It’s Friday and I’m feeling a little feisty, so I thought I would kick off a visual analysis / media critique series. As an academic, a lot of what I do is boring, long, and involves words like concatenation. Way too much work for a Friday.
Instead, I thought I would offer a pithy (the academic term for “smart-a$$ed”) critique of an image that caught my fancy. To keep it short and to the point, I decided I would keep it to 250 words or less. After all, we all need challenges. Or rules. And as a professor with a decade of life inside the academy, there are few things I like more than a challenge with rules (otherwise known as tenure).
Killer critique in 250 words or less:
Today’s text – Netflix’s ad for Glow (a TV series about female wrestlers, which rides the line between camp and stereotypes gone wild).
2 sexy white chicks in front. Obvs intended focus. Sexxxy outfits. Sexxxy hair shows they don’t really get in on the fighting action. Body language is utterly unconvincing – stance lacks tension and form, meaning that they can pose, but not fight. They’re hawt tho. And maybe there will be hair pulling? That’s also hawt.
White old dude behind the star duo is the brains/muscle/coach. He’s wearing a polo shirt, and has crossed arms. Glaring at the viewer to establish dominance and authority. Nothing better than an old white dude telling to hot chicks how to duke it out. Charlie’s Angels FTW. Bonus for porn-style ‘stache and bossy creeper vibe.
African-American woman in back left looks fierce. But let’s not feature her, because she’s black and not skinny. African-American woman in back right is even fiercer. She has legit fight skills. And dreds. Nice crotch shot, btw. Anyone else notice the white ladies upfront get to have polite sexuality? As opposed to the wild African-American woman.
Built white woman in back right looks like she has some legit skillz in the ring. She has her fists up in a decent approximation of a fight stance, and she has a fierce face (opposed to a sexxxy-fierce face). She also has her hair in braids to keep it out of her eyes when fighting, so clearly a practical choice. But let’s keep her in the back because she doesn’t conform to Hollywood norms about beautiful bodies.
Detroit is a city marked by the moldering carcass of the industrial American dream. Once the site of monuments to the power of production, Detroit is now famous for the decay of historic buildings. The ruins of Detroit, captured by photographers, frame the carcass of the American dream in striking photographs. That so much of such grandeur could be allowed to crumble and decay seems almost unthinkable. It seems somehow obscene. It is not surprising, then, that images documenting this collapse have come together to form a genre of photography popularly referred to as “ruin porn.”
A couple of weeks ago a promotional email advertising GAP professional wear for women crossed my path. The ad brought to mind fake reviews for an infamous PhD Costume on Amazon. In my favorite ‘review’ for the sexxxy PhD costume the author writes: “Like all lady Ph.Ds, I frequently ask myself: ‘How could I be sexier?’ … I can now lecture in my 5 inch gold spiked heels and ‘barely there’ regalia while giving nary a thought to the male gaze and its implications on the prevalence of rape culture in our society.” In closing, the ‘reviewer’ asserts: “I’m sexy! Forget about the 7 years I spent sweating out a dissertation and engaging in innovative research!”
As a way of selling one of their latest blazers, the emailed GAP ad presented a biracial woman identified as a tenure-track professor. The ad copy said: “Get respect for your ideas and blazer choices.” Visual analysis of the ad illustrates how the typography and graphic design of the ad reinforce the sexist content of the ad’s slogan.
The copy’s typography strongly underlines that what really matters to female professional success is the outfit, not the ideas. The word “blazers” follows “ideas” in the copy, but the bolded text gives it dominance. Italicizing the “and” makes clear that women are expected to garner respect by their clothing choices.
A pair of glasses rests above the ad copy. The glasses are presumably meant to signify intelligence. But given that the glasses aren’t actually worn by the woman in the ad, their presence doesn’t suggest cleverness. It suggests in order to be considered appealing, women shouldn’t wear glasses. After all, isn’t being pretty better than being smart?
