"In light of this, some sociologists argue that rapists are not non-conformists (somehow deviant), but hyper-conformists."

Those aren't sociologists, they're polemicists spewing inflammatory garbage! A good sociologist would say something altogether less dramatic about men negotiating divergent norms, and would never concoct a ridiculous non-entity such as 'rules of masculinity'.

Some of you feminists are so completely removed from human experience in your analysis that I tremble when I realize you actually teach impressionable youngsters. You offer a religion of false empowerment in the 'othering' of masculinity and the cultivation of outrage, but when students leave the classroom they have nothing but the dissipating fragments of imaginary worlds.

A little while ago, I interviewed Jean Kilbourne, Scott A. Lukas (Genderads.com creator) and others for an article on the way the media and advertising form the way our society sees women. If you're interested, you can find it at the following link:

http://www.journalinquirer.com/articles/2008/10/02/airtime/doc48dbb5dae8457240505031.txt

The narrative my mind came up with when I saw that image was that she was tired. He's holding her purse for her, propping her up, etc. The angle of the light suggests early morning, like they've been out partying all night. There's still the "she's tired, he's masculine and propping her up" thing, but I didn't read anything at all about rape. So to frame the discussion with, "Has she just been raped or is the rape yet to occur?" seems weird to me.

How in the world does this picture signify "rape"?
The man in the picture could very well be thinking, "God, she's drunk again. I'm going to end this tomorrow." or "When is my sister going to grow up?" or "I'm going to push her into this pool after they take this picture."
This really seems like you want to see what you want to see rather than having any sort of foundation in reality.

Jamal, if you don't understand that rules of masculinity exist in our culture, I'm not sure where your head has been. there are rules for both masculinity and femininity. Those rules are communicated daily and at all levels of media. And, indeed, one narrative of the ultimate masculinity is total sexual dominance, i.e. rape. Now, granted, the narrative has come to include the notion that the victim "really wants it" and "ends up enjoying" it, but it is a narrative of rape, nonetheless. One needs only look at public comment surrounding rape cases to see this narrative at work.

As for John and Chris, the noition of dominance is clear in the photo. The notion of her being a sexual object is clear in the type of photography, i.e. fashion photography. I will give you, though, that it isn't the clearest expression on this theme.

And, John, I'd like to point out that your reading is no more founded in "reality" than any other reading.

Hey Jamal,

What would your interpretation be? Sociologists have done a lot of work on "rules of masculinity." For a good example, see RW Connell's work on "hegemonic masculinity." I'm not sure how you can say that there aren't certain unwritten gender rules in North American society -- it's easy to see them when someone breaks them.

I'm not sure where you get this "othering of masculinity" and "outrage" from. "You feminists" as you put it, are usually working towards exposing and undermining rigid gender norms, which is a good thing, I would say.

"And does the imagery in this ad suggest that a (potential) rape scenario is mainstream in America, un-remarkable, even fashionable? If so, what does that say about the depth of our rape culture?"

Seems to me that's what YOU are suggesting, more than anything. The above image is open to a wide array of interpretations. Yours is just one.

If you are going to ask what an image means to your audience, why not try a more open and less leading approach? Your question limits the possible response considerably. Unless of course you aren't interested in what the readers actually think, and your question was purely rhetorical.

Lisa, I don't know where to start. Have you studied "the rules of masculinity in society" and how they are communicated? Are they only communicated through the media, in a society where media has changed meaning so dramatically? Do you have a study at hand that explains what this image communicates? Do you hate men?

I'm a man Lisa and my "rules of masculinity" have no logical conclusion, either good or bad. And Lisa, here's something else for you to think about: I'm also a human being. So are all men and if there is ever any pressure being put on us on how we have to behave we all still try to do good. Can you believe in that Lisa, or are all men just bad?

Lisa, you're a human too and I'm willing you to treat as one. But then you'll first have to treat men as humans. Are we understanding each other?

Steven

Steven, you do comprehend that "masculinity" as a social construct and "men" as individuals are not the same thing, right?
Disliking, deconstructing, and/or criticizing the social construct "masculinity" has nothing at all to do with hating men.

Sometimes I think it would be so nice if this blog were a site for discussion among professional sociologists and sociologists-in-training. I love the idea of public sociology and all, and I know that is the goal of Contexts, but something is just not working here. I often get the feeling that very few actual sociologists comment here - which makes comments like Jenna's and Matt K.'s , which utilize sociological concepts and refer to sociological research, so refreshing. I suspect that most people who post don't, in fact, get the concept of "masculinity as a social construct" and are not aware of the research on the rules of masculinity. Can you blame people who are not social scientists for saying things in their comments that drive gender scholars crazy?

Maybe those of us who teach sociology need to do a better job of education and explanation when we comment on this blog. I don't think it's possible to learn sociology solely thorough analysis of images - we also have to talk about the body of scholarship that we are referencing when we think about these images. In fact, I don't think "seeing is believing" when it comes to sociological images - I think it's something more like "knowing is seeing." Once you have some sociological training, you begin to see things that others do not perceive. I'm sure it is the same for natural scientists, too. A picture of a rock looks like a rock to me, but a geologist would have a much more sophisticated interpretation.

