Phoebe sent in this Moto Guzzi website.  You can see that it allows buyers to select a “lady seat” for their motorcycle:

What is a lady seat?  As Phoebe explains:

The lady seat is simply a lowered seat to allow people with shorter inseams to straddle the bike comfortably when stopped or maneuvering by foot.

So really, it’s just a lowered seat for people who are shorter than the imagined person for whom the motorcycle is being built.

This is a use of sex as a shorthand for referencing physical characteristics that (may or may not be) true on average, but are not categorically true.  That is, women may be on average shorter than men, but not all women are short and not all men are tall.  So we have (1) a conflation of women and short stature and (2) an erasure of short men that essentially means that they cannot buy a comfortable motorcycle (unless they’re willing to buy it with a lady seat).

This kind of thing is done all the time.  In fact, it is the primary conflation that we use to justify sex segregated sports.  Women, it is often argued, can’t play football because they are too small and would get too physically knocked around.  But this (1) assumes that all women are small (which they are not) and (2) erases small men.  Few people seem to notice that it’s not only women who are excluded from football, it’s also all of the men who aren’t big enough to play with the “big boys.”  Rather than excluding women from football, we might use a weight class system (like they do in wrestling).  If we had two football leagues (say, in high school) based on weight, both sex integrated, then not only could women get a chance to play football, lots of men who otherwise don’t get a chance to play could play too.

—————————

Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

Nora R. pointed out a Navy Facebook page that presents female members of the Navy as ground-breaking women who redefine femininity. The photo:

Here’s the text below the photo:

Applauding women who define life on their own terms. Intermingling the stereotypically feminine and masculine. Women in the Navy are amongst those paving the way in redefining femininity in the 21st Century.

I think it’s fascinating that they refer to feminine and masculine characteristics as stereotypes, rather than simply saying they mix feminine and masculine traits (thus accepting them as meaningful categories).

I went over to the Navy page on women from Facebook. Another image:

Some text from that webpage, which again emphasizes equality, empowerment, and the idea that ideas about gender are stereotypes, not accurate beliefs:

What’s it like being a woman in today’s Navy? Challenging. Exciting. Rewarding. But above all, it’s incredibly empowering. That’s because the responsibilities are significant. The respect is well-earned. The lifestyle is liberating. And the chance to push limits personally and professionally is an equal opportunity for women and men alike.

The notion of a “man’s work” is redefined in the Navy. Stereotypes are overridden by determination, by proven capabilities and by a shared appreciation for work that’s driven by hands-on skills and adrenaline. Here, a woman’s place is definitely in on the action. And women who seek to pursue what some may consider male-dominated roles are not only welcome, they’re wanted – in any of dozens of dynamic fields.

Besides equal pay for equal work, you can also look forward to the opportunity for personal development in the Navy. Take advantage of the chance to learn, grow, advance, serve and succeed right beside male counterparts – sharing the same duties and the same respect.

Farther down there’s this paragraph:

Spending time with family and friends. Going shopping. Getting all dressed up for a night out. As a woman, you’ll find there’s ample time for all of that in the Navy. Time when you’re off-duty. Time for the everyday things and the “girly stuff.” What you do as a woman in uniform may not be considered typical, but the life you lead outside of that can be as normal as you want.

I think the message there is partially that you don’t have to give up all the things associated with femininity if you’re in the Navy, but also the implication is that in the Navy you’ll be empowered and liberated to break stereotypes that you won’t be able to do as much in the outside world, where you may want to act more “normal.”

We’ve posted before about the use of female empowerment to sell products (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). In all of those instances, liberty or empowerment comes through simply consuming the right thing, whether it’s Virginia Slims, a better cleaning product, or a pre-packaged food item. It’s a completely superficial use of the idea of women’s liberation. In this Navy campaign, however, some very real advantages are promised: equal pay for equal work, respect, equal opportunity at work, the ability to enter “what some may consider” male-dominated fields.

Of course, that doesn’t mean all of these things happen. For instance, the Navy can say women are welcomed into male-dominated roles; that doesn’t mean the male soldiers are going to be thrilled and welcoming. After all, 26 female Navy members reported being sexually assaulted by fellow sailors in 1991. But the book The American Woman 2001-2002 lists the Navy as the branch of the military with the second-lowest levels of gender discrimination (after the Air Force; not surprisingly, the worst branch is the Marines) and says that after the 1991 Tailhook incident the Navy undertook major efforts to deal with gender discrimination. According to the book the Navy has “the largest number of women moving into nontraditional occupations” (p. 163). Women are allowed on combat vessels, while the Army still does not allow women in combat positions.

I don’t know. I have to say, this seems to be more of a sincere effort to recruit women by focusing on equality and skills than most I’ve seen, in which empowerment is depicted as taking on “masculine” roles or characteristics, and in which the idea that they are masculine isn’t questioned as a stereotype. I know many people will say that getting more women into the military isn’t necessarily a great advancement. But just as a marketing effort aimed at women, this is one of the more interesting ones I’ve seen, since it highlights specific types of equality (pay, etc.) as opposed to some vague idea of “liberation” and challenges the femininity/masculinity binary.

UPDATE: Reader Samantha C. says,

You know, I was all over this until the bit about “as a woman, you’ll totally still be able to go shopping and dress up tee hee”. And calling that life that of a “normal woman”. I just really hate those interests being universally assumed of all women.

I think it’s an excellent point.

