I wanted to do my dissertation on men's beauty products, but it got shot down. I'll probably still end up doing an article on it. I love how the ads try to repackage the exact same thing for men, making personal care a part of masculinity. It's really fascinating, yet nauseating at the same time. Have you seen the commercial for men's body wash, in which the whole idea was that only immature high school guys think they shouldn't use a body wash? It's amazing how many messages about masculinity they manage to pack into 60 seconds.

Lol... I had *exactly* the same reaction when I saw those ads. I thought: wtf??? It's exactly the same damned lotion as mine, but the bottle is darker, more angular, and probably smells like an "extreme artic breeze" or some such stupid nonsense. As if any of this had to smell like anything. And yes: the implication is that men are "more active" and that somehow, this type of marketing "wouldn't work" on a woman.

This is the convo I just had with my bf after reading your post:

"Man's lotion! for Manly Men!"

BF: "What? Don't they know that men don't use lotion or body wash? That's for ladies" (sarcastic)

"But this lotion is for men, to specifically meet men's masculine lotion needs."

Bf "So it's for masturbation?"

I loled. :)

And there have been lots of these ads and products popping up lately. My guess is that the traditional demographic of the beauty industry has become saturated and reached it's natural limit. Women between the ages of 15 and 55 have been thoroughly convinced that without all the lotions, body wash, makeup, hair dyes, etc they are hideous, unlovable creatures.
Now in order to sustain the growth of the beauty industry, they have to broaden the demographic. To me this explains why girls are being sexualized by the media (which is totally supported by the industries that advertise) at younger and younger ages. It is important for 6 and 7-year-old girls to be worried about their appearance and whether or not they're sexy. Otherwise they won't think they need the padded bras, glitter makeup kits, and thong underwear that is being marketed to them. It's all about the money. And now they're expanding into the male demographic as well. There's no political or social agenda here. The advertising industry and the media doesn't give a fuck about the way that the self-conceptions of little girls or young men affect them in the long run. They're just in it for the money. It's as simple as that.

"These uniquely designed lotions fortify men’s skin to make it resilient , therefore performing efficiently ."

Is it just me, or is there something grammatically wrong with this sentence? What exactly is performing efficiently? In my opinion, I think the line is referring to men’s skin (rather than men themselves) performing efficiently. But that raises the question….how does skin “perform efficiently”?

While women might find this ad sexist (as evidenced by the existence of this post as well as the comments), I can make a reverse example and say that women’s ads are sexist as well and enforcing gender stereotypes as well. How many women’s ads feature lines like “look beautiful” “ravishing” “gorgeous” “smell great” “soft smooth skin” “glamorous” ….. because you know, women are beautiful creatures and are so glamorous that all eyes turn to look at them and marvel at their great skin and poise and grace and lovely smell. What?? Can’t men be glamorous and beautiful with soft skin and smell great too? Oh right, men are just hairy and smelly beasts that can never be beautiful and the centre of attention.

If you want to say that this ad reinforces gender stereotypes, then you’d have to say the same too about the majority of cosmetic, healthy and beauty products aimed at women….and let’s face the facts, the default for ANY health and beauty product is for women.

I don’t see the problem for men wanting their own beauty products. 20 years ago, you’d never see any beauty products for men, and people would still think a man is secretly gay if he wanted to take care of his looks. No one ever says that women are vain, only men…why? Because it has been the norm for men to not take care of their looks. And just in case you think this gender policing by men themselves, there are also plenty of women out there who state that they wouldn’t want a guy who takes too much care of his appearance or spends more time than the women themselves preening in the mirror (whereas you don’t see men going “if she spends too much time getting ready, it’s over!”)

Nowadays, people STILL think a man might be secretly gay if he cares about his appearance, but at least the stigma is not as bad as 20 years ago. Heck, there are now even cosmetics for men (which started in Japan, I believe). You will still get however, Men AND Women making fun of men who take care of their appearance (just like some commentators have done here by contrasting MANLY MAN and using such products…disappointing).

Is it REALLY so bad that men want beauty products packaged and researched just for them (ie. Men’s skin are normally tougher than women’s due to pattern of tissues underneath the dermal layer)? How is it any different from women who want power tools adjusted for their bodies because all the power tools out there have been designed with men in mind?

If this product gets more men to moisturize and take care of their skin, how can it possibly be so bad?

timothy_nakayama commented at September 16, 2008 7:39 PM: "But that raises the question….how does skin 'perform efficiently'?"

I'd say it performs efficiently by holding in the guts and muscles and bones and stuff efficiently. ;)

"Nowadays, people STILL think a man might be secretly gay if he cares about his appearance, but at least the stigma is not as bad as 20 years ago."

I got the impression that this was in part because some men heard some women they like complain "all the good men are taken or gay!!!", thought "what's he doing that turns her on?", did the math, and decided that some of those gay men' beauty routines just might be useful for their heterosexual manly selves too...

"No one ever says that women are vain"

Huh? Yes, they do.

I agree that women's ads do also reinforce gender stereotypes. However, if the lotions do exactly the same thing (hydrate your skin) it seems sort of silly to market it as "increasing efficiency." Maybe "healthier" everyone wants to look/be healthy, no matter the gender.

That's funny, Vaseline always looked pretty androgynous...I thought something had to be pink to necessitate a men's version, but guess not!

timothy_nakayama:
Well, of course beauty product ads for women are sexist, too. However, you seem to suggest that they are sexist against men, which they are not. Actually it isn't really possible to be sexist against men, since this culture as a whole treats women as the Other, not men.

"because you know, women are beautiful creatures and are so glamorous that all eyes turn to look at them and marvel at their great skin and poise and grace and lovely smell. What?? Can’t men be glamorous and beautiful with soft skin and smell great too? Oh right, men are just hairy and smelly beasts that can never be beautiful and the centre of attention."
On the other hand, women HAVE to be beautiful and glamorous, otherwise they are worthless. It does suck that men aren't "allowed" to be pretty and to take care of their appearance however much they like, and although this is in practice anti-men, it is a sentiment rooted in misogyny: Because beauty is associated with women, when a man is the same there must be something wrong with him. (I'm not good at explaining this, maybe the quote "Girls can wear jeans [...] but for boys to wear skirts is degrading because secretly you believe that it is degrading to be a girl" makes it a bit more clear what I'm getting at?)

Besides, men can be the center of attention, but because of manly important things, like talking and stuff.