Analysis Of Gender Bias In 1950s Advertisements

Participles The 1950s advert could show a form of gender bias in the main headline 'shsh... we're giving mummy a Kenwood chef!' The dynamic present participle 'giving' implies that the mixer will be bought for the wife, possibly because she can't afford it, which does link in with the time period of the advert due to the stereotype of the male being the breadwinner and the female being the housewife. This use of present participle 'giving' also makes her appear passive as she is just the recipient, and almost objectifies her because it implies her main job is to cook, which was the case at that time, which is backed up by the use of the indirect object 'mummy' as she is only being indirectly addressed. In the 1990s poster, a similar assumption of gender bias could be made, as it uses the dynamic past participle 'gave' in the headline 'He gave me a food processor' which infers the husband or boyfriend has given it to her. This still links to the old stereotype that the wife is a housewife, and that men still believe in the gender stereotypes. This advert, however, is mocking old adverts, as the woman is saying 'He's lucky I didn't use it on him' which suggests a change in attitudes, as it shows she does not agree with men buying women kitchen accessories because it is not just their job. The 2000 advert also reveals a change in attitudes to women as it uses the abstract verb 'wants' referring to what 'she wants' and not taking into account males and what they could give women. This could show that women have an opinion, and can make a decision on how their needs should be met, and this coincides with the many acts passed around 1980 to 1990 such as the 'Equal Pay Amendment Act' and the 'Sex Discrimination Amendment Act'.

Spoken Voice In the 1950s advert, it is unclear who the spoken voice is, as the graphology looks as if the wife is saying 'shsh' however this is misleading because it is not expected that she would be saying this headline as she would be referring to herself in third person. It could be assumed that the husband is saying 'we're giving mummy a Kenwood chef' because he would be the one with the money to afford it as opposed to the child, and he is saying to the child that it is on behalf of both of them. If it is assumed that the husband is saying he is going to buy it, this again links with how little money and power women had as they were not expected to get one for themselves and would not have been able to afford one. If it's compared with the 1990s poster, the spoken voice is the woman, and this may relate to the change in stereotypes of roles, as this could be perceived to be the woman now having more power and being able to speak up.

Terms of address The term of address is another questionable aspect of these adverts. The 1950s poster has 'mummy' as the address for the woman, but 'husband' for the man. This is interesting as the corresponding term 'wife' was not used with 'husband', and the fact that they are not could reflect the attitudes of that time, to women being less powerful. 'Mummy' relates to looking after the house and children, yet 'husband' relates to looking after wives and earning money, and the role of a husband was deemed superior to the role of a 'mummy'. It could be said that the terms of address that have been used are the ones used by their inferiors, which highlights the view that women were inferior. Also, the diminutive suffix at the end of 'mum' to make 'mummy' is mainly used by small children, and almost degrades women to being less powerful, because it is more childlike and feeble. All of this relates to why 'mummy' was used because this links with the role that the food mixer fits in with; cooking for her husband and children. The main headline of the 1960s poster also has an interesting term of address. 'That's what wives are for' uses 'wives' which is a corresponding term for 'husband' unlike the 1950s poster. However, in this poster there is no child, so would not make sense if 'mummy' was used, so this term may not show equality of women as it first suggested. The use of 'wives' as a plural almost objectifies women because it generalises the one woman in the photo to the whole population, and assumes that every woman should be cooking, even if it may be using a little irony. The headline 'That's what wives are for' implies that they are not good for anything else, due to the context of it talking purely about cooking. This finding is backed up by J.D Brown and K. Campbell's research (1986)1 which found men were rarely shown doing housework in the media, and questions whether the writing in adverts was also upholding the prejudice. The 'Married Women's Act' passed in 1964, (which allowed women to keep half of savings they had made from their husband's allowance) has not had an impact like first presumed, as the advert is still aimed at the male. However, as the specific date was not stated, it's not clear whether the Act had been passed when this was produced. The first line of the 1980s poster, 'My Iona food processor', uses the first person singular pronoun 'I' and the possessive determiner 'My' instead of the woman being referred to by a man. This could represent the change in attitudes to women, as this is the first advert in the data sample where it is implied that the woman is buying it for herself, and she does not have to get a man to buy it for her; it is, however, still implying that the woman will be using it. The 'Equal Pay Act' was passed in 1970, and this new sense of identity and power in the advert may be linked in with social attitude changes. The 1990s poster again has an interesting use of term of address, but this one uses the objective pronoun 'him' in the quote 'He's lucky I didn't use it on him.' The graphology doesn't include a man, but based on the pragmatics the audience will know who is being implied by the pronoun 'him'; the woman's husband or boyfriend, and in this advert it is almost mocking the male, and making them seem a bigot. The fact that the pronoun 'him' would be understood by most females as an inadequate man, due to the context, does show a change in attitudes to gender as opposed to the older adverts, as it almost unites the women together because by then it was seen as wrong to hold the traditional stereotypes. This may have been used as a selling point because by the 1990s, stereotypes had changed, and this headline would maybe make women laugh, which is a main selling point used in advertising. Ironically, even though this advert shows a change to attitudes, the target audience is still women, as on the right hand side of the advert it says 'maybe it wasn't such a bad idea after all,' implying that women would still be pleased if their boyfriend or husband had bought it for them. The poster from 2000 also has a spoken voice, but this time unlike the other texts, it is not a person in the advert. The third person pronoun 'she' is used, again referring to a woman using the food mixer. However, this advert is referring to what 'she wants' and not what a male thinks is best, so could be showing women's increasing power as they could make more decisions. However, the pronoun 'she' even though symmetrical to the male form 'he' which has been used in the adverts, has been associated with negative connotations, such as when women may have been referred to as 'she' instead of their name, and were treated as objects. The pronoun 'he' could be used in the same way to objectify, yet it applies more to women as they were the inferior subgroup in society. So even though this use of the pronoun 'she' may show that women have gained power and were able to fulfil their needs, it does still have negative connotations, and does not hide the fact that all the adverts address women as their target audience to use the mixer.

