Marketing Theory
http://mtq.sagepub.com/
Is advertising a barrier to male movement toward gender change?
James Gentry and Robert Harrison
Marketing Theory 2010 10: 74
DOI: 10.1177/1470593109355246
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://mtq.sagepub.com/content/10/1/74
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Marketing Theory can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://mtq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://mtq.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://mtq.sagepub.com/content/10/1/74.refs.html
Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on August 4, 2010
Volume 10(1): 74–96
Copyright © 2010 SAGE
www.sagepublications.com
DOI: 10.1177/1470593109355246
articles
Is advertising a barrier to male movement
toward gender change?
James Gentry
University of Nebraska, USA
Robert Harrison
Western Michigan University, USA
Abstract. The purpose of this paper is to investigate male (and father) role portrayals
in advertising from a masculine theoretical perspective. We note that the traditional
masculine hegemony in the US is still seen almost exclusively in television commer-­
cials, even at a time when masculine roles in society are changing rapidly. We summa-­
rize the literature on masculinity, noting its changing nature, and discuss the role of
advertising in maintaining the status quo. We then present results from three content
analyses of commercials during programs targeted to adult males, females, and chil-­
dren. Results suggest that portrayals of gender roles in commercials have not become
more gender neutral. While women are being shown in less stereotypically traditional
roles, male portrayals still reflect a very traditional masculine perspective. We con-­
clude that male confusion concerning what masculine roles are expected of them is
being exacerbated by their portrayals in commercials. Key Words family roles
gender masculine hegemony masculinity
•
•
•
•
While the field of marketing has been somewhat slow in responding to the emer-­
gence of the feminist perspective, developments in this theoretical approach
­indicate growing attention in the discipline (Catterall et al., 2000; Stern, 1993).
Men’s studies are theoretically rooted in critical and feminist theory. Critical theo-­
retical perspectives are concerned with empowering human beings to transcend
the constraints placed on them by race, class, and gender (Fay, 1987). Like criti-­
cal and feminist theory, the masculine theoretical perspective seeks out the voices
marginalized by traditional forms of masculinity. Conventional thinking suggests
that masculinity could never be marginalized because it lies in the center of power
74
Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on August 4, 2010
Is advertising a barrier to male movement toward gender change?
James Gentry and Robert Harrison
dynamics as men remain privileged in society, controlling most institutions known
to ‘man.’ The nature of the masculine hegemony is such that even men who favor
egalitarian perspectives are somewhat unaware of how deep male privilege runs
globally throughout the fiber of most societies.
The idea of men’s studies is often considered ridiculous, a step backwards, a
redundancy, and a threat to the progress women have made (Sommer, 2000).
However, Gardiner (2002) notes that some men are being marginalized as well,
as the culturally idealized form of masculine character, or hegemonic masculin-­
ity, harms them because it narrows their options, forces them into confined roles,
dampens their emotions, inhibits their relationships with other men, precludes inti-­
macy with children, limits their social consciousness, distorts their self-­perception,
and dooms them to living in fear of not living up to the masculine ideal.
We will investigate advertising presented to different segments (men, women,
and children) through a critical masculine lens. Masculine perspective studies in
marketing have largely been limited to a focus on the male body image in advertis-­
ing (Harrison, 2008; Patterson and Elliott, 2002; Schroeder and Zwick, 2004). In
research investigating social role depictions in advertising and in television pro-­
gramming, the discussion of masculine roles has often been a subtext to the larger
discussion about women. This is logical, as female role portrayals have been in far
greater need of change.
When middle-class women entered the workplace en masse in the US in the
1970s, gender roles became much more dynamic. Much of society’s focus was on
improving the status of women in various domains, but some attention was also
paid to the resultant change in the status of men. Pleck (1981) noted that men in
all societies were being subjected to an unprecedented number of pressures due to
social, economic, historical, and political change, resulting in serious male identity
crises as men attempted to meet the many conflicting and contradictory demands
made of them due to their male sex role. Holt and Thompson (2004) discuss some
men’s attempts to use consumption to avoid the ‘emasculation’ occurring due to
these changes. They promote a new definition of masculinity, which they label
as the Man-of-Action Hero, after conducting interviews with informants who
­successfully handled the identity crises.
Some men, however, are having problems handling those crises. Lemon (1995)
noted the mounting evidence of the declining physical and emotional health of
men as supporting the contention of a crisis of masculinity. For example 2004
suicide rates among US men aged 25 to 34 in 2001 were double those in 1980, and
males now account for one in five cases of anorexia nervosa, up from one in ten in
1980 (Salzman et al., 2005: 189). Garcia (2008: 8) reports a study from the Journal
of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism in 2007 that found a population-wide
decline in men’s testosterone levels over the past 20 years. Garcia (2008: 129) also
cites a National Center for Disease Control and Prevention report that found that
86% of all adolescent suicides are committed by boys.
Numerous scholars have noted that males are facing tensions in the marketplace
between conforming to social expectations about what it means to be a man and
the desire to break away from the constraints of hegemonic masculinity through
75
Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on August 4, 2010
marketing theory 10(1)
articles
consumption (Elliott and Elliott, 2005; Holt and Thompson, 2004; Kimmel and
Tissier-Desbordes, 2000; Otnes and McGrath, 2001; Ourahmoune, 2009; Tuncay
and Otnes, 2007). For example Ourahmoune (2009) discussed how male lingerie
options in Paris have expanded to include thongs and g-strings, mainly target-­
ed at metrosexual males, creating more complex ‘acceptability’ boundaries than
the ­ traditional boxer versus brief conundrum. Cultural change monitor Sarah
Boumphrey (2007) suggests that cultural trends have advanced to the point that
metrosexual behaviors will be seen as ‘normal’ by today’s young males as they
mature.
There are multiple explanations possible for the changes being seen in society
in the status of men but, as Lemon (1995: 62) noted, men today, more than ever
before, are confused about what it means to be a man. Thompson (1996: 404)
notes that this had indeed been an issue for some time as he refers to the ‘unsettled
longstanding cultural conceptions of manhood and fatherhood.’ Thompson and
Fletcher (2005) cite a Leo Burnett study finding that 61% of French men, 53% of
Brazilian men, and 50% of American men say that expectations of men in soci-­
ety are unclear. Advertising’s role in creating this level of confusion may be quite
influential. Lemon (1995: 63) pointed out that ‘while social, economic, historical
and political change has rendered traditional male roles obsolete in some respects,
the mass media … still propagate the old stereotypical roles for men and women.
Men are thus confronted with contradictory and conflicting images of themselves.’
Garcia (2008: 114) described this phenomenon in a more damning fashion:
In an age where sex, power, and materialism rule, it’s not just men but masculinity itself that
has become commoditized, packaged, and predigested for the masses. Lulled into complacency
by Budweiser ads – and Budweiser itself – most men are all too happy to gorge on reassuring
platitudes and pretend that the mindless violence and materialism engulfing their gender has
nothing to do with them.
This confusion about ‘masculinity’ creates complexities for marketers as well.
For example Avery (2008) discussed how the traditionally masculine brand icon
Porsche encountered problems with its feminine brand extension, the Cayenne
SUV. While Porsche’s promotional strategy attempted to androgenize the brand,
male purchasers of the SUV were found to display hyper-masculine behaviors in
order to avoid exclusion from the ‘Porsche in-group.’ Another example of marketer
confusion was the original targeting of the microwave oven to men (Catterall and
Maclaran, 2002: 415).
A specific context in which this confusion is encountered by male consumers was
investigated by Harrison and his colleagues (Harrison and Gentry, 2007; Harrison et
al., 2009) when they looked into the transitions that single fathers make to become
truly involved parents (to ‘mother’ in Risman’s [1986] terms). A major ­difficulty
in the reprioritizations of their lives was the need to accept a modified ‘masculine’
self-identity, in order to become a caring parent. This redefinition of their mas-­
culinities was made more problematic by advertising that seemingly embeds the
status quo in terms of traditional gender norms. Most informants were too timepressured to watch much television, but those that did were generally offended
76
Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on August 4, 2010
Is advertising a barrier to male movement toward gender change?
