Whining Children, Ranting Feminists

Kid Kustomers:

An interesting article--I had no idea advertising was targeted so young, and the article's purpose was to explain advertising techniques and the results thereof. I am kind of curious as to how many people don't know about these advertising strategies: I feel like I was always aware of how they operated, even as a kid. Of course they wanted to sell me something, and if it was something I wanted to buy, I bought it with the allowance my parents gave me.

Parents: there's something we shouldn't forget about. Children have whined for toys since they were first made (both toys and children)--I'm not sure if advertising has aggrandized that, but a material culture in general. It's a parent's job to teach their kids about advertisements and about money management. I'm not sure if we should make laws to compensate for lacking parenting. My Uncle Sam should never be my father. It is scary seeing how often children watch TV, but again, that's a parent's problem. Nabisco or Star Wars advertisers didn't plant a TV in that child's bedroom--their parents did.

Sex, Lies, and Advertising

This article kind of infuriated me. Not what she was saying--as convoluted and rambling as that was--but how she said it and the message she delivered with it. I gather the essential point was that advertisers perpetuate female stereotypes and refused to bend to the author's desire for a new feminist magazine. Ms. is a great idea built on a better cliche: "Written by ______, for _____." Again: great idea, and her frustration with the corporate advertising machine is understandable. However, in the name of keeping prices of magazines low, one has to endure ads that aren't the greatest.

Now for what bothered me: the divisiveness of her speech. There is nothing wrong with equal rights--men and women should be totally, 100%; judged not by the contents in their pants, but by the content of their character. However, Steinem transgresses the line often, almost waging war on men--her tone is not one of equality, but separation. Separation is, to degrees, natural and healthy; everyone likes to be an individual and relate to an individual group. But for a magazine with aims of equality, saying things like "when statistics show that women's rate of lung cancer is approaching men's, the necessity of taking cigarette ads has become a kind of prison." Why is that its only a matter of worry when the statistics is near men's--oh, it doesn't matter if THEY'RE dying. No, that's awful. Any statistic should be faced as an equal enemy. Even further, Steinem undermines and divides even women--there are Ms. women and then there's the rest.

As a man, with feelings and a beating heart just like Steinem's, this article bothered me. Reverse prejudice--prejudice equal to that which it reacts--is an ugly creature.

MRIs and Metros

Metrosexuality article:

A really interesting article, although metrosexuality just seems like its not as much a new fad as the article seems to claim. In their argument, it appears that marketing programs are latching onto a new phase, but the "metro man" has been around since the Southern Gentry. In fact, I'm not sure if the term "metroSEXUALITY" is really the correct word--sexuality defines how one feels attracted sexually, not how one appears. Metro really describes gender roles more so, so I suppose it'd be "metrogenderality." It's another classification for another group of people: straight people with good fashion. Still, a cool article o'er all.

If My Brain had a Buy Button:

An interesting article with good back up; it's hard to argue with MRI images and physical data. I could definitely see how we adhere to product loyalties--even if we're joking around with friends, there is a hint of truth to the "Pepsi/Coke" debate we all end up having at lunch at some point. I really wonder how exactly commercials can create this loyalty, though. I don't think I've ever really seen a Coke commercial, but yet I prefer it and undoubtedly would be one of those people in the taste-test swayed by their own mind. Maybe loyalty to a product is just a mental short cut--why try something new if you know something tastes good or is appealing?

As for the ramifications of this--as some feared with the "Orwellian advertisements"--I wouldn't be too worried. I like to believe that, being human, we are granted with certain gifts, and among those is self control. However, I also believe that, being human, we are often likely to not act with self control--I suppose that's the only scary part.

Parable of Democracy

Basically, Marchand claims that advertisers use an equalizing strategy to appeal to their audience: "Look, the rich have it, so can you!" or "Even rich people have this problem!" He backs it up with a steady flow of ads and examples from these early advertisers. As one can see from the ads he provides, there's validity to this argument, though it does not represent the whole of advertising, but simply on strategy among many. One can see this even in modern day advertisements to degrees. Make-up ads do the same thing, but more subtly--now Beyonce informs women that they too can have luscious eyelashes, just like the ones she bats at them playfully. Dove soap equalizes it further by doing its "real women" campaigns, which are heartfelt and inspiring, but also culpable of using the "democratic parable" to sell their product, as they say "real women use this product, and real women have the same beautiful qualities and the same flaws."

Harry Potter and the Prisoners of Shallow Rebellion

#1: Harry Potter

Again, like the previous essays, this one doesn't really make an argument, so to speak, but rather an observation. However, the author is dead on that Harry Potter is not necessarily a genius book series, but rather one that is ingeniously marketed. The series itself, though captivating and adventurous, will no doubt be forgotten literarily; its marketing, however, may very well be studied for decades long since the book is watered down to an oversold novelty.

#2: Rebellion

The author of this article argues that modern corporations no longer sell products in and of themselves, but a lifestyle as well. Notably, rebellion. Keurociane beats and individualists can now purchase their individuality, and its clear from any given campus or store that this is wholly true. Look at the modern style now shared between girls and boys: converse shoes that taper up to tight jeans and out again to baggy, v-neck shirts, often covered by strangely bright florescent flannels, topped with ear gauges and a skiing hat worn on only the back part of the head. That's not to say there's anything wrong with this style--it's just as fine and fleeting as all styles, my own included--but if one were to wander into, say, Spencer's, one would find all these items in almost a starter-kit form. No matter how much we like to think it, even rebellion is a consumer product. It's not necessarily bad; just unexpected.

The More Factor of Frumpy and Chic

Essay #1: The More Factor

Shames argues that America's economy and lifestyle is founded around a belief of steady expansionism towards monetary and personal gain; a constant stream of advancement that is considered the American Dream. Shames says that this belief contradicts the truth of the matter: that our resources are dwindling as we move more towards consumption than production, as seen by the average income increase by American citizens (a decreasing increase at that)--a fact that many in our slowly recessing economy are aware of.

There is truth within this essay, but I would argue that one point Shames makes seems off the mark. He states that only Australia and America share a pioneering experience, but that's not true: America and Australia are both an extension of British imperialism. Likewise, this shows how our frontiers are not limited, but that we choose to limit ourselves (and thankfully). If one looks at nations such as China, we see that expansionism is not inhibited by human rights in the face of industrial mobilization; that Tibet and other smaller countries can quickly be militarily or economically conquered. Thus, our limitations as industrialists and producers might not be a bad thing, but just different.

Essay #2: Frumpy or Chic

Shneider discusses how fashion has wriggled its way into academia, or more likely has been there all along. The debate between "fab" and "frump" plays out as different professor's offer their opinions on fashion; a proverbial fashion show of wits, odd attire, and personal fashion statements. This is something we're all aware of: everyone has that cool, hip professor who wear's sporty coats and collared shirts rolled up, and likewise they have the polyester and stripes sort of woman.

There are several weak points in Shneider's discussion (I wouldn't quite call it an argument, as no final conclusion is really made), namely the fields of the professor's she interviewed. A large majority seemed to be English majors, art majors, or in women studies: all extremely liberal and creative fields. There was a large absence of scientists and economists--individuals who might not necessarily be as affected by fashion. It seems that fashion only affects those who need to make a very overt self-statement. In all, academics should let dress come naturally as a reflection of their style of teaching, and not try to warp one into the other.