Piper A. sent us a link to a post at Cake Wrecks featuring “redneck” wedding cakes. As someone who recently received an invitation to a cousin’s wedding that included the words “hitched,” “shotgun,” “Honkers,” “Tri-Tip,” and “beer tenders,” I feel especially qualified to comment on these cakes.*

The fact that these cakes are considered “wrecks” reveals that we expect people to follow wedding rules. You are not allowed to have any cake you want, you must have a wedding cake and that cake must conform to certain specifications (apparently three tiers is not sufficient, neither is white frosting, and a sense of humor appears to be out). If you don’t conform, you are getting married wrong. In this case, if I may infer from the “redneck” statement, your wedding has no “class.”

See also this related post on “taste” and two more posts on how to do weddings right (i.e., girls should be skinny and be chosen).

* Extra credit for anyone who can tell from that list of words where my extended family lives.

In From Motherhood to Citizenship, Nitza Berkovich traces a global shift.  Sometime during the 20th century, nation-states became convinced that women could boost national economies and foster development.  Accordingly, states began thinking of their women as potential productive workers instead of reproductive mothers.  It was this economic argument, not necessarily a feminist one, that led to women’s incorporation into the public sphere as citizens (workers, voters, etc).

I was reminded of Berkovitch’s book by a short video sent in by Fran.  The video, produced by a non-profit called Girl Effect*, argues that if you get girls into school and give them cows, the world will be a better place.  As Fran puts it:  “Apparently, girls are only worth supporting if they improve the economy!” Here is an image from the website:

“Girl Effect” is defined as:

The powerful social and economic change brought about when girls have the opportunity to participate in their society.

The logic is not that girls deserve education or the opportunity to sustain their livelihoods (a feminist argument); the logic is that we should invest in girls because it is good for the world (a global improvement or humanist argument or something).  I’m not arguing that the former is better or worse than the latter, only pointing out that it’s interesting that feminist initiatives (helping girls) can be supported with non-feminist logics.

The video:

*  As an aside, I always think it’s interesting when and how people choose to use the word “girl” as opposed to “woman.”  In this case, I suspect the activists think girls are more sympathetic than women.  Kids always pull at the heart purse strings moreso than adults.  I suppose this is because we ascribe to children a sort of innocence.  That, in itself (though socially constructed), doesn’t seem troublesome… but, if we can give the benefit of the doubt, we can also take it away.  I always wonder, for example: When do boys growing up in poverty transition from innocent victims of circumstance to potential criminals?  When do their sisters transition to welfare queens?  When do we decide to retract our generous offering of benevolence and replace it with malevolence?  These are just things I wonder.

Please peruse the posts we’ve enriched this month:

The idea of interracial and cross-national sex as cultural tourism came up at PostSecret.  We added a postcard to an earlier post on the topic.

We added a video about the video game BoneTown to this post about Miss Bimbo and Sexy Beach 3. BoneTown, supposedly the “world’s first action adventure porno video game, is exactly what you’d think it is, except with Mormons, American Indians in business suits, and a mysterious thing called Jew Magic. It’s pretty fascinating.

In a comments thread, Mordicai alerted us to “Man Glaze,” i.e., finger polish for men.  We added it to our thread on make-up for guys here.  Scroll down.

We added an o.b. tampon ad sent in by Claire T. to this post about marketing products with eco-conscious messages as evidence that “being green” (at least in theory) is becoming increasingly mainstream.

We added a commercial, also sent in by Claire T., for the EU’s “Cool Capitals” tourism campaign, to this post about imagery of cheating (polygamy?) in AirFrance advertising. The EU commercial documents the case of Francine, a fictional polygamist with husbands in five European capital cities.

In the comments thread to our post about the NOT FOR GIRLS candy bar, Trevor pointed us to the girl version.  But it is a girl version?  I couldn’t figure out the message.  Can you? We also added an image of Men’s Pocky, pointed to by Lis Riba.

Pharmacopaeia alerted us to another ad campaign on the “Thank God You’re A Man” theme.

We found another instance of pre-nazi uses of the swastika, this time the symbol was used in a warm, cozy quilt.  Thanks to Felicity who pointed us to it in the comments!

