Rochester Institute of Technology
RIT Scholar Works
Theses
Thesis/Dissertation Collections
8-21-2003
A content analysis of the portrayal of men in
advertising: Gentlemen's quarterly 1985-2000
Maryrose Mason
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.rit.edu/theses
Recommended Citation
Mason, Maryrose, "A content analysis of the portrayal of men in advertising: Gentlemen's quarterly 1985-2000" (2003). Thesis.
Rochester Institute of Technology. Accessed from
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Thesis/Dissertation Collections at RIT Scholar Works. It has been accepted for inclusion
in Theses by an authorized administrator of RIT Scholar Works. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Men in Advertising
MEN IN ADVERTISING: GENTLEMEN'S QUARTERLY
A Content Analysis of the Portrayal of Men in Advertising:
Gentlemen's Quarterly 1985-2000
Maryrose 1. Mason
Paper Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Master of Science Degree in
Communication & Media Technologies
Rochester Institute of Technology
August 21, 2003
Men in Advertising
The following members of the thesis committee approve the thesis of
Maryrose 1. Mason on August 21,2003.
Dr. Diane Hope
Communications Department Thesis Advisor
Dr. Patricia Sorce
College of Business Thesis Advisor
Dr. Bruce Austin
Communications Department Chair
2
Men in Advertising
3
Permission From Author Required
A Content Analysis of the Portrayal of Men in Advertising:
Gentleman's Quarterly 1985-2000
I, Maryrose 1. Mason, prefer to be contacted each time a request for reproduction is
made. Ifpermission is granted, any reproduction will not be for commercial use or profit.
Please contact the Rochester Institute of Technology's Department of Communication for
my updated contact information:
Rochester Institute of Technology
Department of Communication
(College ofLiberal Arts)
(George Eastman Building)
(Office 01-3006)
One Lomb Memorial Drive
Rochester, NY 14623-5603
Telephone:
Web Site: http://www.rit.edu/~698www/cmt/
Maryrose 1. Mason
oj a I JO:3:>
f
Date '
Men in
To my mother and father,
Jan and Joe Mason,
whose encouragement and
have
made
this
discipline
possible.
Advertising
4
Men in
Table
Advertising
of Contents
Abstract
6
Introduction
7
Rationale
7
Research Questions
9
Review
9
of Literature
Theory and Method
37
Methodology
41
Results
46
Discussion
72
Conclusion
82
Appendices
84
References
106
Author
111
Biography
5
Men in
Advertising
Abstract
This thesis
examines
Quarterly (GQ)
developed
study
reports on
market.
magazine
by Erving
examines
images
of men and
using the
symbolic
Goffman in his
product
body portrayal,
self-touch, gaze,
in
types
use gender
Goffman'
theory
and method.
and product
GQ
display
Gender Advertisements (1979). The
GQ
displays to
attract a male
from 1985 to 2000
were coded
display: setting, image position, image dominance,
sexual objectification of men
s
of gender
evidence of sexual objectification of men, and
332 advertising images appearing in
categories of ritual
they promote in Gentleman 's
interaction theory
monograph
advertising images for
the extent different
the products
type.
advertising
The study
skin
concludes
are not revealed
by
target
in ten
exposure,
that trends
application of
of
6
Men in
A Content Analysis
of the
Gentleman's
Portrayal
Advertising
7
in Advertising:
of Men
1985-2000
Quarterly
Introduction
On average, Americans
(Semenik, 2002). For the
commercials are
most
about, let
are exposed
part,
we
to 1,500-3,000
tend to forget
alone what product and
advertisements a
what
these
company they
so, we do tend to
remember certain messages contained within
especially if they
are repetitive.
to
have any hopes
of
to have
an attention
for it to
get
the
appeal
to
Although
codes of morality, sex
objectification and
for
a name
Historically,
brand,
repetitive noise
getter, something that draws
attract attention.
There have been
order
breaking through the
message across.
traditional public
In
viewers
unfortunate
sells,
which
women
observed
constructing
a
are promoting.
product, service,
theories
and studies
hoping to
is why many
long
of gender equalization
idea
enough
retain
marketers use sex
of sexual
male viewer.
analyzing specifically the impact
of
However, many commentators
that there is a growing trend to objectify
twisted form
it
concentrate on
for many
or an
an advertisement needs
stereotyping particularly in images designed for the
numerous
Even
the advertisements,
level,
to
advertisements and
have borne the brunt
sexual objectification on women and girls especially.
have
a
day
men as sex objects
feminist
scholars
did
themselves,
not
intend to
create.
Rationale
Sexual
discussion for
objectification and
over
30 years;
the
portrayal of gender
one specific
topic
has been
has been
a major
and continues
topic
of
to be how the two
Men in
have been portrayed in the
sexes
research
has been
women and
mass media.
the feminine gender. The
masculinity has usually been discussed
inequalities between
While
men and
such studies are
women,
necessary in
say have been ignored far too
the
as much as
gender
as an
to
in
also need
to better
order
to
point out
the
stereotypical gender associations.
portrayal of men needs
portrayal of women
used
promote women's
issues
men's
issues (issues that many
to be
In today's
examined.
to be examined and
comprehend
considered
how society
views
issues.
According to Bresnahan, Inoue, Liu,
depiction [in U.S.
prime
28%
of American
females
state
that these
culture,
the
subject of such
portrayal of men and
afterthought,
as well as
order
long),
continuously changing society, the
just
However, usually the
8
Advertising
findings
they do
not
were
depicted in
magazine advertisements and
that concentrate
their
previous research
of women
become this make-believe,
air
whatever product or service
is
have
status of women and men
on
the
roles.
This is just
portrayal of women, while
portrayal of men.
By examining
a
portrayal of this often
has
claimed
tremendous
the
ignored
men's
fashion
of
"perfect"
existence of
effect on women
But
form
gender.
-
and
creating the desire to
brushed person, thus creating the desire to
being promoted.
authors
in U.S.
portrayal of men, we can examine one popular
(i.e. fashion magazines)
images
(124). Although the
in traditional feminine
portrayal of men
ignoring the needed examination of the
"beautiful"
of all role
roles"
masculine
both the changing
reflect
discuss the
Furthermore,
"only 29.5%
time television commercials] were non-stereotypical... [and] that
one example of various studies
one medium's
Nishida (2001),
and
women are not
purchase
the only ones
9
Men in Advertising
susceptible to unrealistic
regarding how
being used to
being portrayed
promote new
advertised and
the
going in for
marketed
to and
address such
increase
plastic
in
print
exist
of male
trends to have
specifically for
facials,
better idea
from
of which
advertising, marketing techniques and
gender
that
appears
men.
of male
a social
direction
studies, as
more men are
It has
also
been
beauty products being
as well as an
and other services
increase
of
traditionally
standpoint, it is important to
our
Through this research, I hope to delve further into my
research
observations made
beauty product purchases,
by women. Thus,
a
it
-
between the increase
surgery, manicures,
purchased
images
beauty products made
that a correlation may
observed
men
men are
images. Currently, there have been
society may be taking.
personal
well as open
interests
of
doors to further
focusing on comparison between the genders.
Research Questions
For this thesis, I
portrayed
To
historically
what extent
will
and
be asking the
currently in the
have they been
whether sexual or
otherwise,
sexual objectification of men
the types
portrayed
in
Many observations have
and
media and advertising.
MTV's "Real
World"
Finally, has
print ads?
of product advertisement
using
been
With
a sexual manner?
time? Is there
changed over
in
questions:
How have
advertisements of a men's
a
men
fashion
Has the
been
magazines?
portrayal
trend towards
-
increased
there been a change
over
time in
men?
Review
today's
following
of Literature
made
regarding the
popular
splashing images
degrading
television shows
like
of Barbie-like midriffs
images
of women
in
"Survivor," "Friends,"
around,
and a
Men in
plethora of
"perfect"
look
alike
have
scholars and commentators
women and girls
The
thousands. Yet
-
only do
not
be
an
such
in the media,
literature
scope of
related
voiced concern over
and
images
of women
have been
made
objectification of
these images may have
in advertising
commenting
images
numbers
on
the
of males
increasing number of images of men flaunting their sexuality,
and after
1980s1), feminists
How
mass media.
women are
they
topics
scholarship
advertise,
performed
Male
be
peak of the women's
and scholars
products
of
the
-
and
have
what, if any,
especially in
product users
most
occupations
comparison with
hand,
family and husband
success via
or
[nurturing]
seems
especially to
to
promote
(1960s-early
female image
are portrayed
appear
of men.
commercials were more
likely than males to
boyfriend... and
relationships
an analysis of print advertisements
that these
portrayal of men
to be the
within
in,
the
main
According to
a
Resko (1975),
in... tele vision
were more
they
they hold
images
in the
but there
movement
what surroundings
rewarded with social and career advancement.
other
concluded
liberation
them.
on
market.
frequently focused on the
portrayed, in
by Mc Arthur and
the female
associated with
many viewers,
no wonder
the increased
potential effects
of men use stereotypical
beauty products traditionally
study
the
to images
other observations
media
During
In
beauties in advertising, it's
10
Advertising
be
Female
likely than females to
product
rewarded with
were more
users,
on
the approval
likely than males to
the
of
achieve
(218).
from 1958 to 1978,
ads often showed males and
Courtney and Whipple (1983)
females in
a stereotypical
way, women
According to: http://www.britannica.com/women/articles/women%27s liberation_movement.html
11
Men in Advertising
as sexual objects and men as
and
Kurzbard's
nude or
(1986) research discovered that females
partially
Popular Culture,
Advertising
creatures
in advertisements,
images
magazine
supports
partial views and/or
in
(1999)
concluded
also states
notion
this,
that 66%
for
a
that 42%
large
in
effect on
delayed
the
Some
a
reclining
are more
likely to
versus
images "were
to the
product
in
still
movement
scholars report
position or
in
4% for
presented
in
a
ad"
an
(262).
(264), supporting
important
media.
1993,
contexts"
"alluring
1 970s
In
males).
method
in the
and
However,
80s did
not
the
advertiser's sales
interesting
have
an
since
it
immediate
there is some evidence that this
place.
changing trends in
and
Aishida
commercials, concluding that 28%
roles, and 29.5%
(1996),
be depicted in
they endorsed in
This is especially
during the
in the
Fowles
likely to be
categories."
is slowly taking
females tended to
in
(27% for females
still considered an
Bresnahan, Inoue, Liu,
masculine
According to
shown
time television commercials in April
of females appeared
portrayal of women
effect
females
of women's
relation
likely to be
of the portrayal of men and women
study
prime
and often
number of product
that the feminist
appears
indoors
finding that
in
role
that "sex appeals are
approach
study,
(1988)
Furthermore, Soley
women are often portrayed as passive
a subordinate position
nonfunctional, decorative
She
being placed
of the portrayal of women
study
Lin
and
Masse & Rosenblum's
sitting.
were more
clothed than their masculine counterparts.
author of
a
the decision makers and breadwinners.
(2001)
of American
of all role
women's
examined prime
females
depictions
images. Eight
were
Lin's
time television
depicted in traditionally
were non-stereotypical.
promote personal care products and
years after
household
However,
furnishings, (although
Men in
more women than men promoted pharmaceuticals and real
cars,
automotive accessories and
for
remained stereotyped
advertisements
Certain
Berger (2000),
technology, suggesting "product
gender"
a male
women were
present,
[but] increasingly
cigarettes and alcohol
women
(as
well as
men, but in
top of the list. Berger
also points out a
partially
and other
technological
actively using the
Although the
appears
leaning
evidence
and
toward a
gizmos.
or she
a
decorative
feminine to
(211).
pose"
According to
main product categories
care products also
in their advertisements,
appears women's
to be shown as
decoration,
with
among the
that gratuitously
other product categories
Thus, it
using
such as
images in
rather
than
Palm
relation
as
to
human
product.
they
move
wear,
tends to be more decorative than
depending
on
the setting
toward more
unisex
they
There has
clothing,
are placed
also
been
functional,
in, may be
some
depending on the
character
is in. According to Paff and Buckley-Lakner (1997), "The dress
and appearances of women
highly
print
decreasingly as homemakers,
like hair
non-stereotypical arrangement.
pointing to the
the setting he
few
portrayal of women still
that the clothing
more
"[in]
lesser extent) in their advertisements,
clothed or nude supermodels
product and surroundings continue
it
a
beauty products
and certain
subjects
in
tend to be the two
automobiles, clothing
Pilots
featured
has
endorsement
products appear to utilize sex appeal more than others.
"perfect"
showcase
while males promoted
(123). Also, according to Fowles,
from 1959 to 1989,
increasingly without
estate)
12
Advertising
in television
being relatively
situation comedies
less so,
or
to
being
have
shifted
from
being
more androgynous... men's
13
Men in Advertising
[attention to] dress
[traditionally feminine]... over
time"
closely
parallel male
On the
other
depict
so
women
majority
toward
of
authors state
has become
in passive,
than in previous
dress"
advertisements
increasingly
Shelley
in women's,
manly
and
masculine,
Only
in
of women
advertisements
in
(33).
[magazine]
...continue
stereotypes of women still
own
story
in
to
is
hold the
being
made
in their
magazines
which men and women are
treated
(1988)
feminine
review of
in
situations
however, do
we see men
in
equals."
In
as
noticed
Hendriks
their
that "men are
frequently appear
roles,
stereotypical roles
not unlike
observed
interest
roles of spouses and parents.
women
portray
more recent
shown
a
that males are
(2002)
study
of
increasingly
concurs, stating "male
television appear to be growing more diverse and multidimensional
while representations of women remain
Tebbel
still
less
roles and
being
hand,
dress"
male
predominantly feminine (although less
(1981)
time television shows, Bretl and Cantor
other
to
although some progress
to have their
Lundstrom
in decorative
in
images
prime
representations on
.in
advertising,
men's and general
activities.
nontraditional roles or
in the
similar
that "although the dress
of women's
of men appear
portrayed
involving their
be
roles more
ideals.
positions, images
to tell.
likely to
(37). Apparently,
imagery available within
counterparts
more
somewhat more
decades)
more modern
indicates that "...when female
appearance oriented..
While the majority
and
also
roles, female dress is
hand, these
more
(31).
Paff and Buckley-Lakner's study
advertisements
behaviors have become
and appearance related role
and
Zuckerman
[one]
(1991)
dimensional
commented
unrealistic"
and
(106). On the
that many women's magazines,
Men in
in the
even those published
figure
dignity,
of responsibility,
equality, since in articles,
a
hapless,
somewhat
beginning of the
20th
and authority... This was not
fiction,
cartoons,
silly creature,
and
comics,
manipulated
by the
Fowles concurs, stating "feminists... may forget that
doltish
times, to
at
images
although
may
transition to
still
be
albeit
stereotyped,
portrayed as
men as sex
poor
mother as
toward
Dad
usually depicted
was
in his
family"
as
(266).
brutish
or
(223). Thus
viewership"
homemakers may be
the idiot husband
"a
a move
males are also rendered as
in different
objects, especially in
the
however,
women
whipping boys for the female
of women as sex objects and
men also are
advertising,
while men
serve as
portrayed
century,
14
Advertising
ways.
and
prominent
However, it
appears
father, they may be
advertisements
in
that
making the
targeted to the male
audience.
For
a
necessary to
full understanding
examine
done
research
on
how
men are portrayed.
the portrayal of men,
analysis of women's portrayals.
be found
outside
Also,
compared
most
2
portrayed
However,
unless as a
According
in advertising media, it is
there has been very little
secondary thought in
likely to
be
to 20% for
supplies and
females)2,
children,
with
portrayed
female
and pet
a comparative
to Bresnahan et al, males were more
television commercials used
comprised of women,
cleaning
is
the home in prime time television commercials,
counterparts who were more
setting.
of how gender
indoors,
as
the
male voice-overs
voice-overs used
owners,
unlike
mom
female
in her domestic
(approximately 80%
primarily for
focusing on products
make-up (Lin 1993). Although
their
likely to
women are still
audiences
such as pet
food,
being portrayed
in
According to Bretl & Cantor (1988), voice-overs in television commercials consisted of 90% males.
Thus, there appears to have been an increase of female voice-overs of about 10% between 1989 and 2001.
Men in
decorative settings,
as sexual objects
them to use products to increase their
images
have
of women and men
noticed
products,
new male
sexuality
and
believe the
Kervin (1990),
his
most
important
male market
is
to
men's magazines were
primarily
women's magazines
being a woman.
Now
have
She
down
narrow
used
historically
by
there may be a trend that's slowly
fashion
is emerging
trait.
articles on
their market.
men
for
titles are
improving
an unobtainable
in
magazines couldn't exist
-
a male
focused
Solomon, Ashmore
According
entertainment
following
claims a
on
and
his
Longo
(1992)
magazine
to Dobosz
(1997),
reasons, whereas
information to become better
ads
if it
ideal
for
in their
appearance,
need
also an element of ad- inspired obsession with
seen a conspicuous rise
between
She
and sexuality.
elusive, making it harder for
for the first time that men, too,
measuring up to
creation of equality
consisted of self-help
publishers of some men's
implying
persuade
that:
contends
supplying how-to
on
to
increasingly being portrayed using beauty
as well as
more
women viewers
have been increasing.
characteristic
becoming
to
amounts of objectification of women, some
men are
within print advertisements
advertisers and editors
at
of men
focusing on body image,
image
as
by decreasing the
that the objectifications
According to
femininity,
However, instead of a
gender stereotypes.
neutralizing
products
promoting
15
Advertising
to
sisters'
hygiene,
work on
and
relationships,
themselves... there is
buying products and with
of masculinity.
Men's
beauty and image products
weren't
footsteps,
magazines
-
in
fact,
have
the service
for these financial backers... at the heart
of
Men in
all
these magazines, the message is that men need to improve for themselves, for
the
Fowles
some
world
states
degree
but mostly for
-
"gender is
flux"
of
It
grooming?
(217). So is it
appears
health. But do
men
increased
actually
men use
to
definitions
to
males
personal
safe
to
assume
and
pedicures, 18%
sponsored
foundations to look
adopt
female
focusing on fashion,
packs, and 10% enjoy
survey
traits in
and
beautification
to market them. In a study sponsored
another
bronzers
It's
for
to
magazines
use such products?
such as masks and mud
Furthermore, according
American
amount of attention
of American men get manicures or
treatments
with
now more acceptable
so, especially in men's
advertisers wouldn't continue
(1996), 20%
(90).
women
increasingly contested territory,
characteristics such as an
skin
16
Advertising
and
sex,
that if they
didn't,
by Men 's Health
use one or more various
professional
facials.
by Psychology Today (1996),
younger.
and
According
6%
of
to Rohlinger
(2002):
In
1992,
men spent
eyelid surgery.
men spent
are
$12
rapidly
10%
of
This
$88
million on
number
increased to
million on penile
increasing
in
with
their
bodies,
hard-bodied appearance,
with
go
and are
almost
implants,
$130
nose-reshaping, and
million
men now account
eating disorders. In short,
to
great
lengths to
suffering the
are a side effect of consumer culture
(64).
in 1997. In 1996,
and silicone calf and pectoral
In addition,
popularity.
individuals suffering
dissatisfied
liposuction, facelifts,
for
men are
implants
almost
increasingly
achieve a more youthful and
psychological consequences
that
17
Men in Advertising
So it
appears that these advertisements are
view
their
sexually
physical
appearance, in
effect
indeed making
creating the
impact
to
appear more youthful and
need
Pendergast (2000), it
appears
the
time, the
male
images
within
and skin care products
but the idea
and
the
was still
to compete among
including
products or
physique.
to anywhere
same.
other
This
men, a
new
to be one
men's magazines
market
1980s,
more exposed
as magazine editors
would promote
man.
shaped
attain.
to a
To be the best
own
achieving
and
whether created
images
and sex came onto
"man", but
confonriing to the image
field
a good
of masculinity.
