Here's one way not to get drunk during today's Super Bowl -- take a drink every time one of the "hot" women depicted in a commercial is a woman of color, instead of a white woman. I don't mean to say that more women of color should appear in these leering, sexist ads; I do think, though, that their pervasive whiteness, including that of the presumed, targeted viewers, is worth pointing out.*
I got to thinking about this disparity -- the way that "hot" in Super Bowl advertising mostly means "white hot," and the way that the whole commercial context during the Super Bowl is mostly projected through a white racial frame -- when I read two recent articles on Super Bowl commercials at the liberal web site "Alternet."
Vanessa Richmond's "Half-Naked Hot Chicks and Beer: The Sexist Guyland of the Super Bowl Beer Commercial" spends a couple thousand words on the obvious point that the commercials are sexist, while Robert Lipsyte's "The Commercial Super Bowl: Voyeuristic Horndogs, Hot Babes, Flatulent Slackers, and God's Quarterback Star in the Big Game" reads like a meandering paean to especially bad Super Bowl commercials of the past.** Lipsyte seems to be hoping another especially racist, homophobic or over-the-top crude commercial will air this year, so he can add it to his "so bad they're good!" collection.
Richmond doesn't seem to see any racism in the "Guyland" of Super Bowl commercials (and I'll explain in a moment how I think that itself seems kinda racist), while Lipsyte describes just one racist commercial, which he recalls, again with an odd fondness, this way:
For sheer prescience when it came to American foreign policy, nothing has beaten “Kenyan Runner,” a Super Bowl commercial that ran just before Team W led us to eight losing seasons in Afghanistan, Iraq, and at home.
Imagine a black African runner in a singlet, loping barefoot across an arid plain. White men in a Humvee are hunting him down as if he were wild game. They drug him and, after he collapses, jam running shoes on his feet. When he wakes up, he lurches around screaming, trying to kick off the shoes.
This was 1999, two years before the 9/11 attacks and the invasions that followed. The sponsor was Just For Feet, a retailer with 140 shoe and sportswear super stores that blamed its advertising agency for the spot -- before it collapsed in an accounting fraud and disappeared.
Colonialism anyone? Racism? Forcing our values on developing countries? Mission accomplished.
Yes, that really is a racist commercial. But why is the only commercial racism Lipsyte notices (and again, Vanessa Richmond apparently didn't notice any) such an obvious example? And, why is it such an old example?
A more pervasive mode of racism that I see in this commercialized Guyland is the vaunting of "white beauty" as the default for "beauty." Now, I certainly agree with what I understand as a common white-feminist perspective -- that these idealized Guyland women perpetuate sexist reductions of womanhood to little more than objectified and vulnerable body parts -- and I'm not saying that I think women of color should be clamoring for demographic equity in such ads.
However, I'm not sure how to square that with my realization that these ads nevertheless participate in, and greatly help to perpetuate, mainstream standards of "beauty," of heterosexual feminine desirability. Doesn't the pervasive whiteness of such fantasized women, on such a centralized cultural stage as the Super Bowl, help to detrimentally affect such things as the identities and life-chances of women of color?
Here, for example, is an exploration of the damaging effects that unspoken white beauty standards continue to have on black children and young women, a videotaped experiment (which I've posted before) by Kiri
Again, I think that liberal critics of the "Guyland" of Super Bowl ads are right to point out how obviously and obnoxiously sexist, obstinately adolescent, homophobic, crude, and violent this fantasyland is. However, the more subtle racism of Guyland's pervasive whiteness deserves critical attention as well.
This photo appears at Alternet with Richmond's article; when I first saw it, my mind immediately registered (among other things), "five white women" -- why didn't Richmond see that as well?
Again, I'm not saying it would be better to recast such a group, and all beer and other Guyland commericialism, with a more racially representative array of women -- I'd rather see the rampant sexism and homophobia itself toned down instead.
But what if Richmond had inserted a few words in her analysis that mark the pervasive whiteness? Below are a few paragraphs from her Alternet piece, with my additions of that sort in capital letters, just to see what difference that would make.
When things are this pervasively white, don't liberal/progressive critics play into the unmarked power of de facto white supremacy when they don't identify and name (let alone analyze) that pervasive whiteness?