Ryan A, you are right on what I was thinking.

Jenna: "And, John, I’d like to point out that your reading is no more founded in “reality” than any other reading."

Exactly my point. The original post is pure conjecture. Hence, my made up tags.

I'm am truly offended by rape and the way it is portrayed ads, games, etc. I've known too many women who have had to suffer the trauma of it. However, with this picture, I'd say rape was the furthest thing from my mind. I really think the suggestion that this is all the picture is portraying is just a little over the edge, and that is really all I meant to say.

Oops, forgot to add that I did take sociology in college, and I am fascinated by it. So, I do know a lot of the terms used. ;)
I'm really glad I found out about this site, because it keeps me interested and learning.

@Jenna, @Lina then you people fail miserably at communicating this.

Steven

Abby, the problem is less with phrases like "masculinity as a social construct" and more with ones like "our rape culture". I don't feel like I live in a "rape culture", however you define that. It's just inflammatory. And from a blog that's so sensitive about the WAY we communicate innocuous ideas ("this is pretty! buy it!") in a problematic way ("women are sexual objects there to provide you with pleasure"), Gwen and Lisa are doing a very poor job of communicating their ideas without making me feel like a sexist racist pig for owning eyes.

Although the commentary regarding hyper-conformism is on the spot, I am not sure that theory is accurately applicable to the image at hand. It's true, we can see a certain asymmetry (as noted) in the portrayal of the genders in the picture, but they do not in any way -directly- signify rape specifically, unless of course, we adhere to certain forms of rape, date rape, etc, which requires a bit of a stretch in imagination, not necessarily guided by the obvious presented in the frame itself, and admittedly so.

Yet, I think, it's not the ability, nor the accuracy of free or conditioned association that we have to focus here. We need to focus on the fact that such a conclusion grounded on reality, can be, and has been, drawn from one such picture.

I do not mean this as a criticism. It's not the commentator's alleged willingness to insert unwarranted personal conclusions without due regard to a specific and undeniable probable cause as if this is a legal proceeding, or for that matter, the lack of alternative interpretations (as John noted above). It's merely the reality of the interpretation itself that needs to be addressed.

Here, I believe, the realm of the personal even when it may be attributed to the motivational grounds of the commentary, coincides with the political and thus the formation as the basis for motivation. The political, as it is, allows one such interpretation to be made, without any need for further reservations, alternative interpretations and excuses. No commentary can be free of a certain hierarchy among values and conditions at hand and none should be presented as mere commentaries in and of themselves.

So one thing that should be kept in mind is this: even if we regard this as the personal pathology, or the attention seeking personality of the commentator, or any other ad hominems, it does not render the individual the creator of herself, and the pathology the creator of the pathos. On the contrary, this is merely the reason why no reservations should occur, since there is still the ever-present, active hierarchy of reality, where this interpretation supersedes others in terms of affecting the political, and thus is, and should be, mentioned without expected 'fairness'. If life is not fair, why should the commentators act as if it is fair? If our reality has to change, why should one spare possible chances for the sake of full artistic, literal accuracy and expression?

On a final note, please consider 'interpretive fairness' as yet another way to suppress and regulate reactions to an unfair world.

I think Abby brings up some really great points. As someone that came from a social field about as far removed as you could possibly come from sociology, and still be in Western society, it was reading well argued pieces by sociologists and theorists alike that undid many of my ingrained prejudices. I know that the content of a lot of these posts is really intriguing to a large audience. It could be a good platform to be like--"and check out this article where these views are laid out more thoroughly." Of course, we'll next run up against the problem of highfalutin academic discourse (which is a problem), but I'm not sure that that's true for all papers and articles.

Without those arguments, if I had heard any talk of women's rights or anyone's rights for that matter, I would have simply lopped it into my usual schemas (i.e. feminists are crazy man haters, brown people are dirty criminals or terrorists, etc.). This is a difficult expanse to cross, but I've managed, so I'm sure there are routes for others too. The challenge for us is sorting them out and charting them.

Jenna - Of course I perceive that there are normative and counter-normative discourses around gender. We all become aware of them and activate, reproduce, or resist them. And yes, these norms are channeled and concentrated by power relations: rather than everyone expressing some random, eccentric notion of masculinity, most people express norms that approximate or react against those perceived to be most dominant.

However, there is no hegemonic and discrete 'masculinity' and nothing nearly as coherent as the 'rules' of such. You could say that there are numerous masculinities - norms for the gender performance of males - but to suggest that somehow one (masculinity) becomes so hegemonic as to produce rules that 'logically conclude' in ANYTHING is irresponsible jibberish. Rules are for sports and games (like baseball), not for something as multifaceted and interactive as gender.

Abby - I am an anthropologist in training, which means I am concerned primarily with the problems of knowing anthropologically. I would strongly recommend that students resist or challenge the kind of training you are offering, as it only obstructs the epistemological problems at hand.

