Archive: Sep 2009

This Associated Press interactive graphic (via) displays the number of uninsured by state and provides state-specific details on the rise of health insurance costs (for employers and employees) for each state.  The number of uninsured (darker = larger #s; note that this data is highly tied to the number of residents in each state):

Some data for Illinois:

To interpret:  In Illinois, the amount of money an employer pays each year, on average, for a family has increased 65.3% over the last ten years, and the amount the employee pays has increased 88.4%.  Employees with families now spend, on average, $2,743 a year for their health insurance.  That translates into 7% of the family income (assuming a single breadwinner), up from 4% in 1996.  Over a million workers in Illinois are not so lucky; they have no health insurance at all.

This data reminds us that, in addition to many uninsured, many of us are already paying for health insurance, so the use of taxes to pay for government provided health care would not necessarily cost those who are already insured and may actually save them money.

—————————

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

I found this graph of public support for the death penalty over time at the Gallup Poll website:

I’m not sure what the “2828” and “3030” are at the right-hand side of the “% Against” line–perhaps they didn’t round off the %s? I looked at the specific %s given in a table and that seems to fit–that they were supposed to be 28% and 30% and somehow weren’t entered correctly.

Some other questions that were asked:

Generally speaking, do you believe the death penalty is applied fairly or unfairly in this country today?

Asked about if the person believes an innocent person has been executed in the past 5 years:

Do you feel that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to the commitment of murder, that it lowers the murder rate, or not?

The answer to that last question is interesting in that it indicates people do not, in general, support the death penalty because they believe it reduces the likelihood of more murders. The most common response to why people support it is based on a retaliation/”eye for an eye” principle, not deterrance:

I am in Munich for the month and last week I visited the Dachau Concentration Camp Memorial. I was struck by the difference between the tour I took here and the tour I took of the Lara Plantation just outside of New Orleans in May. Visiting Dachau put the two modes of remembrance into stark contrast. Without trying to argue that the holocaust and U.S. slavery are the same in every way, I would like to suggest that both are tragic histories that included unimaginable human suffering. Yet, the tours were very different.

I’ll start with Dachau.

The first thing that our tour guide did was impress upon us, in no uncertain terms, that Hitler was a terrible man, that the things that happened under his rule were indescribably inhumane, and that the concentration camps were death camps, pure and simple, with or without a gas chamber. In case his words were not clear enough, we took in a 22-minute video featuring photographs and narratives, all camp specific. No details, no horror, no gore was spared.

The entry gates lead to the main square in the camp where prisoners were required to congregate each morning and evening. What dominates the square today isn’t the guard towers, though they are present and meticulously reconstructed, it is the memorial by Yugoslav sculptor Glid Nandor. I had seen this sculpture in pictures before and have always found it to be one of the most impactful pieces of art I have ever seen.

The artist, who had been a prisoner in one of Hitler’s concentration camps himself, meant for the sculpture to commemorate the prisoners who had committed suicide by throwing themselves against the electrified gates of the camp. I appreciate that the sculptor makes no attempt to ease our acknowledgment of the horror and hopelessness of life in the camps.

This main memorial sculpture was one of many. There were four memorial buildings, about six monuments, the museum, and a convent that had been located on the site. And memorials are still being added. The gift shop sold books and documentaries.

My impression was that the Germans took this deadly seriously and I was impressed by the way that the Germans are handling their national tragedy. They seem fully committed to owning this tragedy so as to never ever allow anything like it to happen anywhere again. Never did the guide try to sugarcoat the holocaust, minimize the tragedy, or put anything into a measured perspective.

All of this may seem unremarkable. We’ve all heard that Hitler and his concentration camps were bad before. Hitler is, no less, synonymous with evil. Accordingly, it may seem to you that it could not be otherwise; it may seem that this tour of the Dachau concentration camp was the only possible tour that could exist.

Let’s turn to the Lara Plantation tour. The main story in this tour was about the glamorous lives of Lara (the strong-willed female head of the plantation) and her family members. Plantation life was romanticized: strong women, dueling men, wine collections, expensive furniture, distinguished visitors, breeze basking and mint julep drinking, and an ever-expanding fortune.

The plantation was done up to look gorgeous:

I would guess that about 15-20 percent of the tour was spent on slave life. They showed us some documents listing the slave “inventory” at its peak, they talked about laws regarding slaves and how they differed from laws elsewhere in the U.S., they revealed that the Br’er Rabbit stories were originally collected from slaves there, they discussed the extent of the sugarcane fields, and they allowed us to walk through this reconstructed two-family cabin (mentioning that slaves were allowed to have gardens):

In contrast to the almost obscene documentation of the abuse and murder of concentration camp prisoners, this was the only image of a slave that I saw during the entire tour:

The image shows one slave and the two rows of slave cabins reaching back into the sugar cane from the year behind the main house. You can compare the reconstructed cabin with those in the image. It’s hard to say, but I’m not sure I see cute picket fences and gardens.