After watching dozens of beer ads over the last few days, I can report that the land of beer is a fun and raucous AND VERY WHITE place. It’s a land where THE drunkenness, laughing, burping, irresponsibility, pranks and rule-breaking OF ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY WHITE GUYS reign supreme. There are no awkward silences, no need to speak in words, no need to remember to say or do anything in particular or face the consequences. Heck, there are no consequences. It’s a world where WHITE women have fun entertaining WHITE men. It’s an escape from the tyranny of work and manners, from the ill-fitting harnesses of the digital age on
I understand the merits of the golden liquid, with its bubbles on a quest for freedom. But beer ads don’t really bother with that. They sell an escape to fantasy WHITE masculinity. And WHITE? boy, while there might be more WHITE women drinking beer and watching the Super Bowl than ever, and more ads directed to them in some ways, most beer ads -- especially the sexy ones -- are like WHITE masculinity on steroids.
Those ads look pretty tame today. In last year’s Miller Lite Cat Fight, which got over six million views afterward, WHITE women leave a lunch table to rip off their clothes and fight in their undies, mud-wrestle, then make out. “The first beer commercial that starred actual WHITE soft-core porn actresses," is how the TV Munchies blog hailed it. “Bravo Miller Lite! We’ve never been thirstier!” The follow-up Cat Fight ad features a scantily clad Pamela Anderson joining in a pillow fight.
Again, when liberals/progressives analyze a social or cultural phenomenon that's pervasively white, why play into the invisibility that buttresses white hegemony by not marking and analyzing that whiteness? Why take for granted a system of oppression that gains so much of its power by being widely taken for granted?
And by the way, if you watched the Super Bowl and/or the ads, did you see racism in any other ways?
* I added this paragraph's second sentence in response to comments by Rosa and fromthetropics, beginning here.
** Lipsyte's piece originally appeared at TomDispatch.
I agree with everything posted. I read an article on another blog that featured a topic about black models and posed the question why they were seldom seen in i.e Neimans catalogs and such. The author pointed out that it was in the way such ads were marketed to a specific audience..of a certain physique.. in other words, the designers do not portray models of color for the way WOC are physically built because the clothes would not flatter or enhance certain areas that the clothes were otherwise designed to. In other words WOC made the clothes look as bad as they were originally designed.
ReplyDeletethen I see nothing but blonde on blonde on blonde and occasionally a brunette in these superbowl ads and I can't help but subconsciously feel that the makers of these ads want me to believe that white beauty is whats acceptable universally and superior to any other..a lie.
and for goodness sakes not even the teams cheerleaders who are of color are even shown except in blips and in the background. I believe there is some degree of intimidation and insecurity in constantly having to display non WOC and it links back to what I stated about the case of the black model who is put in poorly designed clothes..I think there is a fear that if a WOC is shown there is a potential of admiration and respect for the beauty of the WOC to be gained and people would see that the white standard of beauty is not all that its emphasized to be having been exposed to other forms of beauty.
actually, i think it's a queasy form of Respect, for the most part, that keeps WoC out of these ads. respect and a little Fear, too perhaps.
ReplyDeleteit might be argued that a kind of tacit social 'Contract' exists between extremely attractive young white women and Men. it's a kind of agreement that-if she chooses to play the game-she can be showered w/attention, money, possibly fame in exchange for making herself visually(NOT sexually in a physical sense) available to the eyes of men. every single one of those women in any super bowl ad COMPETED LIKE CRAZY to be there; guaranteed.
no such 'contract' exists with attractive young black women. not for white men, anyway. and i believe it doesn't because the men who make these ads, organize the auto shows w/the bikini girls, hire the 'jager' or capt. morgan girls DO KNOW that a shameful history of sexual exploitation of black women exists, and they don't wish to tie in w/it...which might be how it would be taken if incredibly hot black girls were gyrating around for the delectation of american guys.
plus, there's the tricky matter of depicting IR(and especially WM and BW)sexuality. as it is now, it's sexy, but there's a light-heartedness to it that would probably disappear if WoC were added in signifigant numbers.
but don't they try to get around the Race/inclusion thing by employing semi-dark skinned, 'exotic'-looking women? i don't know since i never watch tv or look at mags.
Go to Google image and type in "Babe."
ReplyDeleteNot one black woman in sight....
Here it is again in another context. Think Babe.
Do a search for Girls Gone Wild...again not many black women. (I found one.) There just doesn't seem to be a whole lot of room for black women in the white male conscientiousness. It also bothers me that this stuff airs on late night TV with not many complaints from what I gather.
These young white girls can engage in almost any type of illicit act and come out smelling like roses. It’s as if their whiteness protects them. Take a look at any hot rod magazine or car audio mag, and you won't see a black face anywhere. Its why some of us black people walk away with the same broad stereotype, that all white people drink. Because its all we see on television and the movies. Every beer/wine commercial it seems has white male actors in it, whooping it up and lauding over white women in skimpy outfits, again as it blacks didn't exist. Remember the Swedish Bikini Team of Old Milwaukee beer?
