I know, I know, it's no secret that jewelry store commercials are effed up, and it's not even a secret WHY. But still...I can't deal with them, especially now that we're in full-on Valentine's Day hysteria. I don't think anyone who has spent any time working on gender and media will find any of this groundbreaking, but I just have to write it out. My screed is in two parts. Both take on gender, but the first concerns mostly narrative and performative absurdity, and the second concerns ideological assumption.
FIRST: A rant on narrative in the most
recent Kay Jewelers ad.
I can't find a video online yet, but
for now, the basic premise: A couple is walking through the mall. They
head into Kay Jewelers. Man says, "We're just looking, right?" Woman
insists, "Of course." They look at diamond rings. The jeweler
explains these special certified diamonds. She tries on the ring. OMG it fits.
Man says, "That's because I already got it sized." Knees. "Will
you marry me?" She looks surprised.
WTF?
a) This is absurd, because who goes to
try on rings and then is surprised about a proposal? I think the jig is
up.
OR b) Taking into account the fact
that he's sort of standoffish about ring shopping at the beginning, this is
still absurd, because his way of not tipping her off to a proposal is to act
like he doesn't want to get engaged and vaguely imply that she's pressuring
him? And, to be fair, she's dragging him to a jewelry store to try on rings
despite the fact that he's expressed his unwillingness to get engaged yet? I
hope you guys are very happy in your passive aggressive marriage lol.
My friend Alex pointed out,
"I can't believe your
biggest issue with this isn't that the guy is proposing to her IN A KAY
JEWELERS! Who does that? Especially since all other of their commercials are
about a guy surprising a woman with something he bought there by himself, so based
on what we know from these it's narratively inconceivable that these characters
have shared some sort of 'special moment' at a Kay Jewelers prior to this
proposal, which would be the only possible justification for proposing in a
place that probably smells like the Auntie Anne's Pretzels inevitably being
sold next door."
Hahaha fair. The mall part DOES
bother me. But I guess it's all part of a really weird
consumerist-heteronormative imperative anyway, so why quibble, intellectually
speaking? If you're going to symbolically buy a marriage, why not at a
mall? I mean basically the assumptions here are out of control, but the
biggest one is that it's a man's job to propose, even if it's possibly based on
a woman's demand, and it's his job to buy her a big assed rock in order to seal
the deal. Her end of the agreement is to act surprised and dewy-eyed.
I want to be clear that I don't really
feel one way or the other about the practice of proposing with diamond rings.
I think people should do whatever they want on that front, and I can't
say I'd hate it. I don't think the act itself is inherently evil or
unfeminist or superficial or whatever else. What I'm objecting to is the imperative.
The taken-for-granted and compulsory nature of such
symbolic performances.
SECOND: A rant on ideology in the
"He went to Jared" model.
The current object of my indignation is the kind of commercial that basically says, "DEAR STRAIGHT MEN: YOU MUST FIND A SUITABLE FEMALE TO MATE WITH AND YOU MUST BUY HER JEWELRY OR SHE WILL BE PISSED AND YOU WILL DIE."
a) We'll just get the macro one out
of the way - again, really gross consumerist-heteronormative cocktail going on
here. Apparently jewelry is only for straight people, and almost entirely
for women. If it's not for your wife/fiance/girlfriend, it's for your
mother or grandmother. And jewelry equals love, people! They won't
know unless you buy them shit. You're a bad partner or a bad son or a bad grandson if you don't buy them shit. Better get your ass to the mall.
(Note: I have no problem with jewelry. I love jewelry. I'm
not pretending I don't buy stuff, or that I don't like getting stuff. I
have some awesome pieces of jewelry from my significant other that I adore.
But I don't think I should need them in order to know the state of my
relationship. I'm not trying to be smug or superior or to play the
"I'm not a dupe! I'm not a dupe! You should know that about
me!" game. I do indulge in symbolic consumerism. I just think
it's important to think about all the assumptions that go along with it.)
b) These commercials treat men like helpless
idiots. Poor, stupid men. But if he goes to Jared, we'll totally
pat him on the head and give him a treat. Good boy! Frankly, some
of these commercials even imply that men are inconsiderate jerks (but only
straight, cis men, since there's nary a non-hetero or non-cis to be found). So there's
offensive assumption #1: Men are stupid and inconsiderate. But the back
side of assumption #1 is that, by assuming that men will be unthinking and
uncaring boneheads, these commercials not only insult men, they also sort of
naturalize the notion that men are unthinking and uncaring boneheads in a way
that essentially approves of it. Like it's "normal" for men to
be unthinking and uncaring. Because they're men! Duh! We
should all just adjust to their (supposed) self-centeredness and then maybe
just give them easy instructions on how to avoid pissing women off on
consumerist holidays. So there's offensive assumption #2. So the big old
offensive nutshell: Men are stupid and inconsiderate (ouch!), but they're
allowed to be because they're men, and we should continue to reinforce, if not
celebrate, this notion (wait a minute!).
c) And, finally, these commercials
perpetuate the notion that women are materialistic and demanding. We want
shiny things, and if you don't give us shiny things, you are in TROUBLE and we
will NOT HAVE SEX WITH YOU, so you'd better GET IT RIGHT. You are a bad, bad partner and a bad, bad man if you don't get it right! But the most
annoying part about this is that it upholds the SAME assumption as above -
namely, that men are "naturally" unthinking and uncaring - but then
implies that the only time women should combat this is when it's time for
presents. Forget asking that people think differently or behave
differently or question their assumptions in everyday gender relations.
No no, let's accept the status quo there, but then designate specific
days when we demand recognition through shiny things. The problem is not
that your mother and your wife and your fiance and your girlfriend often get
the shit end of power relations. The problem is that you haven't given
them enough jewelry on holidays. That's what they're mad about.
CONCLUSION
So basically now I've dissected these things to the point
of ridiculousness. I don't pretend that commercials for mall jewelry are
the place where gender activism is going to happen. The purpose of
advertising is to symbologize. Often, although not always, it works to
flatten difference in consumers, even while it hyperdifferentiates products.
I'm not going to pretend capitalism - or propaganda, if you're feeling
feisty - is something it's not. I'm also not going to pretend that I
don't participate. But, even if I don't expect these commercials to be a
place where gender is questioned, they are still a place where gender is done.
Maybe sometime it will become profitable to undo gender in
commercials - and there are of course a few shining examples that unfortunately
prove the rule - but even then it would be an uneasy form of "victory," one that would be more about capitalized consumer affinity than progressivism, let alone activism. For now, anyway, the work of undoing is up to the rest of us.
