product: cars

To me this New York Times graphic showing the relationship between gas prices and the average number of miles driven powerfully suggests that gas prices actually have little to do with how much driving Americans do.  The vertical axis is gas prices and the horizontal axis is the number of miles driven.  The line inside the figure is time.

Basically the illustration shows that the number of miles per year Americans drive has been climbing since 1956.  Despite short-term gas price fluctuations, something is driving us to drive more and more every year.

When gas prices do shoot up — such as during the oil embargo, the energy crisis, and the most recent peak — Americans show a  modest drop in driving, but it’s not a very large one and we recover rather quickly.  During the oil embargo, Americans shaved 210 miles a year off of their driving.  During the energy crisis, only 156.  The recent reduction in the number of miles driven per year is attributed by the New York Times writer to the fact that so many people are unemployed and, therefore, no longer need to drive to work.

Driving, then, shows only a modest response to high prices.  Perhaps the jumps in prices during these peaks — 43 and 106 cents per gallon respectively —  weren’t really worth slowing down for?  Or perhaps driving is so culturally meaningful that Americans are willing to pay to stay in their cars regardless?  Or maybe driving, and driving farther, has become increasingly important over time such that people can’t reasonably reduce the amount of driving they do?

It seems to me that the problem is at least partly infrastructural.  I wonder how average miles driven responds, or would respond, to enhancing and investing in public transportation?  If we started building denser neighborhoods and got rid of suburbs?

Flowing Data.

Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.

On ESPN on May 17th, Jesse W. was subject to this little piece of advertising bookending an article.  According to this advertising, women decide to buy a new car because they know it in their heart; men, in contrast, know it in their mind:

UPDATE! In the comments, Kit M. and others noted that you could apply a race analysis to this ad as well. For hundreds of years darker-skinned people have been argued by Europeans to be closer to animals, more instinctual, and tied more tightly to their emotions. Whereas rationality has been granted largely to white men of the upper classes. So the use of a Black woman to represent heart and a White man to represent mind also fits neatly with familiar stereotypes.

Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.

Tom Schaller recently posted over at FiveThirtyEight about a new Hyundai commercial. The commercial suggests that you need to get a safe car because of all the young drivers on the road:

Here’s another:

Schaller argues that, while the commercials may be entertaining enough, he can’t help but wonder how people would react to similar commercials mocking the other age group over-represented in accidents — the elderly, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety:

Is Hyundai wrong to say that teens, particularly those who just got their licenses, are more dangerous drivers than other age groups? No. But though people might joke about elderly drivers, I agree with Schaller — I can’t imagine a company putting out ads with a similar mocking tone and not immediately getting a ton of negative feedback ending in pulling the commercials and apologizing.

And this likely has a lot to do with the fact that older Americans are organized and represented by groups like the AARP and are thus able to wield political pressure and protest negative portrayals in a way that teens aren’t. This doesn’t mean that older people don’t get mocked (especially in TV shows and movies), but that a company is likely to be much more afraid of insulting them than insulting 16-year-olds.

Gwen Sharp is an associate professor of sociology at Nevada State College. You can follow her on Twitter at @gwensharpnv.


Crossposted at Jezebel.

Simon O. sent in this Ukrainian army video meant to recruit women:

The translation (taken from YouTube, and I think it’s a somewhat rough translation; I cleaned up the punctuation and spelling a bit):

Girl 1: Would you take us for a ride in your BMW?
BMW-driver: Even to the end of the world!
Soldier: Hey, I’d like to drown [drink?] some vodka, girls!
Girl 1: Just a second!
Girl 2: Where do you live?
Soldier: Right here- daytime at work, and at night in the clubs!
Girl 1: Which work???
Soldier: Contract, of course!
Blonde girl: Contract? Marriage contract or what?
Girl 3: Army contract, stupid!
BMW driver: Hey, don’t you wanna ride in my car?
Girls: Forget it, take yourself for a ride!
Narrator: It’s about time for new heroes! With contract-based service in Ukrainian armed forces!

Apparently the Austrian army thought it was awesome and made their own version:

Translation (again from YouTube):

Audi Driver: Hey girls, wanna go for a spin in my fast ride?
Girls: Ehh not sure, there’s not even enough space for all of us.
Soldier: Wazzup girls, in the mood for a joyride?
Girls: *Yaaaaay*
Soldier: Join the army if you wanna drive a tank.
Soldier2: Jump in, starting engine.
Audi Driver: Hey, what about the spin?
Girl: Forget it, I want to drive something big.
Narrator: The Austrian Armed Forces offer unique opportunities for young people who are at least 18, everything else is just everyday life.

Both versions play on the idea of women as materialistic, looking for the guy with the best car. Vehicles become a stand-in for masculinity; the bigger/faster the ride, the more attractive you are to women. And what’s more manly than a tank, with a long, phallic-shaped barrel? Women are simply entranced and can’t help running off after the biggest, strongest, manliest vehicle they can find…and, if we take the phallic imagery seriously, presumably the guy with the largest penis, too.

Everyone knows phones and other devices are a major source of distraction to drivers, with deadly consequences. Six states — including New York and California — ban handheld phones while driving. The New York Times is running a major series on the danger, reporting that 11% of drivers are on the phone at any one time, causing 2,600 deaths per year.

I don’t doubt the danger. But this is my question: Where is the upward trend in traffic deaths and accidents? The number of wireless phone subscribers increased by 10-times from 1994 to 2006, but the rate of traffic fatalities per mile traveled dropped 18% during that time. Here’s my chart based on those numbers.

