CARL'S JUNIORS SEXY STARS: KATE VS. TERRELL

If you haven’t seen the Carl's Junior’s Superbowl ads yet, you are missing out. The commercials depict an extreme case of the sexualisation of (blonde, white) women in advertisement. Some have been banned, some only temporary, some were allowed. Some praise them (though mostly heterosexual men), others condemn them. What I find interesting, after browsing a little bit on the interwebs, is the difference between their commercials with female stars and their commercials with male stars.

(2012)

In this ridiculous ad, Kate Upton is trying to eat a spicy burger at the movies, which is so hot it spontaneously makes her rub it all over herself, in a miraculously charming fashion, and, of course, undress herself while a neighbouring car's driver watches her.

Berger said in 'Ways of Seeing': “A man’s presence suggests what he is capable of doing to you or for you. His presence may be fabricated, in the sense that he pretends to be capable of what he is not. But the pretense is always towards a power which he exercises on others. […] By contrast, a woman’s presence expresses her own attitude to herself, and defines what can and cannot be done to her […]. One might simplify this by saying: men act and women appear.” Berger applies this to an analysis of several ‘nude’ paintings, though I believe it is also very applicable to commercials.

(2014)

In this ad, Terrell Owens tells us, while relaxing at the beach with some babes and an untouched burger, about his tough life in Philadelphia and how this Philly burger changed his view.

In the first ad, it is very clear the woman is exposing herself and displaying her body for us/men to gaze at. It is very inviting in showing us all the ways we could do things to her (the pleasure she represents for us is even more exemplified by the extra male figure watching her). Whereas the male star in the second ad is portraying the power he has over women by having beautiful girls surrounding him. He shows us what he can do to us.

As Pollock also addresses in her article 'What's Wrong with Images of Women', with her analysis of jeans’ commercials, men and women seem to have very different functions in commercials. A woman is already sexualised. Therefore, in order to portray or sell a fabulous product, all one needs is a fabulous female body, in this case Kate Upton. The man needs something else, a story, which in this case is a background story of his life in Philadelphia (which draws a direct line with the product being sold), introducing some comedy as well. It looks as if he is also displaying his body, which may trick you into thinking the man is (just like the women in their other advertisements) being sexualised, justifying their sexism. However, the eye candy in this ad, actually, are still women.

Dyer also brought forward, in 'Don't Look Now', the problems of coming across as feminine when a man displays himself. The piercing gaze of the man is then introduced as a solution. In this ad this is also visible. Kate doesn’t even look in the camera once and remains very silent, she is very passive. The male star, displays himself and his body, however, he speaks to us and looks at us directly. The women around him act as an extra way to remind us that he is masculine and powerful, he has control.

These commercials are perfect examples of how the oppression of women and glorification of male power is constantly still being reinforced by the media, forcing women to look at themselves even as objects, to believe they are only there to be surveyed.