Emily K. sent me a link to this story about a soccer team in Amsterdam, Ajax, known as the Jews. According to this New York Times article, the team got the nickname from opposing teams, who began calling the club the Jews because of the supposed history of Jews on the team. There isn’t any particular connection between the Jewish community and the team today–the team doesn’t have a large number of Jewish players, nor is the fan club made up of a higher number of Jews than other soccer teams.

This leads to some interesting situations. Most notably, fans (the vast majority of whom are non-Jewish) have adopted symbols of Judaism and Israel to show team spirit. Here’s a fan wrapped up in an Israeli flag:

And this fan has tattooed the Ajax logo along with a Star of David on his arm:

(Both images from the NYT article.)

Fans sometimes display gigantic Israeli flags in the stands during games (image found here):

This brings up some interesting issues about the appropriation of cultural symbols. When I first saw the pictures, I thought it was a bit disturbing that people use the Israeli flag as a prop to express support for an athletic team. But then I remembered that people do this all the time–I’ve seen pictures of soccer fans wrapped up in, for example, the Spanish flag, or wearing shirts with pictures of flags on them (not to mention people wearing clothing with American flags). Of course, that is often by people who are citizens of those countries. So is it weird to have non-Israelis using the Israeli flag in this way? I’ve thought about it, and I think maybe the strong association between Israel and Judaism makes this seem a little different than those other examples, since it then appears to be the appropriation of a religious symbol, even though the Israeli flag is not, technically speaking, itself a religious item (as opposed to, say, if fans were wearing yarmulkes or something). And clearly the people using the flag in this way are doing so because of its association with Jewishness, not because they have any particular interest in Israel or like an Israeli team.

The other problem that arises is opposing fans’ heckling. Because Ajax is nicknamed the Jews, fans of other teams often use anti-Semitic chants during games. Some examples (found at the Ajax USA site):

Ssssssssssssssssssssssssss… (the hissing sound of gas)

We’re hunting the Jews!

There is the Ajax train to Auschwitz!

Sieg! Sieg! Sieg! (German for ‘victory’, yelled while performing the Hitler’s Salute)

According to the NYT article, they have also yelled “Hamas! Hamas!”, a reference to the Palestinian political party. And there’s this, from Ajax fans themselves:

…during a game against a German team late last year, a group of Ajax supporters displayed a banner that read “Jews take revenge for ’40-’45,” a reference to the Holocaust.

Some Jewish fans now report that they have stopped attending games because they find the behavior offensive.

This would be a great example to use in a discussion of sports mascots, particularly how it compares to American Indian mascots (for examples, see this post) and Notre Dame’s Fighting Irish mascot (see post here). Critics of American Indian mascots often ask questions along the lines of “What would happen if a team called itself the Fighting Jews?” (see here and here for examples of this rhetorical strategy), but it’s always presented as an unimaginable, completely hypothetical situation. And yet it turns out not to be so hypothetical after all. My guess is students would generally have a much more negative reaction to the Ajax Jews than to teams like the Washington Redskins, and it would be useful to discuss why that might be (keeping in mind that fans of teams playing against teams with Indian mascots sometimes use images that depict violence against Indians).

And of course there’s also the whole issue of the appropriation of Jewish culture and the trivialization of the Holocaust and Nazism by both Ajax and opposing fans. The whole thing is creepy.

Thanks, Emily!

I found this ad for the De Beers diamond company in the New Yorker:

It uses the fascinating strategy of selling diamonds, an unnecessary luxury item made very expensive because the De Beers company has a monopoly on diamond mines and makes sure to keep supply artificially low, by criticizing consumerism based on buying unnecessary items. The message here is that we should stop buying so much unnecessary stuff…but that diamonds don’t fall into the category of unnecessary. Rather, diamonds are “better” things you should cherish “forever.” Of course, this anti-consumerist, buy-less-stuff message is also useful for De Beers because buying fewer things might be the only way, in a struggling economy, for people to save up to buy one or two more expensive items that can become family heirlooms to be “passed down for generations”…such as, say, diamonds.

Honestly, this is one of the most interesting ads I’ve seen in a while. I mean, it takes some nerve to sell luxury jewelry by telling people to stop wasting money on unimportant things.

UPDATE: Commenter Barbar pointed me to this interesting article in The Atlantic about the history of the diamond market.

I found this Absolut Vodka ad in Entertainment Weekly:

It draws on that whole Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus ideology in which men and women are so different we can barely understand each other without expert help.

UPDATE: Commenter ihdl pointed out this German dictionary, titled Woman-German, German-Woman: Quick Help for the Clueless Man:

And Emberiza noted that a Man-German, German-Man is available as well:

Thanks for pointing them out!

Sandra F. sent in a link to “Prop 8: The Musical,” a parody starring Jack Black, Margaret Cho, Andy Richter, John C. Reilly, Neil Patrick Harris, and other celebrities:

The clip, though a parody, brings up a reason some groups that might not care about the reasons gays and lesbians want to get married, or about gay rights more broadly, nonetheless supported gay marriage: money. The New York Times discussed this issue here. Weddings are big business, and the more people who are eligible to be married, the more money is potentially available to wedding-related businesses. In 2004, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the impact legalizing same-sex marriage would have on the budget (end result: an estimated $1 billion a year for the 10-year estimation period). That’s just the federal budgetary effect; it doesn’t include private-sector benefits.

This anti-Prop 8 video makes an explicitly economic argument for gay marriage:

You might compare these videos to the commercials in this post; in those ads, advocates of gay marriage try to rhetorically frame the issue as being about love–that is, gay marriages are equated with straight marriages by focusing on the idea that what is important in a marriage is love, regardless of the sex of the spouses. Clearly you could use them to discuss gay marriage, but they might also be good for illustrating the idea of framing of social issues.

