Archive: Mar 2009

Will M. sent us this fascinating clip of Lil’ Wayne on Jimmy Kimmel Live. In the clip, Kimmel asks Wayne about losing his virginity at age 11. Wayne reveals that he did, indeed, lose his virginity at 11. He lost it to a 14-year-old girl who turned out the lights and surprised Wayne into participating, even as he had not intended doing so. What is fascinating is, were Wayne a white female, this narrative would have been considered molestation or rape. As a black male, doubly hypersexualized as a man (who always wants sex) and a black man (who really always wants sex), it’s just considered a joke. This is really nice evidence of the social construction of men, especially Black and Latino men, as hypersexual and, therefore, incapable of being sexually assaulted.

The discussion of his virginity loss begins at about 2:40.

Just one excerpt:

White guy: I didn’t know you could lose your viriginity at 11-years-old.

Other white guy: Well, we can’t, but he did.

Crazy Vet offers us this rather amazing commercial for BP as an example of “green-washing” or an effort to make a company appear environmentally friendly:

What I think is especially remarkable about this example is how entirely free of any content it manages to be.  The commercial combines pretty colors, animation, babies, cute music, and whistling gas pumps.  That alone, apparently, is effective in convincing us that BP is environmentally benign.  It is pure emotion, completely devoid of an argument.

—————————

Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

From the website: “Project E-MANcipate is a project to accelerate the acceptance of male pantyhose as a regular clothing item.”

Hey, I’m all for men and women wearing pantyhose if they want to (as long as no one makes me wear any) but what sort of “emancipation” is being advocated?

Is this about emancipation men from the confines of masculinity so that they can wear an item associated with femininity?

“Men who wear pantyhose do it to improve athletic performance, energize and revitalize tired, aching leg muscles, and to stimulate circulation if they sit all day. In addition, compression can help reduce swelling and decrease the dangers of circulatory problems. And of course there are many men who simply like the soft material and the comfort that sheer pantyhose provides.”

So men would mostly wear pantyhose for (manly) athletic reasons. And, as the website also notes, to keep warm in the winter. But, some men might just like “the soft material.” What about them?

Or maybe the point is to emancipate pantyhose from being associated with only femininity?

“Since pantyhose (or tights), as a garment, has about it nothing gender-specific (such as a panty that fits only the female body, or a bra that is ‘organ-specific’), there is no reason why people of either sex should think of it as a female-only piece of clothing in everyday life.”

But, as the website points out, it’s important for guys to wear pantyhose in a way that doesn’t look “femmy”– “even hosiery that is thought to be very femmy could go together with an average outfit without making the whole outfit femmy at all.”

So how about pink pantyhose? Is pink too “femmy” for men?

The conclusion: “White pantyhose with floral patterns [as opposed to plain pink tights] makes you look like a man.”

These images would be great for a class discussion on the reappropriation of gendered clothing items. What makes pantyhose specifically “manly” or “femmy”? Does this “e-MANcipation” reify the same old ideas about masculinity and femininity, or challenge and expand them?

And I think it’s interesting that this website is U.K.-based. (UPDATE: The company is actually Hungarian– thanks to commenter “bozeman” for the clarification!) I have a hard time imagining a project like this in the U.S. How are ideas about what constitutes a “manly man” different from country to country?

Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight posted this graph showing Americans’ faith in various institutions (from the 2008 General Social Survey):

People in Muslim countries don’t think so:

(worldpublicopinion.org, via Kevin Drum at Mother Jones and Alas a Blog).

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPuIuYDDwBs[/youtube]
(Via Jezebel.)

Also interesting… I don’t think we have a concept of “swollen noodles” in the U.S.

Also in the sexualization of food:

1.  Chex Mix gives you curves.
2.  Sexy hot dog lady in a bun.
3.  Hot Indian Chicken.
4.  Sno-Ball head, sexy lady body.
5.  Chopsticks plus fork = hot sex.
6.  Vegetables are hot.
7.  Pasta, naked lady.
8. Women prefer Kellogs to hot men.
9.  Axe makes women love you like chocolate.
10.  Astroglide and Puma get in on the action.

Dozens more!

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 this 7 1/2 minute video Hans Rosling maps the relationship between life expectancy, GDP, and sexual health and rights over 300 years of Swedish history:

Found at GapMinder.

USA Today posted an interactive graphic demonstrating how different types of college athletes cluster into majors differently at different schools (via Montclair Socioblog).  For example, the screenshot below includes the data for all athletes in the study.  Each rectangle represents a school; the darker the blue, the more concentrated major choices are for that team at that school.   In this iteration, the darkest blue rectangle in the “social science” category represents Louisiana Tech at which 80 percent of male basketball players major in Sociology:

This screenshot features football players only.  At Georgia Tech, 82 percent of football players major in Business:

If you visit the site, you can manipulate the graphic as you like and see what school and team each rectangle represents.

Certain majors have long been rumored to be athlete friendly and I think this actual data sheds a lot of light on the false stereotype of both disciplines and athletes. 

The article doesn’t speculate as to why teammates cluster, but we could…

I was recently speaking to a colleague at my College who remembered a time during which a good percentage of the football players majored in Sociology.  He suggested that this was because one of the most high-profile football players, one who was very well-liked by his teammates and had a leadership role on the team, majored in Sociology.  Since that player has left the College, the percent of football players in our major has decreased.  In that sense, part of the explanation for why teammates cluster may be more social psychological than sociological.

What are your theories?