Over at Everyday Sociology, Janis Inniss posted about interracial relationships and she offered a graph showing 30 years of marriages of white men to black women and black men to white women.  Describing it, she writes:

Looking at the graph below, you will see that the black female/white male pairings of today are about what they were 30 years ago for black male/white female dyads. (The blue line represents black husband/white wife). In other words, today, white men and black women marry at about the same rate that black men and white men married about three decades ago.

So, why would there be a difference in the marriages between white men/black women and black men/white women? I suspect that this has to do with the intersection of gender and race. Consider: according to American cultural stereotypes, black people, both men and women, are more masculine than white people. Black men are seen as, somehow, more masculine than white men: they are, stereotypically, more aggressive, more violent, larger, more sexual, and more athletic. Black women, too, as seen as more masculine than white women: they are louder, bossier, more opinionated and, like men, more sexual and more athletic.

If men are supposed to be sexy by virtue of their masculinity and women sexy by virtue of their femininity, then black men and white women will be seen as the more sexually attractive than white men and black women.  So, while white men may not find black women particularly attractive, white women may very well find black men attractive.  In this is so, we might see the patterns that Inniss demonstrates with her table.

These concrete statistics, as well as the cultural stereotypes that position black women as undesirable, help explain why interracial dating is politicized by many in the black community.  It is not trivial that black men can date outside of their race and black women are less able to do so.  It means that many black women have less opportunity to form long-term relationships.

Chris Uggen put together a pie chart of U.S. arrests (FBI statistics 2007) in order to show that “only a small proportion of arrests involve violent crimes such as murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault” (see it here):

In 2007, only 4% of arrests were for violent crimes; another 12% were for crimes like burglary, theft, and arson; drug offenses (including drunkenness and DUIs) accounted for 31% of arrests.

Uggen mentions that he shows this data, in part, to talk about the way in which arrests for drug offenses disrupt families and neighborhoods.  Low income neighborhoods are devastated by the transfer (to put it nicely) of huge numbers of adult males to jails and prisons.  Those men are not overwhelmingly committing violent crimes (as stereotype suggest), but are imprisoned because of the intensive policing of drug crimes in those neighborhoods.  In another post, we put up a table that showed how the “drug war” that started in the 1980s disproportionately affected blacks.

For more on crime and imprisonment, see this post on the ineffectiveness of racial profiling, this table on the percentage of children with parents in prison by race, and this table that compares incarceration rates across countries.

This commercial hints at the femininity of a driver who is not driving a Chevy Silverado truck. Discourses of masculinity and femininity are pretty common in advertising, but notice that all the spokesperson (Howie Long, Hall of Fame football player and all-around manly tough guy) has to do is hint at it here:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cagPZOAtZp4[/youtube]

I am curious as to what you, Readers, think of the recent rash of advertising capitalizing on Obama’s “brand.” Here are some examples (found here, here, here, and here).

Budweiser American Ale:

A language school in Israel:

Ikea:

In other posts we’ve suggested that ads that appropriate feminism trivialize gender inequality and ultimatly undermine feminist efforts to attain social justice for women (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).  Like many of the “feminist” ads, these ads seem to be genuinely celebrating Obama’s election.  Do they?  Or do they trivialize everything he claim to stand for and the difficult road ahead for both him and the country? Something in between? Something else entirely?

What do you think?

NEW: Breck C. pointed out the Obama Chia Pet:

Amid a controversy that the Obama Chia pet was racist, Walgreens pulled the product.

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.

The New York Times put together an interactive graphic showing, for each U.S. President’s in augural speech, a word cloud with the most used words, with larger words being used more frequently than smaller words.  Click here to see the whole thing and look at any specific speech.

Here is Obama’s speech.  The words in yellow (“generation,” “crisis,” “hard,” “job,” “women,” and “endure) were used more by Obama than in the average inaugural speech:

This is interesting because it helps us see what is being emphasized by different President’s at different times, and also how language changes. For example, for George Washington in 1789, the word “God” was not among his most used  He does, however, use the word “pecuniary” (of or relating to money) a lot.

Via infosthetics.

Inspired by a recent post about a T-shirt where an Asian stereotype was saying I SPEAK ENGRISH, I thought of the perennial online popularity of “Engrish” in general. Engrish.com, one of the oldest such compendia on the Web, offers a selection of photos from clothing, packaging, menus, signs, etc., largely from Asian companies. All of these photos have been collected for their supposed humor value because they contain text poorly translated into English, English text that seems incongruous with whatever it’s describing, and/or place names that sound taboo in English. Examples below the cut [some taken from the Adult Engrish section and thus possibly NSFW].  more...

D. Cho sent in these t-shirts, which make fun of Asians who speak accented English:

Found here. The buck teeth, squinty eyes, and hat are a nice touch.

Found here.

The face on this one is supposed to be Kim Jong Il, and I believe the “Oh Reary?” references the movie “Team America, World Police,” though I bet a lot of people won’t get the reference and will think it just makes fun of how Asians supposedly speak:

This one (found here) might appeal to the man in your life you enjoys sex tourism to Thailand, if you’re looking for gift ideas:

This photo is interesting because they put the t-shirt that has a camel on it (and that plays on the derogatory term “camel jockey” often used for Middle Easterners) on a model who I think we are supposed to view as Middle Eastern–not quite the ethnic diversity in models that I’ve hoped for:

Why he is wearing four shirts, I do not know.

You might use them to talk about stereotypes and racial humor, or why people never tire of t-shirts with tired puns on them.

Go over to the Contexts Podcast page to listen to a segment where Lisa and I are interviewed about Sociological Images and the joys and pitfalls of blogging–and give a shout-out to our readers and commenters. I don’t promise you we are interesting, or that I sound at all coherent.

And shut up! I know how horrible and squeaky and ridiculous my voice sounds on tape! I know that!