The answer to that question matters because, even if bloggers don’t have the ability to control what we think, they do, to a certain extent, shape what we think about.  And bloggers can sometimes make enough noise to be heard.

Kay Steiger drew my attention to the findings of a study of the blogosphere by Technorati.  Below are a selection of their findings, click over for more on who blogs and answers to other interesting questions:

—————————

Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

Using maternal mortality, Hans Rosling illustrates the uncertainty in different ways of measuring variables:

Found at GapMinder.

—————————

Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

Caroline J. sent in a link to an anti-rape campaign in Scotland title This Is Not an Invitation to Rape Me. The campaign includes various posters with commentary on the myths associated with them. Some examples of the posters (the second one might not be safe for work, so after the jump):

more...

Jessica F. pointed out an interesting graphic at Fleshmap. They looked at which body parts are emphasized or referenced in different genres of music.

From the website:

Fleshmap is an inquiry into human desire, its collective shape and individual expressions. In a series of studies, we explore the relationship between the body and its visual and verbal representation.

You can also click on the genre headings and go to a larger breakdown of what percent of songs reference each body part.

I find this fascinating, in that it gives us some indication of which body parts might be considered particularly important for defining attractiveness to artists and listeners of various genres…and also which body parts are most likely to be criticized or ridiculed. After all, a reference to a body part may be mocking as well as complimentary.

Of course, there are always issues with dividing artistic works into genres (Who defines the genres? How do you decide which genre songs go into if they have things in common with things in more than one genre?). And while the website provides a methodology, it could definitely be clearer:

Based on a compilation of more than 10,000 songs, the piece visualizes the use of words representing body parts in popular culture. Each musical genre exhibits its own characteristic set of words, with more frequently used terms showing up as bigger images. The entrance image shows how many times different body parts are mentioned; the charts for each genre go into more detail, showing the usage of different synonyms for each part.

They don’t specify how many songs were in each genre, how they were assigned to genres, or what the compilation of 10,000 songs is. I wish we had that info. Still, it does tell us, generally, about some interesting patterns that show how different groups construct–and appreciate–the body differently.

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

In a previous post, Gwen explained that sugar consumption rose in Britain during the late 1800s because more nutritious foods were scarce and saved for men.  Women and girls, then, consumed sugar because it offered energy, even if less nutrition.  This led to an association of sugar with women that remains to this day (think of who supposedly LOVES chocolate, binges on ice cream after a break up, etc.).

While having tea with my friend Marie in Ireland, I spotted her bag of sugar and snapped a photo for the blog:

Notice that not only do we see a giant, lipsticked kiss on the bag, but their slogan, “spread a little sweetness” (plus heart and arrow!), is a statement with a double meaning invoking both sugar and a quality associated with/required of women.

NEW! Sarah D. snapped this photo of a sugar packet, also in Ireland:

See also this post on efforts to market chocolate to men.

—————————

Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

Jean Piaget, a psychologist who published his most influential works from the late 1920s through the 1950s, is most known for his theory of stages of cognitive development. He suggested a four-stage model that children go through as they develop more complex reasoning skills.

Children start out in the sensorimotor stage, which lasts until they’re roughly 2. They have no sense of themselves as individuals, obviously, and wouldn’t recognize their hand as “theirs.” They aren’t afraid of heights or touching something hot because they can’t grasp the idea of falling or something being hot–those ideas are too abstract.

Here’s a video that illustrates some of the limits of reasoning at this age:

In the preoperational stage (Piaget said it lasted from around age 2 until about 7), kids start being able to grasp symbols. For instance, they can draw a series of squares with a triangle on top to represent a house. They also start to learn the alphabet, which is, of course, the set of symbols we use to read and write.

On the other hand, they don’t understand abstract concepts like amounts, speed, or weight. In one of Piaget’s most famous experiments, he showed that children at this stage can’t comprehend that if you pour liquid from a short, wide glass into a tall, narrow glass, it’s still the same amount:

By the concrete operational stage (roughly 7-12 years old) kids comprehend ideas like weight, amount, and speed, and can understand that the amount of liquid in the two glasses is the same:

They can also understand causal relationships, though not necessarily explain the reasoning behind them. Here, the younger kid says what would happen if you hit a glass with a feather based on what he knows about feathers, whereas the older child reasons from the previous statement and answers according to the logic proposed (despite it being obviously inaccurate):

Finally, Piaget said that in the formal operational stage (after about age 12) kids can understand abstract concepts and reason logically. If you ask them what “justice” means, they can explain it. The girl in the last video, who reasoned from the previous statement (which had been presented as true), illustrates formal operational thinking.

Of course, there are questions about Piaget’s model (described in Kimmel and Aronson, 2009, Sociology Now). Do we really only go through each stage once? Might we have to go through some of them again when we hit new life challenges or milestones? Do we have to completely master one stage before we can progress, or is it possible to have some overlap? Are these stages universal? Would we expect childhood mental development to occur in the same way in a society where people are middle-aged by 20 as they would in one where they aren’t middle aged until 35 or 40? Might the fact that kids in some societies are given more “adult” tasks at a young age affect their mental development?

Of course, another issue comes up about the formal operational stage…Kohlberg and Gilligan (1971, “The Adolescent as Philosopher,” Daedalus, p. 1051-1086) estimated that about 30% of people in the U.S. never actually develop advanced abstract reasoning skills. I will make no further comment on that.

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