Katrin sent in a link to a series of ads created by an organization called Stepping Stone Nova Scotia. Their mission is to advocate on behalf of, and offer resources and services to, prostitutes in the Maritime Provinces of Canada.

The ads, as you can see, depict quotes by friends or family members of prostitutes (“I’m proud of my tramp, raising two kids on her own”) which are intended to humanize sex workers; the bottom of each ad reads “Sex workers are brothers/daughters/mothers too.” They’re also intended to shock the reader into really thinking about prostitutes. The juxtaposition of words like “tramp” and “hooker” with the white middle-class faces of the speakers makes the viewer question our culture’s ease with using those terms, and forces us to see the person behind the prostitute.

Stepping Stone’s executive director, Rene Ross, points out that every time a prostitute is killed—sex workers have a mortality rate 40 times higher than the Canadian national average—media accounts emphasize that the victim was a prostitute, but not that she (or he) was also a mother, daughter, friend or, for example, animal lover. By thinking of sex workers only in terms of their stigmatized occupation, we don’t have to care about them as people.

In New Mexico, where I live, the remains of eleven women (and the unborn fetus of one) were found buried on a mesa outside of Albuquerque in 2009. The women had disappeared between 2003 and 2005, and most, according to police, were involved with drugs and/or prostitution. Why did it take the police so long to find the bodies of these women, and why do their murders still remain unsolved? Some observers have suggested that because the women were—or were alleged to be—prostitutes, there was less pressure to find them after they went missing, or to solve their murders once their bodies were found. As long as the victims were sex workers, then the non-sex worker public can feel safe in the knowledge that they are not at risk. We know that prostitution is dangerous, so it’s expected that some of them will die grisly deaths, and be buried like trash on a mesa outside of town.

I love the motivation behind the ads, and they do make me smile. I hope they have the effect that Stepping Stone intends—making people think of prostitutes as people, not trash. But they’re also funny, and I wonder if they won’t also have an unintended effect, of making prostitutes seem like a joke.

This week I watched the Comedy Central Roast of Charlie Sheen. During the roast, most of the jokes dealt with his well-known history with drug use and prostitution, and “prostitute,” “hooker” and “whore” were used as punch lines in the majority of the jokes, and each “whore” reference incited additional laughter. Sure, many of the women that Sheen paid to have sex were doubtless “high class” call girls, paid well, and not living on the street. But we also know that at least some of these women, as well as the non-prostitute females in his life, were subject to violence and threats of violence. He is alleged to have beaten, shot, shoved, and thrown to the floor a number of women over the years, but because many of these women were sex workers (or porn stars, which is the next best thing), the women were “asking for it.”

Let’s hope that Stepping Stone’s campaign does some good, making us think about sex workers as people, rather than punch lines and faceless victims.

——————————

Margo DeMello has a PhD in cultural anthropology and teaches anthropology, cultural studies, and sociology at Central New Mexico Community College. Her research areas include body modification and adornment and human-animal studies.

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

(source)

Amanda Knox, an American exchange student, was convicted in 2009 of murdering her flatmate, Meredith Kercher.  In 2011, on appeal, her conviction was overturned.

At The Guardian this month, Ian Leslie discusses the way that Knox’s body language and facial expressions were used in arguments as to her guilt.  He quotes jury members, police officers, court watchers, and others making such arguments.  The lead investigator, Edgardo Giobbi, for example, was quoted saying:

We were able to establish guilt by closely observing the suspect’s psychological and behavioural reaction during the interrogation. We don’t need to rely on other kinds of investigation.

A bystander speculated: “Her eyes didn’t seem to show any sadness, and I remember wondering if she could have been involved.”  The head of the murder squad, Monica Napoleoni, discussed the video below, arguing that kissing wasn’t the kind of behavior an innocent person would engage in:

Leslie argues that the tendency to think we can read “someone else’s state of mind simply by looking at them” is a common social psychological tendency.  Describing the work of Emily Pronin, a psychologist at Princeton University, he explains:

…there is a fundamental asymmetry about the way two human beings relate to one another in person. When you meet someone, there are at least two things more prominent in your mind than in theirs – your thoughts, and their face. As a result we tend to judge others on what we see, and ourselves by what we feel. Pronin calls this “the illusion of asymmetric insight.”

Unfounded belief into the insight into others’ minds has been shown to hold experimentally.  Certainty that Knox was guilty, then, may very well have been born of an overconfidence in our ability to read the mental states of others.

Thanks to Matt Vidal for sending the link!

