Breck C. encouraged us to post about photographs of body building women from a new book.  When Feministe and Boing Boing posted about them it, predictably, prompted a rash of comments to the effect of “those women are gross/disgusting/unattractive.”

I think Roy at No Cookies For Me says it best:

It doesn’t matter if you find those women attractive or not. They’re very likely not doing it for you. That you find body building “grotesque” is completely beside, behind, or even miles away from the point. Nobody gives a shit that you find it disgusting. If you find it disgusting? Don’t do it. [And n]obody is trying to make you become or date a body builder…

Nicely put.  This reflexive judging of women’s attractiveness reveals the entitlement that many feel to be aesthetically pleased by women’s appearance and, thus, the expectation that women owe it to the world to be attractive (as the world defines it, of course).  It also demonstrates the related idea that women are, first and foremost and no matter what else they do, sexual objects.

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.

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.

In this ad American Freedom Center at Valley Forge asks for donations to support the fight against terrorism:

Via Vintage Ads.

I used to like whiskey, but after seeing this two-page ad, I feel like I may no longer be manly enough to drink it. My personal high-water mark is somewhere around a sprained ankle or *maybe* a broken finger– nowhere near a sawed-off leg. Besides, the last thing I need is the Man-Police arresting me at my favorite bar for “Drinking-Whiskey-While-Having-A-Low-Pain-Tolerance”…I think the penalty is a stiff fine and 200 hours of Steven Segal movies.

Oh well, I guess it’s vodka cranberries from now on…

NEW: Here’s another 2-page Jim Beam ad, in which the message is clearly that wine is a sissy drink:

The belief that men and women are “opposite sexes” doesn’t come out of thin air.  It doesn’t, very often, come out of our life experience either, as most people most of us know are not living stereotypes.  No, in fact we are TOLD that men and women are “opposite sexes” constantly.  Consider this submission from Andrea G.:

You can now buy One-A-Day vitamins for teens, boy and girl teens that is (and in case you can’t tell which one is which, they’re color-coded).  According to Women’s Health News, the vitamins “for him” have more magnesium and the vitamins “for her” have more calcium and iron.

(1) Notice the obnoxious invisibility of dad (my emphasis):

Did you know there are gender specific teen multivitamins to address the top health concerns of moms and teens?

This is annoying, of course, because it reproduces the idea that dads don’t care about or aren’t paying attention to their kids.  But it’s also kind of ridiculous because, as long as we’re going by stereotypes, if there’s one social group less concerned with health than men, it’s teenagers.

(2)  I will leave aside whether teenaged female and male bodies are so dramatically different that they need different vitamins and minerals (I am not convinced), and instead just point out that One-A-Day has gendered what vitamins are for.  Check out the first bullet point in the close-up (in case you can’t tell which is which, the “For Him” is in block letters with stripes across his torso and the “For Her” is in cursive with spirally curves):

So boys need vitamins for muscles and girls need vitamins for clear skin?

I bet these vitamins will sell like hotcakes.

Thanks Andrea!

Here are some great World War II-era comic book (graphic novels! Whatever!) covers and/or posters (all found at Superdickery’s Propaganda Extravaganza page, thanks to Krystal-lynn M.). They all combine patriotism, pro-war sentiment, and racist images:

The Black kid on this next cover is named Whitewash:

Thanks, Krystal-lynn!

I found these three ads for a private jet service in those magazines for excrutiatingly excruciatingly rich people that I’ve been posting from lately. Each ad–one for Marquis Jet and two for Delta AirElite–are pitching their service by suggesting that having a membership in their private jet service will help them be a good Dad because they can get home–for dinner, the game, or some quality time–from anywhere fast. Comments below.

Text:

It’s not just a card.

It’s a choice.

A choice to escape from it all.

A choice to get closer to what’s important.

Text:

9:00AM.   Meeting with group of investors.

1:30PM.  Meeting with district managers.

7:00PM.  The most important meeting of all.

Text:

Make 120 sales pitches on the road.

Listen to pitches in 25 different company offices.

Be there for the most important pitch.

It’s pretty unusual to see ads that highlight a Dad’s relationship with his children. And that’s pretty neat. But, second, the implication is that only men at the extremes of economic success can “afford” to be an ideal father. Hypothetically, I wonder how many people working for that Dad have the privilege of taking a private jet and getting home in time for dinner? My guess would be: Very few. In that sense, these ads uphold the idea that men’s primary role in their children’s lives involves bringing home the bacon and, if you’re really, really, really good at that (and really, really lucky and, likely, very privileged to begin with), you get to be a part of their lives too.

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.

Blanca and Stephanie brought this video, called “The Race Flag,” to my attention. In it, a referee penalizes African Americans who use “the race card” too eagerly (go here if the video doesn’t show up right):

It’s an interesting clip that plays on the idea of African Americans as over-sensitive, bitter whiners who see racial insult (or at least claim to) where none was intended. It might be useful for sparking a discussion about what we mean by “playing the race card.” For instance, what’s the difference between playing the race card…and pointing out actual incidents of discrimination? Obviously the difference, based on this video, is that playing the race card means the person is over-reacting and making ridiculous accusations. But “over-reacting” is a subjective term, and the idea of playing the race card assumes that there wasn’t any actual discrimination or prejudice. But most of the time we don’t have video cameras that can clearly catch everyone’s intentions and actions on tape for review. Concerns about playing the race card tend to ignore the very real fact that minorities often do face discrimination and prejudice (as well as backhanded compliments like “You’re so articulate!”) in the workplace. While I’m sure there are African American workers who make unwarranted accusations of racism (just as there are examples of almost any behavior you can think of), I’m also quite certain that there are employers and coworkers who engage in discriminatory actions but then deny any racist intent and accuse anyone who complains of playing the race card.

I’d also point out that Whites use the race card, too: I cannot tell you how many of my White students have told me that they did not get a job, into a particular college, etc., because they are White. Sometimes they say a manager/friend/etc. told them the company “had” to hire a minority “to meet quota.” Other times they’ve simply inferred, from the fact that they can see no other possible explanation for not getting said job/college acceptance letter/etc., that it must have been because they are White.

You might pair this with the chapter “‘Racing for Innocence’: Whiteness, Corporate Culture, and the Backlash against Affirmative Action,” by Jennifer L. Pierce, from White Out: The Continuing Significance of Racism (2003).

Apparently the same people who made that video made this one, which laughs at the idea of the Republican Party trying to woo African Americans (found here):

I’ll leave the commentary on that one to our readers, if they feel so inclined.

Thanks, Blanca and Stephanie!