Steve: The problem is not with our communication, it's with the fact that you don't understand the language and concepts being used. Every field has its own specific language. For example, my field is lit theory. So, when I refer to the Lacanian phallus, I expect other lit crit people to understand that without going through the entire explaination.

Now, most of the concepts used on this blog are way simpler than an analysis of Lacanian thought, but they are specific terms. I suggest you do some reading before you take offense. It is not our fault that you don't know the language being used, nor should we have to explain the terminology of the field every time we write something.

Dubi: The issue here is that you are looking at this in personal, emotional terms, and not global, logical terms. Again, there is little we can do to wrest you away from that kind of navel-gazing. It isn't about what you feel.

Jamal - Just as there are "rules" around race or class, there are indeed rules around gender, around masculinity/femininity. Now how those are expressed is where it splinters, and, of course, the degree to which and the wording with which they are expressed.

However, there is a primary set of behaviors, attitudes, preferences, etc., associated with "masculinity." One can quite easily identify those and discuss them. One can also quite easily identify and discuss certain "rules" regarding them.

You may not recognize this, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. I posit that you are quite unfamilure with the concepts and the readings and that, considering your rather alarmist and aggressive attitude, you are unlikely to ever be open enough to familiarlize yourself.

Jenna, I am familiar with these concepts as they are constructed in various social sciences. The real problem is that some contributers here are not aware of their epistemological problems, or have ignored them because they find the constructs beneficial to a larger political purpose. But if all you are doing here is sociology in service of gender politics, then that is not good sociology.

Sociologically, we need to present evidence in context (no pun intended), if we seek to make assertions, much less draw conclusions.

That those participating in this exchange feel free to debate the merits of gender rules and rape culture as sociological concepts and social praxes, it would have been so much better had the advertisement in question been presented in full.

It is an ad for GUCCI, but I can only read the "CI". Where's the GUC, and what is happening there? Could it be that we are looking at an "after" photo or a before and after sequence, read left-to-right? In sequence, does the assembly of symbols force us to draw different conclusions than those asserted by the original poster?

The evidence presented in support has been de-contextualized, beyond its displacement from the original ad medium (was it to be found in Cosmopolitan? Or Playboy?--BIG differences in context when located in a heterosexist women-directed fetish magazine, as opposed to a heterosexist male-directed fetish magazine). Are they trying to sell "CI" to men or women? And what about the "GUC"?

Signed,
An Actual Sociologist

Will somebody please pull Abby's head out of her ass?

I don't see rape, I see all night partying after a wedding and the sun is coming up.... time to go home and get some shut eye.j

I'm with Jamal on this one. Sometimes you folks go WAY over the top in trying to make the real world fit into your own warped perception of it.

They were out partying, give 'em a break...

Jamal, I think you and I have similar ideas about how gender works (and also about epistemology). Thanks for saying more about your perspective. Of course, the notion of "knowing is seeing" is a highly problematic idea if it's meant to describe how we connect theory to observations. Obviously, we shouldn't observe only the parts of the social world that fit with our preconceived notions (scholarly or otherwise). That's not what I meant to suggest when I used the phrase. What I did mean was that some the interpretations of visual culture that are posted on this blog are meant to be illustrations to accompany a particular concept or theory (at least that's how I understand them). If you "know" the idea, the interpretation of the image should make some kind of sense. But if we all know really different kinds of things, our interpretations are going to come into conflict. Of course, in any given example, the theory might be wrong and/or the interpretation might be wrong. Is there a good way for us all to discuss those possibilities, given our different background assumptions? I don't know. I teach in a multidisciplinary department and this is a constant challenge for everyone!

SocDoc, excellent point. I would feel very uncomfortable drawing any kind of conclusions about gender relations from an ad, especially out of context. But could it be productive to use images like these simply as illustrations (not "proof") of particular ideas? Again, I don't know. I wonder what others think.

Okay, enough posting for me now!

Abby wrote:

"Sometimes I think it would be so nice if this blog were a site for discussion among professional sociologists and sociologists-in-training. I love the idea of public sociology and all, and I know that is the goal of Contexts, but something is just not working here."

I think that the point of this blog is bringing sociological ideas to a more public venue. You're right though--something isn't working here. The problem is less about "the public" misunderstanding sociological terminology and concepts than it is about questionable application of sociological theory to the image above. There is quite a bit of unfounded conjecture going on here, IMO.

Abby again:

"I suspect that most people who post don’t, in fact, get the concept of “masculinity as a social construct” and are not aware of the research on the rules of masculinity."

Maybe, maybe not. I don't really think that these things are being presented very well in this case here. The social construction of masculinity is not the most complicated concept, after all. I have a feeling that the general public can "get it." And, if people are not aware of the current research about the rules of masculinity, it might make sense to find ways to talk about them without treating the audience as if they are somehow less intelligent because they are outside of academia. So I agree with the second part of your comment, namely that the sociologists should work a little harder to educate and explain what is going on here.

Jenna wrote:

"Steve: The problem is not with our communication, it’s with the fact that you don’t understand the language and concepts being used."