No matter how debauched the references- no matter how crude the images; some whites see it simply as good clean fun. Failing to make any correlation with regards to the whiteness of the whole thing. Its white sanctioned sex for public consumption. This is what the world sees when they look at our country; not us black folk engaging in all manner of debauchery. But rather, white people doing it to excess, because that’s what it means to be an American.
2 Live Crew's album cover was on the nightly news almost every night when this group hit the national scene. (for their explicit lyrics and sexual content) Whites were shocked and outraged at the images of four big black butts pasted on the front of their album cover. Black sexuality was thrust in the forefront like never before and the white mainstream didn’t know how to handle it. Again whites were under the assumption we blacks liked the very same thing they did. Thin blond blue-eyed women.
Used to years and years of depictions of white sexuality on the big screen and on white television soap operas (remember when Luke Raped Laura on national television in General Hospital?) White America was ill-equipped to handle this new shout of independence from blacks. This group and Sir-mix-a-lot, shook white America to its core. I’m not condoning the lyrics or the treatment of the women in these videos; I’m saying whites just aren’t used to portrayals of black sexuality or scantily-clad black female bodies. They aren’t used to Michelle Obama’s Bare arms or her Big butt. There is “white normal sex,” and then there's the stereotypical wild- uninhibited jungle sex of the racial other.
As a black Father of three grown women, and four grand-girls I cry every single time I watch the Doll test. It simply breaks my heart to see their faces once they realize their skin color is the very same as the bad, ugly- black doll. If white esteem/privilege can be learned at that tender age- then black self-hatred can be learned as well.
ReplyDeleteIn ref to what Randy said,
ReplyDeleteThe formula for ‘exotic beauty’ seems to be anglo features + light brown skin. Sure we think of Penelope Cruz and Selma Hayek as these mysterious foreign brunette beauties, but arghhhh these types of women still tend to have light skin and sharp, defined features.
Even Tyra Banks said so. She said, in one of her many shows about women of color bleaching their skin, that her part of her success in ‘breaking down racial barriers’ was still due to our culture’s celebration of light skinned standards of beauty. It was refreshing to hear Tyra know that she might have not had the life she has, even if she looked exactly the same, if she was a few shades darker.
People like Naomi Campbell seem to be a little bit exceptional, she is darker than what many expect in the high fashion industry and has non-anglo features. But even the black models in high fashion, ie Jordan Dunn and Chanel Iman, are just ethnic enough to be within the comfort zone of white consumers.
On a personal note, I really really wish this was not true. White men seemed to be acculturated to look at women of color a specific way, and that disturbs me a lot.
In high school, a friend of mine liked this white boy. My friend and I are both minorities. This white boy was, to us, ‘typically’ white. He went to a school in a richer part of town, his family was very well off, and he seemed to look like a typical hipster white kid. Anyway. My friend was a bit taken aback by the fact that this kid would probably never see her in a romantic light. Maybe if she had gotten to know him, maybe something could have happened, but I think both of us knew that it wouldn’t work.
We talked about it loosely among our other friends, and figured that unless we had a bangin’ Kim-Kardashian body, unless we were sultry dark eyed buxom women with cascading locks of hair, that type of boy would never be within our bounds. They would just never see us as potential romantic interests. I imagine for most white boys, any white women is a potential interest, but only very narrowly defined women of color are of any romantic potential. And most minorities that do seem to attract that type of boy, I have noticed, seem to engage the man in a dynamic where the man is participating in something exotic, foreign, and perhaps forbidden, so it is exciting.
F that. There is nothing foreign and exotic about me, except maybe my embrace of Marxist leanings. I am American enough and Pakistani enough to be content with my cultural identity, and to have a lot to offer. I am just not content with the fact that people question my cultural identity.
That boy, I don’t know him, but I know he ended up dating an Asian girl who was just as rich and anglicized as he was. We called it a match made in socio-economic heaven.
Serena Williams
ReplyDeleteNote the comments: Now I know of many many black men in numerous forums who believe this woman is as Phine as the day is long. But not to most white males, who seem intimidated by her shape. Paris Hilton makes up one of Serena's legs for gracious sake. To the black community this sister has a lot of support- but sadly our opinions don’t matter much in a racist society which only sees beauty through a white lens. TMZ.com posted the same images and whites had a field day. Some of the comments likened her to an ape, or a well-built man. It was very very sad.
