Stereotyping is a problem with many badly crafted ads, particularly of women, often written by young men who, as the author of the article points out, project their own emotions onto the women they are portraying rather than trying to understand them. But when you've got 30 seconds, or a single page and image to communicate something to an information drenched audience who are not interested in receiving your message anyway, it is awfully hard to portray a fully rounded, human personality that doesn't rely slightly on the shorthand of stereotyping. That some ads manage to do this is a tribute to the skill of their creators.
I agree about advertising to kids, we need to be very sensitive here BUT, advertising is the most honest of the dishonest professions, when you see an ad you know we are trying to sell you something. Because of that, ads are a good way to help kids understand persuasion and selling, protecting them completely from ads is probably impossible anyway, they are part of our world, like it or not.
And after so long in the business, I am far less impressed with the sophisticated psychological techniques marketers claim to use. Like most human endeavour, successful marketing is as much good luck as good management. 80% of new products fail, despite big budget ad campaigns behind them, and us professionals don't know why some work and some don't. And thank goodness for that, I say.

Um... I don't think that Laura Mulvey argues what you say she does. Mulvey's quotation from Boetticher is not cited in the context of woman as a blank screen, but in the context of the integration of moments of erotic contemplation into narrative. More broadly, Mulvey's arguments (and her own films) are much more complex than can be captured by saying that their point is that "pleasure in looking ... had to be destroyed".

I am not sure what is meant by "critiques that are either idealist or vulgarly oppositional", but critique would seem to have a clear advantage over acquiescence in an idiot culture. Simply because men are presented as dills in some advertisements doesn't mean that ads vilifying women (or "chicks" as the saying goes) are thereby rendered amusing.

Enaj

"...advertising is the most honest of the dishonest professions, when you see an ad you know we are trying to sell you something. Because of that, ads are a good way to help kids understand persuasion and selling, protecting them completely from ads is probably impossible anyway, they are part of our world, like it or not."

I'd like to think that too, Enaj. But for most kids, ads are just a good way of selling things - nothing more. Most kids are not taught how to analyse them, more's the pity. Even saying that ads are a good way to help adults understand persuasion and selling wouldn't be right, either. Research frequently establishes that until around 8-10 years and sometimes 12 years, kids have trouble distinguishing ads from programs. If they can't recognise an ad, how can it help them understand persuasion and selling? The ad industry knows all this, and they exploit kids to their advantage.

As an ex-copywriter, I make it my job to very clearly explain to my kids how advertisers manipulate them into wanting something. They're now so good at it that my 3-year old will ask me, "What are they trying to sell there, mum?" Or say, "That's just an ad. They want me to buy something." Once our kids were taught to deconstruct commercial material, they were really quick to catch on. It becomes a game at the supermarket, and they don't ask for anything because they know they're being sold to.

You're right that we can't protect our kids from ads. But we can educate them, and give them greater self-esteem to protect them from the exploitative tactics of the ad industry.

Oh another article about the horrors of sexism, the demonizing of consumerism and damning of advertising. Nothing about the benefits of competition, mass production engineering and development of product standards.

Next we will have the crucifixion of packaging and calls for the good old days with all weekend closing of retail stores to so the employees can all go to church on Sunday, under the ever watchful eye of a paternalistic store owner.

When I see articles like these I feel it is quixotic, people simply tilting at windmills because, their lives are so bereft of substance and real issues, they have nothing else to tilt at – or maybe (worse) the author is paid on the output of the word counter and not the word content!

Who cares – it does not matter – just another opportunity for a hack to “market”, "advertise" and "promote" their word-smithing skills – Lets face it, the article claims “consumerism is all pervasive” – I can only surmise, it stands as an example that "consumerism" has pervaded the sanctified columns of journalism.