Men and women are often pitted against each other, as if they are naturally and inevitably in opposition. This creates the conditions for a “battle of the sexes.” The implication is, of course, that it’s a zero sum game. When women win, men lose.

We socialize young children into thinking with gender (it’s always, somehow, boys vs. girls) and seeing the other sex as an enemy or competitor. Illustrating this, izhero sent us links to a set of t-shirts for young girls sold at David & Goliath Tees. The message for girls is, essentially, “boys drool, girls rule,” situating women and men in opposition, and setting girls up for a lifetime of battling the “opposite” sex.

—————————

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

Clayton W. alerted us to this September’s issue of Harper’s Bazaar. Paul Goude decided to photograph Naomi Campbell as if she were in Africa with animals.  Clayton writes that it “…very nearly turns her into some sort of animal.”  Below are some images from the photo shoot, courtesy of Womanist Musings (via Feministing):

On this cover of Vibe, Lil’ Kim is posed animalistically and, it is asserted, she is “ready to roar”:

NEW! Naomi Campbell, is also put in leopard print in this photo in the December 2008 issue of Russian Vogue (found here):

ALSO NEW! Iman with a cheetah, and with a cheetah print scarf on her head, as photographed by Peter Beard, 1985 (found here):

ALSO ALSO NEW! These two pictures of Grace Jones (from here) involve animalization (explicitly in the second case). These images may not be safe for work, so I’ve put them after the jump, along with another example:

more...

This clip from The Daily Show nicely illustrates how ridiculous and utterly meaningless the statistics we encounter can be:

This probably goes without saying, but there are multiple problems here:

1. Viewers of these shows are a self-selected group who are quite likely watching because they agree with the hosts to some degree, so it wouldn’t be surprising they’d agree with the hosts’ views.

2. Viewers who care enough to text are an even more unusual group, likely to be those who feel most passionately about an issue.

3. Only those people watching the show and are able to text right then are able to vote.

4. The wording of the questions is clearly intended to lead to a particular answer, using leading phrases like “are you outraged,” which responsible social scientists would never use–any question that uses something along the lines of “don’t you agree” or “wouldn’t you say that” makes it more likely the respondents will, indeed, agree with the point.

5. The hosts actively cajole viewers to give a specific answer if they aren’t getting as many of that answer as they wanted.

Of course, the hosts aren’t trying to present factual, useful information and almost certainly know very well that they’re manipulating questions to get results that will appear to overwhelmingly support their position. But we’re inundated with “statistics” such as these every day that are completely meaningless, but many many people don’t know how to evaluate them. This little clip shows some of the things a person should look for as an indication that a number was created to support a particular viewpoint and should be viewed with extreme skepticism, if not dismissed altogether.

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

The income gap between the rich and the poor is larger in the U.S. than in most other industrialized countries.  Last year we posted data about the percent of total U.S. income that went to the top 1% of earners (23% as of 2006).

The graph below, recently updated to 2007, shows the percent of total U.S. income that went to the top 0.01%, that is 1/100th of one percent, of earners:

As you can see, in 2007,  the top 1/100th of 1% of earners in the U.S. brings home 6% of the total income earned in the U.S.  This represents the largest proportion of total income since at least 1913, and is the endpoint in a trajectory of rising inequality that began in the early 1980s.

Also see our posts breaking down CEO compensation, on the disproportionate tax burden by social class, and on class inequality across U.S. states.

Data borrowed from economist Emmanuel Saez, via Matthew Yglesias.

—————————

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

In a list of 15 contrasting billboards on Buzzfeed, I found these three:

I usually think of public service announcements as a form of education.  Presumably there’s a harmful ignorance out there somewhere that can be corrected.  But these contrasts bring into stark relief the fact that public service announcements aren’t only fighting ignorance, they’re fighting corporations.  The battle isn’t just between misinformation and information, it’s between for-profit and non-profit organizations.

