Cross-posted at Brad’s Blog.

Here are a few commercials for the new MilkBite™ from Kraft. They play on stereotypes about mixed-race individuals.

[youtube]https://youtu.be/ffkDRynWAMw[/youtube]

Here is a transcription:

You didn’t think, did you? You, uh, didn’t think what life was going to be like for me — mom, dad — for your son.

In another commercial, the characters have the following conversation:

I just have a question. Your profile said you were milk.
Uh huh, yep, I am.
You just look like granola.
Granola, yeah, I know. I get that a lot. This was a mistake.
No, wait. Please don’t go. I’m kinda into it.

There are other spots on Kraft’s YouTube page, most playing on these same themes. The problem with a marketing campaign like this is that it trivializes the experience of people with multiple racial/ethnic identities who are still often met with derision and confusion. The first ad above perpetuates the self-fulfilling prophecy about “confused” identities. As a child, I remember family members telling me that they didn’t have a problem with interracial couples but worried about how others might react to their children.

In my classroom earlier this year, a young white woman expressed overt anger when I told the class that the 2010 2000 Census, for the first time, allowed individuals to check more than one racial category. “How can they do that?!!” she demanded to know. Living in a country with a president who had a black father and an white mother complicates all of this. Beyond the standard “post-racial America” narrative, Pres. Obama’s racial identity — even though he identifies only as black — means that people feel entitled to be dismissive of the problems that come with our increasingly complex constructions of race.

Anita Sarkeesian at Feminist Frequency points out that the marketers are likely fully aware of the inappropriate nature of these types of campaigns, and in fact, that is precisely why they launch them. They are seen as ironic, over-the-top, cynical, and tongue-in-cheek. It’s “they know that I know that they know” that it’s racist. It’s a virtual “wink and a nod.” Lisa Wade at SocImages points out that it’s a “no-one-will-ever-believe-we’re-serious” mindset. Sadly, not all people are in on the joke and will find their bigotry and ignorance reinforced, but the rest of us should know better than to perpetuate racism, even under the guise of humor.

————————

Bradley Koch is a sociologist at Georgia College. He is currently the co-director of the study abroad program based in Athens, Greece.  His research interests include religion, sexuality, higher education, and teaching and learning. In his free time, Brad enjoys making music and riding his road bike around rural Georgia.

A resolution to the matter described below was announced yesterday.  In order to preserve the religious memorial without violating the separation of church and state, the Park Service has agree to give the land it sits on to two private citizens who take care of the monument.  Problem solved?

———————

The Supreme Court is in the process of deciding whether a cross erected 75 years ago as a memorial to war veterans violates the constitutional separation between church and state. The cross sits on the Mojave National Preserve and, therefore, is on public land. After lower court rulings, the cross was covered in plywood.

In deliberations, Justice Scalia tried to argue that the cross is a neutral and universal symbol. He said:

It’s erected as a war memorial. I assume it is erected in honor of all of the war dead… What would you have them erect?… Some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David, and you know, a Muslim half moon and star?

Faced with an argument that the cross is distinctly Christian, he said:

I don’t think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead that that cross honors are the Christian war dead. I think that’s an outrageous conclusion.

Scalia’s comments reveal a common phenonemon that we’ve discussed in terms of race and gender, but not yet religion.  As Jay Livingston pointed out at MontClair SocioBlog, one can only think of Christian symbols as non-specific if one thinks of Christianity as somehow normal, neutral, and for everyone.  In the U.S., because Christianity is the dominant religion, many people simply see it as default.  You’re Christian unless you’re something else.  Something else that marks you as different and specific, Christianity does not.

This is one way that dominance works.  It makes itself invisible.

UPDATE! Dmitriy T.M. pointed out that Steven Colbert addressed this issue on The Colbert Report back in 2009:

See our other posts on how whiteness and maleness are the characteristics we attribute to “person,” unless there are reasons to do otherwise, here, here, here, and here.

Today is Administrative Assistant’s Day!  Enjoy our really fabulous post from last year in which we recount Ann Swidler’s observations about “Secretary’s Day” and Social Control.

Abortion is highly politicized in the U.S. (more so than in many other countries) and the fight between those who are in favor of and against available abortion occurs on two fronts.  One is familiar to just about everyone: the effort to overturn Roe v. Wade, the legislation Supreme Court decision that established the legality of abortion in 1973.

The second front, though, is less familiar.  It involves reducing the ease of access to legal abortion. Efforts to increase barriers to accessing legal abortion include passing laws that require minors to notify their parents of an abortion or get their consent, requiring mandatory counseling for abortion-seekers, instituting waiting periods, and discouraging medical schools from teaching abortion procedures.  Some of the issues of diminishing access are non-movement related; others are the direct result of pro-life activism.

I bring this up in order to focus on an additional barrier to access: a reduction in the number of clinics and hospitals that provide abortions.  The map below, based on data from the Guttmacher Institute and compiled by ANSIRH, shows how availability varies by state.  In the darkest states, up to 20% of women live in a county with no abortion provider; in the lightest states, between 81 and 100% percent do.

