Stereotype threat: The difference in performance measured when the belief that people like you (blacks, women, etc) are worse at a particular task than the comparison group (whites, men, etc) is made salient.

The left side of the bar graph is the performance of blacks and whites on a task (on which whites are stereotypically believed to be superior) when stereotype threat is activated (blacks and whites are reminded of the stereotype in some way). The right side of the bar graph is the performance of blacks and whites on the same task when the stereotype remains unactivated. Note the remarkable difference. This demonstrates the ways in which stereotypes, when made salient, affect our performances on “objective” tests.

From: The Effects of Stereotype Threat on the Standardized Test Performance of College Students by J Aronson, CM Steelel, MF Salinas, MJ Lustina. In Readings About the Social Animal, 8th edition, edited by E. Aronson. Stolen from Wikipedia.

I love this picture!*

It’s a wonderful illustration of the way in which we tend to project a gendered nuclear family model onto animals in ways that make that model seem more “natural” and “universal” than it is. (For the argument, try Donna Haraway’s Teddy Bear Patriarchy.)

Chickens, at least in captivity, do not live in lovely nuclear families like the nice chicken family above. They live in harems with just one rooster and lots of hens. Notice, too, how the hen is looking down (lovingly? maternally?) at her chicks, while the rooster is looking out into the distance (for danger? the protector?). Or maybe he’s checking out all those other “chicks” he gets with.** You know, a man has got to sow his seed. Oh wait, he’s not a man, he’s a CHICKEN!)

Even their bodies match our culturally and historically specific norms. Their height difference nicely matches the ideal in our society for male/female pairs (but not the reality, see here). To take the anthropomorphization further, you can almost see the hen’s fertile hips and the rooster’s strapping shoulders (am I going to far?).

* Unfortunately, I’ve had this picture for a long time and I’m afraid I don’t remember where it came from.

** Did you see that? I managed to get in the infantilization of adult women, um, hens, and the sexualization of young girls, um, chicks.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbcmPe0z3Sc[/youtube] While this video is more activist-y than scholarly, I think it might be useful as a way to demonstrate that our taken-for-granted categories (whether they be based on religion, race, ethnicity, gender or otherwise) are falsely homogeneous.

Hecklers shout at Clinton to “iron my shirt!” at a campaign speech in New Hampshire:See the video:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjS8_WWhjao[/youtube] Via the Huffington Post.

This is a nice compliment to our post of the t-shirt with pictures of safety pins on it (an example of the co-optation of punk culture):

When you’re so tough that you are compelled to hang a razor blade around your neck, but not so tough that you want an ouchie.

This one is a nice example, also, of the way in which we “play” with gender by collapsing traditionally distinct ideas (masculine toughness symbolized by the razor blade and sweet femininity symbolized by the heart) (see also sparkly camouflage, trucker hats with the word “princess” written across them, and pink sports jerseys).

Buy the fake razor blade jewelry here (or don’t).

Anti-gun control propaganda (found here) aimed at EVERYBODY.

What you might expect from the pro-gun lobby:

For kids!

Pro-gun feminism?

Guns are for fags:

Gun control is racist:

Bill F. sent in this one. What’s interesting about this image is the comment on masculinity–the implication is that “pacifist” men (whatever “pacifist” is taken to mean) aren’t “real” men because they can’t or won’t fulfill their role of protecting women. The gun becomes a replacement for sissified men.

This is a really interesting comparative analysis of the Kerry and Bush logos from the most recent presidential election. Notice how gender and class operate in the design and analysis.

Richard also pointed me to this slide show, also from the New York Times, commenting on logos for the candidates in the current primaries.

This nice Barbie and Ken from 1961 might be useful for demonstrating just how much the ideal masculine body has changed.

Look at those skinny legs!