This theory has been proven, for example, in a study led by Luke …show more content…
Zhu, called “Macho nachos: The implicit effects of gendered food packaging on preferences for healthy and unhealthy foods” , which also makes some interesting points on how the packaging has influence on perception of the product’s taste. The scientists used for their test a muffin, which they packaged in different boxes—agreeing with gender stereotypes (with the word “healthy” and an photo of a ballerina and the word “mega” and some football players), but also mixing them up (“healthy” with football players and “mega” with the ballerina). What they found is that the “confusing” packaging was not as popular – the participants (both male and female) rated the taste of these muffins as worse than those “normally” packaged. However, in another test, the study discovered that when the product explicitly appealed to one gender (the unhealthy “mega” muffin was equipped in a further tagline “The Muffin for the Real Men”), the interest had shifted – participants were not appealed to the muffin as much as to the less masculine but still unhealthy “Mega Muffin”. Those results suggest that indirect or subtle appealing to stereotypes may bring some profit to food producers, but no gain comes from being sexist.
However, discriminating and often tactless advertisements have been going on for ages and companies sometimes still employ this kind of marketing.
For example, a spot for “X-tra Bacon Thickburger” featuring Mystique from the franchise “X-Men” who has to “man up for the 2x bacon”, which she does by literally transforming into a muscular guy. The suggestion that not even a superhero can stay a woman to eat that burger is disturbing. Taking big bites from a greasy, packed with meats is seen as not fit for her. Thankfully, there exists healthy, low in calories, “lady” food which men will not touch. In an advertisement of Burger King’s titled “I Am Man” , a man sings “I’m way too hungry to settle for chick’s food”, refusing the tiny meal that he just received at a restaurant while on a dinner with his female companion. It enforces the conviction that women should eat healthy, small, green dishes and it is a sphere where no “true man” would like to find himself. Another problem with such imagery in advertising is the question of choice—the man wants to eat the unhealthy product and he goes for it, while a woman has to maintain her weight, her tiny feminine frame. She does not want that low-fat yoghurt, because she secretly desires some chocolate, a need that she will satisfy during some “guilty pleasure” time alone. Why alone? Well, because she is not supposed to eat that high-calorie sweet goodness and she knows it. For that reason, the women who are obese are met with less
acceptance than men—their fatness is considered to be caused by eating disorder (she refused the “chick food” and opted for “real man’s straw”, which is by design not something she should want—she is not a man after all), whereas the fat man—well, he simply loves his burgers that much. According to Murray, “a ‘fat’ woman, is prohibited (…) from being a ‘fat’ woman who is not pathological.”
The established binary of healthy “feminine” food and “unhealthy” masculine is a vicious cycle. On one hand, it drives food industry to use those associations in order to increase sales; simultaneously, it confirms the universally known beliefs about genders. It justifies a world where a man is a slob and has the comfort of getting fat, as it is his choice. However, a woman has to take care of herself and pay a lot of attention to her body, because she might just become an undesirable “fatty”. She better not.