The model’s posture conforms to standard portrayals of women. Women are rarely shown in strong or authoritative stances (for example, face on), but typically in angled off-balance positions. In the top right image, the model is shown in full profile. Balanced on her back leg, the model’s hip is cocked out behind her as she runs her hand through her hair. The model smiles at the floor in shy pleasure. This is not a woman standing at the front of a classroom, communicating ideas with authority. Neither is this a woman who just finished presenting cutting-edge science at a conference, nor a woman who just presented a plan for curricular revision to her Dean. This is a woman having an “aw-shucks” moment because she’s so pleased you like her blazer.
As a tenured professor, it’s not surprising this ad campaign hit me close to home. GAP is hardly alone in their portrayal, however. Sexist advertising has a long and storied history.
But for me, what’s especially depressing about GAP’s ad, is that it’s rather true. Ideas and intelligence are less valued in female professors. For example, women are expected to do more campus service. This service is typically devalued, which means women’s academic careers advance less rapidly and less successfully. In a state of affairs I’m sure surprises no-one, female professors are significantly underrepresented in the upper ranks (full professor), and make less than male colleagues.
Discrimination isn’t restricted to pay and promotion. It also shows up in the classroom. Student teaching evaluations consistently reflect sexist stereotypes. As a feisty professor with bold glasses and strong expectations, early in my career I faced pushback from students. Pushback not experienced by male colleagues with similar policies. The problem? I was too intimidating. When I switched to wearing pink dresses (thank god for H&M’s pink and orange streak a few years ago), students found me more relatable, because my image more successfully sold “girl.” As we all know, “girl” and “intimidating” are mutually incompatible. Signalling gender-specific approachability translated to stronger evaluations and a more positive classroom experience.
I often relate this example in class discussions of culture and representation and power. It serves as a good teaching moment, and we can laugh at the silliness of pink dresses at the same time as we consider the effects of cultural expectations. The anecdote typically opens the door for a moving and thoughtful discussion on students’ experiences with stereotypes and how they impact students’ academic, personal, and professional lives.
Professors weren’t the only professionals highlighted in this GAP campaign, however. Among a start-up partner and a small business owner, GAP presented a financial adviser. Who just happened to be Asian – you know, because Asians are so good with math. The financial adviser is charmingly attired in a sleeveless orange blouse with bohemian-inspired stitching, and wide-legged khaki trousers. The bottom left image is a discordant cut-out. It’s intended to highlight the stitching in closer detail, but it is awkwardly done. More problematic than a graphic design faux pas, the cropping is a trope of sexist imagery in which women are displayed for their parts and not person-hood.
Not to be outdone by academe, the financial adviser also depends on snappy dressing for professional worth. The ad copy for this role reads: “A bright pop for when looking professional is your business.” The phrase “bright pop” is emphasized in bold; “is” is emphasized in italics. The typography in this ad similarly underlines that physical appearance matters more than skill or competence. Having a deep understanding of financial markets and investing isn’t her business. Neither is it important she have a savvy understanding of long-term economic trends and how best to maximize retirement savings. The italicized “is” makes clear this financial adviser’s looks are her professional mandate. What matters is that she can look pretty behind a desk. Or on top of one, as the case may be.
I’m not opposed to fashion (I have a few favorite blazers in my closet). Nor am I ignorant of the role clothing plays in communicating professional and personal identities. It wouldn’t have been hard, however, for GAP to highlight their clothing and affirm women as smart and competent. For instance, the ad copy on the tenure-track professor could have read: “Wear a blazer as commanding as your ideas.” In a similar vein, the copy for the financial adviser might have stated: “Wear a pop of color as bright as your ideas.”
Although 30% of full professors in 2013 were women, it’s better than the 20-something percent who were full professors in 2003. It’s progress, and I’ll take it. But I long for a time when cultural illustrations for professionalism in the academic workplace go beyond suggesting I become a TPILF (Tenure-Track Professor I’d Like to F@*%).