Does Panasonic think, that WOMEN don't know about cameras? - Why this sexist ad?

atarijedi said:
It isn't sexist because it isn't intentional.
Click to expand...

I don't think intent has anything to do with whether or not something IS sexist.

I'm sure the European Commission didn't intend to be sexist in the following add, but they were:

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/06/25/the-e-u-s-breathtakingly-awful-science-video/


Same goes for the Panasonic site. The person who did it probably didn't intend to be sexist. They just have a belief (unconscious perhaps) that when faced with the problem of visually illustrating a person who doesn't know about cameras, their solution was to use photos of women.

The representation of women on the Panny site is sexist, even though I doubt it was intended to be.
 
I think you will find that Panasonic has a ton of market research that backs up the selection of those images. You will find they are not implying anything, just selecting images that reflect what their research already shows. It has been my experience that women are far more likely than men to state up front a lack of knowledge when it comes to a tech product. It doesn't mean they are a poorer customer, just more honest in their skill levels. Seeing how Panasonic's main competition in lower end cameras is the smartphone, it is addressing those who are already most likely only using their competition for images. As far as the split of those most knowledgeable about cameras, a look anywhere on this site or others will show you what the difference of men to women currently is. That percentage I will step up and say is huge. Here I don't see 2 women posting out of every 10 postings which holds up for other sites I frequent as well. If Panasonic was being sexist instead of addressing what it already knows, the women posting here should be 1 for 1, which isn't even close.
 
ChipThome said:
I think you will find that Panasonic has a ton of market research that backs up the selection of those images.
Click to expand...

This isn't a print ad in a highly circulated magazine. It's a webpage buried deep in a product website. I doubt this much thought or resources was put into it.
 
ChipThome said:
I think you will find that Panasonic has a ton of market research that backs up the selection of those images. You will find they are not implying anything, just selecting images that reflect what their research already shows.
Click to expand...

And.... You're wrong:

Primary-User-Gender-By-camera-type-Percent-of-pirmary-users-09-09.jpg

At least according to the 2009 Photo Marketing Association U.S. Camera/Camcorder Digital Imaging Survey

The reality is that use is fairly balanced. A bit more women use cameras, although a bit more men use DSLRs.
 
I agree. These shots were set by men. Intentional or not, it's just dumb. And that's the point, they didn't think when they did this. It's really, really stupid and shows a lack of awareness.
 
Last edited:
Batutta said:
Actually, looking at the ad more thoroughly, I even think it's possible someone screwed up the placement of the pictures. It would make far more sense to have the girl making the viewfinder with her fingers as someone who does know about cameras,
Click to expand...

CORRECT!!

That's what I thought too... The crossed fingers are a cliché / stereotype for the "photographic eye/view", so I'm pretty sure, the pictures were mixed up ... perhaps the last moment from a page-designer who even didn't read the text.


Thank you guys for participating the debate! - I only wanted to create a discussion and I'm pretty sure, this sexist ad was NOT made sexist intentionally. But during my studies in art / literature / publicity / linguistics, I've learned, what is CONSIDERED stereotype / cliché today and how to read the implied message of ads and statements. And this picture is (to psychologists, linguists etc.) WITHOUT A DOUBT considered sexist as Panasonic deals with categorization ("know" vs. "not know" about cameras) and that's why people who see it or read it will "open" their senses for other clichés in the ad... and voilà the sexist arrangement of the pictures. If it was only ONE picture per side, it wouldn't be that obvious. - The "pros" of this subject are people interested in "Gender Studies" (a relatively new branch at the universities). This is EXACTLY the point of their researches... (how human culture creates "THE" man or "THE" woman etc.). Ask them, if you still think that this example is not so obviously sexist.

B.T.W. in some countries (e.g. Germany) ads with WOMEN cleaning and cooking are FORBIDDEN if they represent the cliché of a housewife. Linguists and psychologists have (little) trouble to define WHEN we are dealing with a cliché / stereotype and when not. The borders are diffuse of course. But not in this case, :)

As a hobby I am collecting stereotype representations (representations for races, religions, genders etc. as in pictures, figurines, texts etc.) and that's why I am very grateful to Panasonic for this "collectible" piece of "sexist art" :) - Thanks Panasonic for mixing up the 2 pictures!

I prefer to laugh / smile about clichés & stereotypes - they are human! We can't communicate without stereotypes because it's an important function of the linguistic brain structures to create stereotypes / groups / hierarchies to help us understand the world. Whithout stereotypes / groups / hierarchies we could not be able to call a dog "dog", because we would need to find a new word for every single dog / object. That's why we are born with a permanentely order- / stereotype-creating brain. - I am caucasian and enjoy all clichés about it. Sadly, there are much more clichés about any race... than the caucasian.
 
Last edited:
attachment.php

#1- it's sexist, whether intentional or accidental. That's not PC, it just is.
#2- interesting metrics above.
 
