Chelsea S. snapped a photo of this ad outside of Macy’s in the King of Prussia mall:

Two things here: the assumption that men have wives to purchase their clothes for them (gendering of marital roles, anyone?) and the implication that having to wait while your wife does so is such an annoyance. Maybe this is just me, but if someone else is doing errands for you, the least you can do is not act like it’s a burden to accompany them.

Gwen and I were both so troubled by a story on NPR’s Weekend Edition Saturday that we decided to break our rule that all posts must contain an image and offer you a sound instead. The six-and-a-half minute story and a transcript can be found here.

This is the letter of protest that I sent:

Dear NPR,

I am sadly disappointed in NPR after listening to the latest installment of “Recession Diary,” featuring Caitlin Shetterly and her family.

The story features a husband and wife team of freelancers who have to take part time wage work and move in with their parents to support themselves and their new baby.  Caitlin gets a book deal that puts them back on their feet (but it’s not enough “even to buy a house,” so apparently it’s not a lot of money).  Her mother tells her that it was hard work and not good luck that made the difference.

Not only is this a wildly upper-class version of “hardship,” but the final evaluation of their “turn in fortune” as due to hard work and not luck is a slap in the face to the millions of Americans who work one or more demanding jobs and will likely never escape economic insecurity, recession or no.

The Shetterly’s had their fair share of good luck long before the recession hit, the kind of good luck that allows you to follow your dream of being a freelancer in the first place.  And while I’m sure they worked very hard, they were already situated such that their hard work could make their dreams come true.

This Recession Diary does an injustice to economic hardship.  It likely resonated with the public radio producers, staff, and talent, but I doubt it resonates with Americans whose dreams involve feeding their kids and getting their rent paid, with just a little left over to sock away for the next emergency.

Lisa Wade, PhD
Assistant Professor of Sociology
Occidental College
Los Angeles, CA

Okay, I can’t resist.

Here is a picture of a cake I made for my friend, Dorotha:

What you can’t see is that he is balding and has liver spots on top of his head.

I am still quite proud.

This graphic reveals which states pay the most in federal taxes and which receive the most in return. At the very bottom of the graphic, you can see the ratio of taxes out and taxes in. Rhode Island is exactly even, while the states above and to the left are essentially “donation” states and the states below and to the right are “welfare” states:

Found at Visual Economics, via ChartPorn.

Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.

Grace S., Courtney V., Mazhira B., and Ashley B. (I hope I got everyone!) sent in Kleenex’s Get Mommed campaign. The campaign represents another instance in which nurturing is associates strictly with women (it is mom who takes care of us when we’re sick, not dad).

It also manages to throw in a number of racial and religious stereotypes, including the Latina Ana Maria (“hola!”) who brings traditional wisdom; the distracted upper class WASP (“just a moment, dear”); the sassy, full-figured black women who can do anything around the house; the pushy Jewish mom (“Phyllis wants to be your mommy, not just your mom”); the stern Asian mom (“I don’t put up with excuses, not even from babies!”); among others.

I didn’t dive into the website too far, but you’re certainly welcome to do so and feel free to report what you find!

Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.

Gwen M. and David B. sent us a link to a story on the Globe and Mail website about a video game that has a gay scene in it and the reaction in the gaming community:

The game is Dragon Age: Origins, which, according to the website, is “an epic tale of violence, lust, and betrayal.”

From the Globe and Mail article:

Earlier this year, to promote Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II , one of the biggest games of the year, the game’s developer, Infinity Ward, released a video online asking players to Fight Against Grenade Spam. The company eventually pulled the ad following complaints about the acronym.
…
Last year, Microsoft was accused of homophobia after banning gay-related gamertags – the names created by Xbox users to identify themselves online – such as theGAYERgamer and RichardGaywood.

As the article points out, it’s not that gay or bisexual characters/scenes haven’t appeared in video games before, but they’ve often been portrayed in very stereotypical or negative ways. And while some gamers have reacted positively, many have basically responded with “ew, gross!”

As Gwen said, this effort to normalize gay relationships in a popular video game, and the reactions to it, are “both encouraging — and saddening.”

Gwen Sharp is an associate professor of sociology at Nevada State College. You can follow her on Twitter at @gwensharpnv.

A while back we posted before and after pictures of an eyelid surgery designed to give people of Asian descent an eyelid fold more characteristic of non-Asians (see also this post on eyelid glueing) with the idea that such an eye seemed more “awake.”

I recently came across a website advertising “Asian Rhinoplasty” by Dr. Younai.  The surgeon argues that “there are many fine differences between an Asian nose and that of other ethnicities” and claims expertise in this area.

He makes the following observations about what is “wrong” with “Asian” noses.  Notice how he uses a language of deficiency that is completely contrived (“underdeveloped,” “poor,” “lack”) (all emphases are his):

…most Asians from Korea, China, Philippines, Japan, Hawaii, and Malaysia have underdeveloped nasal bridge. This makes their eyes appear to be far apart.

The nasal tip in Asians is often round, wide, bulbous, and of poor definition. The thickness of Asian nasal skin also contributes to the lack of nasal tip sharpness.

Nostrils in Asians can be flared and wide.

Lack of nasal bridge height can give the appearance of a short nose.

His language is negative, but also inherently comparative to an unspoken norm.  “Underdeveloped” compared to what?  Of “poor definition” compared to what?  “Wide” compared to what?  “Short” compared to what?  Of course, in this context, the implicit ideal is a white ideal.

