Andrew Gelman over at FiveThirtyEight posted a map (larger version here) that estimates support or opposition of groups with various characteristics to school vouchers, by state and broken down into five income groups. The overall national average is 45% in support of vouchers. Orange indicates that more than 45% of a particular group supports vouchers in that state, while green indicates that less than 45% support them. So, for instance, looking at row 2 (White Catholics), we see that as income goes up, support for vouchers in most states increases, particularly in the $150,000+ income group; on the other hand, row 4 shows much less overall support among White non-evangelical Protestants, even in the highest income group.

Note that if a particular category (the characterstic for the row at any particular income level) makes up less than 1% of voters in the state, the state is left blank on the map. The data is from 2000, based on about 50,000 respondents. There’s a map of the raw data and a discussion of Bayesian statistical modeling in the original post, if you’re all into that.

As Gelman admits, he needs to add more details about what level of support/non-support the lightness or darkness of the colors indicate–what’s the difference between a very pale green and the darkest green? How many percentage points is that? However, the maps give a general sense of how different racial and religious groups feel about school vouchers, and how income influences that.

One thing I do have a problem with is that the categories are mutually exclusive, meaning Hispanic is treated as a race that does not overlap with Blacks or any of the subcategories of Whites (I also don’t know why all Hispanics and Blacks are put together in one category each). But most people labeled Hispanic in the U.S. see their race as White, with Hispanic as an ethnic, not racial, category–that is also how the U.S. Census defines “of Spanish origin.”

Usually when we get submissions about ejaculation imagery we add them to our existing post on the topic. But I felt this was worth its own post. The Huffington Post has a link to this lovely Dutch commercial:

Often when we see ejaculation imagery, it’s at least somewhat subtle, or anyway not so blatant–the fluid isn’t white, or it comes out of a bottle instead of appearing to so clearly be associated with, or near, an actual penis.

In another example of ejaculation imagery, Dangger and Dmitriy both sent in a supposed German Sprite ad making the rounds…but for the record, AdFreak says it’s fake. [I also did quite a bit of googling about the Dutch ad, just to be safe, but didn’t find anything indicating it’s not real.]

UPDATE: Reader Jody B. says, “The Dutch commercial is real; I lived in Amsterdam from almost 4 years and saw it on daytime television.” Thanks for letting us know!

Cole S.H. sent in “…a set of screenshots of Google’s autocomplete feature, which is based on number of searches of a given phrase,” with comments in red written in by the creator (originally found on reddit, link to original here):

It provides some interesting insights into popular conceptions of men, women, and relationships.

Some of the search terms related to men/husbands/boyfriends: attracted to breasts, jerks, afraid of commitment, abusive, mean, selfish, grumpy. Search terms related to women/wives/girlfriends: emotional, difficult, complicated, attracted to bad boys, crazy, always mad, better than men.

Apparently both men and women are considered mean and stupid, so there is some equality. I do think it’s interesting that one of the popular search terms about women is why they are “better than men”; it’s weird to me that there’s a whole genre of jokes about women being smarter/better than men, and that I know people who tell them or find them funny who would be offended at a similar joke about men being smarter than women.

Reader SB has some similar images at The Sexual Buzz.

Also check out our post on Amazon’s gendered gift-giving suggestions.

NOTE: There’s been some confusion about what I meant about this giving “insights” about gender conceptions–I’m not saying most people think negative things about the other sex, or that this is scientific data. I just think it’s interesting that when people are searching for information about perceived negative aspects of men or women, they frame it in different ways–men are “grumpy” or “abusive,” while women are “always mad,” and men are “selfish” while women are “crazy.” Those fit in pretty well with who we associate with various emotions or behaviors. That’s all I was getting at.

Elizabeth H. sent in the trailer for the movie Precious (based on the novel Push), which should be released later this year:

As Elizabeth says,

It seems to reinforce…negative associations [of] underclass or working class African-Americans: poor education, single motherhood, teenage pregnancy, abuse, child obesity, etc.

The trailer brings up some interesting issues about skin color as well. Precious’s desire for a light-skinned boyfriend highlights the emphasis placed on skin color as a measure of attractiveness: a light-skinned boyfriend would indicate her own success in the world, just as fame and wealth would. Elizabeth points out that all the “good” adult characters are light-skinned (and thin) as well.

Also see our posts on kids’ perceptions of skin color and attractiveness, an ad for skin lightener, a club letting light-skinned girls in for free, Malaysian anti-racism parody of skin lightening cream ad, and an ad that shows darker skin as more exciting.

Months ago Ryan emailed us about a video game called Katawa Shouju (sometimes translated as Disabled Girls or Crippled Heart). From the website:

Hisao Nakai, a normal boy living a normal life, has his life turned upside down when a congenital heart defect forces him to move to a new school after a long hospitalization. Despite his difficulties, Hisao is able to find friends—and perhaps love, if he plays his cards right.

A design sketch of the girls:

An article at GameSetWatch refers to the game having a “perverse and contemptible premise.”

Ryan says,

A lot of the discussion about this game seems to be about the disabilities of the girls and how disgusting it is. I don’t really share that opinion personally…I don’t really see what’s wrong with casting a girl with burn scars on her face as a love interest within a game. Or for that matter , what’s wrong with casting a girl with no legs or deformed arms as a love interest? I mean, it’s one thing to fetishize…but on the other hand it might be good for someone who has similar disabilities to feel like they can be desirable.