Living far from the nearest abortion provider is a problem especially for low-income women.  Such women are less likely to have an employer who will give her a day off to travel to the clinic, less likely to get a paid sick day, and less likely to be able to afford to lose even a single day’s wages.  She is also less likely to have a car, making it more difficult to get to a distant location, and less likely to have reliable day care for any existing children.  If the state requires in-person counseling and has a waiting period, it means that the woman must take two days off, travel to and from the clinic twice, and arrange for child care on multiple days.

Reduction in the availability of abortion does not necessarily reduce the number of abortions.  We recently posted global data showing that less liberal abortion laws actually correlate with higher rates of abortion.  The data below, also from Guttmacher, show that were abortion laws are less liberal (largely in developing countries), the rate of abortion is 34/1,000 women oer year, compared to 39/1,000 in developed countries (the difference may look significant here, but imagine how trivial it would look if the horizontal axis went all the way to it’s true maximum of 1,000):

Guttmacher explains that the relevant variable isn’t availability of abortion, but the unintended pregnancy rate (which is surprisingly high in the U.S.).

Barriers to accessing abortion, then, don’t lower the abortion rate.  They do, however, increase the likelihood that an abortion procedure will occur later in pregnancy and guarantee a greater logistic burden on the pregnant woman.

This four-minute video reports research showing that, even if we’re not aware of it, most of us have unconscious biases against short men.  (It’s also a great description of Implicit Association Tests.)

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRlWvzUznlw[/youtube]

You, too, can take any multitude of implicit association tests.  Simply go to Harvard’s Project Implicit.

Borrowed from The Social Complex, a heightism blog. See also guest posts from The Social Complex introducing the concept of heightism as a gendered prejudice and discussing heightism (and other icky stuff) at Hooters.

@Thom82 tweeted a photograph of a parking space at Ikea.  By “family friendly,” I assume they mean people with kids.  By coupling the phrase with the image, however, it defines the family as a heterosexual, nuclear one with 2.0 children.  People without kids? Not a family. Single people with kids? Not a family. Best friends who support each other? Not a family.  Sorry 80% of people in the U.S. who aren’t married with kids, you’re not a family.

But seriously. It’s not a big deal, all things considered. But, when you add it to all the other little reminders, it leaves little doubt as to whose families really count.

Apropo of tax time, see also Turbo Tax Maps Out My Conventional Future, and these humorous take down of the idea of “traditional” marriage.

Last year we posted Anita Sarkeesian’s great discussion of the manic pixie dream girl trope.  The manic pixie is a female side character who, through her whimsical approach to life, “helps the male main character find himself, love life again, or overcome some obstacle.”  Think Natalie Portman in Garden State.

Anyhow, I came across a skit making fun of the trope by taking the manic pixie to its logical conclusion, titled “Welcome to the State Home for the Manic Pixie Dream Girl.”  Yep, it’s a state-run institution for the charming but totally helpless, perhaps-mentally-challenged not-so-dream girl.  I’m putting it up here because it’s quite funny, but I also like how it deconstructs a version of ideal femininity, revealing it to be rather impractical indeed.

Film by Natural Disastronauts. Found via BoingBoing.

Transcript, by Trellany J. Evans, after the jump:

State Home Administrator: Hi there! I’m so sorry that I kept you waiting. You must be–

Kyle: Kyle. We spoke on the phone.

State Home Administrator: Yes. Hello Kyle. *Turns to Katie* You must be Katie.

Katie: *Blows a kiss to the administrator*

State Home Administrator: Oh. *Catches the kiss*

Kyle: *Holds up the end of the headphone cable*

Katie: I like to listen to the songs in my head.

Kyle: *Gently sobs* I’m sorry. God, I’m sorry. I just..

State Home Administrator: It’s quite alright.

Katie: I paid the cab driver in buttons!

State Home Administrator: Well, why don’t I show you two around the facilities.

Kyle: *Continues to gently sob*

State Home Administrator: *Hands Katie’s husband a tissue*

Kyle: *Sobbing* Thank you.

State Home Administrator: It’s going to be okay.

State Home Administrator: When did you first suspect you were dating a manic pixie dream girl?

Kyle: Everything seemed so perfect at first. You know. She was cute, but also quirky and awkward. On our first date, she said she wanted pancakes for dinner. So adorable!

*The Shins begin to play as Katie and Kyle star at each other*

Katie: *Touches Kyle’s nose* Boop!

Kyle: We danced in the rain to the music in our hearts. I felt alive. But then after a few months, I started to realize she was eating pancakes for every meal. She can’t feed herself. She can’t pay bills. She just marvels at the wonder of every moment. I mean every moment! We got married in a fucking bouncy castle! *Sighs* Should I get here?

State Home Administrator: Oh, no. It’s alright. She can wander.

*Security guard mimics Katie’s movements*

State Home Administrator: We have excellent security.

