gaunlett

David Gauntlett’s theory of identity suggests that we are now living in a world where the meaning of gender is increasingly open  

To what extent do you agree with this hypothesis in relation to print advertisements in the UK? 

I  agree with Gauntlett’s theory that we are now living in a world where the meaning of gender is increasingly open to an extent that is in-between both me agreeing and disagreeing due to how our society being less sexist and more accepting for what an individual wants to do e.g. a man dressing like a woman or a woman dressing like a man. However, I also disagree because in many representations in our society, the roles have reversed, and men are below women unlike it was in the early 90s where it was the opposite way around. In this day and age both sexes should be viewed as equals instead of a battle of the sexes to see who can be the highest in the natural order of the world. 

The Van Huesen advert rearranges the old advert of the woman serving the man breakfast in bed with the phrase ‘ show her it’s a man's world’ to a woman being served breakfast in bed by a man wearing the clothes which the woman was wearing in the old advertisement with the phrase changed to ‘show him it's a man's world’. To an extent this shows that the meaning of gender is increasingly open due to advertisements that used to stereotype a gender in the past making the fun out of themselves and changing it to the fact that it's now a woman’s world instead of a man's world. Also, the advert shows that gender is open due to a tie, a piece of clothing which was mainly worn by a man and was seen as abnormal if a woman was seen wearing it. Whereas now, having a whole advert for themselves showing that woman can now dress how they like. 

However, this advert also shows that the openness of gender has not been improved at all. This is because in the advert they have turned the whole advert into a display to show that men are no longer superior and instead it is now woman when in actual fact it should be both woman and men are superior to the same degree because if woman or even men want to be treated as equals then they have to start presenting it that way rather than trying to be the superior gender in today's society. 

Another reason why I don’t agree largely to Gaunlett’s theory that we are now living in a world where the meaning of gender is increasingly open is because even though it seems that each gender is treated equally, you can quite clearly see through the use of the other two adverts that I have chosen that this isn’t the case. In the Joseph Schlitz Brewing Company advert you can depict that the obvious stereotype is that the woman’s job is to stay at home and cook. The male's representation however how is to go out to the pub and drink. This is seen through mise en scene of how they are both dressed- the woman in clothes a person would typically wear when doing house choirs, and the male wearing clothes that you’d either wear to work or going to the pub.  The more modern advert I have chosen to represent this ideology is the advert for Uspaah. Even though this is a beauty salon of sorts which is aimed for woman, it still stereotypes the roles of both genders as does the Schlitz advert as it also shows that men are the ones that going out drinking whereas the woman would stay at home. 

In conclusion I do no not agree with David Gauntlett’s theory of identity suggests that we are now living in  a world where the meaning of gender is increasingly open due to how in print advertisement they are not tackling sexism but instead reversing it, and trying to ‘show him it's a woman’s world’ when in actual fact it should be ‘show one another its each other's world’. Once society can understand this then Gauntlett’s theory will become reality but until then it will just be a war between men and woman to see who has the most power and has the most superiority and when this isn't the case, genders are still the exact same as before- the male going out and the female staying at home.