Yes, women are used to sell products and this is totally unethical. On a TV show in Hong Kong, female artists have to cook in front of the whole Hong Kong audience and are judged by male artists who often degrade them by attacking their cooking skills. People are so happy when they watch this show. This is how the TV channel makes money. We are like crowns! By the way, as you were talking about sorority, I somehow did not appreciate the sorority culture at USC or US colleges in general because of their affiliation with fraternaties. I am not familiar but wonder if it is true.

"I'd like to know what "natural" attraction the dead white woman holds."

You're the one that's so obsessed with dead women - so why don't you tell us. The rest of us don't have such an attraction. Can you come up with some basic survey data that demonstrates that men have this attraction? Not only did Dahlia receive poor reviews and lackluster sales, but it was better received by women than men. Does reality matter to you, or are you more concerned with what feels right?

i was under the impression that the effects of advertising are not well understood and that most people tune out commercials... part of the reason corporations spend so much money on adverising is to find a commercial that will actually be effective. and some are. (read Schudson's Advertising, the Uneasy Persuasion).
in any case, i think you can give yourself credit for being able to recognize propoganda without acting like it's a conspiracy against women. the fact that black dahlia looks sexy might have something to do with the fact that she was an aspiring actress. i dont know why they are making a movie about it, but it is probably targeted towards people like yourself.
if you dont like our consumer culture, you should stop participating. nobody is going to make you go see back dahlia, for instance.

It is worth noting how often dead/mutilated/distressed women appear in advertising and how rarely men in the same conditions do.

Why are dead women so much more appealing?

Funny that by writing about a subject that is upsetting, you get an "obsessed" label. As if one can't notice and comment without being obsessed.

Diana, i like your blog so very much. I was just reading through some of your old entries and found a passage I particularly like...

"If we keep doing the same things, we will get the same results. This feminist says it's time to change the way we do things, even if that means that we are not the #1 team in the country. After all, football is just a game. Women's lives, on the other hand, are real, and we must stop the misogynist culture of male athletics on college campuses that lets men use females as objects to dominate and then toss on the trash heap when they're through asserting in the most cowardly way possible the hypermasculinity encouraged by institutionalized sports."

Personally, I dont like football and I agree with your statements about it. That is why I do not attend games, or even consider watching them. So I was wondering, are you attending games this year to support the misogynistic culture that allows men to treat women like objects?

Diana, did you see the first photo shoot for America's Next Top Model?

Ghastly. I blogged about it and included the photos (sorry--I don't have the exact link here but if you go to my url and scroll down a couple of posts you can't miss it).

Or, the show is on the new CW network, so you can see the pics on their website.

so i only watch the show once in a while because i enjoy fashion and find the catfights amusing. and i dont defend tyra because she's pretty dumb, the whole show is dumb, but i think her point that they need to still look pretty in "ugly shots" was more instructional advice in terms of their modeling careers than because even sick dying girls are supposed to be beautiful. i actually think it was a little commendable that they addressed it at all. the girl holding her puke doesn't really make bulemia beautiful, but models are paid to look good and these werent public service announcements, they were portfolio shots.

The attraction to dead white women is indeed fascinating, and sick.

The best sexy woman is a dead one. Why?

1) she can't say no.
2) she has no thoughts.
3) she makes no demands.
3) she doesn't judge sexual performance.
4) she still looks good.
5) she "loves" everyone.
6) she is not threatening.

8) She can't count!

:)

not all men are scared of a woman who can assert herself. in fact there are many who appreciate such a person.
complaining about the majority of men being a certain way is silly. the majority of all people could use an attitude adjustment, women included. you should admit that you love to hear yourself complain and that is your biggest problem. i will admit that i should not bother reading things that i know in advance will annoy me and lead me to write condescending remarks.

That anonymous person cracks me up!

I think we like dead young women for the same reason we like Romeo and Juliet, Dracula, the Vampire Lestat, glam rock, goth etc.

Death is kind of sexy.

Death is the mother of beauty.

Death makes angels of us all.

Romeo and Juliet didn't live long enough to turn into the boring assholes we know in our hearts they were destined to become. They will always be young, beautiful, pure and tragic. That's why we love them.

Same with John Lennon.

