Practical work

For the past week I have been shooting images as part of my campaign which is based around the issue of Mental Abuse. I have tried to make a statement with my campaign by using people that look as if they have been physically abused in order to raise awareness that mental abuse cannot always be seen/noticed. The reason why I feel passionate about this campaign is due to the fact that most campaigns are based around physical abuse and I feel that matters around Mental Abuse have been de-prioritised despite the fact that emotional scars predominantly last longer than those that are physical.

To what extent do you agree with the ideas put forward in the campaign video how the media manipulates our morals that the media plays the major role in constructing a regressive female identity in our society. Refer to a range of media products and relevant media theory to support your point of view

Over the past few years, there has been a huge outrage due to the media’s representation of the ideal woman.

The media is currently being highly criticised in embedding the idea into our minds (hypodermic needle theory) that women are meant to look have the perfect hair, body, face and if they don’t they must buy expensive clothes, wear loads of make-up or if all else fails undertake plastic surgery. This reinforces the idea that women must look their best in order to be successful. Although society is aware that this is not true, the media are doing a particularly good job at manipulating their audience that this is what women should be.

The question is, why exactly do the media exploit and objectify women? The answer is quite obvious, this is what we want to see. People will argue that this isn’t the case but which man 18 years old or 48 years old would pay attention to this?

It is pretty clear that the above image would raise a few conversations but the advertisement does not have the intended affect of selling the clothes. The average consumer would probably think ‘who wants to look fat?’ or ‘she needs to hit the gym’. Although it may be very difficult to believe, this is a genuine Abercrombie & Fitch advertisement after the C.E.O,  Mike Jeffries reportedly claimed he only "wants thin and beautiful people" wearing A&F. After the huge controversy of this statement, Jeffries posted this advert(according to E! Online) after claiming that A&F opposes to any discrimination. However, this advertisement campaign has been mocked and scrutinised due to attempting to manipulate that larger women are viewed to be hideous. Jeffries could have easily used a slightly more attractive curvaceous model but his choice clearly shows his representation of those who are not skinny and 'perfect' as shown in his other advertisements.

 

  These are the type of adverts that would have the intended effect on the consumer. Men would purchase the Tom Ford fragrance as they would think that the scent will get women out of their clothes and the Gossip Girl advert will get both genders to watch the drama as men would want to see Blake Lively in a sex scene and women would most likely want to compare Blake’s naked body to their own.

When these theories and ideas are typed up in black and white it is hard to believe, but women have been objectified in both print and e-media since the 1900s.

 1908 Torley wine advert shows that the objectification of women in the media is not a ‘recent’ trend and it is simply an idealisation of what most westernised cultures have been brought up with.

In my opinion, the objectification/sexualisation of women in the mass media should not be seen as an issue. I feel this way because men are objectified in a similar way. For example, in most teenage high school movies and dramas, boys were seen as good-looking jocks or not so nice looking nerds, whereas girls were eithe dumb, beautiful and popular or nerdy, average looking and unpopular. Moreover, if these issues have not been raised for the majority of the 1900s, what difference will they make as of now?

This advert clearly conveys the objectification of men. It also shows that advertisers will go to extreme lengths to sell their product such as stripping David Gandy completely naked despite the fact that he looks as if he is promoting underwear not the latest D&G fragrance.

Although the majority of advertisers feel the need to objectify both genders equally, some companies such as M&S have been attempting to show what ‘real’ women look like.

 M&S have been advertising body sculpting underwear for ALL shapes, sizes, ethnicities. Despite the companies half-hearted effort to show what a ‘real’ woman looks like, they have received an array of backlash due to using professional Italian Vogue models and photshopping these images as discussed on http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ 

Overall, I feel that the idea of objectification of women in the mass media has been taken too seriously. This is not because I believe that exploiting females (or both genders) is morally acceptable, but simply due to the fact that advertisers are doing what they KNOW will make the consumer want to buy their products. Also, similar less explicit adverts have been used since the 1900s so they should be viewed as part of most Westernised cultures. 

In contrast, despite my acceptance of the explicit adverts, I feel that 'Real' beauty campaigns will become increasingly used by advertisers in order to gain more custom rather than avoiding discrimination. Furthermore, I am aware of the fact that some of these images can have highly negative affects on the younger generation (self-esteem/body concious issues) which is why real 'REAL' beauty campaigns should be used (preferably more real than the one above).