In this 21-minute talk, Bruce Schneier does a great job of explaining the difference between feeling secure and being secure.  The difference between risk and the perception of risk is one of the things that sociologists in the “social problems” sub-area study.  Whether problems are seen as problems at all, whether non-problems are believed to be problems, and whether they are seen as social (versus individual, for example, or natural)… all of these things must be established by people who have the power to put issues on the agenda and frame them in particular ways.

Schneier’s discussion of security is a great illustration of this phenomenon, and his talk is full of concrete examples and psychological mechanisms that nicely balance the sociological import:

Cross-posted at Sociology in Focus.

Steve Jobs, co-founder of Apple, died this week. I didn’t know him and yet his death moved me deeply. It shook me awake. When I woke up sad the next morning I did the only thing I know how to do, I thought about Steve Jobs and his passing sociologically.

Of all the things you could say about Steve Jobs, without a doubt, one of them was that he was a great charismatic leader. During his presentations his words, energy, and style could create a “reality distortion field” that would make mundane aspects of his products sound revolutionary. His spirit worked almost like a Jedi mind trick telling reporters what they were to write in their reviews. His charisma seemed superhuman.

(source)

A charismatic authority figure is one of three styles of authority that Max Weber talked about. Authority can be thought of as the use of power that is perceived as legitimate. Some statuses have power simply because of tradition (e.g. parents have power over children). Other statuses have power because they have been “routinized” or built in the structure of social institutions. Weber calls this type of authority rational-legal authority and the president of the United States is a good example of this type.

Charismatic authority can be thought of as the the use of power that is legitimized by the exemplary characteristics of a person or by their accomplishments that inspire others to follow or be loyal to them. Steve Jobs accomplishments have gained him a rabid fan base; to the point that Apple fans are oft referred to as members of the “Cult of Mac”. It was because of who Jobs is (or at least how he was perceived) that many people admired, respected, and followed his work.

The problem for Apple is that any organization that gains its authority because they have a charismatic leader must eventually deal with the loss of that leader. How can you hold on to your authority and legitimacy with the charismatic figure gone? You have to build the revolutionary ideas and practices of the figure into the bureaucracy or formal structure of the organization. Weber called this process of transferring authority from a charismatic person to a bureaucratic organization the “Routinization of Charisma”. In the corporate world they call this process a “succession plan.”

When Jobs resigned on August 24th Tim Cook succeeded him and became the CEO. A few weeks later on October 4 Cook took the stage for the first time to lead Apple’s announcement of the iPhone 4S. The announcement was nearly identical in form to the announcements led by Jobs. During the announcement Cook said multiple times, “There is a lot of momentum here at Apple” which could be interpreted sociologically as, “nothing has changed; we still deserve the authority our previous leader gained through his charisma.” The entire announcement was almost identical to the announcements except many viewers noted that Tim Cook did not have the charisma of Steve Jobs.

Jobs was a master at getting the media to write the headlines he wanted, but after this weeks talk ABC’s headline read “Apple Unveils Anti-Climatic iPhone 4S.” Anti-climatic!?!  Comedians ripped Cook for his poor stage presence in a video. Traders showed their disapproval as Apple’s stock price dropped a half percent after the announcement. I’m not trying to pile on here, I’m just pointing out that transitioning from a charismatic authority figure to less charismatic figure is hard; or as Weber would say it, the “routinization of charisma” is difficult if not impossible.

Now that he is gone, I’m sad because I enjoyed so much listening to him speak about his work. He was an artist in so many ways and I’m sad I won’t get to see anymore of his work. Rest in peace Mr. Jobs.

——————————

Nathan Palmer is a visiting lecturer at Georgia Southern University. He is a passionate educator, the founder of Sociology Source, and the editor of Sociology in Focus.

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

A new submission is a nice addition to this old post.  The newest iteration of this gender-bending game — men in pin-up poses — can be found in the middle of this collection.

Dmitriy T.M. sent in this month’s cover of GQ featuring Sasha Baron Cohen, in Bruno character.  Cohen adopts a pose often used to showcase women’s bodies.  The contrast between the meaning of the pose (sexy and feminine) with the fact that he’s male draws attention to how powerfully gendered the pose is.  His facial expression highlights the ridiculousness of such a powerful gender binary (women look sexy when they pose like this, men look stupid when they do).

Consider:

Commenter MB noted that GQ has some news stands have decided to cover the cover (as if it were porn):

The interesting question might be: When we pose women like men, does it look ridiculous or badass?  And, if it looks badass, what does that say about the way we expect women to look and move?

