The Sexism of Super Bowl Ads

2/6/2012

Tags: consumption/consumerism, discourse/language, gender, inequality, knowledge, marketing/brands, media, social construction, feminism, glass ceiling, glass escalator, media literacy, representation, role specialization, sexism, stereotypes, 00 to 05 mins
Year: 2012
Length: 0:31
Access: YouTube

Summary: We all work in an economy marked by occupational sex segregation. That is, men and women typically work in different occupations. American Men, for instance, are overrepresented as auto mechanics and airline pilots, while American women are overrepresented as preschool teachers and nurses. But why is occupational sex segregation a problem? When I bring this issue up in class, my students often counter rather quickly that segregation is merely the result of a gendered role specialization and doesn't inherently denote inequality. However, the fact is that men segregate into higher paid professions than women. Also, while women often report experiencing a glass ceiling, which refers to an invisible barrier to promotion, men who take positions in fields dominated by women report just the opposite. They face a glass escalator, or pressure to move up in their chosen professions (Williams 1992). In short, occupational sex segregation is a bad deal for women. It is less about role specialization and more about men retaining power and resources for the benefit of men. But why is occupational sex segregation so recalcitrant? Check out the commercial above from Best Buy, which aired during Super Bowl 46, and note the natural affinity it depicts between men (read, male logic) and technological innovation. In rapid succession, the viewer encounters distinguished, white men holding their high tech inventions. "I created text messaging," says SMS innovator, Neil Papworth. Only at the end of the thirty-second spot do women appear, and they are Best Buy's relatively low status sales representatives. Elsewhere on this site (here), I have argued that the symbolic domain of high tech is almost the exclusive provenance of men, and while men are overrepresented in ads that pitch items like smart phones and iPads, women are overrepresented in ads that pitch “domestic” technologies, or those that pertain to, say, cooking and other household chores (see here, here, and here). Insofar as the Best Buy ad succeeds, the approximately 100 million people who tune into the Super Bowl, will be persuaded that Best Buy is good place to buy a smart phone, but they are also left with an impression of the world they inhabit. "Why does occupational sex segregation persist?" my students ask. An important part of the answer is that advertisements reinforce the fiction of immutable differences between men and women, and by extension, they suggest that men and women naturally gravitate toward different occupations. The Best Buy commercial can be a useful reminder that advertising is a medium that excels at constructing the reality it claims to merely reflect. What is "natural" is itself a social construction.

Submitted By: Lester Andrist

5 Comments

Ugock link

3/31/2013 01:11:36 pm

Then perhaps there needs to be more women in the field of cell-phones. This video isn't segregating anything.
How many women are there that have been in a major role in cell phones used currently? Altschul and her disposable phone? Only a handful of people use disposables. Any more? Not really, to be honest.

So, instead of trying to point the finger at this advertisement for sexism, you need to understand something:
These men are innovators. If a woman had made these things instead of men, they would be thrown out there just as the men are. This is technology, after all. Most people don't even care who made it as long as it works. I've honestly never heard of these people, though I do tend to use their services on occasion. I, nor many MANY people, would care either way.

It's not like men are running around going "Oh, a WOMAN made this! This just HAS to be crap!"
It just doesn't happen.

Also, would you honestly rather not see ANY women in this advert than see one in the "low status" situation? Wouldn't no women at all in a commercial be chief in sexism?

Note that I do see this sort of thing happen in actual life, but this commercial here is a very bad example of the message you are trying to portray.

Namaste
Ugock

Joan

4/1/2013 03:31:26 am

You're missing the point here. The writer is saying that the lack of women in commercials like these reenforces a negative gender role for women which creates a feedback loop that in turn keeps women iut of jobs like these. I'm sure there are plenty of female technological innovators if The writers of the commercial had chosen to dig a little deeper or shift the design of their commercial slightly. The point is, they aren'tgiving women the opportunity to see themselves in the role of innovators and this is only one example of millions.

Ugock link

4/1/2013 12:24:44 pm

I understand the point.
I was just stating that this commercial isn't a very good example of the point being put across.

Also, I know of many women who have led technological advances. However, this commercial here is for cellular phones, and there, quite frankly, aren't many past the one I mentioned earlier.

So instead of looking at commercials, one needs to look at why women aren't in the forefront of advances in popular culture.

One reason is that there just aren't as many as men.
Historically, women weren't school-based at all in society. Once gender equality began in America, the ball began to roll for women. However, things can't go up to full-speed instantly. It takes time to accelerate things.

Now, if you were to look at things like what women did back in the day, like cooking and cleaning, you will find that women still vastly outnumber men in classes in cooking and home economics while men are the majority in classes for things like welding and tech, though things are slowly evening out.

I could go into details into how history works and how true female equality won't exist for a long time, but it would take too much time to explain and would be a better discussion in a Google hangout...

Think of it this way: When you make dough flat with a rolling pin, you have to do it slowly and evenly so you get the thickness you want and to prevent you from rerolling it by cause of rushing it.
Same concept with equality.

Otherwise, if things are rushed violently, you tend to do more damage than for what it's worth.

Namaste
Ugock

Sarah

9/9/2013 02:23:28 am

My research methods professor (Kyle Green - University of Minnesota) showed super bowl commercials in class and had us read an article that he wrote about them. We didn't see this one but it goes along with what you are saying.

Website link

1/16/2023 12:19:34 am

It's more difficult than merely involving the marketing team, and it definitely need approval from less creative parties in addition to the marketing team. Both the sponsors and the media outlet that runs the advertising agree with this.

I also heard that certain marijuana-related businesses were declined. (I'm not sure, though.) Perhaps because the NFL finds it difficult to predict how the public would react—will it be regarded as a beer commercial? Or is the product still seen negatively by kids and teenagers?

Although I'm not taking a position as a football fan, I did enjoy the NFL's increased social duty. With that said, I didn't miss the political discussions this year and I liked how players were evaluated on their performance on the field rather than their views on politics. (I regret that Kapernick was used as a scapegoat because I think he should have been a quarterback this season, or at the very least a backup. He seems to be "blacklisted" there, though I don't know the full circumstances.

@thesocycinema / videos

The Sexism of Super Bowl Ads

Leave a Reply.

Tags

.

Got any videos?