—————————

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

Often when we have an image related to PETA we add it to one of our existing posts, since they tend to be similar–mostly sexualizing women or showing them as bloody meat. But Jessica B. and Dmitriy T.M. told us about a PETA billboard that takes a different angle, and I thought it was worth its very own post:

Found at The Huffington Post.

This is just…ugh. Erg. !!! ??? !!!

I’m sorry, but that’s the most coherent I can be about this. I’m sure our commenters will be able to make more useful points about it.

Well, ok, I have one more thought: the implication is that being a vegetarian will automatically make you lose weight. That’s just dumb, or more likely intentionally misleading.

UPDATE: Anomie let me know that there’s at least one version about men (found here):

Two more examples with men here.

Related posts: women in (fake) lettuce bikinis, Dutch animal rights ad shows stripper brutally murdered, not sexualizing older women, PETA ad banned from Superbowl, women as bloody packaged meat, Holocaust on Your Plate campaign, using domestic violence to oppose animal abuse, Christina Applegate naked, more naked celebrities, and leftist balkanization.

Matt C. snapped some pictures of the advertising campaign for the movie Captivity (2007) in Los Angeles.  According to this billboard, it’s about abduction, confinement, torture, and termination:

What Matt found interesting was that some of this advertising was placed immediately outside of stores that cater to small children and their parents.  Check it out:


Does this suggest to you that we have become so desensitized to violent imagery that no one thinks to, or is empowered to, object when such images are placed at the entrance to children’s spaces?  Or, is the image in question considered tame compared with other imagery we regularly consume (the billboard, for example) and, therefore, unremarkable?

More pictures on Matt’s blog.

—————————

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

In my Intro to Soc course I assign K.R. Thompson’s article “Handling the Stigma of Handling the Dead: Morticians and Funeral Directors” (Deviant Behavior 1991, v. 12, p. 403-429). Thompson looked at how those involved in preparing the dead for burial and planning funerals try to manage the negative perceptions they suspect much of the public has of them. Language was a major way they tried to do this–redefining themselves as “funeral directors” rather than “morticians” or “undertakers,” referring to dead people as “the deceased” rather than “the body” or “the corpse,” “casket” rather than “coffin,” and so on. The point was to try to reduce the association with death–to never blatantly refer to death at all.

They also tried to avoid what they felt were stereotypes of funeral directors. Some mentioned trying not to wear black suits, and one man went so far as to keep hand warmers in his pockets so his hands would be warm when he shook family members’ hands–a reaction to what he said was a belief that funeral directors have cold, clammy hands. Others lived in a different town than where they worked and tried to keep their careers secret.

All of this was an attempt to avoid the stigma often placed on those who handle the dead (found in many cultures). We often suspect those who do so, thinking they must be creepy to be willing to do that kind of work. In addition, funeral directors are often depicted as unethical individuals who profit from a family’s pain and who can manipulate people while they are emotionally vulnerable.

I thought of that article when Lisa sent me a link to an article in Obit Magazine about the 2008 Men of Mortuaries calendar, which raised money for a breast-cancer charity:

The article directly discusses stereotypes:

Aren’t undertakers old, gray of complexion, gaunt and, well, creepy?

Four hundred morticians and funeral directors from across the country who defy that stereotype sent applications to Kenneth McKenzie’s funeral home in Long Beach, Ca., to vie for a month in the calendar…

Also:

McKenzie sees the calendars as a humorous way to dispel the notion that morticians “are gray-haired and hunchbacked with no personality.”

Interestingly, the article does use the word “mortician,” so apparently some in the industry are still comfortable with the term. But overall, I think the calendar and the quotes from the article demonstrate the effort to manage stigma quite well.

CLARIFICATION: In light of a previous post about a calendar featuring nudity, some commenters are conversing about whether this calendar is objectifying or humanizing. That is an interesting, appropriate question and certainly worth discussing. I wanted to clarify, though, that I wasn’t trying to answer that particular question in this post. I only meant to suggest that the calendar was an example of an attempt at humanizing funeral directors in order to manage perceived stigma, which isn’t the same as saying it’s a good or effective attempt (or a bad or ineffective one, for that matter).