Archive: 2008

Ben O. sent us this 1941 ad for Fletcher’s Castoria (found at I’m Learning to Share), in which mothers are warned (by a bratty kid) that they better give their children Fletcher’s laxatives or their children will hate them:

Text from section 2:

It all started when Mary needed a laxative. She hates it, and this time she simply refused to take it. I tried to force it down her and she splattered it all over the carpet. So I slapped her and said she was a bad girl. Then came the tantrum!

I’d say slapping her daughter is more of an indication of what type of mother she is than which laxatives she chooses, but whatever. Apparently the company liked to use corporal punishment in its ads; here are some more examples (both found at Corpun). In this first one, we learn that even parents who don’t believe in spanking may be driven to it if they use the wrong laxative (in section 2, she gives him an “unmerciful spanking”):

Text from sections 1 and 2:

I don’t believe in spanking children. But darn it all, sometimes a youngster can sure drive a grownup wild. Like mine did me–yesterday. It all started innocently when Billy wouldn’t take his laxative. At first I tried coaxing. But that didn’t work. Then when I started to force it on him, he sent the spoon flying out of my hand. So I lost my temper and gave him an unmerciful spanking.

From section 1:

Whenever Tommy gets a spanking, our whole family is upset. Big Tom hates to do it and mopes for hours afterward. And Tommy’s little nervous system gets so upset he can’t eat. So last Friday I decided to put an end to spankings…

Fletcher’s Castoria: the way to digestive and family harmony. Without it, you might end up slapping the kids around (though I have to say, that girl at the top would probably test to the utmost my opposition to violence).

Just a question: I’m not a parent, but I don’t hear my friends talking about giving their kids laxatives all the time, and I don’t remember being forced to take them as a kid (though I do remember us forcing a horse to drink a lot of castor oil once). Was this just a health fad at the time that people thought kids needed that has fallen out of favor? Did kids in the ’40s have some unique digestive problems we’ve, um, eliminated since then? Or do my friends’ kids go around constipated all the time because they don’t know to make them take senna laxatives?

Thanks again, Ben!

NEW! Sarah N. sent us another example of an add that implies laxatives lead to happier moms and better family lives:

Part of the text:

“My mum loves me now. I can tell because her hands are gentler…her voice is sweeter…and her kisses are softer. I know know what I did. But all of a sudden she just started loving me!”

Linda, dear, you didn’t do anything. It was Mum’s chemist. He gave her Bile Beans…

Laura Agustin, author of Sex at the Margins: Migration, Labour Markets, and the Rescue Industry, asks us to be critical consumers of stories about sex trafficking, the moving of girls and women across national borders in order to force them into prostitution.  Without denying that sex trafficking occurs or suggesting that it is unproblematic, Agustin wants us to avoid completely erasing the possibility of women’s autonomy and self-determination.

About one news story on sex trafficking, she writes:

…[the] ‘undercover investigation’, one with live images, fails to prove its point about sex trafficking… reporters filmed men and women in a field, sometimes running, sometimes walking, sometimes talking together.

…I’m willing to believe that we’re looking at prostitution, maybe in an informal outdoor brothel. But what we’re shown cannot be called sex trafficking unless we hear from the women themselves whether they opted into this situation on any level at all. They aren’t in chains and no guns are pointed at them, although they might be coerced, frightened, loaded with debt or wishing they were anywhere else. But we don’t hear from them. I’m not blaming the reporters or police involved for not rushing up to ask them, but the fact is that their voices are absent.

…

There are lots of things we might find out about the fields near San Diego… [but] we don’t see evidence for the sex-trafficking story. Feeling titillated or disgusted ourselves does not prove anything about what we are looking at or about how the people actually involved felt.

Regarding a news clip, Agustin writes:

…a reporter dressed like a tourist strolls past women lined up on Singapore streets, commenting on their many nationalities and that ‘they seem to be doing it willingly’. But since he sees pimps everywhere he asks how we know whether they are victims of trafficking or not? His investigation consists of interviewing a single woman who… articulates clearly how her debt to travel turned out to be too big to pay off without selling sex. Then an embassy official says numbers of trafficked victims have gone up, without explaining what he means by ‘trafficked’ or how the embassy keeps track…

So here again, there could be bad stories, but we are shown no evidence of them. The women themselves, with the exception of one, are left in the background and treated like objects.

To recap, what Agustin is urging us to do is to refrain from excluding the possibility of women’s agency by definition. Why might a woman choose a dangerous, stigmatized, and likely unpleasant job? Well, many women enter prostitution “voluntarily” because of social structural conditions (e.g., they need to feed their children and prostitution is the most economically-rewarding work they can get). Assuming all women are forced by mean people, however, makes the social structural forces invisible. We don’t need mean pimps to force women into prostitution, our own social institutions do a pretty good job of it.

And, of course, we must also acknowledge the possibility that some women choose prostitution because they like the work. You might say, “Okay, fine, there may be some high-end prostitutions who like the work, but who could possibly like having sex with random guys for $20 in dirty bushes?” Well, if we decide that the fact that their job is shitty means that they are “coerced” in some way, we need to also ask about those people that “choose” other potentially shitty jobs like migrant farmwork, being a cashier, filing, working behind the counter at an airline (seriously, that must suck), factory work, and being a maid or janitor. There are lots of shitty jobs in the U.S. and world economy. Agustin simply wants us to give women involved in prostitution the same subject status as women and men doing other work.