@ M Gibson: thanks for that link, it's a really illuminating what this thread is about. I was quite shocked at the blatant nature of the comments there. Clearly you'll expect some bitchiness given the nature of the site, but after a while I felt like I happened upon a white supremacist site by mistake. Wow.
ReplyDeleteRandy said...
ReplyDelete"actually, i think it's a queasy form of Respect, for the most part, that keeps WoC out of these ads. respect and a little Fear, too perhaps."
I don't think these advertisers really care what WOC think.It's all about money and what they think America wishes too see.
M. Gibson said...
"If white esteem/privilege can be learned at that tender age- then black self-hatred can be learned as well."
The doll test video is a good example of this.It's uncomfortable to watch.
M.Gibson said ..
"I’m saying whites just aren’t used to portrayals of black sexuality or scantily-clad black female bodies.
I think that's true over all but I do think the trend is away from that.ESPN put Serena Williams on their cover issue with no clothes on and Sports Illustrated swim suit issues are modeling more POC then they have in years past.Racialicious has an article called "Race and comics roundup" showing Archie in an interracial relationship.The article goes on to say that some years ago this interracial theme was to be introduced into the narrative but it was axed by the editors.Apparently the comic is comfortable with this narrative now.
I googled around looking at beer girls.The Budweiser/Miller beer girls are all white. The Tecate beer girls are mostly Hispanic.The Corona beer girls are mostly white..
That video makes me cry everytime. Just seeing the picture makes me cringe.
ReplyDeleteThe reworking of the Alternet piece is awesome. On the one hand it actually highlights the absurdity of the masculinity on show. On the other hand...
ReplyDelete...you know, as much as I understand that these things (sexist beer ads and what not) relates to accepted beauty standards, I'm not sure I want to see pocs (or any women) in such ads. I'd complain about the sexism, but this would be the one racist thing that I'm not complaining about. And I'm not sure how wise it is to put the doll test clip alongside sexist ads. It seems as though the unintended message of the post is that in order for these ads to not be racist, they need to objectify more WOC.
It's weird, because while the reworked Alternet piece seems to highlight the absurdity of the masculinity on show, it simultaneously seems to downplay the sexism (which really is the major issue), or so I think. Sounds contradictory, but that's the feel I'm getting. Any thoughts, anyone?
This? Really? When black women are as objectified as white women then what? We'll be less racist? The world will be a better place?
ReplyDeleteYou know, as a Latina who lives at the shit end of the stereotype of sexy, hot-blooded Latina mamacitas, I say: So what? You wanna objectify white women? Here's my fucking permission. Just leave me and my hermanas the hell alone.
But seriously: So what if white men don't find black women (or other WOC) as sexy as white women?
"There is “white normal sex,” and then there's the stereotypical wild- uninhibited jungle sex of the racial other."
ReplyDeletelol
fromthetropics and Rosa,
ReplyDeletethe post doesn't say that women of color should be represented in the ads. In fact, it says (twice I think) that they SHOULD NOT "clamor" to be in such ads because yeah, they're horribly sexist.
I read this post as being about the way these ads contribute to white supremacist (and yes, sexist too) ideals of beauty norms. That's not the same thing as saying that women of color should be included as this kind of "hot" woman too. As macon wrote, the "rampant sexism and homophobia of the ads should be toned down instead."
And like fromthetropics, i agree about the value of changing Vanessa R's writings like that. Whiteness is an oppressive "norm" that does gain strength by being falsely taken for granted as just a norm. How ironic that progressives don't see that. white progressives, that is.
jas0nburns said...
ReplyDeletelol
I'm sorry...typed in anger.
You can find the term Jungle Fever used Here.
the post doesn't say that women of color should be represented in the ads.
ReplyDeleteOf course not. I can read too. I realize that. Hence my use of italics in: "It seems as though the unintended message of the post is that in order for these ads to not be racist, they need to objectify more WOC."
If macon (and others) is arguing that the Superbowl ads are unintentionally racist, then I'm agreeing with that BUT also saying that this post unintentionally downplays the sexism. For example, statements like (a) unintentionally cancel out the effects of statements like (b).
(a) Doesn't the pervasive whiteness of such fantasized women, on such a centralized cultural stage as the Super Bowl, help to detrimentally affect such things as the identities and life-chances of women of color?
(b) and I'm not saying that I think women of color should be clamoring for demographic equity in such ads.
Like Rosa, I'm saying that in this case I don't give a fuck if the ads are racist. As a woman, I am thankful that the white feminist is speaking up about it, and I don't give a crap if they overlooked the whiteness in this particular instance because I DON'T want to be represented in these ads anyway. When I see ads like this, I don't sit there thinking, "Oh, I wish I was seen as beautiful as they are." Instead it's, "I wish they'd take the bloody thing off air."