For a similar project, see Yolanda Dominquez’s photos of “regular” women in “fashion” poses.

In this ten-minute video, Feminist Frequency‘s Anita Sarkeesian does a great job of discussing the problem with “straw feminists,” overtly feminist characters who are made to look bitchy, ridiculous, or just plain wrong… even when they’re describing forms of gender inequality that really exist.  More, they’re used to suggest that feminism places men and women in opposition when, in fact, gendered expectations and institutions are oppressive to men as well.

By demonizing these characters, Sarkeesian concludes, the straw feminist leads real women to disassociate from feminism, even when they believe in the equal rights of men and women.

Transcript after the jump:

Every now and then, in Hollywoodland a character that’s identified as a feminist will magically make its way through the production process and appear on our television screens, unfortunately this is almost never good.

What the Hollywood machine churns out is a distorted and warped version of feminism which bares little resemblance to actual feminist movements.

In a desperate quest to distance themselves, their plots and their characters from anything that could in anyway be mistakenly mistaken for feminism, Hollywood writers rely on one of the most deceptive and disgusting tropes ever to be forged in the fires of mount doom, that trope is called The Straw Feminist.

In television and movies The Straw Feminist works by deliberately creating an exaggerated caricature of a feminist, which writers then fill with a bunch of oversimplifications, misrepresentations and stereotypes to try to make it easy to discredit or delegitimize feminism. The goal is to make feminists and our movements look completely ridiculous, over the top and unnecessary.

In terms of media representation, one of the most disturbing example of the Straw Feminist can be found in the 3rd season of Veronica Mars.  Sadly, the Veronica Mars writing team turned the last season into a train wreak partially by introducing a group of Straw Feminists as villains in the series.

Characters like these serve to undermine and discredit feminist movements but they also serves to separate female leads which are smart, strong and witty, in this case, Veronica, from any association with feminism. 

The Straw Feminist character is part of a fictional post-feminist world that only exists in Hollywood, the trope is a tool that’s used to promote the fallacy that everyone is already equal.

What’s exceptionally frustrating is that these characters often bring up legitimate feminist concerns about women’s rights and women’s equality but those concerns are quickly undermined by the writers making the characters seem over the top, crazy, and extremist.

For example the Straw Feminist appears in Married with Children as Marcy D’Arcy, the irritating and pompous neighbour.  In this case, the Straw Feminist is coded as the castrating wife who emasculates and dominates her docile, stupid husband.

We see the trope repeated in Rugrats with Phil and Lil’s mother who Wikipedia describes as “Quite the jock and women’s-libber” and we can also recognize her as a straw feminist because of the giant woman’s symbol on her sweater.  Much like Marcy she’s framed as the castrating wife who barks orders to her submissive husband.

In 2001′s Legally Blonde the writers threw in a Straw Feminist for cheap laughs who believes that the word “semester” is an evil conspiracy against women.

Clip – Legally Blonde (2001)
Straw Feminist: “Take the word semester ‘k, it is the perfect example of this school’s discriminatory preference of semen to ovaries, that’s why I’m petitioning to have next term be referred to as the winter ov-es-ter.”

Another problematic example comes from the Powerpuff Girls episode, “Equal Fights” in the third season.  The Girls encounter a female villain named Femme Fatale who we can immediately see is a straw feminist because she has the oh-so-terrifying woman’s symbol on her mask, her clothes and even as her weapon. 

The episode begins with the traditional pan around Townsville showing us that gender inequality is not a problem.

Clip – Powerpuff Girls “Equal Fights”
Male Narrator: “A city where everyone gets their fair turn”

Even boys and girls on the playground get along.

Clip – Powerpuff Girls “Equal Fights”
Boy: “Your turn Jenny… think fast” “Oops”
Girl: “Very funny Joey, you’re gonna get it”

But this harmonious balance is deviously disrupted by Femme Fatale and her conniving, deceptive women’s rights rhetoric.

Curiously though, Femme Fatale brings up some pretty valid points about the lack of female faces on American money, or the lack of female superheroes in pop culture.

Clip – Powerpuff Girls “Equal Fights”
Femme Fatale: “Surely, you’ve noticed, female superheroes aren’t nearly as revered as male superheroes.”
Bubbles: “Sure they are! There’s Supergirl, Batgirl”
Femme Fatale: “They’re so lame, merely extensions of their male counterparts.”