Batutta said:
Actually, looking at the ad more thoroughly, I even think it's possible someone screwed up the placement of the pictures. It would make far more sense to have the girl making the viewfinder with her fingers as someone who does know about cameras, rather then the dude just sitting on the train tracks. Unconscious bias at play, maybe....Anyway even if the intent wasn't sexist, the result is.
Click to expand...

cici said:
CORRECT!!

That's what I thought too... The crossed fingers are a cliché / stereotype for the "photographic eye/view", so I'm pretty sure, the pictures were mixed up ... perhaps the last moment from a page-designer who even didn't read the text.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think the placement of the woman with the crossed fingers makes it more sexist.

main_image.jpg

The photos on the top (the woman with the fingers and the guy by the tracks) are meant to represent artistic. The photos on the bottom are meant to represent utility (taking photos to save memories).

So men are artistic simply because they "look" artistic. But for a woman to be artistic she needs to be doing something that actually makes you think she is artistic. So not only is the woman someone who doesn't know about cameras, she can't be artistic unless she is deliberately so.

BTW, it was interesting to hear about your studies. My background includes study in communications and research on media ethics and advertising, including content analysis and how messages are communicated and received.

Thanks for starting this thread!
 
Paul F said:
It's worse than sexist. It goes way beyond that. It also says people who form squares with their fingers or hold babies also, don't know about cameras while people who sit on rails and wear knit caps do! That's outrageous!


..... wait, that's not right. The people on the left are transexuals. THAT'S EVEN MORE OUTRAGEOUS! Transexuals don't know about cameras?!???!
Click to expand...


lmao
 
keylight said:
BTW, it was interesting to hear about your studies. My background includes study in communications and research on media ethics and advertising, including content analysis and how messages are communicated and received.

Thanks for starting this thread!
Click to expand...

:thumbsup: (if you know what I mean) .... (b.t.w. - emoticons are also stereotypical "helpers" for communication.)

In "real" daily life, besides our interesting academic chatting - a judge e.g. has to decide whether to punish or not to punish just by "metering" whether something is or is not e.g. sexual harassment ... malicious ... etc. . He will use clichés and categorization to do his job. It's easy to say "this is..." or "this is not ...", but we need parameters to measure in what group something belongs. And this also is categorization. Again: if we only had 1 woman on the left and 1 man on the right, people would decide differently. But past a certain degree, we will call something "obvious". And 2 pictures per side ... with 1 common factor per side (yet THE main-factor for categorizing humans: male / female) ... well - who would not call this separation on the picture "obvious" ?
 
Mostly this thing gave me a headache AND an inferiority complex, not unlike trying to decipher a Lumix menu or manual. So they're consistent in that regard. I, too, thought the gal making the frame should be on the other side, perhaps, but then I was thinking about how Bertolucci (y'know, one of the greatest visual filmmakers of all time) talks about how he can't operate even the simplest of cameras, so maybe that's this girl, a true visionary, not a mechanic. But then I thought, she's kinda cute. Didn't really look at the dudes.
 
It seems that a lot of people stopped to think deeply enough to find sexism on that page, but failed to think just a bit more deeply to come to the conclusion that the people depicted in the photos are not the ones who could have taken the photos. This is a guide for a camera, which means the illustrations are of photographs, not of the people who take photographs.

The girl framing with her fingers... possibly taken by her boyfriend, or brother, or father....

The woman with the baby... probably taken by her husband, who would be male, unless she were a lesbian of course.

The photo's of the guy on the right could have been taken by a professional female photographer. I deduce this by the fact that several of the female photographers I'm friends with on face book like to take portraits of people on or by rail road tracks.

The photo on the bottom right could have been taken by a female ski buddy or whatever.

You get the idea.
 
J-Rey said:
.....

The girl framing with her fingers... possibly taken by her boyfriend, or brother, or father....

The woman with the baby... probably taken by her husband, who would be male, unless she were a lesbian of course.

The photo's of the guy on the right could have been taken by a professional female photographer. I deduce this by the fact that several of the female photographers I'm friends with on face book like to take portraits of people on or by rail road tracks.

The photo on the bottom right could have been taken by a female ski buddy or whatever.

You get the idea.
Click to expand...

Yes, I see. So it IS sexist. Men don't know anything about cameras, but women do! (said with a sarcastic inflection)
 
I feel that its quite disheartening that none of you have raised the issue of the baby on the lower left photo. It appears Panasonic is not only sexist, but completely ageist!

Are they insinuating that babies don't know about cameras too? I find the fact the they are attempting to paint all babies with the same brush quite despicable. Stereotyping and age discrimination at its very worst! Bah humbug!
 
I forgot to mention the biggest flaw. Why would Panasonic make a camera guide for people who don't know about cameras? I would assume that there are few if any. Mostly in the Amazon region I would guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top