Product descri ption Another interesting feature is the use of complements referring to the food mixer. The 1980s advert starts with the line 'My Iona food processor is like my conversation - a continuous flow.' This links to a typical stereotype of women talking a lot, and being almost irritating due to not being able to stop. The mixer is also described with an alliterated triad - a widely used advertising technique, 'big hearted, beautiful and built to last.' 'Beautiful' used to describe the mixer is also usually associated with women, and is connected with being feminine and pretty. 'Big hearted' also relates to women, as it means being giving and loving which are traits usually associated with them. This was an interesting use of descri ption, as even though on the surface it is relating to the mixer, the modifiers have the underlying meaning of describing women, reinforcing the stereotype that women should use them. This advertising technique of describing lots of typically female traits has revealed the underlying presumptions about women's likes, as it is quite clearly addressed to them. The descri ption in the advert from 2000 'Looks great and works hard,' is also interesting, as this could also be said to have a subtle link with women's traits. The verb 'looks' is usually associated with women as they are stereotypically more materialistic and care more about their appearance. Using appearance as a main selling technique immediately implies it is for women, even though this trait is sometimes described negatively, and they have used quite a shallow way to sell the product. The fact that these potentially patronising techniques are used to sell products to women could really support the idea that language affects our thoughts, because it could be suggested that the language available has prolonged our stereotypes. The fact that the phrases 'looks great' and 'works hard' have female connotations could question whether the connotations have prolonged this prejudice of associating women with looks and cooking, even if people do not realise anymore. This advert says 'She wants style and efficiency', and this could also be seen to have an underlying meaning relating to women's expected traits. The use of the abstract noun 'style' again links women with just caring about their appearance and being fashion conscious. It could be argued that food mixers cannot be 'stylish' so questions why this noun was used, however this alone may reveal there is an engrained presumption that 'style' is what women want, and question whether attitudes have even changed. 'Efficiency' also links to the traditional roles of women working hard as a housewife, and the fact they needed to be good at it as that was their main purpose. It also links with another thought that women like to have order and want things done in a certain way, which sometimes is described with the dysphemism 'controlling.' Modern jokes play on efficient women and how they are much more efficient than men in the kitchen, such as males not knowing how to work the iron, and this noun 'efficiency' may highlight how much the traditional roles are still there. It seems that in these two adverts, the descri ption of the food mixer actually relates back to expected women's behaviour and their needs, and may be revealing old prejudices that women are only good at being housewives. In the 1980s poster it seems to just highlight that women would be the main ones using the food mixer, whilst the 2000 poster seems to suggest a traditional presumption about women and still assumes they would be the ones using it.