Objectification and Branding of Women in the Guitar World

[Sollipsist]

Yea, all feminists should ban together until there's not a single woman on that Fender page! Equality via obscurity!

Oh yea, how does this relate to scantily clad women on amps / the effect of woman as sex objects in branding on guitar products?

Not sure. Thought the OP was interested in a conversation at least partly about the use of the marketplace as a tool to influence public morality by reducing the incidence of stereotypical representations of marginalized persons.

My point was simply that the marketplace is s treacherous tool and public morality is essentially the domain of Puritanism. A couple of dudes with a hot chick logo on their amp aren't offending anyone who hasn't made their mind up to be offended, and the marketplace as a whole is so utterly conducive to including and attracting female players that this conversation probably hasn't been relevant or necessary for a decade or two. Yet here we are.

 

[narad]

Not sure. Thought the OP was interested in a conversation at least partly about the use of the marketplace as a tool to influence public morality by reducing the incidence of stereotypical representations of marginalized persons.

My point was simply that the marketplace is s treacherous tool and public morality is essentially the domain of Puritanism. A couple of dudes with a hot chick logo on their amp aren't offending anyone who hasn't made their mind up to be offended, and the marketplace as a whole is so utterly conducive to including and attracting female players that this conversation probably hasn't been relevant or necessary for a decade or two. Yet here we are.

I don't agree at all.

In short, just because some companies offer beginner girl-targeted guitars or ukuleles, doesn't by any means indicate that the larger guitar community that exists in advertisements, branding, and online communities, is a welcoming or encouraging place for female guitar players. To spin this back around to the CS example, there have for decades been a lot of scholarships specifically targeting women, encouraging them to get into CS. Yet you take that scholarship, and bam, now you're in sausage town where your day-to-day environment is a boy's club at best and antagonistic at worst (or maybe not worst). It wasn't until people started actually trying to change the environment and get women included in decision making that the community made more significant strides towards more equal gender representation.

And there you go with "offended". It's not about offending. It's just the obvious attitude that women in this domain are often treated as eye candy.

 

[rx]

I don't care about the issue of gender, but I think using sex to sell is cheesy.

 

[rx]

And childish.

It shows me of their insecurity with their masculinity. It's like when a teenager gets laid for the first time and wants to let people know of it.

 

[lurè]

It's just the obvious attitude that women in this domain are often treated as eye candy.

I can't blame a man for being attracted by a logo like that or a woman for being attracted by a six pack on a parfum commercial.
For every man that feels "offended" by that, there's a woman who feels the same.
For every man that just doesn't care about how it's presented and looks if the produc is good, there's a woman who thinks the same.

I honestly think that's just marketing, a cheesy attempt, but it doesn't prevent a woman from buying a guitar/amp or me from buying a parfum.

 

[narad]

So thirsty you need your sexual eye candy and your amps mixed together? What about a tie with sexy women upside down -- that way, at any point during the day when you're craving, you're just a quick glance away.

And naturally you can fit not just one woman, but many on a tie, which makes it better bang for your buck. Why pay $4500 for an amp with just one sexy woman on it when you can pay $8 for a tie with many? That's just economics 101 right there.

How far-fetched the six-pack perfume example is is kinda a testament to how much the logic breaks down on this stuff.

 

[bostjan]

So thirsty you need your sexual eye candy and your amps mixed together? What about a tie with sexy women upside down -- that way, at any point during the day when you're craving, you're just a quick glance away.

And naturally you can fit not just one woman, but many on a tie, which makes it better bang for your buck. Why pay $4500 for an amp with just one sexy woman on it when you can pay $8 for a tie with many? That's just economics 101 right there.

How far-fetched the six-pack perfume example is is kinda a testament to how much the logic breaks down on this stuff.

Or just get a $20 tattoo of a lady on your forearm, so you can view it when dressed casually, as well.

Classy.
x-z-x-z-x-z-x-z-x-z-x-z-x-z-x-z-x-z-x-z-x-z-x-z-x-z-x-z-x-z-x-z-x-z-x-z-x
You know, I can see the marketing strategy of using an image like this to gain attention, but, when you are talking about a boutique amp without any sort of real advertising campaign...what's the idea there. I think it just came down to the guy in the video telling the artist he hired that he wanted a logo with a sexy librarian - that's probably what that all boils down to - something he thought he would like. I doubt there was much more conscious-level thought put into it than that; however, there is the discussion behind what sort of cultural habits led to the moment where that subconscious level thought made sense, but I think that's fairly apparent.

 

[TedEH]

just because some companies offer beginner girl-targeted guitars or ukuleles, doesn't by any means indicate that the larger guitar community that exists in advertisements, branding, and online communities, is a welcoming or encouraging place for female guitar players.

I find there's a weird disconnect when it comes to these obviously-for-girls instruments. I've got nothing against marketing to women - makes sense to me that if we're going to say "we need more women here" then we should be targeting them with marketing as a means to that goal - but the way some markets have done that, traditionally, is just condescending rather than effective. Like when I say the word "boys guitar" I might picture a pointy black thing of various potential quality/price points. When I say "girls guitar" I picture exactly the examples already cited -> daisy rock, $20 pink ukuleles, etc. It's all entry/cheap/garbage level instruments with condescending paint jobs.

