We do denigrate jocks and frat boys, but to equate society's treatment of men who perform masculinity to the utmost with the way it treats women who perform femininity (or, for that matter, women who don't, or any women at all), is pretty inaccurate. The most ridiculous performance of masculinity--performed by a man, that is--is still privileged compared to any performance of femininity by a woman.

I think that our social conceptions of 'perfect' gender performances are quite contextually specific. The 'blond airhead' is really only viewed as 'ideal' in the context of pornography or other male-focused, sexual-conquest-directed situations. In other circumstances, the female ideal might be the modest-but-conventionally-attractive wife and mother, for example.

Likewise with men -- for most adults of the middle class or above, the ideal male gender performance probably looks more like a successful and well-mannered executive in a tailored suit, not a frat boy.

I think the ad is valuing the expectations of feminine beauty in the service of a joke on the man reading the app.

The joke being: our betting/trading software is so addictive you will ignore beautiful women.

While I agree that we selectively bend and conform to rules, I don't see it in the picture. It seems to be exploiting the heavy competition and work hours of a gambler for a joke.

Did you notice that the man is also dressed up in a suit, fitting squarely into the ideal masculine gender role, yet he doesn't give off the air of an immature, ladies' man frat boy, because the focus of the image is on the ditsy blonde with the clueless look on her face. Or perhaps the ad is suggesting that it's okay for the tailored, well-groomed idealistic man to have that immature attitude towards women.
Additionally it seems that the man is 'trading' a potential future with the insecure woman who obviously likes him for a life of immaturity behind a computer screen.
Also of note is the couple's dress in contrast with the restaurant which doesn't seem high-class at all. Possibly one of those "this could be you" situations, meaning you could be the man throwing out this plastic trophy woman in exchange for a life of gambling stocks.
But then, the fact that he was sitting across from a ditz, as opposed to a wife or mother figure mentioned above, suggests that this isn't the woman that you should be? I'm under the impression that women who see this ad wouldn't identify or try to conform with the blonde on the other end, but rather be disgusted and move on the femininity scale towards that mother figure (mentioned above). It's all in how you look at it, I guess.

Not to detract from the overall point of the post, but I don't think the ad is depicting a "flawless" performance of femininity by any standard. In this context, a flawless performance would entail looking and acting interested in the man, probably smiling, rather than looking stereotypically vacant and bored. The woman may succeed in looking conventionally attractive, but she's clearly failing to prop up the man's ego or amuse him as much as his trading app.

I think what actually squicks me most about this ad is the objectification: literally, women are objects to be traded in when one loses interest.

I think your completely wrong. The body builder is celebrated as a super-hero, see "Pumping Iron", WWE wrestling, boxing, sports, etc... The "Mad Men" alpha male is also celebrated in pop culture.
The female equivalent is also celebrated: beauty competitions, models, etc...

The add says more about a man's love for gadgets over sex. If it is making a statement about women it's the often noted one that sexy, attractive women can't be taken seriously in office and work situations.

lisa and gwen,

I wonder if you've considered doing a small meta analysis of your website's content. You've published several year's of posts and have comments from many of them. I know that I've added comments - many contentious - over the years and continue to enjoy reading your posts (less so with some guest posts) and the comments.

I do recognize that as a comparative, the topics relating to the sociology of gender tend to favor - in terms of coverage - a perspective on women, and I do understand the reasons for this. However, one thing that I've observed (and perhaps I see what I wish to see) is that when the topics of the sociology of gender veer toward topic of men or masculinity, one typically sees the mix of reactions as above, which don't seem to be as discursive or analytical as the many posts which relate to issues of women and femininity.

What I wonder is whether this is because of the type of discourse prevalent in the field, the way in which the topics are framed and discussed by yourselves, if there really aren't that many things to discuss intelligently about men, if you are trying to cater to a particular demographic, or if I'm just being too sensitive on this topic.

