Objectification and Branding of Women in the Guitar World

[Edika]

^ This more or less sums up my opinion. I refuse to jump on the "any expression of strait male sexuality is offensive" or "any depiction of someone being sexy reduces them to an object" trains. Why do people not complain about something like depictions of sexy firemen? Why does depicting a man in a sexy way not count as objectifying them? We nitpick about which sexual expressions are considered offensive based on weird, screwed up, current social values, not because there's actually anything wrong with anyone's sexual expressions.

Realistically, the mistake being made here is not that they've used a sexy woman in a logo, it's that they've misjudged what the market wants to see right now in 2018.

You have a valid point about the objectification of men and I do agree with you. In some sense it is a bit more subtle and less pronounced. It also has to do with the double standards most societies have about what is the acceptable sexual behavior of males and females and in some cases what is supposed to be an acceptable and healthy expression of male and female sexuality. The media and advertisement has done it's fair share of exploiting either sides of sexuality to sell and promote stuff but in a sense it's amplifying what is already deep routed in society.

In a sense though none of us can truly say what is a true expression of true male sexuality and what is a true female sexuality through the conditioning we have received since childhood. Some people realize this conditioning and reject, others embrace it but most people are somewhere in between. As an average looking dude believe I have never felt like I have been objectified even once in my life. Most female friends I have can recall numerous instances, even with what be considered average looks. That I don't really consider as an expression of straight sexuality, at least not a healthy one.

 

[TedEH]

In a sense though none of us can truly say what is a true expression of true male sexuality and what is a true female sexuality through the conditioning we have received since childhood. Some people realize this conditioning and reject, others embrace it but most people are somewhere in between. As an average looking dude believe I have never felt like I have been objectified even once in my life. Most female friends I have can recall numerous instances, even with what be considered average looks. That I don't really consider as an expression of straight sexuality, at least not a healthy one.

I'm not sure you understood what I meant as an expression of sexuality. I mean ANY expression. If you say "I think that woman is hot", you're expressing your sexuality. If you dress in a way that makes you feel attractive, you've expressed your sexuality. If you buy something with a dick on it because you think it's hilarious in that awkward-because-there's-a-dick-on-it kind of way, that's an expression of sexuality. If you similarly buy an amp because of a cartoonishly proportioned "hot woman" with glasses is drawn on it, that counts too. So does a woman buying a calendar with firemen on it (which is the only super obvious example I can think of, cause I feel like most women I know are more careful about overt expressions like that - although not all of them, I've known some women who were obnoxiously open about sex, to the point of making the men around them uncomfortable, in the way we claim is something only men would do).

But this whole notion of "men objectify women, not the other way around" is entirely untrue. I mean, have the people saying these things actually spent time with women? They just as often (sometimes more!) will take in media with that sense of "man, that person's hot" as men do. They just as often throw awkward unsolicited sexual comments at men, or depictions of men, as we claim that men do. Stuff marketed to them is just as heavily sexualized. They're people. We're all people. We're all stupid awkward sexual people. But for some reason, modern values have decided that it's not ok to express or acknowledge this if you're a strait dude, lest you offend someone.

I just can't subscribe to the notion that strait males finding someone attractive strips them of any other values. Are there men who can't see past a womans looks? Sure. There are women who can't see past the aesthetic values of a men either though. If we reaaaaaaally want to treat men and women equally (and I think we do, right?) we need to drop the double standards and stop getting so uppity about sex.

 

[bostjan]

I'm neither offended by this image nor the OP's desire to discuss whether the image is offensive or not.

I do think that the use of sex appeal to get people's attention in an advertisement is still a thing. Personally, the cartoony girl in the tight skirt with the glasses does not make me want to purchase a boutique amplifier. But, if I tried an amp and really liked how it sounded and it happened to have that logo on it, it wouldn't cause me to avoid buying it.

 

[TedEH]

I do think that the use of sex appeal to get people's attention in an advertisement is still a thing.