It’s an interesting point. I suspect there are things about the video game I would find disturbing, and if the girls are portrayed in a ridiculing way, that’s problematic. But some of the reactions to it seem to assume that having a person with a disability as a potential love interest is automatically ridiculing them. But why would that be? Why would it be more “contemptible” to portray these women as romantic/sexual interests any more than other women in similar games? Some of the objections to the game are based on the idea that you must be laughing at people with disabilities if you show them as sexy or romantically interesting. But that’s based on the idea that of course they can’t really be sexy, so it’s mean to portray them that way…which points out some interesting assumptions about people with disabilities and their romantic and sexual lives.

Thoughts?

UPDATE: Reader Magnetic Crow says,

I think what bothers me about this is the premise of a “school for disabled kids only”, the fact that the girls are ‘othered’ from the get-go by this isolation, and the fact that this is probably being made to play to an exploitative fetish. Were it any other dating sim, and one of the girls available for dating just happened to have been born with no arms, or had lost her legs in a traffic accident, I would feel a lot more comfortable.

Other posts about video games: Evony’s boob ads, gender and race in RuneScape, Border Patrol game, Miss Bimbo and Sexy Beach 3, Rape Simulator, My Life, Medal of Honor’s all-White military, a game called Battle Raper that is exactly what it sounds like, blaming moms for video game addiction, sales of Grand Theft Auto, and “military entertainment.”

We also have a posts of a girl with a limp as an ugly friend, Goodyear ad featuring a sad kid in a wheelchair, nude calendar of Paralympic athletes, dolls with Down’s Syndrome, models with disabilities in a British Top Model show, representing people with disabilities, what is an “alt model”?, and amputee model Viktoria.

I love this 1981 Lego ad, sent in by Nora R. (found at Flikr):

This is what I looked like as a kid. Except that I have naturally curly hair that my mom couldn’t control, so add a halo of frizz sticking out everywhere. And it’s been a while since I’ve seen an ad that shows a girl like this–wearing clothes and playing with a toy that aren’t meant to be specifically “feminine” in our current version of that. She’s playing with regular Legos–not some special version for girls that makes a shopping mall or purse or tube of lipstick! And she’s beautiful!

I’ve seen other ads from the ’70s and ’80s, particularly for Tonka trucks, that show girls like this–in clothes that look like they’re actually made for playing instead of making a fashion statement, and playing with toys in the same way boys would, even if it means getting dirty (gasp!). When we see ads that always show girls in pink, playing with “girl” versions of toys, or engaged in passive activities, that’s a particular marketing choice, not some inevitable, obvious way girls need to be depicted to sell products.

[Note: In the comments, we’re getting a lot of love for the Legos. That’s fine and all, but I must speak up for Lincoln Logs, which were way more awesome if you wanted to build corrals to hold your Breyer horses.]

[Note 2: Holy crap! Someone remade the “Thriller” video with Lego people! I have to admit, Legos probably work better for this purpose than Lincoln Logs would.]

NEW! Nov ’09 I found three more examples of ads that seem devoid of gender differentiation (here, here, and here):

I’ve posted in the past about surgical procedures used to give “Asian” eyes a more “Caucasian” or “Western” look. As Alexia R. showed us, though, there are temporary means of getting a similar effect, particularly gluing a fold into eyelids. A quick google of “eyelid glue” came up with products such as this for sale on ebay:

I don’t have many thoughts to to add that I didn’t say in the earlier post, except that watching that video has made my eyelids really itch and I can’t imagine what it must feel like to have them glued together. And also I’m kind of horrified by what apparently counts as not wearing much makeup; I had no idea I could conceivably be putting three different products on my eyelashes as part of my daily beauty regimen.

NOTE: Some commenters have made a good point about my post title and the implication that people who try to get an eyelid crease are trying to look more “Caucasian,” given that about half of people living on the Asian continent have an eyelid fold. I put “Caucasian” and “Western” in quotes to acknowledge the fact that I know these categories are socially created. But I think they have a good point about making assumptions as to why someone might use a product like this. The websites for eyelid surgery often DO very explicitly advertise their procedures as producing a “Caucasian” eye, so I think there often is that understanding or motivation, but people may use products like these for a variety of motivations, and I shouldn’t automatically imply that it is to approximate U.S. standards of (White) beauty. Thanks for the comments, everyone!

The New York Times has some interactive graphics showing various types of data about social class and class mobility. You can see where you fall in terms of four characteristics often used to measure class status, see the overall class breakdown for various occupations, and so on. This graph shows social class mobility by depicting which social class (divided into quintiles) the U.S. population fell into in 1998 based on the social class they started out in from 1988:

You can hover over a particular group, such as “lower middle,” to see the outcome just for them.

Another graph of social mobility:

This next graph counters the idea that poor families remain poor forever (often explained by some version of the “culture of poverty” thesis) by showing that if you track a poor family over multiple generations, there is a general trend toward upward mobility:

That isn’t to ignore the fact that being poor leads to circumstances (poor schools, etc.) that make upward mobility difficult. But the idea that poor families stay poor for generation after generation, passing on poverty almost like a genetic characteristic, simplifies a more complex story about how families become poor, how long they remain poor, and the importance of looking at structural factors as opposed to a “cycle of poverty” explanation.

Since Lisa shared an embarrassing story today, I’ll share one too: for some reason, I think because he had the album Purple Rain and was famous for wearing purple a lot, for the longest time I thought the book The Color Purple must be a biography about Prince.