Archive: 2010

Allegra K. suggested that we take a look at Palin-based pro-conservative message from PalinPAC for this past November’s election. The nearly-two-minute commercial is an excellent example of a gender-specific populism. We recently discussed populism in response to Christine O’Donnell’s “I’m Not a Witch, I’m You” commercial.  Populism is, by definition, in opposition to elitism.  Political populists believe that the average person is better suited to lead than the exceptional person.  In this ad, Palin attempts to personify not just the average person, but the average mom.  Allegra writes:

Throughout the video, numerous women are pictured. However, they are a specific type: they are the “real” women; not models, or especially good-looking, dressed up, or even business or political figures. They are “average moms”…

The average woman, according to Palin, is the American hockey mom (just like her), who is (supposedly) middle class, an at-home mom, who cooks and cleans, takes her multiple children to school, and then to after school sports, probably drives a mini van, and uses Clorox on her sons’ jerseys after they get muddy at practice.  Palin puts the power of change in their hands because, she says, “moms just kinda know when somethin’s wrong.”

A “just kinda know” kind of knowledge (based on the notion of female intuition) is a great example of Palin’s gendered populist message.

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 United States is a nation of immigrants… in that the majority of its citizens are not part of the native population of North America.  In other words, because it was and remains a colonized land.

That aside, is the United States unique in receiving an extremely large number of new immigrants relative to its size?  It turns out, No.

Lane Kenworthy, at Consider the Evidence, posted this figure, showing that the U.S. population does indeed include a substantial proportion of first generation immigrants (both legal and illegal), but it is not unique in that regard, nor does it carry the highest percentage:

It also fails to be true, as many anti-immigration people claim, that the U.S. accepts a uniquely large number of immigrants who need help once they arrive:

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 a fantastic example of the way being single is stigmatized, Rachel K. took a photo of this ad she saw at a bus stop in Toronto:

I’m afraid this is the last post you will get from me. You see, I’m single, and it’s just occurred to me how very much my life sucks, with no one to give me sparkly things. I am going to drop everything and dedicate myself full-time to finding a mate.

I mean, really. It’s an interesting assumption that being unmarried (I presume that’s an engagement ring) means you are “alone.” And I’d say that what sucks isn’t being “alone,” it’s being told constantly that you must be sad and miserable since you aren’t coupled up.

Fannar Þór Guðmundsson sent in a photograph that he took a few years back in his hometown of Reykjavík, Iceland.  The simple street, the mundane household items for sale, and the elderly couple contrast starkly with the lingerie-clad models with their come hither looks.  They contrast starkly, that is, if you are not already inured to the fact that such images are absolutely everywhere.

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 number of Americans under correctional control has more than tripled since the 1980s, up to 1 in 31 U.S. citizens.  And the U.S. incarcerates six times more of its citizens than many European countries.  As you might imagine, this is very expensive.  Between 1987 and 2007, the amount spent on corrections increased by 127%.  To put this in perspective, the amount spent on higher education has only increased 21%.

The Pew Center illustrates the disparity:

States varied in the ratio of corrections to college spending.  The dark green bars (Vermont, Michigan, Oregon, Connecticut, and Delaware) are for states that spend as much or more on higher education than corrections corrections as on higher education The rest spend less.  Minnesota has the most extreme ratio; it spent 17 cents on higher education for every dollar it spent on corrections. Vermont has the most extreme ratio, Minnesota the least:

[Sorry for the initial confusion with the graph.]

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 video, which I found via my friend Captain Crab, Kate O’Beirne (editor of the National Review) attacked the federal subsidized school breakfast and lunch programs. She did so by stating that parents who would find the program necessary must be “criminally negligent,” since they can’t put food on the table:

Transcript (via):

The federal school lunch program and now breakfast program and I guess in Washington DC, dinner program are pretty close to being sacred cows… broad bipartisan support. And if we’re going to ask more of ourselves, my question is what poor excuse for a parent can’t rustle up a bowl of cereal and a banana? I just don’t get why millions of school children qualify for school breakfasts unless we have a major wide spread problem with child neglect.

You know, I mean if that’s how many parents are incapable of pulling together a bowl of cereal and a banana, then we have problems that are way bigger than… that problem can’t be solved with a school breakfast, because we have parents who are just criminally… ah… criminally negligent with respect to raising children.

It’s an excellent example of the stigmatization of poverty: letting your kids go to class hungry would make you a bad parent, but taking advantage of programs set up to be sure kids don’t go to class hungry (and thus less able to learn) also makes you a bad parent. The problem here isn’t structural, or even about poverty. The problem, from O’Beirne’s manner of framing it, is that individuals who enroll their children in such programs are, by default, negligent “poor excuses” for parents.

The illuminating 3:49 minute video below, borrowed from Michael Shaw’s BagNews, features photographs taken by New York Times photojournalist Mike Kamber while he was embedded with the U.S. military in Iraq. Narrating the images, Kamber discusses the censoring of his photos by the U.S. and the ethics of documentary photography.

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.

A while back, Lisa drew on work by Ashley Mears to post about different preferred aesthetics in editorial vs. commercial modeling — that is, modeling for fashion magazines and runways as opposed to modeling clothing in catalogs and other venues specifically meant to lead to sales of products. Mears (whose forthcoming book, Pricing Beauty: Value in the Fashion Modeling World I eagerly await) points out that while models earn more prestige doing editorial work, they generally earn significantly more money if they can get commercial jobs (though, since the two types of modeling require different looks, models have little control over which type of modeling they’ll be considered for).

Jezebel posted an article about a lawsuit brought by three models against the modeling agency Next that clearly shows the low compensation models receive for doing some of the most prestigious modeling. This statement of model Anna Jagodzinska’s account (including payments that are still outstanding as well as deductions from her account for agency fees and services) with Next includes both editorial work (the second two items are her pay for a day of shooting with two different versions of Vogue) and commercial work (J. Crew, H&M, and large sums from agencies that put together advertising materials, such as Laird and Partners). The pay for a day’s shoot for French Vogue? $125. For the U.S. version of Vogue, the dominant fashion magazine, it’s $250:

The daily pay rates for catalogs, by contrast, are in the thousands.

It’s a perfect example of Mears’s argument that models often face a situation where prestigious jobs actually pay very little; so many models want to be in Vogue that the magazine doesn’t have to pay much, and the same is true for a lot of editorial work. Also notice that this statement, from April 2010, shows that the French Vogue has owed the $125 daily fee since May of 2009, and one of Vogue‘s payments has been due since October 2009 and another since December 2009. The end result is that in return for the status that comes with these types of editorial modeling jobs, models have to accept low pay compared to the commercial market, and may have to wait a long time to get even that.

The Jezebel article I linked to above includes an excellent explanation of the various charges on the account statement and the reason modeling agencies don’t aggressively pursue overdue accounts. Notice how it says “unavailable balance” at the bottom of the statement? That means the clients haven’t paid the modeling agency, so she has that much coming but hasn’t actually been paid yet, since the agencies treat the models like independent contractors and only pay them when the agency gets the money from the client.