The representation of women over time have changed vastly in advertisements, from the obedient housewife persona from the 20th century, to the now present independent equal-footing depiction of women in media.

The first panel displays an advert which aimed to boost female worker morale and encourage contribution to the industrial sector during WW2 America. The advertisement is a clear example of the control which social norms and stereotypes have over representation in media, although meant to display a strong working woman, the female character in the ad still conveys the values of that era. The headgear which the woman wears is befitting of a housewife, conveying the idea that although he/she is ‘strong’, she is still a homeworker at heart, and is not on equal footing as other men. In addition, the usage of the word ‘We’ in the slogan ‘We Can Do It!’ denotes that women can only achieve this through collective effort, and are otherwise weak when independent, further enforcing the stereotype that women are dependent beings.

On the other hand, the modern ad uses the word ‘Yourself’ instead of a plural pronoun, this conveys a value that contradicts that which was shown in WW2 advert, the idea that you should be striving for improvement to satisfy yourself, and not others. In comparison, the modern ad also gives the impression that being a ‘strong’ woman is more to do with fitness and ambitions, whilst the WW2 advert gives the impression that women need to be stronger for the purpose of manual labour. This shows the contrast between the values which were assumed regarding women, in the 20th century, it was assumed that women had no desire to become ‘strong’, and only did so due to external circumstances; however, modern era women do so through personal choice. This has been represented through their attire and posture, in the first advert, the woman is fully clothed in work clothing while the second advert features a woman donning sports attire, signifying that her dedication is due to personal satisfaction such as fitness or appearance etc.

The WW2 advert reflects the identity of women in that era, women were encouraged to join the workforce, but nevertheless, are still subpar to men and did not independently strive to become ‘strong’. Contrary, the present-day ad attempts to challenge the out-dated identity of women and enforced the modern idea that all are equal. Through these two ads, you can see how the values and expectations of women have changed over the generations; similarly, the social norms and perspective that the current society has on certain subjects may also follow a similar path. Things which we would least expect to be viewed in a negative light may not stand beside the same opinions it receives today. The state of social structures can never be guarenteed as ‘right’ or wrong’ as they are all suceptable to change, these adverts, being a clear example.

Cultural sensitivity plays a large role in dictating how retailers should present themselves and their ads in different countries. McDonald’s, for example, advertises themselves in a completely different light in France when in comparison to China.

The french advertisements of McDonald’s have much more of a mature and “posh” air about them, this corresponds with the western stereotype of the French population as more ‘sophisticated’ than Americans, or in this case, the Chinese. This value of elegance has been conveyed through subtle hints in the ad, such as the smaller portion size of the food, the jewlery on the model’s hand, and in general: the clean, symmetrical imagery. The usage of the brand “McCafe” over “McDonald’s” has been done on purpose, as france is a nation with an abundance of coffee shops; Similarily, the macaroon was also chosen intentionally due to it being a popular desert in france, and its close resembalence to haute cuisine, appeals to the french population.

The Chinese ad, on the other hand, is a polar opposite, displaying an action image of a cow on a skateboard, thus completely abandoning the elegance profile and instead taking on a more spontaneous and energetic profile. This has been done to correspond with the fast-paced lifestyle of typical Chinese citizens, and also as a result of the stereotype that the Chinese are not very ‘professional’ or ‘civilised’, explaining the reason why the same style of imagery used in the french ad was not used for china. The rather maximalist design of this ad relates to the belief that ‘more is better’, an ideology that is commonly shared among the Chinese population and can be seen in many of the other ads in china. This type of design style is typically viewed as ‘old-fashioned’ by western countries, hence why it is not used elsewhere, in addition, displaying animals in ads where meat products are promoted is sometimes seen as taboo by foreign countries, due to the rising popularity of veganism and vegetarianism.

In my belief, in the present day more often than not, cultural appropriation is used blindly by people in order to victimize themselves over the actions of others. Personally, I believe that culture is an important foundation of all communities and thus should not be disrespected or in any way exploited; however, I don’t agree with most cases of ‘cultural appropriation’ in the modern society. In addition, I do not think culture is limited to those born into it, and that one must be given ‘permission’ to be allowed to experience another’s culture; culture is collectively owned by the people of its community, therefore how can we know who is entitled to ‘give’ permission? 

However, if one were to blatantly exploit another culture in order to gain benefits such as wealth or popularity (e.g advertisements which us significant cultural symbols) that would be cultural appropriation and should not be tolerated. But if someone simply wears a culturally significant dress despite not being a member of that community, or unbeknownst to them, wears the dress incorrectly; they should not be slandered for their actions as there is no ill-intent behind them. In fact, I believe that cases like these actually somewhat lean towards cultural ‘appreciation’ as opposed to ‘appropriation’. As it can spread awareness and thus can cause others to also become interested in the culture, whilst also educating the wearer themselves.

Can text ever be truly representative of groups of people

In my belief, communities and groups of people cannot be represented accurately -without bias, through the form of text. Thus groups of people can never be truly represented, as the perspective of the author will always sway the text. If the author views himself as ‘unbias’ or ‘neutral’, he/she will not be able to understand the emotional values of the representated groups. However, if he/she is bias, the true nature of the represeted group will not be accurately presented.

Who gets to represent a group and who doesn’t? (who gets to tell what?)

All authors are free to write about whatever they desire. But, if an author wants to represent a certain group of people through their text, they must be an active member in that community in order to fully understand them. An author can depict any community they wish too, however, represetation is exclusivly for those which are involved. Otherwise, if an outsider attempts to represent a community which they are not a member off, the ‘representation’ of that group will be very shallow.

Is the act of representation problematic?

Representation in text has played a crucial role in creating social sterotypes, but has also been used to break inaccurate sterotypes. The use of representation in text allows for people to understand different communities and view the world throught the perspective of those represented, this is beneficial for society as it allows for humanity as a whole to become more interconnected. Though, during social reforms, or times off political instability, representation can become very problamatic as advocates will often purposely misrepresent groups of people in order to present them in bad light, sparking controversy and baseless hate.