You might have noticed that there are poor, rich, and middle class neighborhoods in just about every town.  Sociologists call this residential segregation.  Residential segregation is a problem, in part, because it can create a situation in which some neighborhoods have more social and other services than others.  Sociologists have found, for example, that richer neighborhoods tend to have more grocery stores, better sidewalks, and more fire protection.

So, when Jessica Sherwood, of Sociologists for Women in Society, sent us a map showing the density of playgrounds in New York City, I immediately thought to correlate it with average income.

Playground map (darker pink = more playgrounds):

Map of median household income (yellow = more income, blue = less):

UPDATE:  Awesomely, Reader Mark Root-Wiley overlaid the two maps and sent it along!  Here it is:

It looks to me that playground density is highest in the poorest neighborhoods.  A very unusual finding!

So, what factors do you think might account for the disproportionate number of playgrounds in low income areas?  Speculate away!

Leigh snapped this picture of a Toys ‘R Us catalog.  He noticed that, for both microscopes and telescopes, the version coded “girl” (i.e., the pink one) is the least powerful one (600x magnification vs. 900 or 1200x and 90x vs. 250 or 525x).  Coincidence?

Robin H., Tomi L., and Kate McL. asked us to talk about the new movie, Avatar.   Tomi thought the gender politics were great, with men and women as equals fighting and ruling side-by-side.  I think she’s right.  It’s a great example of a cultural product that makes little of gender difference.  (UPDATE: Though commenters are disagreeing on this point quite insightfully.)

With that said, I want to comment on the race politics in the movie (I do so indebted to Annalee Newitz and Eric Repphun; you might also be interested in Meloukhia’s comments from a disability studies perspective).

First, a summary (super spoiler alert):

Avatar is a moral re-evaluation of colonization. In the movie, humans go about killing and displacing the indigenous population of another planet, the Na’vi, in order to extract a valuable mineral.

The Na’vi are a fantastical version of indigenous populations encountered by Europeans during colonization. They wear features, bones, and skins; they have a deep spirituality and a ritual-filled life; they are accomplished and principled warriors; they hunt and fight with bows and arrows; and they have an intense connection to nature (the end of the black braided ponytail of the Na’vi contains mysterious filaments that plug into the flora and fauna, allowing a sort of mind meld with the animals and the planet). They are, in short, the stereotypical “noble savage.”

In the movie, humans use technology to transport their consciousnesses into home-grown native bodies.

A character, Jake Sully, and his avatar:

They use these bodies to infiltrate and befriend the Na’vi, all with the intention of furthering the goals of mineral extraction.  Through our hero, Sully, we discover the moral superiority of the Na’vi people.  His own exceptional nature is also revealed.

Sully being blessed by the Goddess, a sign that the Na’vi should accept him:

Later, the chief’s daughter falls in love with him.

The anthropological effort to convince the Na’vi to give up their land fails and so the humans decide to take the land by force, wantonly destroying their home and killing any Na’vi that get in the way. A handful of humans, led now by Sully, defect and join the Na’vi.  During the battle, both the chief and the rightful inheritor of the role die.  After they win the battle, Sully assumes the role of chief, with the highest ranking female at his side.

In the end, Sully abandons his (disabled) human body and the Goddess transfers his consciousness into his avatar body. He has, literally, “gone native.”

Now, to the commentary:

Avatar is a fantasy in which the history of colonization is rewritten, but it a fantasy specifically for white people living with a heavy dose of liberal guilt. And it is one that, ultimately, marginalizes indigenous peoples and affirms white supremacy.

If it were a fantasy for, say, the American Indian population in the U.S., the story might go a little differently. In that fantasy there would be no Sully character. It’s that simple.

The Sully character is white redemption embodied; he “…is liberal guilt made flesh.”  His character redeems the human race (i.e., people of European descent) by proving that at least some of us (guilty liberals) are good. Whites can identify with Sully instead of the humans who orchestrate the genocide and displacement.

But Sully is not only a superior human being, he is also a superior Na’vi. After being briefly ostracized for his participation in the land grab, he tames the most violent creature in the sky, thereby proving himself to be the highest quality warrior imaginable per the Na’vi mythology.  He gives them hope, works out their strategy, and is their most-valuable-weapon in the war. In the end, with all Na’vi contenders for leadership conveniently dead, he assumes the role of chief… and gets the-most-valuable-girl for good measure. Throngs of Na’vi bow to him.

As Annalee Newitz summarized in her excellent commentary:

This is a classic scenario you’ve seen in non-scifi epics from Dances With Wolves to The Last Samurai, where a white guy manages to get himself accepted into a closed society of people of color and eventually becomes its most awesome member.

I’m going to speculate that, if this were a fantasy written for a colonized population, the hero would come from their own ranks and, at the end of the movie, they would continue life on their land, with their culture intact, under Na’vi leadership, without a human in sight.

