Vintage ads from the legitimate" press that spoke (and speak) for themselves...(In case you thought that "Basic Family Values" were stronger 50 or 60 years ago.)
And the absolute worst....
In some ways, maybe we HAVE come a long way, after all!
( for another perspective on these ads and others, that appeared on 5/11, please go to http://open.salon.com/blog/sheilatgtg55 )
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
escrito por nada
Wren Dancer
FusunA
Leepin Larry
Out on a limb
Miguela Holt y Roybal
Salon.com
Comments
Seriously, pretty amazing when you steop backa moment and think about the m,essage that is cultuarally supported through ads like these from the good 'ol days.
Thanks for another great one Mary Ann!
PS - After seeing this ad, Kathy, I wouldn't be able to think of a beautiful fragrance or song because, frankly, the ad with the Jonbenet Ramsey look-alike makes me too sick to my stomach
rated
Here's a link to what she had to say about these ads...with respect and apologies
http://open.salon.com/blog/sheilatgtg55
By the way, am I the only one here who wore Love's Baby Soft? By 70's standards, that wasn't a particularly sexist ad. It was more an updated take on the Northern Tissue girls.
The rest make me feel like I've gotten lost in a some sort of time warp. I am grateful for all of my foremothers who fought for freedom I enjoy as a woman today.
Personally, I LOVED Love's Baby Soft when I was a girl and it was because of the ads. I felt cute and sexy and feminine. And I had forgotten completely all about it until seeing your post. Thanks for the reminder.
Great collection. Keep 'em coming!
People say that advertising reflects the mores of the time, that they wouldn't do it if it didn't work, etc.
I really don't think we've come that far at all in fifty years, in terms of what this people will do for a dollar.
I look around at the billboards and buses and all I see are semi-naked women selling everything from cars to ice-cream.
My feeling is that in some ways we've regressed, even.
Call me cranky. At least the use of children has ... no, strike that.
ps Kathy, thanks for planting a Donovan loop in my tired brain today :-)
Perhaps some legal mind can educate us all on the whole "public domain" issue. I would be grateful if that happened. Thanks.
(If I read the section below correctly, the lawyers are saying that anything created prior to 1978 would be protected by copyright for 28 year and (if it were renewed) 28 more. This mean if these ads were from 1950, for example, the public domain kicked around 2006 - IF THEIR ORIGINAL COPYRIGHTS WERE RENEWED.)
________________________________________
from: http://www.medialawyer.com/lec-copy.htm
WORKS FOR HIRE
• A. The author usually owns the copyright automatically, unless he, or she was paid by a third party and prepared the work as a work for hire, in which case, the employer owns the copyright.
1. The authors of a collaborative work own its copyright jointly.
• B. Fair Use: The fair use doctrine allows for copying without permission for such purposes as criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
1. Four main factors for determining whether Fair Use exception is available:
A. The purpose of the use (whether the copying is intended for commercial, or non-profit purposes).
B. The nature of the original (whether it was published, or unpublished, is one consideration here).
C. The amount and importance of the portion used in relation to the original work as a whole.
D. The impact of the use on the original work's commercial value.
Also, the Fair Use provision may also apply to OS (or Youtube etc.) use of copyrighted materials for commentary that no one makes money from.
____________________
V.COPYRIGHT DURATION
• A. Copyrights are not eternal. When a copyright expires, the work falls into the public domain, and anyone is free to use it without permission.
• B. Any work created on, or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected by copyright from the moment it was created.
1. For these works, the copyright expires 50 years after the author's death.
2. Works created as work for hire, and as pseudonymous and anonymous works are protected for 75 years from date of publication, or 100 years from the date of their creation, whichever is shorter.
3. Works created before, but not published, or registered until after 1978, receive the same protection as works created on, or after that date.
4. Works created and published, and registered before 1978, and were still under copyright protection on that date, are now copyrighted for a total of 75 years from the date they were created, published, or registered.
5. Works that fall under the old copyright law prior to January 1, 1978, were entitled to an initial 28 years of protection, and an additional renewal right for an additional 28 years of protection. Some works fell into the public domain because they were not renewed for a second 28 year term.
_____________
Again, I am NOT an attorney and I am not interpreting the above...but I am asking for and hoping some attorney(s) who DO know about this stuff will enlighten us.
Thanks.
explaining collateral damage as 'in america's national interest,' that's bad. that's your genuine evil, in fact.
