subservience. By slicing the layers down of this advertisement we will analyze the purpose but yet why this advertisement was a problem. The woman’s pose, lying beside a shoe, is a classic example of objectification, where her worth is tied not to her abilities or personality but to how she complements or serves the man. This kind of portrayal reinforces the bias that women are objects to be controlled or possessed, further giving the idea that womenâs value is tied to their relationship with men. According to âTheSocietyPages.orgâ Your Daily Dose of Blatant Vintage Sexism by Gwen Sharp it states â The ad uses subtle imagery and text to imply that if men buy the right footwear, women will be so entranced that they will remain in their natural habitat, the floor (more specifically, as reader Jamie points out, at your feet), just for the chance to gaze at the beautiful product:â By reducing the woman to a visual prop, the ad reinforces societal expectations that women should conform to certain roles such as attractive, submissive and decorative that feed into menâs desires. The idea of this advertisement is to sell shoes, yes? Might as well throw masculinity in there. By buying these shoes men are titled as âreal menâ asserting superiority, it reinforces the stereotype that men should maintain control in relationships, positioning them as the figures of authority. Advertisers might not always want to promote harmful stereotypes but by failing to rethink and fix these mistakes/issues they unintentionally reinforce societal biases. This could be when media creators rely on overused themes that are embedded in culture rather than considering their impact/deeper meaning. Even though the ad was created in 1972, its reinforcement of stereotypes had a long-term effect on how both men and women view their roles in society. Media, as a powerful tool for shaping perceptions, plays a significant part in either reinforcing or breaking down these stereotypes.
In the 1972 Weyenberg Massagic shoe advertisement, the unknown creators use a variety of coded signs, visual and textual elements that communicate deeper meanings or messages beyond their surface appearance. From the slogan to the way the woman is laid down these coded signs work together to persuade the viewer and reinforce cultural values, societal norms, and gender roles. In week 3 we discussed how Ferdinand de Saussure who is often referred to as the father of semiotics, identifies a sign being made from a signifier and signified. The signifier being either the image,sound or speak we refer to a sign and the signified being the concept that our mind constructs in relation to the sign. The text being the signifier which the meaning (signified) suggests a natural, rightful order where women are meant to be controlled, positioned, or “beneath” men. This persuades the audience (men) that if you buy these shoes you will be superior and have control over women,reinforcing masculinity. The naked woman on the floor besides the shoe, beautifully styled with makeup and adorned with nail polish and a giant ring being the signifier. The womanâs position being the signified showing her body language is suggestive of submission, not strength or autonomy. This creates a visual metaphor for inferiority, she is “beneath” the man (represented by the shoe), reinforcing the textual message that women should be controlled and kept in a subservient position. The Weyenberg Massagic shoe being the signifier, the shoe isnât just portrayed as a fashion item but more of as a symbol of male power in this particular advertisement which becomes the signified. Persuading the viewers that this sturdy, polished, leather shoe is presented as an embodiment of male authority. A decorative woman like the woman above with soft hair, fair skin and clean posture portraying how the woman appears in this advertisement becomes the signifier. The womanâs appearance signifies fragility and femininity, persuading that the woman is portrayed in a way that conforms to stereotypical ideals of femininity: she is decorative, submissive, and vulnerable. Closely looking at the advertisement you can see one more final detail that goes unnoticed. The womanâs closeness to the shoe, almost touching it being the signifier and the space between the shoe and woman signifies that she is connected to or dependent on the man persuading the woman is metaphorically “owned” or controlled by the man who wears the shoe. Charles Sanders Pierce, an American philosopher believed that a sign stands for something else. His Semiotic theory breaks down signs into three main components, the representamen, the object, and the interpretant. The image of the woman, the slogan and Weyenberg Massagic shoe become the representamen which is the form that the sign takes since each element of the representman is to communicate a meaning/message to the viewer. The Weyenberg Massagic shoe being the object which the ad is not only selling the shoe but selling this shoe to a male audience reinforcing gender norms. Pierce suggested that a meaning is not inherent in the sign itself but arises from the interpretation process, which depends on the viewerâs cultural context, background knowledge, and beliefs. Looking at these coded signs they all persuade male viewers by promising power and control, and they communicate meaning by reinforcing societal expectations around gender.
