To add to our coverage of sketchy Halloween costumes and the social significance of costume themes Ann K., Dolores R., Tessa S., Zeynep A., and occasional guest blogger Brady Potts all sent in an opinion column that ran in the New York Times on Friday about a costume party at Steven J. Baum, a law firm near Buffalo, NY. Steven J. Baum specializes in representing banks and mortgage companies as they attempt to foreclose on homes and evict the residents; according to the NYT piece, it is the largest such firm in New York, representing clients such as Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase.

Apparently the company has a big annual Halloween party, with employees encouraged to dress up and the office elaborately decorated. In 2010, the theme in one department was…mocking people who are losing their homes. Part of the office was decorated as “Baum Estates,” a set of foreclosed-upon homes, and some employees dressed up as residents of homes in foreclosure, whom they depict as dirty, pathetic, booze-loving liars. Part of the room was decorated as foreclosed homes; the sign says “Foreclosure Sale.”

Recently I posted about Philip Zimbardo’s research on conformity and the ways that seemingly normal people become involved in horrible acts, and I think his research has some relevance here. It’s possible these employees are all openly mean-spirited, callous people who lack compassion, and that they were like that before they got to Steven J. Baum. But more likely, they are reacting to a corporate culture that gives clear signals that this type of attitude and behavior is acceptable. Indeed, according to the NYT article,

When we spoke later, [the former employee who sent the photos] added that the snapshots are an accurate representation of the firm’s mind-set. “There is this really cavalier attitude,” she said. “It doesn’t matter that people are going to lose their homes.” Nor does the firm try to help people get mortgage modifications; the pressure, always, is to foreclose.

For these employees, there’s going to be a powerful motivation to view people being foreclosed upon as lying, stupid cheats. Day after day, your job is to help kick people out of their homes. Your workplace has made it clear that the preferred outcome is always to foreclose, not to help people get loan modifications that might allow them to stay in their homes. Your job, by definition, requires you to not try to help people, even when they have legally-guaranteed options available.

Given that situation, belittling the homeowners, dehumanizing them, thinking of them as just stumbling blocks who cause you headaches with their complaints that you haven’t followed proper procedure, their efforts to legally block the foreclosure proceedings, their various attempts to avoid becoming homeless…those seem like unsurprising outcomes encouraged as part of the corporate culture, and job requirements, described at Steven J. Baum.

—————————

UPDATE: It appears that Steven J. Baum PC has folded in the aftermath of this scandal.  Reports Globe St.:

New York’s largest foreclosure firm, Steven J. Baum PC, has announced “mass layoffs,” signaling that the firm is closing its doors. The move followed recent decisions by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to stop referring new cases to the embattled firm.

The Economist posted a graph, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data, that shows how U.S. consumer spending changed between 2007 and 2010. The results provide a good snapshot of the economic trade-offs Americans are making (i.e., we’re buying more canned veggies and eating out less), as well as which industries are taking the biggest hit as consumers redefine their products as less essential.

The “nominal” numbers refer to the unadjusted overall changes in spending; the “real” numbers are adjusted for the fact that prices rose by about 5.2% on average, so consumers are getting less for what they spend. So the light blue bars tell you the absolute change in what we’re spending; the dark blue bars, the change in spending relative to how much we’re buying. When adjusted for price inflation, consumer spending fell by about 8%:

Via Talking Points Memo.

In his book Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930-1970, Doug McAdam discussed the combination of social and political factors that facilitated the emergence, and significant successes of, the Civil Rights Movement. One of his arguments is that discussions of the movement often overlook the way that non-violent civil rights protesters were able to strategically use violent responses by white supremacists as a resource. While in some cases violent responses were unexpected, most of the time activists understood that they were likely to be met by violence. In fact, McAdam argues, many activists counted on that public brutality. Images such as Sheriff Bull Connor’s officers turning fire hoses and police dogs on non-violent protesters galvanized public opinion in support of the civil rights movement and produced the political pressure necessary to push an often-reluctant federal government to intervene. Thus, McAdam argues that public use of violence by state authorities against protesters can provide essential tools for social movements: a visible, concrete sign of repression, evidence of the vulnerability of citizens in the face of a brutal, intransigent state, and dramatic images that draw media and public attention.