Vampires are sexy because they are young and beautiful--always--and they are usually men, are they not?

I'm guessing the perversion that you see in our culture's "love of dead women" is one that DaPalma is going to expose and examine in his film. He may even condemn the attitude, or, at least, the audience, because he will know, as did the directors of morality plays back in the day, that the audience is really there to revel in the spectacle of sin--not to learn the moral law that makes sin so delicious.

I could be wrong about that. But one thing I'm sure of is that there will be a shower scene in the film and other Hitchcock references. And that Brian DaPalma kind of bugs me, and so does...the lead actor whose name I refuse to remember.

I'll wait until the film is out on dvd to see it. That's another thing I know.

Oh, and also, I know that sometimes the rhetoric of feminism is more oppressive than anything the "patriarchy" can throw my way. I know that some "feminist" writers leave their readers very few places to stand in in relation to the subject of the discussion. The reader must play the role of a co-condemner--taking up the cause of the speaker and adding such profundities as, "Hear! Hear!" and "Amen!" Or the reader can play the role of the condemned, angrily and futiley defending his or her entire gender against attacks on its character. Or, the reader can play the role of victim.

If the reader is not willing or honestly able to assume one of these roles, then he or she is barred from participating fully in a discussion with the writer or the text, and is therefore unlikely to learn anything from the exchange. Those who do play the roles prescribed by the combative, judgemental rhetoric of the text, have even less to learn from it.

I think this thing about death and women and sex in advertising isn't a gender issue. It's a human issue. And it's not an outrage; it's just another interesting and bizarre aspect of human nature and society that is worthy of examination.

TS

right on , TS. amen!

another reason death is sexy... it awaits all of us. hoorah! for how else could we enjoy life?

hear hear woopwoop!
dyb, why no reply? we miss your "discussion".

Toasted Suzy: death is kind of sexy??

You watch too many movies. Go to the morgue and see how sexy real death is. Yeah, the real death that awaits us all, not the fantasy death of Hollywood.

And, it is an outrage, because real women get killed on a daily by men who are trained by corporate interests not to care about the difference between the "sexy image" of a woman and a real one. We are not made of paper/celluloid/or binary code.

Get real Suzy.

Well, yeah, you've got a point there Lisa Too. Death, when you really think about it, kind of sucks. I don't think I need to go to the morgue to know that.

And I do watch a lot of movies, but "Death is the mother of Beauty" is not a line I pulled out of Friday the 13th Part Six. It comes from Wallace Stevens' rather famous poem, "Sunday Morning." And by Romeo and Juliet, I did not mean Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes (although I think they both die beautifully), and when I said "Death makes angels of us all," I was alluding to a Jim Morrison song, not Hollywood.

Vampires aren't even Hollywood's creation--though you might argue that Hollywood helped mold them into what they are today. And you might be pleased to point out that Braham Stoker--like the other artists I have mentioned thus far--was a man.

Anyway, you make a good point. Death = bad. I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I am pro-death or pro-murder.

I'm not sure what I have done to give you the impression that I am out of touch with reality. I am a woman. I know the difference between a real woman and the photo of a woman on screen or in a magazine. I know that women are flesh and blood and have minds and feelings and beliefs. And the women on screen or in literature are the artists' idealized representation of the particular women in question--Lois Lane, Murphy Brown, Elvira, the Virgin Mary, Oprah Winfrey etc.

I do not deny that attitudes in our society are shaped by the images it produces--be it in art or advertising (which is also art)--but I'm not ready to see the relationship as completely one sided.

The relationship between culture and the art it produces is too complex to illicit feelings as simple as outrage from me.

But I do support you in your fight against--murder. I say again, I am anti-death.

And I hereby acknowledge that you are not paper/celluloid/or binary code.

I hope that, in turn, you will acknowledge that I am not a victim of a poster that advertises a stupid Brian DaPalma flick.

I am not a victim of a play by Shakespeare, a poem by Wallace Stevens or a song by Jim Morrison.

I am not a victim of fashion models, yoplait yogurt commercials, beer commercials or pornography.

I am not a victim at all, and I resent the rhetoric that casts me in that role.

