"101 Shockingly Sexist Vintage Ads"

[Shangas]

http://thevine.com.au/life/thoughts...FD&utm_medium=rainbow&utm_campaign=sexist-ads

You be the judge.

Personally, I'm struggling to see how even half of these could be considered 'sexist' in any manner at all. Damn you, political correctness. If I'm incorrect, I challenge you to point them out to me. Because I'm not seein' anything here. Or at least, not as much as the title would lead us to believe.

Thought this would make interesting conversation-fuel here on the Lounge. This'll probably spawn into a lengthy discussion about the ups and downs of vintage advertising.

 

[CONELRAD]

I can't find anything sexist about the majority of them, many of them don't even strike me as politically incorrect. Nowadays, if you even imply a difference between men and women, you're called sexist, and god forbid you try to say something flattering toward an individual of the female persuasion. Some of them are a bit sexist, such as the "men are better then women" ad for Drummond sweaters, or the "keep her where she belongs" ad for Weyenberg Massagic shoes. And I fail to understand how the ads advocating giving soda to babies are sexist. Politically incorrect and downright unhealthy, yes, but not sexist.

I am a bit concerned about the fellow in the Budweiser ad, who seems to be trying to fix a radio with a hammer, he looks like he's had a few too many Budwesiers.

And though the ad may be a bit on the sexist side, those Van Heusen neckties sure are fantastic looking.

Either way, I have a hard time seeing any of them as "shockingly" sexist.

 

[Shangas]

That's exactly what I thought. It was just so ridiculous. I thought, I just had to share it all with you guys. You'd find it interesting.

 

[CONELRAD]

Perhaps not directly relevant to the discussion, but I've found that ads from the 1960s and 1970s are more often far less respectful to ladies than ads from the 1940s and 1950s.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Perhaps not directly relevant to the discussion, but I've found that ads from the 1960s and 1970s are more often far less respectful to ladies than ads from the 1940s and 1950s.

That "You've come a long way Baby!" cigarette campaign in the late sixties/early seventies struck me as smarmy and condescending when it was going on, even though I was just a little kid at the time. Empowerment = being just another victim of marketing? I don't think so.

In any case, you can find more degradation in a single modern-day issue of "Cosmo" than you can find in an entire decade's worth of so-called-vintage magazines.

As far as soda for babies goes, I was *prescribed* Coca-Cola by our family doctor when I was a year old -- it was considered an excellent cure for colic. Seven-Up and ginger ale were used for the same purpose. Be that as it may, the "Soda Pop Board" ad is a modern-day fake -- there was no such organization. The actual trade organization for soft drink manufacturers was the "American Bottlers of Carbonated Beverages," who never ran any such ad. In fact, the Coca-Cola Company had a long standing prohibition, dating to the 1910s, on ads showing any child under the age of 12 consuming its product.

 

[Feraud]

Rather than try and get a laugh out of those quaint and sexist ads from the past, that site should take a long look at their own modern ads. Few vintage ads are as "shockingly sexist" and misogynist as modern advertising's treatment of women and children.
Google search American Apparel or Diesel's "Be Stupid" campaigns.

The saddest part are people who laugh at those quaint old ads fail to see how harmful and insidious modern advertising is.

 

[MPicciotto]

The V-D ad was attributed to the 1950's and the caption to another ad stated that it "took me a while to see what was so sexist..." The entire "project" is just rubbish. And LizzieMaine's observation of an entirely fake ad just undermines the legitimacy of the article and the author all the more.

Matt

 

[LizzieMaine]

Few vintage ads are as "shockingly sexist" and misogynist as modern advertising's treatment of women and children.
Google search American Apparel or Diesel's "Be Stupid" campaigns.

I'd never heard of these -- and now I wish I hadn't.

A woman in skin-tight jeans standing on a stepladder flashing her bare breasts into a security camera, accompanied by the caption BE STUPID. Well, I'd say that pretty much trumps anything the Era had to offer in the sexist department.