I disagree. This is a case of poor communication, and misuse, of the sociological concepts at hand. Attempting to take this issue and boil it down to "well, you just don't understand the concepts and language" is weak, and it completely avoids the issue. The point here is to communicate sociological research and ideas, not to denigrate the general public because they happen to be outside of the closed circle of academic jargon.

Jenna:

"Every field has its own specific language. For example, my field is lit theory. So, when I refer to the Lacanian phallus, I expect other lit crit people to understand that without going through the entire explaination."

Yes, and every field has to find way to communicate ideas to different audiences. It's not easy, but I think it's pretty important if social science claims to be about and for humanity.

Jenna:

"It is not our fault that you don’t know the language being used, nor should we have to explain the terminology of the field every time we write something."

Well that's fine and all, as long as you don't mind if most people don't know what you're talking about. I think it IS the job of academics to explain what they are talking about, especially in this context. This is about sharing and communicating ideas, right?

Jenna again:

"However, there is a primary set of behaviors, attitudes, preferences, etc., associated with 'masculinity.'"

Really? A primary set of behaviors, attitudes, etc associated with masculinity? Where did you get this idea? There are many different conceptions of what "masculinity" is--these are socially and culturally constructed in different historical, political, and geographical contexts. And masculinity is hardly a static social category. There are, of course, certain dominant conceptions, but your claim about some singular "primary set" is off base.

"You may not recognize this, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. I posit that you are quite unfamilure with the concepts and the readings and that, considering your rather alarmist and aggressive attitude, you are unlikely to ever be open enough to familiarlize yourself."

If you can't explain yourself, Jenna, don't get defensive and blame people for "not being familiar with the readings." That's a seriously flawed reply. If I am going to talk about contemporary anthropological research (I am a grad student in cultural anth), then I have to find ways of explaining the ideas with some clarity. Attacking the audience isn't going to get us anywhere.

SocDoc wrote:

"That those participating in this exchange feel free to debate the merits of gender rules and rape culture as sociological concepts and social praxes, it would have been so much better had the advertisement in question been presented in full."

I completely agree. Providing greater context would be a good start.

Abby wrote:

"But could it be productive to use images like these simply as illustrations (not “proof”) of particular ideas? Again, I don’t know. I wonder what others think."

I think images like this can be used very productively in discussions about meaning, gender, media, representation, and culture, among other things. But it's not about having the 'correct' interpretation, IMO. I think it's more productive to use the images as starting points for debate and discussion, since there are often various interpretations/understandings of these kinds of images.

The above image can be "read" in various ways. The author's assertions are not necessarily the correct, natural, or even obvious interpretations of what the image supposedly means. Clearly, as the debate in the comments section illustrates, the meaning of the image is up for debate. That, to me, is what is most interesting here---seeing how different people argue their positions and understandings.

I've just Stumbled Upon this page, but reading the comments is disheartening. It certainly didn't take long to get to the comments about feminists being crazy irrational man-haters.

I like how the guy interpreting the two as brother and sister thinks he's being the realistic one.

Rape isn't necessarily implied, but it's certainly a possibility in this picture. Another interesting way to frame it might be to ask, "If this man has non-consensual sex with this woman, is it justified by her behavior?" I bet you'd get a lot of people saying that she's drunk, scantily clad, or whatever, and thus is "asking for it," or is at least partially responsible. It would say a lot about the undertones of rape and its social acceptability in this image. And I bet there would be a lot of overlap between the rape apologists and the ones shouting, "Nuh uh! You just hate men!" on this thread right now.

Jesus everyone here is retarded

The guy looks more uneasy than calm to me...

I'm very sick of people making the assumption that feminists hate men. I consider myself a a feminist and am also a man. Feminism isn't about hating a socially constructed gender, it is about recognizing the oppression of women and the patriarchy that is dominating our society. It is not simply about adding women to positions of power, but changing our paradigm to see that gender is not a duality. Gender is a spectrum... not just 'man' and 'woman'. In this spectrum, all who are not labeled a 'man' are oppressed.

As for the image, even if you do not think it is about rape, the woman in this image can easily be seen as a sex object. Her dress is falling off, it looks as if the man is holding her up.... while the man appears completely stable and in control. This is extremely typical of the objectification of women.

Oh, and Bo, please do not refer to people that you disagree with as 'retarded'. That is very disrespectful of those suffering from mental disorders.

is anyone looking at this picture properly??? as well as thewoman leaning against him like she can't stand up, this picture takes her dignity away as she appears to be drunk, thats already been said, i know, but has anyone mentioned that she is attached to him by the bracelets on her arm? the man has one on his arm also and they are attached by a gold chain. if you have seen this its very clear that she is being pulled towards him. how degrading.

Would anyone disagree that there are definite gender roles being played out here? and that the image of the woman is pornographic? (That term doesn't necessarily have to mean nudity or actual sexual contact, just an image that is graphically explicit.)
I think the contrast of man and woman in this photograph is quite shocking, and it doesn't take a large leap of logic to to think the girl's ruffled hair, the dress falling off and her trance-like or drowsy expression would mean that this man may take or have already taken advantage of her. Rape is such a strong and emotionally charged word, in my opinion this image seems not to depict rape, but it does definitely give imagery of the woman trophy, that he's broken her down and now she's ready to submit or has done already.