's
sell
predecessor of
As
more
men within
in the
Quarterly {GQ) began
GQ and
explicit
their
more apparent
other magazines
feminine images,
sexually
did,
career
fashion/sex/health-conscious
past and current
new more narcissistic and
in the
by advertisers to
the scene,
how
counterparts
maintaining
of Gentlemen
also
things as
certain codes of standards,
to these images. This became
of a
in 1933. At
with such
successful
self-images, became the
like Art Cooper
Similar to
means
themselves
to submit to
themselves and the lifestyle many
currently desire to
being
clothes and
fashion
to change not only the definition
are
man needed
masculinity,
of Esquire
the extent their feminine
of the more popular current
focusing on
became
near
concern
birth
To be desirable to the ladies,
society to better define their
what appears
early
these ads didn't
wearing the fashionable
(muscular)
target
some men
needing to
concept of men
beautify themselves has existed previous to WWII, with the
hair
on
appealing.
According to
this
how
an
masculine
definition
of this perfect
men
images
of the perfect
man; the message is
Men in
familiar: consuming the
will
help
Granted,
men
training, attaining
an
image
image
hunting, fishing,
a successful career
advertised products
new
of the man's man
shatter
consumerism
for
the
in
glass
fashion
male
ceiling,
Zuckerman,
liberation
to
-
reclaiming the indoors
parties
male consumerism.
place was no
women's
less in the home
men
would
inept
to
for
at
the concepts
gender roles are an
also needs
sports
objects,
According to
also
away from
a
roles
and
-
to
claim
and even after
ideas
were still
femininity are
the
women
According
cooking, and
claims made
anyone
were
and
(285).
items,
-
"strategy for
pleasure"
these
cook
that
to "rescue
Tebbel
emphasizing
masculine
before
of masculinity and
knows how to
and
217) by taking
be impractical for
during the time
appears now
In effect, before feminists
purchasing
assume
liberation movement, but the images
Overall,
While
It
the home.
as a realm
image). But it
magazines attempted
Playboy were
women were
making it necessary for
-
increase
editors,
pretty-boy
on mechanical
lip balm,
magazines.
fashion
within
other magazines such as
such magazine
uses
(Pendergast 2000,
their traditional domain: their place
by fighting these
of masculine
audience"
a male
model
being a man's man (even then, they still
-
dyes his hair,
men's
(male)
to this image.
closer
camping, working
designed to fit this type
most prominent
fighting to
becoming
some magazines serve a niche market
images, showing
this
specific product shown with this specific perfect
you achieve your goal of
18
Advertising
throwing
if only to
that a women's
peak of the
there.
socially
constructed.
important topic to discuss in today's changing world, sexuality
to examined, since it is so
sexuality is traditionally defined
as
often
determined
active, seeking
and
by gender roles: "Where
male
decisive, female sexuality is
Men in
defined
as responsive and
1994, 56). So how is
According to
social
in the
position to elicit a response
this definition
of male and
learning theorists,
from the
19
Advertising
(Shields
male"
female sexuality determined?
people pick
up
cues as
how to
act
by examining
the world around them:
Most human behavior is learned observationally through
observing
later
forms
others one
occasions
people can
this
coded
learn from
an
people
(in this
example what
case we'll
behaviors is determined
political
leaders for
boundaries. People
media and
its
influential
role
that
ever-
cues on
increasing
are portrayed via
people
media,
determining how to become
bullying
heroes
by
and
scholars
do,
view
at
least in
determine
up
"man."
a
1996, 112).
action.
approximate
nature as
by
gender roles
society have
who and what
real or
boys learn how to become
modes of media,
"there
men.
[is]
Before
church and
more
distinct
themselves.
Now,
claimed a more
they are. Media,
Morgan
form, before
relationships and
had
part of the experiences men go
According to
Because
social nurturing.
repercussions upon
with
on
(Bandura 1977, 22).
looked to their parents, families,
them brought
make
for
from
performed, and
are
themselves, others,
individual
interdependence
analyzing different
(Morgan
to
sex, interactions (whether
are some of the ways
man"
a
being bullied,
serves as a guide
how to behave. Back then,
who crossed
in how
by
people
behaviors
are spared needless errors
discuss men)
not so much
influential,
mass media was so
of how new
information
performing any behavior, they
How
idea
modeling:
(1996),
and
the images
through in
experiences such as
imagined) with childhood
Now it seems,
more
as witnessed
than one way to
become
Men in
Cultivation theorists
would claim
that the images
certain audience viewpoints about
encourage,
we see
the society in
in the
which
20
Advertising
media
cultivate,
or
they live. According
to Littlejohn (2002):
Cultivation
analysis
is
concerned with
by [media]
cumulatively
whole
An
of the pattern communicated
In
but instead
other
words, this is
people accept
filling
non-domestic roles
the idea that
because there
Overall,
we need
to
both
Or
pleasure?
because
and other
do
a possible
media,
filling
seeing
the culture
as a
taking
on
images
indeed,
flux in
more
than
images
are
we
in the
seeing
(at least those
way to be
for both
in
certain
male and
in traditionally feminine
roles
in
who are
real
in
in the
taking
on
ways,
female
ways
life? Overall, the
paying
attention to
these
"man."
a
masculine/feminine role portrayals occurs within
potential changes
and more
real world?
more men
being positioned
of men posed
one
that more
filling non-domestic roles
Are
men.
traditionally feminine
men
as we see more and
-
non-domestic roles
and posed as sexual objects
more
this
would appear
we see more women
roles as more male
there serve to teach
that there is
As
of
longer has to be in the home. Naturally,
if this hold true for
products,
are we
are
ways:
examine
more men are
images that
images)
certain
in the media, it
a woman's place no
are more women
traditionally feminine
advertising
theory
(317).
argument can go
media
not a
makes a statement about
examination of changing women's roles would support
more women
the
"effects"
media
totality
long period of exposure rather than by any
over a
particular content or special effect.
individual
the
proper gender and sex roles could also
advertising
be
Men in
Compared to Freud's
occurring.
strict
definition
of gender, modern gender
femininity. No longer do
we
masculine/feminine guidelines.
performance,
identity"
and
(para. 13). Fejes
that
to Shields
in society, but
is
(1984)
the term that describes the
Gender is the
Klages (1997), "gender is
rather
that media plays
than a core
the advertising
than those
is determined
an
regards
act,
a
aspect of essential
an essential role
in society, especially in
(1994, 2002),
by birth,
to
in mamtaining
gendered power.
industry does reflect the
changes occur.
Gender,
by both external and
rather
than
internal forces
Also according to Shields (1994), "gender is defined
push and pull on a person.
women.
states
at a slower pace
predetermined
a man or a woman within strict
codes, costumes,
structures of power
However, according
sex which
According to
a set of manipulated
changing the
changes
have to define
theory
define masculinity
reflects the numerous combinations that men and women can use to
and
cultural and social
effect of and
is
21
Advertising
basis
constructed
daily by
of roles assumed
in
culture"
(1). Rakow
as
men and
(1986) defines
gender as:
Both something
we
do
and
something
The
and a system of cultural meanings.
and
the
cultural meanings
of gender
-
'thinking
-
So how is gender, specifically the
still
breadwinner
Perhaps in
some
and
head
male
sex
toy,
-
set of social practices
the
'doing'
of gender
-
world'
using
men,
categories and experiences
organized
into
a particular
(21).
gender, defined in today's mediated culture? Is it
of household?
instances, is it
social practices
the
constitute us as women and
configuration of social relations
think with, both a
we
Or is it
eye
equal
candy
and
partner,
helpmate,
and parent?
decoration? Has the definition
of
Men in
the male gender changed?
during
However,
Men's
as
roles
becoming the
cut.
ago
In
traditional,
of
would
other consumer
goods,
on
laid off,
have
not
if not
occasional
whether
determined.
gift.
paced as
more women
households,
whereas even
ten
than
communities
a
few
eyebrows.
demand that
to their traditional
also see more men
because they
other
seeing
fast
shameful, but progressive,
of "women's
underwear, or many
holiday
we're
if so, how?
and
a
wives can attend
We
well,
as obvious and
and wife
careers,
prefer
buying
moved out of their
or
work"
moot
take
men
pay
Even today,
on
years
more
their
roles as wife and
leave both
doing the
& Anderson 2002, Danna 1994). Whatever the reason,
husbands'
changed as
forced to take
raised more
based
system.
idea
during the
or are
change
mom, have become single parents,
orientation, making the
we can
to be continually in flux
in today's economy,
don't have the time, they have
longer depend
women's roles
social and economic pressures sometimes
but to buck the
girlfriends
get
sometimes religious
However,
no choice
recently
definitely changing,
Especially
traditional roles, so that their
mother.
are
circles, this is
lifestyle
in 2000,
and
"man"
their husbands
more modern
this sort
seems
primary breadwinners in traditional husband
when
especially
to changing
"woman"
concept of
in society
their feminine counterparts.
in 1900
of men
relation
the concept of
times, has the
modern
images
at
is yes, especially in
assume the answer
past century.
Looking
22
Advertising
men and women
household items
and
shopping, their wives or
home
parents'
and can no
have discovered their homosexual
(Rohlinger
2002, Miles, Meethan,
women are no
items for that matter,
Whether society (and advertisers)
with
are
longer
buying their
the exception of the
taking
notice
is
yet
to be
Men in
Because definitions
versa), it is
perhaps vice
American
gender
culture and
reflect and
society,
will
consequence of
as
define
gender.
then
is
Thus,
aspects
displayed,
in
s research such as
size,
of what
1979, 3). According
...Individuals
and
within
the
feminine touch
is already
Gender
transformation,
feel that
and
gender
same
is
of ritual
"symbolic
display. In
by themselves and with each
the audience's perceptions
few
ways
in
ritual
of society.
subordination, licensed
which gender
is
becomes itself ritualized,
a
one of the most
masculinity
display, therefore, is
the
are
at once
conception of the
are
two
the
deeply
a
(Goffman
seated
can
be
sexes and
of human
expressed
characterize a person at
actually
traits
prototypes of essential expression.
something that
time has the ability to
level. Advertisements, then,
ideal
also noted a
"hyper-ritualization"
a
calls
display refers to
ritualization of
are a
(1979)
to Shields (1994):
beings; femininity
an
to fit
shown
ritualized, in advertisements. "What was a
transformation
and at
order
Goffman'
relative
or
gender
(1). Goffman
other
in
Goffman
established correlates of sex
that applied to his theories to advertising as a form
posed and stereotyped
to determine this. As
correlates"
words, the way female and male models are
(and,
Since this thesis is examining
observe what
the culturally
society
society, specifically
used as a window of sorts
other
withdrawal,
culture and
culture and
biology or learning),
conventionalized portrayals of theses
interactionism"
be
how
possibly changing, it is important to
display: "If gender be defined
(whether in
deeply rooted in
fitting to examine
in advertising, advertising
gender roles are
gender
of gender are
23
Advertising
ritual-like
bits
fleetingly
the most basic
of behavior which
portray
their structural relationship to each
Men in
other...
exist
in
Actual
gender expressions are artful
a constant state of hyper-ritualization.
found to
simplification are
displays in advertising
engage
in
Cut
with exaggerated
(37;
familiar because they
life. However,
real
conventions.
are
advertisements
off from context and
distortion
"How the
advertiser succeeds
matter of how
rituals
to
gender
in
which we
conventionalize our
advertisements
supply
us
familiar
intimately
be the
and
simplify
gender
displays? One of,
use of traditional gender stereotypes.
finding different guises
for his
be
selected and shaped
(Goffman 1979, 25). Advertisements
of the past relied on
of real scenes can
instructs
stereotypes still
to provide a
reading"
meet
number of people with
today, it is important to
everyone,
advertisement), as
product
likely the
traditional
market
well as
more
the
roles are not
still relate
targeting
method
use of
the
is
still
in
displeasing to
(Shields 1994, 30).
he/she portrays, is
pay
the
segments"
sex of the product sponsor
gender
of
While this
consumer
consistently images
may
of energy.
that while "traditional
customer will
social roles
expectations, in hopes
the least amount
note
times the
image. The
more
target
tend to irritate many
[they] do
Also, many
the
in
the materials
traditional stereotypes to
use
serve
exaggeration and
Goffman 1979).
see also
most common answer would
largest
further
to us
of a world with which we are
if not the,
desired
show
advertisements
The
advertising.
taken as a group,
So how does advertising standardize, exaggerate,
in the
Standardization,
degree in
an extended
However,
poses, too.
24
Advertising
are used
attention.
Even
to traditional
(i.e. the
used
to
to
model/actor
"match,"
market
so
in the
to speak, the
to the target customer,
market segments
living outside the
ideals, however. Most first
year
25
Men in Advertising
marketing
students
know that aiming toward
specific
target market traits and attempting
to personalize marketing techniques will yield the best results,
be time
and cost
in today's
ever
prohibitive,
increasing
uniform approach will
depending
off most
their markets and portray images
One
consistent
finding
product representative
the advertisement
men with wives and
to fit the target's
him to feel
himself,
he has
to
life:
closer
that
real-
emerged
from
whether
the
the
product
to
trying
use a
understand
sex of the
that the
the setting for
role portrayed and
image. Realism in advertising
roles were more
traditional
can
However,
market.
to better
research showed
30-something,
young children, then that image
mental
image
connected
of himself and
the
situation as
his situation,
will
be
was
in
or progressive
associated with women
2002). Thus self-identified,
advertise
to
professional
advertise
world around
and/or
more prone
portrayed, even if the products are cologne, hair
items usually
used
to the product. If the target
desires to obtain, then he
to efficiently
advertisers
in the advertisement, the
main market consists of
the sponsor's
or
forcing
subcultures,
times this
(Shields 1994, 30).
Thus, if a company's
wants
viewers,
should match
important, therefore,
style
the product, producers and
on
segmentation of markets and
turn
although at
care
views
the
advertiser
image
as
the image
whatever product
jewelry,
plastic
depending
on
is
being
surgery
-
1994, Danna 1994, Rohlinger
social-identified and non-traditional gender roles can
products,
needs
the product sponsor as
to desire
(Manca & Manca
that product
him, if the
sponsor's
products,
heterosexual
the desired
and actual product
be
image:
used
Men in
Advertisements invest
object,
products with a value
image
emotion or
which
viewers give signs value
through the
rep lace... Advertising insists that
to
a specific product
Thus, if person A
more
like
C,
model
non-hazardous
Loving
or at
cleaning
picking up germs,
a
least
more
we
for
value
..It
promises satisfaction upon
invested
what
they
kind
'are'
of person we
B
shown
by
like the image
model
model
C,
C
then
person
represents.
product shown with a mother concerned about
BMW
not
person,
follows, therefore, that
recognition or what
differentiate
Products
us.
a
in
(Shields 1994, 47).
uses product
successful
mother,
by relating the product to
through advertising are 'generic'.
with such value
relation
already has
26
Advertising
with a rich
entrepreneur,
businessperson,
obtaining 'the
or
or
Revlon lipstick
drop-dead
look'
For example,
her
can
a
children
with
gorgeous actress:
the look
and
A becomes
Halle Berry.
"The image
(and must) be
purchased"
(Shields 1994, 56).
Shields (1994,
and process such
images, but
the
with women
is
image
2002).
portrayals
a question
for the
Quarterly, Esquire
of the
and
men what works
Is
what's good
since magazines such as
Gentlemen 's
Perhaps,
Playboy,
all aimed
beyond
movement witnessed a
women view similar
attempting to do to
in contemporary
gander?
well
psychological aspect of how men view
may be different than how
being raised
not), have succeeded
feminist
that the
also suggests
question of whether advertisers are
goose also good
stated or
2002)
toward the
male consumer
everyone's
huge jump in
society.
first
(whether
expectations.
for the
blatantly
Even the
such magazine subscriptions
surge
(Crewe
Men in
"Advertising feeds
alienating
our
exchange
for
(1997)
desire for
off our
coherence and
identity and constituting us as one among
an
image that
gives us
back
for meaning,
many
by at once
We then
objects.
27
Advertising
make
the
(Shields 1994, 54). Zhou
value"
our own
concurs:
If people
"observe"
often
behavior in
a particular
mass media,
attributes required to
group
they are likely
carry
out
of people
engaging in
to believe that the abilities
a particular
and
that activity are typical for that group
personality
of people
(489).
If this is true, it is
and what
they
safe
are.
to assume,
Even though
then, that
current
society
differences it has created, the fact that both
things,
even
advertising
Thus,
if they
are affected somewhat
will succeed
as men absorb
order
those attributes flaunted
are promoting.
The logic
attempts
the image
begin to believe that in
they
in its
with
is
divisions in contemporary
these images to determine
holds
on
to many
men and women can
differently,
re-create
that
suggests
the
be
who
of the gender
affected
by the
same
that the chances that
male as a consumer will
be high.
in the advertisement, they then
"group,"
they
particular
model; the types
According to
of economics
to
still
of the male models
to fit in
by the
people use
of attributes embodied
will need
by the
will
to
obtain
product
Rohlinger (2002):
also used
to
advertising.
explain
the muddying
Briefly,
the feminine
of gender role
gender role model
encourages women
to please themselves. Implicit to this model is that in the
process of pleasing
themselves,
women will also please others.
masculine gender role model emphasizes
power,
whether
in the
Conversely,
boardroom,
the
28
Men in Advertising
bedroom,
or on
the playing field. Within this context, the
defined through
juxtapositioned
with
images
In short, the
precision with products
ultimately
increasingly
right
boardroom
the technical
look
and
or suburban
prohibitions
The
consumers with
the
and
the masculine mode
backyard. In
adhere
masculinity is
most
high-income,
purchase products
not a matter of the
expressed
real
grip
life,
over
outside
these
men
really been
no matter
"Advertisements are neither true
indulging
manly in the
behavior in their
by
advertisers
and
the fact that the
(young,
urban)
single,
are also
the least
that depict traditional gender roles... In
mind, but
of the
body. As
muscles and
such
the consumption and
that are regarded masculine (64-66).
portrayed?
or
Does this
portrayal perhaps
does the advertising
how inaccurate its
nor
men are
gender role
crossover
educated,
physically through
the advertising world,
images,
well
an
of exigency and competition.
is buttressed
desirable demographics to
is
are
financial
However,
confident and
feature
not
performance, and
mode of
words, because
advertisers
adornment of mass-produced goods
So how have
other
feel
legitimacy of this practice
to and
short, masculinity is
can
is
Products
product
of physical and
the feminine
modes:
the right stuff, he
professional, employed,
likely to
the level
expertise of the male owner.
have relaxed, many
advertisements.
that the
associations of power,
reflect
to operate in both
being indulged
oneself and
With the
able
power of choice.
of power, which suggests
extension of the owner.
power as well as
in
but through the
beauty and fashion,
masculine role
world retain
denote
men
its tight
gendered portrayals are?
false... [but have the] ability to look familiar
when on
29
Men in Advertising
close
inspection they portray
34). For
a world which
is really
the
to
males are pictured
home,
three trends
the
picture
in the traditional domains
emerge:
male engaged
in
the
no
first,
contributing
make
and
the male ludicrous
preserving the
technique, is
male
scenario
1994, 38;
hold true for
arrangements and attitudes
would
think
not
chore.