The rest of the add, I had never seen before, and now I can understand my mother, and all my aunts complaining that they didn't like to look at the adds. Now I know why.. They all just say hey, beat your wife, girl friend, and treat her like a door mat, or even shit under your shoes.
It is very sickening to think that companies actually sexual discrimination, perverted sex with young girls, and violence and mistreatment of your wife, girl friend.
Have we come a long way, I would say in some ways yes, in some ways now.
Very thought provoking post. And very insightful. Thank you very much for this post..
rated only once but that's only because one is all they'll give me.
Also -- it is NOT taboo at all today to use young kids in sexual ads. Have you seen the Hollister ads? I did a story for which I interviewed the company about their clothing ads about six years ago for a paper newspaper (you know, back in the olden days). Hollister (or is it Holister? I don't go to the Mall much) uses 12 and 13 year old models in their commercials for teenager jeans. They want to market their size 0 to 13 jeans to the super skinny girls. No normal sized kid could wear the clothing, no kidding -- not the jeans anyway. I am 5' 10" and at the time I did the story I was 140 pounds, a thin (for my height) size 8 (mind you, I am a size 12-14 today). The young salesman wanted to sell me on the jeans. I could not fit in the largest size, the 13s.... ummm..... Something's just wrong with that picture. This is how Hollister is. It may be one of the WORST at using child models to sell sex and eating disorders. But it is certainly not the only one.
Again, let's remember the Loves Baby Soft Ads were selling products to girls who were the same age as that model -- girls who were going out on their first dates and -- GADS!!! KISSING AND MAKING OUT WITH BOYS WHO THOUGHT THEY WERE SEXY!!!
Ummm.... bring on the Loves Baby Soft commercials. I think they're much healthier than the Hollister/Holister (?) ads.
AND AT Lisa with regard to the Big Issue of this getting an EP and the other similar one not getting an EP:
No disrespect to Sheila, who I think is a dear person and a fine writer (incidentally, I am hardly on OS these days so I didn't even see hers. I only see about 5 percent of any of my "favorites" work these days), but I don't think it is "an issue" at all that this post received an EP and Sheila's did not.
Congratulations to Mary for distilling the e-mail that has been going around into a very topical post for a specific audience that has been interested in Boobquake and other issues of feminism, sexism, etc... Sheila's post had a bunch of other stuff in it that was interesting but not related. So, Mary's post is better, I think, in that it is specific and topical. I have to say the editors did good with this pick.
Peace and kisses all.... I loved this post and the commentary that followed/ is following...
Rated.
Way to get rid of problems, feminists!
That was around for years.
It was about some sun tan lotion.
In today's world in which parents are not even allowed to take pics of their kids unless they're totally covered and still risk arrest, it would not be allowed.
Some of the ads in the story are repulsive while others such as the one I mentioned were actually innocent other than by today's hysterically overdone standards.
I think, rather, that men (and some women) who think that sexism and exploitation does not still exist need to meditate on these images and remember that as late as the 70's feminist were considered radical--that there was a trivialization of the movement from those who claimed that there was nothing going on wrong in the world. Yes, we've come a long way--look at the pics! Tell me, look through a magazine and tell me you can't find examples of advertisements that might shock OS readers 50 yrs from now--assuming OS will exist in 50 yrs, of course. If you can't locate any, let me know. I can pull of a fist full in as many minutes.
For the record, the use of images/copy demeaning men is equally offensive (like the shower ad included in the post.) In this instance, the overwheling majority of the ads depicted women as sex object and disposable *even "killable") ones at that.
And ghost writer is correct, this still goes on because sex always sells. But today we have a shot at enough public outrage and legal recourse to either raise the Mad Men's consciousness or at least scare the hell out of ad idiots who persist.
But I'm curious, just what is the Pitney-Bowes ad about? I mean, how do you juxtapose murder with postage? That's just weird.
But until men themselves do something about male violence toward women and children, women can only do so much. I feel like writing to the family of Yeardley Love and asking them if they are finally going to be the ones who start a movement against male violence which occurs every day, is reported every day, but no one EVER says what an EPIDEMIC it is!! Nor is the emotional instability of violent males ever discussed publicly. Of course, part of the reason is that it's women who are the hormonally unstable ones in a male-controlled society, which is just absolute crap!! Men do violence, kill, assault often because a woman wants a divorce or to break off a relationship. And for this she gets a brutal death, but women are the unstable ones??!!! HA!!!!