A meta analysis on the sociology of gender is -- admittedly -- outside my personal area of academic expertise, and so I do not have any keen insight to provide, other than a feeling of the following points (previous stated, by hopefully more cogently restated as):

1) When you discuss topics related to sociology of gender, they tend to focus on issues related to sociology of women (which I recognize is a fully developed area of academia),
2) These discussions tend to be highly insightful, well referenced, and nuanced, both by you, and by many of the commenters, and
3) When you do discuss topics related to the sociology of men, the posts seem to be less insightful (both from you and from the commenters) on the topic of male gender than in the former cases.

I feel that this is one of the few topic areas that -- when discussed -- falls short of the quality of insight generally seen in the blog, and I don't really understand why.

I think one of the notable things about this advertisement is that it assumes ONLY men (heterosexual, upper-class, probably white) will purchase this company's product. It'd be easy enough to make an ad in a similar vein that used something besides a woman as the object of lost interest, and thus have the ad speak to everyone. But obviously, women don't like technology or trading stocks.

But what *about* the menz?

The "what about the menz" discussion usually involves comparing molehills to mountains--yes, women make 77 cents to a man's dollar, but men can't wear a pink shirt if they want to!" kind of things. But, thinking hard about this post and some of the comments on it, there may be one way that performing masculinity causes problems for men that *don't* pale in comparison to the problems that performing femininity poses for women.

Being concerned for one's physical safety is coded as feminine, and as we all know feminine things are denigrated. Boys and young men suffer serious accidents disproportionately to women of similar age (for example, about 80% of spinal cord injury patients are male), largely because part of performing masculinity (particularly for the under-30 age group) is taking foolish physical risks--driving fast, playing dangerous sports, performing dangerous stunts, etc.

The comparable risks that women face are, I would say, rape and partner violence. A key difference is that men do at least have the option of choosing not to engage in risk-taking behavior (even though the consequence is getting called a fag), but women face a double bind where either under-performing or over-performing femininity can lead to being selected as a target for violence.

I would like to say something about men targeting to oppress women etc. Although there is clear oppression, societal bias is it through collective reason. If one believes that men target as mentioned to maintain control and oppress. That same litmus test could also be used with us women. Take abuse of children statistics suggesting that females tend to abuse at higher rates. Appalling as this may seem do we want to targeting oppressor paradigm in feminism? I, my female daughters might be labeled as baby beaters who only seek to hurt children, NOT (LOL). My son, is he soon to be labeled an oppressor? He after all is the new improved man.
Suppose all the men or males of this world are purposefully working against us.
Do others like myself wonder, who is in charge? How did they teach other males to follow through, multitask, complete tasks after asking once? Forward skills to be further employed here at home :o)

Professor Wade does not want to be the gender God assigned to Her? You have to get your self-affirmation from somewhere else other than the Male. Maybe intellectual academics is not for you. Perhaps explore the identity you want through performance art, or fiction literature? Or art of some kind? I can see you getting into masks from around the world, and also creating your own masks, and then getting-up on stage and exploring whatever you want to explore through body movement and verbal cues.
I am a male, Professor Wade. I do NOT want to target children playing in the street (anywhere in the world), with my drone and blow-off parts of their bodies. Which is one of the things that is possibly expected of Me to regularly do.
So, I am busy with My own concerns Professor Wade.
BUT: I do NOT like women getting their spiritual bread manly from other women. Women need to have the most important bond be with a man.
--Martin Serna

Yes this is true even so with lifestyle like women whose sole purpose in life is to be a stay at home parent. While polls show that that the majority of Americans actually think it's best for young kids to have their moms's full time care at home many women are mocked for adhering to such and choosing to "give up" having a "real career" of course on the other side many women are equally mocked for being a ball busting independent woman. you can't win American culture wants you to be everything at the same time.

You really took an advatage there!
You can check all termilogy here https://detecthistory.com/metal-detecting-glossary/

Discover your favorite baddies midwest free online. Visit now for daily updates.

@baddies midwest