Advertisements and Feminism

This post is a response to the below video, promoted by Upworthy here. While Upworthy's take on it was pretty obnoxious, the video itself is charming:

Ketchup Bottle Ad
This ad is actually still funny-- though it was probably a lot more true at the time than it is now since opening ketchup bottles has as much to do with force of will as it does with physical strength. The ad would also never appear in modern advertisement, and this is a testament to the cultural changes wrought by second wave feminism. A modern counterpart to the ad might be the "strong enough for a man, but made for a woman" deodorant campaign-- once again they are playing off the fact that men are generally stronger and bigger (and consequently stinkier) than women. Of course, the fun part is that the deodorant campaign's trick plays into the "ra ra" of feminism. Appeals to feminism are not at all uncommon in modern advertising. I'm sure plenty will gripe that it's a cartoonish kind of feminism, to which I say if you're going to complain that media is obnoxiously cartoonish, then you're consuming the wrong media. Vote with your feet.

Sexualization and Objectification
Regarding the sexualization and objectification of women-- this is true and this is long-standing and this is near and dear to advertising, which seeks to seduce. As women make an increasingly significant proportion of the national income (projected to make more than men for my generation), you can also witness the increasing objectification and sexualization of men in the exact same mediums. That trend will undoubtedly continue.

There is a lot of hand-wringing about this trend, seeing it as "making men more effeminate". I think calling it that is missing a lot. This issue touches on a question at the heart of a lot of feminist debate-- how much should equality involve women becoming more like men or men becoming more like women? The other big question of course being "How far is far enough?" I think the end result of feminism will be terribly nuanced, and that in some ways men and women cannot but help to retain distinct identities, and that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with people associating one gender more with some things than others.

To those who feel that objectification itself is inherently masculine, I say that while this is an essentially sexist sentiment, it probably has some merit. You'll note the brief portion where the video discussed the presentation of men as strong, dominant and aggressive-- this is an objectification of character, which may perhaps be an oxymoron, but as the video points out it is certainly an idealization that impacts men's aspirations and expectations, and not necessarily positively.

Mock Rape and Debasement in Fashion Magazines
First of all, its worth noting these are advertisements that are meant to appeal to women. Now you can't take that at face value because they are also self-consciously high art, and the intention is to provoke/confront rather than to please the audience persay. These ads are are playing off feminist  ideals. They aren't going up against them as much as they are forcing the audience to think about sexuality and submission/dominance. To treat these ads as merely anti-feminist propaganda is to give the ads' makers and their audience too little credit-- this is part of the modern conversation about sex relations, and it is excruciatingly self-aware.

Role Reversal
The role-reversal is hilarious and perhaps the most educational part of the video, because it inspires reflection on a couple of interesting points.

First, the pictures (for sake of humor, I'm sure) mostly illustrate fat not-especially-attractive men, which is demeaning in its own right and obviously inverts more than just the subject of objectification's gender. It's an unwitting commentary on the too-close relationship between feminism and what I'll call male slobbism (it could less charitably be described as female chauvinism, though it is by no means specific to women).
 
Second, with the more attractive men playing the role of women, I was struck by how closely they mirrored many fashion ads for men's clothing and accessories (Ambercrombie comes to mind). This comes back to the point that equality in advertising seems to be following right along with growing equality in broader culture, driven of course by the desire to sell things. Advertisements must work within the cultural norms of the time and often, if it is to catch the audience's attention, play off of them. In my humble opinion, the influence of culture on ads and ads on culture constitutes a feedback loop, but a fairly benign one in which the former influence acts as primary driver.

The Mr. Toad

My roommate's wonderful girlfriend gave me a bottle of Fernet Branca, because she realized she couldn't stand it. I set about to find a use for it other than the classic Fernet and Coke (which, incidentally, is huge in Argentina).

1/8th shot Fernet Branca (or thereabouts)
1 shot rye whiskey
shaken with ice
garnish with a twist of lime peel

It smells like a musky man's man just brushed his teeth and put on deodorant. The whiskey fills out the flavor, softening it with oak and warm grain flavors while the sharp, complex, herbal Fernet plays off of the spicy rye notes and, importantly, off the aroma of the lime peel. The woody incense qualities in Fernet's taste play nicely with the oak. This drink is not for the faint of heart, as Fernet is pretty intense and there's no real sweetness in there and peppery rye is a heck of a grounding ingredient, but I frankly think it's the best Fernet drink I've ever had, and Fernet is pretty fascinating.

Sarah suggested the name, as a shortening of the Disneyland feature "Mr. Toad's Wild Ride", because *faces camera with a plastic grin* "It's a wild ride!" So, oddly enough, credits go to the Excelsior House Tasting Team, even if I left Excelsior a year ago. I dedicate this drink to Aileen and her hatred of Fernet.

San Franciscan Morality

Since before the 1906 earthquake, San Francisco has been reviled by conservative Christians as a place of hedonism. Back then it was nicknamed Frisky City, and not a few religious figures of the time interpreted the great fires that burned the city to the ground as God's retribution against the city's sinfulness, likening it to Sodom and Gomorrah.

Not a whole lot has changed. There continues to be some truth to the characterization of San Franciscans as hedonistic-- we believe in enjoying ourselves and we do. The best word I've found to describe San Franciscans is gay-- in the classic sense (in addition, of course, to the newer sense). On sunny weekend days, San Franciscans dress lightly, fashionably, and in bright colors. They eat brunch with mimosas or seek out the best bakery in town for pastries. They bring their dogs to the park or picnic with friends. San Francisco is truly a gay, happy city. It's also, truly, the most moral city I've ever called home.

