Associations of black people with monkeys and apes have been used for centuries to make them seem less-than-human and justify hatred and exploitation.  This associations continue to be propagated (e,g., here, here, and here).  This week Costco pulled the black “Lil’ Monkey” baby doll from its shelves, along with its white “Pretty Panda” counterpart, as a result of protests that it was racist.

As you can see, the black doll has on a hat that says “lil’ monkey,” is surrounded by products that have monkeys on them, as well as a stuffed monkey.  A peeled banana points at the child’s mouth.

Here is the white counterpart, the “Pretty Panda” doll:

The manufacturer of the dolls is claiming that there was no intention to be racist.  Specifically, they argued:

We don’t think in that way. We don’t operate in that kind of thinking.

Social psychologists have shown, robustly, that any given member of a society, even those who are the target of negative stereotypes, will hold pre-conscious stereotypical beliefs common in that society.  (If you’d like to test your own unconscious biases, and see aggregate test results of others, I highly recommend Harvard’s Project Implicit.)

The fact that we are all racist already, whether we like it or not, is the point that the manufacturer completely misses.  They do think in that way.  We all do.  Not thinking in that way consciously doesn’t mean that racism didn’t play a role in the manufacturing of a black Lil’ Monkey doll.  In fact, their defense actually makes things worse.  Their refusal to think about racism, in favor of a defensive reaction, is as racist as the doll itself.  We can’t fight racism unless we’re prepared to admit that we hold unconscious biases.

By the way, in my opinion, the proper response should have been: “Oh hell, we messed up bad. You are absolutely right. We are really bleeping sorry,” but with stronger curse words. And also: “Can I say I’m sorry again? In addition to racist, we were profoundly insensitive to centuries of violent hatred… and it is simply not okay.”

UPDATE: Commenters alerted me to alternative media coverage that made it clear that “Pretty Panda” and “Lil’ Monkey” dolls both came in black, white, and “Hispanic”:

I’m not sure why none of the media coverage I came across noted this.

In any case, I think this raises an even more interesting question: Does the history of associating black people with primates, and I will refer you again to this post, actually make any product that does so problematic?  Does the fact that the doll comes in white and Hispanic erase any concerns about the fact that the black doll exists?

As usual, our readers are quick to ask difficult questions and this discussion is already well under way in the comments.  What do you think?

Images from here, here, and here, via Resist Racism.

UPDATE: Comments on this post have been closed.

—————————

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

Jen S. emailed us about the controversy surrounding casting for the movie version of Nickelodeon’s cartoon “Avatar: The Last Airbender.” Jen describes the cartoon:

[It’s] set in a fantasy Asian world that also incorporated the philosophies, cultures, martial arts, and writing of a pan-Asian world. Multiple groups were brought in like the Media Action Network for Asian Americans and a master of Chinese calligraphy to bring an authentic Asian feel to the world and this was the main thing that made the cartoon an award winner. It was non European based and wasn’t afraid to use characters of Asian and Inuit cultures as the lead characters.

Fans of the series protested when it became clear that the cast for the movie was overwhelmingly Caucasian. The “bad” character, Zuko, was originally played by Jesse McCartney, a White actor/musician, but when he pulled out of the movie the role went to Dev Patel:

Jen says that in the cartoon, the “evil” characters were lighter-skinned than the heroes, but the casting has reversed that, and apparently several of the Asian-inspired elements from the cartoon have been removed for the movie because “they wanted to make the world ‘more diverse’ than the show and apparently that means an all white lead cast.”

Commenting in an article, Jackson Rathbone, the actor who plays Sokka, said,

I think it’s one of those things where I pull my hair up, shave the sides, and I definitely need a tan…

It’s unclear to me if he was saying he needs to do those things to look Asian enough to play the role, or was arguing that Sokka isn’t specifically Asian so Rathbone can play him, and either way it misses the point, but I suppose an actor isn’t likely to make an argument that someone else should have gotten their role instead of them.

The animatic editor of the cartoon series expressed disappointment that none of the main “good” protagonists will be played by Asian characters.

This reminded me of the debate about the Pixar movie “Up” that came out earlier this summer. One of the two main characters, and the only child, is Asian-American:

The character was apparently partially based on Pixar animator Pete Sohn:

Before the movie came out, I read an article in a magazine in which industry insiders expressed doubt about whether non-Asian kids would identify with an Asian-American character. The gist of the comments was that the movie might fail because kids might not like watching an Asian-American lead. Of course, the movie went on to gross over $287 million in the U.S. and $367 million worldwide by early August.

