I saw this energy drink this morning at a gas station. Notice that it’s sugar-free. According to the website, a portion of proceeds goes to fight breast cancer, though it’s unclear if they mean a portion of the profits of the drink, or just things bought at the online store. Another example of the idea of doing good through consumption, not by just donating money directly to an organization addressing an issue you care about (for other examples see here, here and here). Also, the website says Go Girl is not a rehydration drink (such as Gatorade), but a “functional beverage,” whatever that is.

This ad “liberates” women from the kitchen through technology and capitalism… but not, alas, through true partnerships with men. Women should spend less time cooking, but it’s still HER job.

Oh, also, the reason women haven’t achieved greatness in the United States is because she’s too busy to be bothered. It has absolutely nothing to do with sexism and institutional constraints.

Thanks to Julie C!

This ad, from the 1970s (I think), has the exact same message:  “For women with more exciting things to do than scrub floors: ‘One-step floor care.'”  Congratulations women, now you can scrub floors faster… but don’t think you can get out of scrubbing floors.

Found at Vintage Ads.

And this one, from the 1950s (I think) is extra creepy (found here).  Like the other ads, it replaces “women’s work” with a technological solution.  And that solution a gift from her husband.  The text:

The one gift that quietly ends garbage ‘trudgery’ — frees the little woman from disagreeable trips to the garbage can… She’ll thank you every time she uses it…

Those of you teaching classes in sports or education might find this graph useful (click to enlarge). It shows which sports receive the most money in sports scholarships (Division I and II men’s and women’s teams) and what percentage of a full scholarship, on average, students in each sport are awarded. The take home message of the accompanying New York Times article is that while students and parents work tremendously hard to get sports scholarships, they rarely pay off in the long run, even when they get them. In the meantime, students are overworked on the field and suffering academically.

This quick video presents an American and a Swedish military recruitment commercial back-to-back.

Our member blogger, Wendy, who is writing her dissertation on the military, had this to say:

The most striking difference between these ads to me is what these commercials choose to show and what they don’t show to recruit new members.

The Marines’ commercial focuses on the duty, bravery, glory, honor aspects of service. And this is entirely focused inward– toward the Marines and the country’s goals (and in that order– Marines’ loyalties are to “unit, Corps, God and country” in that order). Where is the “other” in this commercial (that is such a part of the Sweden commercial)? Who is the “for honor” for? Who is the “for courage” for? It seems implicitly to be to the corps.

This is right in line with most Marine discourse. All of their recruitment info is the same– the focus is on the corps, and on the highly specialized ways Marines serve. As a popular Marine slogan says “The USMC: When it absolutely, positively must be destroyed overnight.”

And the Swedish commercial is even more fascinating. There is no focus on the actual members of the Nordic Battlegroup. Instead it is all about everyday people– both in Sweden and in countries experiencing conflict. The focus is on the privilege of living in a country not at war (”everybody’s everyday is not like ours”).

The images of war in this commercial are disturbing– hectic, scary and out of control. This is the exact opposite of the Marine commercial where everything is ordered and organized and machines (helicopters, guns) are shown as extension of this order and control– instead of in a context of chaos. There’s a HUGE disconnect between the weapons shown and what they actually DO during war.

War in all its chaos is present in the Swedish commercial, and absent from the Marines commercial. That in and of itself is interesting.

Via Spiked Humor

Thanks to Julie C. for this tip!

More entertaining figures for your methods classes! These are from Indexed and were suggested by Moonsinger. Thanks!

Positive:

Negative:

Positive and Negative:

U-shaped:

Bell curve:

No correlation:

This first graph shows the relative increase in the incomes (inflation adjusted) of the top 1% of income earning households, the middle 60% and the lowest 20% (percentages, presumably, approximate) since 1979.

This second graph shows a more detailed picture of the relative increase in the incomes (inflation adjusted) of households in the 95th , 80th, 60th, 40th, and 20th percentile since 1949. Note how household incomes were rising at about the same rate prior to 1970, at which point those households in the 95th percentile started out growing other percentiles, those in the 20th stayed stagnant, and those in between were somewhere in between.

I borrowed these graphs from Lane Kenworthy, who also offers a truly excellent and detailed explanation of the measures.

.

This is an ad I found in The New Yorker for Patek Philippe watches. The text in the lower-left corner says “You never actually own a Patrick Philippe. You merely take care of it for the next generation.” So by buying an expensive, new watch, you’re creating a “tradition.” I’m going to use this in the future when I talk about inventing traditions.