In a way, this post reminds me of how the white feminists' reacted to Straight Stuntin's objectification of black women in awe at the magazine's accepted beauty standard instead of being expressing outrage at its exploitation of black women.
Thank you Rosa and fromthetropics. Something like that was still bothering me when I published this post. As I said in the post, I was still trying to "square" these two things together. I can see better now how this post doesn't balance expressions of outrage over sexism and racism well -- how, that is, it downplays the problem of sexism in pursuit of racism.
ReplyDeletefromthetropics wrote,
It seems as though the unintended message of the post is that in order for these ads to not be racist, they need to objectify more WOC.
Should I have put more statements in the post saying that I agree that WOC shouldn't clamor to be in such ads? Or maybe put the ones that are there more upfront in the post? Again, I can see that it should condemn more strongly the sexism of the ads.
I was just thinking about this today. It's incredibly frustrating when white liberals seem to see some stuff so readily yet can't seem to see how race might play a factor.
ReplyDeleteFor me in particular, being in academia and my particular circle of crowd, I see overwhelming support for gay marriage. I'm for gay marriage and all, but it definitely seems to me to be something white liberals are very passionate about. Yet, when I point out how dressing as a Russian mail order bride might be racist or offensive, they balk at the idea. Their enthusiastic support seems like a pat on the back, a "yes, we are NOT the oppressors here."
I wonder if that isn't a little bit of what's going on for Vanessa Richmond. A pat on the back for recognizing the oppression of women, but fails to mention an area where she might be a contributing part of the phenomenon.
While it would be nice to see women of all races not be objectified at all, I still think we need to point out the pervasive whiteness in these ads. In Hollywood, often Asian American actors are type casted and the Kung Fu master, the goofy nerd, and the Asian American female as the dragon lady or the wilting flower. While these are frustrating stereotypes, I'm not sure an invisibility is a better option. If the actors refused these roles, wouldn't Asian American actors just not be given any roles period? And I kind of feel like that is the case here as well. The objectification is awful, but I might rather be seen than not seen at all.
cl said...
ReplyDelete"While it would be nice to see women of all races not be objectified at all, I still think we need to point out the pervasive whiteness in these ads. In Hollywood, often Asian American actors are type casted and the Kung Fu master, the goofy nerd, and the Asian American female as the dragon lady or the wilting flower. While these are frustrating stereotypes, I'm not sure an invisibility is a better option. If the actors refused these roles, wouldn't Asian American actors just not be given any roles period? And I kind of feel like that is the case here as well. The objectification is awful, but I might rather be seen than not seen at all."
I think I missed that altogether...
I'm Very very sorry. I'm thinking about my rant and I think it came out all wrong. My hope one day is that WOC will have the same value, to be clothed in the same veil of humanity that is naturally conferred upon white women. But one doesn't achieve this parity by objectifying WOC as well.
It takes me back to what someone had written about the black woman being so undervalued in society she's considered by many whites to be unrapeable. She has little worth in white society so why include/employ her in magazines- movies, the board room, sitcoms or popular media in general. And if we must include her in anything lets see if we can lighten her up a bit because she's way too dark; her features much too pronounced for our tastes. Tell her if she wants to work for us she must lose weight- take those braids out and straighten her hair. Articulate her words more clearly. Maybe we might consider using her- but only in a very limited way, and we get to define her image in the context we deem most suitable for our (white) consumers. So if I've insulted any woman here please forgive me.
I was still trying to "square" these two things together...Should I have put more statements in the post saying that I agree that WOC shouldn't clamor to be in such ads?...
ReplyDeleteWell, this is a case where action speaks louder than words or an image speaks a thousand words. For one thing, I think it's problematic that the doll test clip is placed alongside a clip which blatantly objectifies (white) women based on sexualized male fantasies. It has the unfortunate effect of minimizing and devaluing the pain that the children (and adults) experience by being told that they are not beautiful by placing it side by side with a blatant objectification of the female body. Possible solutions: a) Replace the doll test clip with something else. b) Replace the beer ad with something less blatantly sexist. c) acknowledge the issue and emphasize how absurd it is.
Point two - the 'whiteness' on display is not so much the whiteness of the white women but the whiteness of white men. It is their desire towards women that is 'white'. It is their masculinity that is 'white'. Perhaps emphasizing this (if you think it makes sense, since this is new for me too and I feel like I'm working in the dark here) might take the gaze off the women and the beauty standards they are required to fulfill, and turn the gaze more intensely onto the perpetrators of this particular kind of whiteness - white men, not white women.