It's an interesting theory about rapists as hyper-conformists, however, most rapists have psychological issues that are more about power over other people rather than specifically women, it's just women are comparatively easier to overpower. Men generally being more inclined to think sexually, will try to impose this power through a sexual theme. Hence rapists are almost always men, have had either had a history of sexual abuse or have diminished empathy (ie sociopaths) more women would be rapists, would it not be for a general openness for random sexual encounters, and the comparative difficulty of overpowering a man for sexual activity is more of a mental rather than physical conquest.

This ad has nothing to do with rape outside of what our imaginations create for the scene portrayed.

Why so much focus on the guy? The girl is the one who is a mess. The guy is being pretty respectful, except for the fact that shes fucked up and needs someone to help her stand up straight (which hes not doing).

The mainstream aspect isnt RAPE, but it could be fetishizing low self-worth of women.

Its fashion, learn to love and look beyond :)

Methinks they do protest too much. ;)

It's funny to see so many people missing the point entirely :)

1. what lisa meant the image suggested rape. SUGGESTED. Which means yes, it can also suggest a million other things, but about 80% of those are bad for the girl - she got drunk, her brother needs to watch out for her, her boyfriend will push her in the pool to sober her up, her husband is dissapointed in her. The point is that he is confident, she is vulnerable, because that's the way we like it.

2. f-ing relax people. The result to the debate on male dominance will not predict the time of your death. Chill.

Lol, just looks like a typical skanky woman to me. The picture is depicting how most women do act, and then wonder why they get fucking raped! If women would stop being skanks, this shit would end. We would hear so much about rape and crap.
I agree with those that say you're blowing this shit way out.
As a woman, I don't see "rape" there, I see a typical skank and some dude who's tired of her skankyness.
I would consider myself slightly feminist, because I don't put up with no man's bullshit, but all I ever see in these feminist sites are "omg that picture of a car and a woman screams rape!" You guys find some random picture and turn it into some rape shit, why are you all so obsessed with rape?? It's rather disgusting! Don't put yourselves in a position to be raped and we won't have such an issue! Stop making excuses for women, if I get raped, it was because I was a dumb ass that was where I shouldn't have been to begin with. Women wear next to nothing anymore, and wear tiny shirts with push up bra's and get all mad when someone is looking at her cleavage, well what the fuck did you wear what you did for? It certainly can't be comfortable!

Men have the right to define what masculinity means, provided it does not harm women. This works for women as to femininity as well. Scantily dressed women do not harm men, who are, it is presumed, responsible for their own aggressive behavior. What men think about how women look is irrelevant to this discussion. Also, let's consider how men have played their part in all of the historical institutions designed to keep women down, i.e. foot binding, sharia law, FGM, etc. Today, women seem to rely on their own standards for dress (even if men think they are 'slutty') because women understand that rapists rape for power and control over women, and what they wear makes little difference toward that end. Nuns have been raped. 70 year old women have been raped. Women being as sexual as men does not forgive men raping. It's just that simple.

Firstly, "hello" to this thread. It is has been a fairly logical and organized discussion. An accurate example of modern discourse with the exceptions of a few entries. Secondly, Everyone loves a good argument. It is why some of us exist. Thirdly, Please understand, some of my word choices may seem a bit odd, yet understandable and hopefully relate-able.

Please define Rape:

Please supply the Photographer's gender along with a text version of an interview or statement from Gucci ™

Please see "early childhood imprinting" as it pertains to current individual perceptional variations of reality.

Please avoid typo ridden flame posts to achieve better communication.

Please do not profess to be a gender you are not, to achieve better communication.

To achieve better communication?

Did you know that every single man in the entire world is just walking around waiting until they can rape someone? Yeah, it's true. We all love rapists so much. That's why they get such warm welcomes in prison.

The man in the picture could very well be thinking, “God, she’s drunk again. I’m going to end this tomorrow.” or “When is my sister going to grow up?” or “I’m going to push her into this pool after they take this picture.”

The man in the picture could very well be thinking, “God, she’s drunk again. I’m going to end this tomorrow.” or “When is my sister going to grow up?” or “I’m going to push her into this pool after they take this picture.”

Why would any of those narratives be used in a fashion ad?

Lol, just looks like a typical skanky woman to me. The picture is depicting how most women do act, and then wonder why they get fucking raped! If women would stop being skanks, this shit would end. We would hear so much about rape and crap.

You're as transparent as a plate-glass window.

Gah! The first quote was to be of Chris saying that maybe she's just tired. Because yeah, tiredness is used in advertising all the time. Sexual availability and conquest of women as advertising themes? Never heard of it!

OMG, SHE ISN'T STANDING STRAIGHT! THAT MUST MEAN SHE WAS RAPED!

HRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

We shouldn't be applying 'narratives' to still fashion photos anyway. It is akin to watching a movie and then speculating about what happens after a particularly abrupt ending, or what the 'motivations' of a murky or undefined character are. These are extra-textual pursuits - they take you outside of what is actually shown, and cause you to overlook the very fact that an artist has deliberately produced ambiguity and subjectivity rather than finality and objectivity.