James Gentry and Robert Harrison
by the male (and especially father) portrayals which they saw. Increasingly, men
are facing the ‘juggling lifestyles’ discussed by Thompson (1996), but with a far
weaker background in terms of family responsibilities, as well as facing advertising
emphasizing traditional roles often inconsistent with current expectations.
Masculinity in the household
West and Zimmerman (1987: 169) define ‘gender’ as the activity of managing
­situated conduct in light of normative conceptions of attitudes and activities
appropriate for one’s sex category. The definition implies that existing social norms
tend to reinforce status differences between the sexes, which fits within Gramsci’s
(1971) concept of hegemony. ‘Hegemony’ describes the ability of the dominant
social group to obtain consent from those being subjugated; most often the sub-­
jugated can be led to consent to their own oppression. David and Brannon (1976)
noted that recorded history is almost literally His-story.
Prinsloo (2006) notes that the hegemonic frame tends to constitute a ‘good’
father as the responsible breadwinner/provider and protector. Similarly, Bernard
(1981) noted that gender identity for men has traditionally been associated with
the competitive rationality of work rather than the intimate emotionality of ­family.
Thus, masculine gender identity has been tied to the family generally only in terms
of how well a man provides for his family.
The 1980s, with the mass entry of middle-class women into the workplace, saw
academic controversy in terms of what roles fathers should play. Some scholars,
aided by portrayals of a more caring, sensitive father in television programs, made
optimistic projections of changing gender roles. Ferber and Birnbaum (1980: 269)
suggested that since ‘there is a diminishing utility for professional and housework,
spouses are likely to find a more balanced sharing of housework beneficial, and
the husband may enjoy getting to know the children better.’ Sussman (1993: 312)
predicted that changes within the family would not revert to the old superordi-­
nate/subordinate pattern, but rather that equity and sharing would grow in both
prevalence and incidence in the coming years. Pleck (1987: 93) suggested that a
new image, summed up in the term ‘the new father’, was clearly on the rise in
print and broadcast media. The new father differed from older images of involved
fatherhood in several key respects: he was present at the birth; he was involved
with his children as infants, not just when they were older; he participated in the
actual day-to-day work of child care, and not just play; he was involved with his
daughters as much as his sons. To some extent, this optimistic perspective of father
parenting may have been based on domestic comedies on television (Cantor, 1990),
which showed women as more independent than previously and fathers as more
­caring and more domesticated. The message presented was that middle-class men
are kind, gentle, loving, just, and supportive husbands and fathers and therefore
worth getting and keeping. Working-class men were more likely to be portrayed
as ­ buffoons, but at least they were easily manageable. Wife battering and child
abuse did not occur, and divorce was rarely observed (Cantor, 1990). Like many
77
Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on August 4, 2010
marketing theory 10(1)
articles
television portrayals, these family ones in the late 1980s and early 1990s did not
represent the reality of American lifestyles.
Evidence (Gardyn, 2000) from the 1990s indicates that fathers spent more time
with their children than previous fathers had, but also that the time was spent in
play and not the type of activities expected of mothers. There is little evidence
that fathers in the 1990s and since have taken over traditionally ‘female’ household
roles. Further, some scholars in this time period were adamant that men would not
become nurturing fathers. Day and Mackey (1989: 402) proposed that ‘the roles of
father and mother are complementary rather than interchangeable and thus that
the standards of evaluating the role performance of fathers and mothers should be
different.’ Pruett (1993: 46) warned men against trying to be like mothers:
Obviously, fathers are not mothers – never will be and shouldn’t try … the mother-mimic tactic
soon falters. It feels wrong at all levels, because it is. The child doesn’t expect it, and the father
can’t do it … Fathering is not mothering any more than mothering is ever fathering.
As one mother in Russell’s (1986) study noted, ‘I am still the Executive Director
of children.’ No quick changes took place in this role, as Maume and Mullin (1993)
found that 94% of mothers said that they made all or most of the childcare arrange-­
ments. Coltrane (2000) concluded that research in the area of household duties
has almost invariably assumed that women will take the manager role, with men
occasionally serving as their helpers. This was true even with childcare, the house-­
hold duty found to be the most enjoyable by most fathers. Thompson’s (1996)
informants felt that, even when they received help from their spouses and children,
the domestic responsibilities remained their own.
Therefore, men’s roles as fathers are often discussed in terms of the first three
stages of Russell’s (1986) developmental model (i.e. moral teacher, breadwinner,
and sex-role model), but seldom in terms of the fourth stage – the nurturing father.
It has been repeatedly noted that while fathers saw themselves as being involved
in their children’s lives, their contributions were not hands-on as were those by
mothers; rather they involved playfulness, the transmission of life skills, and con-­
versational dominance (Lareau, 2000). Lareau also noted that most fathers, unlike
mothers, did not know the names of their children’s friends.
In part, the mixed representation of males (and fathers) is due to the very dif-­
ferent images of fathers being seen by women and by men. Frequent research has
found that the portrayal of men in male media is quite different from that shown
in female media (Barthel, 1992; Coltrane and Allan, 1994; Coltrane and Messineo,
2000; Kaufman, 1999; Kervin, 1990; Prinsloo, 2006; Sabo and Jansen, 1992; Wenner,
1991). More specifically, Cantor (1990) found that only a small portion of the
current barrage of television images contains positive models of men as nurtur-­
ing parents, and even those provide very mixed blessings about fathering. Thus,
despite the illusion of a nurturing, helpful father that got much air play (in pro-­
gramming targeted at women and children), research has consistently indicated
that husbands are not doing much more housework than they ever did (although
they are on a relative basis, as wives are doing much less; Robinson and Godbey,
1997).
78
Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on August 4, 2010
Is advertising a barrier to male movement toward gender change?
James Gentry and Robert Harrison
Types of masculinity
Before investigating differences in gender portrayals across commercials targeted
to different segments, we are going to summarize the literature on masculinity, as
the primary finding of Harrison and Gentry’s (2007) study of single fathers is their
need to redefine their masculinity as they become involved parents. Traditionally
(or at least in the 20th century), only one form of masculinity was conceived;
this masculinity is non-feminine (or anti-feminine), independent, heterosexual
(or ‘anti-homosexual’), tough, and takes risks. However, what’s ‘male’ has varied,
shifting over time from the ‘genteel patriarch’ and ‘heroic artisan’ of the 18th and
19th centuries, figures who did not compete with each other, to the ‘marketplace
man’ of the later 19th and 20th centuries who competed directly with other men
(Kimmel, 1996, 1997). Stearns (1994) described the transition from the 19th to
20th centuries as from passionate, Victorian era masculinity to the impersonal but
friendly, emotionally inexpressive masculinity of today.
David and Brannon (1976) identified four main components of such mascu-­
line expectations: the big wheel (a preoccupation with competition, achievement,
and success); the sturdy oak (an emphasis on physical toughness and emotional
­stoicism); no sissy stuff (homophobia and an avoidance of all things feminine);
and give’em hell (an emphasis on being aggressive and forceful). Similarly, Deaux
and Major (1987) noted that any behavior that can be perceived as feminine in
a given context constitutes a role violation for heterosexual men. For example
Campbell (1997) noted that for some men at least, public expression of distaste
for shopping is seen as a confirmation of their manhood. Similarly, Thompson
(1996) suggested that male identities are structured by themes of differentiation,
separation, and autonomy, whereas female identities are structured by themes of
identification, connectedness, and forming relationships. Males are predisposed
toward a self-focused and autonomy-driven orientation.