Thanks, Sandra!

We’re talking about the medicalization of pregnancy and the natural childbirth and breastfeeding movements in my Women’s Studies class, so here are some data on rates of breastfeeding in the U.S., which you might use for a discussion of ideals of motherhood, medicalization, and the difficulties of integrating breastfeeding with full-time work. The regional patterns are also fascinating.

This map shows the percent of children born in 2005 ever breastfed at all (including those supplemented with formula):

This one shows the percent of children who were only breastfed (no formula supplementing) for the first three months:

And here we have the rates of exclusive breastfeeding up to 6 months. Notice how low the rates are, with many states having 10% or less of children breastfed exclusively for that long:

Here are overall rates:

And overall rates of kids ever breastfed, including with formula supplementing:

About 25% of babies are supplemented with formula within the first 48 hours:

Here’s a whole lot of information on rates of breastfeeding:

In general, higher incomes are associated with higher rates of breastfeeding, which probably partially explains some of the other patterns (regional, race, etc.). My guess is many people will attribute this to cultural factors–the idea that highly-educated women with higher incomes have access to more information about breastfeeding, are more aware of how important it is, and have more access to support systems that encourage breastfeeding. I suspect part of it is also that some women–particularly those with higher incomes–are more able to take time off work to stay home for at least a short while, making breastfeeding easier. Of course, the paradox there is that the very families who can least afford expensive formula are most likely to use it.

All images found at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s breastfeeding website.

I just discovered the entirely excellent website Asian Nation, run by C.N. Le and full of great information about the Asian American community. Here are some tables showing what percent of various Asian American groups are married to spouses of the same or other groups, updated as of October 2007 using Census data (an explanation of the three columns follows):

Ok, now to explain the three columns of numbers. The first one presents data for all marriages that include at least one Asian American spouse–this will include large numbers of immigrants who were married before they moved to the U.S. The second column includes only those marriages where at least one spouse was raised in the U.S., defined as either born here or moved here by age 13. The third column includes only those marriages where both spouses were raised in the U.S. According to Le, this group represents less than 25% of all marriages including an Asian partner, but “…has the advantage of including only those who were raised and socialized within American society and its racial dynamics. It is this U.S.-raised population that best represents young Asian Americans, since they are the ones who have the most exposure to prevailing American cultural images and media.”

Not surprisingly, endogamous (in-group) marriage rates drop off significantly among U.S.-raised Asian Americans. There are other interesting gender patterns as well. Notice, for instance, that Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, and Filipina women are quite a bit more likely to be married to a White partner (the most common out-group spouses) than are men, and for the remaining groups, women are slightly more likely to be married to a White spouse. You might discuss the social and historical factors that might cause that pattern, and compare it to the trend in marriages with a Black and a White spouse, in which the gender pattern is usually reversed–Black men are more likely to be married to Whites than are Black women. It might also be worth noting that Korean and Filipina women are significantly less likely to marry endogamously than the other Asian American ethnic groups.

Here’s a vintage Fleishmann’s Yeast ad (found here), which presents yeast as the answer to the horrors of pimples–awful, hideous pimples!

I don’t know in what world high schools have movies, but whatever. Clearly, the message is “pimples = social death and eternal loneliness.” It’s not just that Davy can’t be in the movie due to his horrible affliction; if he can’t play the lead along with his girlfriend, he faces the possibility of losing her to a leading man with a clear complexion.

Given such messages about the importance of clear skin, it’s no wonder teens and their families were willing to shell out enormous sums of money on skin-care products. Apparently yeast didn’t catch on as a treatment, though.

For other examples of vintage ads playing on teens’ fear of facial blemishes, see here and here.

Cristoph B. sent in this image (found here) of a woman who was supposedly paid by Kodak to “assvertise” at a trade show by wearing Kodak panties and… (well, it’s not safe for work):

I was skeptical; this seemed like the type of thing that might be a hoax. Kodak is a well-established company, and I just didn’t think they’d do this type of novelty marketing. But I haven’t been able to find any stories about it being a hoax, and it was posted at Boing Boing. According to The Spunker, it was a trade show in Ukraine.

While I was reading the post about it at The Spunker, I clicked over to a post about a calendar from the company Euroset (a cell phone company). Euroset’s calendar, given out to important clients, is noteworthy because it features sexualized photos of some of its female managers. Here are some pages from the calendar (found here):

While both the Kodak panties and the calendar can obviously be used as examples of the use of women’s bodies in advertising, the Euroset calendar would be great for a discussion of women and sexualization in the workplace. It brings up some of the paradoxes women in the corporate world face; these women were all in management positions, but face a type of sexualization I’m willing to go out on a limb and bet that the male managers in the firm don’t. Does this translate into less respect for their abilities in the workplace? In what ways might these women benefit (career-wise or in some other way) from taking part? What are the downsides for them? Can we imagine a similar calendar with a company’s male employees?

Of course, an important aspect is how voluntary participation was. Some accounts I read said the women were “forced” to be in the calendar; others said posing for it was strictly voluntary. And apparently the calendar was proposed by a female PR manager. Does the fact that it was a female manger’s idea affect whether people see it as exploitative? I bet that at least some people would judge the calendar less harshly if it was proposed by a woman rather than a man, but it’s just a guess.

Thanks, Cristoph!

UPDATE: Dylan W. sent in a link to this story about a strip club in the UK that offers companies the chance to advertise on the dancers’ behinds. He also included a photo of a woman from Utah who agreed to have the web address of an online gambling site tattooed onto her forehead for $10,000:

She claims she is using the money to send her son to private school. Unless they’ve got some really cheap private schools up in Salt Lake City, I can’t imagine this will pay for more than a year, at the very most, but I dunno.

Thanks, Dylan!