I can't imagine it'll ever not be a thing.

 

[narad]

I'm not sure you understood what I meant as an expression of sexuality. I mean ANY expression. If you say "I think that woman is hot", you're expressing your sexuality. If you dress in a way that makes you feel attractive, you've expressed your sexuality. If you buy something with a dick on it because you think it's hilarious in that awkward-because-there's-a-dick-on-it kind of way, that's an expression of sexuality. If you similarly buy an amp because of a cartoonishly proportioned "hot woman" with glasses is drawn on it, that counts too. So does a woman buying a calendar with firemen on it (which is the only super obvious example I can think of, cause I feel like most women I know are more careful about overt expressions like that - although not all of them, I've known some women who were obnoxiously open about sex, to the point of making the men around them uncomfortable, in the way we claim is something only men would do).

But this whole notion of "men objectify women, not the other way around" is entirely untrue. I mean, have the people saying these things actually spent time with women? They just as often (sometimes more!) will take in media with that sense of "man, that person's hot" as men do. They just as often throw awkward unsolicited sexual comments at men, or depictions of men, as we claim that men do. Stuff marketed to them is just as heavily sexualized. They're people. We're all people. We're all stupid awkward sexual people. But for some reason, modern values have decided that it's not ok to express or acknowledge this if you're a strait dude, lest you offend someone.

I just can't subscribe to the notion that strait males finding someone attractive strips them of any other values. Are there men who can't see past a womans looks? Sure. There are women who can't see past the aesthetic values of a men either though. If we reaaaaaaally want to treat men and women equally (and I think we do, right?) we need to drop the double standards and stop getting so uppity about sex.

I feel like this is borderline strawman’ing the argument though, and getting too far outside the scope of the topic. I’m not saying there aren’t women who use their sexuality for their own gain, and that’s bad. I’m not saying women don’t objectify bad, and that that’s bad. But I think it’s probably prudent within a particular community with severe gender imbalances to be especially mindful and maybe ever err on the side of caution when making decisions that might marginalize women or any other minority. Maybe even consider asking some people in that demographic how they feel about said decision before doing it.

Or to flip it around, if we as a CS academic community had taken the same attitude of, ~”grow up! there’s no problem here! we’re expressing our sexuality!”, then no policies would have changed and quite possibly we’d be seeing the same stagnating female enrollment that had existed for decades. Typically these policies are presented with a certain, “Is this really necessary?” or “Well, I’m not sure if this will help but we can try this out”, and then ultimately the feedback we get back from CS students is overwhelmingly positive. This puts me very much on the side of, “Let’s just try to not have advertisements and logos and any other behavior* in the guitar community that objectifies or marginalizes minority groups of players” and just see where it gets us. It’s not like people aren’t going to buy the $4k+ amp because it doesn’t have a picture of a sexy girl on it, so I’m not seeing the downside?


*creepo youtube comments, threads started to trash female guitar players, insinuating we only talk about female musicians because they are female, not have threads on major online guitar forums whose sole purpose is to post pictures of women in bikinis and “discuss” like you need a one-stop-shop for your gear info AND your wank material, commenting “I’ll have one of those. And the guitar too!” whenever someone posts a picture of a girl holding a guitar, etc...

 

[xzacx]

But this whole notion of "men objectify women, not the other way around" is entirely untrue. I mean, have the people saying these things actually spent time with women? They just as often (sometimes more!) will take in media with that sense of "man, that person's hot" as men do. They just as often throw awkward unsolicited sexual comments at men, or depictions of men, as we claim that men do. Stuff marketed to them is just as heavily sexualized. They're people. We're all people. We're all stupid awkward sexual people. But for some reason, modern values have decided that it's not ok to express or acknowledge this if you're a strait dude, lest you offend someone.

I don't disagree with the fact that men get objectified too, but I think there's a difference in a similar way that it's not the same to have "black pride" and "white pride." Based on the very real history and power structure amongst these different groups, it's just not the same.