The Girls are influenced by Femme Fatale’s malicious rhetoric to see benign, routine every day things as a conspiracy against women and against them personally.

The writers of the Powerpuff Girls have carefully created a fantasy world without gender oppression, so that they can have the Girls start seeing oppression where none exists.

Clip – Powerpuff Girls “Equal Fights”
Blossom: “We saw what you did Joey Finklemeyer”
Joey: “Whhaaa’d I do?”
Buttercup: “Shut up!”
Blossom: “Don’t play dumb with us!”

Professor Utonium: “I’ve finally caught up on all the housework and all that’s left is your room, if you could take care of that please.”
Professor Utonium: “uh, I’ll just do it later”

Blossom (on phone): “Why don’t you get some big strong man to save your precious city or better yet why don’t you stop making women do your dirty work and do it yourself!”

The problem is, all of these things that the Powerpuff Girls are complaining about are actually happening!  Girls are getting bullied on school yards, and women are overwhelmingly responsible for household duties.  Women are being institutionally oppressed all the time in nearly every facet of our lives.

Once again this trope is used to separate the Powerpuff Girls from any notion that they could in anyway possibly be feminist characters. Because you know you awesome, funny, world saving, independent young women but you know, not feminist…

The Straw Feminist trope is taken to a whole new level in adult animation shows such as South Park or Family Guy. In the episode “I Am Peter, Hear Me Roar” the Family Guy writers took a stab at feminist attorney Gloria Allred.  Allred is known for taking on high-profile cases defending women who have been assaulted or harassed.  In this attack, the Family Guy writers created a character coincidentally named Gloria Ironbox who brainwashes Peter into thinking he is a woman, after he is accused of sexual assault.  The emasculation and feminization of Peter and his sudden transformation into a feminist is played for laughs.

Clip – Family Guy “I Am Peter, Hear Me Roar”
Peter: “I can’t respect men, men are the reason our world is in such lousy shape.  If men were as caring as women we wouldn’t have crime or violence.”

Because you know, nothing is worse in a patriarchal society then being a woman, except maybe being a feminist…

In these fictional narratives institutional oppression and wide scale sexism just doesn’t exist.  It’s a carefully constructed world where feminism is no longer needed.

Even the comic book world delves into this trope, with Y the Last Man. When all the men on earth die except for one, there is a extremist homicidal group called the Daughters of the Amazons. The violent, vigilante group is founded on the disdain and hatred of men and anyone who mourns the death of men, even though there aren’t anymore men.

Let’s get back to Veronica Mars, there is a 9 episode story arc in the 3rd season about a series of rapes that occur on the University Campus.  A group of straw feminists on campus hold demonstrations, volunteer with the Ride Home Safe campus program to escort young women home, and demand that the university institute an official sexual code of conduct.

All of these are logical, rational and important steps to creating safer college campuses.  However, the writer quickly dismisses these characters as irrational, stubborn, pigheaded man-haters, and it serves to fulfill the tired old stereotypes about angry and militant women of colour.

Clip: Veronica Mars “Spit and Eggs”
“Pig” “Rapist”

The writers of Veronica Mars takes the Straw Feminist to an obscene level by actually having them “fake a rape” in order to blame the fraternity.

Women lying about sexual assault is a grossly overused myth.  Women generally don’t put themselves through the social shame of admitting assault for petty personal revenge.

In just a handful of episodes the creators of Veronica Mars undermine the work that thousands of students are doing globally on there campuses to end violence against women.
While we see the Straw Feminist over and over again in television and movies, it’s also unfortunately deployed on a regular basis by American talk shows and news pundits.

Mainstream religious and conservative news media often attack women with deliberate misrepresentations and extreme exaggerations of what feminism is.  This false impression has been infused into the mainstream by popular talk show hosts such as Michael Savage, Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly.

You may have heard the slur “Feminazi” popularized by Rush Limbaugh. A term used to discredit and demonize any woman fighting for social equality.

Clip: The Rush Limbaugh Show (2010)
Rush Limbaugh: “The feminists, the feminazis have been working for years to this end, advance women by diminishing men.”

Ya…

The Straw Feminist is set up to perpetuate and advance the myth that feminism is no longer needed, that we have arrived at gender equality and anyone who disagrees is quickly demeaned and portrayed as an extremist.

This trope represents a backlash against feminism and groups supporting women’s rights.  As we make more gains towards equality, the backlash gets stronger.