2010-03-13-cellphonedeaths.jpg

I don’t doubt it’s dangerous to talk on the phone while driving, and texting is reportedly even worse. So I’m left with a few possible explanations. First, maybe cars are just safer. So there is an increase in accidents but fewer deaths per mile driven. Second, maybe distracted driving is more likely to cause minor collisions, because people jabber and text less in high-risk situations. (OK, I checked it out and those explanations won’t do: Accidents causing property damage only, per mile driven, have also declined, by 24%, from 1994 to 2007.)

Or third — and I like this idea, though I have no evidence for it — maybe phone-based distractions are replacing other distractions, like eating, grooming, listening to music, supervising children, or interacting with other passengers.

Can you explain this?

(And no, I don’t work for the telecommunications industry.)

E. W. sent in a three-page internet ad for the 2010 Chevy Traverse.  The Traverse seats eight, but the ad campaign suggests that it is perfect for just four.  E.W. offers the play-by-play:

The first image of the ad shows a young boy and girl in the first row of seats in an SUV.  They are separated by at least a foot of space.  The young boy is poking the girl (presumably his sister) in the shoulder.

The following images show the two kids in various seating arrangements where they are always separated by the seating rows (one in front and one in back).

The end tag (car-two) states “Finally, you can separate them.”

“To summarize the ad in my words,” said E.W., “Buy a car that can seat 6 kids because you can’t control your 2.”

Or, in my words, in the face of an economic crisis peppered with sky-high fuel prices, we are desperate for another way to try to convince Americans that they need giant cars.

Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.

Marketing hygiene/beauty products to men by implying it will make them more masculine and attractive to women is nothing new, but a recent Old Spice commercial throws in something I haven’t seen much: the ad is aimed at women.

C.J. and Anna M. pointed out the commercial, in which women (who, presumably, do the shopping) learn that we’d find men more attractive if we bought them the right body wash so they didn’t smell like women. Notice the stereotypes of the things that women really, really, really find attractive about men, namely, the ability to buy boats and diamonds and act out plot lines from romance novels:

 

Old Spice also targets men more directly, as in this commercial Katrin found:

Sofia R. sent in an ad that goes along with the commercial:

Guys, don’t ever forget that if your masculinity is in any way open to question–like, say, you have a stupid, gender-ambiguous name–you need to compensate by being sure to distance yourself from any other signs of girliness.

If you don’t like Old Spice, perhaps you’d be interested in the new line of products for men from Dove, sent in by J.Z. and Alexandra N.:

Once you have finally proven your manliness by doing enough sufficiently manly things (and making sure to procreate, and probably not having a name like Jamie), it’s safe to care about your skin and stuff.

Commenter Jennifer says,

I’m wondering if the Dove commercial, rather than using stereotypes solely for the purpose of selling products, is attempting to buck some of the stereotypes. I mean, it seems like the commercial points out some of the aspects of life that prove “Patriarchy Hurts Men, Too” like the necessity to be good at sports, be brave and strong, and be heterosexual. In some ways, I thought the commercial kind of refreshing.

Poor men. They feel so put-upon with all the expectations of them. Especially the ridiculous things women ask them to do. Women are so whiny and demanding and sap all the fun out of men’s lives. As this Dodge commercial sent in by Sara P. shows, the only thing left for a guy to do is take a “last stand” by getting a macho car:

Sara and Jesse W. also sent us this parody of the above ad, from a woman’s perspective, cracks me up:

Just in case you might not have gotten the main points, let me summarize for you:

* Don’t be a sissy! Show you’re a man with manly beauty products! Chicks will dig it.

* But once you’ve proven you’re a man, you can be a little more open about using manly beauty products.

* Having relationships with women totally emasculates you! Why won’t they just shut up?!?

UPDATE: Reader Theo linked to another commercial about how women just won’t shut up!

NEW! (Feb. ’10): Emma M.H. and Liz M. sent in this commercial for FloTV that also shows women emasculating and controlling men:

ALSO NEW! (Feb. ’10):This Daily Show clip, sent in by Chrissy B., summarizes just how very bad men have it these days:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Male Inequality
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political Humor Vancouverage 2010

Christina S. sent along a link to the British commercial below for Twingo. There’s a twist ending, so I’ll let you watch it:

Notice that, at the very end, the narrator refers to how “we live in modern times,” meaning that we drive socially responsible cars and tolerate cross-dressing.

The idea embedded in that commercial is: now that we’re “modern,” there is no more prejudice and intolerance. Or, “modern” people are tolerant of social differences. Things like bias, hate, and discrimination are “in the past,” confined to those who are “traditional” or otherwise somehow regressive.

This makes sense to us (and the commercial, therefore, works) because many of us have a model of history that assumes that everything will, inevitably, always get better… or at least not get worse. This is a linear model where the line for “progress” keeps going higher and higher over time.  However things are today, we assume, things must have been worse before.  Thinking like this makes invisible the possibility that people were more tolerant in the past as well as the possibility that we could become increasingly intolerant in the future.  As I wrote in a previous post about cavemen:

There are serious problems with this idea:  (a)  We may stop working to make society better because we assume it will get better anyway (and certainly never get worse) with or without us.  (b) Instead of thinking about what things like gender equality and subordination might look like, we just assume that equality is, well, what we have now and subordination is what they had then.  This makes it less possible to fight against the subordination that exists now by making it difficult to recognize.

History doesn’t move along in a linear or predictable way.  And it certainly doesn’t produce equality just by plodding along.  We need to do the hard work of figuring out what an egalitarian society looks like and how to get there.  Conflating “modernity” with social tolerance makes it seem as though the work is already finished.

UPDATE! Ashleigh V. sent in another Twingo commercial.  This one conflates modernity with sexual permissiveness:

Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.