I thought of McAdam’s book when Dmitriy T.M. sent in a link from Five Thirty Eight about how police actions affected media coverage of the Occupy Wall Street protests. The article was written on October 7th, so it doesn’t include the impacts of the most recent clashes with police, particularly the Oakland PD’s tear gassing of OWS protesters a couple of nights ago. But already, a noteworthy pattern was emerging. Nate Silver looked at OWS coverage in a database of about 4,000 U.S. news sources. He found that media coverage was basically nonexistent until NYPD pepper sprayed some protesters. Coverage shot up again after NYPD arrested a few hundred protesters on the Brooklyn Bridge on Oct. 1st and after more incidents on Oct. 5th:

As Silver points out, we can’t discern any clear causality here; perhaps media coverage would have gone up over time anyway. But coverage of OWS doesn’t show a smooth, slowly-increasing trend; coverage jumped after each of these instances of violence, and after the Brooklyn Bridge arrests, remained much higher than it had been before. At the very least, it appears that violence by the police drew media attention, providing an opening for the concerns of OWS protesters — and the persistence and growth of OWS protests around the country — to be defined as legitimate news stories in their own right.

UPDATE: For more on the persistence of the OWS movement and protesters’ tactical and organizational skill, check out Steven Vallas’s post at Organizations, Occupations and Work.

[Full Cite: Doug McAdam. 1999. Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930-1970, 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.]

Christie W. sent in an idea that inspired me to revive our pointlessly gendered products post.  It’s  a fun one.  I’ve added Christie’s submission — a super-pink for-her version of a continuous positive airway pressure machine for people with sleep apnea.

————————

At this point, the gendering of things like phones doesn’t surprise me, such as this set, sent in by Ben C.:

But really…pink ear plugs?

We seriously need our own earplugs that are “silky soft”? Starchy G., who sent them in, says:

I’ve been told that these things have the extra-feminine side effect of dying one’s earwax pink.

Lovely.

Feminist Philosophers found this delightfully marketed pair of earplugs for, um, I’m gonna guess working class men:

Gendered tape, also from Feminist Philosophers:

Lee D.-T. found these sandwich bags for sale at a Safeway store in Melbourne, Australia. Sandwich bags, people!

Original Will sent in this image of pink computer cables, found at boing boing:

NEW! (Mar. ’10): Marjolaine N. found pink and blue chocolate Easter bunnies:

Michelle at The Red Pill Survival Guide took this photograph of gendered lollipops.  But not just any lollies: “Girls Enchanted” and “Boys Adventure” mixes.  Sigh:

Em wanted to download Style XP to customize Windows XP, but had to decide between men’s and ladies’ versions:

Em says,

The Man theme “gem” and the Lady theme “gucci” look pretty much the same. Still I’m glad it’s called “gucci” so I know it’s for me. Me and my lady friends are going to giggle about it then go online shoe shopping together. I just hope they’ve added extra-easy installation instructions to that version.

Christie W. sent in a pink version of a continuous positive airway pressure machine, and related items, for people, er women, with sleep apnea:

Over a dozen more ridiculous examples, after the jump.

In another example of gendering, Alicia T. sent in an image of a “ladies'” tool set (for sale here):

She points out, “if you actually use it, the pretty flowers start to wear off on the head.”

A couple of years back my sister gave me a small tool set where everything was pink. All the tools were pretty flimsy and useless. I guess if you really liked pink, they were great, but if you wanted them to work, not so much.

Lindsay C. sent in these two images about a McCullough brand cordless screwdriver marketed to women, sold at Ollie’s Bargain Outlet in Cary, NY. The screwdriver is “designed by a woman for a woman” and comes with a manicure set:

Dammit! My mom gave me a Black&Decker cordless drill two years ago, but it must have been designed by a man, because it didn’t come with a manicure set or hair brush or face moisturizer or anything! If I’d known, I would have returned it for this one.

And here’s an ad for it, emphasizing that it’s lightweight for our delicate, weak hands and the “smaller jobs” we women do:

But it turns out that the product wasn’t very popular. The text over on the side:

Folks, the guys at McCulloch had a great idea for ladies – ‘Lets [sic] make the cordless screwdriver kit and also include a ladies [sic] manicure kit.’  So they did and SURPRISE – it did not sell well, so now you can get this unique kit at about half the big box price!

A cordless screwdriver with a manicure set didn’t sell well? Shocking.

In another example of gendered marketing, lauradhel of Hoyden about Town pointed out these pink and blue cancer fundraiser scooters:

Robyn G. found a new girls’ version of Kinesys sunscreen:

Apparently something is for girls if you add vanilla scent.

Shannon C. pointed out that Simmons Beautyrest has different mattress-buying tips for men, women, and couples:

Ondi let us know about REV. epsom salts, which come in blue and pink versions:

Notice the women’s version provides a “mood lift,” whereas apparently the men’s is only good for aches and pains.