In this case, people may construct the relation between the two depicted individuals in diverse and idiosyncratic ways. A good sociological inquiry would try to understand not what is definite in the image, but rather what precisely is not definite, and what strategies different people will take in decoding these indefinite signifiers.

This won't happen, however, if the people who are supposed to be maintaining a level of discourse befitting of our field are so intent on reading 'rape' or 'masculine rules' or 'objectification' into this and every image that they cut off the option of taking a more sober, analytical path.

So why then is he coherent and she apparently isn't?

This won’t happen, however, if the people who are supposed to be maintaining a level of discourse befitting of our field are so intent on reading ‘rape’ or ‘masculine rules’ or ‘objectification’ into this and every image that they cut off the option of taking a more sober, analytical path.

Is it your magical penis that gives you that feeling of intellectual superiority and gravitas?

Yes, let's just be sober and analytical in the face of a major human problem. Not engaging in politics is surely what makes us "good sociologists." Just like good cancer researchers are only curious about how the disease works without being interested in a cure, and good sociologists of poverty don't care about how to reduce it., and the best global warming researchers only want to understand, without caring about the fate of the earth. Uh huh, sure.

I agree the image suggests rape, but I can't but take that narrative personally. Even though I know the "construct of masculinity" is an analytical abstraction, as a male (undergrad) sociologist being constantly assailed by statements about men and masculinity affects me. Just like women have to relate to the depiction of "women" in the media, I have to relate to the depiction of "men" or "patriarchy" in sociology. The only difference is that one is main-stream and the other is within a bounded academic community which I happen to be living in.

My point is that even though seperation of "men" or masculinity as analytical concepts from individual men is useful and indeed needed to understand the problem, these are as detached from reality as the depiction of women in the media. It works because it's not popular, but if it was the dominant discourse this would be a whole other ball-game. Some sort of overlap between real people and generalizations is warranted, and I think a lot of feminist writing is actually good at this, though that's usually not what we hear about. Similarly taking statements about "men", or "ideals of masculinity" personally and responding to them as such shouldn't just be shot down as unrefined.

snob - what?

abby - cancer researchers have ways of determining whether their models for explaining physiological phenomena are sufficient - they test them with mice and rats. If an explanation or remedy is not correct, the researcher figures it out soon enough and goes back to the drawing board. Sometimes, the political necessity for a certain explanatory model to prevail stifles new research. Then we have controversies such as those around Gulf War Syndrome, Lyme Disease and medicinal marijuana.

Social sciences, including psychology and behavioral studies, do not have the same empirical methods of verifiability. Without a good philosophical training, sociologists tend to veer into abstraction and construct concepts such as 'the rules of masculinity' and the 'objectification of women'. They operate within the early modernist anthropological paradigm in which unwanted elements of the human experience are rendered strange, inexplicable and horrific. In order to have a tangible and consistent target, they have to understand beings as useful and unchanging objects - sinful practices or identities to be cast away from civilized society - rather than dynamic and multifaceted subjects.

With this, all yearning for complication to bring us closer to our being is stifled. True respect occurs when things become awesome - when they appear differently whenever we look at them. Caring, on the other hand, is pastoral - shepherd-like - in nature. It is a defensive position that draws a broad line between the wolf and the sheep, the sinful and the righteous. It is not respectful because it doesn't acknowledge the permanently shifting and untenable intercourse between what is foreign and what is homely. Caring is all fine if you are a parent or guardian, but in anthropology, respect is arguably much more enlightening.

More rape.

Seems quite a promotional scene

http://frillr.com/files/images/DolceGabbana03.jpg

http://io9.com/5115376/can-a-robot-consent-to-have-sex-with-you?skyline=true&s=x

Tangentially related (if that's the right use of the word), it's an article bringing up ideas about robots with functional human-like AI and if they can consent. Not to deep, but a source of ideas.

Even though I know the “construct of masculinity” is an analytical abstraction, as a male (undergrad) sociologist being constantly assailed by statements about men and masculinity affects me. Just like women have to relate to the depiction of “women” in the media, I have to relate to the depiction of “men” or “patriarchy” in sociology.

Wow, you have it so hard. Why will no one understand the plight of the male college student? He is ASSAILED. It's almost like being raped! Except, you know, by an academic sociological narrative, and not a penis or a bottle or a cigarette.

My heart also goes out to the other commenters, who are so badly hurt by the suggestion that a certain type of gendered power dynamic is being played out in an ad. Maybe that "skank" will get what's coming to her and make all the offended parties feel better through her suffering? The patriarchy can only hope.

Is anyone else extremely offended by meme's comment?

"The picture is depicting how most women do act, and then wonder why they get fucking raped! If women would stop being skanks, this shit would end. We would hear so much about rape and crap.
I agree with those that say you’re blowing this shit way out.
As a woman, I don’t see “rape” there, I see a typical skank and some dude who’s tired of her skankyness."