Taylor D. sent us another add for Wate-On, a product that supposedly helped women gain weight, this one targeted to African American women. We added it to this post about weight-gain supplements.

We added two more ads, sent in by Taylor D., to this post about non-subtle uses of sex in advertising.

We added another Gillette ad to this post about how body wash is marketed to men.

Finally, we added the Obama Chia Pet to a post about advertising products with Obama.

The New York Times recently published an article on the evolving Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).  The DSM is the official source for psychologists who are diagnosing patients with mental disorders.  The article points out that the number of disorders in the manual has more than doubled since the 1950s:

Hypothesis One:  The DSM reflects an increasingly sophisticated and exhuastive compendium of all possible mental disorders.

Hypothesis Two:  More psychological disorders = more people diagnosed with mental disorders = more money is siphoned off to hospitals, treatment centers, drug companies, mental health professionals, social workers, school counselors, etc.  (Scientists who are currently working on the next version of the DSM have agreed to restrict their income from drug makes to $10,000 a year or less.)

Hypothesis Three:  We are an increasingly rationalized society and all things are becoming increasingly listed, compiled, organized, and annotated.

Hypothesis Four:  What is considered a “problem” depends on the social context.  (“Homosexuality” used to be in the DSM, but it isn’t any longer.)  Perhaps a shift in the last 50 years has created a social context that is less tolerant of difference, more insistent upon happiness, or requires a more compliant citizen.

Hypothesis Five:  Grassroots activists get together and lobby scientists to include disorders in the DSM so that they can raise awareness and money for research.

What do you think?

Thanks to Francisco for pointing me to this article!

Julie C. drew our attention to this ad for an internet service that filters “inappropriate” content:

Lizvang nicely articulates an objection (my emphasis):

The breasts, the vagina, the uterus and the colon is cut out of an anatomical text book. When did biology and education about our bodies become shameful? Haven’t we as a society moved past the “a woman’s body is dirty” mindset?

Text:

Wine doesn’t just come with cheese.  For women it’s also accompanied by hair loss, wrinkles, and obesity, plus the other problems like breast cancer, early menopause and memory loss.

This ad rests on women’s fear of looking like men (whatever that means)

(1) Interestingly, none of the side-effects of alcoholism listed seem, to me, to be masculinizing.  I can only imagine that the creators of this ad thought that straying from the norms of youthful femininity makes a woman seem masculine, thereby conflating aging with masculinization in women.

(2)  Also, notice the excessive make-up.  The ad is relying on the viewer being disgusted at the idea of a masculine face covered in make-up.  That is part of what is supposed to create a negative reaction.  But make-up and masculinity are not intrinsically or naturally at odds.  We only believe this to be so.

(By the way, the fact that most men do not wear make-up, I think, is a beautiful example of the triumph of gender ideology over capitalism.  For example.  But see here.)

(3) Finally, what’s “drink like a man” all about?  I guess men can have all the wine and cheese that they want without getting wrinkles because, gosh darn it, it’s just how men drink!   Maybe they even get more masculine!  (Hmmmm… as someone who loves her liquor, suddenly I do have penis envy.)

Thanks to Julie C. for the link!

NEW! This vintage ad (found here) uses the same logic:

Ten Apples and a Flat Sponge reports that the Thorvaldsen Museum in Copenhagen is selling reproductions of Venus with Apple and the Birth of Venus, with some artistic interpretation:

Hat tip to Shapely Prose.

The ownership of corporations under parent companies concentrates profits and profit motives, often in ways that undermine the progressive or conservative causes that the subsidiary companies purport to promote. Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream is famous for its progressive and countercultural flavors and activities.

A tribute to the countercultural bands, Phish and The Grateful Dead:

A pacifist message:

The Barack Obama inspired flavor, Yes Pecan:

Alas, in 2000 Ben and Jerry’s was bought by Unilever, the company that brings us (pseudofeminist) Dove, (misogynistic) Axe, and (racist) Fair and Lovely products (examples here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).

Oh, to bring the irony full circle, Unilever owns Slimfast too.

Don’t shoot the messenger.

Hat tip to Jezebel.