I was surprised, however, that the version marketed “for athletes” on the webpage featured a female athlete:

Dmitriy T.M. sent in this photo of gendered Snuggies:

And I took this picture of gendered giftcards at Target:

Jo W. sent in these:

Renée Y. sent in a picture of Nivea chapstick on sale:

Christy R. sent in a photo of these two deodorants on sale at Whole Foods. As far as I can tell, they’re identical…except for the package color:

Kathe H. sent in these photos of gendered disposable cameras.  Notice that the price tag on the post specifies whether the camera is for girls or boys.

Anne Marie found us another pair of gendered ear plugs:

An anonymous sender-inner let us know about a product that makes fun of (we think) the pointless gendering of products by needlessly pointing out that doggie poop bags are unisex, but sort of gendering it at the same time:

Jessica J. sent along gendered versions of some weird game where (we think) the idea is to search through beads for plastic treasures.  There’s a sports-themed version and a glitz and glamour-version (notice that the latter is also branded with the pink breast cancer awareness ribbon):

Pointlessly gendered sleeping pills at a CVS in Burbank, CA:

Gwen Sharp is an associate professor of sociology at Nevada State College. You can follow her on Twitter at @gwensharpnv.

I am a huge fan of the television series It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, but I want to problematize some of the humor we often take for granted in the show. In a recent interview with Conan O’Brien, Charlie Day discusses some of the changes introduced into the upcoming season of the show. Specifically, about 1:30 in, they discuss the weight gain that Rob McElhenney (“Fat Mac”) accomplished in pursuit of a “funnier” character (image via):

Notice how Charlie Day and Conan laugh—freely and unapologetically—at the prospect of Mac contracting diabetes (especially Conan’s mocking “Go America!” response to the image of “Fat Mac”):

Continue watching the interview to the 4:45 mark; Conan broaches the topic of mental retardation contained in an earlier episode (Season 3 Episode 9: “Sweet Dee’s Dating a Retarded Person”). You will notice that Charlie Day seems more hesitant and calculated in discussing the topic of mental disability. For one, he uses the word “mental disability” rather than the more pejorative “retarded.” You will also notice less of an audience response, a less raucous reaction to the prospect of someone being mentally disabled than to them being fat.

Mental disability, as a largely ascribed status, serves as a less-viable source of humor. That is, laughing at someone who is born a particular way, or gains that status for reasons beyond their control, violates our precepts of political correctness. However, being overweight is often interpreted as caused by a personal character flaw (laziness, gluttony, etc.) and therefore an achieved status. Laughing at fat people, then, is not only socially acceptable, but often encouraged in American comedy.

This highlights the centrality of individualism and personal responsibility in American society. We hold the obese and the overweight accountable for their corporeal deviations. We tend to believe that those who are overweight (and those who contract Type 2 Diabetes) are responsible for their conditions. It then becomes socially acceptable to mock them. On the flipside, mental disability, as an ascribed status, is more likely to be defined as “off limits” as a source of humor. When it becomes a source of humor, as in this case, comedians must save face by saying things like “Nothing against the mentally disabled, but…” as Charlie does at the 5:25 mark—a form of hedging he didn’t feel obliged to include when laughing at someone’s weight.

Who we can laugh at, and whether we have to apologize for doing so, reveals larger cultural discourses, and analyzing humor allows us to understand some of the prevailing moral assumptions we take for granted.

———-

David Paul Strohecker (@dpsFTW) is getting his PhD from the University of Maryland, College Park. He studies issues of intersectionality, consumption, and popular culture. He is currently doing work on the popularization of tattooing, a project on the revolutionary pedagogy of public sociology, and more theoretical work on zombie films as a vehicle for expressing social and cultural anxieties. He previously wrote for the blog Racism Review and currently blogs at Cyborgology.

If you would like to write a post for Sociological Images, please see our Guidelines for Guest Bloggers.

A while back, Lisa posted a video of clips of Bob Barker harassing women — sorry, “girls,” as he invariably referred to them — on The Price Is Right. Sadly, that video has been yanked from YouTube. But reader Melissa sent in another example of harassment and general creepiness on game shows, this time from the 1980s Canadian show Just Like Mom. Host Fergie Olver seemed to have a running gag of trying to get the young female contestants on the show to kiss him, even trying to sneak kisses after girls had very clearly said no (Note: A couple of readers suggested a warning that the video might be particularly uncomfortable or upsetting for some viewers because of the content):

Aside from the harassment, it’s a great example of changing social norms. Presumably many people may have found the behavior disturbing at the time the show (and others with similar behavior) was on the air, but it was sufficiently acceptable for an adult man to try to force young girls to kiss him that he was allowed to do it repeatedly on air. While harassment and infantilization of adult women is still widespread on reality TV, the increased stigma surrounding pedophilia and moral outrage about sex offenders makes me suspect that a male host forcing kisses on girls week after week today would meet with a significantly more negative response.

