I didn’t know that I’d be writing one of the few critical responses to Kilbourne’s work (it seems everyone else has imbibed in the Kool-Aid). But, knowing that now, it’s not surprising that this article manages to be found by many students who are investigating for themselves whether Kilbourne really has these things right.

Speaking of which, I’m not sure I would describe advertising as ‘thievery’. What are they stealing? They’re presenting a narrative which may or may not be true: “You could REALLY use this product!” or even “This will make you sexier” or even “You can’t live without this!”

I’m not sure it’s so obvious that they’re always wrong, either. But that isn’t really the point: the point is that it’s perfectly legitimate to be one of the many voices in society hoping to persuade someone to do something you want them to. It could be “Give to my charity.” It could be “Buy my product.” It could be “Work for me!” It could be “Eat my food!” or “Prevent domestic violence.”

The value of the proposition is determined individually by the hearer of the message, no? As I said above, a proposition to a woman that she doesn’t have big enough breasts is one that is certainly debatable, but not an illegitimate use of free speech. And it is up to her to reject it, if that’s what she decides to do.

I agree with you that advertising avoids the truth when it hurts and enhances it when it helps. (Of course we all do that, as part of the very human trait of storytelling. Google ‘cognitive dissonance’, and how we typically deal with it, for example.) Advertisers – like the rest of us – exploit human nature.

I suspect that Kilbourne’s issue is that advertisers do it with the intent to profit. (Perhaps she thinks profit is evil or bad in some way.)

Although you’re undoubtedly right that the upshot of all this is that women are ‘bombarded’ with images of perfection, my contention is that it should be no surprise that they would want to use such images, and you nailed it perfectly when you said that it works; in other words, advertisers use images that will resonate with their audience, and these images resonate with the female audience.

We can certainly encourage women – as I do – to resist thinking that they must be commercially good-looking to be accepted, but I don’t think advertisers can be ‘blamed’ per se for spending their clients’ advertising dollars in the way that will meet the ad’s objectives best — essentially (as we’ve agreed) because women respond to them.

I really wanted to write a piece to respond to this piece, especially since Jean Kilbourne has reworked the material into a fourth version since then. I might still do it.

For now, though, I’ll comment here and just generally say that both Kilbourne and you are a little bit right and a little bit wrong.

Clearly, you know and understand that advertising is a kind of thievery: a method of getting manufacturers to buy their products with the promise of untrue images, impossible standards and unlikely outcomes. I think we can agree that advertising is noted for avoiding the truth when it’s bad and for “enhancing” the truth when it helps.

Kilbourne has some very cogent points about how advertisers both treat images of women and how they deal with women consumers. I cannot disagree with her thinking. We know that there are psychological elements, “subliminal” (or really not so subliminal now) advertising. This is part of the plan. It is all about selling.

The place where Kilbourne misses is that the advertising is working. If people refused to buy the products being sold this way, that sort of advertising would have ended. The fact that it is going on unabated, and in fact seems to have increased since her first forays into the discussion, prove the point.

I do think you’re playing fast and loose with your response here though. Clearly Kilbourne is right with the bombardment of images that girls and women are getting, and the way those images are processed in often subtle and unseen, especially by men.

Women, even “strong” women, are still very much at the mercy of men, and though you may think the choices made “celebrate the female form,” they do contribute to a culture of anger towards and demeaning of women. And that’s what Kilbourne is railing against.

I guess I did write a small essay.

Here’s what’s interesting, though. Although it’s the case that larger breasts are more widely considered attractive than smaller breasts, there’s a huge ‘market’ for smaller breasts too. So, although what people find attractive isn’t all subjective, there’s enough variation in preferences to make your observation that you’re ‘inferior’ completely wrong. First, the bust isn’t everything. Second, a minority of men actually prefer a smaller bust.

Here’s how my wife puts it: There are many flavors of ice-cream. While almost everybody likes vanilla and strawberry, there’s a significant market for, say, Rocky Road. According to her, I have the body style and look of a Rocky Road flavor ice-cream. There’s a dedicated market who love it, but it’s a smaller market than, say, strawberry.

Me = Rocky Road.
Brad Pitt? = Strawberry.

So boobs aren’t everything. Just because you aren’t vanilla or strawberry (like Scarlett Johansson, say) doesn’t mean there’s not a huge market of ravenous vultures who would love your whole package, small boobage and all.

“I was wondering why having a fuller bust makes you attractive? … That idea came from the media…”

Actually there is a biological preference for larger breasts. In other words, we’re wired to prefer them, and to find them attractive (see Miller, 2000, ‘The Mating Mind: How sexual choice shaped the evolution of human nature’, and Singh, 1995, ‘Female health, attractiveness, and desirability for relationships’: Role of breast asymmetry and waist-to-hip ratio. Ethology and Sociobiology).

So I disagree with you that the idea of finding a fuller bust attractive came from the media. In fact what I said in the article above stands true; it was the opposite way about. The media simply gives us what we already want. They’re competing for your attention, and thus will use the most universally attractive people they can (much of the time). I have a tough time arguing with biology!

“You go on to mention that there is an ‘ideal’ female form. I think Kilbourne is trying to get away from that kind of thinking, that there is only one way to be beautiful as a woman.”

Well those were Kilbourne’s words. She said herself, “The first thing the advertisers do is surround us with the image of ideal female beauty.” So she’s admitting that there is such a thing as a universal ‘ideal’, certain physical traits that we all agree is beautiful. And what we find most attractive about our partners are those traits which approach closest that ‘ideal’.

This is not to say that ideas of beauty don’t also vary widely. Human sexuality (and sexual attraction) is a smorgasbord of preferences. Just look at all the kinks exploited in pornography, for example. Just as there are ice-cream flavors that everyone likes – vanilla, strawberry – there are those who just love Rocky Road. They’re a smaller group (and in human attraction may correlate with subcultures at times… goth kids have a different standard of attractiveness than punk kids, for example).

But most people like vanilla. And, just as the universal appeal of vanilla ice-cream is used by retailers to sell ice-cream, so the universal appeal of the model with the ‘hourglass figure’ is used by advertisers to sell their products.

I hope this explains my position.

Keep up the good work, all. Always check everything against basic logic. I’ll come back soon and maybe write a little more on this, and we can all have a good dustup about it.

Of course I don’t agree with everything Kilbourne says but there is hardly any other documentary or speech I can agree more to. Like I said earlier may be it is the reason she is doing it for 40 years and it still looks new and what she says sounds more and more true.

A quick background on me, which may lend a bit of credit to Mr. Wright; I was raised by a single mother, and an aunt. I have two sisters and no brothers. I’m married to a feminist who went to an all women college (I can also say my wife agrees with the above analysis and conclusions, though she adds it lacks a degree of sensitivity). I am most certainly not sexist. And while disagreeing with a feminist standpoint may not be PC, it does not a sexist or moron make (i.e. there are many breeds of feminism, and not all get along, surely the feminists aren’t sexist against women).