On the
of both
sexuality
to
hand,
women still
need
for
advertisers
diminishing. Some have done
of why
this
is, it is
cultural shift.
bear the brunt
only
"The
has been severely
well
their
to
in
realize
undermined
in
under
the
real
life
watchful eye of
say.
Because
to
nontraditional
American populace, I
more and more people are
realizing
"feminine"
or
any
other
of domestic chores.
fluctuate, despite
the lines separating
discerning this,
between
image from
is to
Social images
advertisers'
some
markets.
a matter of time until
apparent split
second
and a more subtle
increasing among the
and gender are and will continue
obtain a status quo within
Thus the
Third,
hen-pecked if he does the laundry, dishes,
other
task. The
distancing the
This is hard to
have been
life, is
Goffman 1979).
Even among traditional households,
not.
is
see also
society?
living
a man
of competency.
mirror of real
all, in this way avoiding
'female'
the
childlike, therefore
image
the best
role at
to picture the male undertaking the task
the female (Shields
Does this
or
female authority, namely
of
and perhaps
either subordination or contamination with
attempts
33-
1994,
example:
When
that
(Shields
peculiar"
quite
while others
the laggards
will
men and women are
haven't. Regardless
be forced to
recognize this
men as producers and women as consumers
recent years as
the market has woken up to the potential
30
Men in Advertising
of men as consumers
in their
states similar opinions: the
right"
own
clothing
the relatively saturated women's
British
magazine
conscious than
becoming just
Loaded
they
like
used
goes as
to be
the goose good for the
at
least in
Smart
desire
and
a
(as
targets for
as
stating that "men
powdering their
cited
men?
should we
(2002)
fertile than
creator and editor of the
are more product and brand-
noses and
talking
about clothes
in Crewe 2002, 53). Thus, have
feminized
So instead
of asking
instead be asking is the
such
'is
-
we're
industries, in
what's good
goose
becoming
for
the
certain product categories?
a change perhaps
have
leading to
realized
that men,
too,
are unique and
a more equal role with women as consumers
advertisers'
attention.
increasing
man was
homogenize
far
intensity of attempts to the
attempts
markets as more
(44). James Brown,
gander?'
generated a range of
But in
seeing "male
market"
and progressive advertisers
change,
The
industry is
women"
attempts to consumerize men,
gander,
-
(Meethan & Anderson 2002, 6). Crewe
to
identities for
integration
the most
reach
young... man
of modern
men
throughout
these
and consumer culture.
offerings...
these men, have advertisers fallen
male markets
culture,
that both recognized and promoted the
masculinity
notable amongst
commercial
The
new
(Crewe 2002, 43).
into
previous
by promoting uniform images of men?
traps
Perhaps
of
trying
to
not across all
media, but according to some researchers, images of men have become more sexualized
and
objectified, especially in relation to the changing
Manca & Manca 1994, Rohlinger 2002).
status of women
(Danna 1994,
Men in
Danna
followed
men as
(1994)
that the changing
also suggests
by an increase
in the
status of women
Advertising
in the 1980s
31
was
portrayal of men as sex objects, as well as the portrayal of
idiots:
As the 1980s progressed,
men as ruler of the
and
they were
portrayed as
shown
household. Men
being
health,
less
as
downs
end of the
objects.
-
in
appearing
mostly downs
1980s had
men were
bad eating habits... [whereas]
while men
have had
a
regarding
with
women;
the ones
changes
shed
and
clothing
to
display more
welfare,
were
rarely
bad breath, bad
image has steadily
period of ups
occurring toward the
one major effect: men were portrayed more
Men began to
child
they
with
women's
longer depicted
They were
relatively turbulent
1980s... the
during the
no
negative circumstances.
very competent; the
and
Ad themes
changed.
were not consulted
competent when
improved in advertising
and
image
almost always shown
singularly
odor, bad
men's ad
flesh
-
than ever as sex
sometimes
gratuitously (75-84).
Even today, according to Rohlinger
objectified, primarily due to
In
a postindustrial
images
of men are
(2002),
more and more men
are
being
social shifts:
era,
advertisers seek
designed to
consumer.
Intuitively,
workforce
that
this
resulted
appeal
to find
shift
in the
erotic
the new male
The feminization
economic
of the
base (from manufacturing
of consumers.
adapted commercial
As such,
women as well as
observation makes sense.
from the
shift, advertisers
new markets.
to liberated
to service) placed more dollars in the hands
economic
in advertising
In
imagery to
response
appeal
to
to this
a generation
Men in
"liberated"
of
women,
advertisers
have
legitimization
men,
or
of male
is
placed on
portrayals appear
ideal,
to be
states
that
progressive.
self-caress
the
marketing
physically
supposed new
In
male and
approach
sexually
trends
imagery
whereby
images
of
In these images,
an
attractive,
is undoubtedly in
part a
also a product of
If a
the
main concern
particular
backfire,
for
even
advertisers
image doesn't fit
a
if such
is
whether
target market's
men with a
will
distant
portrayed
viewers
gaze were most often
by female
may
no
sold; a response that
depicted in
a
models], it is possible that
longer be
would
attracted
completely
to the image
undermine a
dual
(72).
to be inept
weak.
or
mentally
According to
have very little
a press report on an
favor
ideal,
the last 50 years, but it is
Overall,
female
being
product
prefers men
and/or
sexualized
men's magazines.
such portrayals of men can
[positions normally
heterosexual
over
years,
through the
won't sell:
For example, if half- naked
Perhaps society
display. Such
shown sells products.
then the product
and/or
recent
consumers
in American society (67-68).
However, Rohlinger later
the image
.in
in
proliferated
to the economic trends
cultural changes
or not
have
male,"
.
male represents a physical and sexual
muscular man
response
freedom and beauty.
In addition,
own earnings.
increasingly tried to transform men into
the "erotic
the erotic
their
who made and spent
32
Advertising
and
emotionally
some scholars and
effect on
society in the
advertising trend away from the
of using professional
weak rather
than
businesspeople,
these
long run:
use of male models
in
sportsmen, executives, and other real men in male
Men in
fashion
Simon
'Male
layouts,
Doonan,
models
gender
funny and goofy.
power and
Scholars
decision-making,
concur with
is uncovered,
Andrews 1992). Is the
partners, "the
more
in
as equals
in completely frivolous
partially.
are supposed
are
to embody
more
embody passivity
[become]
looks
accustomed
than
and even
[Print advertising]
to wanting to see
vulnerable anymore.
When
a man
in
vulnerable"
(as
bad thing in
society?
cited
Apparently
progressive men showed men and women as
traditional advertisements portraying the
men and women
in decline
People think they
tends to lean more towards traditional attitudes.
which
featuring
keep
was
and what could
portrayal of vulnerable men a
tended to
playboy
Men
absurd.
the reaction is that he is extremely
progressive advertisements
equal
is
nude woman
so, especially in print advertising,
As
premise
this attitude: "People have
however,
fashion store, Barneys New York:
in Hope 2003).
They don't think a
women nude.
of the
communicate to the customer at all.
The basic
modeling?'(as cited
33
differentiation in advertising is bluntly described by
the creative director
don't
Advertising
other male
separate and unequal spheres or show
ways...
[furthermore], by the 1980s,
them
types
interacting
the image
of the
[popular television characters] fit that image only
remained one of the
last
sanctuaries
for Joe Camel
and other
characters"
(Manca & Manca 1994, 125-128).
playboy
Manca
and
Manca
(1994)
also claim
of male subculture and are not made
that
up solely for the
there were absolutely no truth in advertising, the
are not so much about what
advertisements represent certain aspects
is true in society but
purpose of
selling
products would not sell as well.
what
If
products.
Images
is true for the individual (or
what
Men in
the individual
the
or not
to be
wishes
perception of male
becoming
seems men are
products.
rigid,
example, researchers
likely
touch,
and
be
shown
important
even
their
dominant,
and
According
to Kilbourne
(262). The
Goffman
other
and used
which men's
Throughout this
(1979)
of
how
advertising has
appears
note
Kilbourne
be
shown
hand,
not
to
are
male and
sell
bodies
may be
affected
how
gender roles
have
to suggest that advertising
reaches out
as
bodies too these days,
are
gum"
to chewing
premise
for this
supposed current
images has
changed
only to be
traditional female poses.
a more permanent
in the changing
women are
precious"
is the
by such
that
and
are
become
For
sexualized self
women
chain saws
the
female sexuality
state
everything from
examination of whether or not
is that it
to be strong, aggressive,
and men's
used
whether
appearing to be
not
"delicate
associated with
equally
point
as consumers.
(1999)
gaze,
Thus,
purpose of selling
to engage in
men are supposed
usually
too.
The
seen.
for the
defining
distracted, distant
played a substantial role
it is important to
(1994)
men
and
body parts,
sexualization and objectification of men will
discussion
to be
being targeted
men are
(1999), "women's bodies,
packaged,
to
lines
limbs, but that their bodies
powerful, attributes
extent
yet
can relate
their situation. Not only does this portray
(Goffman 1979, 31). On the
dismembered,
gendered
though more
somewhat of a
with
as
is
more sexualized and objectified
such as
in
individual
will remain
sexuality
to be portrayed solely as
mentally involved
good or
and/or what the
It does appear, though, that
remain somewhat
more
true),
34
Advertising
not
study.
trend
of the
fixture in society,
been done. Whether
of gender roles
throughout
(and
modern
vice
versa),
times. Danna
to men, who in today's society, are
Men in Advertising
losing
ground to women,
but
to take other ground that has been
are also able
35
traditionally
feminine:
Men, in the
longer
past, attracted women
works
because
receptive to
were
also suggests
perhaps
comparatively easy to define based
potentially
magazine.
.
before, because
in hope
.
receptive
.The
.The
in the
past:
advertising
to the
male
rather
editorial and
image became
than
'contemporary'
representations were
a
family man and
the visibility of the male
conceptions of masculinity.
were presented as objects of visual
that could threaten the
body in the
a
glossy
steady
new man
them
men's
themselves and
provider
potential
In this respect,
attention, the kind
like their
to
much attention
imagery... When
of passive and
men
inviting
masculine status of their carriers and offer
homo-erotic identifications for
suppressed... The new
appeals of a
themselves accorded the
focused
narcissistic and
advertising
consumption made
more concerned with
becoming
circles
men whose
towards masculinity and
traditional
on
now
functions that
'innovating'
goals,
no
body beauty has reached
of regaining personal
on sex and gender
undermine
poses
male
existence of a new set of...
and self-conscious attitudes
fathers.
these commodities. Men must
and psychographic research conducted within
indicated the
personal
money, but this technique
that these shifts in male cultures have left men more
advertising appeals,
Lifestyle
and
level (Danna 1994, 84).
a new premium
(2002)
women also possess
their appearances as never
work on
Crewe
by power
man, as featured in
spectators were avoided and
adverts
for jeans
and
toiletries,
appeared
Men in
to rupture
such
inviting men to take pleasure
conventions,
in
36
Advertising
themselves and other
men as sexual objects... The most optimistic readings of such changes suggested
that
men and women were now able
end of the
objectified-objectifying
visual objectification of men
'won'
Overall,
difficult to define
examined,
are
is
for both men
temporary
the concept
Such trends
advertisements,
can
can
fit into. The
As
mentioned
that both fit
also seen
that
fashioned images that
at
in
gender
'lost'
to be seen,
male
the importance
After all,
more
images
Whether these
culture.
although
(44-47).
Perhaps it is
changing.
in
increasing
equality has been
than it is for women, but as
by their permanence.
fluctuates
within
by the
be
within
the
images to better
other
times,
are not
consumers
product
a
are
shifts
of such shifts
temporary
shift can
especially
to
sell not
and
have
images
different time
via
just products, but
that the
product
image
who, if perhaps only subconsciously,
of media on
mediated
image
societies and
understand social and
scholars
forms
different
use of media,
said of consumers,
previously, many
and
the same time, the
either
to take place in the future.
and other
images in advertising
We have
yet
perpetuated
same could
look to advertising
roles.
is
plausibility, at
it had already been
have been
by which advertisers reach out to
personalities and roles
that
examine possible shifts
of gender
be
mean
upon which
and women
less important
predict more permanent ones
periods.
to
or more permanent
not made more or
Also,
sexual scale... At
current male gender roles
researchers are able
appear with equal
may merely
along precisely the lines
gender roles
'to
are
studied
both
the
individual
gender
effects of women's
women and
society in
general.
behind the times, portraying
old-
true to life. Sometimes definitions tend to take a step
Men in
backward:
a specific example would
heroines lapsed to
confident
In
studies
be how the
doting housewives of the
20th
done throughout the
stereotypical gender roles of both men and women.
the role and image
have
remained static compared
a
the
step for
sustaining
both
time,
hold
images, it
that
advertisers
trends in
to
market
preconceived and
whether various male
order
appears
while other aspects
men and women
studies
done
on
But little has been done analyzing
possible reason
is that
men's roles
becoming
assume
may
evident
that men's
in
images
to better
For this thesis, I
will also
gender as symbolic
to
analyze
be using
sexual,
sales.
roles
number of categories
advertisements
by which to
portrayal of
attempting to
products
to men,
not
too
while
social and other stereotypes of
While it may be far too early to tell
backslide, it is important to be
aware of current
may happen.
Method
Goffman'
Erving
interactionism, developed in his
the
the
certain aspects of media are
negative
to increase
predict what
will
viewpoints on
traditionally feminine
potentially
attempts
differing
cling to traditional imagery. Thus, it is
Theory and
(1979)
been
fluctuating, it's natural to
scholars appear to
men and women's
change with
big
also
as well.
Although many
both
that the roles and images
apparent
to their female counterparts. But it's
that as women's roles and images are
may be
One
of men as consumers.
as
1950s.
century, it's
have fluctuated. There have
of women as consumers
in the 1930s
portrayal of women
37
Advertising
s
theories about ritual
monograph
that portray images
display of
Gender Advertisements
of men.
Goffman develops
assess gender relations as ritualized
in advertising
a
Men in
images,
and concludes
that gender
picture women as sexual
objects, subordinate to
Goffman,
a content analysis of
in
displays. Specifically,
gender
advertising
illustrations
conception of the
images
of ritual-like
in the
(84).
social situation
also stated
that while advertisements
may
perhaps more
Thus, just
at a posh
as a
also mimic
socially
beach resort,
step up their level
themselves
a
the
advertisements:
of
ad might
so a real
spending
presented as
examination of the
"by the
same
attempt
reveal
by
changing trends
situations of reversal
in
examination of
token.
feature
portray
an
ideal
display is
attempts
to
acceptable,
a
.men
dress
and plain
vacation,
making
sure
displays. This is
of male and
it is
a
happy looking family
female images
might
indeed,
to photograph
a posh summer resort
symbolic
and women
by
product
familiar
persona:
of summer
involved
with
display to the world
well-dressed,
family at
specific,
alignment of the actor
to present society
family of modest means
behavior
.
the
the image and the
with
during ten days
self-realizing
ideally,
again
individually
onstage as a well-dressed
Thus, human behavior is
evident upon
may
of behavior which
these images in
and/or
Coca-Cola
confirming that
bits
by indicating,
that society may feel comfortable
people
developed
categories
two sexes and their structural relationship to each other,
part
portraying,
certain,
portrayals of men
According to Goffman, the
accomplishing this in
so
Using the
men.
frequently
most
and other visual clues within advertisements
turn out to be
Goffman
1970
circa
Goffman's theories isolate
can
patterns of sexual objectification?
expressions, poses,
displays in advertising
38
Advertising
(27).
even more
within
take their cues about 'gender
Men in
behavior'
from the image
contrive to
become the
of that
'people'
behavior
in those
that advertising throws back at them,
behind
social
relation
Good
Some
of
may be true to
Goffman
to
be,
social purpose
or should
be,
not
(vii).
certain ways
that
of them will
many
example of
the
serves
showing
attract consumers.
have
more aspects of
women with shaved
this is true for American women, but not so true for the average French
literature,
images
are shown
[The]
general
distinguishes
and
countries.
male subjects
large true
which must
yet
real
truth
be drawn to the
be
from female
of how males
added
posings
that
be commonly
of males and
Unfortunately,
will not
As previously
while such
in
for
what
is
part of the
females
are
all
subjects
advertisement.
ideals
posed,
advertising images
and
however,
For
example:
pattern
advertisements
is
true to life.
many times, "as
To
in life
of many actual people
life,
that
distinguished
uncontrived scenes.
are not so
true to
review
truth) in
commercial scenes and rare
fantasies
are not
in
in the
clothing
countries are
advertisements and
to
and
in American
Westernized
common
stated
or perceived
difference in hair styling, facial decoration,
from females both in
How images
in both
there needs to be some truth (whether
advertisements, else consumers
may
the
uses
and
as
other"
images in
life,
or want
are,
actually behave
(vii). Similar to the ideas
"this depiction
women
advertisers will show certain
yet such
by
women
to themselves but in relation to each
fantasy than reality.
woman,
behave"
think men and
that this is how men and
of these portrayals
underarms:
we
they
(viii).
learning and cultivation theories,
of convincing us
only in
but how
and
ads"
Overall, "advertisements depict for us not necessarily how we
men and women
39
Advertising
(22).
Men in
pictures,
they are
not perceived as peculiar and
representative of gender
continuously
both
examine such
argument
in
While it
views of how women
no
subtracts
way
be
a
still
can
extremely important to
important underlying
be successfully
argued
[and men]
from legitimate
can
that
claims
relate
to
that the images that
author of this
be profitably
attitudes of
thesis
are
pictured"
(25),
this
such advertisements are
or
fantasize
about
these
images,
profitable.