So sometimes I act like an asshole when I respond to things like this. Which is unfortunate, because what I ever really want is for people to discuss things rather than arguing about them. To analyze and examine, rather than fight.

So, sorry if I sound like a jerk.

TS

I make a lot of typos, but I just want to point out that my use of "illicit" in the above passage is probably the coolest spelling error I've made all day.

Not the only one, but the coolest.

TS

I make a lot of typos, but I just want to point out that my use of "illicit" in the above passage is probably the coolest spelling error I've made all day.

Not the only one, but the coolest.

TS

No offense taken Suzy, I agree with you that this is not one sided, that we aren't victimized per se, we are free-willed and (sorta) free-thinking people.

But the problem is that art and artists, Madison Avenue and markets consistently use women (dead or alive) to sell their products even when the product is completely unrelated. The relentless objectification in media and art DOES lead to the perception in real people that women are indeed objects (especially when it suits their purposes).

I'm not saying that vampires aren't sexy, or even that death is not a mother --be it of beauty or of meaning (I'd tend towards the latter rather than former, myself). I am saying that the professor has a point that dead white women shouldn't be marketing tools because it indirectly glamorizes real-life dangers to real-life women.

"Art" is not untouchable (poetry, music, visual, whatever). It doesn't stand above or outside ideology. There is such a thing as propaganda (in) art too. Unfortunately, artistic propaganda or propagandistic art has for centuries sided in favor of a male-dominated world in which women are dependent upon men for their survival, literally and figuratively.

How do we know the difference (and protect ourselves) from death as natural human interest and object of inquiry/representation and death as tool to sell meaningless sh*t (movie tickets for instance)?

Thanks for reading what I wrote, Lisa, and for responding intelligently and cooly.

I think the problem I have here is this: I know that attitudes in society are to some extent molded by images and artifacts of culture such as advertising, film, music etc. I know this is a part of the relationship between art and life. So I don't disagree that advertisers' use of slim, half-naked women to sell tires can be seen as unethical.

I just don't think it's useful to point to advertisers or artists as the cause of our societal woes--because, as I said, the relationship between art and reality is too complex--but also because they don't care. They are not going to change, except as society changes.

Saying that advertisers are unethical is like saying rich people are selfish or that the current president is arrogant or wrong. It's obvious. No one's going to argue with you, and nothing's going to change.

So, even if they do deserve some of the blame for the culture's attitudes toward gender, we cannot place any of the responsibility for changing on advertisers or artists. They are just doing what they are meant to do--exploit, expose, examine the culture.

We can't put the responsibility on them because it's pointless to do so. They won't change. More importantly, if we spend time focusing on advertisers or artists as oppressors or women--if we give them the responsibility for changing, then we take that much power away from the women who are supposedly being victimized.

Standing here screaming at the great, heartless wall of capitalism and corporate life "You're sexist! You're oppressing us!" leaves us at a stand still. The wall's not going to move. Nothing's going to change. We'll always be standing here bitching.

Not sure what the point of that whole rant was, nor am I sure I agree with myself, but I'm leaving it anyway.

Oh...here's the point. Reading blogs like Diana's and engaging in discussions like this, I think, is how we will move. The key to combating any type of propaganda is to encourage critical thinking, free thinking, and if we want to do that, we must have open honest discussions. But I think productive discussions are unlikely to happen in an Us vs. Them atmosphere. I think productive discussion MUST include the free exchange of ideas, even retarded ones.

That's why I like the internet. It's full of stupid ideas. :)

Anyway,
TS

Thanks for reading what I wrote, Lisa, and for responding intelligently and cooly.

I think the problem I have here is this: I know that attitudes in society are to some extent molded by images and artifacts of culture such as advertising, film, music etc. I know this is a part of the relationship between art and life. So I don't disagree that advertisers' use of slim, half-naked women to sell tires can be seen as unethical.

I just don't think it's useful to point to advertisers or artists as the cause of our societal woes--because, as I said, the relationship between art and reality is too complex--but also because they don't care. They are not going to change, except as society changes.

Saying that advertisers are unethical is like saying rich people are selfish or that the current president is arrogant or wrong. It's obvious. No one's going to argue with you, and nothing's going to change.