San Francisco is a bastion of "radical humanism", as my friend so aptly put it. That lends itself to investing in social programs, ethically produced food and bike lanes. More personally, San Franciscans believe in doing what they enjoy and encouraging others to do the same, whether that be drinking blow-your-mind-good coffee or wearing red pants and a brilliant paisley scarf or having gay sex or smoking weed in the park or getting a sex change or... I think you get the idea.

That may sound dangerously unbounded to people from more religious parts of the country, but it is actually very simply and rigidly bounded by a second principle: not infringing on or diminishing others' happiness. The minute the crazy homeless guy shoves someone is the moment when tolerance turns to intolerance. The minute a public discussion invokes racial epithets is when the eyes of every bystander's eyes darken.

As extensive as San Franciscan acceptance is, the rules of humanism follow right along. Humanism is, after all, a moral tradition at least as venerable as Christianity, predating it by a fair margin. There is no slippery slope here. For example, orgies do happen in San Francisco. They're not commonplace but everyone knows someone who's been to an orgy. However, there is none of the Bacchanalian destructive abandon associated with Roman orgies. Real San Franciscan orgies, by every account I have heard so far, are extremely structured environments. That everyone be safe and comfortable is of primary importance. The implicit assumption is that such a thing is not worth doing if it causes harm. San Franciscan morality is outlined in black and white, just along different lines than conservative Christian morality.

San Francisco's combination of hedonism and moralism is also embodied by the kink community. The Society of Janus describes itself on its website thusly: "SOJ is a not-for-profit, all volunteer, San Francisco-based education and support organization devoted to the art of safe, consensual and non-exploitative BDSM." The society's mission is to teach people about BDSM, to share what they enjoy and likely have enjoyed for a long time. My experience reading dating profiles of people so inclined reinforces the impression that people in the kink community treat BDSM with strict sobriety and a careful eye for ethical pitfalls. Bestiality (which conservatives are so fond of mentioning in the same breath as homosexuality) is not remotely ethical, because an animal cannot give consent.

The BDSM community is only a small part of the city, but that emphasis on ethical behavior characterizes San Franciscans more broadly. Since I have moved here, many things that I have done thoughtlessly have been questioned by people around me, and discussed reasonably. The extreme moral conscientiousness of this city is remarkable, and the only people I've met of comparable moral conscientiousness are truly devout Christians. The difference is that instead of citing verses to explain why doing a given thing is wrong, San Franciscans will tell you exactly how it hurts people (or animals). Frankly, I find the moral intensity of both church groups and San Franciscans to sometimes be oppressive, but I appreciate the commitment.

San Franciscans are very familiar with how difficult it is to come out of the closet as gay. Every gay person has to deal with a feeling of non-acceptance from society at large, even those who were born and raised by accepting parents in the city itself. Being gay is far more difficult and alienating if someone comes from a conservative Christian family. Gay sons or daughters coming out of the closet to a conservative family risk disownment, but the reality for most gays is more subtle. There will be a certain distance created by the revelation and a certain sustained discomfort for both parties, because neither side can truly accept the other's viewpoint without giving up their own. Religious families are inclined to attempt to persuade their wayward sheep away from "the gay lifestyle". Even if a family resists this impulse, a certain level of frustration is an inevitable product of the rub between religious convictions and gay realities. It is a softer estrangement, but it still leaves lingering damage, damage that any gay person can tell you about (if they're comfortable doing so). Gays who grew up with strong religious convictions are forced into a crisis of faith, as they try to reconcile the teachings etched into them with their own nature, and must grapple with religiously-derived guilt. Gays, and San Franciscans more broadly, see firsthand the damage that religion can and does cause. This damage piques our San Franciscan sense of morality. When it comes to gays versus conservative Christianity, there is no question with which side this morality sides.

I think there's an unvoiced sentiment among conservative Christians that true love can only exist in a heterosexual relationship, or that romantic love in a heterosexual relationship is somehow different from romantic love in a gay relationship. We here in Frisky City know differently from experience. Of course, it's not rocket science. For every vocally happy recovering gay who has returned to the fold, there are a million vocally happy practicing gays. San Franciscans know that decisions have consequences, and further they know what decisions have what consequences, because they've tried out the options in true rational humanist fashion. We know that the only way for a gay person to find true romantic love is in a gay relationship, and that finding such love is among the most gratifying and fulfilling things in life. From the perspective of humanism, the truly immoral thing is trying to dissuade people from finding that love.

San Franciscans also know quite well what innocent fun is. This brings me, finally, to Hunky Jesus. The Hunky Jesus Competition, put on by the in-drag charity organization Nuns of Perpetual Indulgence, is innocent fun. The competition may be irreverent, but in San Francisco this is an integral part of its moral appeal. There is a need, particularly in gay San Francisco, to dance on Jesus' grave a little bit, to poke fun, to make light of the force of conservative Christianity, clearly discernible despite the distance (media carries it to us), that presses in on our little bastion of humanism with at best disapproval and at worst unabashed hostility.

That irreverence is entirely harmless unless, say, some idiot would deliberately troll and upset his conservative Catholic uncle by sending him an article about the event. Like I said, I'm not entirely in agreement with San Francisco's intense moralism, but I think I at least understand it. I hope you understand it better now too. San Francisco is a very different world from middle America, but despite both regions' best intentions, they are still one America.

If you visit me on a sunny weekend, I will suggest we get brunch in the Castro and order mimosas and eggs benedict. We can watch people go by, living their lives gaily. I promise you will enjoy it.