"The job the
the job
(ix), it is
After all, if society didn't
windows of society.
wouldn't
(ix). While "not
by Goffman and will be examined by the
examined
"advertisers'
life"
40
unnatural"
images, because they reveal
advertisers and society.
have been
they
behavior in real
Advertising
advertiser
society has
of
has
infusing its
of
value of his product
dramatizing the
is
not unlike
social situations with ceremonial and with ritual signs
another"
facilitating the
Goffman
orientation of participants
uses show
the media,
many
stereotypical and
to
men of equal or greater
licensed withdrawal,
course, the image
familiar
this study
will not
may have
detect any trends
that
In his study,
to be usually
changed within
determine. This thesis
are common
throughout
women are often shown as
gender specific poses.
the last 24
will examine
masculinity in advertising to determine if Goffman's
can
scenes
Many examples that
statue, performing in self-touch, exhibiting
and other what appear
of women
(27).
one
whether as real or contrived scenes.
subordinate
which
to
years since
images
his study,
of men and
analysis of ritual
of sexual objectification of men.
Of
display of gender
Men in
41
Advertising
Methodology
Specifically, I
Goffman's
display. There
magazines.
in
1983,
only
1957, its
(it's
reasons
in June
While
audiences,
men's magazines
known
with
product
concentrate on
the
At
Available
4
on
a
in the U.S. First
the
magazine since
men's
young
803,652-circulation
fashion
rate and
leader in the
unchallenged
than its predecessor
literary magazine,
many
choice,
GQ tends to
connote
fashion, is known for fashion, focuses
more so
new
portrayal of the male
According to JeffBercovici,
with
men's
on
amount of advertising space out of all other
plethora of beautiful
Cooper disdains but pages say
exist
to
gender
GQ instead of other
that
a comparable
(primarily clothing
unlike
to female
order
[in2002].4"
may have been
as an older gentleman's
known for their
"remains the
an
in
display
pages
had the highest
Furthermore GQ,
3
1,753.1
is 313), it boasted
it focuses primarily
and
analyze
Predominately known as
and
in 2002. Thus GQ,
image that involves
are
in 2002,
other magazines
a consumer attitude:
younger
of 2003.
audience's median age
category,
more akin
known editor, Art Cooper, has been
newsstand sales of 212,601
[advertising]
why I decided to
and gender
one of the oldest men's magazines
well
retired
interactionism
on symbolic
many
First, GQ is
Quarterly magazine using
display is perhaps becoming
gender
were
published
magazine
be analyzing Gentleman 's
(1979) theories
determine if male
and
will
"lad
concentrates on
and
accessories)
mags"
such as
(and naked) female
image. This
was
Esquire,
selling
is
a specific male
consumption.
Maxim
images,
and
Well
Details that
appeared
mostly due to
GQ they seem not to notice the lad titles.
which
editor
to
Art
not much, anyhow:
Editor
otherwise.
at: http://archives.medialifemagazine.com/news2000/feb00/news30202.html
According to Art Cooper to Si: I believe I'll retire: Longtime GQ editor under pressure from lad titles.
Available
at:
http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2003/feb03/feb24/2_tues/newsltuesday.html
Men in
Cooper,
who
only recently began to incorporate
mainly due to
from lad
mags
remained
In
advertise
pressure
order
much of the
from parent company Conde Nast in light
to
conservative
in the
determine how the
changed over
figures'
skin
to the audience, how
body parts are
female images
originating in Great Britain. Even then,
relatively
have
more
is
they
showcased,
the years, this study
will
are positioned relative
and what product
its covers,
of stiff competition
it
compared to other magazines,
figures
focus
to the audience, how the
shown
onto
amount of sparsely clothed nude
portrayal of male
42
Advertising
on
females.
and
the products
five
main aspects:
figures
model
how
are positioned relative
to others in the advertisement,
category the
they
in the
what
advertisement
is
promoting.
This study
examined
full
page or
larger
adult male subjects
in Gentlemen 's
advertisements was
taken, resulting in 332
The
ratio of advertisements
Year
Population Size
from
Quarterly {GQ).
each year
(not
10%5
approximate
advertisements taken
is
as
from
sample of
a
3,331
population.
follows:
1990
1995
2000
Totals
963
877
572
919
3331
97
85
58
92
332
3368
3312
2670
3554
12904
of pages
including
covers)
And the
An
containing
1985
Sample Size
Total #
photographic advertisements
respective percentages are:
Specifically, 9.96697%.
Men in
Percentages:
Year
1985
1990
1995
2000
Population Size
28.91024%
26.32843%
17.17202%
27.58931%
Sample Size
29.21687%
25.60241%
17.46988%
27.71084%
26.10043%
25.66646%
20.69126%
27.54185%
Total #
(not
of pages
including
covers)
In
order
to obtain
10th
an adequate
twelve issues published in the
tallied using the
coded and
the advertisement located
each sample
year,
December issue
compared
how
1985, 1990, 1995
evaluation sheet
the inside
on
GQ of the
the
usually
promoted
display the
by male
This study first
front
respective year.
Once
year, how
of
located
all
on
.
GQ were
the back
issue
specific magazine
of
were
promoting
types
began
GQ of
tallied, I
a particular
of products are
using Appendices 2
that portrayed each male
and
image
by
couples or groups:
By himself
A-2. With
one or more women
A-3. With
other men
A-4. With
children
A- 5.
other men and women
With
A-6. Other
This category only focused
advertisement, excluding
position of the male
on
the
person or persons
people who are
image(s)
was
looked
merely
at:
that
are
part of the
with
cover of the
the advertisements
and which
examined,
Counting
January
advertisements
the model,
compared advertisements
contairiing
2000
cover of the
advertisement
product and
and
paged advertisements of all
located in Appendix 1
of the
images in this
advertisements
full
sample, every
men are portrayed each
category
himself with
years
and ended with
of
product
A-l.
43
Advertising
the focal point of the
background. Next, the
3.
Men in
B-l.
B-2.
B-3.
44
Advertising
Sitting
Standing
Lounging
B-4. Other
B-5. Unable to tell (ex.
According to
close
Kilbourne
up shot)
(1999)
dominant role, that is, usually
Thus,
children.
a
look
at who
and
Goffman
symbolized
is usually
(1979),
men
by standing
shown
in
or
tended to be
positioned
sitting higher than
such a position compared
in
a
women or
to
other
subjects was made:
C-l. Man/Men
C-2. Woman/ Wo men
C-3. Child/Children
C-4. N/A (man is
C-5. Main
by himself)
subjects are equal
in
statue
C-6. Other
In
order
subjects
to examine
a possible
increase in
through the years, the amount
or not men are
D-l Entire
.
being
shown
or almost entire
simply
as
objectification and sexualization of male
of exposed skin of the male subjects and whether
body parts will be
observed:
body
D-2. Limbs
D-3. Face
and/or
hands/lower
arms
D-4. Chest
D-5. None
D-6. Other
E-l. Male is
(i.e.
shown as complete person
at
face,
E-2. Male is
least 1/3
or more of
only
body,
shown
from the
chest
up, or, if close up, full
neck and shoulders are
shown as
body
parts
shown)
only (i.e. you only
see
limbs,
part of the
face,
etc.)
E-3. Both.
E-4. Other
Goffman
(1979)
also analyzes
subjects'
sexuality:
the topics of gaze and self-touch as portrayals of female
Men in
Women,
remove
are pictured engaged
psychologically from the
them
unoriented
it seems,
than men,
more
in it
and
to
it,
also states
that
feminine images responding
cover some part of their
feminine
Thus
gender
face
with
large, leaving
presumably, therefore, dependent
and
protectiveness and goodwill of others who are
He
in involvements
social situation at
out of
(or
might come
fear,
shyness,
their hand. Other examples he
display are the usages of finger-to-finger and
a modified version of Goffman's analysis was used
on
to
which
them
the
be)
present
(57).
humor tend to
or
uses
45
Advertising
to illustrate
finger-to-mouth touch.
to examine any
change
in
male
subjects'
portrayed sexuality:
F-l. At least
F-2. No
one male subject
is engaging in
is engaging in
male subject
G-l Gaze is directed
self-touch
self-touch
at audience
.
G-2. Gaze is detached
G-3. Gaze is directed
at other subjects
G-4. Gaze is directed
at self
G-5. Gaze is directed
at product
G-6. Other (ex.
In
in the
order
eyes
closed)
to determine
which
ideal currently
promotion of a masculine
the male image were tallied,
specific product
up into the
in the
types of products are generally advertised using men
as well as
and
products shown with
the brand names that may appear without
advertisement6.
following categories,
in the past, the
and
Products
then
and
compared
H-l. Cosmetics/scents (ex. hair coloring, colognes,
brand
to the
plastic
names were
a
originally divided
imagery of the advertisement:
surgery)
H-2. Alcohol
H-3. Home
6
The brand
and
mrnishings
names will
be
the words "Elizabeth
(ex.
furniture,
appliances)
considered a product
Taylor"
will
be
line. For example,
an advertisement with a male subject
counted as an advertisement
in the cosmetics/scents
category.
Men in
H-4.
Advertising
46
Clothing
H-5. Hygiene (soaps, shampoos, razors, toothpaste)
H-6. Jewelry
H-7. Automobiles
H-8. Work related
(computers, PDAs)
(videos, DVDs, stereos, televisions,
products
H-9. Entertainment
radios)
H-10. Other
To
ensure coder
selection
(one
week after
its
reliability, only
advertisement
original
one coder will
from
coding to
each
ensure
be
used
and a random
of advertisements will
magazine)
the
(the author),
process
is
be
re-coded one
as un-biased as possible.
Results
Within the
the
sample
"clothing"
coded, the majority
(66.06061%), followed by
category
"cosmetics/scents"
category
overall percentages
of the products advertised
for
(10.30303%),
each year are as
and
the
the
alcohol
category (1
GQ
fell
under
1.51515%),
follows:
1990
1995
2000
Cosmetics/Scents
9.28%
10.59%
12.07%
10%
Alcohol
4.12%
8.24%
5.17%
6.67%
Clothing
70.10%
71.76%
65.52%
56.67%
Other
12.37%
4.71%
10.34%
17.78%
combined
"entertainment"
total
of the
"hygiene,"
categories comprised of
were no advertisements
selling
"jewelry,"
6.0606%
products within
of the sample advertisements7.
the "home
categories.
see
Appendix 4 for
"automobiles,"
and
products"
Please
the
category (6.06061%). The
1985
The
7
"other"
in
specific numbers and percentages.
furnishings"
and
"work
There
related
Men in
Within the
"setting"
category, the majority
by themselves,
shown
overall
increase
images in
(by
5.79%
Figure 1 : Overall
being
shown with women
2.01%
and
Setting for
Overall
all
demonstrated in the figure below8. There does
as
of men
of male
four
years were
seem
to be
an
(15.46% in 1985 to 22.83% in 2000),
whereas men shown with other men and men shown with children
decreased
47
Advertising
have generally
respectively).
Male Images
Setting
for Male Images
A-1:
By
Himself
A-2: With
0.8
one or
more women
A-3: With
0.7
other men
A-4: With Children
0.6
A-5: With
other men
01985
0.5
and women
1990
0.4
A-6: Other
D1995
0.3
D2000
0.2
0.1
0
II 1,FB
I
A-1
Within the
category
A-2
"position"
(up by
A-3
shown
also
6.28% from 1985 to
which
tell exactly how the
see
A-6
A-5
2000)
the
male
and
increases
the "unable to
camera shots were
is
positioned.
standing decreased from 1985 to 2000
increased, from
Please
A^l
B~n
category, the most significant
5.77% from 1 985 to 2000), in
viewer cannot
n.rYrn,
by
are within
tell"
category (up
too
On the
the sitting
close
other
by
to the male that the
hand,
15.40%. Male images
male
shown
images
lounging
approximately 3.10% in 1985 to 6.52% in 2000 of the total sample.
Appendix 5 for
specific numbers and percentages.
Men in
Advertising
48
Figure 2: Overall Position for Male Images
Overall Position for Male Images
0.6
B-1:
Sitting
B-2:
Standing
B-3:
Lounging
B-4: Other
0.5
B-5: Unable to tell
H 1985
0.4
1990
0.3
D1995
0.2
0.1
0
1
D2000
r^
1
B-1
As
2000,
B-2
shown
1
He
B-3
in the figure 3,
and experienced a
dip
Tl
B^l
male
in 1990
B-5
dominance had increased
(by 6.36%),
which seemed
Also, female dominance has increased by 3.48% from 1985
from the high
of
9.41% in 1990. Overall, the majority
1985 to 57.61% in
2000)
contained
only
one male
to
by
to
1.18% from 1985 to
continue
2000,
although
of advertisements
image.
in 1995.
decreasing
(62.89% in
Men in
Figure 3: Overall Dominance
of
49
Advertising
Male Images
Overall Dominance
of
C-1:
Male Images
Man/Men
C-2:
Woman/Women
C-3:
H 1985
1990
D1995
Child/Children
C-4:
N/A
(Man is
by himself)
C-5:
D2000
Main
equal
subjects are
in
stance
C-6: Other
C-1
C-2
Figure 4 shows,
limbs in 1985,
with
C-3
the
C-4
exception of the
categories
of
C-6
10.31%
of male
D-l, D-2, D-4, D-5,
total amount of sample advertisements
Figure 4: Overall Amount
C-5
Skin Shown
Overall Amount
of
in
on
and
D-6
images showing
composed
unclothed
less than 10%
of the
each year.
Male Images
Skin Shown
on
D-1: Entire
Male Images
entire
or almost
body
D-2: Limbs
D-3: Face
1
and/or
hands/lower
0.9
D-4: Chest
0.8
D-5: None
0.7
H1985
0.6
1990
0.5
D1995
0.4
D2000
0.3
0.2
0.1
?=,
rlTh
0
D-1
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
D-6: Other
arms
Men in
Figures 5
and
exhibited
both the
6
show
However in both
declined
chart
6),
overall
male
image
instances,
as a complete
the number
person,
of male
from 1985 to 2000 (10.12%
although
Figure 5: Overall
that the majority of advertisements
there were
Body
fluctuations in
and
did
the
sample
years
in
chart
1990
taken
not exhibit self-touch.
images showing these
as shown
the
within
50
Advertising
and
5,
and
characteristics
3.93%
has
as shown
in
1995.
Portrayal for Male Images
E-1: Male is
shown as
complete person
only
E-2: Male is
body
? 1985
1990
? 1995
? 2000
E-3: Both
E-4: Other
shown as
parts
only
Men in
Figure 6: Overall Self-touch
of
51
Advertising
Male Images
Overall Self-touch
of
Male Images
F-1: At least
1
subject
one male
is
engaging in
0.9
self
touch
0.8
F-2: No
0.7
? 1985
0.6
male subject
is engaging in
self
touch
1990
0.5
? 1995
0.4
? 2000
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
F-1
The
21
number of male
.65%.
The
After
F-2
images
dropping to
shown with a
8.24% in 1990, the
number of male models with a gaze
advertisement also
directed
the
product remained
"other"
category,
gazes
gaze was
the highest in 1985
numbers rose again
directed
decreased in 1995, only to
at self and at
exception of the
detached
by
rising from 23.71% in 1985 to 29.35% in 2000,
at
the
the
7.23% in 2000. Image
less than 5.50% for
directed
to 19.57% in 2000.
at other subjects within
rise again
at
all
four
years.
audience remained
after a rise and
the
gazes
With the
highest,
decline in 1990-1995.
Men in
Figure 7: Overall Gaze
of
52
Advertising
Male Images
Overall Gaze
of
Male Images
G-1:
Gaze is directed
at
audience
0.45
0.4
G-2:
Gaze is detached
0.35
(-
0.3
? 1985
0.25
1990
G-3:
Gaze is directed
at
other subjects
-
0.2
? 1995
I
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
(up to
at self
G-5:
Gaze is directed
Jfu n-r
I
G-1
Because
? 2000
I
G-4:
Gaze is directed
G-2
G-3
G^l
G-5
at product
G-6
G-6: Other
"other"
gazes comprised a substantial number within
38.82% in 1990), I divided the
"other"
category into
the
sample advertisements
eight separate
sub-categories,
listed below:
as
1. Eyes Blocked
2. Eyes Closed
away from viewer
4. Head/Face/Eyes not shown
3.
Facing
5.
Looking
"Looking
Looking Down
6.
7.
at object
(not
(N/A)
another
subject)
Beyond9"
8. Unable to tell
The
chart
below illustrates the distribution among the
gaze category.
9
Unlike the
this
more
Appendix 6 lists the
"distant"
gaze, the male image
in detail later.
sub-categories within
specific number and percentages
appeared
the
"other"
involved.
to be involved with his surroundings.
I
will
discuss
Men in
Advertising
53
Figure 8: Other Gazes
Other Gazes
? 1985
1990
? 1995
? 2000
1
During
8
this study, I also
compared
the
product categories with
categories
(i.e. setting, position, dominance, etc.) to determine
categories
happen to
product categories.
"other,"
with
the
third
and
sexualize or otherwise exploit
Since the majority
cosmetics/scents, and
fourth, I
will
collection of charts
briefly
for these
list my
the
other
whether certain product
the male image more than
other
of advertisements consisted of clothing products
alcohol categories
results
focusing
on
coming in
a
distant second,
these four categories. A
product categories with results can
be found in Appendices
7-10.
First, let
us
look
advertisements under
sample
for this
study.
at
the
As
the
cosmetics/scents category.
cosmetics/scents
shown
category in
in Appendix 7
and
There
all of the
in the
were a
issues
following
total
of
selected
34
for the
charts, the majority
Men in
of the advertisements
more
women),
B-l, B-2,
(Dominance: Man
(Body
fell
Figure 9:
other)
Setting within
and
the A-1 and A-2 (Setting:
by
B-4 (Position: sitting, standing,
N/A), D-3 (amount
and
Portrayal: Man is
at audience and
under
of skin:
shown as complete
face
person),
himself and
and
and/or
and
Advertising
with one or
other), C-1
and
the G-1
and
G-6 (Gaze: directed
categories:
Cosmetics/Scents Advertisements
By
Himself
A-2: With
one or
more women
A-3: With
other men
A-4: With Children
A-5: With
other men
and women
A-6: Other
within
C-4
hands/lower arms), E-l
A-1:
Figure 10: Position
54
Cosmetics/Scents Advertisements
B-1:
Sitting
B-2:
Standing
B-3:
Lounging
B-4: Other
B-5: Unable to tell
Men in
Figure 11: Dominance
within
Advertising
Cosmetics/Scents Advertisements
C-1:
Man/Men
C-2:
Woman/Women
C-3:
Child/Children
C-4:
N/A
(Man is
C-5:
Main
equal
by himself)
subjects are
in
stance
C-6: Other
Figure 12: Skin
exposure within
Cosmetics/Scents Advertisements
Cosmetics/Scents
(Amount
of
Skin
D-1: Entire
Shown)
entire
1
or almost
body
D-2: Limbs
0.8
D-3: Face
Q1985
0.6
1990
0.4
0.2 ~~F1
0
D-1
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
and/or
hands/lower
D-4: Chest
D1995
D-5: None
D2000
D-6: Other
arms
55
Men in
Figure 13:
Body
Portrayal
within
Advertising
Cosmetics/Scents Advertisements
E-1: Male is
shown as
complete person
only
E-2: Male is
body
shown as
parts
only
E-3: Both
E-4: Other
Figure 14: Self-touch
within
Cosmetics/Scents Advertisements
F-1: At least
subject
one male
is
engaging in
self
touch
F-2: No
male subject
is engaging in
self touch
56
Men in Advertising
Figure 15: Gaze
within
57
Cosmetics/Scents Advertisements
G-1:
Gaze is directed
at
audience
G-2:
Gaze is detached
G-3:
Gaze is directed
at
other subjects
G-4:
Gaze is directed
at self
G-5:
Gaze is directed
at product
G-6: Other
Within the "Gaze:
other"
category, the
gazes were
broken down into the
following
categories:
Year
Other Categories
Unable to tell
(1)
Beyond"
1985
"Looking
N/A
(1)
(3)
1990
Unable to tell
(1)
1 995
Eyes
(1)
2000
"Looking
covered
Beyond"
Among
1
and
the
F-2),
categories and sub-categories with
the
numerical ranges
advertisements over
The
next
the
category I
not
fluctuate
examined more
advertisements within
10
Appendix #8 for
see
did
the highest numbers, (for
more
than
by two
or
example
D-3,
three
years.
total of 20
Please
(2)
the
closely
was
the
sample collected10.
specific numbers and percentages.