It’s an old yet effective tactic but clearly it’s  working because I often hear young women saying, “I believe in the equal rights of women but I’m not a feminist.” This sentiment is a direct result of the straw feminist trope.  Because women want to distance themselves from the extreme and false representations they are seeing on tv, movies and talk shows.

We need to proudly claim the title and fight back against these distorted and demeaning representations in the media and in real life, and if y’all really do believe in the equality of women then we need to continue this long legacy of feminism and fight for it.

And Hollywood, get over your fear of strong, smart and talented women and stop contributing to the backlash by writing absurd and ridiculous Straw Feminist characters.

Now I will leave you with Polly Bergen saying something pretty awesome on the otherwise unremarkable show Commander in Chief.

Clip: Commander in Chief “Unfinished Business”
Rebecca Calloway: “Look just because it matters to mom doesn’t mean it matters to me.  I mean, I’m no feminist.”
Kate Allen: “So you don’t believe that women should have rights equal to those of men”
Rebeca Calloway: “w..well of course I do… it’s just-”
Kate Allen: “Might I suggest my dear, that you look up the definition of feminist.”

Music: Nellie McKay “Mother of Pearl”
“Feminists don’t have a sense of humour. Feminists just want to be alone. Boo-hoo-hoo-hoo”

This week I listened to a Freakonomics podcast featuring Economics PhD-student twins, Alison and Steve Sexton.  They had studied the phenomenon of conspicuous conservation, which I’ve defined elsewhere as “the (often lavish) spending on ‘green’ products designed mainly to advertise one’s environmentally-moral righteousness.”  The Sexton’s studied how much people are willing to pay for the conspiciousness of their conservation.

They found that, in places where being environmentally-friendly is looked upon positively, people will spend more (or gain less) to ensure that their conservation efforts are obvious. For example, people will sometimes have their solar panels mounted on the shady side of their house. Why? It’s the side that faces the street. Why have solar panels if no one in the neighborhood can see that you do?  Likewise, the Prius is so popular in part because it is obviously a hybrid; no other car looks like it, so it can’t be mistaken for a “regular” (person’s) car.

I thought of this willingness to pay to display one’s environmental thoughtfulness while visiting Goldstein’s Bagels in La Cañada, CA this week. They had this photograph proudly displayed:

I just love how not only are they paying to keep the highway clean, they’re being rewarded with a big advertisement for their store alongside the freeway, AND they get to take a picture of that sign and put it up for all to see.  It’s win-win-win; a win for the environment and a double win for Goldstein’s.

The Sexton’s argue that all of this conspicuous conservation is probably good.  Competing to be environmentally-friendly translates into more conservation, no matter what the motivation. (Especially as compared to conspicuous consumption; remember the Hummer?)  Accordingly, they suggest that public policy should focus on incentivizing the types of conservation efforts that aren’t visible, like insulation and weather-proofed windows, and leave the showy stuff to the market.

For another example of conspicuous conservation, see our post on faux-oil slicked shoes purchased to benefit the Gulf; on conspicuous consumption, check out the Louis Vitton mommy diva birthday cake; and see this post on conspicuous intellectual consumption.

A blogger named Aluation posted this graphic showing how the New York Times changed the first line of a story about the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations.  The change subtly shifted the blame for the mass arrest on the Brooklyn Bridge from the police to the protesters.  In the first version of the story, police allowed them onto the bridge and then “cut off and arrested” them.  In the second, there was a “showdown” in which demonstrators “marched onto the bridge.”

Adding interest, the author of the piece was changed from “Colin Moynihan” to “Al Baker and Colin Moynihan.”  Who is Al Baker?  He is the guy in charge of the police bureau at the Times.

This is a great example of how important language is in framing events.  The difference isn’t dramatic, but a close look at the wording reveals a clear difference.

It’s also a great example of the power of certain individuals and institutions to shape how the rest of us understand reality.  We should be especially suspicious of the change in the authorship of the story.  When reporters have “beats,” they have to maintain good relationships with important sources on those beats. They rely on the same sources, over and over, to provide inside scoops.  If they alienate important sources, they have a much more difficult time doing their job.

What I’m trying to say is… there is good sociological theory, based on strong evidence, to suggest that an important person in the New York police department saw this story, called Baker, and told him to change the wording.  In which case, Baker might have done so to avoid alienating a source on which his job depends.  I’m not saying that’s what happened, I’m just saying that these kinds of things do happen.

Thanks to Jay Livingston for the tip.

For another example of framing, see the captions on a slideshow covering survivors of Hurricane Katrina.