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.

I think Apple is made of people who genuinely do care about how their suppliers run their factories, and it would surprise me greatly if we couldn’t find some examples of things to get outraged about in an operation that vast. I think they’re probably doing the best they can.

In a situation such as this, and one I hope never to be in, the only thing I would care about is the safety of my family, first and foremost, friends next, then myself, then others in that order. I think it would be selfish of me to stay and help others onto a life raft before that. Also, it would be selfish of me to increase my risk and have family live a life without me – OK they can say I was a hero, however I am 100% sure they would rather have me alive than dead. Good topic though and relevant re:the sinking of the Costa Concordia

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’m all for Civil Rights but sometimes I think people need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

“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.