But that would be a movie that alienated the colonizer. And since history is written, and rewritten, by the victor, Avatar is what we get.

And it is a safe fantasy because the fight is over. During most of the encounter between Europeans and the indigenous populations in the Americas, stereotypes were cruel and dehumanizing. The “noble savage” stereotype that we are familiar with emerged only after the threat of American Indian resistance was long gone. We re-cast our enemy in romantic terms only after we won the war. How nice for us. It turns out our foe was a worthy one, making us look all the more impressive for being the victor. We can now pretend that we had deep respect for them all along.

Europeans can enjoy Avatar precisely because there is no risk to admitting that colonization was wrong. We can wallow in guilt about it and, still, the likelihood that power dynamics will be reconfigured in any meaningful way is just about zero.

(Images borrowed from here, here, and here.)

In this video, Brenda Laurel discusses her successful computer game for girls.  Detailing extensive research on what girls want, Laurel then shows us a some interviews with girls and a bit of the resulting video game, Rocket, which seems to focus heavily on navigating complicated high school relationships.  Laurel says that all critics love her game except the “male gamer who thinks he knows what games ought to be” and “a certain flavor of feminists who thinks they know what little girls ought to be.”

Laurel clearly sees herself as an advocate for girls and, at the very end of the video, mocks (that certain flavor of) feminist objection to the game.

In general, the video is a fascinating peek into the thinking of video game producers.  And it certainly raises the question of what a feminist video game could look like.

Start at 6:28 if you want to skip the details as to her companies and data collection:

See other posts on girls’ video games here, here, and here.

And, for evidence that the gaming world isn’t particularly welcoming to girls and women, see here, here, here, here, here, and here (NSFW).

The MTV series, Jersey Shore, has been accused of ethnic bias and Denny and Lynda Lou suggested we discuss it.  The reality show features eight 20-something Italian Americans in a Real World-type situation (all living together in the same house on the beach) and is currently most famous for the scene where Snooki gets socked, hard, in the face:

It features, as does nearly every reality show involving 20-somethings, a lot of ridiculous, immature behavior, a celebration of party-culture and anti-intellectualism, and capitulation to the pornification of American culture.

The show is accused of being discriminatory not because it involves all those things, but because it specifically involves Italian Americans, who vocally embrace the term “Guido,” doing all of those things.

So what exactly is the problem with Jersey Shore?

The problem is that, because of negative stereotypes about Italian Americans, the bad behavior of the show’s stars will be attributed, by some, to their Italian American-ness.  If the show simply featured young people, who didn’t identify with a particular ethnic or racial group, the bad behavior might be attributed to youth or attention-starved-reality-show-celebrities.  But when we mark a group as Other (in this case, specifically Italian American), their behavior suddenly reflects on the whole group.

This is never true for the unmarked, neutral category whose identity is so normalized and mainstreamed as to be invisible.  In these cases, bad behavior is individualized (“that person is immoral or crazy” instead of “those people are immoral or crazy”).

So part of what makes Jersey Shore problematic is the context.  Because Italian Americans are Othered in the U.S., a show featuring them will inevitably be used by some to confirm negative stereotypes of the group.  But, of course, MTV is facilitating this by putting together a show that features Italian Americans exclusively, encouraging us to notice their Italian Americanness specifically and, therefore, making their ethnicity salient when we react with horror and disgust at what we see.

I always enjoy having my preconceptions challenged and I had a nice moment while visiting the website of a U.S. company, East Essence, that sells clothes for Muslim women.

They offered some of what I expected, such as traditional clothing and hijabs:

And also some things I didn’t expect:

The fact that the website includes traditional and modest clothing, and also models wearing tight jeans and revealing their midriffs, challenges the notion that Muslim women always dress according to strict rules, as well as the ideas that all Muslim women dress alike or that any given Muslim women dresses the same from day to day.

For more on Muslim fashion, see our posts here, here, here, and here.

Dmitriy T.M. sent in the clip below in which Senator Lindsey Graham (R – South Carolina) explains that health care reform will be bad because it will require his state to subsidize health care for poor people… and black people:

Graham’s mistake is a common one and one that contributes to penalizing and inhumane treatment of the poor in the U.S. He is conflating race and class. White people = not poor; black people = poor. Therefore, a high percentage of black people = a drain on society.

Here’s the reality: a higher percentage of the black population is poor, compared to whites. BUT, and this is a big “but,” most poor people are white because white people make up between 70 and 75% of the U.S. population.

However, a belief that that poor people tend to be black and black people tend to be poor is useful for those who want to stifle any redistribution of wealth. The conflation means that opposition to policies designed to alleviate the suffering of poverty can be based in both classism and racism.

Both (here and here) at Found in Mom’s Basement.