More recently, Smiler (2004) noted that sociologists (Connell, 1995; Kimmel,
1997; Messner, 1992) have categorized many different models of masculinity,
including Average Joe, Business Man, Jock, Nerd, Player, Rebel, Sensitive New
Age Guy, and Tough Guy. A more parsimonious perspective was provided by
Wetherell and Edley (1999), who listed three categories: Heroic, Ordinary, and
Rebellious. The Heroic category would seem to resonate with such positionings
in consumer research as the Mountain Man (Belk and Costa, 1998) and the Manof-Action Hero (Holt and Thompson, 2004), although Holt and Thompson posi-­
tioned this category as a combination of the best of the Breadwinner (which we
associate with Wetherell and Edley’s Ordinary category) and Rebel categories. The
Ordinary ­category positions self as normal, moderate, or average. It represents a
disavowal of the imaginary position of the celebrated and exalted male hero, but
very much incorporates the protector and provider notions common to nearly
all traditional perspectives of masculinity. The Rebel category looks superficially
like resistance to hegemonic masculinity. These men define themselves in terms
of their unconventionality, and the imaginary position involves the flaunting of
social expectations. The Harley Biker (Schouten and McAlexander, 1995), seek-­
79
Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on August 4, 2010
marketing theory 10(1)
articles
ing liberation from any kind of confinement, would fit within this category.
Within consumer research, though, Patterson and Elliott (2002) did discuss
the ‘new man,’ a sensitive soul in touch with his feminine side. This less tradi-­
tional ­masculinity allowed men to join in the feminine worlds of parenthood and
housekeeping and yet seemingly retain the power of masculinity (Segal, 1993).
Other recently minted labels for new types of masculinity include ‘telemasculinity’
(aggression is experienced through ‘male toys’ such as video games; Fiske, 1987;
Tuncay and Otnes, 2007); ‘buddydom’ (celebration of masculinity through rela-­
tionships with men, just as between Australian mates or the bonding found by Belk
and Costa (1998) with informants participating in enactments of the Mountain
Men experience; Beynon, 2002; Tuncay and Otnes, 2007); and ‘metrosexuality’
(Ourahmoune and Nyeck, 2008; Simpson, 1994).
To some extent, the point raised by Boumphrey (2007) earlier reflects a separa-­
tion in ‘masculinities’ across generations, as she suggested that young males are
growing up to see metrosexuality as ‘normal.’ Older males rely on the ‘unmarked’
nature of hegemonic masculinity to generate power (Kaiser et al., 2008) or, as
Ostberg (2009: 12) described it in terms of apparel, on ‘an eternal style based in
a taken for granted stance toward clothing.’ Kaiser et al. (2008) noted the chal-­
lenge facing clothing stores in providing apparel for the older generation that
allows them to look good while not standing out, but yet appealing to the younger
­generation of males who are not driven by a desire to ‘fit in.’
Harrison et al. (2009) found that many of their single-father informants dis-­
cussed a less traditional type of masculinity after reaching the level of involved
parent. But the transition to this type of masculinity was painful, as might be
expected. Russell (1986: 45) noted that cultured stereotypes of masculinity do not
include nurturing and care-giving behavior, and Eisler and Skidmore (1987: 124)
hypothesized that ‘men will experience stress when they judge themselves unable
to cope with the imperatives of the male role or when a situation is viewed as
requiring “unmanly” or “feminine” behavior.’
As noted earlier, the social changes in gender norms in developed societies are
creating confusion as to how males are to do gender. Salzman et al. (2005: 147)
noted that:
society is asking men to become sensitive and emotional, but only when it is convenient, and
only to a certain vaguely defined point. If teenage boys open up and assume more ‘girlish’ traits,
they are going to be called gay; if they stay strong and silent, exhibiting traditionally masculine
traits, they are accused of being antisocial or even violent.
Seidler (2006: 26) observed that boys’ confusion may be due in part to their grow-­
ing up and taking their superiority for granted. Seeing that their sisters are treated
differently, they take for granted their advantages as men. This can help to sustain
rigid forms of masculinity which young men may feel they continually have to
defend. Sometimes trapped into feeling they are not ‘man enough,’ they may feel
that it is through risky behavior that they can affirm their masculinity. Thus, the
world of men is changing, and some males are finding it very confusing.
This confusion carries over to the fatherhood role. Hill (2004: 9), citing Marian
80
Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on August 4, 2010
Is advertising a barrier to male movement toward gender change?
James Gentry and Robert Harrison
Salzman, argues that fatherhood is becoming a mild form of depression for the
modern-day man, and that there is grey cloud hanging over it. Similarly, Holt and
Thompson (2004: 427) note that Breadwinners are now readily being coded as
‘failed fathers,’ ‘sell outs, petty bureaucrats,’ ‘cowardly sycophants,’ or ‘broken men.’
The disappointment and feeling of failure is resulting in men shutting down emo-­
tionally because they no longer have the old central role in the family and don’t
know what other role is available to them. Men reported feeling swamped by the
multiple duties of work and home, with three out of four saying that they are not
in control of their lives and one-third feeling desperate to reduce stress (Garcia,
2008). This sense of being overwhelmed reveals significant changes in the notion
of male identity, and reflects the difficulties individuals experience in sustaining a
sense of self and the risk of losing direction and feeling out of control.
Advertising’s role in supporting the status quo
As noted early in the paper, several critics argue that advertising perpetuates a very
traditional male gender norm, despite much evidence that those norms are in a
state of flux. At this point we want to investigate the interface of advertising and
the family, noting the role played by advertising in the change (or lack thereof)
in norms. What is the portrayal of men in commercials? The following review of
the literature generates the ubiquitous response to most questions in the realm of
marketing: ‘it depends.’ In this case, it depends on what kind of medium one is
watching or reading. In general, if it is female-oriented, it is somewhat egalitarian.
If it is male-oriented though, it depicts gender roles that we would like to think
have been put behind us, as far, far more violence is observed than nurturance.
There is little question that media affect our perceptions of gender relations.
Goffman (1979) noted that advertising picturing men and women educates the
viewer about conventional modes of gender interaction and sex roles, a point made
repeatedly since (Garst and Bodenhausen, 1997; Knill et al., 1981; Schroeder and
Borgerson, 1998; Shields and Heinecken, 2002; Stern, 2003). The differential media
representations of individuals influence the ways audience members perceive and
react to members of the groups represented. These representations ‘regularly con-­
tribute to the social ‘knowledge’ media users cultivate about the ‘real world’ and
the wide-range of individuals who live there’ (Gross, 1994: 144). Such assertions
have been used primarily to protest the portrayal of women in commercials.
Literature in the 1970s found that women were portrayed in subservient roles,
or in a ‘relatively unfavorable manner’ (McArthur and Resko, 1975: 209). Female
central figures in commercials were more likely to be portrayed in a role defining
them in terms of relationships to others (a spouse, parent, girlfriend, or house-­
wife). Men were more likely to be portrayed in an independent role (a worker,
professional, celebrity, or narrator/interviewer). Perloff et al. (1982: 265) con-­
cluded that ‘recent content studies have continued to find that women are under-­
represented and stereotyped in television commercials.’ They reported that the
National Advertising Review Board and the National Association of Broadcasters
81
Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on August 4, 2010
marketing theory 10(1)
articles
had developed a checklist to see if advertisements were egalitarian; all items dealt
with female status alone.
More recent literature has generally indicated that female role portrayals have
become more favorable. For example Coltrane and Allan (1994) found that
­women’s symbolic roles in TV commercials have undergone much transformation
in the past few decades. On the other hand, Kacen and Nelson (2002) found little
change to have taken place in terms of positive female role portrayals. While there
is little doubt but that women were demeaned through their portrayals in commer-­
cials, that has been rectified to some extent, at least in those commercials shown to
target markets including women and children. But, as Wenner (1991: 405) noted
in the ‘sanctum sanctorum of male beer-and-sport commercials,’ women occupy
tangential and servile positions if they are represented at all.
Male roles in commercials and advertisements have changed very little over
time, largely because ‘men’s roles in media have been tacitly viewed as unproblem-­
atic’ (Sabo and Jansen, 1992: 169). Wilson (1988) noted that most gender literature
has dealt with a feminist perspective of seeking equality for women. The limited
literature that has looked at male roles in commercials over time has found little
change. Kervin (1990) looked at the 50-year advertising history of Esquire, and
reported that the masculine stereotypes found in the 1930s were still in use five
decades later. Thus, it appears that, while the advertising industry was sensitive
to the portrayal of women in ‘more positive roles,’ there was little change in how
men were portrayed. Kervin (1990) noted that the overtness of a threat to tradi-­
tional masculinity was practically nonexistent. In fact, there is evidence that, if
anything, the accusation that men are portrayed in violent roles (Esack, 1999) is
truer in recent days. Coltrane and Allan (1994) found that the biggest change in
male ­portrayal in commercials was in male aggressive roles (measured by displays
of forceful, competitive, antagonistic, or possessive behavior). Only one in six men
was shown in such roles in commercials in the 1950s, as against one in two in
the 1980s. Coltrane and Allan (1994: 55) concluded that ‘images of autonomous
and controlling men were, and still are, the norm for television commercials, and
­emotionally expressive or vulnerable men are still a rarity.’
