Applying for a job

In this blogpost I will discuss some visual content that deals with a combination of orientalism and objectifying the female body. I chose two commercials from the same company to make the most honest and valuable comparison. I will discuss them briefly and will then talk about what I find problematic about it by linking my examples to what we discussed in class.

In both commercials the man and the woman are applying for jobs. We don't see them actually applying for it, but will follow them through their day waiting for response from their future employer. Their daily routines are supposed to be matching the job they are applying for. The guy is portrayed as an average dressed young white male that does not stand out in the street view, but is also portrayed as a very helpful person. As he is cycling through the city he waves at an older lady, then he notices someone’s backpack is open and let’s that person know. Then as he is locking his bicycle, he turns someone’s (bicycle’s) light off and holds the door for a woman with a stroller. The commercial ends with the text message from his future employer who confirms he gets the job.
The female counter video shows the daily activities of a young Asian woman that also applied for a job. She is dressed in clothes that do not match the rest of the people in the streets. For example, she wears two pony tails and a lot of pink which make her seem to be a young girl. The woman is on the phone during almost the whole length of the clip as she is also giving directions to the people she comes across in the streets. As a gesture of saying goodbye and saying thank you, she bows. The last person she runs into, seems to be someone familiar who she is surprising by closing her eyes from behind. As they are hugging and talking, she gets the text message that brings her the good news. She also gets the job. In one of the last shots, we see her at her new job behind her desk, bowing towards one of her colleagues.

There are two major issues that I’d like to point out here. In the first clip, the main message is that the man is suitable for the job because it matches his personality. However in the woman's clip, it is not only her friendliness and helpfulness that get her the job. Apparently it was necessary to make the girl extra interesting for her employer by using a stereotype for Asian women, that includes bowing down and being submissive. First of all this stereotype is harmful because it tends to enhance the biased view we, the West, have on Asia and Asian people.
Second of all, the maker of the video is objectifying her, by shifting the emphasis from her personality to her appearance, by dressing her extra prominently and different from the rest of the people.

So to conlude, I argue that according to these videos, when it comes to applying for jobs, women are not only judged from what they are capable of but also from the way they look. In contrast to men who are interesting enough for their abilities only.
Further more, the mocking of the Asian woman by using an offensive stereotype empowers the defensive view the western world has on other cultures.

'Elle' (2016) by Paul Verhoeven

This image by successful Dutch director Paul Verhoeven leaves you with more questions than answers.

The psychological thriller sets off with a devastating rape of the main character, Michèle LeBlanc. In this first first scene she fights her rapist off while she screams loudly in her great French court house. The only thing that hears her is her cat, even though the windows are wide open no neighbour seems to care. Through the entire first part of the film Michele gazes through her windows while she looks for a sign of the creeper which the handsome neighbour Patrick apparently fought off a few days later.
As the viewer, Michèle's actions leave me more unsettled than the persona of her attacker. Immediately after the rape she cleans the room, does not call the police, does not seek the heroic help of her neighbour Patrick which he so kindly offers again and again and finally, calmly tells her friends and ex-husband about the appaling act that has been done to her during a dinner at a restaurant.
During the course of her search for her attacker, she is being sexually bullied by an employee at her game company of whom she does not know the identity, too. She and the viewer assume it must be the same person. Even though she appeared careless of the event towards others, she roams arround her house waiting for her Gaze to meet that of the Other. The concept of Satre's 'look' (Being and Nothingness, 1943) applies here. Hereby she makes herself into the centre of her rapist's Gaze. The viewer however is left to question whether her world is broken down by this gaze or not. Later, before knowing Patrick is her rapist, she looks at him through her binoculars while she mastrubates. Perhaps, this is to counter the idea of her being captured by the Gaze, as she appears all sexual in front of the major French windows while she herself gazes at him outside.
On another note, Michèle is portrayed as someone who appears to be cold towards close-ones and her employees. This becomes more evident when her affair with her best friend's husband is shown. Yet, as the viewer would expect in a traditional image twofold, in her alone-time she does not appear to be more caring of others or more warmhearted. She rather not have any pictures of family or friends in her house and even when she does spend time with her son or old mother, she seems rather careless and emotionless. The viewer is not invited into her emotional struggles which leaves the viewer to disassociate from her in every way. Is the viewer's reaction her punishment? Was it Verhoeven's goal to sadistically punish her for her emotional strongness, aka her masculinity, from the very beginning on?
Does this phallocentrism go hand in hand with Michèle being object to Patrick's rape fetish, as a means to capture and fetishise the female lead character? When Patrick answers "Because it must be done" to Michèle's question as to why he sexually assaulted her, one is left to question his motives. Can Freud give an answer with his phallic coneptualisation of fetishises as "tokens of triumph over the threat of castration and a safeguard against it" (Fetishism, 154)? This stands in line with Lacan's interpretation of fetishes being a mode of accessing power. As mentioned before, this picture leaves the viewer with more questions than answers. Perhaps the male lead character and Verhoeven himself try to regain power over the godless female lead character, by fucking God into her? All in all, 'Elle' is a dark satire about sadomasochism and sexual perversion which invites for more discussions.