There are so many things wrong with this! Blaming the victim at it's finest. This kind of reasoning implies that men are completely justified at "taking what's theirs" if a woman is "putting it all out there." I don't care how little clothing a woman is wearing and how sexually provactive it may be, that DOES NOT mean she "deserves" to be raped!! How does anyone "deserve" to be raped?? Especially when most incidents of rape are not the kind people are commonly told, like "woman walking alone in a dark alley with skimpy clothes on, somewhat crazed man sees this opportunity and rapes her because, after all, she was asking for it" WTF? In real life, a majority of rape cases are between people who KNOW eachother. As in, the victim has some kind of relationship with the rapist, clothing has nothing to do with this!

The problem is not how a victim choses to dress, but with the person who believes that someone with less power is an object to be taken. I'd like to also note right now that rape is not just men raping women and that all anti-rape arguments are man-hating arguments. Rape (the most brutal form of oppression) occurs when one person has power over another, and can therefore force that person in to a sexual act against the victim's will.

"I would consider myself slightly feminist"
WRONG. Feminism is anti-oppression. Do not call yourself a rocket scientist when you are a farmer. If you believe anyone 'deserves' to be oppressed, you are not a feminist.

"Stop making excuses for women, if I get raped, it was because I was a dumb ass that was where I shouldn’t have been to begin with. Women wear next to nothing anymore, and wear tiny shirts with push up bra’s and get all mad when someone is looking at her cleavage, well what the fuck did you wear what you did for? It certainly can’t be comfortable!"

I already addressed this, but this really sickens me. I hope you never have to experience rape, as it is indescribably terrible. If you get raped, it's because you were a victim to someone else's power and their complete disregard for others. If you get raped, it would not be your fault. If one does not consent to sexual acts, its rape. Please understand that rape has nothing to do with the attitudes/behaviors of the victims, as rape is commited by the oppressors, not the victims.

If you were raped, I would hope dearly that you would not blame yourself, as this is an all too common problem that is a result from the kinds of views you express. Please educate yourself and re-evaluate your opinion, as it is incredibly harmful.

Ah, there are only so many words! You're a complete idiot if you think this woman just looks "tired." It is clear that the two have attended a party, judging from their attire, her shoes are now off. What is disconcerting is how relaxed he looks while she's a mess. The posture really does reflect someone who is intoxicated of some kind. What's the deal with the gold around both their wrists? Is there something fishy going on there or is it just the purse straps? To answer the author's question, this picture would more likely be indicative of an impending sexual assault ALTHOUGH his demeanor is not menacing/aggressive or anxious at all BUT his really may reflect how normal it is for men in our culture to engage in sexually violent and abusive behavior. No matter where you stand on this particular picture, it is great that you've garnered this much discussion.

PS @ Swagger...that Dolce ad makes me real uneasy...

Like the discussion. Am nervous that we're still operating from our puritain fear of the power inherent in sex. Women's sexual power eclipses men's. This is not a narrative that men have liked; it's one they've tried to subvert. Not sure that the answer is to take power away from the man in our cultural image of sex. I think the answer has more to do with giving permission to the woman to eclipse the man.

More on that here: http://happymortal.com/2008/12/rape-as-conformity/

I don't understand the comments that claim that "rape" is too strong a word to apply to a situation in which a drunk or drugged woman is coerced into sex.

Apparently it would totally hurt the little feelings of those poor nice boys who abstain from alcohol and fuck semi-conscious girls (aka skanks who had it coming to them) if we called them rapists. :|

Hi,

I think there is something to the suggesions you have put forward. Maybe the picture is a step too far, although it is most definitely representative of male dominance of females.

I think the most important thing to point out here is that in describing rapists as 'hyper-conformist', you have still marked them out as abnormal. When you look around at the world, there are many, many examples of these social scales where one degree of belief can be significantly more abhorrent than another. For example, many liberal and progressive people still hold onto a strong level of nationalism. Taken to a more extreme degree, you have places like the highlands in the North of Vietnam, where some ethnic groups are not recognised as citizens and subsequently their economies are bare and crime rife. Take nationalism another step further, to the point where others should be exterminated, and you are looking at Hitler's Germany.

Nationalism is not a desirable trait in humans, because it leads to division, inefficiency and most of all, suffering. In exactly the same way, there are varying degrees to which adherence to gender socialisations impacts upon us. In this 'ultimate' male-domination scenario, then rape is normal, but it *is* an extreme and the vast majority of society, at least in Britain, is thankfully not populated by men that think rape is OK.

It is of course, not the case the that Britain's men are devoid of gender stereotyping. While I shy away from violence, both physical and otherwise, I *have* to recognise that if I was under attack from a woman, I would not hit back, whereas if a man were to pick a fight with me, I would be *far* more likely to retaliate in kind. Likewise, I have an almost 'pricking up of ears' when I hear that a woman has taken a job as a builder or something.

Nobody is perfect in every way, and quite a lot of men *and* women are mentally and emotionally bound by their preconceptions, social fears and lack of good role models. As a result of meeting and talking to people who have a more advanced outlook on these things, you can make headway. It is never an immediate change though.