More recently, men have begun to criticize their portrayals in advertising.
Thompson and Fletcher (2005) reported that a Leo Burnett survey found that 74%
of men globally (and 77% of the US sample) said that images of men in advertis-­
ing were out of touch with reality. British writer Paul Fraser, cited in Salzman et al.
(2005: 132), noted,
Advertising’s negative portrayal of men annoys me because it’s lazy. The idiot husband who
doesn’t know how to wash his own clothes. The dishwasher that’s so simple, even a man can use
it. This does not reflect most men. It’s out of date.
If we restrict male portrayals to those in a family context, we find far more
l­imited research, as men are not commonly portrayed in the father role in commer-­
cials. Vigorito and Curry (1998: 135) argued that ‘men were frequently treated as if
they had no gender, a fact that rendered their privileged position invisible.’ Esack
(1999) criticizes the media more for the omission rather than the representation
82
Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on August 4, 2010
Is advertising a barrier to male movement toward gender change?
James Gentry and Robert Harrison
Media portrayals of males
(including advertising)
Changing social norms
• Work force changes
• Women as providers
• Political correctness/
feminism
• Changing male dress/
cosmetics
Male gender roles
• Confusion as to what it
means to be a man
• Male anxiety increases,
leading to problems with self
confidence and even health
• Resistance by males to
masculine hegemony often
does not increase
Figure 1
of fathers, noting that articles, radio stories, or television programs on fatherhood
are rare. Wilson (1988: 10) noted that ‘whilst fatherhood has a very long history, it
boasts few historians.’ We argue that advertisements, especially those more likely
to be seen by men, do not portray fathers accurately in terms of their current roles
within the family. When the authors have asked their classes how many of them
have fathers who cook better than their moms, at times nearly one-third of them
respond positively. Such behavior is not seen in commercials. Schroeder and Zwick
(2004: 33) described the typical male portrayal as the ‘hero shot’ – an ad containing
an image of a lone man, conquering some territory, villain, or at least underarm
odor. One of Salzman et al.’s (2005: 130) informants gave a quote similar to several
provided by Harrison et al.’s (2009) informants: ‘not all men, but fathers are por-­
trayed as bumbling boobs, totally clueless about their wives’ and kids’ lives, simply
going to work and having nothing to do with anything substantive happening in
the home.’ Very similar quotes were given in blogs responding to Cooper’s (2009)
editorial about dads being dumb jocks in ads. Kaufman (1999: 456) noted that
the image of the involved family man is rarely seen in commercials, and that the
chance of seeing a father baking cookies is exceedingly small. Figure 1 portrays our
representation of the interface of advertising and gender norms.
Thus, the male who has a non-traditional perspective of his masculinity (for
instance many of the single fathers reported in Harrison et al. (2009)) may have
trouble finding media representations of males pertinent to his status. Clark (1969)
identified chronological stages of media representation of social groups in his study
of media depictions of African Americans. In the first stage, non-­recognition, the
group simply does not appear. In the second stage, ridicule, the group is presented
as buffoons. In the third stage, regulation, the group is presented in roles that pro-­
83
Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on August 4, 2010
marketing theory 10(1)
articles
tect the existing social order (e.g. police officers). In the final stage, respect, group
members are presented in the complete range of roles that their members actually
occupy in life. We will use this framework to evaluate the portrayals of men (and
their father roles) in the commercials we view.
The studies
We investigate the portrayals of males in advertisements targeted to different
­segments. Many criticisms of poor portrayals of men in advertising, including
those discussed early in the paper, appear to be based on casual observation. Thus,
we make more systematic observations across target markets in order to investigate
the validity of those criticisms.
Content analyses
In order to see if media portrayals of men, women, and children have changed,
we content analyzed commercials targeted at the three groups. Content analysis
is a research methodology that is often used to describe trends in communication
content (Weber, 1985). First, we conducted a content analysis of commercials dur-­
ing sports programming during spring 2007. In all, 1392 commercials were viewed
during the NBA and NHL playoffs and during Major League Baseball games, all
assumed to have predominantly male audiences. The sports events were shown on
Fox, TNT, ESPN, ABC, and NBC. The commercials were recorded and coded for
a variety of phenomena, including violence, domestic roles, and family presenta-­
tions. If a commercial aired more than once, each showing was coded, because
this process accurately exemplifies cultural cultivation through repetitive images
(Gerbner and Gross, 1976). In addition, this procedure adds stability to an analysis
when content is coded more than once by the same coder (Weber, 1985). Both
authors coded the advertisements used in the analysis and they agreed 90% of the
time. Consistent with Schneider and Schneider (1979), disagreements among the
codes were resolved via discussion and consensus.
A second content analysis was conducted during the winter of 2008, observing
200 commercials shown during afternoon television directed at the female market.
An identical coding scheme was used in the first two studies, resulting in similar
levels of coder agreement (90%). Channels viewed were CBS and ABC.
The third study dealt with advertising conducted toward children. Risman
(1998) noted that a household is a ‘gender factory,’ but the consumer socialization
literature has largely ignored advertising’s role in the learning of gender norms.
For example the topic was not covered in John’s (1999) classic review of consumer
socialization. In early spring 2008, we conducted a third content analysis of 225
commercials on children’s television (after school, Saturday morning, etc.) aired
on Fox, CBS, and the KidsWB. The third study used a coding scheme that ­included
representations of nurturing and violent behavior, the inclusion of parents
­(mothers and/or fathers), and the gender mix of kids. Similar coding ­procedures
84
Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on August 4, 2010
Is advertising a barrier to male movement toward gender change?
James Gentry and Robert Harrison
Table 1
Coding Table
Images
Study 1
Male representations
Female representations
People shown in home
Do-it-yourself
Men shopping
Violent roles
Family images
Emotional ties
Nurturing father
Outdoor/outside roles
Food
Medical issues
Total
1157
247
180
16
13
118
63
7
0
851
177
0
1392
Study 2
Images
12
Father representations
143
Parent representations
97
Action-oriented
2
Violence
7
Nurturance
2
Gender-mixed
17
Voice-over male
8
Voice-over female
2
11
55
75
200
Total
Study 3
12
21
85
56
9
42
111
53
225
were used in all three studies, such as multiple-airing commercials coded indi-­
vidually and seeking inter-coder agreement through active dialogue. Through this
dialogue, the authors developed summary themes to categorize the general natures
of the commercials seen. Descriptive statistics from the three studies are shown in
Table 1 and theme summaries are shown in Table 2.
Results of study one
Of the 1392 commercials observed during sports coverage, only two showed a
man in an indoor-domestic role. Sixteen did show men in the traditional domes-­
tic role of Do-It-Yourselfer. Despite Patterson and Elliott’s (2002: 235) conclusion
that consumption and shopping were deemed to be part of the feminized sphere
of life and incompatible with masculinity, 13 commercials did show men shop-­
ping. However, they were either shopping for beer or auto parts. Meals and food
were portrayed in 177 commercials, all in the context of dining out. Nearly 10%
(118) showed men in violent roles. Over 100 ads showed men with family, but only
seven with any kind of emotional ties to the children. Thus, in 2007, advertising
­clearly targeted at men, such as on sports programming, did not stress the nurtur-­
ing father to any extent whatsoever.
Thus, men were not portrayed in positive fathering roles, nor were they shown
handling domestic work. They ‘cook’ only in the sense they take the family out for
dinner, most often for fast food, according to the commercials. Previous research
has identified (as discussed in the literature review) the growing problem of men
seeing advertising as a barrier to their transition to becoming involved parents.
