The other day I came upon this fashion spread in a magazine:

I’m not sure which magazine–I want to say Lucky, but I’m not certain. I just scanned in part of it–I cut out a few things that weren’t that interesting so I could get it in a single scan.

Anyway, I noticed it’s called “Ethnic,” and I started thinking about that label, what makes these “ethnic,” and the choice of that word to describe fashion. The most common element to the collection is animal prints–zebra, leopard, snakeskin, croc, peacock feathers. There were a couple of things that I believe were supposed to be recognizable as “African” prints. I guess those brown shorts are “ethnic” because of the material they’re made from.

But why do we call these fashions “ethnic”? Why not “global”? Or “nature,” since the main themes seem to be animal prints and natural fibers? Or “international”? Why do animal prints, feathers, and grass fibers = ethnic?

It made me think about the way that the things that certain groups do or have go unmarked–so here, there is a category of fashion that is “ethnic,” while apparently all other clothing is ethnicity-less. When I carry a woven bag or wear a shirt with tropical-looking leaves on it, I’m being ethnic, but if I put that purse down and pick up a blue leather one, or change into a shirt with a maple leaf on it, I’d stop being ethnic and go back to being…well, presumably plain-old white, the non-ethnic, non-marked category.

I just thought this might be interesting for a discussion about race and which groups are marked as having a race or ethnicity and which ones (in the U.S., primarily whites) are treated as though they do not have a race/ethnicity and thus aren’t relevant to discussions about racial issues. Or maybe when talking about race/ethnicity as a marketing tool, as something you can put on and take off at will.

Vesko J. sent in several images from “Bee Movie,” the cartoon with Jerry Seinfeld as the voice of the main bee character, Barry. He says:

Female bee workers exist in the movie, but are hardly visible (unless sexual presence is needed.) They can be seen only for a few seconds in the distant background and don’t have any lines of dialogue (as opposed to random male bee workers, who are clearly visible and have lines of dialogue).

Even the bees, that pollinate the flowers, are male. They are called “pollenjocks” and all the female bees fall for these strong, muscular, brave guys.

These are the pollenjocks. In case you didn’t know, it’s actually female bees who collect pollen.

The pollenjocks are big, muscular male figures who tower over the females, who, as far as I can tell, could be called pollengroupies. They aren’t really individuals with personalities; they exist as background to show how awesome the pollenjocks are. On the other hand, the female characters that are treated as individuals tend to be in the home, such as Barry’s mom. Barry’s love interest is not a female bee but a human female, a florist.

Now, I get it. It’s a kids’ movie, and there’s going to be a lot of anthropomorphizing and such. But how animals are anthropomorphized tells us a lot about our social assumptions and what we’re comfortable with. There’s no reason the worker bees’ sex has to be changed, except that it makes more “sense” to us that the hard-working providers would be male. The choices to make the males the center of the story, to make them bigger than the females, and to portray female bees as fawning groupies desperate for male attention tells us an awful lot about the gender stories we tell ourselves about humans, and that they’re important enough to us that even children’s movies have to recreate those stories, no matter how much fiddling with reality it takes. And even though this is an animated children’s movie about bees that talk, flirt, and wear clothes, I bet an awful lot of people will think the gender hierarchy in the movie is fairly accurate.

Thanks, Vesko!

I don’t have an image for this post. What I have is a quote from Bill Napoli, a South Dakota state senator. He doesn’t believe that bills banning abortion should have an exception in cases of rape, because if the woman “really” deserved to get one, she could get it under the health-of-the-mother exception. Here is a direct quote:

A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.

I came upon part of this quote in issue #40 of Bitch magazine (p. 17), but I found the full quote here (scroll down a little past halfway).

What’s interesting to me here isn’t about abortion per se, but the implication of who would and wouldn’t “really” suffer if they were impregnated from a rape. Apparently if you aren’t a virgin or religious, or ARE a virgin but weren’t necessarily planning on staying that way until marriage, then being raped and getting pregnant just wouldn’t be as traumatic as it would to “nice” girls.

It’s also creepy how we often like to think in rather fine detail about the ways good little virgins can be violated. I mean, he could have just said “she was raped,” but no, he decides to make it a bit more graphic. And how bad is “as bad as you can possibly make it”? Is there some measuring stick for how traumatizing different violations are, so you can be sure the girl has suffered enough to qualify as a deserving victim?