Here are some things that were not included in the tour: extended discussions of the health of slaves, their physical and emotional abuse, the breeding programs, rape, their punishing labor, the destruction of their families, the age at which slaves began to work, and all of the other indescribably inhumane things about human slavery.

The gift shop sold jam and honey, CDs, yummy smelling candles, candy bars, New Orleans hot sauces, dried alligator heads, little angels made out of picked cotton… and Lara’s memoirs.

The contrast with the Dachau tour was nothing short of stunning.

Could the Lara Plantation do a tour that mirrored that of Dachau? Absolutely.
Should they do that tour? Absolutely.

Plantations were many other things, but they were also the engine of slavery.  It is this that should stand out as the most important thing about them. Concentration camps were many other things as well (e.g., a military training site, a daily job site for German soldiers, a factory producing goods, and a strategic part of the war effort), but we have absorbed the important lessons from them so thoroughly that it is difficult to even imagine what an alternative tour might look like. In contrast, one can visit the Lara Plantation and come away not really thinking about slavery at all, in favor of how pretty the china was and oooh did you smell that candle as we walked by? Delicious. I need a coke, you?

A lot of Americans, when Germany is mentioned, express disbelief that a people could live with a history like the holocaust. But Americans do live with a history like the holocaust, we just like to pretend it never happened. While Germany is processing its participation in a human rights tragedy, the U.S. is denying its own; while Germany is confronting its own ugly history for the betterment of the world, we are busy preserving the myth of U.S. moral superiority.

The plantation pictures are mine and the Dachau pictures are borrowed from here and here.

—————————

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

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.

The Texas Board of Education is currently holding hearings about textbook standards and changes they want publishers to make for their texts to be adopted. Texas and California have great influence over what textbooks contain since they are such enormous markets; while the standards are only specific to each of them, very similar (or identical) versions of the texts are then sold to other states as well.

Here is a clip of standards advisor Don McLeroy explaining that textbooks should recognize the fact that women and racial minorities got more liberties because the majority gave it to them (from TPM):

Technically, he is exactly right: it did take a majority of votes in Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act, and the majority then (and now) was White (men). But to say that the majority did it “for the minority” erases an awful lot of struggle and organizing on the part of disadvantaged groups, as well as the foot-dragging and opposition so many members of the majority engaged in to try to prevent such changes. Before men “passed it for the women,” both women and men worked for decades to get women the vote, often being harassed and even jailed as a result. But to hear him describe it, you’d think the majority just happily passed these types of bills, with maybe just a tiny bit of prodding from minorities.

Here’s a clip of Barbara Cargill explaining that we need to take “negative” elements of American history out of textbooks and focus more on “American exceptionalism”:

Her opposition to the idea that the U.S. ever used “propaganda” is somewhat undermined by her blatant effort to rewrite history texts to be what, if it happened in another nation, we’d call propaganda.

Robin L. sent us this great visual, from Flare (via), that uses U.S. census data to show how work type has changed over time.  The image below displays the percentage of men (blue) and women (pink) in each job between 1850 and 2000:

If you go to the interactive, you can see what percentage of all workers were of any given type, by sex, for each year.

You can also look at work by gender.  Look at how women’s participation in paid work has increased over time (but watch out for the shortened y axis):

The trend for men is down and I can’t think of a good reason for why (you?), though the source explains that some modern jobs are left out because they use occupational categories from 1950.

You can also look at each job individually.  This is the image for farm laborers (again, with a short y axis):

This data is great for comparative purposes, but leaves a bit to be desired in terms of capturing the whole picture because of the missing occupations.

—————————

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

Phoebe sent in this Moto Guzzi website.  You can see that it allows buyers to select a “lady seat” for their motorcycle:

What is a lady seat?  As Phoebe explains:

The lady seat is simply a lowered seat to allow people with shorter inseams to straddle the bike comfortably when stopped or maneuvering by foot.

So really, it’s just a lowered seat for people who are shorter than the imagined person for whom the motorcycle is being built.

This is a use of sex as a shorthand for referencing physical characteristics that (may or may not be) true on average, but are not categorically true.  That is, women may be on average shorter than men, but not all women are short and not all men are tall.  So we have (1) a conflation of women and short stature and (2) an erasure of short men that essentially means that they cannot buy a comfortable motorcycle (unless they’re willing to buy it with a lady seat).