"Alcohol"
The majority
category, with a
of the
E-
Men in
advertisements
fell
(Position: sitting
and/or
under
and
the A-2 (Setting: With
touch: none), G-3 and G-6 (Gaze: directed
Setting
women), B-l
standing), C-1 (Dominance: man/men), D-3 (Amount
hands/lower arms), E-l (Body Portrayal:
Figure 16:
one or more
within
shown as complete
at audience and
"other")
and
B-2
of skin:
person), F-2
categories.
By
Himself
A-2: With
one or
more women
A-3: With
other men
A-4: With Children
A-5: With
other men
and women
A-6: Other
Figure 17: Position
within
Alcohol Advertisements
B-1:
Sitting
B-2:
Standing
B-3:
Lounging
B-4: Other
B-5: Unable to tell
face
(Self-
Alcohol Advertisements
A-1:
58
Advertising
Men in
Figure 18: Dominance
within
Advertising
Alcohol Advertisements
C-1:
Man/Men
C-2:
Woman/Women
C-3:
Child/Children
C-4:
N/A
(Man is
by himself)
C-5:
Main
equal
subjects are
in
stance
C-6: Other
Figure 19: Skin Exposure
within
Alcohol Advertisements
Alcohol (Amount
of skin
shown)
D-1: Entire
entire
1 9
or almost
body
D-2: Limbs
D-3: Face
i
and/or
hands/lower
0.8
Q
-
CO cn
CO
D-4: Chest
o
CO
CO
0.6
?
i-
0.4
D-5: None
-
-
?
0.2
n
D-1
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
cn
CO
CO
OOo
D-6: Other
arms
59
Men in Advertising
Figure 20: Body Portrayal
within
Alcohol Advertisements
E-1: Male is
shown as
complete person
only
E-2: Male is
S1985
1990
D1995
body
shown as
parts
only
E-3: Both
E-4: Other
D2000
Figure 21: Self-touch
within
Alcohol Advertisements
Alcohol
F-1: At least
(Self-touch)
subject
one male
is
engaging in
self
touch
1.2
F-2: No
1
? 1985
0.8
male subject
is engaging in
self
1990
0.6
01995
0.4
O2000
0.2
0
F-1
F-2
touch
60
Men in
Figure 22: Gaze
within
61
Advertising
Alcohol Advertisements
Alcohol
G-1:
(Gaze)
Gaze is directed
at
audience
1 2
-
G-2:
Gaze is detached
1
0.8
0.6
01985
-
1990
-
D1995
0.4
0.2
0
In
ru
-
1
-
G-1
G-2
in
G-3
G-4
G-5
D2000
G-3:
Gaze is directed
at
other subjects
G-4:
Gaze is directed
1
at self
G-6
at product
G-5:
Gaze is directed
G-6: Other
Within the "Gaze:
other"
category, the
gazes were
broken down into the
following
categories:
Year
Other Categories
1985
0
1 990
"Looking
Facing away
1995
Eyes
closed
(1)
Eyes
closed
(1)
Beyond"
2000
of 218 advertisements over all
fell into the A-1 Setting:
with some
11
Please
see
by
(1)
N/A
(2)
the clothing category, which had
sample years".
himself category
and
(increasing
(decreasing from 63.24% in
Appendix #9 for
analyzed was
four
in the B-l Position: sitting
"other"
and
(1)
audience
N/A(l)
The third category that I further
total
from
The majority
of male
a
images
the B-2 Position: standing category,
from 14.7% in 1985 to 23.53% in
1985 to 49.02% in 2000)
specific numbers and percentages.
categories.
2000)
The bulk
of
Men in
these clothing
The C-1
and
Figure 23:
advertisements also
fell into the C-4 Dominance: N/A
C-5 fluctuated somewhat, but
Setting within Clothing
remained under
the 21%
Advertising
man
is
by
himself.
mark.
Advertisements
A-1:
Clothing (Setting)
By
Himself
A-2: With
one or
more women
0.9
A-3: With
0.8
0.6
0.5
A-4: With Children
n
0.7
other men
01985
i
A-5: With
and women
1990
i
0.4
01995
0.3
other men
A-6: Other
02000
0.2
,
0.1
it
0
A-1
a
A-2
Figure 24: Position
within
l
A-3
Fton
rm
A-4
Clothing
A-5
r_mn
A-6
Advertisements
Clothing (Position)
B-1:
Sitting
B-2:
Standing
B-3:
Lounging
B-4: Other
01985
1990
01995
O2000
B-5: Unable to tell
62
63
Men in Advertising
Figure 25: Dominance
within
Clothing Advertisements
C-1:
Man/Men
C-2:
Woman/Women
C-3:
Child/Children
C-4:
N/A
(Man is
by himself)
C-5:
Main
subjects are
in
equal
stance
C-6: Other
Furthermore,
rate
the D-3 Amount
low
of
73.68%. The
coincides with
the
amount of skin shown
of skin shown:
highest figure
next
body portrayal,
exhibiting
falling
within
exhibiting
detached
gazes
directed
category.
at
(the highest
"other"
category.
which
self-touch reached
the clothing
gazes
in
and/or
was
minimal.
hands/lower
D-2: Limbs in
the lowest
the
its
peak
Gaze
audience
of which was
in 1990
appears
The lowest
arms was
1985,
at
with
to be
in 1995,
images
percentage of male
28.95%
more
at
30.88%)
with a
as shown
images
of the advertisements
varied,
with male
(from 22.06% in 1985 to 35.29% in
in 1985,
percentage
13.24%. This
percentage of male
81.58% in 1995. Similarly, the
as a complete person was
shown
face
has been
and gazes
that
images
2000),
some
fall into the
Men in
Figure 26: Skin Exposure
within
Clothing
Advertising
Advertisements
D-1: Entire
Clothing (Amount of skin shown)
or almost
entire
body
D-2: Limbs
1
D-3: Face
0.8
and/or
hands/lower arms
01985
0.6
1990
01995
0.4
D-4: Chest
D-5: None
D-6: Other
O2000
0.2
raJI-i
D-1
Figure 27:
Body
fem-^
;
D-2
Portrayal
r-^
-Mtn
D-3
within
D-4
D-5
Clothing
n-^
D-6
Advertisements
E-1: Male is
shown as
complete person
only
E-2: Male is
body
E-3: Both
E-4: Other
shown as
parts
only
64
Men in
Figure 28: Self-touch
within
Clothing
Advertising
Advertisements
F-1: At least
subject
one male
is
engaging in
self
touch
F-2: No
male subject
is engaging in
self
Figure 29: Gaze
within
touch
Clothing Advertisements
G-1:
Clothing (Gaze)
Gaze is directed
at
audience
G-2:
Gaze is detached
G-3:
01985
1990
Gaze is directed
other subjects
G-4:
01995
Gaze is directed
O2000
at self
G-5:
Gaze is directed
at product
G-1
G-2
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
G-6: Other
at
65
Men in
Within the "Gaze:
Advertising
other"
category, the
gazes were
broken down into the
following
categories:
Year
Other Categories
"Looking
Beyond"
(15)
N/A (3)
Unable to tell (2)
Eyes blocked (1)
1985
Facing
away from
audience
(1)
Beyond"
"Looking
(7)
N/A (5)
Focusing on object (2)
Eyes Covered
1 990
(1)
Looking down (3)
Facing away from
1 995
"Looking
(2)
Looking down (2)
N/A (5)
Eyes Covered ( 1 )
Facing away from audience ( 1 )
(2 )
audience
Beyond"
Facing away from audience (1)
N/A (4)
(5)
"Looking
Beyond"
Eyes Closed
Eyes
2000
Looking
The last category I
advertisements12.
100% in 1995, but
Setting:
12
Please
(1)
(1 )
covered
at object
examined was
Most fell
dipping
under
Appendix #14 for
the
"other"
category,
the A-1 Setting:
to its lowest
by
high
of
with a
total
himself category,
rate of 43.75%
with one or more women with a
see
(1)
38
with a
high
in 2000. Some fell into the
50% in 1990.
specific numbers and percentages.
of
of
66
Men in
Figure 30:
Setting within
Advertising
Other Advertisements
A-1:
By
Himself
A-2: With
one or
more women
A-3: With
other men
A-4: With Children
A-5: With
other men
and women
A-6: Other
The bulk
of the
images
fell into the B-l Position: sitting category,
also
75% in 1990. In 1995, 50%
category,
dipping
Figure 31: Position
of the advertisements
with a
fell into the Position:
high
unable
to tell
down to 12.5% in 2000.
within
Other Advertisements
Other
(Position)
B-1
Sitting
B-2
Standing
B-3
Lounging
0.8
0.7
B-4 Other
0.6
01985
0.5
1990
0.4
01995
0.3
02000
0.2
0.1
L
0
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
of
B-5 Unable to tell
67
Men in
Similar to
images
to 2000
by
other product
themselves. Notice
(31.25%),
and
Figure 32: Dominance
the
within
categories,
however,
68
most of the advertisements showed male
the
drop of female
Advertising
jump
of male
dominance from 1985 (8.33%)
dominance from 1990 (50%), to 2000 (6.25%).
Other Advertisements
C-1:
Man/Men
C-2: Woman/Women
C-3:
Child/Children
C-4:
N/A
(Man is
by himself)
C-5:
Main
equal
subjects are
in
stance
C-6: Other
Minimal
1985
so
and
skin was also shown
1995. Male images
than the
three
alcohol and
in the
were also
clothing
other product categories.
"other"
product
primarily
category
with a
low
shown as complete
product categories
in 1995, but less
of
66.66% in
people,
so
even more
in 2000 among
all
Men in Advertising
Figure 33: Skin Exposure
within
Other Advertisements
D-1
Entire
or almost
entire
body
D-2 Limbs
D-3 Face
and/or
hands/lower
arms
D-4 Chest
D-5 None
D-6 Other
Figure 34:
Body
Portrayal
Other
within
Other Advertisements
E-1: Male is
(Body Portrayal)
shown as
complete person
only
E-2: Male is
body
shown as
parts
only
H1985
E-3: Both
1990
E-4: Other
01995
02000
E-3
Self-touching
EA
increased to 87.50% in 2000 from 16.67% in 1995. Lastly,
gaze
fell mostly into the
high
of
75% in 1990.
"other"
category, with a
low
of
50% in 1985
and
male
2000,
image
and a
69
Men in
Figure 35: Self-touch
within
Advertising
Other Advertisements
Other
(Self-touch)
F-1: At least
subject
1
one male
is
engaging in
self
touch
0.8
0 Series 1
0.6
F-2: No male subject
is engaging in
0.4
touch
self
Series2
oSeries3
0 Series4
0.2
^=
0
I
F-1
Figure 36: Gaze
F-2
within
Other Advertisements
Other
(Gaze)
G-1:
Gaze is directed
at
audience
G-2:
Gaze is detached
G-3:
Gaze is directed
at
other subjects
G-4:
Gaze is directed
at self
G-5:
Gaze is directed
at product
G-2
Within the "Gaze:
categories:
G-3
other"
G^l
G-5
G-6
category, the gazes were
G-6: Other
broken down into the
following
70
Men in
Year
Other Categories
1 985
"Looking
Beyond"
Eyes Blocked
Facing away
1990
(7),
and
(6)
(1)
from
audience
(1)
Beyond"
(1)
1995
Eyes Blocked
2000
Facing away from audience (1)
Looking at object (1)
Eyes blocked (3)
N/A (2)
Eyes Closed (1)
advertisements
the clothing category), I created
The majority
(3)
fell into the
a
brief table
"other"
product
listing the
of these were cigarette advertisements
beverages
71
Unable to tell (1)
"Looking
Since 38
Advertising
(5) in third.
category (a distant
second
to
miscellaneous advertisements.
(16),
with eyewear
coming in
second
Men in
Product/Service
72
Advertising
1985
%
1990
%
1995
%
2000
%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
6.25%
1
2.632%
Backpack
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
6.25%
1
2.632%
Beverages
1
8.333%
0
0%
2
33.333%
2
12.50%
5
13.158%
Cigarettes
7
58.333%
2
50%
0
0%
7
43.75%
16
42.105%
Cordless Phone
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Credit Cards
1
8.333%
0
0%
0
0%
1
6.25%
2
5.263%
Doctors
0
0%
1
25%
0
0%
0
0%
1
2.632%
Exercise Equipment
2
16.66667%
0
0%
0
0%
1
6.25%
3
7.895%
Pens
0
0%
1
25%
0
0%
0
0%
1
2.632%
yearbook
1
8.33333%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
2.632%
Sunglasses/eyewear
0
0%
0
0%
4
66.667%
3
18.75%
7
18.421%
Totals
12
100%
4
100%
6
100%
16
100%
38
100%
Awareness
(AIDS)
Totals
(#) Totals (%)
Pro-Basketball
Discussion
The first
portrayed
research question
historically and
According
currently in the
answer was:
advertisements of a men's
How have
fashion
men
been
magazines?
to Shields (1994):
Traditionally, it is
stimulation
the
that I endeavored to
male
the female
in advertising
body is
body that
has traditionally
(49).
served as
the
object of sexual
as well as most other mass-mediated
now also represented
over which gender
has
forms. Although
in this capacity, there is little
occupied
confusion
this dubious position in
Men in
Kilbourne (1999)
sexualization
images
that
concurs, stating that although women
for the
are chopped
Although this study did
men
in
regarding the increase
not
up
and
show some evidence about
or
decrease
to say that such trends do
this study, continuous trends
also
-
as
been
heads
of
According
Throughout this
a physical
"B-4: Other
at
strikes at
and
of
can
analyzed each
the "not
active
most
basic
"looking
these
in
are
portrayal of
male
trends
images. This is
sexualization were not evident
display were
a sense
advertisements
as
the
ones
They have
the
prototypes of
in any
social situation
individual"
showing
of men engaged
men
fell
of the advertisements
in
(7).
engaging
under
what
the
I
masculinity is
specific situations.
image creating
new categories.
category (in
fell into the
The bulk
the
of the
head, face,
applicable"
which
in
counterparts.
all examples of how
of male gaze
in
noticed.
of government.
fleetingly
many images
gaze,
products.
show specific
characterization of the
why many
well as
to
than female
conveyed
beyond"
within
not appear
business, heads
be
selling
historically represented
masculinity
reason
Since approximately 30-40%
either
have been
analysis, I did find many
category), as
least
did
of
see more male
the existence of sexual
traits of sexualized
mentally
and
the
(usually the
as a
purpose of
While trends in
position"
previously labeled
defined,
men
"femininity
content
activity
that
something that
something that
and yet
in
-
beginning to
of ritualistic masculine gender
physically
to Goffrnan
essential expression
of specific
households, heads
shown more
methods
not exist.
Overall, it has been discussed
charge
de-humanized for the
advertisements, Goffman's
print
have borne the brunt
purpose of advertising, we are now
73
Advertising
"other"
category, I
"other"
gazes
or eyes were
fell into
just
not
Men in
shown)
or
focusing
into
his
I
what
call
attention at
different from
what
withdrawal", in
their-situation
the
looks,
looking
protection and/or a solution to
states
"evidence
mobility
of his
ordinarily
of an
gaze,
oriented
in
any
focusing
the
of distant male gazes was
(usually) him,
with a
distant
as
with
that in
2000,
if he
gaze
men appeared
were proud and
objectified
ahead of
if the
(as defined
in the
to be
masculine gender roles and gender
it does
display.
uninvolved-in-
the
man
from the direction
and
images
whether
him,
or
for
active with
be
a
shown
and
in this category
smiling,
think, it's just that the
during
In the
my
examination
the
following
the child, playing
father. When the
by himself,
or as
also
trunk, these
laughing,
to
notice
children.
distant gaze,
doesn't necessary
by Goffrnan),
"licensed
children appeared active and
in the later issues, he is usually
example
upon
or
of these gazes occurred when
happy to
woman who was either shown also with a
image. While this
male
is. What I did
man appeared uninterested
year
This is
viewer.
expressionless,
head,
74
model was
distracted gaze,
or
will come
(18). The
even
the
than should come their way. Goffman
1985, many
-
to the
dependence
their situations,
situation
pictured with one or more children
especially in the
distant
showed
future/what's
to tell what that
the man, the
situation
direction"
on
with
way that
same
appearing to be
unable
as a
the alignment of his eyes,
as well as
involved
is
a
which
picture shown
individual's involvement
in the
category, in
women were shown with
definitely appeared to be
viewer
the
(1979) labels
primarily
or
beyond"
outside
something
Goftfnan
which
"looking
Advertising
and
man was
involved
years,
with
man was shown
occasionally
with a
the dominant person in the
connote a situation
in
which men are
suggest a possible portrayal of
being
changing
Men in
The
portrayed
over
The
not the same
in
in
what
a
way
women are
Goffrnan
size.
Again,
definition
While
feminine
gender
'better'
that
differently. Some
looking than the
have fluctuated
include
images
shown
in
formal clothing, usually only
between the
these examples,
over
images
of male
not
show
the
the years, there
within
my
sample
most real
be safely
average
scenes,
presumed
images that
are
image's head,
a need of different categories
that male images in
bigger
they look
and more
male
"better"
muscular,
examples would
that,
neck and
for
taller,
even most real scenes
male, it appears that
tuxedoes (formal clothing
male
"the females depicted
unlike
female
hands, making
amount of exposed skin and objectification somewhat
leading to
in their
exist, only to say that the
accompanying female images. Other
suits and
at
usually clothed,
teeth and are slimmer, younger,
can
obvious examples are male
comparison with
creatures,
(i.e. exhibiting self-touch)
According to Goffrnan,
found in
(21). While it
especially in
print ads?
to be different to how Goffrnan defines female
setting"
stylish
is, they were
in
seen as active participants
usually
straighter
looking than those
usually be better
correlation
and
display.
have
posed scenes
and
male
-
this is not to say that male sexualization did
in commercially
GQ will
portrayed
most portrayals
of male sexualization appears
occurring in
sexual objectification of men
sample were not shown as sexual
usually
position,
have they been
whether sexual or otherwise, changed
-
to be a specific trend in the portrayal
sexualization and
blonder,
what extent
would consider a sexual position
situations and environment.
appear
portrayal
images in my
of males
To
asked was:
trend towards increased
an otherwise subservient
doesn't
I
Has the
a sexual manner?
majority
not posed
or
in
time? Is there
vast
least
second research question
75
Advertising
image
a
difficult in
analysis).