85
Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on August 4, 2010
86
Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on August 4, 2010
In a wireless ad, a mother talks to her daughter about friends and says that
she needs to associate herself with smarter guys. The daughter replies, ‘you
mean like dad and uncle John?’ The men are shown jumping a lawn tractor
off of a home-made ramp and crashing it.
In a fast food ad, children from several different countries, in different
languages, excitedly run home because ‘Dad’s making dinner’, the universal
phrase that means ‘Fast food for dinner.’
Study 1:Theme –
Horse’s Ass
Jackass
Men are idiots.
Undomesticated
Men cannot perform household duties.
continues
In a beverage ad, athletes David Ortiz and Brain Urlacher are playing
badminton against two Asian players. They win when Ortiz slams the birdie,
which impales the other player and gets lodged in his leg.
A bank ad shows images of men talking business and a voice-over says ‘buy
that house, merge that company, send her to college, build a fortune.’
Violent
Men are destructive fighters, who may injure others.
Men provide financially for their family. Men are defined by their work-lives.
Breadwinner
An ad begins, ‘Here’s to men ... who want to spend more time having fun
and less time in the men’s room.’ The ad depicts four men biking, camping,
kayaking, and drinking.
In a telephone ad, a father is sitting on the chair with his daughter’s
boyfriend across from him on the couch. He tells the boyfriend that he is
very close to his daughter. She comes downstairs and dad gives her a hug
while giving the boyfriend ‘the evil eye’.
Men play outdoors. They work for fun, work on cars, chop firewood. When they are happy, they are outside of the house.
Study 1:Theme –
Stoic Macho Man
Outdoorsman
Representation
Protector
Men physically protect their families from the dangers of the world.
Description
Theme Table
Table 2
marketing theory 10(1)
articles
A food products ad shows the families contentment with their repast.
Man just shown eating with family.
Man hurts himself when doing chores.
Father as eater
Father as inept
In a fast food ad, the father locks himself and the family out of the house.
‘Way to go, Dad.’
In a toy ad, girls are shown playing with toys, dressing up their toys. A voice says,
‘You can have your own [toy] birthday party, just ask your mom and go to the
website.’
In a shoe ad, a boy is attacked by a monster. He then gets new shoes and becomes a
hero to vanquish the monster.
In a food products ad, a boy turns into hungry monster and destroys the
refrigerator. ‘Only [food product] can tame the beast within you.’
[Outdoors – Boys] In a food products ad, two boys get into a cartoon roller
coaster and the voiceover says, ‘The longer you chew the more you go (on the
coaster ride).’
[Outdoors – Girls] In a food products ad, girls playing sports together (basketball
and soccer) they need more, get more energy with the food product.
[Outdoors – Mixed] In a public service announcement, a boy is spitting melon
seeds at his older sister who is sitting next to him reading a book outside ... he is
spitting them one at a time. He pauses to reload a seed and she spits a dozen seeds
at him at once. She smiles.
[Indoors –Girls] Girls playing in the house feeding and taking care of toy children.
[Indoors – Boys] N/A
[Indoors – Mixed] In a toothbrush ad, a boy is bored while brushing his teeth; his
sister comes in with toothbrush that plays music and she dances while brushing.
Study 3
Buffoon
The father is the butt of the joke.
Invisible fathers
In general and particularly in the home, fathers are unseen family members.
Heroes and villains Boys are brave heroes, who violently defeated villains.
Violent
Boys are violent.
Outside play
Boys play together outdoors.
Girls play together outdoors.
Boys and girls play together outdoors.
Inside play
Girls play together indoors.
Boys and girls play together indoors.
Boys do not play together indoors.
An advertisement for an emergency clinic shows dad screwing up and needing care.
In a food products ad, the discussion emphasizes the mother needs to be aware of
healthy aspects of food and ease of preparation.
Mother as cook
Food for meals.
Representation
In a medical products ad, the mother is shown as procurer of pharmaceuticals
for the entire family.
Description
Study 2
Mother as healer Medicinal products.
Table 2 (cont.)
Is advertising a barrier to male movement toward gender change?
James Gentry and Robert Harrison
87
Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on August 4, 2010
marketing theory 10(1)
articles
This study further investigated how this happens, by critically viewing the adver-­
tisements that specifically target these men.
In sum, the results highlight two thematic representations of men in television
advertisements: the stoically macho man and the horse’s ass. The stoically macho
man is the embodiment of rugged masculinity. He is career-oriented and hardworking both in his home and in his work life. At home, he works outdoors, in
the garage, on the lawn, and on cars. Family is important because he is responsible
for providing both physical and financial security, to ensure his family’s safety.
He gives his children a hug when they run to greet him when he comes home
from work, but otherwise he is distant, having very little social connection with his
­children. He may show his love by calling his young daughter while on a business
trip, but he is not at home taking responsibility for her.
The other representation type is that of the horse’s ass. In a Kodak advertise-­
ment the father in the family is literally replaced by a horse’s rear-end. The tonguein-cheek attempt at humor is actually symbolic in that it is this representation that
dominates many of the advertisements seen in this study. The horse’s ass is imma-­
ture, incompetent, and everyone knows it. His employers know it, his wife knows
it, his children know it. If it is his ‘turn’ to cook meals for the family, they know
what to expect, i.e. take-out, delivery, or drive-through. If he contributes to house-­
hold labor, accidents are expected and he is greeted by his family with a wry smile
because they understand that his incompetence is partly their fault. Why would
they expect dad to do anything right? The horse’s ass is destructive and violent
when presented with any sort of dilemma. Even in play, a game of paper, rock, and
scissors may result in an asinine response, wherein the man literally throws a rock
at his opponent to solve his problem. He is not only a jackass, but a violent one.
In terms of Clark’s (1969) stage framework, father roles went largely unrecog-­
nized (stage one) while male roles in general were part of the second and third
stages (i.e. ridicule and regulation). The ridiculing and hegemonic (regulation)
images seen by men serve to maintain traditional perspectives that fail to provide
any encouragement for men to perform traditionally atypical roles associated with
alternative definitions of masculinity.
Results of study two
In the second content analysis of 200 afternoon commercials, a surprising number
of commercials (75) dealt with medical issues. None of the commercials during
the sports programming dealt with medical issues, so advertisers have clearly iden-­
tified the mother as the family member in charge of health. Food was a frequent
topic, with 33 commercials promoting food to be eaten at home and 22 promoting
dining out. Again, all of the food-related sports commercials shown during the
advertising targeting men focused on dining out. Seven afternoon commercials
showed males shopping for groceries, compared to none (except for beer) among
the commercials shown during sports coverage. Only two commercials showed
violence, both of which showed a male being violent. At the same time, there were
two commercials providing information on what women can do if there is violence
88
Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on August 4, 2010
Is advertising a barrier to male movement toward gender change?
James Gentry and Robert Harrison
within the home. Only two commercials showed the father in a nurturing role with
his children, but that still constituted a higher percentage than those in the sports
commercials. One cannot conclude that men are shown as new age ­parents in day-­
time television commercials, but the roles are quite a bit different from what is
shown in commercials targeted at men in terms of being less violent, and showing
men eating at home and even shopping for food to be eaten at home.
The representation of men in afternoon commercials is one of a background
figure. The mother is the healer and the provider of loving resources. In the com-­
mercials during the day, the mother is not shown in professional roles, whereas the
father is shown relatively little. Dad can grocery shop, but apparently he does very
little else around the house except eat. In terms of the Clark (1969) framework, the
stages are much more fluid than they are distinct. Some representations approach
the respect stage, while non-recognition and ridicule are also evident. The regula-­
tion stage is not the dominant one that it is in the sports commercials and, in fact,
is not even prominent.
Results of study three
In the third content analysis of 225 commercials on children’s television, only seven
of the commercials showed fathers, three of them eating with family at McDonalds.
One showed a father talking to his son about driving after drinking, but none of
them showed the father in a nurturing role. At the same time, none showed the
father in a ‘Bad Dad’ role. Twenty of the commercials showed mothers, nine in a
nurturing role. None of the ‘nurturing’ commercials showed a male child.