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.

Because Barbies and Bratz dolls are so popular with young children, the products regularly get flak for revealing, sexualized clothing. [The Black Canary Barbie, for example, provoked outcry, which we covered in a previous post.] Old Hearts Club Dolls consciously set themselves in opposition to Barbies and Bratz. The About page on OHC’s Web site states:

Unlike any other doll, Only Hearts Club™ dolls combine detailed and realistic facial features with soft, fully-poseable bodies. The dolls bodies and clothing actually look like those of the young girls they are intended to be. The dolls’ fashions are hip, based upon what real girls are wearing, and are also age-appropriate.

“Realistic facial features” are in contrast those of Barbies and Bratz, who feature stylized, large eyes and lips. The “soft” bodies of OHC dolls are explicitly different from the hard plastic used to make fashion dolls. Finally, “age-appropriate” is code for “non-sexualized, non-revealing.”

While other alternatives to the popular fashion dolls have tried and failed to get off the ground [see August 15, 1991 New York Times article about the Happy To Be Me doll], OHC dolls have been going strong since 2004. For example, I have seen them in independent toy stores around the Boston area; toy stores have even sold out of them, much to my frustration when I want to purchase one.  You could use the story of these dolls in a conversation about portrayals of femininity in toys or current debates about “modesty” in fashion.

Maggie B. says:

I was shocked and appalled when I saw these posters hanging above the children’s shoe section in a FootAction store in Jensen Beach, FL this weekend.

In her book, Bad Boys, Ann Ferguson argues that while white boys are seen as naturally and innocently naughty, black boys are seen as willfully bad.  This is possible because teachers attribute adult motivations to black, but not white, children.  Ferguson calls this adultification.   Essentially this means that many teachers and other school authorities see black boys as “criminals” instead of kids.  And black girls–also adultified, but differently–are seen as dangerously sexual.  Adults, of course, are held 100% responsible for their behavior.  There is no leeway here, no second chances, and no benefit of the doubt.

These pictures do more than just sexualize the young children pictured (who appear to be black and mixed-race), they also adultify them with their expressions, postures, fashion, and implied contexts.

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.

In case you thought the craze for sanitary or anti-bacterial products was new, here’s a Cremo cigar ad from the 1920s (found at the Microfilm Gallery) that scares consumers with the specter of cigars covered in “mites of malice”:

Text:

Just think! On the hands of a cigar-maker may lurk many different kinds of disease germs…crippling ‘mites of malice’ that you may draw into your mouth through hand-made cigars. To awaken men to this invisible danger…I want to tell the truth about Cremo–the only cigar whose purity I can truly certify. Every tobacco leaf entering the Cremo factory is scientifically sterilized by U.S. Government approved methods. Cremo is fit for you mouth, because it is not made in stuffy, dingy lofts and stores…but in air-flooded, sun-bathed, scientifically-clean factories. Not by antiquated methods…but by marvelous inventions that fold, wrap, and tip the cigars with sanitary metal fingers. This scientific, Cremo-method of manufacture guarantees you cigars of the same high health protection that you get in certified milk! What’s more…Cremo purity is quickly sealed in individual sanitary foil. Thus Cremo reaches your lips with a pleasure that you can trust!

What I like here is the total faith in technology and mass production. It’s safer! It’s innovative! It’s sanitary! It’s a striking contrast to the concerns often expressed about scientific innovations and their possible negative effects. It would also be a good example for talking about the way that perceptions of manufacturing methods have changed. In the 1920s, the idea of mass-produced cigars was exciting and modern. The fact that they were made with “metal fingers” was a selling point. Today, on the other hand, the techniques referred to in this ad as “antiquated” might be called “artisanal,” a word that connotes craftsmanship and quality. According to About.com,

The novice smoker may be tempted to start by trying those machine made brands sold in Drug Stores, such as Dutch Masters or El Producto. However, the aspiring connoisseur should consider spending a few more pennies and moving up to hand rolled cigars, which are sold online or at a local tobacconist.

Maybe someday we’ll think of soap that isn’t anti-bacterial as a high-quality, artisanal product.

A Daily Mail story reports that women lawyers are being told by “image consultants’ that to appear “professional” they should enhance their femininity by wearing skirts and stilettos, but avoid drawing attention to their breasts.  Thoughts about the word “professional” after the screenshot (thanks to Jason S. for the link):

A spokesman for the company doling out this advice says that it’s about being “professional.”  This is a great term to take apart.  What do we really mean when we say “professional”?

How much of it has to do with proper gender display or even, in masculinized workplaces, simply masculine display?

How much of it has to do with whiteness?  Are afros and corn rows unprofessional?   Is speaking Spanish?  Why or why not?

How much of it has to do with appearing attractive, heterosexual, monogamous, and, you know, not one of those “unAmerican” religions?