Once again, a commercial (and what's wrong with it)

I know there’ve been a lot of attention to commercials and – surprise – I would like to do that as well. More specifically I would like to look at a commercial that always irritates me when it’s on television. With this I also would like to hint at a different discussion, namely about the eating of meat and masculinity. For this discussion you could also look at another commercial, one from last week presentation, for the Cheesy Bacon XXL from the Burger King.

The commercial that I’m interested in is the commercial for the Remia Real American Marinade, for which the commercial is called the 'Bunny' Commercial. This is a relatively new commercial, which aired since approximately June 2016. It starts with a man lying on the side of the road who is obviously part of a joke from his own bachelor party. He is rescued by some tough men on motorcycles. They take the ‘bunny’ (this is how I will refer to him) back to their place, where they were preparing a barbeque – of course with the Remia Real American Marinade. The bunny stays for dinner and all ends well… 

There are, however, some problems with this commercial. First of all the depiction of the ‘bunny, soon to be married man’. He is portrayed as a kind of ‘loser’ and is in sharp contrast with the masculine man on their motorcycles. They look tough, in their manners, are bigger, wear rough clothing and they have a lot of hair. The loser image of the bunny also in a way comes from the fact that he apparently is about to get married. This reminded me of what was said in class with regard to Mulvey’s article. That women in movies are often ‘tamed’, in that they become part of the patriarchal order, for example through marriage. In this way there wouldn’t be any castration anxiety. This is what Mulvey says about this:

‘Ultimately, the meaning of woman is sexual difference, the absence of the penis as visually ascertainable, the material evidence on which is based the castration complex essential for the organization of entrance to the symbolic order and the law of the father. (…) The male unconscious has two avenues of escape from this castration anxiety: preoccupation with the re-enactment of the original trauma (investigating the woman, demystifying her mystery), counterbalanced by the devaluation, punishment or saving of the guilty object (…). (…) The first avenue, voyeurism, on the contrary, has associations with sadism pleasure lies in ascertaining guild (immediately associated with castration), asserting control and subjecting the guilty person through punishment or forgiveness. (…) Sadism demands a story, (…) forcing a change in another person, a battle of will and strength, victory/defeat (…).’ (Laura Mulvey, ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’, 840.)

This was applied to Hollywood cinema, but I think you can also apply it here. Even though the main character, the bunny, is male, he is to a certain extent feminized. This in contrast with the biker guys who are depicted very manly. Like I said he is rescued by the men on the motorcycles. Maybe you could even argue that he is freed from the boredom of marriage? The boredom of his soon to be wife? Of women in general? You see in the commercial that he feels free, in the way that he sticks his arms out like he is flying (sitting behind on the motorcycle). He feels victorious.

A second problem with this commercial is the depiction of the only female. She is waiting for the guys to come home and is working in the kitchen. However, she’s not the one barbequing, this is of course often seen as a ‘typical male activity’ (I guess something with fire, being outside and primal instinct…).

The third problem is a little bit related to the first problem. The bunny is already supposed to look more manly by wearing the jacket from the biker. This ‘process’ started when he sat on the bike (I referred to this before). You could see this ‘process’ as complete when he is offered a plate of barbeque meat by man with the enormous beard who says the wise words: ‘If you wanna act like a man, eat like a man.’ So apparently you’re a man when you eat meat, this idea was also mentioned (in a song) in the earlier mentioned Burger King commercial. This means different things. You could say that this would mean that if a women eats meat (or this specific type of meat) she is manly or not a real women? But it could also mean that a man is supposed to eat meat and therefore can’t be a vegetarian of a vegan? There are still a lot prejudices against male vegetarians. This is however a completely different topic of discussion and too big of a subject elaborate on it here.

Keeping it 'fresh'

I have been really irked by a ‘visual outing’ on my social media newsfeed for the past few days –even more irked from the fact that I do not understand how this ended up being recommended to me (perhaps because I am a woman?) – which is a new (November 22^nd 2016) Dutch commercial of the brand Lactacyd. For those that do not know this brand, it makes ‘soap’ in order to ‘cleanse’ the vagina and make it smell ‘nice’.

Unfortunately it is all in Dutch, but basically the commercial is four guys sitting at a table, discussing what names they give to the vagina, which results into some profane words and laughter. Then Lactacyd asks: “Do you have a preference for pubic hairstyle?” to which our gentlemen answer either: “It has to be neat/to be tended to.” or “It has to be freshly shaved.” And then the commercial continues with a ‘men’s tip’ for when you (ladies) feel a ‘little less fresh’, to which one of them says: “If you sweated or when it’s a particularly hot day and you smell a little less ‘fresh’, then I think these products could help (in keeping it ‘fresh’ for a longer period of time).” The commercial can be found here (unfortunately I can't find it on youtube): 

https://www.facebook.com/LactacydNL/videos/1303448186379890/

Now aside from the fact that I think these products are ridiculous, since it enforces the concept of women having to be completely hairless and having to smell like flowers all day (which we don’t), it shames them and plays in on their insecurities if they don’t. But I think it’s even worse that they chose men for this commercial. Them sitting at a table and facing the spectator, it almost seems as if the spectator is the subject of the (male) gaze (due to the absence of a woman in the commercial). And by voicing their opinions of how a woman should ‘be’ (smell/feel/look) like, they reduce the female spectator to an object that should obey to their wishes. It reminded me of the first pages of the Berger text in which he talks about presences of men and women: “To be born a woman has been to be born, within an allotted and confined space, into the keeping of men.” (pp. 46). Women have continuously ‘survey’ as Berger calls it, what they are, what they do and how they appear to others, especially to men. This commercial thus showcases how woman ought to reevaluate their intimate hygiene and do something about – because four gentlemen told them to.

