By Rachel Berger
Every day on my way to school, I’m struck by the contrast between these two subway advertisements.
The first one, unfortunately, I’ve been seeing everywhere, and it always makes me want to hit something. The text, if you can’t make it out, reads “Less lawyer. More appeal.” The image speaks for itself: the same slender young woman used to sell anything and everything, with curves, heels, long legs, and a sultry if vacuous expression. The briefcase at her feet is just another accessory–almost an afterthought.
To a teenage girl who’ll be applying to college soon, who’s considering a career in law, the message is clear: forget about that J.D. How you look in a little black dress will always, always be more important. This ad is for the USA television drama Fairly Legal.
The second ad features a smiling woman in boxing gloves leaning against the ropes of a ring. This woman is also young, attractive, and feminine, but she looks happier–and more real. The image hasn’t been photoshopped. Her face–not her legs–is the focal point. The text beneath her reads, “I am not your average girl; Keisher ‘Fire’ McLeod, boxer.” A contender, not a ring girl. The ad is for 4 New York, a WNBC news channel.
How can two advertisements, placed literally side-by-side, present two totally opposite portrayals of women? One woman is a fictional character and, the other, a native Brooklynite. One woman is posed and photoshopped; the other, maybe a bit sweaty, but proudly in her element. One promotes an outdated stereotype of what a woman can be–the other tears it down. (You can see Mrs. McLeod- Wells’ boxer bio here, by the way. She’s pretty awesome.)
There are over 4 million women in New York City. There are single women, married women, divorced women, lesbian moms, Jewish grandmothers, Starbucks baristas, students, teachers, aspiring actresses, and women of practically every race, religion, and ethnicity. When I think about it, it’s not the sexualized image of the Fairly Legal ad that most provokes me. It’s that this image–so false, predictable, and limiting–is promoted over and over, as if it’s the only way women are. Or the only way they should be.
The truth is that women are too diverse to fit into any one box. Advertisers should start pandering to that demographic. This is a case of media fiction lagging way behind reality.
Thanks for this article. I agree!!
Love it! As the mother of three young daughters and a psychology professor who studies how sexualized media impact children, this post caught my attention. Women are so much more than how they look, and we’re all ready to be treated that way. It’s time for the media to catch up to the real world and show strong women and girls using things other than their sex appeal to achieve power and value.
Good observation Rachel, but let’s not give the pretty boxer girl a Nobel Prize anytime soon. After all, when was the last time we saw a boxer, male or female, wear make-up in the ring? Can anyone honestly tell me that she is unattractive?
Both ads are guilty of selling “sex”, they’re just done differently. Both have the same exact formula, but one is blatant, while the other is subtle. One attractive women is pursuing a profession as a lawyer, and the other attractive women pursuing boxing. At the very least it’s hard to fault the lawyer for not being up front about her intentions. We just hope that a more discerning public takes the other more seriously than the other.
I agree with your message on psychological implications, but I believe it’s less of a case of media fiction vs. reality and more the matter of media sales vs. specific demographic appeal. Maybe USA Network is targeting males 22-38 with a high school education. In that case, job well done, big bonuses to USA! Now if they’re going for the 22-48 year women holding a bachelor’s degree in human psychology, then I’m guessing that marketing team just got fired. USA Network isn’t exactly known for their high-brow entertainment, so I don’t expect much more from them. They were probably lucky enough that the ad didn’t have any misspellings. Although, you could count “Less lawyer. More appeal.” as fragment sentences.
Both are pure sales anyway you look at it. People just need to realize that an ad is an ad, and not something that defines them. Be glad that we’re in a true capitalist democracy, because over time, if enough people see past the shallowness of Fairly Legal they will stop watching. Then the show will die and there will be no more advertisements for it. And that should come just in time for USA to release yet another show that pretends to be about something but is really just about boobs and big explosions. Hooray!
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Bryan. However, I don’t agree that both ads are selling sex. Yes, the attractiveness of the woman in the WNBC ad is used to the advertiser’s advantage, but the focus is still on her face rather than her body. She’s also an actual boxer. In the USA ad, the woman’s profession is trivialized (“Less lawyer”) to the point of being insignificant. Both advertisements have an agenda and a demographic, but the USA ad is more harmful and less realistic.
While the U.S. system is neither purely capitalist nor a pure democracy, it’s certainly important to be informed consumers and realize that an ad is only an ad. SPARK emphasizes media literacy for just that reason.