When
Men in
male
images
body hair
-
are shown with
fewer clothes, the
hair
even underarm
keeping their arms at
least
part
cultural aspect of the
U.S.,
and
European media,
Western
hair
body
cultures ritualize
perhaps
in
-
less
attractive with more or
on
to the
My last
point
female images
males,
other
assess a general conclusion
themselves
Within the
appear
has there been
has increased,
within
this
perhaps
category.
decreased steadily
themselves
hinting at
Within the
over
on a
relatively
while
the
alcohol
the years,
while
more
less
so
feminized
fell into the clothing
it
would
be difficult to
small sample size of other product
percentage of male
percentage of males
with
images
shown
showing
percentage of male
images
the
number
by
minimal skin
of sexualization of male
percentage of male
has decreased from 1985 to 1995,
more or
time in the types of product
has increased. Within the alcohol/setting category, the
with women
something
in the media,
becoming
by 13.43%)
category, the
the
not
in
true to life.
decrease
a possible
images
are also shown
deemed
not
of the advertisements
fell
male
minimal, is
often seen
a change over
category, the
decreasing,
usually
it is
are not
advertisements
based
body hair
abundance or
men are
images
such
cosmetics
to be
in
by
body hair on women is a
the masculine image is
Since the majority
men?
minimal
with minimal
whether
words,
which
category, (even though clothing
categories.
usually hidden from view, usually
way down. While
that
question was:
advertising using
models are shown with minimal or no
body hair13. However,
there are situations in
and sexualized
was
76
Advertising
images
dominance has
shown
by
number of men shown
remaining steady
during
2000.
13
Although there
area)
the
can
legs
be
and
can
be instances
where
too
much
body hair (especially on the back, shoulders and chest
likely to be expected to have no hair (especially on
considered unattractive, women are more
underarms),
whereas men are expected
to have some.
Men in
Within the clothing category, the
complete people
has decreased
objectification of male
categories appear to
One
perhaps sexualized
in
fact
other
was
not
include
the lack
areas,
Andrews'
is
men
(1992)
much skin exposure
don't
claim
cover
the
the majority
product.
One
professional,
bodies,
of men's
interesting
side
male
images
were
usually clothed, showing little
So
the
note,
were showcased as mere
what
does this
new
more
categories
to
that
sexualized,
pick up15.
and
Perhaps the
other
seen as
formal,
hand,
body parts
or no skin
so perhaps
casual
(no
rather
dress)
matter
advertisement
does
of
this isn't
showcase
of cases
in
which
body parts
.
not
strongly
support
that male images in print advertisements are
because the difference is too
Granted, this study
sample size was
subtle
limited
for the
coded
by the fact that only
images was one of the few categories that
fifteen-year
over
the
increase
period,
increasing from 0% in 1985 to 3.33% in 2000.
steady
15
Which leads to one idea for future research: using different categories or by dividing one or two of the
original categories into more specific sub-categories.
14
The D-5:
overall amount of skin shown-none on male
experienced a
a
usually does
the product) those
This study did
and a
that since
is simply attempting to
that in the majority
in the
mean?
the majority
vulnerable, but
business
and
vulnerable,
sex
masculine gender
clothing accessories,
to be
information
perhaps
use of
Although
advertisements.
nude men are seen as
however, is
research and predictions
becoming
increased
to be portrayed as scantily clad
seem
advertisement
scholars'
some
shown as
most of the
category,
in the
in its definition. On the
showcasing clothing
(specifically
an
suggesting
product
of skin shown
question of whether men aren't supposed
clothing
being
"other"
not seen as masculine or attractive.
advertisements were
men's
by about 10%,
images
that do not illustrate specific trends.
varied results
objects, supporting
vulnerable man
1985
images. Within the
have
interesting
since
percentage of male
77
Advertising
Men in
one magazine was used
in
images
of masculinity are
female dominance
products to
situations.
male
changes
and
in
a
dominant
in the definition
of the
feminized
or
themselves are
up
men
with a
their
these
becoming
audiences outside
shown
in
in decorative positions, these
than not,
fully clothed,
display or
in
in
active
then-
significant
children, suggesting
ritualized gender
results could suggest
for
hypotheses
stated
is
becoming
masculine
that male
symbolic
of scholars
claiming that
more gender
After all, how
current
target
products and
way to portray lipstick
market.
market?
on
men are
the rise,
and
becoming
neutral, perhaps the products
of the consumer
images
else can companies maintain and
certain product categories without
their
is
consumerism
for the consumer, instead
product.
to use hair styling
feminine
more often
items,
oriented, many times decorative
position over women and
male gender
revenues
is,
of gender,
feminized for the
becoming
to be
appear
clothing
not occurred.
previously
the
do
the possibility
were examples of
of the advertisements were of men's
action
at
decreases
and
selling traditionally feminine
as well as advertisements
while males
Furthermore,
increase
men,
masculine, that
interactionism have
many
increases
While there
albeit slowly.
image in posed, many times
Perhaps
positions remain
situation,
over
changing,
men, again, the bulk
showing the
instead
although certain
image position, setting, exposure, etc., however small, do hint
male
that
due to time constraints,
78
Advertising
Since it is
first making them
no
longer
useful
a social
faux
for
pas
for
colognes, perhaps advertisers will soon come
and nail polish as a masculine
While this thought may be
somewhat
product,
laughable
while
now
keeping
(especially
Men in
in
more conservative circles, where even
hair
79
Advertising
care products and colognes are not
permitted), the possibility is there.
Then again,
yes, there
are male
female images
be
perhaps past and current research
images
being portrayed
being portrayed
more of the non-traditional
images
lead
largest
many
scholars would
portrayed as
usually
covering their
[which]
different
within
male
appears
images
within
male
and/or
occurred
but in
that
most
7.61%
the products,
Goffrnan
dissociated
However,
past.
at
stereotypical
men were not
other
called
their
hand,
are
fingers,
or
self communication as
dominance
in 2000, comprising
during the
(1979),
same year.
differently within
of male
Within the
is
(61).
images
of 22.83% of the
female dominance,
self-
"finger-to-finger
dominance fluctuates
overall
usually
most of the
form"
male
exceeded
biting
a still more attenuated
For example, the
dominance has far
alcohol
same
gestures
to
of 25.86% of the
this category,
faces. On the
were of what
to carry the
images dominated the
the
in 1995, composing
However,
of the results suggested
female dominance
category,
by
product categories.
male
been in the
seem
to believe in current society. For example, the
caressing themselves
in finger-to-mouth
Some
that
us
mouths or other parts of their
touches portrayed
expressed
year.
does
also
their feminine counterparts were, who, according to Goffrnan
portrayed as
position,
in that
as well as
to be as many non-traditional sexually
number of male self-touches occurred
sample advertisements
There
masculine roles.
imagery today than there has
seem
ahead of current society:
in traditionally feminine roles,
in traditionally
least in this study, there doesn't
as
is jumping
showed
sample,
and
cosmetics/scents
whereas male
dominance
category has steadily decreased from 75% in 1985 to 16.67% in
2000,
Men in
with
female dominance peaking
male
other characters.
Furthermore,
category than
occurred within
self-touch within
the
80
to 33% in both 1995 and 2000. Within the
clothing
dominance
category, usually
Advertising
was shown when the male
image
was portrayed with
more self-touch occurred within the cosmetics/scents
the alcohol and clothing categories,
"other"
category
skyrocketed
whereas
the
amount of
from 16.67% in 1995 to 87.5% in
2000.
Overall, advertising is going
product,
around
either
by conforming
to attempt to attract the target market to their
to the target market's ideas
or
by attempting to
make
The task
of the advertiser
is to favorable dispose
them,
means,
by and large,
glamorous events.
to realizing the
While many
editor, the
will sell
show a
other
-
layouts
be
a
is dependent
liaison between
on
could
is to
the
buy the
to (Goffman
be dependent
create
images that
views of the
audiences and
viewers
target
advertisers,
the world
to the product's image.
to his product, his
version of that product
and you should want
of the advertisement
product
sparking
market conform
The implication is that if you
purpose of the photo editor
the
editor will
to
the target
of themselves and
in the
context of
one, you are on the way
1979, 26).
upon who
will sell
market.
is acting
as photo
the product. What
Thus,
keeping a sharp
a smart photo
eye on
changing trends.
For the
most
part, the
sexual objectification of men.
sexual objectification
use of Goffman's categories
This
(meaning
can mean
that the
that
either
did
not reveal a
trend toward
there is no trend towards the
previous research and
commentary already
stated
Men in
are moot points, a
possibility that is very slim)
or
that further
pertaining to this line
promoting
products
not contain
images
falling
of men
image,
research would
be to
a
(thus
analyze
the
they
appeared
Since
examined
could also
was also
be done
features in 1995
in
general
looked at,
how the image
and
interest
and
Stream,
did
If they did
One idea for
that self-help
GQ issues,
male gender
follow-up
is
replacement
or other magazines
be
Also,
since
Such
skin care
in 1985
female
symbolic
only full-paged
to
perhaps
could also
catering to
be
interaction
advertisements
that I've noticed
even careers
magazines
or
celebrities.
in modeling,
this thesis's methodology could
interest
1990, in
better determine
advertisements
items,
and
that many naked
its fashion layouts
examined
changing.
therapy,
job."
a man's
not
and sex-advice
also noticed
display and the
Furthermore,
changed.
but
articles of both male and
an examination of general and other specific
Field
notice
best. Furthermore, I
at
of the gendered male
stating that modeling "is
categories
the types of articles and non-advertising
on
2000
smaller advertisements could
shoes, hair
advertisements
"jewelry"
shown.
GQ is predominately a fashion magazine,
between images may have
the
ideas
population and sample).
usually
I happened to
to further determine how
sold elevated
and
my
that many
noticed
"cosmetics/scents"
research
number of advertisements with and without male and/or
sporadically
near naked shots were
I
explored.
falling outside
within men's magazines.
columns were regular
were
into the
be
female image
female images. Research
which
relatively limited in scope, further
of study should
contain a male
images
was
to be done in
research needs
detectable.
order to uncover such quantitative trends that are not yet
Because this study
81
Advertising
(i.e. Popular
a specific audiences).
be
used
Science,
in
Men in
Next, the
overall effects of male
how do these images
How does society,
does the
Also,
by using
just
and
examined
creating
the
granted, the
so
studied.
a
"man"?
How
male gender roles?
advertisers view the male market, and
to advertisers?
and class
in
relation
to gender.
of advertisements showed white male and
magazine's target market could
82
Specifically,
how to be
of the advertisements was not examined.
regarding age, race, ethnicity
majority
be
help men determine
themselves, how do
background
on men could
images, determine
male market view and respond
noticed that the
males,
were
male market view
how does the
aspects
that
images
Advertising
be specifically
this type of research may be better suited in
made
Neither
During
were
my study, I
female images
up
-
of white, upper class
an examination of general
interest
magazines.
Lastly,
men
since
this study did
using Goffman's theories
developed to
ascertain
After all, if what many
true, then
perhaps
the
if men
and
not reveal
trends toward
more sexual objectification of
methods, perhaps different categories need to be
are more sexualized now
scholars'
claims about cultural
objectification of men cannot
then
they have been in the
differences in
be
revealed
gender
using
past.
theory
are
women's
objectification standards.
Conclusion
The
advertising.
attracting
gender
use of sex appeal
How
certain
has
and
probably
sex and gender are used can
target audiences,
display will
always
and while
be important,
will always
be
quite
be
a major component of
different
when
it
comes to
the study of the general use of sexual and
perhaps
examining how it is
used
to
identify
Men in
with certain audiences and products should
less
and
less homogeneous, traditional
Changes in
and sell products.
be
stereotypes will
media will also
After all,
emphasized.
have
fail to
as
reach out
an effect on
how
83
Advertising
society becomes
to
mass audiences
advertisers reach out
to audiences, and how audiences perceive advertisers. While this
study indicated that the
sexualization of men
still need
to
considered
keep
to be
is
still
an eye out
one
very dissimilar to the way
for
even
of, if not the
the slightest
most
displays
may be
our great-grandmothers
changing.
and nylons
that
As
more consumed with consumption
our
brothers
reject.
confirm whether a
obsessed as
his
As
-
whether
sister and mother are with
self-
ideas
a
is
in
changes
that
our
passing
fad,
or
such as
"new
be
makeup
man"
-
fathers
updated research will
he is
gender
identifiers,
perhaps a
a culture
As
scholars
insights into how society
shunned
embraced,
emerge,
man"
exist,
may have
is embracing
new generations
"new
social and
can give scholars significant
our grandmothers and mothers
sexualized,
of trend changes.
important
such gender roles and
women are
a man
and some of
needed
to
here to stay, just
the consumer, and gender, ideal.
as
Men in
Advertising
84
Appendices
Appendix #1
Year:
Page#
Montft:
A.
B.
Setting
Position
C.
D.
Company
Skin
E.
F.
G.
H.
Body
Touch
Gaze
Product
Parts
Notes:
Men in
Advertising
Appendix #2
Year:
Total Number
Setting:
A-1.
By himself
A-2. With
one or more women
A-3. With
other men
A-4. With
children
A-5. With
other men and women
A-6. Other
Position
B-l.
B-2,
Sitting
Standing
B-3
Lounging
B-4. Other
B-5. Unable
to tell
Dominance:
C-1. Man/Men
C-2. Woman/Women
C-3. Child/Children
C-4. N/A (man is
C-5. Main
by himself)
subjects are equal in stance
C-6 Other
Amount of Skin:
D-1
.
Entire
or almost entire
body
D-2. Limbs
D-3. Face
and/or
hands/lower
arms
D-4. Chest
D-5. None
D-6. Other
Body Parts:
E-l. Male is
shown as complete person
E-2. Male is
shown as
body
parts
only
only
E-3. Both.
E-4. Other
Sell -touch
F-1. At least
F-2. No
one male subject
male subject
is
is engaging in
Gaze:
G-1 Gaze is directed
.
at audience
G-2. Gaze is detached
G-3. Gaze
is
directed
at other subjects
G-4. (iaze is directed
at self
G-5. Gaze is directed
at product
G-6. Other
Product:
H-l. Cosmetics/scents
(Ex. hair coloring,
colognes, plastic surgery)
H-2. Alcohol
H-3. Home furnishings
(Ex. furniture, appliances)
B-4. Clothing
H-5 Hygiene
(Soaps, shampoos,
H-6
razors,
toothpaste)
Fewelry
H-7. Automobiles
H-8. Work
related products
(Computers
PDAs)
H-9. Entertainment
(Videos. DVDs,
11-10. Other
self-touch
engaging in self-touch
stereos, televisions, radios)
85
Men in
Advertising
Appendix #3
Product:
Total #
of
Product:
Year:
total Number
Setting:
A-1.
By himself
A-2. With
one or more women
A-3. With
other men
A-4. With
children
A-5. With
other men and women
A-6. Other
Position
B-l.
B-2.
B-3.
Sitting
Standing
Lounging
B-4. Other
B-5. Unable to tell
Dominance:
C-1. Man/Men
C-2. Woman/Women
C-3. Child/Children
C-4. N/A (man is
C-5. Main
by himself)
subjects are equal
in
stance
C-6. Other
Amount
of
Skin:
D-1
.
Entire
or almost entire
bodv
D-2. Limbs
D-3. Face
and/or
hands/lower
arms
D-4. Chest
D-5. None
D-6. Other
Body
Parts:
E-I
.
Male is
E-2. Male is
shown as complete person
shown as
body
parts
only
only
E-3. Both.
E-4. Other
Self-touch
F-1. At least
F-2. No
one male subject
male subject
is engaging in
is engaging in
Gaze:
G-1
.