This kind of thing is done all the time.  In fact, it is the primary conflation that we use to justify sex segregated sports.  Women, it is often argued, can’t play football because they are too small and would get too physically knocked around.  But this (1) assumes that all women are small (which they are not) and (2) erases small men.  Few people seem to notice that it’s not only women who are excluded from football, it’s also all of the men who aren’t big enough to play with the “big boys.”  Rather than excluding women from football, we might use a weight class system (like they do in wrestling).  If we had two football leagues (say, in high school) based on weight, both sex integrated, then not only could women get a chance to play football, lots of men who otherwise don’t get a chance to play could play too.

—————————

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

Nora R. pointed out a Navy Facebook page that presents female members of the Navy as ground-breaking women who redefine femininity. The photo:

Here’s the text below the photo:

Applauding women who define life on their own terms. Intermingling the stereotypically feminine and masculine. Women in the Navy are amongst those paving the way in redefining femininity in the 21st Century.

I think it’s fascinating that they refer to feminine and masculine characteristics as stereotypes, rather than simply saying they mix feminine and masculine traits (thus accepting them as meaningful categories).

I went over to the Navy page on women from Facebook. Another image:

Some text from that webpage, which again emphasizes equality, empowerment, and the idea that ideas about gender are stereotypes, not accurate beliefs:

What’s it like being a woman in today’s Navy? Challenging. Exciting. Rewarding. But above all, it’s incredibly empowering. That’s because the responsibilities are significant. The respect is well-earned. The lifestyle is liberating. And the chance to push limits personally and professionally is an equal opportunity for women and men alike.

The notion of a “man’s work” is redefined in the Navy. Stereotypes are overridden by determination, by proven capabilities and by a shared appreciation for work that’s driven by hands-on skills and adrenaline. Here, a woman’s place is definitely in on the action. And women who seek to pursue what some may consider male-dominated roles are not only welcome, they’re wanted – in any of dozens of dynamic fields.

Besides equal pay for equal work, you can also look forward to the opportunity for personal development in the Navy. Take advantage of the chance to learn, grow, advance, serve and succeed right beside male counterparts – sharing the same duties and the same respect.

Farther down there’s this paragraph:

Spending time with family and friends. Going shopping. Getting all dressed up for a night out. As a woman, you’ll find there’s ample time for all of that in the Navy. Time when you’re off-duty. Time for the everyday things and the “girly stuff.” What you do as a woman in uniform may not be considered typical, but the life you lead outside of that can be as normal as you want.

I think the message there is partially that you don’t have to give up all the things associated with femininity if you’re in the Navy, but also the implication is that in the Navy you’ll be empowered and liberated to break stereotypes that you won’t be able to do as much in the outside world, where you may want to act more “normal.”

We’ve posted before about the use of female empowerment to sell products (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). In all of those instances, liberty or empowerment comes through simply consuming the right thing, whether it’s Virginia Slims, a better cleaning product, or a pre-packaged food item. It’s a completely superficial use of the idea of women’s liberation. In this Navy campaign, however, some very real advantages are promised: equal pay for equal work, respect, equal opportunity at work, the ability to enter “what some may consider” male-dominated fields.

Of course, that doesn’t mean all of these things happen. For instance, the Navy can say women are welcomed into male-dominated roles; that doesn’t mean the male soldiers are going to be thrilled and welcoming. After all, 26 female Navy members reported being sexually assaulted by fellow sailors in 1991. But the book The American Woman 2001-2002 lists the Navy as the branch of the military with the second-lowest levels of gender discrimination (after the Air Force; not surprisingly, the worst branch is the Marines) and says that after the 1991 Tailhook incident the Navy undertook major efforts to deal with gender discrimination. According to the book the Navy has “the largest number of women moving into nontraditional occupations” (p. 163). Women are allowed on combat vessels, while the Army still does not allow women in combat positions.

I don’t know. I have to say, this seems to be more of a sincere effort to recruit women by focusing on equality and skills than most I’ve seen, in which empowerment is depicted as taking on “masculine” roles or characteristics, and in which the idea that they are masculine isn’t questioned as a stereotype. I know many people will say that getting more women into the military isn’t necessarily a great advancement. But just as a marketing effort aimed at women, this is one of the more interesting ones I’ve seen, since it highlights specific types of equality (pay, etc.) as opposed to some vague idea of “liberation” and challenges the femininity/masculinity binary.

UPDATE: Reader Samantha C. says,

You know, I was all over this until the bit about “as a woman, you’ll totally still be able to go shopping and dress up tee hee”. And calling that life that of a “normal woman”. I just really hate those interests being universally assumed of all women.

I think it’s an excellent point.

The answer to that question matters because, even if bloggers don’t have the ability to control what we think, they do, to a certain extent, shape what we think about.  And bloggers can sometimes make enough noise to be heard.

Kay Steiger drew my attention to the findings of a study of the blogosphere by Technorati.  Below are a selection of their findings, click over for more on who blogs and answers to other interesting questions:

—————————

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