We defined ‘action’ as including the presence of animation, fast music, speed-­
ing vehicles, etc. If the vehicles collided, we also classified it as ‘violent.’ Of the 56
commercials that included children and were action-oriented, five had girls only,
35 had boys only, and 16 showed both sexes. Of the 32 commercials including chil-­
dren that showed violence, two had only girls, two had boys and girls, and 28 had
boys only. The traditional girl-nurturing stereotype appears to have lessened some,
but the boy-violent stereotype is still very evident.
In sum, the children in the third study lived in a child-centered world with-­
out parents for the most part and without fathers almost entirely. For boys, it was
an action-filled, violent, animated, video-game world where heroes emerged after
vanquishing monsters and villains. Boys often played with girls in action games,
but were not shown participating in nurturing activities. To that end, boys were
not allowed in the house without being accompanied by a girl. Girls lived and
played indoors with other girls, but boys did not play indoors with other boys.
For girls, there was balance between nurturing and action scenes, which involved
far less violence than the scenes with boys. Girls went camping and played sports
(with both boys and girls), but were also shown indoors playing dress-up, baby
care, and with dolls. In terms of Clark’s (1969) framework, the first stage of nonrecognition of men (and fathers) dominated.
89
Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on August 4, 2010
marketing theory 10(1)
articles
Results summary
The portrayal of gender in commercials in 2007 and 2008 does not appear to have
improved greatly, despite a couple of decades of political correctness. Women are
being shown in less stereotypically traditional roles, but male portrayals still reflect
a very traditional masculine perspective, including the portrayals shown to boys.
Discussion
In this study, a masculine theoretic approach such as that highlighted by Kimmel
and Desbordes (2000) was employed, emphasizing the specific focus on the topic
of men, taking account of feminist and critical scholarship, understanding that
men and masculinities are socially structured, produced, and reproduced, and see-­
ing masculinity as varying across time. If scholars are to effectively challenge issues
of gender roles in advertising, it is important to critically examine the discursive
frameworks that shape our understanding of such topics. To leave masculine
­perspectives unstudied, leaves the male gender role neutralized, rendering it less
permeable to change. Empirically, we found that the non-traditional male role was
unseen by men, rendering it less permeable to change.
Clark’s (1969) framework for social group media representation offered a guide
to understanding how representations progress and change over time. However,
our data suggest that advertising representation is not a single process, but a multilayered one. Our snapshot of gender role depictions highlights different stages of
the representational process for different target segments, as the stages differed for
each target audience. Unless the target market was clearly male, non-recognition is
the dominant representation status for men.
These results again raise the issue that, while there may be television programs
and commercials showing men in more egalitarian roles, men are not likely to see
these representations. Vigorito and Curry (1998: 98) noted that men are likely to
come away from reading their magazines with traditional identities reinforced,
while women are likely to come away from reading their magazines with more
nurturing visions of men in their minds. Given that gender roles in society itself
are becoming confused, the varying images presented through advertising only
exacerbate that confusion. Our findings indicate strong differences in how men
and women are represented in commercials, depending on to whom the messages
are being directed. Women do not see much violence in commercials, but men
and children do (though the violence is largely limited to commercials target-­
ing boys). In sports commercials and in commercials targeted at children, males
are not shown in ‘inside the home’ roles, whereas that is still the prime setting
for commercials targeted at women. While commercials directed to women have
increasingly shown them in more egalitarian roles, we suggest that there should
be pressure to do so with male portrayals in media directed to men as well. While
women have been depicted in more independent roles, real men (like those watch-­
ing sports on TV) are not shown as being active fathers. Garst and Bodenhausen
90
Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on August 4, 2010
Is advertising a barrier to male movement toward gender change?
James Gentry and Robert Harrison
(1997: 555) ­ discussed a quote from Barbara Durham, an advertising executive,
noting that advertisers are aware that gender roles are changing, but they have
found it is important not to rob men of their masculinity.
From a pragmatic point of view, the protection of the male ego is understand-­
able. However, there needs to be socially responsible consideration of what the
underlying messages are. The frequently observed violence may perpetuate norms
that violence is acceptable; clearly, spouse and child abuse are not acceptable.
Further, what is wrong in showing a man as a loving, caring, responsible father?
This might not be appropriate in the context of selling beer, but there are many
products and services for which a nurturance portrayal might be. Fathers’ portray-­
als in the media should facilitate active parenthood, not sustain the more distant
perspective from the past. There are indications that improvements are occurring,
as we now are seeing promotional messages on sports network ESPN encouraging
dads to spend more time with their children.
Future research should go beyond content analysis to perform reader response
analyses (Scott, 1994; Thompson, 2004) to investigate how individuals’ person-­
al, cultural, and gendered perspectives frame the context from which they make
meaning. For example men and women may respond differently to the same
­textual stimulus.
Western society is in a state of flux in terms of gender roles; wives are the main
providers in more than 30% of US households and the literature is replete with
observations of confusion among males as to what ‘being male’ constitutes. Most
attention has been focused on raising the role of women in society. Fischer and
Gainer (1994) warned that, if feminism research focuses solely on women, there is
a risk of reinforcing the notion that men are the ‘norm.’ Further, we assert that for
gender roles to become more egalitarian, it is necessary for change to take place in
both men and women.
As men have traditionally been favored by the status quo, giving up their privi-­
leged status is not a straightforward process. Garcia (2008: 93) recounts the demise
of that veritable icon of 19th century masculinity, the Western cowboy. The cowboy
had become ‘the embodiment of the American spirit: steadfast, fearless, depend-­
able, quintessentially male.’ But the summer drought of 1886 and the winter bliz-­
zards of 1886 and 1887 decimated the cattle herds that had provided cowboys
their work responsibility. By the 1890s cowboys had begun stealing the same cows
that they once vowed to protect. In the Montana State Prison, between 1870 and
1896, the number of convicts who described themselves as cowboys or herdsmen
increased by a factor of 24. Between 1892 and 1896, the number of ­cowboys in the
Wyoming prison in Laramie more than tripled. Kimmel (1996) noted the difficulty
of the transition from this very ‘independent’ notion of manhood to that of being
monitored while working on the production line after the Industrial Revolution
occurred in the US. Today, Garcia (2008) argues that men are losing ground to
women at home and at work, and claims (2008: 42) that women are the decision
makers in 85% of all consumer decisions, including 95% of home products and
89% of vacations. Men are no longer cowboys, and there is an increasing question
as to whether they are still providers.
91
Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on August 4, 2010
marketing theory 10(1)
articles
Marketers are not responsible for the changing gender norms, but they are
adding to the difficulties faced by men during these changing times. While they
have only modest control of programming contexts, they do control advertising
content. Further, a secondary reason for the focus here on advertising content is
that parental control of their children’s television watching is primarily based on
programming, with less attention paid to the advertising sponsoring the program.
Portraying males in more gender neutral manners in commercials is a feasible goal
for academic marketers to support, and it may well facilitate the gender role shifts
by men that are necessary for gender roles to become egalitarian.
References
Avery, J. (2008) ‘Defending the Markers of Hegemonic Masculinity: Consumer
Resistance to Gender-bending Brand Extension’, in S. Bettany, S. Dobscha, L. O’Malley
and A. Prothero (eds) Proceedings, 9th Conference on Gender, Marketing, and Consumer
Behavior, p. 158, June. Boston, MA: Association for Consumer Research.
Barthel, D. (1992) ‘When Men Put on Appearances: Advertising and the Social
Construction of Masculinity’, in S. Craig (ed.) Men, Masculinity and the Media,
pp. 137–53. London: Sage.
Belk, R.W. and Costa, J.A. (1998) ‘The Mountain Man Myth: A Contemporary Consuming
Fantasy’, Journal of Consumer Research 25(December): 218–40.
Bernard, J. (1981) ‘The Good-provider Role: Its Rise and Fall’, American Psychologist 36:
1–12.
