Hello Readers!  Welcome to our third installment of Behind Your Back.  Below is a list of posts that we have enriched during the month of June without telling you.  Enjoy!

We added a commerical (found at Feministe) to our post featuring an ad using a male-to-female transgendered person to sell a epilator to women. The commercial is really interesting, as is Holly’s interpretation of why it’s problematic.

The evolving controversy over the Obama Sock Monkey toy led us to make a few updates on our post. If you didn’t notice, the company making the toy aggressively revoked its apology and we’re pretty sure they’re still selling it. Check it out here.

For contrast, we added the posters from the Terminator Trilogy to our post on how female heroines were represented in posters for The Sarah Connor Chronicles, as well as some more images portraying the heroines in The Sarah Connor Chronicles differently and some that feminize John Connor.

We added a Greenpeace video targeting Unilever to this post about Dove and Axe ads.  The video shows how the American beauty industry that is hurting American girls’ self-esteem is destroying the environment of other girls’ lives.  It’s pretty great. 

We found a particularly egregious Nebraska Wakeboard ad and added it to another objectifying ad for shoes.

We added an image showing the actual caption to this post about FOX News referring to Michelle Obama as a “baby mama.”

Matt S. sent us three more PETA posters and a video featuring Alicia Silverstone showing how how PETA sexualizes women in its anti-fur campaigns.  See it here (scroll down).

We found another ad using sex to sell homes and home-related products.  We added it to some others here.

Yikes.  P.J. sent us another doozy from Axe (also sold as Lynx in some countries).

We added a commercial illustrating the bizarreness of yogurt advertising articulated in this post.

Laura L. found another ad that trivalizes women’s rejection of men’s attention.  This Noxzema ad implies that women really like to be catcalled on the street, even if they appear not to.

And we added a fashion ad to this post about ads that use ambiguous images that could imply consensual sex or sexual assault.  Thanks again to Laura L.!

Finally, we added another sexualized image of Condoleezza Rice–as Lara Croft–to this post about differences in how Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton are portrayed.

Don’t forget to check out who links to us!  And if we’re on your blogroll and aren’t on the list, make sure to send us a note!

Happy July!

Pro- and anti-natal policies are those that encourage and discourage childbearing respectively.  There’s an excellent article in the New York Times today about pro-natal efforts in Europe.  The population is falling there due to a low birth rate.

One of the things they mentioned in the article was the Third Reich “Mother’s Cross” (I found this one here).  Women who had four children were awarded a bronze medal, women who had six a silver, and women who had eight a gold. (This was a eugenic strategy, of course; an effort to increase the birthrate for pure, white people.) 

I think one of the most fascinating things about this medal is not so much the pro-natal, or even eugenic story, but the explicit linking of military service with motherhood.  There are plenty of good arguments to make that being a mother is a service to the nation just like military service.  After all, as is recognized in Europe, if women stop having babies, eventually there will be no nation at all.  Also, being a mother involves sacrificing yourself, taking time out of the labor force and, indeed, risking your life and health.  (Ann Crittenden makes this argument in The Price of Motherhood.)  Of course, in the U.S. we don’t value motherhood the way we value military service.   And, sigh, we are awarded no medals for bringing new human beings into existence.  We do, however, have pro-natalist policy.  The fact that we get a tax write-off for every child we have is a direct economic incentive to reproduce. 

Ironically* titled “Disabilities Downplayed for ‘Britain’s Missing Top Model’ Contestants” (my emphasis), this article discusses a new televised modeling competition featuring only disabled models:

Among the eight lovely ladies who will duke it out onscreen are women without limbs, some who are partially paralyzed and one who is deaf.

See the images below or click here for the slideshow.

I have many of the same questions about this program that I have about Viktoria’s spread for Bizarre Magazine and Elizabeth had about Disaboom advertising. Notice that, of the eight contestants, at least seven appear white. Half are (let’s face it) artificially blonde. And they all more-or-less conform to contemporary Western standards of beauty. In only one photo (maybe two) is the disability even visible.

