Having It His Way

Since the dawn of time, males have dominated the social structure of society and the food chain. The male figures have also been the main supporters of the family, whether through hunting or being the breadwinners. In an article written by Carrie Packwood and Debra Merskin titled, “Having It His Way”, the authors underline the fact that his ongoing ideal has become damaging towards women and animals. The authors state that commercials on television specifically associate meat with a prevailing male mindset and the sexualization of women. The authors had concrete and accurate points with some supporting evidence but, some of them lacked clear evidence and left readers with questions.

Many fast food campaigns were targeted toward young men. Men were said to have the lead parts in commercials and did most of the talking, while women were primarily used as objects. Also, the authors wrote, “… A rudimentary perusal of most fast-food ads fails to suggest that the industry is constructing as association between meat and women specifically and frequently as it is between meat and men”. In short, the association between meat and women is non existent compare to the scale between meat and men.

The use of attractive women in commercials has occurred for many years.  For example, in Carl’s Junior commercials, they use attractive females as objects. For example, in one commerical they use a flirty, blonde, curvy, waitress to advertise their products. The company  has at least four other commercials on television that have beautiful women eating hamburgers seductively in order to gain the attention of straight males. But, the authors only picked certain commercials that supported their claims. The authors’ write, “in selecting texts, we sought fast-food television commercials that appeared to be targeted to males.  They never address any counter arguments or give any examples of other commercials that don’t involve women.

In the authors’ analysis of the commercials, they did apply sound evidence for their claims, but the background for their evidence was absent. Also, some of their evidence was contradictory. The authors’ write, “… men had the lead parts and did most of the talking, women were used primarily as objects of the male gaze” and later write, “the latter is the only ad in this series in which men appear”. These statements are completely contradictory. If that was the only ad that used a male, why state that usually men had the lead parts and women were just used as objects?

After analysis of the article, it has been concluded that the authors made valuable points, but there was a lack of concrete evidence for some of their claims. The lack of evidence leaves much room for debate and questions.