At the moment, the focus seems to be on the women, and not the men. This, I think, is what makes the post anti-racist at the expense of minimizing sexism.
To be quite frank, these ads don't make WW look sexy; rather, they add to the stereotype of them being "easier" than WOC. I'd rather be left out of the objectification than be part of it.
ReplyDeleteI don't know. But, I feel, somehow that this post suggests that we, as WOC, need white male approval to be seen as sexy. Honestly, many WOC, clear of mind and self-esteem aren't seeking white male approval. Perhaps, that's why we're seen as not sexy or desirable.
Another way to put it is, it should focus on the whiteness of masculinity instead of the (underrepresented) non-whiteness of femininity. That might help you take a shot at both racism and sexism without minimizing one or the other, or playing one against the other.
ReplyDeleteOkay, as eye-opening as it is in terms of identifying the pervasiveness of whiteness, this post is rubbing me the wrong way. This is an example where the intersection of race and gender is more complicated than it appears.
ReplyDeleteWhat we have here is male desire for women. This is obvious. Specifically, white male desire for white women. This is also obvious. But it is not merely a desire, it is a desire to (sexually) conquer and subjugate (white) women (in order to appear masculine). Still obvious.
What is less obvious is that it invites all men to express their masculinity by conquering, so to speak, white women. Conquering WOC is easy. But to conquer white women? – now that’s the pinnacle of masculinity for all men in a white dominated society. The emphasis is on masculinity and men. It is not about women striving to be on top of the food chain, hence it is not about whether or not WOC feel as though their beauty is being (de)valued. It is about the male struggle to be at the top of the food chain, and whether or not their masculinity is being (de)valued.
Hence, all women lose out in such portrayals of ‘beauty’ (read: sexual objectification). So, to emphasize that these ads are dismissive of non-white female beauty, I think, misses the point by far. The emphasis, I repeat, should be on the racism inherent in what is defined as masculine, and not feminine. Otherwise, you’re playing racism against sexism, and we all lose out.
Ay yi yi. No cookie for this, macon d, even with your "corrections."
ReplyDeleteIt's like you just discovered what bell hooks coulda told you decades ago; It's not just a racist system, it's a white-supremacist capitalist patriarchal system.
By trying to separate sexism from racism here, you're doing neither justice. Trying to take them both on in the way you've done, juxtaposing self-esteem issues of black girls growing up in a racist society with the racism and sexism inherent in Superbowl advertisements, is just wrong-headed.
You've gone fishing in deep waters for some big, scary stuff using a measly ten-pound line. All you can expect to catch is flack.
never seen that vid before
ReplyDeletethe film credits say kiri davis but the post says kiri smith conducted the doll test. is there two kiri's or is this a mistake. also I wonder if the color of the person asking the questions would have an effect on the answers.
isn't judging a womens beauty an objectification in the first place? whether the women is half naked and acting slutty in a beer commercial or standing at the alter in a wedding gown it's the same thing. either she's hot or she's not. a womens only escape from objectification is to never be seen by a man. of course women are often seen as much MORE than objects by men. but the object part is always there. wanting to be pretty is wanting to be a pretty object. all the girls in that vid are beautiful and it's a shame they would ever feel otherwise.
i kept this post in mind while watching the super bowl and it was right on the money.
Maconnnnnn. The additional sentence does nothing to the overall argument. Zilch. Niente. Nada. I’m with Rosa on this.
ReplyDeleteThe focus of your whole analysis, not the individual sentences, is off. The fact that you even have to say stuff like, “I don't mean to say that more women of color should appear in these leering, sexist ads,” means your overall argument is off. If you got your argument down right, it should be obvious that that is not what you’re saying.
I find it INSULTING to WOC (and white women at that) to put that doll test clip in this post. The Super Bowl ads are NOT about WOC and their desire to be beautiful and appreciated. It is NOT about WOC’s lack of self-esteem due to a racist system. The ads are about MEN. White men, to be precise. White men and their race informed SEXIST desires.
But you speak nothing of men in this post. Your focus is on women and women’s self-esteem all the way through. From beginning to end.
A more pervasive mode of racism that I see in this commercialized Guyland is the vaunting of "white beauty" as the default for "beauty."
The ads are NOT about white beauty. They are NOT about femininity. They are about SEXIST WHITE MALE desire and MASCULINITY.
The post as it stands is SEXIST. It is very MALE. Please reread my previous comments.
whether the women is half naked and acting slutty in a beer commercial or standing at the alter in a wedding gown it's the same thing.
ReplyDeleteWTF? Are men that base? I don't think so.