Is that fair? Maybe, maybe not, but is it fair that some of these demographics have historically held power, whether socially, economically, or physically, over the others?

 

[bostjan]

I’m not saying there aren’t women who use their sexuality for their own gain, and that’s bad. I’m not saying women don’t objectify bad, and that that’s bad.

Just for clarification, how is it bad? Like, morally bad?

 

[TedEH]

But I think it’s probably prudent within a particular community with severe gender imbalances to be especially mindful and maybe ever err on the side of caution when making decisions that might marginalize women or any other minority.

My last response was mostly to the comment I had quoted, not so much to the OP, if that makes a difference. This is what I meant by playing to a modern market though. While I wouldn't go as far as saying "we have no gender issues here, lets move along", I don't think I'd stray as far as "severe imbalances" either. I mean that in the sense that I'm with you for all the junk you put after the * in the last comment, but I don't think putting sexy people on amps marginalizes anyone. And that's what I mean by that last comment - we've demonized sex. People don't buy amps with girls drawn on them because they hate women or want to exercise some kind of power fantasy or something, they buy it cause amps are cool and women are attractive - and I have no problem with that.

And yes, I'm saying this as someone who works in tech, with few women, and is familiar with the whole not-very-many-women-around-in-school-and-work scenarios.

I think there's a difference in a similar way that it's not the same to have "black pride" and "white pride." Based on the very real history and power structure amongst these different groups, it's just not the same.

Again, I won't say "no, there's no history or nuance here!", but I think it's blown out of proportion. I don't subscribe to the whole "patriarchy" thing people like to hoist over situations. We don't live in the movies where women are powerless over men. There are certainly imbalances if you go looking for them, but I don't think this is one of them.

 

[narad]

Just for clarification, how is it bad? Like, morally bad?

I could have typed that better: I’m not saying "there aren’t women who use their sexuality for their own gain, and that’s bad." -- quote inclusive, I'm just not making any value judgement there, because it's too far out there, we're in a bad spot to act like our opinions on that really take into account the experience of being women, etc, and I don't think it's so important to imagery and attitudes towards women within the guitar community. I'm not touching it!

It's like the burlesque thing -- yea, women in burlesque use their sexuality, but that that happens, or how women feel about that, is far removed from discussion about how it pertains to the guitar world. IMO.

 

[TedEH]

I think it could be argued that the imagery isn't going to do anything to attract (most) women to that particular product, or to guitar playing in general, but I just don't get onboard with the idea that every image of a an attractive women has to be torn down as some kind of example of being progressive, or sticking it to the man, or something like that. Much like the cases where pedals were taken off the shelf (as in stores refused to carry/sell them) for being "offensive" - I get it, the market says you probably shouldn't put these right up front in your shop for a number of reasons, but I'm not going to call the creator sexist in the process, or suggest they're a bad person for using that art.

I understand not wanting to drive women away from domains where there are few of them to begin with. But at the same time I think what we have is more an issue with how we as a people react and respond the the imagery, rather than an issue with the imagery having been used in the first place. I feel like a better approach is not to hide sexuality away and stop people from expressing it, but rather to ask ourselves why we're so uncomfortable with these displays in the first place.

Am I possibly way off the mark? Maybe. But that's the discussion I see as being more useful.

 

[bostjan]

I could have typed that better: I’m not saying "there aren’t women who use their sexuality for their own gain, and that’s bad." -- quote inclusive, I'm just not making any value judgement there, because it's too far out there, we're in a bad spot to act like our opinions on that really take into account the experience of being women, etc, and I don't think it's so important to imagery and attitudes towards women within the guitar community. I'm not touching it!

It's like the burlesque thing -- yea, women in burlesque use their sexuality, but that that happens, or how women feel about that, is far removed from discussion about how it pertains to the guitar world. IMO.

Maybe there's a lot going on here. I guess, when I first went through the thread, I was having a bit of a difficult time pinning down exactly what it was that was offensive. I'll just kind of riff out a guess, and then you can correct me where I'm wrong.