In conclusion, although this article makes some good points about gender politics and the terror of extremity, it is rather alarmist and indicates something which is against the trend in (just about) most of the world.

This advertisement is clearly an example of gender expectations. Expectations is a key word! Gender expectations are without a doubt apparent in our everyday interactions. They are most apparent when we consider what happens to people who challenge/do not conform to these expectations: they face violence (including rape). When teenage boys call each other "fags" or say, "You hit like a girl," when women will date only the "bad boys", when people gay-bash, and when boys are told to buck up and girls are coddled, etc., gender expectations are being communicated and enforced. We also see these expectations represented in this advertisement, and rape occurs when they are taken to the extreme (seriously make a list of the words that come to mind when you think of "masculine" and "feminine" if you remain skeptical).

People who hyper-conform to and choose to embody certain mainstream masculine gender expectations (i.e. the ones that are visually represented in this ad) are indeed those who rape, no matter what their biological sex.

The point should not be to condemn or indict masculinity itself, but rather to illuminate how media images reflect and perpetuate certain harmful permutations of masculinity and femininity, thus creating a society gendered in such a way as to be conducive to rape, to blame the victims of rape, and often to excuse or fail to recognize rape. If you think we don't live in a "rape culture" then check out the statistics: 1 in 33 men and 1 in 6 women have experienced an attempted or completed rape. Who and what is at fault here? Our social constructs of gender and those who embody, perpetuate, defend, or fail to question them!

http://www.rainn.org/statistics
http://www2.ucsc.edu/rape-prevention/statistics.html

Wow. This thread is both disheartening and eye-opening. There's clearly a wide range of intellectual experience and capacity represented in this thread, but throughout, the level of maturity is shockingly low. I wish the relative anonymity of internet commentary didn't promote playground reactions from almost all participants. Who's the better for this? No one.

Clayton, it would be less grating if you offered your opinion on the article as well as on the comments and then backed up both.

Jack White, this discussion can't be saved. Not here. I've been around the internet long enough to know that. At least your insult was implied and not direct. Sorry if I caused you suffering. Happy New Year!

Three thoughts:

1. I think that the image in question is an incredibly poor example of "the construction of masculinity." Frankly, the reading seems far fetched and, in fact, "constructed."

2. The pretension among gender scholars throughout the humanities/social sciences is a consistent hindrance to their work. I too have found that social thought undid many of my preconceptions, yet, the "in-club" factor is quite odd. Whether it is Derrida or New Haven Country Clubs, the end result is always alienation at the expense of the one in the pulpit.

(Disclaimer: My background is in economic/poli soci, not gender.)

3. If this is a public sociology blog, as I assume all sociology blogs are, the use of "discipline specific" references should be reprimanded, as this is just plain nonsense. This is not (thank God) AJS; the need to declare one's creditentals in this regard is just silly. The brevity of the original post assumes a particular audience, one that will simply nod nod along with certain readings. The flame war will helpfully get the bloggers to work a little harder.

Hello, just got here via Stumble. After I read the first couple of flames in the comments I sort of gave up on reading them all. Just wanted to say I liked the post and I hope you're not discouraged in your reading of that image.

If she stood up straight, in those shoes, she'd be way taller than him. That's disturbing to a gendered visual norm, not good salesmanship. So he gets the shoot because he's pretty, then the photographer has to get creative to compensate.

Context matters. The readings on this thread are very U.S.American, but that may be the wrong frame. She looks typically Euro-fashionista to me, that is, filled with worldly ennui, sophisticated unto collapse. He's her boytoy (younger, callow, a little anxious) and caddy when she can't be bothered to hold up her own purse.

Could be, could be not. Jamal's right - without more to go on these extra-textual readings are just readings-in of whatever garbage we happen to have floating around our own heads.

If she stood up straight she'd be taller than him. Even worse in those shoes. That's disturbing to a gendered visual norm, not good salesmanship. So he gets the shoot because he's pretty, then the photographer has to get creative to compensate.

Context matters. The readings on this thread are very U.S.American, but that may be the wrong frame. She looks typically Euro-fashionista to me, that is, filled with worldly ennui, sophisticated unto collapse. He's her boytoy (younger, callow, a little anxious) and caddy when she can't be bothered to hold up her own purse.

Could be, could be not. Jamal's right - without more to go on these extra-textual readings are just readings-in of whatever garbage we happen to have floating around our own heads.

Oops, system hung so I did a little edit and reposted. My bad.

I did enjoy reading this discussion. Lots of smart points here, for those who were able to tolerate a little jargon drift.

You said "Has she just been raped or is the rape yet to occur?" because I'm sure somewhere there is a rule that says he can't be her brother (or a not rapist friend) driving her home after, for example, a (rich)girl gone wild situation.

And besides, a drunk woman, was she forced to drink? Couldn't a young (fashiony, it seems) woman to be in control of her own acts, like for example, when she hits the bar and wants to drink more than usual? Or was she brainwashed?

And, women who drink or/and do drougs, it totally turns her libido off, right, so she couldn't feel like wanting sex with her boy or even with a one night stand?

So, then, when women drink and have sex, were they hypnotized to do so?