Here are some of his before and after photos:

Masculine!

Masculine! Masculine! Masculine!

Masculine!

(Thanks for the link, Michael C!)

P.S.: Girls and sissy boys suck!

UPDATE: In our comments threat, Reader adilegian offered this great breakdown of the commercial:

0:04. The voice over’s question “Should a phone be pretty?” is visually answered with an effect reminiscent of melting celluloid. The rupture starts on top of the woman’s head, exploding her “pretty” face.

0:06. Women are beheld as dolls.

0:08. Images appear superimposed over images beneath a verbal judgment. The beauty queen (fake) made out of plastic (fake) shown on a television (fake) is definitively stamped “CLUELESS.”

0:10. The commercial erased its first woman by destroying the medium of her representation (supposedly celluloid). The commercial again destroys its second “woman” by destroying the medium of her representation (a television).

0:10 – 0:13. Words across the screen: FAST, RACEHORSE, SCUD. Images: Lightning, racing horse, ripping off duct tape, SCUD missile. Combining these motifs into one single image, we see the SCUD missile flying across the screen with the word RACEHORSE as though it were written with lightning.

0:14. Droid applications: Reality Browser 2.1, Google Sky Map, Qik, Mother TED, CardioTrainer, Where. While I doubt that these applications were developed with the commercial’s themes in mind, their selections reinforce the messages thus far enforced visually: reality (woman of burnt celluloid, destroyed television), sky (SCUD missile), quick (FAST, RACEHORSE), mother (a Freudian slip recognizing the infantile nature of a power fantasy? ^_~), exercise (beef up for manliness stat +4), and going places (which SCUD missiles, race horses, and THE MANLIEST OF MANKIND’S MEN all do).

0:15. Word overlay: DOES. Men do things. Women are pretty and useless.

0:16 – 0:18. Buzz saw cuts banana over a brief yellow outline of a robot.

0:18. Three slim pretty boy models. Again, we see a conflation of all things hitherto condemned: prettiness and effeminacy (designer clothes on fancy-pants, unmuscular pretty boys) and superficiality (plastic people).

0:19 – 0:21. Fruit appears now as a weapon. Hardcore Droid-using man (who is also most likely a fancy, beautiful, professional male model IRL, natch) throws apple at sassy plasticman’s hat, suggesting a Victorian upstart’s rambunctious bucking of all things pretentious with a snowball thrown to knock off a businessman’s hat. Succeeding apples create gore effects.

0:21. Porcelain sheep crushed between the maws of raw, unrelenting MANROBOTPHONE power. Porcelain sheep also conflate all previously condemned messages: prettiness, delicacy, weakness, and artifice.

0:23 – 0:25. Sissy phone explodes into a milky white substance, suggesting ejactulate, with the word NO followed by an image of a woman holding the same ejaculate-phone in her hand with her lips parted. The word PRINCESS is superimposed with glitter effects.

0:25 – 0:27. Layers within mechanical layers give way to reveal the Droid phone.  The Droid phone now appears in the palm of a man’s hand. From his POV (deliciously male gaze, yes?), we see him traveling the world at blinding speed (FAST, RACEHORSE) with city lights blitzing past (lightning).

0:28 – 0:29. MANBOT phone breaks through a white, crumbling wall, again conflating the previously condemned ideas (bland superficiality as connoted by white porcelain sheep, white plastic male models, and light pink plastic Miss Pretty).

A PHONE THAT TRADE HAIR-DO

FOR CAN-DO.

Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.

When thinking about how media coverage affects public perceptions, many people think of it in terms of an “injection model”–that is, media outlets “inject” ideas into a passive public, directly affecting what they think (or, anyway, what everyone else thinks, since most people are convinced that they personally aren’t affected). Many researchers have argued this model depicts media audiences as having little agency when it comes to interpreting things they read or hear. People do ultimately decide what they think of issues, though the media play a large role in defining what issues are worth thinking about.

I have spent the last several days being mystified and annoyed by the number of news stories I’ve heard about Tiger Woods and his wreck and apparent affairs. I do not understand why this is national (and even international) news, and why news outlets from Fox to NPR found it worthwhile to have on commentators to talk about the fact that an athlete cheated on his wife.

Upon hearing my grumbling, my friend Larry (of The Daily Mirror) sent in this Google trends graph showing searches for “Tiger Woods” and “Afghanistan” during the last month:

The top graph shows searches for those terms; the bottom graph shows the frequency of them in news stories distributed by Google News. What was interesting to me is that news coverage has actually been higher for Afghanistan, with the gap growing during the days following the Tiger Woods story, but searches have followed the opposite pattern, with the enormous spike in searches for Tiger Woods in the last few days. It’s possible that TV media outlets have covered the Tiger Woods issue more than print media, so that could show a different trend.

But from what we see here, it appears that public interest isn’t being driven solely by media coverage, and any increases in news stories about Tiger Woods may be a response to an appetite for more information. That doesn’t mean media coverage doesn’t play a large part in framing public discourse–after all, we wouldn’t even know about the Tiger Woods story if it didn’t get some initial media coverage–but media outlets don’t decide what to cover in a complete vacuum, with the ability to get the public interested in any story they report on.

UPDATE: Larry sent in this image that contrasts searches for those terms with searches for “porn”:

Sigh.

Also see our posts on CNN questioning whether Jon and Kate’s divorce was getting too much coverage, which missing children get media coverage, the media shape reality, and coverage of Obama and Clinton.