Beynon, J. (2002) Masculinities and Culture. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Boumphrey, S. (2007) ‘The Changing Role of Men: Retro or Metro’, Euromonitor Archives
URL (consulted 10 November 2008): www.Euromonitor.com
Campbell, C. (1997) ‘Shopping, Pleasure and the Sex War’, in P. Falk and C. Campbell
(eds) The Shopping Experience, pp. 166–76. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cantor, M.G. (1990) ‘Prime-time Fathers: A Study in Continuity and Change’, Critical
Studies in Mass Communication 7: 275–85.
Catterall, M. and Maclaran, P. (2002) ‘Gender Perspectives in Consumer Behaviour: An
Overview and Future Directions’, Marketing Review 2: 405–25.
Catterall, M., Maclaran, P. and Stevens, L. (2000) Marketing and Feminism: Current Issues
and Research. New York: Routledge.
Clark, C. (1969) ‘Television and Social Controls: Some Observations on the Portrayal of
Ethnic Minorities’, Television Quarterly 8(2): 18–22.
Coltrane, S. (2000) ‘Research on Household Labor: Modeling and Measuring the
Social Embeddedness of Routine Family Work’, Journal of Marriage and the Family
62(November): 1208–33.
Coltrane, S. and Allan, K. (1994) ‘New Fathers and Old Stereotypes’, Masculinities 2(4):
43–66.
Coltrane, S. and Messineo, M. (2000) ‘The Perpetuation of Subtle Prejudice: Race and
Gender Imagery in 1990s Television Advertising’, Sex Roles 42(5/6): 363–89.
Connell, R.W. (1995) Masculinities. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Cooper, G.F. (2009) ‘In Ads, Dads Are always Dumb Jocks’, URL (consulted 23 July 2009):
www.MSNBC.com
David, D.S. and Brannon, R. (1976) The Forty-Nine Percent Majority: The Male Sex Role.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
92
Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on August 4, 2010
Is advertising a barrier to male movement toward gender change?
James Gentry and Robert Harrison
Day, R.D. and Mackey, W.C. (1989) ‘An Alternative Standard for Evaluating American
Fathers’, Journal of Family Issues 10: 401–8.
Deaux, K. and Major, B. (1987) ‘Putting Gender into Context: An Interactive Model of
Gender-related Behavior’, Psychological Review 94: 369– 89.
Eisler, R.M. and Skidmore, J.R. (1987) ‘Masculine Gender Role Stress: Scale Development
and Component Factors in the Appraisal of Stressful Situations’, Behavioral Modification
11: 123–37.
Elliott, R. and Elliott, C. (2005) ‘Idealized Images of the Male Body in Advertising: A
Reader-response Exploration’, Journal of Marketing Communication 11(1): 3–19.
Esack, F. (1999) ‘Foreword: Of Fools and Bravehearts’, Track Two (December): 1–4.
Fay, B. (1987) Critical Social Science: Liberation and its Limits. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Ferber, M. and Birnbaum, B. (1980) ‘One Job or Two Jobs?’ Journal of Consumer Research
7(December): 263–71.
Fischer, E. and Gainer, B. (1994) ‘Masculinity and the Consumption of Organized
Sports’, in J. Costa (ed.) Gender Issues in Consumer Behavior, pp. 84–103. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fiske, J. (1987) Television Culture. London: Methuen.
Garcia, G. (2008) The Decline of Men. New York: Harper Collins.
Gardiner, J.K. (2002) Masculinity Studies & Feminist Theory: New Directions. Ithica, NY:
Columbia University Press.
Gardyn, R. (2000) ‘Make Room for Daddy’, American Demographics.
Garst, J. and Bodenhausen, G.V. (1997) ‘Advertising’s Effects on Men’s Gender Role
Attitudes’, Sex Roles 36(9/10): 551–72.
Gerbner, G. and Gross, L. (1976) ‘Living with Television: The Violence Profile’, Journal of
Communication 26(2): 172–94.
Goffman, E. (1979) Gender Advertisements. New York: Harper and Row.
Gramsci, A. (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebook, Q. Hoare and G. N. Smith (eds).
London: Allen & Unwin.
Gross, L. (1994) ‘What’s Wrong with This Picture?’, in R. J. Ringer (ed.) Queer Words,
Queer Images: Communication and the Construction of Homosexuality. New York: New
York University Press.
Harrison, C. (2008) ‘Real Men do Wear Mascara: Advertising Discourse and Masculine
Identity’, Critical Discourse Studies 5(1): 55–74.
Harrison, R. and Gentry, J.W. (2007) ‘Vulnerability of Single Fathers in the Transition to
Their New Parental Role’, paper presented at the European Association for Consumer
Research Conference, Milan, June.
Harrison, R., Gentry, J.W. and Commuri, S. (2009) ‘A Grounded Theory of Transition to
Involved Parenting: The Role of Household Production and Consumption in the Lives
of Single Fathers’, Working Paper. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska.
Hill, R. (2004) ‘How New Man Turned into Distant, Confused Dad’, The Observer 20
June: 9.
Holt, D.B. and Thompson, C.J. (2004) ‘Man-of-Action Heroes: The Pursuit of Heroic
Masculinity in Everyday Consumption’, Journal of Consumer Research 31(September):
425–40.
John, D.R. (1999) ‘Consumer Socialization of Children: A Retrospective Look at Twentyfive Years of Research’, Journal of Consumer Research 27(December): 183–213.
Kacen, J. and Nelson, M. (2002) ‘We’ve Come a Long Way, Baby – Or Have We?’, in
P. Maclaran and E. Tissier-Desbordes (eds) Proceedings, 6th Conference on Gender,
93
Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on August 4, 2010
marketing theory 10(1)
articles
Marketing, and Consumer Behavior, June. Dublin: Association for Consumer
Research.
Kaiser, S., Looysen, R. and Hethorn, J. (2008) ‘Unmasking Hegemonic Masculine Fashion
on the Politics of Cultural (In)Visibility’, Proceedings, pp. 188–210, Gender Conference,
Boston, MA, June.
Kaufman, G. (1999) ‘The Portrayal of Men’s Family Roles in Television Commercials’,
Sex Roles 41(5/6): 439–58.
Kervin, D. (1990) ‘Advertising Masculinity: The Representation of Males in Esquire
Advertisements’, Journal of Communication Inquiry 14: 51–70.
Kimmel, A.J. and Tissier-Desbordes, E. (2000) ‘Males, Masculinity, and Consumption:
An Exploratory Investigation’, European Advances in Consumer Research 4: 243–51.
Kimmel, M.S. (1996) Manhood in America: A Cultural History. New York: Free Press.
Kimmel, M.S. (1997) ‘Masculinity as Homophobia: Fear, Shame, and Silence in the
Construction of Gender Identity’, in M. M. Gergen and S. N. Davis (eds) Toward a
New Psychology of Gender, pp. 223–42. New York: Routledge.
Kimmel, M.S., Hearn, J. and Connell, R.W. (2005) Handbook of Studies on Men &
Masculinities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Knill, B.J., Pesch, M., Pursey, G., Gilpin, P. and Perloff, R.M. (1981) ‘Still Typecast after
All These Years? Sex Role Portrayals in Television Advertising’, International Journal of
Women’s Studies 4(5): 497–506.
Lareau, A. (2000) ‘My Wife Can Tell Me Who I Know: Methodological and Conceptual
Problems in Studying Fathers’, Qualitative Sociology 23(4): 407–33.
Lemon, J. (1995) ‘Masculinity in Crisis?’ Agenda 25: 61–71.
McArthur, L.Z. and Resko, B.G. (1975) ‘The Portrayal of Men and Women in American
Television Commercials’, Journal of Social Psychology 97: 209–20.
Maume, D.J. and Mullin, K.R. (1993) ‘Men’s Participation in Child Care and Women’s
Work Attachment’, Social Problems 40(4): 533–46.
Messner, M.A. (1992) Power at Play: Sports and the Problem of Masculinity. Boston, MA:
Beacon Press.
Ostberg, J. (2009) ‘Conservative Rebels: Identity Struggles by Resurrecting an Imagined
Past’, paper presented at the Consumer Cultural Theory Conference, Ann Arbor, MI,
June.