*Security guard and administrator give each other a thumb’s *

State Home Administrator: I’m going to be honest with you Kyle, your wife’s case is sever.

Kyle: *Begins to sob again and pull his hoodie up*

State Home Administrator: But, as you can see, our facilities are designed to help girls like Katie function in… Oh, for the love of–

*Man in a hoodie walks in *

State Home Administrator: *Confronts the man* Out! Out! For the last time, she is here for her own good.

*Kyle takes his hoodie off*

Man: She’s such a  free spirit.

State Home Administrator: Yes, I know sir, but she is really very sick.

Man: She listens to the Smiths.

State Home Administrator: They all listen to the Smiths, sir!

Man: Okay, okay, um, I made a mix CD.

*The Manic Pixie Dream Girls start staring the man*

State Home Administrator: I will make sure she gets it.

Man: Okay, I’m writing a play right now. I’m in the middle of the first act and she’s–

State Home Administrator: Okay.

Man: She’s my muse.

State Home Administrator: *Turns to Kyle* Sorry about that.

*Manic Pixie Dream Girls begin staring at the administrator*

State Home Administrator: *Throws the mix CD in the trash and leads Kyle out* It’s best not to watch.

*Manic Pixie Dream Girls rush towards the trash can to retrieve the mix CD*

 

Manic Pixie Dream Girl 1: Do you think it’s ever possible to ever be truly in the moment?

Manic Pixie Dream Girl 2: The Native American’s believed everything is alive

Manic Pixie Dream Girl 3: This is real pixie dust

Manic Pixie Dream Girl 2: Even this marker!

Manic Pixie Dream Girl 3: from the wings of a pixie.

Manic Pixie Dream Girl 4: This should be a game where you, like, put this thing, like, here and then you can make a Jolly Rancher pass right through it.

Katie: I told him “The best place to see the night sky is laying in the middle of the street.” It’s the flattest place there is!

Kyle: She does seem happy.

State Home Administrator: Happy as she can be, I suppose.

* Manic Pixie Dream Girls look outside as it starts to rain, then look at the administrator for approval*

State Home Administrator: Yes. It’s okay. Go ahead.

* Manic Pixie Dream Girls run outside and dance in slow motion to the Shins*

Kyle: How do they do that?

State Home Administrator: We don’t really know. The cause of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl Condition is still only dimly understood. Although my own theory is sever retardation of the brain. Excuse me, if I don’t go out there they drown.

 

Cross-posted at Work That Matters.

Barbie is running for President of The United States of America… again.  She even has a campaign Tumblr. But what is her platform?

Okay, so she’s not taking any strong stands on the GOP’s War on Women’s reproductive rights. But she did come up with a totally awesome nickname for her campaign (“Glam-paign”).

Apparently, however, candidate Barbie will do something no other candidate can: she will bridge the racial divide in America by morphing herself into four different ethnicities!
Yes, I get that this is a toy. And the Miss-America-style platitudes are to be expected from a company that wants to sell to both sides of the political divide. But it’s a shame that girls don’t get a chance to see that women really can change the world.

This week, Malawi swore in Southern Africa’s first female head of state. She wasn’t elected as such, but as Vice President took the position after President Bingu wa Mutharika died in office. (A scenario that could have happened with Sarah Palin, had John McCain won the Presidency.)

Other women currently heading countries are:

• Ellen Johnson Sirleaf: President of Liberia
• Doris Leuthard, Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, Simonetta Sommaruga: Members of the Swiss Federal Council, Switzerland
• Pratibha Patil: President of India
• Cristina Fernández de Kirchner: President of Argentina
• Dalia Grybauskaitė: President of Lithuania
• Laura Chinchilla: President of Costa Rica
• Dilma Rousseff: President of Brazil
• Atifete Jahjaga: President of Kosovo
• Monique Ohsan Bellepeau: Acting President of Mauritius
• Slavica Đukić Dejanović: Acting President of Serbia
• Angela Merkel – Chancellor of Germany
• Julia Gillard – PM of Australia
• Yingluck Shinawatra – PM of Thailand
• Helle Thorning-Schmidt – PM of Denmark
• Portia Simpson-Miller – PM of Jamaica
• Kamla Persad-Bissessar – PM of Trinidad and Tobago
• Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir – PM of Iceland (Appointed)
• Hasina Wazed – PM of Bangladesh

The United States has yet to elect a woman to the position. And while Canada has had two appointed female Vice-Regents, we have yet to elect a woman to the Prime Minister’s Office. (Kim Campbell was nominated for the position directly by her party.)

So perhaps it’s time for Barbie, who has been in every federal election since 1992, to campaign a little harder. Or for North American countries to catch up with the rest of the world and nominate and elect a woman of substance who isn’t seen as just “another Barbie.”

———————————

Tom Megginson is a Creative Director at Acart Communications, a Social Issues Marketing agency based in Ottawa, Canada.  Tom writes regularly about creative advertising and marketing ethics for the international social advertising blog, Osocio, as well as on his own, Work That Matters.