Images such as the one shown in the Duncan Quinn advertisement seek to reinforce gender stereotypes and, by association, extend the definition of power to the clothing worn by the male – particularly through the use of the tie as a control mechanism. The entire composition of the image is to demonstrate male superiority – from the clothing, the use car, to the height of the male, the use of the tie and of course the semi naked physically oppressed woman.
Whilst the fashion industry often seeks to shock and provoke thought by the use of imagery my feeling is that this image does nothing other than reinforce the gender stereotype with a deeply concerning image that is shocking by what it represents rather than conveying any underlying message. I would hope that the image was banned and that the advertiser received a lot of negative comment as a result of portraying women in this way.
The advertisement is obviously aimed at successful men – promoting bespoke hand-made suits that cost between $4,000 and $30,000 – seemingly giving the message that you can get away with anything because you are a wealthy, well dressed, white male. The male is seen to be using the tie from his suit to strangle or control the scantily clad female – over the bonnet of an expensive sports car, associating power and wealth with the wearer.
The ethical issues that need to be taken into consideration are male domination, murder, rape, gratuitous violence, anti-feminism, male superiority, money/power, humiliation, slavery, abuse, sex, sexual exploitation, disregard of human rights, oppression, subordination, gender stereo-typing.
It is clear, to most people, that the image is completely unacceptable and you would wonder who might find this imagery appealing or lead them to buy a product, you would also wonder why an advertiser would think that it is acceptable to portray a woman in this way – or indeed reinforce the macho gender stereotype. The only explanation I can find it that the advertiser wants to shock and to build some notoriety around the brand, but it must be assumed that many women would find this brand unacceptable and discourage their partner from associating with it.
If the person viewing the image was unfamiliar the work of Duncan Quinn or did not see the image in the context of a fashion magazine – would they interpret the image differently?
The image would appear to be a direct provocation to feminism, particularly radical feminism, where the definition of power is represented by some in terms of dominance/subordination or master/slave relationships.
The work of legal theorist Catharine MacKinnon closely ties domination with gender difference, stating that “if gender difference is itself a function of domination, then the implication is that men are powerful and women are powerless by definition.” MacKinnon goes on to state that “it is a basic fact of male supremacy that no woman escapes the meaning of being a woman within a gendered social system, and sex inequality is not only pervasive but may be universal (MacKinnon 1989, 104-05).
References:
TrendHunter.com. 2017. Disturbing Sexist Ads: Duncan Quinn Suit Campaign Depicts Strangled Woman. Available from: https://www.trendhunter.com/trends/duncan-quinn-suit-ad-depicting-strangled-woman. [Accessed 24 November 2017].
MacKinnon, Catharine, 1987. Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.