Gaze is directed
at audience
G-2. Gaze is detached
G-3. Gaze is directed
at other subjects
G-4. Gaze is directed
at self
G-5. Gaze is directed
at product
G-6. Other
self-touch
self-touch
86
Men in
Advertising
87
Appendix #4
Year
1985
1990
Totals
2000
1995
Category
H-l: Cosmetics/scents
9
9
7
9
34
H-2: Alcohol
4
7
3
6
20
H-3 : Home Furnishings
0
0
0
0
0
Clothing
68
61
38
51
218
H-5: Hygiene
1
2
0
1
4
H-6:
Jewelry
2
1
2
2
7
H-7: Automobiles
0
1
2
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
5
6
H-10: Other
12
4
6
16
38
Totals:
97
85
58
90
330
H-4:
H-8: Work
related
Products
H-9: Entertainment
The
respective percentages are as
follows:
1990
1995
2000
Overall %
26.47059% 26.47059%
20.58824%
26.47059%
10.30303%
35%
15%
30%
6.06061%
Year
1985
Category
H-l: Cosmetics/scents
20%
H-2: Alcohol
H-3: Home Furnishings
H-4:
Clothing
Jewelry
related
Products
0%
17.43119%
23.39450%
66.06061%
25%
50%
0%
25%
1.21212%
28.57143%
14.28571%
28.57143%
28.57143%
2.12121%
0% 33.33333%
66.66667%
0%
0.90909%
H-7: Automobiles
H-8: Work
N/A
31.19266% 27.98165%
H-5: Hygiene
H-6:
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0%
H-9: Entertainment
16.66667%
0%
0%
83.33333%
1.81818%
H-10: Other
31.57895%
10.52632%
15.78947%
42.10526%
11.51515%
Men in Advertising
Appendix #5
Category/ Year
#
Percentage
Category/ Year
#
Percentage
A-1 1985
61
62.89%
A-1 1990
50
58.82%
A-2 1985
15
15.46%
A-2 1990
16
18.82%
A-3 1985
13
13.40%
A-3 1990
10
11.76%
A-4 1985
3
3.09%
A-4 1990
3
3.53%
A-5 1985
5
5.15%
A-5 1990
3
3.53%
A-6 1985
0
0%
A-6 1990
3
3.53%
23.53%
B-l 1985
15
15.46%
B-l 1990
20
B-2 1985
55
56.70%
B-2 1990
34
40%
B-3 1985
3
3.093%
B-3 1990
2
2.35%
B-4 1985
18
18.56%
B-4 1990
17
20%
B-5 1985
6
6.19%
B-5 1990
12
14.12%
C-1 1985
21
21.65%
C-1 1990
13
15.29%
C-2 1985
4
4.12%
C-2 1990
8
9.41%
C-3 1985
1
1.03%
C-3 1990
2
2.35%
C-4 1985
61
62.89%
C-4 1990
50
58.82%
C-5 1985
10
10.31%
C-5 1990
11
12.94%
C-6 1985
0
0%
C-6 1990
1
1.18%
D-1 1985
7
7.22%
D-1 1990
3
3.53%
D-2 1985
10
10.31%
D-2 1990
4
4.71%
D-3 1985
76
78.35%
D-3 1990
73
85.88%
D-4 1985
3
3.09%
D-4 1990
4
4.71%
1
1.22%
D-5 1985
0
0%
D-5 1990
D-6 1985
1
1.03%
D-6 1990
0
0%
E-l 1985
91
93.81%
E-l 1990
70
82.35%
E-2 1985
6
6.19%
E-2 1990
14
16.47%
E-3 1985
0
0%
E-3 1990
0
0%
E-4 1985
0
0%
E-4 1990
1
1.18%
F-1 1985
12
12.37%
F-1 1990
10
11.76%
F-2 1985
85
87.63%
F-2 1990
75
88.24%
G-1 1985
23
23.71%
G-1 1990
28
32.94%
7
8.24%
G-2 1985
21
21.65%
G-2 1990
G-3 1985
18
18.56%
G-3 1990
13
15.29%
G-4 1985
1
1.03%
G-4 1990
3
3.53%
G-5 1985
3
3.09%
G-5 1990
1
1.18%
31
31.96%
G-6 1990
33
38.82%
G-6 1985
88
Men in
Advertising
Category/ Year
#
#
Percentage
9
Percentage
9.28%
Category/ Year
H-l 1985
H-l 1990
9
10.59%
H-2 1985
4
4.12%
H-2 1990
7
8.24%
H-3 1985
0
0%
H-3 1990
0
0%
H-4 1985
68
70.10%
H-4 1990
61
71.76%
H-5 1985
1
1.03%
H-5 1990
2
2.35%
H-6 1985
2
2.06%
H-6 1990
1
1.18%
H-7 1985
0
0%
H-7 1990
1
1.17%
H-8 1985
0
0%
H-8 1990
0
0%
H-9 1985
1
1.03%
H-9 1990
0
0%
H-10 1985
12
12.37%
H-10 1990
4
4.71%
Category/ Year
#
Percentage
Category/ Year
#
Percentage
A-1 1995
41
70.69%
A-1 2000
54
58.70%
A-2 1995
5
8.62%
A-2 2000
21
22.83%
A-3 1995
7
12.07%
A-3 2000
7
7.61%
A-4 1995
0
0%
A-4 2000
1
1.09%
A-5 1995
4
6.90%
A-5 2000
2
2.17%
A-6 1995
1
1.72%
A-6 2000
7
7.61%
B-l 1995
11
18.97%
B-l 2000
20
21.74%
B-2 1995
24
41.38%
B-2 2000
38
41.30%
B-3 1995
1
1.72%
B-3 2000
6
6.52%
B-4 1995
14
24.14%
B-4 2000
17
18.48%
B-5 1995
8
13.79%
B-5 2000
11
11.96%
C-1 1995
8
13.79%
C-1 2000
21
22.83%
C-2 1995
1
1.72%
C-2 2000
7
7.61%
C-3 1995
0
0%
C-3 2000
1
1.09%
C-4 1995
41
70.69%
C-4 2000
53
57.61%
C-5 1995
7
12.07%
C-5 2000
9
9.78%
C-6 1995
1
1.72%
C-6 2000
1
1.09%
D-1 1995
5
8.62%
D-1 2000
2
2.17%
D-2 1995
3
5.17%
D-2 2000
6
6.52%
D-3 1995
43
74.14%
D-3 2000
76
82.61%
D-4 1995
4
6.90%
D-4 2000
4
4.35%
D-5 1995
1
1.87%
D-5 2000
3
3.33%
1
1.09%
D-6 1995
2
3.45%
D-6 2000
E-l 1995
48
82.76%
E-l 2000
77
83.70%
E-2 1995
8
13.79%
E-2 2000
10
10.87%
E-3 1995
2
3.45%
E-3 2000
4
4.35%
E-4 1995
0
0%
E-4 2000
1
1.09%
89
Men in Advertising
Category/ Year
#
Percentage
Category/ Year
#
F-1 1995
15
25.86%
F-1 2000
15
16.30%
F-2 1995
43
74.14%
F-2 2000
77
83.70%
G-1 1995
21
27
29.35%
11
36.21%
18.97%
G-1 2000
G-2 1995
G-2 2000
18
19.57%
G-3 1995
4
6.90%
G-3 2000
13
14.13%
G-4 1995
2
3.45%
G-4 2000
1
1.09%
G-5 1995
1
1.72%
G-5 2000
5
5.43%
G-6 1995
19
32.76%
G-6 2000
28
30.43%
H-l 1995
7
12.07%
H-l 2000
9
9.78%
H-2 1995
3
5.17%
H-2 2000
6
6.52%
H-3 1995
0
0%
H-3 2000
0
0%
H-4 1995
38
65.52%
H-4 2000
51
55.43%
H-5 1995
0
0%
H-5 2000
1
1.09%
H-6 1995
2
3.45%
H-6 2000
2
2.17%
H-7 1995
2
3.45%
H-7 2000
2
2.17%
H-8 1995
0
0%
H-8 2000
0
0%
H-9 1995
0
0%
H-9 2000
5
5.43%
H-10 1995
6
10.34%
H-10 2000
16
17.39%
Percentage
90
Men in
Advertising
91
Appendix #6
Year/%
1985
%
1990
%
6.06%
Gaze
Eyes Blocked
Eyes Closed
away from viewer
Head/Face/Eyes not shown
Facing
1
3.23%
2
0
0%
0
0%
1
3.23%
6
18.18%
5
16.13%
10
30.30%
0
0%
2
6.06%
21
67.74%
9
27.27%
2
6.45%
3
9.09%
1
3.23%
1
3.03%
31
100%
33
100%
1995
%
2000
%
Eyes Blocked
5
26.32%
4
14.81%
Eyes Closed
1
5.26%
2
7.41%
Facing away from viewer
Head/Face/Eyes not shown
1
5.26%
2
7.41%
7
36.84%
9
33.33%
0
0%
1
3.70%
8
29.63%
3.70%
Looking
"Looking
Looking down
at other object
(not subject)
Beyond"
Unable to tell
Total
Year/%
Gaze
Looking at other object (not subject)
"Looking
Looking down
3
15.79%
2
10.53%
1
Unable to tell
0
0%
0
0%
19
100%
27
100%
Beyond"
Total
Year/%
Total
(#)
Total
(%)
Gaze
Eyes Blocked
Eyes Closed
Facing away from viewer
Head/Face/Eyes not shown
Looking at other object
"Looking
Looking down
(not subject)
Beyond"
Unable to tell
Total
12
10.91%
3
2.73%
10
9.09%
31
28.18%
3
2.73%
41
37.27%
8
7.27%
2
1.82%
110
100%
Men in
92
Advertising
Appendix #7
Cosmetics/Scents
Setting:
Year
Total #
Product
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
1985
9
4
2
1
1
1
0
1990
9
4
4
1
0
0
0
1995
7
3
2
0
1
1
of
0
2000
9
3
1
2
1
1
1
Totals:
34
14
9
4
2
3
2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
Setting
Year
Total %
of
Product
A-1
A-2
1985
26.4706%
44.4444%
22.2222%
11.1111% 11.1111% 11.1111%
1990
26.4706%
44.4444%
44.4444%
11.1111%
0%
1995
20.5882%
42.8571%
28.5714%
0%
0%
2000
26.4706%
33.3333%
11.1111% 22.2222% 11.1111% 11.1111% 11.1111%
Totals:
100%
41.1765%
26.4706% 11.7647%
0%
0%
0%
14.2857% 14.2857%
5.8824%
8.8235%
B-3
B-4
B-5
2
1
5.8824%
Position:
Year
Total #
B-1
Product
of
B-2
6
0
0
9
1
3
1
1
3
7
1
3
1
2
0
2000
9
2
2
0
3
2
Totals:
34
10
8
2
8
6
1985
9
1990
1995
Position
Year
Total %
of
B-2
B-1
Product
B-3
B-4
B-5
1985
26.4706%
66.6667%
0%
0%
22.2222%
11.1111%
1990
26.4706%
11.1111%
33.3333%
11.1111%
11.1111%
33.3333%
1995
20.5882%
14.2857%
42.8571%
14.2857%
28.5714%
0%
2000
26.4706%
22.2222%
22.2222%
0%
33.3333%
22.2222%
Totals:
100%
29.4118%
23.5294%
5.8824%
23.5294%
17.6471%
Dominance
Year
Total #
of
Product
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
1985
9
3
10
4
1990
9
12
0
4
2
0
1995
7
4
0
0
3
0
0
2000
9
5
0
0
3
10
Totals:
34
13
3
0
14
4
10
0
Men in
93
Advertising
Dominance
Year
Total %
C-1
Product
of
C-2
C-3
C-5
C-4
C-6
1985
26.4706%
33.3333% 11.1111%
0%
44.4444% 11.1111%
1990
26.4706%
11.1111% 22.2222%
0%
44.4444% 22.2222%
1995
20.5882%
57 1429%
0%
0%
42.8571%
2000
26.4706%
55.5556%
0%
0%
33.3333% 11.1111%
0%
Totals:
100%
38.2353%
8.8235%
0%
41.1765% 11.7647%
0%
Amount
Skin
Year
Total #
Product
0%
0%
0%
0%
of
D-1
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
1985
9
2
0
6
0
0
1
1990
9
1
0
6
1
1
0
of
D-6
1995
7
0
0
5
2
0
0
2000
9
0
1
7
1
0
0
Totals:
34
3
1
24
4
1
1
Amount
of
Skin
Year
Total %
Product
D-1
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
1985
26.4706%
22.2222%
0%
66.6667%
0%
0%
11.1111%
1990
26.4706%
11.1111%
0%
66.6667% 11.1111% 11.1111%
1995
20.5882%
0%
0%
71.4286% 28.5714%
0%
0%
2000
26.4706%
0%
11.1111% 77.7778% 11.1111%
0%
0%
Totals:
100%
8.8235%
2.9412%
2.9412%
of
2.9412%
70.5882% 11.7647%
Body
Portrayal
E-1
E-2
E-3
E-4
1985
9
9
0
0
0
1990
9
6
3
0
0
1995
7
7
0
0
0
2000
9
8
0
10
Totals:
34
30
3
1
Year
Total #
of
Product
0
Body
Portrayal
E-1
E-2
E-3
E-4
1985
26.4706%
100%
0%
0%
0%
1990
26.4706%
66.6667%
33.3333%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Year
Total %
of
Product
1995
20.5882%
100%
2000
26.4706%
88.8889%
0%
11.1111%
0%
Totals:
100%
88.2353%
8.8235%
2.9412%
0%
0%
Men in
94
Advertising
Self-touch
Year
Total #
Product
of
F-1
F-2
1985
9
3
6
1990
9
2
7
1995
7
2
5
2000
9
3
6
Totals:
34
10
24
Self-touch
Year
Total %
of
Product
A-1
F-1
F-2
1985
26.4706%
44.4444%
33.3333%
66.6667%
1990
26.4706%
44.4444%
22.2222%
77.7778%
1995
20.5882%
42.8571%
28.5714%
71.4286%
2000
26.4706%
33.3333%
33.3333%
66.6667%
Totals:
100%
41.1765%
29.4118
70.5882%
Gaze
Year
Total #
Product
G-1
G-2
G-3
G-4
G-5
1985
9
6
0
1
0
0
2
1990
9
0
2
1
2
0
4
1995
7
4
0
2
0
0
1
2000
9
2
1
3
1
0
2
Totals:
34
12
3
7
3
0
9
of
G-6
Gaze
Year
Total %
of
Product
G-1
G-2
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
66.6667%
0%
11.1111%
0%
0%
22.2222%
0%
44.4444%
0%
14.2857%
22.2222% 11.1111% 33.3333% 11.1111%
0%
22.2222%
35.2941%
0%
26.4706%
1985
26.4706%
1990
26.4706%
0%
1995
20.5882%
57.1429%
2000
26.4706%
Totals:
100%
22.2222% 11.1111% 22.2222%
0%
8.8235%
28.5714%
20.5882%
0%
8.8235%
Men in
95
Advertising
Appendix #8
Alcohol
Setting
Year
Total #
Product
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
1985
4
0
4
0
0
0
0
1990
7
1
4
1
0
1
0
1995
3
1
1
0
0
1
0
2000
6
3
2
1
0
0
0
Totals:
20
5
11
2
0
2
0
of
Setting
Year
Total %
Product
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
1985
20%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1990
35%
14.2857%
57.1429% 14.2857%
0%
14.2857%
0%
1995
15%
33.3333%
33.3333%
0%
0%
33.3333%
0%
2000
30%
50%
33.3333%
16.6667%
0%
0%
0%
Totals:
100%
25%
55%
10%
0%
10%
0%
of
Position
Year
Total #
of
B-2
B-1
Product
B-3
B-4
B-5
1985
4
2
1
1
0
0
1990
7
2
3
0
1
1
1995
3
0
0
0
1
2
2000
6
2
3
0
1
0
7
1
3
3
6
20
Totals:
Position
Year
Total %
of
Product
20%
1985
B-1
B-2
B-3
B^l
50%
25%
25%
0%
0%
28.5714%
42.8571%
0%
14.2857%
14.2857%
66.6667%
B-5
1990
35%
1995
15%
0%
0%
0%
33.3333%
2000
30%
33.3333%
50%
0%
16.6667%
0%
Totals:
100%
30%
35%
5%
15%
15%
Dominance
Year
1985
Total #
of
4
Product
C-1
C-2
3-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
3
0
0
0
1
0
1
3
0
i
1990
7
3
0
0
1995
3
1
1
0
1
0
0
2000
6
1
2
0
3
0
0
Totals:
20
8
3
0
5
4
0
96
Men in Advertising
Dominance
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
1985
20%
75%
0%
0%
0%
25%
0%
1990
35%
42.8571%
0%
0%
14.2857% 42.8571%
1995
15%
33.3333% 33.3333%
0%
33.3333%
0%
0%
2000
30%
16.6667% 33.3333%
0%
50%
0%
0%
Totals:
100%
15%
0%
25%
20%
0%
D-1
Year
Total %
Product
of
40%
Amount
:
0%
of skin
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
1985
4
0
0
2
2
0
0
1990
7
0
0
7
0
0
0
1995
3
0
0
3
0
0
0
2000
6
0
0
3
0
1
0
Totals:
20
0
0
15
2
1
0
Year
Total #
of
Product
Amount
of
skin
D-1
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
1985
20%
0%
0%
50%
50%
0%
0%
1990
35%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
16.6667%
0%
5%
0%
Year
1995
Total %
of
Product
15%
2000
30%
0%
0%
50%
0%
Totals:
100%
0%
0%
75%
10%
Body
Portrayal
Year
Total #
of
Product
E-1
E-2
E-3
E-4
0
1985
4
4
0
0
1990
7
5
2
0
0
1995
3
2
1
0
0
2000
6
5
2
0
0
20
16
5
0
0
Totals:
Body
Portrayal
Year
Total %
of
Product
E-2
E-3
E-4
100%
0%
0%
0%
E-1
1985
20%
1990
35%
71.4286%
28.5714%
0%
0%
1995
15%
66.6667%
33.3333%
0%
0%
2000
30%
83.3333%
33.3333%
0%
0%
80%
25%
0%
0%
Totals:
100%
Men in
97
Advertising
Self touch
Year
Total #
of
Product
F-1
F-2
1985
4
2
2
1990
7
0
7
1995
3
0
3
2000
6
1
5
Totals:
20
3
17
Self touch
Year
Total %
Product
F-1
F-2
1985
20%
50%
50%
1990
35%
0%
100%
1995
15%
0%
100%
2000
30%
16.6667%
83.3333%
Totals:
100%
15%
85%
of
Gaze
Year
Total #
of
Product
G-1
G-2
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
0
0
0
1985
4
0
0
4
1990
7
0
0
2
0
1
4
1995
3
0
1
1
0
0
1
2000
6
2
1
0
0
1
2
Totals:
20
2
2
7
0
2
7
Gaze
Year
1985
Total %
of
Product
20%
G-1
G-2
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
28.5714%
0%
33.3333% 33.3333%
0%
1990
35%
0%
1995
15%
0%
2000
30%
Totals:
100%
33.3333% 16.6667%
10%
10%
0%
0%
35%
0%
14.2857% 57.1429%
0%
33.3333%
16.6667% 33.3333%
10%
35%
Men in
98
Advertising
Appendix #9
Clothing
Setting
Year
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
1985
68
45
8
10
2
3
0
1990
61
41
6
7
2
2
3
1995
38
29
1
6
0
1
0
2000
51
34
12
2
0
0
3
Totals.
218
149!
27
25
4
6
6
Total #
Product
of
Setting
Year
Total %
Product
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
1985
31.1927%
66.1765%
11.7647% 14.7059%
2.9412%
4.4118%
0%
1990
27.9817%
67.2131%
9.8361%
11.4754%
3.2787%
3.2787%
4.9180%
of
A-6
1995
17 4312%
76.3158%
2.6316%
15.7895%
0%
2.6316%
0%
2000
23.3945%
66.6667%
23.5294%
3.9216%
0%
0%
5.8824%
Totals:
100%
68.3486%
12.3853% 11.4679%
1.8349%
2.7523%
2.7523%
Position
Year
Total #
B-1
Product
of
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
2
11
2
1985
68
10
43
1990
61
14
27
1
14
5
1995
38
7
19
0
10
2
2000
51
12
25
3
7
4
Totals:
218
43
114
6
42
13
Position
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
1985
31.1927%
14.7059%
63.2353%
2.9412%
16.1765%
2.9412%
1990
27.9817%
22.9508%
44.2623%
1.6393%
22.9508%
8.1967%
17.4312%
18.4211%
50%
0%
26.3158%
5.2632%
5.8824%
13.7255%
7.8431%
2.7523%
19.2661%
5.9633%
Year
Total %
1995
of
Product
2000
23.3945%
23.5294%
49.0196%
Totals:
100%
19.7248%
52.2936%
Dominance
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
1985
68
14
1
1
45
7
0
1990
61
9
3
2
41
5
1
2
0
0
29
6
1
34
4
1
149
22
3
Year
1995
Total #
of
Product
38
2000
51
8
4
0
Totals:
218
33
8
3
Men in
99
Advertising
Dominance
Year
Total %
Product
of
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
1985
31.1927%
20.5882%
1.4706%
1.4706% 66.1765% 10.2941%
0%
1990
27.9817%
14.7541%
4.9180%
3.2787% 67.2131% 8.1967%
1.6393%
1995
17.4312%
5.2632%
0%
0%
76.3158% 15.7895% 2.6316%
2000
23.3945%
15.6863%
7.8431%
0%
66.6667% 7.8431%
Totals:
100%
15.1376%
3.6697%
1.3761% 68.3486% 10.0917%
Amount
Skin
Year
Total #
Product
1.9608%
1.3761%
of
D-1
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
1985
68
3
9
55
1
0
0
1990
61
1
4
53
3
0
0
1995
38
4
1
28
2
1
2
of
2000
51
2
1
44
2
1
1
Totals:
218
10
15
180
8
2
3
Amount
Skin
Year
Total %
of
Product
of
D-1
'
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
13.2353%
!30.8824%
1.4706%
0%
0%
6.5574%
l36.8852%
4.9180%
0%
0%
73.6842%
5.2632%
2.6316%
5.2632%
1.9608%
;36.2745%
3.9216%
1.9608%
1.9608%
6.8807%
!32.5688%
3.6697%
0.9174%
1.3761%
1985
31.1927%
4.4118%
1990
27.9817%
1.6393%
1995
17.4312%
10.5263%
2.6316%
2000
23.3945%
3.9216%
Totals:
100%
4.5872%
'
Body
Portraya I
E-1
e-:i
E-3
E-4
1985
68
64
4
0
0
1990
61
53
7
0
1
1995
38
31
5
2
0
2000
51
43
4
3
1
20
5
2
Year
Totals:
Total #
of
Product
191
218
Body
Portrayal
E-4
F-1
E-2
E-3
31.1927%
94.1176%
5.8824%
0%
0%
1990
27.9817%
86.8852%
11.4754%
0%
1.6393%
1995
17.4312%
81.5789%
13.1579%
5.2632%
0%
1.9608%
0.9174%
Year
1985
Total %
of
Product
2000
23.3945%
84.3137%
7.8431%
5.8824%
Totals:
100%
87.6147%
9.1743%
2.2936%
Men in
1 00
Advertising
Self touch
Year
F !