 

[Fastuni]

"Shocking"? No. In order to "shock" something has to be unexpected.

Sexist? Half of them, if not more, I do not perceive as "sexist" in any sense. Home appliance Ads directed at wives doing housework... goodness I am shocked at the sexism. Not to mention a good number of ads that aren't in any form relating to gender.

But yes, there are ads that I do find tasteless, downgrading and sexist. Mostly among the 50-70's ads.
I don't see the "humor" or "wit" in ads "joking" about violence against women or asserting that their purpose is to "serve (and service)" men.

Hasn't got to do with "old timey" attitudes... there is plenty of tasteless, sexist advertisement today, plus that advertisements nowadays are increasingly crude, unfunny, downright silly and entirely unimaginative.

As so often this "compilation" seems to be another attempt at suggesting it's viewers that we presently live in a so much more enlightened world, by looking down on the "goofy" past. Just shows that crappy advertisement is a timeless plague.

 

[Feraud]

Sorry to have directed you to that trash. Unfortunately no discussion about sexist advertising is complete without pointing out these offensive companies. If you have a strong stomach you can read further about American Apparel. The company has given the idea of Made in America a black eye..

Be Stupid succinctly describes a large portion of the modern mentality.

 

[dhermann1]

I can see how someone would consider most of these sexist. The vast majority assume that the husband works from 9 till 5, and the woman's work is 24/7, and that the thing woman want most for Christmas is another thing to do houseowrk with. But they certainly aren't "shockingly" sexist. Yes, the one with the woman's head as part of the rug is definitely appalling. But that was then.
Anyone recognize good old Richard Deacon of the Dick Van Dyck show in ad # 10 (and 94, same ad, good editing, there folks).

 

[Stanley Doble]

It's not sexist if it's demeaning to men. Try and find a modern ad that isn't.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I can see how someone would consider most of these sexist. The vast majority assume that the husband works from 9 till 5, and the woman's work is 24/7, and that the thing woman want most for Christmas is another thing to do houseowrk with. But they certainly aren't "shockingly" sexist. Yes, the one with the woman's head as part of the rug is definitely appalling. But that was then.
Anyone recognize good old Richard Deacon of the Dick Van Dyck show in ad # 10 (and 94, same ad, good editing, there folks).

The sixties and early seventies were probably the most genuinely and baldly misogynist period of advertising -- "I'm Doris -- Fly Me!" and such things as that. The Sexual Revolution brought out the worst in the Boys From Marketing -- they may have learned to finesse things a bit in the years since, but the undercurrent of objectification is as bad now as it was then.

A working-class housewife doing her daily chores with a broom and a carpet sweeper would not have rejected a vacuum cleaner for Christmas, no matter how oafish the advertising presentation. A middle-class housewife, on the other hand, might have really preferred to have a working-class maid she could boss around.

 

[LizzieMaine]

It's not sexist if it's demeaning to men. Try and find a modern ad that isn't.

The "Dopey Dad" image goes back to Dagwood Bumstead and Chester A. Riley -- but it's become far more prevalent in advertising since the '80s. There's a school of thought in advertising that the buyer of a product will be more motivated to purchase an item if that purchase makes them feel superior to someone else -- and since women still control the budget and make the majority of household purchases, demeaning the husband/boyfriend/manchild makes a convenient source for pseudo-empowerment.

Of course, it doesn't hurt that too many men today *are* debased manchildren who don't need ads to cut them down. They do a good enough job of that themselves.

 

[Shangas]

I can certainly understand how some of these ads could be considered crass, rude, sexist etc., but the vast majority just seem dated. Some even made me laugh, if I'm honest.

Some of those ads are justified, some aren't.

For example, take the one from Underwood Typewriters, which is advertising that its latest desktop model won't damage secretaries' fingernails, allowing them to keep them beautiful and painted all day through.

How exactly is that sexist? During that time, the vast majority of secretaries (and to a larger extent, typists in general), were women. It was a fact of life. In the 1910s and 20s, up to 80% of typewriter operators were women. Why NOT target an ad towards women? They use them, don't they??