I guess, basically, what I’m asking is: Are we trying to challenge a hierarchal system by gaining access to the top of the hierarchy? From there, who will we look down upon? And, if there’s no one to look down upon, what was the point of gaining access?

As Audre Lorde famously said: “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.”

.

* Catherine writes: “Apparently this is an attempt to challenge the fashion world, but if we’re “downplaying” the disabilities, aren’t we attempting to obey the rules of the fashion world? What’s the point?” Special thanks to Catherine D. for the link!

Cory D. sent us these pictures of gendered T-shirts for kids at Disneyland (see them here).

T-shirt text:  “I rode [the Pirates of the Caribbean ride] and I spun around in a [teacup].  I ate some [ice cream] and yummy [popcorn].  But the best part of my trip is when I met [Goofy, er Pluto].”

T-shirt text:  “I rode [the Carousel].  I saw [Cinderella] and went to her [castle].  I spun in a [teacup] and I ate [ice cream].  But the best part of my trip is when I met [The Little Mermaid].”

This is an image of brass stencil that was used to identify products made by women during WWII.

Found here thanks to Breck C.

Vietnam-era anti-draft propaganda from The Draft Resistance offers girls to pacifist boys.

From Vintage Ads via Jezebel.

Maybe you’ve never noticed, given that feminists are always talking about the ladies, that there are lots and lots and lots of things that (real) men are not supposed to do. For instance: drink fruity drinks, wear pink shoes, look at their fingernails the wrong way, enjoy a “chick flick,” like a girl, like cats, prefer not to fight, care about grades, eat salad… should I go on? You get the gist.

Comparably, women have got it good. We’re allowed to knit and play soccer, be a mom and be a lawyer, take dance and karate, wear skirts and pants!

How do we make sense of this? Crash course: Femininity is just for chicks. When men do feminine things, they are debasing themselves. Masculinity is awesome and for everyone. When women do masculine things, they’re awesome. This is sexism: Masculinity rules, femininity drools. Men are encouraged to stay away from femininity, so their individual choices are constrained, but they also are staying away from something debasing. In contrast, women are required to do a least some femininity, so women are required to debase themselves, at least a little bit, even as they are given more options.

I say this all to introduce these two hilarious examples of men and how they have to worry about doing masculinity (sent in by Vesko J.).

How To Give The Perfect Man Hug

How I Sit On The Bus

Class is usually a more subtle dimension of ads than race or gender.  I think, and I admit I am speculating here, that it is because there is a need to, usually, appeal to the masses while at the same time suggesting that the masses do or should have access to the most high-class things (which they do not).  Thus, the difference between being middle-class and upper-class is minimized at the same time that the symbolic attainment (only) of upper-class-ness is being sold to middle-class people.  There are exceptions, of course, such as when ads aimed at the upper-class sell product by suggesting that a middle-class person could never afford it.

Anyway, these ads, found here, are from 1962 and 1963. I thought they were interesting because of the way they communicated wealth and luxury, mostly with location.

Notice the very old giant trees, ivy-covered ancient-looking stone, an archway, and hedges… all in what looks like a private residence.  The copy, which suggests that I’m right about “symbolic attainment,” begins:

How much does a Cadillac cost?  Take a guess–and then check with your authorized Cadillac dealer.  Odds are you’ll have guessed too high–for a Cadillac can be remarkably modest in cost.

There is a beautiful woman in the expensive-looking dress, of course, but also notice the cobble-stone circular driveway under her feet:

The chauffer communicates a certain degree of wealth, of course, but also the stone driveway decorated with greenery:

Cobblestones, again, and a very expensive New York City apartment building.  Copy includes the following comment:

“…the new 1983 car is the most rewarding possession a man can have.”

Thanks to Jason for the link!