F-2
1985
68
5
63
1990
61
7
54
1995
38
11
27
2000
51
7
44
Totals:
218
30
188
Total #
of
Product
Self touch
Year
Total %
of
F-*
Product
I
F-2
1985
31.1927%
7.353%
92.6471%
1990
27.9817%
11.4754%
88.5246%
1995
17.4312%
28.9474%
71.0526%
2000
23.3945%
13.7255%
86.2745%
Totals:
100%
13.7615%
86.2385%
Gaze
Year
Total #
G-1
G-2
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
1985
68
15
21
9
1
0
22
1990
61
27
5
8
1
0
20
1995
38
16
8
1
2
0
11
2000
51
18
14
5
0
1
13
rotals:
218
76
48
23
4
1
66
of
Product
Gaze
Year
Total %
of
Product
G-1
G-2
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
1.4706%
0%
32.3529%
13.1148%
1.6393%
0%
32.7869%
2.6316%
5.2632%
0%
28.9474%
9.8039%
0%
1.9608%
25.4902%
1.8349%
0.4587%
30.2752%
22.0588% 30.8824% 13.2353%
1985
31.1927%
1990
27.9817%
44.2623%
1995
17.4312%
42.1053% 21.0526%
2000
23.3945%
35.2941% 27.4510%
rotals:
100%
8.1967%
34.8624% 22.0183% 10.5505%
Men in
101
Advertising
Append ix#10
"Other"
Setting
Year
Total #
Product
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
1985
12
8
1
2
0
1
0
1990
4
2
2
0
0
0
0
1995
6
6
0
0
0
0
0
of
2000
16
7
5
1
0
1
2
Totals:
38
23
8
3
0
2
2
Setting
Year
Total %
Product
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
1985
31.5789%
66.6667%
8.3333%
16.6667%
0%
8.3333%
0%
1990
10.5263%
50%
50%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1995
15.7895%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2000
42.1053%
43.7500%
31.2500%
6.2500%
0%
6.2500%
12.5000%
Totals:
100%
60.5263%
21.0526%
7.8947%
0%
5.2632%
5.2632%
of
A-6
Position
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
1985
12
2
4
1
4
1
1990
4
3
0
0
0
1
0
1
3
Year
Total #
Product
of
1995
6
1
1
2000
16
4
4
1
5
2
Totals:
38
10
9
2
10
7
Position
Year
Total %
of
Product
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
1985
31.5789%
16.6667%
33.3333%
8.3333%
33.3333%
8.3333%
1990
10.5263%
75%
0%
0%
0%
25%
1995
15.7895%
16.6667%
16.6667%
0%
16.6667%
50%
2000
42.1053%
25%
25.0000%
6.2500%
31.2500%
12.5000%
Totals:
100%
26.3158%
23.6842%
5.2632%
26.3158%
18.4211%
Dominance
Year
Total #
of
Product
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
1985
12
1
2
0
7
2
0
1990
4
0
2
0
2
0
0
1995
6
0
0
0
6
0
0
2000
16
5
1
1
6
3
0
6
5
1
21
5
0
Totals:
38
Men in
102
Advertising
Dominance
Year
1985
1990
C-6
C-1
C-2
C-3
31.5789%
8.3333%
16.6667%
0%
10.5263%
0%
50%
0%
50%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
Total %
Product
of
1995
15.7895%
2000
42.1053%
Totals:
100%
0%
31
0%
6.2500%
.2500%
0%
6.2500% 37.5000% 18.7500%
0%
55.2632% 13.1579%
0%
15.7895% 13.1579% 2.6316%
Amount
C-5
C-4
58.3333% 16.6667%
of
Skin
D-1
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
1985
12
2
1
8
1
0
0
1990
4
1
0
3
0
0
0
1995
6
1
1
4
0
0
0
12
0
1
0
27
1
1
0
Year
Total #
Product
of
2000
16
0
3
Totals:
38
4
5
Amount
of
Skin
D-1
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
1985
31.5789%
16.6667%
8.3333%
66.6667%
8.3333%
0%
0%
1990
10.5263%
25%
0%
75%
0%
0%
0%
1995
15.7895%
16.6667%
0%
0%
0%
2000
42.1053%
0%
0%
6.2500%
0%
2.6316%
2.6316%
0%
Year
Totals:
Total %
of
Product
16.6667% 66.6667%
75%
18.7500%
10.5263%
100%
'
'
13.1579% 71.0526%
Body
Portraya I
Year
1985
1990
Total #
of
Productt
12
4
E-1
E-2
E-3
E-4
11
1
0
0
3
1
0
0
1995
6
6
0
0
0
2000
16
12
4
0
0
38
32
6
0
0
Totals:
Body
Portrayal
Year
Total %
of
Product
E-1
E-2
E-3
E-4
0%
0%
1985
31.5789%
91.6667%
8.3333%
1990
10.5263%
75%
25%
0%
0%
1995
15.7895%
100%
0%
0%
0%
2000
42.1053%
75%
25%
0%
0%
100%
84.2105%
15.7895%
0%
0%
Totals:
Men in
1 03
Advertising
Self touchi
Year
Total #
of
F-1
Product
F-2
1985
12
1
1990
4
1
3
1995
6
1
5
16
15
1
38
18
20
2000
Totals:
11
Self touch
Year
Total %
of
Product
F-1
F-2
8.3333%
91.6667%
1985
31.5789%
1990
10.5263%
25%
75%
1995
15.7895%
16.6667%
83.3333%
2000
42.1053%
93.75%
6.2500%
47.3684%
52.6316%
Totals:
'
100%
Gaze
Year
Total #
Product
G-1
G-2
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
1985
12
1
0
3
0
2
6
1990
4
1
0
0
0
0
3
1995
6
1
1
0
0
0
4
2000
16
2
1
4
1
0
8
Totals:
38
5
2
7
1
2
21
of
Gaze
Year
Total %
Productt
G-1
G-2
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
1985
31.5789%
8.3333%
0%
25%
0%
16.6667%
50%
1990
10.5263%
25%
0%
0%
0%
0%
75%
1995
15.7895%
0%
0%
0%
66.6667%
2000
42.1053%
12.5000%
6.2500%
25%
6.2500%
0%
50%
Totals:
100%
13.1579%
5.2632%
18.4211%
2.6316%
5.2632%
55.2632%
of
16.6667% 16.6667%
Men in
Advertising
1 04
Appendix #1 1
Sources Searched
Computer and Internet Search
http://wally.rit.edu: Wallace Library, Rochester Institute of Technology,
Rochester, NY.
The
following databases
were searched:
Einstein:
Key
words:
Magazine, Editors, Magazine editors, Gender, Gender Theory, Women and
Advertising, Men and Advertising, Male Magazines, Female
Magazines, Fashion Magazines, Advertising, Stereotypes, Commercials
EbscoHost Research Database:
Academic Search Elite
(1984-Present)
Psyclnfo(1987-Present)
PsycArticles (1988-Present)
ERIC(1966-Present)
Key words: Key words: Magazine, Editors, Magazine editors, Gender, Gender
Theory, Male Magazines, Female Magazines, Fashion Magazines,
Advertising, Stereotypes, Commercials.
ComAbstracts
Magazine editors, Gender, Gender
Theory, Male Magazines, Female Magazines, Fashion Magazines,
Advertising, Stereotypes, Commercials
Key words: Key words: Magazine, Editors,
Time Frame: 1966-Present
Contemporary
Women's Issues
Magazine editors,
Theory, Male Magazines, Female Magazines, Fashion
Advertising, Stereotypes, Commercials
Key words: Key words: Magazine, Editors,
Gender, Gender
Magazines,
Time Frame: 1994-Present
GenderWatch
Key words: Key words: Magazine, Editors, Magazine editors, Gender, Gender
Theory, Male Magazines, Female Magazines, Fashion Magazines,
Advertising, Stereotypes, Commercials
Time Frame: 1970-Present
Men in
Health Reference
Key
Advertising
105
Center- Academic
words:
Key words: Magazine, Editors, Magazine editors, Gender, Male
Magazines, Female Magazines, Fashion Magazines, Advertising,
Stereotypes, Commercials
Time Frame: 1980-Present
Periodical Abstract Research II
Key
words:
Key words: Magazine, Editors, Magazine editors, Gender, Male
Magazines, Female Magazines, Fashion Magazines, Advertising,
Stereotypes, Commercials
Time Frame: 1989-Present
Bibliographies of Bibliographies:
Friedman, L.J. Sex role stereotyping in the mass media: An annotated bibliography.
New York: Garland Publishing, Inc. 1977.
Bibliographies:
Berger, A. A. (2000). Ads, fads,
character and society.
and consumer culture:
Advertising 's impact on American
Publishers, Inc.
New York: Rowman & Littlefield
Courtney, A.E., & and Whipple, T.W. (1983). Sex stereotyping
Lexingtion, MA: Lexington Books, D.C. Heath.
in
advertising.
Fowles, J. (1996). Advertising and popular culture. London: SAGE Publications.
Pendergast, T. (2000). Creating the
modern man:
culture, 1900-1950. Columbia:
University
Tebbel, J. & Zuckerman, M.E. (1991) The
Oxford University Press.
American
magazines and consumer
of Missouri
magazine
in
America, 1741-1990. New York:
Other Sources:
Dr. Diane Hope
William A. Kern Professor in Communications
Department
of Communication
Rochester Institute
of
Technology
Press.
Men in
106
Advertising
References
Andrews, S. (1992). She's bare. He's
covered.
Is there
a problem?
New York
Times 1 November 1992, Sec. 2: 13-14.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice Hall Inc.
Berger, A. A. (2000). Ads, fads,
American
character and society.
and consumer culture:
in
prime-time commercials
on
New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Bresnahan, M.J., Inoue, Y., Liu, W.Y.,
roles
Advertising's impact
&
Nishida, T. (2001). Changing
in Malaysia, Japan, Taiwan,
and
gender
the United States. Sex
Roles, 45(1/2). 117-131.
Bretl, D.J., & Cantor, J. (1988). The
television commercials: A recent
portrayal of men and women
content analysis and
trends
over
fifteen
in U.S.
years.
Sex
Roles, 18(9/10). 595-609.
Crewe, B. (2002). Consuming
A. & Meethan, K.
(Eds.), The
men:
changing
Producing
consumer:
loaded. In Miles, S., Anderson,
Markets
and meanings.
(Pp. 41
-
55).
New York: Routledge.
Courtney, A.E., &
and
Whipple, T.W. (1983). Sex stereotyping in
advertising.
Lexingtion, MA: Lexington Books, D.C. Heath.
Danna, S.R., (1994). Sexier
of males
and more sensitive:
The changing advertising image
in the 1990s. In Manca, L. & Manca A. (Eds), Gender
advertising:
A
critical reader.
(Pp. 73
-
86).
and Utopia
in
Lisle, IL: Procopian Press.
Dobosz, A.M. (1997). Thicker thighs by Thanksgiving. Ms., 8{3). 89-91.
Men in
DYG
Survey
Fejes, F.
problem of the
(1996). Men 's
(1984). Critical
disappearing
107
Advertising
Health, 11(11), 140.
mass communications research and media effects:
Media, Culture
audience.
Fowles, J. (1996). Advertising and popular
and
The
Society, 6. 219-232.
London: SAGE Publications.
culture.
Goffman, E. (1979). Gender Advertisements. New York: Harper Colophon
Books.
Hendriks, A. (2002). Examining
bodies
on
television: A
call
for theory
the
effects of hegemonic
depictions
and programmatic research.
of female
Critical Studies in
Media Communication 79(1). 106-123.
Hope, D.S. (2003) Gendered
rhetoric of advertising.
environments:
Gender
In C. Hill & M. Helmers (Eds.),
Esquire
advertisements.
masculinity:
The
at:
in the
press).
representation of males
in
women and girls must
fight the
Free Press.
of advertising. New York:
Klages, M. (1997). Gender
Available
natural world
Journal of Communication Inquiry, 14(\). 51-70.
Kilbourne, J. (1999). Deadly persuasion: Why
addictive power
the
Defining visual rhetorics.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publishing. (In
Kervin, D. (1990). Advertising
and
Trouble: Judith Butler. Retrieved
on
July 2,
2003.
http://www.colorado.edu/EngUsh/ENGL2012Klages/butler.html
Lin, C. (1993). Cultural differences in
American and
Japanese TV
commercials.
message strategies:
Journal ofAdvertising
A
comparison
between
Research, 33(1). 40-48.
Men in
.
(1999). The
portrayal of women
(Ed.), Mediated women: Representations
in television
in popular
culture
1 08
Advertising
In M. Meyers
advertising.
(pp. 253-270). Cresskill, NJ:
Hampton Press, Inc.
Littlejohn, S.W. (2002). Theories
of human communication
(7th
ed.).
Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Manca, L. & Manca A. (1994). Adam through the looking
in
magazine advertisements of the
Utopia
in
advertising:
A
of gender
Images
of men
1980s. In Manca, L. & Manca A. (Eds), Gender
critical reader,
in the advertising
and
(pp. 111-131). Lisle, IL: Procopian Press.
Masse, M.A., & Rosenblum, K. (1988). Male
depiction
glass:
and
female
created
they
them: The
of traditional women's and men's magazines.
Women's Studies International Forum, 11(2), 127-144
McArthur, L.Z., & Resko, B.G. (1975). The portrayal
American television
commercials.
of men and women
Journal of Social Psychology, 97. 209-220.
Miles, S., Meethan, K. & Anderson, A. (2002). The meaning
meaning
of change.
consumer:
Markets
and meanings,
masculine experience.
(pp
6
-
9). New York: Routledge.
to be a
man:
Dilemmas
In Luke, C. (Ed.), Feminisms
(Pp. 103-1 18). Albany, NY: State
University
advertisements of
1950-1994: A
Journal, 26(1),
29-58.
and contradictions of
and pedagogies
of New
ofeveryday life.
York Press.
Paff, J. L., & Buckley-Lakner, H. (1997). Dress
Sciences Research
of consumption;
In Miles, S., Anderson, A. & Meethan, K. (Eds.), The changing
Morgan, D. (1996). Learning
magazine
in
and
content analysis.
the female gender role in
Family and Consumer
the
Men in
Pendergast, T.
consumer culture,
(2000).
Creating the
1900-1950. Columbia:
Rakow, L.F. (1986). Rethinking
modern man:
American
1 09
Advertising
magazines and
University of Missouri Press.
gender research
in
Journal of
communication.
Communication, 36(A). 11-26.
Rohlinger, D.A. (2002). Eroticizing Men: Cultural Influences on Advertising
and
Male Objectification. Sex Roles, 46 (3-4). 61-74.
Semenik, R.J. (2002)
Hello, how
can
I
reach you?
Promotion
Cincinnati:
and
integrated marketing
communications:
South- Western.
Shields, V.R. (1994). The constructing,
identities in the process of decoding gender
maintaining,
advertisements.
and
negotiating ofgender
Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus.
.
University
(2002).
Measuring
of Pennsylvania
up:
How advertising
affects self-image.
Philadelphia:
Press.
Skelly, G.U., & Lundstrom,
W.J. (1981). Male
sex roles
in
magazine
advertising,
1959-1979. Journal of Communication 31(4). 52-57.
Soley, L.C. & Kurzbard, G. (1986). Sex in
and
1984
magazine advertisements.
advertising:
A
comparision of
1964
Journal ofAdvertising, 75(3). 46-64.
Solomon, M.R., Ashomore, RD., & Longo, L.C. (1992). The beauty match-up
hypothesis: Congruence between types
Journal ofAdvertising,
21(4),
of
beauty and product images in adverting.
23-37.
Roper Starch Worldwide Poll (1996).
Psychology Today, 29(\ 1). 54.
Men in Advertising
Tebbel, J. & Zuckerman, M.E. (1991) The
magazine
110
in America, 1741-1990. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Zhou, N. (1997). A
magazine advertising:
16(5). 485-496.
content analysis of men and women
Today's portrayal,
yesterday's
in Canadian
consumer
image? Journal of Business Ethics,
Men in
Advertising
111
About the Author
Maryrose J. Mason
completing high
graduated
school
concentrated
in
both schools,
at
and
the
1980 in Niagara Falls, NY. After
Batavia, NY),
-
she attended and
SUNY Brockport
and
B.S. degrees in Business Administration. She
SUNY
Brockport,
and graduated
and minored
was active
in
also
in Interpersonal/Organizational
numerous extra-curricular activities
career,
Rotary Youth Leadership
she received
the GLOW
Award (1999), the Student
Scholarship (1998-
of the
Month Award
(March 2000), the SUNY Chancellor's Award for Student Excellence (2000),
Board
of Trustee's
Brockport,
(2000-2002), the
Alpha
Scholarship (2000)
she received
at
Genesee
Community
Chi, Sigma Beta Delta
At Rochester Institute
and
publishing
the
College. At SUNY
of
and was
inducted into the
Lambda Pi Eta Honor Societies.
Technology, Ms. Mason
Communications department. Under Dr. Diane Hope,
relations,
and
the Presidential Scholar in Residence for Transfer Students
Alumni Association Award (2000-2001),
for the Women 's Studies
(2000-
Summa Cum Laude.
During her undergraduate
2000),
,
Community College (1998-2000)
Marketing Management
Communications
at
born June 21
in 1998 (Notre Dame High
from Genesee
2002), receiving A.S.
was
Quarterly journal.
and gender studies.
was a graduate assistant
in the
she served as an editorial assistant
Her interests include advertising,
public