How is that sexist?

The soft-drink ads with the babies were funny, but hardly sexist. What's sexist about a lady feeding her baby a bottle of 7-up? Irresponsible, perhaps, but hardly sexist.

The ads from the clothing companies, like Van Heusen, etc., might be a bit more treading the tightrope, and some of the ones from the 60s and 70s, as Lizzie said, were much more risque and daring, but the vast majority of the ads in there, were not.

Some of the ads targeted "traditional gender roles", with women doing housework and cooking and cleaning. That was how it was in those days. Not for all women, of course, but that was the perception held, and advertising ran with it.

Then were was the ad which said: "WIVES - Circle the items below which you would like your husband to buy. Then cry. Not a lot, just a little. But cry, so that your husband will buy them for you".

And then underneath, it said: "HUSBANDS - Buy the items your wife has circled before she starts to cry".

If I'm honest, that made me laugh. Probably because I could actually see it happening. It's a JOKE, obviously. But apparently in the sue-happy world of the 21st century, we've forgotten what a 'joke' is.

 

[LizzieMaine]

That's the thing. If moderns think people in the Era looked at these ads and didn't know bunk when they saw it, they obviously never heard of "Ballyhoo" magazine.

As for gender roles in advertising, pick up a current copy of Good Housekeeping or Better Homes and Gardens, or Real Simple, or any similar publication, and you'll see that the vast, overwhelming majority of household cleaning product ads today are *still* targeted at women. And the overwhelming majority of beer, power tool, and car ads in male-oriented publications are targeted at men. Go figure.

 

[The Wiser Hatter]

Here is a 20's ideal woman. Ad for the movie The American Venus.

 

[MisterCairo]

Ad number 5 is an odd choice - I guess the critics felt it suggests only women could have given away secrets to the enemy during war. In any event, she looks like a woman I dated once so I like it.


Want to see a sexist modern ad? Check this out, a controversy that made big headlines in Canada a year or so ago. The irony - the salon is owned by women, and they defended the ad to the end:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/08/30/edmonton-fluid-ad-abuse.html

 

[Shangas]

How scandalous!

Seriously though. It's proof, if ever was needed, of the old saying: "The more things change, the more they stay the same".

But you are right. Nothing HAS changed. Cleaning products are still marketed at women. Tools etc., are still marketed at men. Can you imagine a butch, lumberjack guy with his red checked shirt half open and his jeans held up with braces, holding up a bottle of Morning Fresh or something else?

"Nothing but Morning Fresh dishwashing-soap cleans my dishes the way I like 'em. Sparklin' clean and ready to gleam!"

That'd never fly.

That's precisely why these things have stayed the way they have. Because they WORK.

 

[CONELRAD]

For example, take the one from Underwood Typewriters, which is advertising that its latest desktop model won't damage secretaries' fingernails, allowing them to keep them beautiful and painted all day through.

How exactly is that sexist? During that time, the vast majority of secretaries (and to a larger extent, typists in general), were women. It was a fact of life. In the 1910s and 20s, up to 80% of typewriter operators were women. Why NOT target an ad towards women? They use them, don't they??

How dare they single out women, and imply that they need special treatment. Obviously, the polite and proper thing to do would be to design them specifically to damage secretaries' fingernails, so they don't start feeling special.


I think that some people automatically assume that any and all material from the 1940s or 1950s is discriminative toward women, children, ethnic minorities, animals, insects, trees, plants, school buses, etc. Many of the same people probably also think that anything from after the 1960s is not sexist because of "women's liberation putting an end to sexism".

Want to see a sexist modern ad? Check this out, a controversy that made big headlines in Canada a year or so ago. The irony - the salon is owned by women, and they defended the ad to the end:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/08/30/edmonton-fluid-ad-abuse.html

That's a "well-coiffed woman"? I thought she looked like she'd been struck by lightning!