So, it seems that the general statement is that it's rather tacky of a group of middle-aged dudes to brand an amplifier with a depiction of a made-up cartoon character that is described as a "sexy librarian" and essentially appears as a typical pin-up model type of woman, just with glasses and a sort of playful take on business-professional clothing. Maybe there's a note along with that that the motivation for these guys to do that is that their target demographic is more middle-aged dudes, and there's a sort of tone-deafness here that might perpetuate the exclusion of women from the boutique guitar amplifier purchasing demographic.

I guess I can't bring myself to play devil's advocate and disagree with any of that, really, but there's another layer underneath all of that, too, and then there's the discussion of whether or not anything needs to be done about something "tacky" or something poltically tone-deaf, or whatever...

 

[narad]

but rather to ask ourselves why we're so uncomfortable with these displays in the first place.

Are we? I think the fact that sexy women selling guitars is almost like my prototypical image of an 80s ad, and that we still see this today, means we (guys) are not uncomfortable with this.

And flipped around, what scenario have we ever been in when we'd be the odd one out, and every thing was branded with sexy guys? I think it's impossible to stand back and say there's no problem with the imagery when we've basically never been in the reverse scenario.

In general I just think some number of people currently drop out and give up guitar for whatever reason. Is that number going to be higher or lower if the communities people are apart of are encouraging / accepting / with a sense of belonging, vs. when a lot of the imagery implicitly defines an "us" and a "them". And that this sort of phenomena is cyclic -- more women drop out of guitar, then there are less female guitar heroes (and you have to read about how they don't deserve it every time you go follow them), and that creates less incentive for women to really pick up an interest in it in the first place.

 

[xzacx]

I feel like a better approach is not to hide sexuality away and stop people from expressing it, but rather to ask ourselves why we're so uncomfortable with these displays in the first place.

Who says it's about hiding hiding anything or being uncomfortable with it? I can only speak for myself, but I haven't seen anyone arguing that. It's just a matter of being respectful. Do you really think George Metropolis was trying to express his sexuality here? This is just tone-deaf marketing by someone with a taste level that hasn't evolved with the rest of the world.

 

[Edika]

I'm not sure you understood what I meant as an expression of sexuality. I mean ANY expression. If you say "I think that woman is hot", you're expressing your sexuality. If you dress in a way that makes you feel attractive, you've expressed your sexuality. If you buy something with a dick on it because you think it's hilarious in that awkward-because-there's-a-dick-on-it kind of way, that's an expression of sexuality. If you similarly buy an amp because of a cartoonishly proportioned "hot woman" with glasses is drawn on it, that counts too. So does a woman buying a calendar with firemen on it (which is the only super obvious example I can think of, cause I feel like most women I know are more careful about overt expressions like that - although not all of them, I've known some women who were obnoxiously open about sex, to the point of making the men around them uncomfortable, in the way we claim is something only men would do).

But this whole notion of "men objectify women, not the other way around" is entirely untrue. I mean, have the people saying these things actually spent time with women? They just as often (sometimes more!) will take in media with that sense of "man, that person's hot" as men do. They just as often throw awkward unsolicited sexual comments at men, or depictions of men, as we claim that men do. Stuff marketed to them is just as heavily sexualized. They're people. We're all people. We're all stupid awkward sexual people. But for some reason, modern values have decided that it's not ok to express or acknowledge this if you're a strait dude, lest you offend someone.

I just can't subscribe to the notion that strait males finding someone attractive strips them of any other values. Are there men who can't see past a womans looks? Sure. There are women who can't see past the aesthetic values of a men either though. If we reaaaaaaally want to treat men and women equally (and I think we do, right?) we need to drop the double standards and stop getting so uppity about sex.

