The kitchen suggestions in this article very much reflect the style of the 1960s, and therefore very much reflects the time in which it was released. For a contemporary audience, these kitchens would be bland, stereotypical and hegemonically acceptable. It lacks any features such as conversation pits or fashionable architecture like floating worktops that would be associated with richer audiences, which allows the magazine to present an attainable fantasy to a working class target audience.
There is a focus on affordability. The most expensive kitchen being suggested is the equivalent of £570, which is not especially expensive for lower middle class audiences. The lowest price is approx £30 in today’s money, which would be attainable for many audiences. By focusing on affordability,. Not only does the magazine reach a wider target audience, it also constructs an audience who either are not wealthy, or are cautious spenders.The photo of the housewife with a child in the top left corner constructs many polysemic interpretations. Firstly it constructs a hegemonic norm where women are meant to be at home looking after their house and children, a stereotypical housewife role. The mother in this image is smiling as she shells peas, which constructs a reality that women actively enjoy domestic chores. This image of a happy housewife reinforces a patriarchal hegemonic norm.
However, the image can also be read as progressive. The housewife is shelling peas with her son, and sharing a fun, lovely time with him while passing on an essential skill. Contemporary audiences may be able to pick good parenting skills that challenge hegemonic gender norms, encouraging their sons to engage in housework.
“It slots so any girl can assemble it quickly”, and “get the man in your life to glue the unit together, and then paint it”. These statements assume sexist assumptions about the abilities of men and women. The lexis of “girls” is belittling and infantalising. It suggests that the audience are essentially children with very few physical skills. This further reinforces the ideology first established on the front cover, “ are you an A-level beauty”, which suggests that in order to be desirable, women should be young. It suggests that not only should women look young, but they should act young. The act of gluing is beyond the ability of a woman, and instead should get the man in their life to do this. This assumption of incompetence is misogynistic, patriarchal in the assumption of the presence of a man, belittling, and yet clearly reflecting contemporary hegemonic norms.
Immediately to the right of this is a black and white image of a young woman engaged in general housework. She appears to be absolutely delighted, constructing a hyperreal simulacrum of women adoring housework. She resembles the woman in the 1950s american tide advert, presenting a ridiculous and hyperbolic mode of address. Her dress is fashionable, attractive and interesting. It functions as a proairetic code, suggesting that she is going to the beach, the club, or to meet friends. Instead she is wearing this dress to construct this task as exciting as desirable, a false reality.
Additionally, the image has been constructed to place the model in an illogical position, at the side of the sink. Not only does this draw attention to the sink, but it also draws attention to the model. The model is presented as spectacle for an alleged male gaze, and functions as an aspirational mode of address. Additionally, by positioning the beautiful woman next to the fashionable sink, a symbolic code is constructed where advertised alongside the product, objectified, sexualised and commodified. A message is constructed that a glamorous and beautiful lifestyle can be purchased like a kitchen. It reinforces the reality that we live in a capitalist society, where we can buy happiness through buying products.
The deconstruction of this article allows us to discover the ideologies which were mainstream and widely accepted at the time. The lexis of ‘a present’, further anchored through the lexis ‘your’ constructs a reality where the kitchen is the personal possession of the woman who own it. It cultivates an ideology where women belong in, thrive in and enjoy being in kitchens. This dominant sexist ideology will appeal to the contemporary target audience, who accept this dormant hegemonic value. Even within this magazine, sexist ideologies are cultivated through interviewing a self-proclaimed sexist, the contents page that reinforces a world where women only exist to appeal to men. The word ‘present’ symbolically encodes a declaration of love for an inanimate object. This further constructs an ideology
In fact the tone of the double page spread resembles much mainstream advertising from America in the 1950s,and would be seen as old fashioned by feminist audiences rebelling against societal norms!
A range of kitchen options at different prices are offered to the target audience which allows audiences to pick and mix their own choices. However, the most expensive kitchen is the equivalent of £550. This upper price may be affordable to many upper working class audiences, helping the magazine to target a demographic effectively
The aesthetic constructed by this article is plain, boring, hegemonic, normal. This reflects the comfortable standards of living of the 1960s. This style would allow the simple, straightforward housewife constructed by this article to not be judged by friends and family.
An image in the top left presents a vaguely challenging representation of gender. Picturing a woman and her son shelling peas, the MES of the woman’s smiling face constructs this as a fun experience, reinforcing a potentially sexist ideology that women enjoy domestic drudgery. Yet in this narrative, the mother shares this experience with her son, teaching him how to cook. The pair listen to the radio together, enjoying themselves, and sharing a moment together. This image allows the contemporary audience relate to the depiction of family values being shared, and will therefore be inspired to twitch their sons cooking
However, the article reverts to sexist norms. The lexis “it slots together so any girl can assemble it…” implies and belittles the abilities of the contemporary audience, making a point that they are not capable enough for complex actions. Additionally, the lexis ‘girl’ is particularly belittling, effectively infantilising the target audience. This indicates exactly how strongly internalised these hegemonic gendered norms are. “Get the man in your life to glue it together and then you can paint it” here makes the assumption that only men can complete complex tasks, it also reinforces the heteronormative assumption that the audience have or are trying to find a husband.
The image at the bottom of the spread constructs a reality where women are delighted to wash. Her costume is glamorous, fashionable, attractive and completely at odds with the situation. This combination of language assembles a straightforward meaning that washing up is comparable to a holiday, an exciting escapist experience, which reinforces the hegemonic reality where women enjoy washing up. It conflates femininity with household chores, and it establishes a reality where the audience will be beautiful ,glamorous and excited when completing domestic chores. The image itself is highly improbable, with the model standing the side of the sink, constructing her as a spectacle for a perceived male audience. It therefore constructs an aspirational mode of address, and reinforces a reality where to be feminine is to be a beautiful housewife.
How could this article challenge capitalistic values?
- The article could emphasise the quality and importance of the cheapest product
- The article could advocate getting these materials for free, therefore challenging consumerism
- The headline could be rewritten to focus on autonomy, personality, and personal qualities. It could consider DIY tips, and the headline could be ‘ways to enjoy your kitchen’