Otnes, C. and McGrath, M.A. (2001) ‘Perceptions and Realities of Male Shopping
Behavior’, Journal of Retailing 77(1): 111–37.
Ourahmoune, N. (2009) ‘Intimacy-related Male Consumption and Masculine Identity
Construction: A Consumer Point of View’, Asian-Pacific Advances in Consumer
Research 8: 130–6.
Ourahmoune, N. and Nyeck, S. (2008) ‘Male Consumers Entering the Private Sphere:
An Exploratory Investigation of French Male Involvement, Practice, and Interactions
around the Lingerie for Men Consumption’, Proceedings, Ninth ACR Conference on
Gender, Marketing, and Consumer Behavior, Boston, MA, June.
Patterson, M. and Elliott, R. (2002) ‘Negotiating Masculinities: Advertising and the
Inversion of the Male Gaze’, Consumption, Markets and Culture 5(3): 231–46.
Perloff, R.M., Brown, J.D. and Miller, M.M. (1982) ‘Mass Media and Sex Typing: Research
Perspectives and Policy Implications’, International Journal of Women’s Studies 5(3):
265–73.
Pleck, J.H. (1981) The Myth of Masculinity. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.
Pleck, J.H. (1987) ‘American Fathering in Historical Perspective’, in M. Kimmel (ed.)
Changing Men, pp. 83–97. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
94
Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on August 4, 2010
Is advertising a barrier to male movement toward gender change?
James Gentry and Robert Harrison
Prinsloo, J. (2006) ‘Where Have All the Fathers Gone? Media(ted) Representations of
Fatherhood’, in L. Richter and R. Morrell (eds) Baba: Men and Fatherhood in South
Africa. Cape Town: Human Sciences Research Council.
Pruett, K.D. (1993) ‘The Paternal Presence’, Families in Society 74: 46.
Risman, B.J. (1986) ‘Can Men “Mother”? Life as a Single Father’, Family Relations 35(1):
95–102.
Risman, B.J. (1998) Gender Vertigo. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Robinson, J. and Godbey, G. (1997) Time for Life. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State
University Press.
Russell, G. (1986) ‘Primary Caring and Role Sharing Fathers’, in M.E. Lamb (ed.) The
Father’s Role: Applied Perspectives. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Sabo, D. and Jansen, S.C. (1992) ‘Images of Men in Sport Media: The Social Reproduction
of Gender Order’, in S. Craig (ed.) Men, Masculinity and the Media, pp. 169–84.
London: Sage.
Salzman, M., Matathia, I. and O’Reilly, A. (2005) The Future of Men. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Schneider, K.C. and Schneider, S.B. (1979) ‘Trends in Sex Roles in Television Commercials’,
Journal of Marketing 43: 79–84.
Schouten, J.W. and McAlexander, J.H. (1995) ‘Subcultures of Consumption: An
Ethnography of the New Biker’, Journal of Consumer Research 22(June): 43–61.
Schroeder, J.E. and Borgerson, J. (1998) ‘Marketing Images of Gender: A Visual Analysis’,
Consumption, Markets and Culture 2(2): 161–201.
Schroeder, J.E. and Zwick, D. (2004) ‘Mirrors of Masculinity: Representation and Identity
in Advertising Images’, Consumption, Markets and Culture 7(1): 21–52.
Scott, L.M. (1994) ‘The Bridge from Text to Mind: Adapting Reader-response Theory to
Consumer Research’, Journal of Consumer Research 21(3): 461–80.
Segal, L. (1993) ‘Changing Men: Masculinities in Context’, Theory and Society 22(5):
625–41.
Seidler, V.J. (2006) Young Men and Masculinities: Global Cultures and Intimate Lives. New
York: Zed Books.
Shields, V.R. and Heinecken, D. (2002) Measuring Up: How Advertising Affects Self-image.
Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Simpson, M. (1994) ‘Here Come the Mirror Men: Metrosexual Men’, The Independent
15 November: 22.
Smiler, A.P. (2004) ‘Thirty Years after the Discovery of Gender: Psychological Concepts
and Measures of Masculinity’, Sex Roles 50(1/2): 15–25.
Sommer, V. (2000) ‘Men’s Studies and Women’s Studies: Should They Be Wed?’, Journal
of Men’s Studies 8(3): 395–400.
Stearns, P.N. (1994) American Cool: Constructing a Twentieth Century Emotional Style.
New York: New York University Press.
Stern, B.B. (1993) ‘Feminist Literary Criticism and the Deconstruction of Ads: A
Postmodern View of Advertising and Consumer Responses’, Journal of Consumer
Research 19(2): 556–66.
Stern, B.B. (2003) ‘Materialism(s) and the Male Image: What Does It Mean to Be a Man?’,
in T. Reichart and J. Lambiase (eds) Sex in Advertising: Perspectives on the Erotic Appeal,
pp. 215–29. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sussman, M.B. (1993) ‘Families in Time to Come: Taking a Position on Trends and
Issues’, in B. H. Settles, R. S. Hanks and M. B. Sussman (eds) American Families and the
Future: Analyses of Possible Destinies, pp. 303–13. New York: Haworth Press.
95
Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on August 4, 2010
marketing theory 10(1)
articles
Thompson, C.J. (1996) ‘Caring Consumers: Gendered Consumption Meanings and the
Juggling Lifestyle’, Journal of Consumer Research 22(March): 388–407.
Thompson, C.J. (2004) ‘Dreams of Eden: A Critical Reader-response Analysis of the
Mytho-ideologies Encoded in Natural Health Advertisements’, in K. Ekstrom and H.
Brembeck (eds) Elusive Consumption, pp. 175–204. Oxford: Berg.
Thompson, J. and Fletcher, K. (2005) ‘Leo Burnett Sheds Light on Global Male Identity
Crisis with New Man Study’, URL (consulted 15 October 2007): www.leoburnett.com/
manstudy/contact/htm
Tuncay, L. and Otnes, C. (2007) ‘Exploring the Link between Masculinity and
Consumption’, Brick and Mortar Shopping in the 21st Century: An Overview, pp. 153–
68. Florence, KY: Erlbaum.
Vigorito, A. and Curry, T.J. (1998) ‘Marketing Masculinity: Gender Identity and Popular
Magazines’, Sex Roles 39(1/2): 135–52.
Weber, R.P. (1985) Basic Content Analysis. London: Sage Publications.
Wenner, L.A. (1991) ‘One Part Alcohol, One Part Sport, One Part Dirt, Stir Gently:
Beer Commercials and Television Sports’, in L. R. Vande Berg and L. A. Wenner (eds)
Television Criticism: Approaches and Applications, pp. 388–407. New York: Longman.
West, C. and Zimmerman, D.H. (1987) ‘Doing Gender’, Gender and Society 1: 125–51.
Wetherell, M. and Edley, N. (1999) ‘Negotiating Hegemonic Masculinity: Imaginary
Positions’, Feminism & Psychology 9(3): 335–56.
Wilson, J. (1988) ‘Single Fathers: An Unnoticed Group’, Australian Social Work 41(2):
9–11.
Jim Gentry is the Maurice J. and Alice Hollman Professor of Marketing at the University
of Nebraska-Lincoln. He earned his doctorate from Indiana University. He has taught
at Kansas State University, Oklahoma State University, the University of WisconsinMadison, and the University of Nebraska. He is the North American editor of the Journal
of Consumer Behaviour and the former editor of the AMS Review. He has authored (or
more frequently, co-authored) over 60 articles, 10 chapters in edited books, and over
200 conference papers. His current research interests are changes in consumption due to
life-event transitions, family decision making, and gender roles. Address: University of
Nebraska, College of Business Administration, Lincoln NE 68588–0492.
[email: [email protected]]
Robert L. Harrison is an Assistant Professor of Marketing in Haworth College of
Business at Western Michigan University. He received his PhD from the University of
Nebraska. His research interests include consumer culture theory, family consumer
behavior, transformative consumer research, public policy in advertising, and qualita-­
tive and mixed method research.
96
Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY on August 4, 2010