I agree for sure with your last sentence and I might not have made myself as clear as I intented in my post. My personal objection is not with expressing sexuality. It's mostly how it's stuffed down our throat with what we see around us all the time and how it might be portrayed in society and what the expectations are in both sexes.
I also understand very well what you're saying and I'm not putting women on a pedestal by claiming they don't ever objectify men. But I've seen a big difference in the objectification of men and women and how it is expressed on the intensity and the frequency levels.
I'm not saying finding women attractive is bad or offensive. Neither approaching them and talking to them just with the sole intent of having sex. I don't consider it offensive to check out a woman you find cute. It all depends to me on how you do it and if you can do it in a respectful manner. I mean when I hear a female colleague commenting that last time she felt warm she took of her coat in a meeting and several pair of eyes zoomed in her cleavage. That didn't exactly fill her with joy. What I do admit is that I don't understand their position. I'm an average looking guy and never have I been approached in a way that would make me uncomfortable. There isn't a woman I have met that haven't had some sort of verbal abuse aimed towards her, from catcalling to being called a bitch for turning down someone.

EDIT: I missed a lot of the conversation since my last response so some of the points I was making might have been covered already. It is a discussion and not one I feel that strong about as it might seem in my responses. Writing on the interwebz always takes away that interpersonal interaction that would show that either party os not as invested and contradictory as they might seem online.

 

[TedEH]

means we (guys) are not uncomfortable with this.

I didn't mean to say "we" as guys, I meant "we" as people. Or more specifically, I think we're having this discussion because men assumed that women would be uncomfortable with the image because of what Bostjan described.

And flipped around, what scenario have we ever been in when we'd be the odd one out, and every thing was branded with sexy guys? I think it's impossible to stand back and say there's no problem with the imagery when we've basically never been in the reverse scenario.

Have you ever attended any of those weird pyramd-scheme-y "parties" where some random rep comes to your home and demos stuff? That's kind of like that. Ever been to a "boylesque" show? Ever been to a family christmas party where the women like to give eachother weird vaguely sexual gifts? Ever taken a home ec / cooking / etc class and been the only guy there? How about a showing of that Magic Mike movie? Ever stepped into pretty much any sex shop? Any one I've been in was 99% focused on women. Lets not pretend there aren't scenarios where women are the dominant sex and that equivalently awkward scenarios don't occur.

 

[TedEH]

There isn't a woman I have met that haven't had some sort of verbal abuse aimed towards her, from catcalling to being called a bitch for turning down someone.

This is the part of the conversation that gets me every time. Yes, women put up with lots of crap. But putting attractive people in advertisement is not comparable to verbal abuse. If the advertisement was demeaning, I'd be with you on that one, but those points otherwise have nothing to do with eachother.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Have you ever attended any of those weird pyramd-scheme-y "parties" where some random rep comes to your home and demos stuff? That's kind of like that. Ever been to a "boylesque" show? Ever been to a family christmas party where the women like to give eachother weird vaguely sexual gifts? Ever taken a home ec / cooking / etc class and been the only guy there? How about a showing of that Magic Mike movie? Ever stepped into pretty much any sex shop? Any one I've been in was 99% focused on women. Lets not pretend there aren't scenarios where women are the dominant sex and that equivalently awkward scenarios don't occur.

The fact you have to get so oddly specific about each example highlights @narad's point.

 

[TedEH]

What's so oddly specific about those things? Is cooking oddly specific? We see all the male dominated things frequently because we're male. I assume there are a large number of women dominated domains that don't come to mind immediately because I don't interact with them frequently.

Is expensive, niche guitar amps not oddly specific? Or boutique effect pedals?

 

[xzacx]

The fact you have to get so oddly specific about each example highlights @narad's point.

I don't think I've ever personally found myself in one of those scenarios. I am intrigued by what's going on at @TedEH's family Xmas parties though.

 

[TedEH]

I was thinking of an ex's family rather than my own, for the record. Although, the constant references to sexy firemen does come from an Aunt I have whose "thing" is to always bring up how sexy she thinks firemen are - leading to sexy-fireman-themed xmas gifts pretty frequently.