In another example, when faced with criticism of casting Whites as the main characters in “21,” a movie based on a book about actual Asian-American college students, the movie’s producer said,

Believe me, I would have loved to cast Asians in the lead roles, but the truth is, we didn’t have access to any bankable Asian American actors that we wanted…If I had known how upset the Asian American community would be about this, I would have picked a different story to film.

There were no bankable Asian American actors…that they “wanted.” None of the men on this page, for instance, are bankable. And the solution to concerns raised by Asian Americans about the lack of roles for Asian American actors isn’t to provide them more leads, or at least seriously engage in a discussion about the issue…it’s to pack up your toys and go film something else.

There are many other examples of movies in which characters that were Asian or Asian American in the source material (book, TV series, etc.) are played by Whites in the movie adaptation; the links above describe many of them. There still seems to be an assumption that male Asian American actors won’t appeal to a general audience, that they aren’t “bankable,” and that it’s therefore preferable to cast relatively unknown White actors over Asian American actors who may be more recognizable. It’ll be interesting to see if the Korean-American actor who plays one of the non-vampire characters in “Twilight” will now get as many opportunities as Jackson Rathbone, who also stars in the movie (but, from what I understand, actually has a less prominent role and smaller speaking part).

In a comment, reader Julian says,

And I have to wonder why no one has pointed out that in the original (animation), though all the characters are non-Caucasian, the only one with “slanted” or upturned eyes is the Bad Guy. Though lighter skinned, he looks like the one least likely to be able to “pass” as white to me. This strikes me as odd, and even weirder that no one has mentioned it, especially among all this talk of erasing/demonizing PoC.

Matt K. adds,

…I do recall that in anime, one shorthand for identifying good vs. evil characters is eyes. Good characters have huge eyes, round faces, and so forth. Evil characters have pointy chins and narrow eyes. Of course, of interest in a lot of anime is how so many of the characters look white…but that’s probably another story.

And Adam says,

I don’t think Up is a good counter-example given that it is narratively structured around colonialism in Latin America. I mean, was there even ONE single Latin American person in the film or even any refrence to the people who must have lived on the land they were tredding across and the sacred species whom they had been hunting/rescuing. No. Not to mention the dogs were racialized via popular physiognomy.

Also see our post on gender in Pixar films.

Hans Rosling illustrates the change in the percentage, but not the number, of people living in extreme poverty:

Found at GapMinder.

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.

Tristian B. told us about Jeanswest Australia’s Authentic Japanese Vintage Denim ad campaign, which features images of White people surrounded by groups of kneeling Japanese men or women:

Oddly enough, Andrea J. recently sent us a link to the Palm Pre “Flow” ad, which has a White woman using the Palm Pre while a group of identically-dressed Asians, none shot in a way that presents them as individuals, dancing around her as she discusses how nice it is when everything rearranges itself to do just what you want:

NEW! (Oct. ’09) Macon D. found another example of the use of generic, undifferentiated Asians as props.  This time in a performance by Shakira:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bZxN1Qq9K4[/youtube]

She gives the same performance on Saturday Night Live.

Gwen Stefani’s Harajuku Girls are another great example.

This reminds me a lot of some images from Britain’s Next Top Model that Lisa posted about last year, in which Africans were used as background props in a photo shoot with the contestants. The Asian individuals in these two ads are an undifferentiated mass, strikingly dressed and posed to show off the subjects of the ads–the White people who are foregrounded and depicted as specific, individual human beings rather than an interchangeable member of a group.

For other examples of non-Whites used as props, see our post about a fashion spread in Vogue Italia and this photo from NYLON magazine.

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

Cross-posted at Anglofille.

The Reclusive Leftist wonders why George Sodini’s mass murder of women in an aerobics class in Pennsylvania last week is not receiving more news coverage.  And also, why is the crime not being referred to as a hate crime?

If I want to read about the Pennsylvania shooting, I have to search for it. This evening I typed “George Sodini” (the murderer’s name) into the Google News search box. The stories that came up told me that Sodini was lonely; that he felt rejected by women; that he led a sad, bitter life; that he hadn’t had sex in years; that he longed for women to notice him. Well, isn’t that special.