"wtf are men that base?"
ReplyDeletei think men are capable of seeing women as an object, or as an object plus a person. commercials that "objectify" are only showing the object in a gratuitus manner without the person attached.
Great blog! I posted in the other link, take two, but the ads are misogynist and these white women were treated like b*tches even in shopping for lingerie (jeez who doesn't like to do that with his lady) and being left for savages to ravage over a set of tyres.
ReplyDeleteThe one black woman who was hot, her son gave the suitor the verbal smack-down. Links at http://kingcast.net blog button.
Peace.
Randy, I think you should read 'Guyland' by Michael Kimmel.
ReplyDeleteThese ads are targeted to white frat boys. In their eyes/world, only blond-haired white girls (under 30) exist.
Whether these boys only find this 'type' of girls attractive or whether their taste is determined by the media is left up to speculation.
Either way. The WASP, frat boy in the U.S. has a very NARROW view of female beauty and these ads are designed to appeal to that.
Putting white "girls" on pedestral is a pro/con situation. They are hunted. Young men understand 'relationships' with girls as a 'chase.'
ReplyDeleteTo them these 'girls' are to be conquered and subjugated to their will.
They take pride in humiliating them and dehumanizing them.
WASP frat boys see non-white women, particularly black women as mammies. Watch any Judd Apatow movie or frat boy comedies and observe the way black women are viewed in those movies. Ex: The Hangover.
ReplyDeleteThank you "fromthetropics" for your input.I think your right on and I got a lot out of this ....
ReplyDeleteThat video - the part of young black children choosing between the black and white doll - was heartbreaking.
ReplyDeleteI'm aware of the old study where this was common, and it wasn't a surprise either since there were no black dolls in the toy stores that I can recall prior to the '70s.
To see these little kids' identity so affected by racism in 2010 is a tragedy.
Kit (Keep It Trill) said...
ReplyDelete"That video - the part of young black children choosing between the black and white doll - was heartbreaking. I'm aware of the old study where this was common, and it wasn't a surprise either since there were no black dolls in the toy stores that I can recall prior to the '70s."
So true, even after the 70's there were few black dolls if you had to shop in toy stores situated in the suburbs. Once the businesses started to dry up in the city stores relocated to the suburbs. My wife and I had the hardest time finding black dolls in stores that catered to white consumers, and this was in the 80's and early 90's.
Even commercials targeting white children displayed preference by featuring the white doll in front of the black doll. (When one was available) It was the white doll that laughed and cried, walked and talked and wet her panties. Little black girls watching these commercials may have figured only the white doll did this- and not the black doll that sat propped up the background as in (other models are available). Most parents may have just assumed young black girls figured this out.
White kids were featured only playing with white dolls, and black kids when they were featured only played with black dolls. I can’t ever recall a commercial where a white child was seen playing with a black doll. Where was the black child to play with the black doll? However, I do remember commercials where black children played with white dolls. Mostly what we saw on television were the white like me doll commercials. Found this one, Nubia! Wonder woman’s super foe!
It takes me back to what someone had written about the black woman being so undervalued in society she's considered by many whites to be unrapeable.
ReplyDeleteThere was something about that comment (made awhile back) that didn't sit right with me. And I only just figured out why after reading "Rape is not a compliment" by Shakesville.
Rapists are not merely men with heightened libidos; they are men who seek to possess and control, and sex is the weapon they wield—not the ends, but the means. To think that rapists all rape for one universal reason is to think that murderers all murder for a single reason, and to think that rapists all rape because of sexual attraction is to think that murderers who use guns all murder because they like the smell of gun powder.
So using 'rapeable' as a measure of beauty is fully warped.
I agree with you the premise of your article but add that, from a situational standpoint, I think that lots of white men are attracted to black women but feel intimidated by them. Therefore, many white guys feel at a loss as to how they'd approach a black woman, so you don't see them trying very often.
ReplyDeleteM. Gibson said:
ReplyDeleteIt takes me back to what someone had written about the black woman being so undervalued in society she's considered by many whites to be unrapeable.
From the Tropics said:
So using 'rapeable' as a measure of beauty is fully warped.
From the Tropics, I respectfully take a different view of what M.Gibson meant by undervalued women = unrapeable, although I don't presume to speak for him. It's my understanding that the first successful prosecution of a white man for raping a black woman in the U.S. wasn't until 1967. When one considers blacks had been here since the 1600s, that's a long time to go without justice.