Race, sex, religion, color, national origin, age, disability, and veteran status are all what are called protected classes under federal law — characteristics that cannot be used as the basis for discrimination in hiring, housing, or other arenas. There are loopholes, however; one is that it is acceptable to discriminate based on a protected characteristic if you can show that it is “bona fide occupational qualification” (BFOQ). So, for instance, if you can show that being female is a legitimate requirement for being able to perform a particular job, you can refuse to hire men. Hooters used the BFOQ argument when they were sued for sex discrimination because they would not hire men as servers.

The exceptions are race and color, which are not legally seen as ever being legitimate qualifications for doing a job. As the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission website states, “Nor may race or color ever be a bona fide occupational qualification under Title VII.” That is, there is absolutely no good reason that being of one race or another would ever be a legal basis for hiring.

And yet, there’s still at least one arena where race is blatantly and openly used as a basis for hiring: Hollywood casting. Back in 2006, Russell Robinson, a faculty member at the UCLA School of Law, looked at the sex and race/ethnicity characteristics specified in “breakdowns” — the summaries of characteristics presented in casting announcements. As Robinson explains in the article “Casting and Caste-ing: Reconciling Artistic Freedom and Antidiscrimination Norms,” his sample certainly doesn’t include all roles in the process of being cast during that period. Roles aimed at big stars who don’t go through the typical audition process may never be released as a breakdown, since there’s no intent to recruit for the role. But

Robinson’s team looked at all breakdowns for feature films released between June 1 and August 31, 2006, excluding calls for extras and stunt people. As they reported in the research brief “Hollywood’s Race/Ethnicity and Gender-Based Casting: Prospects for a Title VII Lawsuit,” the vast majority of the breakdowns explicitly state the race of the character, with only 8.5% of roles open to any race/ethnicity:

Notice that African Americans and Latinos are particularly under-represented compared to their proportion of the total U.S. population. And while 22.5% of breakdowns specifically said the character should be White, almost half included language that designated the role as implicitly White — for instance, including only White actors in a list of prototypes for the role. In fact, interviews with casting directors indicate that roles are presumed to be White unless the breakdown specifically says otherwise.

Almost all breakdowns specified the sex of the character; 59% of the breakdowns specified the role was for a man, while 35% of roles were for women.

Robinson also analyzed the cast of 171 films released in 2005 that made at least $1 million. The majority of all roles were reserved for men. An overwhelming 73% of leads were men, and even supporting roles were predominantly for men:

Of the leads in those films, 81.9% were White non-Hispanic:

Robinson’s work shows that Hollywood still explicitly uses protected classes in hiring decisions, including race/color, which have been excluded from the BFOQ loophole. For more on this, see our posts on race and roles in recent trailers, casting Whites in Asian roles, Hollywood’s discomfort with Asian lead roles, gendered positioning in promotional posters, race and representation in Hollywood, the Smurfette Principle in movies, who goes to see movies, anyway?, Anita Sarkeesian on male-centric plots, and the lack ofra African Americans on Friends.

Thanks to Dolores R. for the tip about Robinson’s study, which she originally saw at Racialicious.

In The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil, Philip Zimbardo tries to explain how seemingly ordinary, average people can become involved in, or passively fail to oppose, evil acts. Zimbardo is the researcher who designed the (in)famous 1971 Stanford prison experiment,  in which students were randomly assigned as “prisoners” or “guards” for an experiment on how prison affects human behavior. The experiment, meant to last two weeks, had to be called off after 6 days because of the extreme negative effects on, and brutality emerging among, the participants. Zimbardo’s study, as well as others such as Milgram’s obedience experiment, highlighted the role of conformity to social norms and obedience to apparent authority figures in leading people to engage in actions that would seem to be so ethically unacceptable that any decent person would refuse.

Dolores R. sent in a Candid Camera clip from 1962 that illustrates the power of conformity:

As Zimbardo says on his website,

We laugh that these people are manipulated like puppets on invisible strings, but this scenario makes us aware of the number of situations in which we mindlessly follow the dictates of group norms and situational forces.

From Open Culture, via Boing Boing.