By Ian H.
Advertising has historically been ripe with examples of gendered exploitation to sell products. Cleaning product and food item campaigns have been (generally) focused on women, and power tools and athletic gear campaigns have (generally) been focused on men. Contemporarily, however, companies have recognized a shift in public opinion regarding gendered stereotypes and have largely responded in kind. There are, of course, exceptions to this trend, but one commercial, originally aired in 2014, stood out to me as a complete failure in attempting to accommodate the sensibilities of any gender: the Australian Snickers advertisement.
In the commercial, a construction crew has taken to cat-calling women on the street below them. Rather than eschewing the tired tropes of objectifying “compliments,” the crew surprises women by shouting language and talking points male feminists of the second wave of feminism might consider familiar (as that wave focused more on social equality than the legal equality exhibited in feminism’s second wave). Phrases like, “That color really works on you, have a productive day!” “You want to hear a filthy word? Gender bias!” and “A woman’s place is where she chooses!” are, on the surface, somewhat relieving and refreshingly unexpected, until the viewer considers the text preluding the commercial: “What happens when builders aren’t themselves? We thought we’d find out,” and concluded at the end with, “You’re not you when you’re hungry.”
The surface of this advertisement leads a viewer to imagine the world in which derogatory and misogynistic language shouted at women is behind us, but the substance of it suggests otherwise. What Snickers is saying is that the natural state of men working construction (thereby also introducing an element of classism) is one of inevitability, and historically, of blatant sexism and harassment conformity. When the crew is deprived of nutrients, their delusional state manifests as, somehow, progressive stances on gender equality?
Snickers also missed the point when they suggest that, hungry or not, male construction workers will always be inclined to single out and shout at female passersby – apparently, that behavior will always be in the nature of those in that profession; indeed, as one commentator states:
“I would still call it creepy for guys to just yell compliments at women from a distance…” – Paietyn B.
“Just because these messages aren’t sexist doesn’t make it non-confronting and startling for a woman walking down the street. No one (man or woman) should be singled out and shouted at. Full stop.” -Renee Chopping
Personally, I’m in agreement with commentators such as Gabriela Ganem, who hopes “they all remain hungry.” If Snickers is trying to say that their product helps male consumers revert to misogyny, they’re stating that misogynists are the target audience. If Snickers is sincerely attempting to adopt more of a pro-feminist voice, they’re stating that feminists should avoid purchasing Snickers candy bars.
Moreover, Snickers is telling women that being shouted at by a construction crew is just something they must accept. Simultaneously, Snickers is telling men that their natural state is one of aggressive sexualized vocal harassment. In one advertisement, Snickers has managed to offend both women and straight, cis-gendered men with blue-collar jobs.
The more nefarious messaging here is one of symbolic interactionism, wherein “communication with others is the primary way we develop identity, including gender identity” (Fixmer-Oraiz & Wood, 2019). The idea that a man’s role is to engage in catcalling, be the calling progressive or regressive in nature, is impactful on male viewing youth, and encourages this behavior as acceptable into adulthood. From a Standpoint Theory perspective, Snickers is saying that lower-class men are too stupid to realize that the behavior of catcalling, rather than their specific messaging, is what is so offensive. This machismo-cultural stupidity is exemplified by commentator S Campbell, who says “All these chicks getting mad at this commercial lmao. It’s a commercial Jesus,” and, more aptly, by Hubert Farnsworth, stating, “Society reads into things too much. It’s a commercial. It’s supposed to be a joke. Laugh at it or f*** off.” Standpoint theorists would say that, since they are not women constantly exposed to such harassing behavior, Campbell and Farnsworth are incapable of considering the act of shouting at strangers to be offensive in and of itself.
One example of why men might be unable to comprehend this animosity can be found in a study by the Australia Institute, which found that, in 2015, 87% of women surveyed were verbally or physically attacked while walking down the street.
It is up to all consumers to “look under the rug” of advertising at offensive messaging. The public has voted with its dollars in the past and it must continue to do so, as corporate offensive messaging is more subliminal than ever. “Divide and conquer” might be a good strategy to maintain control (and therefore to retain customer loyalty), but time is up for advertisers who still strive to profit by maintaining their efforts to facilitate a permanent wedge in gendered advertising.