Lastly, the comment section underneath the video is a pleasure to read as a lot of women (and a few men) seem to agree that this is a ‘marketing fail’ as one user calls it, by casting men to tell women what they ought to do with their intimate zone. 

Girls don't poop (apparently)

For my blogpost, I would like to use this commercial I recently found on YouTube. It’s about a spray you should use before you go number two on the toilet – you spray it before you sit down, and it’s supposed to hide the smell. The commercial features a woman advertising the product – telling other women they should use this spray as well if they want to avoid embarrassing situations at, for example, work, a party or when they stay at their boyfriends’ house.

This commercial reminded me of the following quote from Berger’s article:

“She has to survey everything she is and everything she does because how she appears to others, and ultimately how she appears to men, is of crucial importance for what is normally thought of as the success of her life. Her own sense of being in herself is supplanted by a sense of being appreciated as herself by another.” (Berger, 46)

The title of the commercial clearly states ‘Girls don’t poop’ – indicating that girls should hide it because it’s not exactly considered feminine to do. She needs to be constantly aware of her surroundings and how she appears as to other people – and as Berger says, especially to men. The commercial also condones this by mentioning ladies can use it when staying over at their boyfriends’ house – instead of being able to do what every human has to, they have to cover it up to make sure they don’t appear bad in the eyes of their significant other. 

SEVDALIZA

Born in Iran and raised in the Netherlands, singer Sevdaliza incorporates a lot of aspects of voyeurism in her lyrics and music videos, as well as unconscious drives and desires.
It all started when she read the sociology books her mother had stored, which included Freud.  

Her music video 'HUMAN', directed by Emmanuel Adjei, is a good example of voyeurism.
The music video is accompanied by the next text on Youtube:

"The basic human need to be watched was once satisfied by God. Now the same functionality can be replicated by man. This is the tale of a voyeuristic consumerism nightmare."

It shows Sevdaliza herself in a horse arena, dancing in the centre and being watched by different men, who have similar looks on their faces. Think of how the article of Otto Fenichel begins: "...When someones gazes intently at an object, we say that he 'devours it with his eyes'."
Part of the lyrics of the song is simple, it goes something like this: "...I am flesh, bones, I am skin, soul. I am human, nothing more than human."
I think her having animal legs, symbolizes her as an object made of flesh. Which explain the devouring gazes of different men who objectify her. It's also a statement of humans not being different from animals, because we are made from the same materials: flesh, bones, skin, soul.

Her costume and her dance are inspired on the dance Debra Paget performs in 'The Indian Tomb' shown below. In this snake dance, there are other forms of voyeurism. Fenichel states in his article that the snake fascinates its victim in order to devour it. Ofcourse, according to Freud the snake eyes symbolize the penis.
Paget in this video has to perform a snake dance to try and fascinate the snake itself (starting from 1:10).



This being said, it looks as if Sevdaliza is the snake herself, and fascinates her victims, the men, in order to devour them. Concluding, the music video has different layers of meaning and makes total sense in a Freudian way of performing art, where Sevdaliza is not the objectified victim, but it's the other way around.

Women rights

When I saw these adverts of Bic and MediaMarkt, I thought, wow, these adverts are straight out of the 1950s.
When I read that the Bic advert was made for International Women’s day and the advert of Mediamarkt was made for Secretary day in the Netherlands, I was appaled by it.
I immediately thought of Sigmund Freud when I saw these adverts. Freud said that women were lesser than men. These adverts are emphasizing that women still are seen as lesser then men, and should listen more to men and have to aspire to be like men.

The advert of MediaMarkt says that you shouldn’t give women (most secretaries are woman) too much space to talk. The image implies that the boss should give them a razor, so the secretary can shave herself. Thesedays, women who don’t shave their armpits or legs are seen as unsexy and ugly. You could say that when a boss gives a gift like this to his or her secretary, he wants her to make herself (more) beautiful for him or her.

The Bic advert says that women should look like a girl, which is young, slim and beautiful, they should act like a lady and know etiquette. At the same time, the advert says that they should think like a man and work like a boss.
Women can think as good as men. They have the same capabilities. Bosses also can be women. This advert makes it looks like women aren’t capable to do any kind of job outside the household.

Together, the adverts give you the idea that women aren’t capable to work, therefor the boss is always a man, and the secretary a woman.
We need to change this image, because on days invented for women, to emphasize women rights, adverts like this shouldn’t be possible.