Enslaved blacks were legally defined as property -like livestock. No black people, whether enslaved or free, were allowed to be citizens: they fell outside the protection of the law Dred Scott decision: a subordinate [60 U.S. 393, 405] and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges.... Without citizenship, black people, whether enslaved or free, could not sue anybody, let alone white men, in court. Blacks were utterly without legal recourse.
Thus, without legal acknowledgement of personhood, privileges or protections, black people were not recognized as having the power of consent - and rape laws (even back then) involved violation without consent. Therefore, rape laws did not apply to black women: enslaved or free, they were unrapeable as a matter of law.
As far as violating black women who had been enslaved, it would have been considered the equivalent of bestiality (doing it with someone else's livestock - the owner of the livestock can sue for damage to goods but the pig/cow/sheep/etc. has no legal rights in and of itself.) By contrast, white women were theoretically afforded legal protections against rape (including Massachusetts, which even recognized marital rape as early as 1857). That's what I read into M. Gibson's comment about black women = devalued, as opposed to rape being a measure of desirability.
Sorry the post was so long!
TAB said...
ReplyDelete"Thus, without legal acknowledgement of personhood, privileges or protections, black people were not recognized as having the power of consent - and rape laws (even back then) involved violation without consent. Therefore, rape laws did not apply to black women: enslaved or free, they were unrapeable as a matter of law."
Again TAB said...
"As far as violating black women who had been enslaved, it would have been considered the equivalent of bestiality (doing it with someone else's livestock - the owner of the livestock can sue for damage to goods but the pig/cow/sheep/etc. has no legal rights in and of itself.) By contrast, white women were theoretically afforded legal protections against rape (including Massachusetts, which even recognized marital rape as early as 1857). That's what I read into M. Gibson's comment about black women = devalued, as opposed to rape being a measure of desirability."
Thank you so much, for this is exactly what I meant. You hit the nail right on the head, and I could not have articulated it better myself. I have always thought along those lines as well. Here we have the black woman being legally/morally defined as chattel in the eyes of the law- but she's considered “human enough” for master to ravish. I mean, the utter powerlessness of the black woman's situation as having no legal recourse for the day-to-day emotional/physical toll inflicted upon her body. Its strange, how the rules change when lust for black flesh enters into the picture. Well written and no- not too long at all.
Michael
@fromthetropics & TAB
ReplyDeleteOhmigosh yes, that's a really important point to clear up! "Unrapeable" doesn't mean "not attractive enough to want to have sex with." [Ugh. That was foul even to type.] Not at all. TAB absolutely nailed it— it refers to the notion that no matter what one does to a woman of color,* it isn't rape. Not in the eyes of society, and/or not in the eyes of the law. Basically: if you have no right to decent treatment, it is not possible to mistreat you.
And just to fully connect the dots on that:
Deeming certain women "unrapeable" essentially tells predators exactly who to target. Keep in mind who does the deeming, and how. ("Attention predators! Rape is horrible and we condemn it! But if you do it to those women over there, we'll look the other way.")
And predators do listen. Hence WoC rape/murder "free zones" like (off the top of my head) the maquiladora district on the Mexico/US border and the "Highway of Tears" in British Columbia, Canada where, together, thousands of marginalized WoC have been raped and murdered, or are missing-presumed-dead, with barely any attention from police or society at large. Hence the sociology and demographics of trafficking (brace yourself, Haiti). Hence "sex tourism". Et cetera.
So... yeah. Lamenting "unrapeable" status is definitely not about wanting more attention from rapists. Very much the opposite.
_____
*Or certain other classes, depending on the prevailing ism (eg: wives, sex workers, queer people). Note also that per patriarchy, pretty much all women are considered somewhat unrapeable due to femaleness. But for WoC, there's an added dimension; by default, we're even more (much more) unrapeable due to color/ethnicity. Ah, intersection.
Wow. Thanks for the clarification guys. That indeed is an important point to clear up. And my apologies for the initial misunderstanding. (Though I must say this now sounds even more...a lot more depressing.)
ReplyDeleteI think you are racist for noticing that those 5 White Women were White.
ReplyDeleteWhy can't you see past skin color to treat people as atomized individuals with no history, culture, or future?
"It takes me back to what someone had written about the black woman being so undervalued in society she's considered by many whites to be unrapeable."
ReplyDelete"Unrapeable" comes from the mindset that people have that only attractive people get raped because rape is about sex rather than power over the victim.
It's bullshit.
While rape's a sexual act, it's the lack of meaningful and enthusiastic consent by any means. Yeah, they may say Black women are unrapeable, but they're kidding themselves because women, children and even men (to a lesser degree) can be and have been raped. Though tell them about anecdotes or well-documented events and they'll plug their ears or deny it happens.