For that matter, how much of it has to do with pretending like your work is your life, you are devoted to the employer, and your co-workers are like family (anyone play Secret Santa at work this year)?

What do we really mean when we say “professional”?  How does this word get used to coerce people into upholding normative expectations that center certain kinds of people and marginalize others?

Breck C. sent in this story in the Wall Street Journal about a study showing a link between geography and personality– that is, that different personality traits are dominant in different regions of the U.S. Personality traits were measured by answers to the Big Five Personality Test, which is widely used in psychology and other fields to determine a person’s dominant personality traits. The story was accompanied by maps showing where five traits (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness) are dominant. According to the study, many stereotypes, such as the neurotic East Coaster, have a basis in reality.

Here is a screenshot of the map of conscientiousness:

Leaving aside any questions about personality questionnaires, and whether people are very accurate at reporting their own personality traits, what I found interesting here is the explanation of this pattern in the caption above the map (which I’m assuming was written by someone at the WSJ and didn’t come from the study): perhaps the Great Plains region is conscientious because of “pioneer traditions” reinforced by “the daily demands of farming.” On the other hand, it’s “surprising” that people in the Southwest and Southeast would be conscientious.

This is a great example of a non-scientific explanation of data that relies more on stereotypes and assumptions than anything else. Why would pioneer traditions be any stronger in Kansas and Missouri than in Oregon or Montana (or a number of other states) that were also settled by “pioneers” (however you want to define that term)? I’m unclear whether the reference to farming is meant to describe the past or the present, but either way, it’s suspect. Lots of other states (including those surprisingly conscientious states in the Southwest and Southeast and many of the less conscientious states) have farming traditions, as well as important agricultural sectors today (like, say, Iowa and its corn). The vast majority of people in those conscientious states aren’t engaged in agriculture today. And for that matter, why would the “demands of farming” lead to conscientiousness in a way that other types of work wouldn’t? These seems to play on stereotypes of farmers (and rural folk more generally) as hard-working, honest, salt-of-the-earth types, compared to superficial, rude (but hipper) city dwellers.

It’s the type of unsophisticated, stereotypical interpretation of academic studies that I often see in the media, and I think this particular explanation of why these states would be conscientious is just silly.

Thanks for the link, Breck!

Text: “The Hunt Is On.”

A fashion spread (note the “safari” colors”):

Other ads had the text: “Going in for the kill has never been so satisfying” and “Animal attraction is meant to be acted on.”

Text: “Her primal urges may be fulfilled, but he’s still hot on her trail.”

Text: “He spots his prey…”

Five-page ad for Dentyne:

Text:

INTRODUCTION:  Admit it, guys.  No matter where you are, you’re thinking about it.

It’s okay.  Ever since you were a cave dweller.  Hunting has come naturally.   But you won’t get anywhere with cave breath.

So aside from having a mouth that won’t scare her off, we’ve outlined some fundamental basics you’ll need to master when out on the hunt.

Let’s get started.  Happy hunting.

THE SPECIES:  First of all, you have to know what you’re hunting.  Here are some common species you may encounter on your expeditions.  Good luck.

THE CAREER GIRL:  The one in a power suit with a cell phone attached to her ear, tends to be icy and dismissive but can be melted.  Play your cards right and you will be a kept man.  Habitat: Gym, high-end shoe stores, assertiveness-training classes.

THE HOT GIRL: Hot and know it.  Will toy with you like a cat with a mouse (if she even notices you).  Tame this one and you can write your own guide.  Habitat: The market, the bus, living next door to your girlfriend.

Text:

THE EASY GIRL:  Appearances vary, but the same willing soul resides within.  A sure thing that can be a temporary boost to the ego.  Habitat:   Could be anywhere.  Good chance you’ll spot her at happy hour.

THE TEASE:  Easily mistaken for the easy girl, she’s anything but.  Habitat: Anywhere.

THE CHATTY GIRL:  You won’t recognize her until you say ‘Hi.’  Then it’s too late.  To escape, fake getting a phone call and say you’ll be ‘right back.’  Habitat: Almost anywhere except a library.

THE BOHEMIAN ROCKER GIRL: Odds are she’s no musician.  Just dresses like one.  Look interested when she talks about all the ‘projects’ she has going on while not being an administrative assistant.  Habitat: Used record stores, art museums, open mic night.

Text:

RULES WHEN OUT IN THE FIELD:

Look her in the eye, not the anatomy.

Practice chivaly.  Unless she’s a militant feminist, she’ll like it.

Compliment her outfit.  Lie if you have to.

Look interested when she talks about her cat.

If you get shot down, move on to one of her friends.

Pop in a piece of Dentyne before making any moves.

RED FLAGS:

In the first five minutes, she mentions an ex.

She says she has to go home and take her ‘medication.’

She’s made plans for the two of you next weekend.

She knows every bartender by name.

She has an adam’s apple.

Text:

THE ARSENAL:

Money (it never hurts).

Your own place.  Living above mom and dad’s garage doesn’t count.

Perseverance, it’s tough out there.

Plenty of Dentyne gum.

These all remind me of an unfortunate Target billboard.

Thanks to my students who have brought these in over the years!

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.