Shadow Minister

You've missed the point I'm trying to make on advertising. I'm not wanting 'puritannical' control. All I'm asking is that advertisers be prevented from targeting young girls with sexualised imagery that is far too old for them and that the images they portray of women are more closely based on realism, nothing puritannical about that. Examinator's post to you has captured my thoughts on advertising perfectly.

I forgot to re-send the following after posting limits had beaten me first time round. :)

<< My experience is that the worst case scenarios experienced by the author are not the norm, and whilst I worry about my daughter, I far prefer the world as it is for her now than as it was decades ago. >>

I guess every father has the right to opine on the kind of world he'd like for his daughter. But when it comes right down to the issue at hand, no matter how close he is to her and how much he loves her, it will never be him that lives through life's most impressionable years with the pressure to conform to a narrowly imposed and largely unattainable stereotype. We need mesages out there, and plenty of them, to let girls know they don't have to look like size six air-brushed models to lead a fulfilling life. We need them to know it's okay to enjoy being young girls without feeling pressured into wearing makeup, heels and bra-tops before they're ready and without being groomed to think their sole role in life is to please men.

Perhaps when your daughters are a little older, a frank discussion with them on these issues might reveal insights that neither you nor they might be fully aware of at this point in time. Many women live lesser lives because they don't feel they measure up to the right look. I know men are increasingly being fed the same line, but it's undoubtedly women who bear the brunt of this pressure, and unless you've lived through it yourself you don't truly appreciate the damage it does.

Examinator,

"It's based unprovable assertions that to control the excesses of Advertising we need to adopt the moral mores of the fifties"

I never claimed that at all. All I was saying is that the advertising in the 50s was based on the social and technological background, and the advertising today is the result of the background today. The social and technical background is unlikely to be influenced by middle aged moral conservatives, and more by youtube, viral videos, and youth culture.

Even supposing you could impose advertising rules on implied content in Aus, it will influence about 20% of what youngsters see and 0% of the social norms.

Next:

"Around the 50's Ads/marketing stopped informing the public in favour of manipulating them to consume by selling the sizzle not the steak. e.g. emotions rather than substance."

Marketing 101:

It was in the late 50s that marketers began to realise that the majority of purchasing decisions were based on emotion, and how the purchase made you feel. What really is the difference between coke and pepsi? Why would you spend $10 000 to put a lump of carbon on your finger?

Its no secret that women dress up more to impress their girl friends than the boys, and that size 0 models appear in fashion mags and not mens mags.

My wife and I learnt very quickly that our daughter even from the age of 7 knew very well what her peers were wearing, and was absolutely not prepared to compromise. From that age we knew that clothes bought without her consent would never be worn.

Advertisers spend a lot of time following trends set by the youth culture, and I think that what many people confuse cause and effect, and advertisers that ignore the trends and follow the "responsible" approach (as determined by the older generation) will soon go out of business.

I shudder to think of the convoluted legislation required to regulate implied content. This thought policing is not possible or even welcome.

"Many women live lesser lives because they don't feel they measure up to the right look."

Many people of either gender don't measure up to the ideal. Men are told to accept what we have and get on with life. Women are told that they absolutely positively must think of themself as beautiful (no matter how unrealistic this may be). Most of them are being set up to fail.

Hey Bronwyn,

How do you feel about the spider man and batman costumes with massive fake bulging muscles on the upper torso? How do you feel about a 3 year old wanting to wear mummy's high heal shoes and wear mummy's make-up? Did she get that from advertising? I think not.

Also, do you think if advertisers started to sell mittens and hair nets and no celebrity or mother or anyone else was wearing them they'd suddenly become fashionable for young girls?

I had a chat with a (young, female, slender) psychologist yesterday about the conspicuously over-sexualised attire of female university students, pointing out that they have equality of career opportunity, and the majority of the Britney lookalikes are in sexual relationships with boyfriends, so why the "look-at-me" attire. She opined that despite their having reached the age of active sexual involvement with young men, much of the over-sexualised posturing was still aimed at other girls, rather than the men. In other words, a lot of it is competitive social ascendancy among female peers.

In most higher primates, males are socially dominant over females, and in association with that, individual males are also competitive with each other, particularly in the sexual arena. Human males, while still dominant relative to females in traditional societies, are less absolutely so than in most other higher primate species, and there is a greater degree of cooperativeness among adult males. We are all well aware that in recent decades there have been dramatic changes in power relations between the sexes with the rise of feminism, so that human males are now even less dominant relative to females than they used to be - and you see scant evidence of competitiveness among today's subdued males around the age of 20.

The other side of the coin is that females have shifted upwards on the passive-to-dominant scale - and that might be the cue for decreased cooperativity and increased competitiveness amongst themselves. It could be that those that moan about the influence of advertisers are barking up the wrong tree; girls, in their current state of empowerment, will use all and any means at their disposal to compete against their peers; I'm suggesting it is an unavoidable corollary of that empowerment.

Rubberneck-Girls in their current state of empowerment will use all and any means at their disposal to compete against their peers.

You are right in your assesment that beauty and sexuality have great power for women and not just in todays society but throughout history. In todays society though where women are allowed to flaunt it more and advertise it in movies and magazines it has even more power for them to earn money and put them at the head of the societal pack.

Magazines hold out the promise to young girls and women that we can show you how to look like this and gain all the accolades and success that having these looks bestow on you.

A woman in a restuarant may be successful in business or professionally but when a beautiful woman with a lot of sex appeal walks into that restuarant, She is the one that is weilding the power in that room, the women are all casting envious glances at her and the men are aware of her with every fibre in their being although pretending not to be for the sake of their wives and girlfriends.

Society sends this message loud and clear to women. If you are beautiful and sexy you can be paid millions to model clothes and appear on the cover of magazines or in the movies.

In every day life you can get the job ahead of the other plainer applicants even if they have the same education and skills.

Beautiful women often married Kings and when the king died they sometimes ruled countries. They acheived great wealth and power solely by looking sexy and desirable.

Notice how Princess Diana was absolutely idolised because she was beautiful whereas the plainer princesses were treated as defective. Dianna was always forgiven because she was the beautiful princess.

We all collectively as a society are responsible for this idolisation of the beautiful, it is something we cannot easily change because we are sexually programmed to be attracted to genetic perfection.