If you had two 12 year old kids walk into a store, the boy sees walls upon walls of cool guitars marketed towards his interests (because, lets not kid ourselves, when we walk into a store ourselves, we're just big 12 year olds, amirite?), but the girl walks into the store and sees a small butterfly guitar next to all the cool ones with a paint job that says "this one's for you. All the other cool ones are for serious players, you get this one." I get than an adult can see through this, but a kid? At the ages where interests in these kinds of things start to really develop? At the point where kids are deciding the things that they'll start to get into at a later age? How about taking all the regular guitars and put women on the box? How about more stuff like that Nita signature S?

That's a question I don't see come up very often in "there aren't enough women here" discussions - how does age factor into it? I get that an adult can see through the politics, and the ads, and can make up their mind to do whatever they want, but kids are pretty malleable. When we talk about getting people into music we talk about kids. When we talk about getting females into any domain, we talk about adults. Why? Seems like we should still be talking about kids.

 

[lurè]

I doubt there was much more conscious-level thought put into it than that; however, there is the discussion behind what sort of cultural habits led to the moment where that subconscious level thought made sense, but I think that's fairly apparent.

I don't know. Phallocentrism? Sexual objectification? Or, as you stated, simply the guy thought it was cool to put a sexy librarian as a logo. I doubt the guy had sleepless nights thinking about the ethical consequences of his choice.

get than an adult can see through this, but a kid? At the ages where interests in these kinds of things start to really develop? At the point where kids are deciding the things that they'll start to get into at a later age?

I admitt that if I was a 12 years old girl, I'd be very charmed by a Nita's giant poster and by her guitars, as much as a 12yo boy looking at a Zakk Wylde's poster and his guitars.

However, during early childhood guitars are seen more as "toys" then instruments, so they're provided with all the features that a child would like.

 

[TedEH]

I remember at 12, being of a mindset where I wanted to be older, and wanted to be treated a bit more as an adult - so I'm sure I would have made the distinction between a "kids guitar" and a "real guitar". A small scale, but still good instrument could still be cool, but handing a 12 year old something that is very clearly a toy tells them that you don't take their interest very seriously. In my opinion.

 

[lurè]

I wouldn't buy one of those toy guitars either.
I think that a cheap starter pack would be more beneficial.
Adding to the fact that a child is treated more as an adult, you're teaching him/her that maybe music is a bit more than a game and he/she is going to need lessons in order to play it.

 

[narad]

I don't know. Phallocentrism? Sexual objectification? Or, as you stated, simply the guy thought it was cool to put a sexy librarian as a logo. I doubt the guy had sleepless nights thinking about the ethical consequences of his choice.

That is entirely the point. I don't think the amp guys are terrible people like, "Yaa! Men Rule! Go make me a sandwich hahah!" -- they're just guys making a decision of what they think is cool, with no consideration of whether there is an ethical consequence or if it's particularly distasteful to think the archetypical depiction of a smart woman is a model dressed in some sexified business attire in a seductive pose.

What's changing in the rest of the world is that when you're objectifying a gender/race/other minority, people realize it's smart to gather their opinions on it first, so they're not making a decision that in retrospect reads about as timeless as, "One day, computers may even be small enough to fit in your living room, and could process megabytes of data!"

 

[Albake21]

I'm a bit late to the discussion, but I thought I'd still give my opinion. Personally I have no problem with them using the logo, but that doesn't mean I don't think it looks just pain stupid and cringy. Too many people get offended over literally everything and it's just fucking annoying. Modern day absolutely sucks with the amount of idiots scared or offended over anything you do. I won't get into it too much as it would turn into political reasons but who cares if these dudes want to use the logo. It's a logo... yes it's very cheesy, but who cares.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

I'm a bit late to the discussion, but I thought I'd still give my opinion. Personally I have no problem with them using the logo, but that doesn't mean I don't think it looks just pain stupid and cringy. Too many people get offended over literally everything and it's just fucking annoying. Modern day absolutely sucks with the amount of idiots scared or offended over anything you do. I won't get into it too much as it would turn into political reasons but who cares if these dudes want to use the logo. It's a logo... yes it's very cheesy, but who cares.

I think there's more people talking about others being “offended” than anyone actually being offended.

I don’t actually see anyone who’s offended in this thread.

Anyone who thinks there is is missing @narad ’s points of discussion entirely.

 

[narad]

I feel like... no one reads?

I feel like this needs a disclaimer like:

By clicking reply you AGREE that you are not:

1. a guy posting about how you have no problem with them using the logo.

2. going to talk about how everyone's offended and trying to find things to be offended about.

3. going to mention a right to free speech.

If the above restrictions do not apply to your comment, click REPLY now.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

I feel like... no one reads?

Calm down, you’re getting offended too easily.

 

[Albake21]

Seriously? Looks like I offended people by just typing a comment about offended people. Love it. I wasn't talking about others offended on here. I was just saying the world in general.

Why can't I reply if I don't have a problem with it?

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Seriously? Looks like I offended people by just typing a comment about offended people. Love it. I wasn't talking about others offended on here. I was just saying the world in general.

Why can't I reply if I don't have a problem with it?

Is this satire or for real?

 

[narad]

Calm down, you’re getting offended too easily.

 

[Albake21]

Is this satire or for real?

Am I missing something here? Seriously... I don't get the problem here.