It reminds me of an article I read about the myth of the black rapist and the virginal white victim in the post-Reconstruction South (sorry, I don’t remember the article); the author said that detailed stories about how animalistic, savage black men had ravaged delicate white women served as a form of folk porn–people repeated the stories over and over, embellishing as they went. Telling rape stories provided a socially sanctioned outlet for people to talk about sex even in “nice” society, since you were only doing it to warn others of the danger, of course.

So even though there’s no image, I thought the quote might spark some interesting classroom discussion, either about abortion or about sexuality, victimization, and the enduring idea of the deserving and undeserving rape survivor. Or, hell, even a discussion of the social construction of porn–I mean, if you took Napoli’s exact words and put them in a different context and didn’t tell people he was a senator discussing a proposed bill, I bet a lot of people would think it was obscene but interpret it very differently since he was just talking about a hypothetical situation while discussing serious matters such as the law.

I’m always interested when I see ads that play on parents’ fears of neglecting their children as a way to sell them stuff. Middle and upper-middle class parents often encounter, and adopt, a parenting ideology that requires the input of lots of money, time, and emotional energy to be a “good” parent. Parenting is commodified into a set of things parents feel a lot of pressure to buy to prove that they love their children and care about their futures–and don’t want them to be social outcasts.

My mom got pregnant with me when she was 16 and I grew up decidedly working class, and the parenting style I was used to was basically, “The kid’s still alive, so I guess I did a pretty good job.” My mom may have taken this attitude to extremes a bit, since she was known to put me in a harness and tie me out to the clothesline so she didn’t have to keep such a close eye on me when she was busy around the house. Give her a break–she was a teenager! It seemed like a really good idea! (And admit it: there’s part of you that is thinking, “That’s brilliant!”)

My point is, I’m always interested in the ways we seem to always be raising the bar on what is considered good parenting, and “good” parenting is usually defined by middle class standards–though we also often criticize middle and upper-middle class parents for supposedly being distant and self-centered and for pushing their kids too much to succeed. So it’s a catch-22: working-class parents don’t have the money to buy a lot of the products or services we think loving parents must provide their kids, and middle-class parents who do provide them may be criticized for doing so.

Anyway, the other day I came upon these two ads, both of which try to sell products by making parents afraid that if they don’t, they’ll be neglecting their kids. This first one makes it clear that this tactic isn’t new; it’s from 1919:

I found it in the article “Standardizing Childrearing through Housing,” by Paul C. Lukin and Suzanne Vaughan, in Social Problems, volume 53, issue 3, p. 299-331 (the poster is on p. 310).

I found this ad in a Las Vegas community magazine. The text lets you know that silver crowns can be unattractive, and that for your child’s sake you better pay for the white fillings (which are more expensive, and the extra cost is often not covered by dental insurance, even when people have it). I also like that metal fillings are called “bling.” Awesome.

Some of the text below the picture:

Being able to see the dental work in your child’s mouth is not always an appealing appearance. A healthy, natural looking smile for your child is our goal…Now you have a choice!

A couple of months ago, on a lark, I sent an email to Bitch magazine’s reviews department telling them about Sociological Images. If you’ve never read Bitch, you’re missing out–it has great articles on various elements of pop culture, and my only complaint is that it only comes out four times a year.

Anyway, this afternoon issue no. 40 showed up in my mailbox…and look what’s #14 on “the bitch list: an annotated guide to some of our favorite things”:

It’s on p. 71. Sadly my follow up email about the website address change got lost, so it has the old web address, but still! Yay!

This may overshadow the day I passed my Ph.D. defense in terms of excitement.

This is a two-page ad for the Tiguan, a “compact” SUV from Volkswagen. Whereas most SUV ads stress how big and powerful they are (often using images and language that associate them explicitly with masculinity), this one does the opposite–its small size compared to other SUVs is an asset in these ads.

I wonder who the target audience for the Tiguan is supposed to be. And are gas prices finally affecting what people are looking for in vehicles? Is being huge no longer the positive characteristic it was, like, 3 months ago?

As you may recall, we’re now occasionally adding to previous posts instead of creating new ones. Below is a list of our newly enriched posts for your perusal.  Look for the bold, red “NEW.”

But first!

Ongoings that have been going on at Sociological Images:

Out of gratitude for your support, I put together a new page in which we link back to those of you who are linking to us.  Please feel free to peruse those of us who find us link-worthy and, if you link to us and don’t find yourself on our list, please send an email to socimages@thesocietypages.org.

I was honored that Racialicious asked to republish my post on the anti-female genital cutting ads.  I mention it here because it’s worth a look to see how differently my commentary was received on this versus that blog.  It might make for an interesting discussion about audience and positionality.