So, even if they do deserve some of the blame for the culture's attitudes toward gender, we cannot place any of the responsibility for changing on advertisers or artists. They are just doing what they are meant to do--exploit, expose, examine the culture.

We can't put the responsibility on them because it's pointless to do so. They won't change. More importantly, if we spend time focusing on advertisers or artists as oppressors or women--if we give them the responsibility for changing, then we take that much power away from the women who are supposedly being victimized.

Standing here screaming at the great, heartless wall of capitalism and corporate life "You're sexist! You're oppressing us!" leaves us at a stand still. The wall's not going to move. Nothing's going to change. We'll always be standing here bitching.

Not sure what the point of that whole rant was, nor am I sure I agree with myself, but I'm leaving it anyway.

Oh...here's the point. Reading blogs like Diana's and engaging in discussions like this, I think, is how we will move. The key to combating any type of propaganda is to encourage critical thinking, free thinking, and if we want to do that, we must have open honest discussions. But I think productive discussions are unlikely to happen in an Us vs. Them atmosphere. I think productive discussion MUST include the free exchange of ideas, even retarded ones.

That's why I like the internet. It's full of stupid ideas. :)

Anyway,
TS

I whole-heartedly agree with you Suzy that the responsibility to change lay not with the corporate interests. They are, and will always be, concerned primarily with profits. Ethics is not their concern, though thankfully there are some companies out there that are trying to do both --make money and do good (or at least do as little harm as possible). I also agree with you that discussion is a good thing. It's part of the process of change; and if we engage in discussion with respect for other viewpoints, well, then we actually have a chance at challenging ourselves and our views, and subsequently also developing them further. That is why I too think the internet is revolutionary, because I can have a discussion with you, without knowing you or having to be anywhere near you. All we need is a good forum, like the one Dr. Diana has provided. And you're right, sometimes stupid ideas are a necessary stop along the way to a good idea.

Now, I will say that I don't think you're taking things far enough though. Ok, the relationship between art and society is complex and the relationship between marketing and social and cultural values is also complex, but that doesn't mean anyone is off the hook. They DO have to change, and they will, if we demand it. How do we do that? As the consumers they see us as.

We refuse to succumb to their manipulations. We don't go and see a movie that either exploits or uses exploitative images to market itself. We tell everyone we know not to go see it and why they shouldn't. We don't buy the products that do the same. We vote with our pocketbooks as the cliche goes. Of course, that means not drinking Coke or any other sugar-based drink that uses child labor to harvest the sugar cane used to make it. I like Coke, but does my like for it compensate for the fact that some child has to work a machete all day long somewhere in El Salvador in order for me to have the pleasure of drinking a coke? I may enjoy a movie like Black Dahlia; but do I want to encourage the vicarious pleasure the image of a dead white woman inspires in some?

And, I think, it is our responsibility to constantly expand our own consciousness of what consititues exploitation and injustice. And yes, sometimes shout it at the wall, if only to get some cathartic relief, so long as that's not all we're doing.

It's interesting that feminists find so much to decry about the portrayal of women in mainstream advertising. These ads are not created by a bunch of redneck good ol' boys down in Alabama or Texas, after all -- they are the work of sophisticated New Yorkers and Los Angelenos who are, by and large, better educated and more liberal in their political views by far than the average American.

When I watch TV, I am struck by the number of advertisements that make white males look like dummies or overgrown boys ruled by testosterone and a love of sports -- there are so many ads where the point is the female character putting one over on the male character. (This is a tradition in sitcoms as well -- the mom keeps everything together in the family despite the clueless dad, who is manipulated and/or dominated by her. Are there any mainstream shows where the wife/mom is portrayed as dumb, fat, horny, etc.?)

Of course, some people thought "Stand By Your Man" was a sexist song that advised women that they had to put up with infidelity, abuse, etc. What it really says is that men are really just overgrown boys (or slightly more evolved dogs) who aren't smart or mature enough to survive on their own, and that women (who are wiser and more unselfish) have to put up with them for the good of the species -- because, "after all, he's just a man."

Bravo! I have done a great deal of work on images of women in the media, including pornography, where death is commonly sexualized. We must all face the fact that the men who use pornography are the same men who work in advertising, television, film, and all aspects of media and life. Little wonder this imagery is pervasive.