This extends further when looking at what makes up a society. In the case of Paris in the 1920’s,
how people shopped and presented themselves was an extension of updating the image and modernization of Paris. The concept of display, and in turn consumerism, was a fundamental element of Parisian society, just as how what women wore seemed to be equally as important as what car they drove. The car then becomes an extension of fashion, and a luxury item.Gronberg quotes Sports Torpedo, which says: “it is simpler to form a judgment on clothes of a well-dressed man than on those of a well-dressed woman.” The reasoning behind this is that a man’s clothes are standardized. There are only so many suits and ties out there; to pick out a good suit as compared to a bad one is easy. The simplicity of a man’s clothing is therefore a metaphor to good design, and somehow a reinforcement to a male identity.
However, this idea is quickly countered by a feminization of the car. The very idea of a machine
that was luxurious and stylish made that machine fashionable (as we see photographs of cars driven by glamorous women and female film stars). Similarly, a modern car was described as “small, lightweight and powerful” which was how the modern woman’s body would also be described. As well, the curves of the car were likened to that of a woman’s body, and even the word itself was femininely gendered: automobile.I feel, though, that the car as a feminized object still served as a reinforcement to the male identity. Unlike Mackintosh's mirror, a man owning a “female” car would not make him feel feminine. Owning and controlling an object of beauty, having it serve you and give you freedom as well as status would no longer make the car a metaphor for the man himself, but for a companion.
Car as companion is an interesting idea. In this context the companion is owned. Like a companion animal? Another form of man's best friend perhaps? Because it is a possession, I am not sure how it can escape being entwined with identity.
ReplyDeleteI also think that the juxtaposition of women and cars in advertisements requires us to deal with this relationship. Woman as companion? Or, woman as possession?
In the image of Rahna laying on the hood of the car, I do see a confident woman but I mostly read it as "trophy car/trophy wife". Using women to sell cars has been so dominant in our contemporary culture that I can no longer separate the two.
Interestingly, some car manufacturers are beginning to change their strategy as market research shows that woman often make the buying decision for their households.
I think it's interesting to note, in relation to female as object as well as females in relation to cars, how often men name their cars after females.
ReplyDeleteIs it merely "interesting" or also somewhat painful? Let's be a tad more CRITICAL. Like when you folks have a drink after class and critique who said what at last week's party or which instructor you decided was boring. Don't keep your analytic skills in reserve!
ReplyDeleteJacqueline, I suppose it depends on the type of man driving the car. It's more so a convoluted companion, in that in reality it is just a thing, a possession. It does exactly what one wants it to do. However by assigning a gender or humanity to it, one may consider it a companion... even though it's still preforming the roll of possession.
ReplyDeleteI'm reminded of that joke: "Why is a car better than a woman? Because the car doesn't complain when you get gas".
Josh, yes! I've always heard cars referred to as "she" (like, "she is a beauty"). This makes me think about when I was a kid, I considered cars as girls and trucks as boys. I wonder what gender most people would give to SUVs, pickup trucks, etc.
Yes - It is quite painful to think of how the association of cars assigned a gender had a lot to do with women being vewed as tools themselves who cleaned and made things homely etc. But I do find it interesting, anthropologically, of the need to gender objects. Is it because of the feeling of alienation that was ssweeping across the world due to mechanzation and the industrial revolution? Did t make it easer for people to assocaiate with machines if they referred it to something organic.
ReplyDeleteI have often had discussions with older women about feminism, and how, from my perspective there never seemed to be anything to talk about... At one point I was critical of feminism because it seemed to remove as many options as it created for women. I remember a great conversation with Jayne Wark where she pointed out that our generation just "didn't understand what it was like." She mentioned a certain professor at NSCAD who once said "Real Art is only done with Black and White, but women don't make it anyway." When discussing the work of a well known female visiting artist. !
ReplyDeleteNow as a mother of a little girl, I think my slowly awakening feminist has become a bit of a firecracker. I am furious about the lack of choices when it comes to raising a family. SO many studies show that having a parent stay home is incredibly beneficial to the upbringing of the children, but how do you raise a family on a single income in this day and age? When women joined the workforce en masse, the average salary of a man dropped. Combined with rising cost of living, this made it difficult for a family to live off one income, so the women went to work outside he home, and still do the work in the home as well. Out of necessity, my partner and I have adopted somewhat traditional "gender roles" and it has been such a bizarre experience trying to conform to this retro notion of "man earns money, woman cooks/cleans/raises kids" but in a way it has also been liberating... we both have clearly defined roles and responsibilities.
Don't get me wrong, I am thankful to my predecessors for all they did in paving the way for me to be a PERSON, but I wish the cost had not been so great.
I look at my parents and see how my dad has never done a load of laundry in 36 years. He has rarely cooked a meal... usually it's on the bbq when he does. I don't want that.
At least we don't have to fight against being objects, even if women are still objectified. SO yes, I think it is painful to see that the judges critiqued the women driver's smiles as much as they critiqued the car itself, and it's painful to see that the women (I'm thinking of Rahna) seem to enjoy that attention.
I wanted to get to this idea of gendering objects, but I think I am running out of time. I would like to ask the class, what gender would you ascribe to a record player? What about a tin can? A coffee pot? Why?
Sorry if this is a little incoherent, but it's early and I had a rough night. :)