Objectification and Sensibility: A Critical Look at Sexism as Subtext in Postfeminist Advertising
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the phenomenon of sex in advertising to understand the relationship between objectification of gender, sex, sexuality and representations of femininity through advertising subtexts, processes and discourses. Literature shows the usage of sexism in advertising and marketing veers in extreme scopes between blatant explicitness and stylish subtlety, depending on the cultural contexts and norms of the target market. Using qualitative case examples, advertising campaigns highlight objectification of sexual desires as an antithesis of postfeminist thought. Rhetorical analysis was performed on advertisement samples, building from postfeminist perspectives in marketing theories. Examples of visual rhetoric in beer, feminine product commercials and social cause campaigns are discussed. Findings demonstrate cultural expressions of postfeminist sensibility adapted for specific femininity contexts. Overall, sexism subtexts are shown to be a continued challenge in developing persuasive advertising rhetoric for the postfeminist era. Non-translatability and cultural adaptations to consumer segments suggests that the use of sex to visually communicate marketing information to an increasingly diverse marketplace face much social pressure today than in the past. Femininity themes in postfeminist advertising could be more effectively portrayed through subtle techniques such as irony and sarcasm, and in more inclusive, diverse, pragmatic and respectful femininity representations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".