You might like to know that Sociological Images was “news” in Iceland!  Our post of an Icelandic cartoon featuring Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton caused quite the stir in the comments thread (a fascinating sociological phenomenon in its own right) and an Icelandic newspaper thought it worthy of coverage and commentary.  (FYI: We personally think “news” is overstating our relevance to current events… but who are we to judge!) 

And now!

Our enriched posts:

For context, we added a Wonder Woman comic book cover in which she claims to be “helpless” and uses her sexuality as a weapon to our post of a satirical Wonder Woman comic strip.  Thanks to Brady for the link!

It turns out the pseudo-feminist rescuing of women from the drugeries of housework without actually allowing them to opt out isn’t anything new.

Toph sent us a second Canadian Club ad that we added to this post illustrating hegemonic masculinity.  The second ad is useful for demonstrating the sexual double standard.

To our post about the way in which women were made to personify STDs during World War II, we added another poster, a matchbook, and a fascinating pamphlet that was passed out to soldiers. The pamphlet features “Gonnie” and “Syph,” two “gals” who “travel around arm-in-arm with ‘easy’ women.” All were submitted by Marc.  Yay!

If you enjoy our posts about the social construction of girlhood, you’ll enjoy the two T-shirts we added to this post that have sayings that depict little girls as future spoiled divas (scroll down). Sent in by aa bb. Thanks!

Craig T. sent in a Nestle Quick ad that we added to our post on “subliminal” sex in advertising (scroll down a ways). Thanks Craig!

We added a second example to this post about the way in which “scoring” with women is equated with success at sports.

A recent PETA protest included women in bikinis posed as “chicks” in cages. We added the image to our post about the way in which PETA sacrifies the humanity of women and men in order to save animals. Is it too strong to say that PETA “sacrifies the humanity” of men and women? I’m not sure. Isn’t that what objectification is? And what does it mean when they dress women up as animals and put them in cages? It’s your call. Visit the post (scroll about halfway down). Found thanks to Feministing.

Meghan B. sent us another Svedka fembot ad. This one calls for us to “support socialized plastic surgery” and features a grossly disproportionate “robot” version of an idealized female body.

If you “enjoy” Axe ads, check out our newest one here, sent it by Krystal-Lynn M.

To this post about the use of spread legs as a repetitive design motif, we added this very different image of Michelle Obama as seen through Barack Obama’s legs… a very interesting comparison!

We added a second commercial in the Carl’s Jr. it’s-hot-to-be-covered-in-condiments theme to the x-rated Paris Hilton one. This one involves eating a hamburger while on a mechanical bull. Sexily, of course.

As if we didn’t have enough on the conflation of hot women with hot food, we added a commercial for Pot Noodle in which the woman literally becomes noodles to one of our posts on the sexualization of food. We also added a coffee ad from the Netherlands to this post about gender and food (you gotta scroll way down for that one). Thanks to Penny for that last one!

We added three more ads to this post about gender and “meanness” in car ads. They are useful for illustrating, as Gwen points out, “that advertisers have many different motifs and meanings to draw from when creating marketing strategies, and that the ones they pick are just that–CHOICES among many, many different ways you could advertise a product, none of which are necessarily more ‘obvious’ or ‘natural’ than others.”

Caroline Cossey (also known as Tula) is a British male-to-female transsexual who had a successful career as a model and some small movie roles; Cossey also appeared in Playboy in 1981. In 1982 a tabloid broke the story that she was a transsexual, which ended her modeling career. Here is the cover (found here) of her autobiography, which she wrote soon after being outed:

Cossey was born with Klinefelter’s syndrome, a form of genetic intersexuality.

Here are some other pictures of her:

Found here.

Found here.

You can watch a segment on her that aired on the TV program Hard Copy here.

These might be interesting for discussions of intersexuality, sex-reassignment surgery, and our ideas of the gender binary that everyone must fit into–as well as the outrage people often feel if they’ve been “fooled” by someone who manages to “pass” as a gender different from what they “really” (read “biologically”) are. You might compare this to the story of Brandon Teena, a female-to-male transsexual who was raped, beaten, and murdered by two men in a small town in Nebraska in 1994 after they discovered he was a transsexual (who had not had sex-reassignment surgery). Teena was, of course, the subject of the movie “Boys Don’t Cry,” but there is also a documentary about him, “The Brandon Teena Story,” which includes interviews with his girlfriend and members of the community.