If the 1972 Weyenberg Massagic shoe advertisement were presented today it would receive negative reactions by our global audience today for several key reasons. Over the past decades, societal attitudes toward gender equality, representation, and advertising ethics have shifted dramatically, and this ad’s unshameful reinforcement of sexism would clash with contemporary values. There will be catastrophe within all of social media and potentially canceling Weyenberg Massagic shoes along with outrage over Sexism and gender inequality; equality movements like #metoo and other feminist initiatives have gained traction which wouldnât let this idea of a woman being âbeneathâ men be shown in any advertisement. Its suggestion that women should be “kept in their place” would be seen as contributing to the systemic oppression women have fought to dismantle. We did say that the intended audience in the 70s for this advertisement was towards men and the way men viewed these advertisements was by positioning themselves in a higher level than women at the time which wouldnât be the case in todayâs world. Ads like this one not only encouraged consumption but also played a role in shaping cultural norms, reinforcing gender stereotypes, and perpetuating ideologies about power, identity, and relationships. Like many ads of its time they all had significant impact on society but my take on this would be for attention by using stereotypes whether itâs gender, sexual orientation, culture, race etc⊠The advertisement above is displayed as oppositional, the ad’s message about gender roles and power dynamics is not just problematic, but deeply shown in a harmful, patriarchal worldview that objectifies women and reinforces stereotypes such as gender inequality. The advertisement in todayâs world is a step backwards towards a problematic past that has been worked on for decades thanks to the proud fearful women of the 70s who lit the match. The suggestion that men should âkeep women in their place,â and the reinforcement of traditional gender roles would not be tolerated by todayâs viewers. Stuart Hallâs reception theory becomes highly useful when analyzing this ad, especially in how the ad constructs and communicates gender roles and how different audiences might interpret it. To add on to this, the audience can decode the message exactly how the creator wanted the audience to view the advertisement which in this case the dominant or preferred reading aligns with the intended message of the advertiser reinforcing yet again gender norms and patriarchal norms. The intended message encoding the idea that men have power and authority over women in social, political and economic structures. Looking at this ad from Roland Barthes perspective his semiotic theory breaks this advertisement down into three categories by the linguistic message, coded iconic and non coded iconic. Well the linguistic message refers to words used to convey a meaning which in this ad the shoe becomes an explicit message, linking the shoe to male dominance and control. A coded iconic message is a visual element that carries a symbolic or cultural meaning, the shoe is a key coded iconic sign as well as the woman lying on the floor positioned in a way where she is âbeneathâ men. A non- coded iconic message is an image with a literal straightforward meaning such as the product being advertised as a polished, stylish shoe designed for men (audience). The undressed woman positioned lying on the ground is denoted in the image and the background being a plan which emphasizes the importance of the product, slogan and woman. If we look at this ad in a different perspective we can observe how much change thereâs been within gender norms and advertising standards has evolved.
In conclusion, the 1972 Weyenberg Massagic shoes advertisement perpetuates harmful gender stereotypes by visually aligning masculinity with power, control, and dominance, while subtly reinforcing traditional ideas of male superiority through its imagery, positioning of the female figure, and language, reflecting the broader social and cultural norms of the era. I feel as a historical context the ad reflects on the advertising industry’s frequent reliance on shocking images or controversial messages to grab attention. In todayâs world this example of advertisement isnât tolerated and a prime example of sexism in marketing making this display of misogyny be heavily criticized and likely condemned by consumers and advocacy groups alike. However if we date this back to the 70s, I believe Weyenberg Massagic shoe ad as an artifact of a time when traditional, sexist notions about gender were still mainstream in advertising. The reinforcement of stereotypes had a long-term effect on how both men and women view their roles in society, this created stereotype threat where individuals feel pressured to conform to societal expectations based on their identity group. Giving this advertisement a deep observation we see how advertisements such as this one can be dissected thoroughly by seeing how the ad functions on multiple levels appealing to emotions, desires, and cultural norms to subtly suggest that by purchasing the product, a man can achieve this idealized position of dominance. In conclusion, through its framing and use of visual language, the ad subtly but powerfully constructs societal biases and cultivated gender stereotypes of the era.
CITATION
Additional Research
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1NxGNxmg3TS7EKwdJn4cwpQzxys1CbwhS
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1NxGNxmg3TS7EKwdJn4cwpQzxys1CbwhS
Leave a Reply