I looked for the words “hate crime,” but only Ms. Magazine is referring to it that way. Good for them…But Ms. Magazine appears to be alone in its assessment. I can’t find any other media outlets calling the massacre a hate crime. If spraying bullets into a group of female strangers because you hate women isn’t a hate crime, what is?

Her conclusion, which I agree with, is that hatred of women is considered “natural and universal” and so we don’t even give it a thought.

In his NYT column, Bob Herbert nails it.  He refers to another mass murder of females in Pennsylvania, when in the autumn of 2006 a man went into an Amish school, separated the girls from the boys, then shot all the girls.  Herbert writes:

I wrote, at the time, that there would have been thunderous outrage if someone had separated potential victims by race or religion and then shot, say, only the blacks, or only the whites, or only the Jews. But if you shoot only the girls or only the women — not so much of an uproar…We have become so accustomed to living in a society saturated with misogyny that the barbaric treatment of women and girls has come to be more or less expected. We profess to being shocked at one or another of these outlandish crimes, but the shock wears off quickly in an environment in which the rape, murder and humiliation of females is not only a staple of the news, but an important cornerstone of the nation’s entertainment. The mainstream culture is filled with the most gruesome forms of misogyny, and pornography is now a multibillion-dollar industry — much of it controlled by mainstream U.S. corporations.

Sadly, Bob Herbert is in the extreme minority with his coverage of the Sodini story.  Instead, for most of the media, Sodini himself is the real victim – a victim of women.  This Boston Globe editorial is a perfect example.  According to the Globe, Sodini fits the “typical profile of an American psychopath: He was a loner who lamented his failure with women. His online diary was filled with fury over his sexual frustrations – claiming at one point to have been rejected by ‘30 million’ women. There are, of course, millions of frustrated men who don’t open fire on innocent civilians, so there’s a danger in making too much of his loser profile.”

Sodini is first described as a “psychopath” by the Globe but then by the end of the passage he’s just one of “millions of frustrated men” who are rejected by women.  What is implied here is that while most rejected men don’t commit mass murder, it’s understandable why George Sodini – or any man – could snap.  He was lonely!  Them bitches rejected him! Sodini, a psychopathic multiple murderer, is merely a victim of selfish, shallow females.

Imagine that instead of hating women, George Sodini hated and murdered Jews.  Imagine the Boston Globe writing this: “George Sodini tried to befriend many of the Jews in his town, but they rejected him.  Last week, he went down to the local synagogue and sprayed bullets everywhere.  There are, of course, millions of people around the world who are frustrated by Jews, but most of them don’t actually go out and kill, so there’s a danger of making too much of the fact that Jewish people had rejected Sodini in the past.”

This would be outrageous, of course.  Any attempt to rationalize murderous behavior and hatred like this is indefensible.  Yet female victims, when targeted because of their femaleness, aren’t accorded this kind of dignity and respect.  Instead, women are blamed.

I should point out that the main focus of the Globe’s editorial on Sodini is his racist blog posts against Obama.  A lot of other media have also made this the focus of the story, making racist blog posts against Obama equal in significance to mass murder of females. Because, you know, the Obama angle is more interesting and, let’s face it, more important.

The coverage of this case is, across the board, sickening.  Here are a few headlines:

The Huffington Post

The Telegraph U.K.

Associated Press (via Yahoo News)

The Times

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

And the list goes on.  In each case, we see that Sodini is the victim.  Nowhere do we see a headline like this: Misogynist Commits Mass Murder or Three Women Murdered in Hate Crime. The articles are clear that Sodini hated women, which of course he did, but for the media, if Sodini hated women, then there must be a reason for it.  A good reason. If George Sodini, a proven racist, had murdered African-Americans simply because of their race, would we be asking why George Sodini hated African-Americans?  No, because what possible legitimate reason could he have?  There isn’t one.  He’s a racist asshole and that’s the end of it.  But apparently, there are legitimate reasons to hate all women.  The articles try to explain, in rational terms, why Sodini hated women, thus making his rampage seem like the next logical step given his mental instability.  If women hadn’t deprived him of sex, none of this would have happened.

Here’s the opening of the story from the last headline above, from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

“George Sodini couldn’t find love. He tanned, worked out at the gym, held a steady job and still went nearly two decades without the loving touch of a woman, according to his online blog begun in November. He wrote that he felt totally alone — isolated — and estimated that 30 million desirable women rejected him in the last 30 years. Enraged, he hatched a heinous plan to make some of those pretty young women pay for his misery. The price would be their lives.”

