Z from It’s the Thought that Counts sent us this example of an identical product–mosquito repellent–packaged two different ways (found here). In the top example, the mostly blue package includes a male figure fishing and logos for hunting, camping, and fishing. In the bottom one, the mostly orange package includes a female figure, perhaps on a walk.
Rudbeckia Hirta explains:
Sold in the same anti-mosquito display. Same active ingredient. Same concentration of active ingredient. Same quantity in the package. Same price.
This reminds us that gender seems to be a salient variable no matter what the context, which goes to show how profoundly our psyches and cultures are organized by gender.
The graph below reveals the percent of before-tax income given to charity by class (separated into fifths):
There is a positive correlation between income and absolute giving (the higher their income, the more money they donate), but a negative correlation between income and relative giving (as incomes go down, households donate a higher and higher percentage of their income).
Jason S. sent in this clip of a convention for (parents of) infants, toddlers, and tweens called Baby and Tweens Celebration L.A. It’s an example of the hyper-consumerist mentality that now surrounds child-raising, at least for the upper-middle classes and higher. It’s also an example of the way that young children, especially young girls, are encouraged by some forces to think of themselves as “princesses.” Many parents (literally) buy into this idea of what a (girl) child should be like. It has not been this way throughout history and is not this way across cultures.
One year ago Gwen wrote an extensive post about the 1968 Olympic medalists Tommie Smith and John Carlos, who used their medal ceremony to try to draw attention to racism and poverty in the U.S. Her post does an excellent job of describing and analyzing the protest and its aftermath. Visit it here.
NEWLY ENRICHED POSTS:
A representative from Reynold’s Kitchens sent us an email in response to our post on their new, recycled Reynold’s Wrap. See her commentary here. We’ve also added a link to a second source suggesting that our original post was wrong. Check it out.
Jay Smooth followed up on his excellent commentary about Asher Roth’s use of the term “nappy headed hos” and black rappers’ materialism. This time his video features Dan Charnas, a hip-hop industry insider. See their discussion about white privilege and racial humility here.
Jody B. sent in a Progressive Insurance commercial that many believe features two gay men. We added it to our earlier post about an Argentinian bank commercial that positively features a transgender individual; both could be useful for a discussion of when and how corporations choose to associate themselves with minority or marginalized groups, knowing it might offend other segments of society.
So the truth is we didn’t do much behind your back this month and, in fact, you may have noticed that we didn’t exactly keep up our normal prodigious Sociological Images schedule. But we have been doing stuff and, in case you are interested, it involved cows, lizards, and gators! After the jump (because most of you could care less) are some non-sociological images of things we’ve been up to behind your back this month.
The French Quarter (around the corner from my temporary home):
Oak Alley Plantation (New Orleans):
Lizard!
Awesome creepy swamp:
‘Gators!
Grandma’s cows (Oklahoma):
I blog this from McGehee, Arkansas, on our way to Las Vegas via Oklahoma. Tomorrow: more cows.
I’ve suggested that the fact that men do not feel compelled to wear make-up is a “triumph of gender ideology over capitalism” (see here). Companies that sell make-up, after all, have halved their profits by giving up on selling to men. We should expect, then, a tug-of-war between the profit motive and a gender ideology that suggests that men and women are opposite. On the one hand, if men and women are opposites, then the requirement that women primp and preen (with the help of dozens of products) would imply that men do not. On the other hand, if they accept this gender binary, companies lose half their customers.
Accordingly, Gwen and I were shocked to see an ad at Jezebel, sent in by Frank D., overtly marketing scrotum shaving.
We have seen this a bit with products aimed at men and their hair already (see here, here, and here), but I’m still surprised to see this. I can’t imagine anything harder to shave on anyone’s body, male or female.
So how are they trying to convince men to do it?
They are using the same tactics that they use against women. They are either (1) shaming men into thinking that they are disgusting and no woman (or man) will have them unless they alter their body (see here, here, and here) or (2) naturalizing shaving such that it is just a fun thing that all men inevitably participate in (see here, here, here, and here).
Did you know that women like men who shave down there? Having silky smooth balls is a lot nicer than finding a huge bush or choking on your pubes! Today’s trend is to have it clean or at least trimmed. This helps both aesthetically and hygienic wise as well.
They are also using a gendered logic. We’ve seen this with other examples of companies trying to sell self-maintenance to men. They hyper-masculinizing the product. For examples, see our posts on hair product for men (with “stand tough” hair gel), make-up for men ( with “blo-job bronzing powder”). We see this with other feminized products and activities too (for example, ice skating and chocolate). In this case, they don’t say, “If you don’t shave your balls, you won’t be pretty.” They say, “When there’s no underbrush, the tree looks taller.”
Yeah, no. I’m not paraphrasing:
One thing we might discuss is whether this this represents a “female gaze” that matches the “male gaze” that requires women to always be a pleasurable object for others to view… or that, alternatively, this is just the male gaze being applied to men. Some of the marketing for men’s body shaving appears to be clearly marketed towards gay men (see this website, especially here).
Another interesting thing to consider is the extent to which the social invisibility of the pubic area facilitates marketer manipulation. If you’re straight, unless you’re willing to ask a partner, you have to trust the advertisers to tell you what “today’s trend” is. What a great deal for the companies.
Oh, and, I’m wondering which you think is going to win this tug-of-war: the companies with their profit motive or gender ideology and a resistance to the feminization of men?
In response to Gwen’s post on butts, I offer you crotches. We’re being super highbrow today.
The following not-safe-for-work ads place a product (or copy) at a woman’s crotch. Are they promising sexual access? Just trying to draw attention? Using shock tactics? I don’t know.
And, then, there’s always Tom Ford’s rather famous iterations of the crotch shot (I know, we’ve had these on the blog before, but…):
Sociological Images encourages people to exercise and develop their sociological imaginations with discussions of compelling visuals that span the breadth of sociological inquiry. Read more…