This is just sick.  It’s beyond sick.  It reaches new levels of vileness.  You’ll notice that this, like a lot of the other coverage, is not written as a news report, but almost as entertainment.  Whoever wrote this seems to be taking some vicarious pleasure in the actions of Sodini.

Sodini worked out “and still went nearly two decades without the loving touch of a woman” [italics mine].  Poor George.  He did everything right, yet these cruel women rejected him.  What’s wrong with women?   When confronted with a vicious, hate-filled psychopath, they just ran in the other direction, without even considering his good qualities at all.  Typical!

For a moment, just imagine if George Sodini had had a girlfriend.  There can be virtually no doubt that she would have been physically and emotionally abused during the relationship, because George Sodini hated women.  If the woman had tried to escape from him, she would have been stalked and likely murdered.  And after he killed her, he would have probably committed a mass murder of women anyway.  The headline: Heartbroken Man Goes on Rampage After Being Dumped.

The real story here is not lonely men (there are plenty of lonely women as well), but instead, the real story is male violence against women and girls, which occurs every second of every day in the form of domestic abuse, molestation, harassment, rape and murder. There is no rational, legitimate reason for this hatred of women, yet it is widespread in our culture and everyday, women die as a result. Writes Herbert:

Life in the United States is mind-bogglingly violent. But we should take particular notice of the staggering amounts of violence brought down on the nation’s women and girls each and every day for no other reason than who they are. They are attacked because they are female. A girl or woman somewhere in the U.S. is sexually assaulted every couple of minutes or so. The number of seriously battered wives and girlfriends is far beyond the ability of any agency to count. There were so many sexual attacks against women in the armed forces that the Defense Department had to revise its entire approach to the problem. We would become much more sane, much healthier, as a society if we could bring ourselves to acknowledge that misogyny is a serious and pervasive problem, and that the twisted way so many men feel about women, combined with the absurdly easy availability of guns, is a toxic mix of the most tragic proportions.

This is the conversation we should be having.  Instead, the media is legitimizing Sodini’s misogyny and giving him the exact platform he craved – he’s gone out in a blaze of glory, with everyone dissecting his blog posts and commenting on his mistreatment and loneliness.

—————————

Anglofille is the nom de blog of an American ex-pat living in London.  She is finishing up a PhD in English and writing a novel with feminist themes.   She has previously written for Our Bodies, Ourselves, as well as numerous consumer magazines.

Jay L. sent in this Brylcreem commercial from the 1950s, in which men are warned that if they don’t have well-styled, healthy hair, they won’t get the girl next door:

Notice the creepy cartoon characters at about 0:48. Jay says,

He is obviously turned on by the girl, so he elbows the tube, which ejaculates a white blob that falls onto his head. The girl returns to run her hands through it.

Here’s another commercial that tells men if they don’t use Brylcreem, they’ll actually disgust women and make them run away:

Also see this Just for Men commercial that tells men grey hair will hurt them on the dating scene, this one about career insecurity, and this one that equates grey hair with a loss of masculine virility.

The idea that work and home are in different places was institutionalized only recently in human history (and is still not reality everywhere).  In early American history, most people were farmers.  Both men and women worked at home.  The technological advances that brought industrialization removed work from home.  The factory was invented to house large machinery and many workers.  Enter: wage work, the commute, and wives that “just” stayed home.

Today, the idea that work and home are separate places is largely taken for granted (though this may be reversing a bit) and is, in fact, institutionalized with zoning laws that specify whether space is to be used for work (and what kind), living, or both.

Dmitriy T.M. sent us a link to the images below.  They compare the population of New York City and its boroughs the bottom two-thirds of Manhattan and parts of New Jersey, Brooklyn, and Queens during the day and night.  It reveals nicely how we are organized so as to use different spaces differently.

—————————

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

U.S. tobacco companies–through political donations, lobbying efforts, and networks–are able to exert some control over the degree to which, and how, the U.S. government controls its industry.  One area of resistance involves warning labels.  The tobacco company has been resisting the very idea that cigarettes cause cancer, and the advertising of this fact, for decades.

This photo of cigarettes on sale at a duty free shop in Düsseldorf, Germany, sent in by Steve W., gives us some perspective on just how successful they’ve been:

Here, for comparison, is a photo of cartons of Marlboro’s on sale in Texas:

In case you can’t read it, the large text above the “Marlboro” logo reads: “Flip Top Box.”

—————————

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