animals

In a comment to Lisa’s post on being a dog or cat person, a. brown pointed out Alpo’s new Get that Dog Some Alpo campaign, in which dogs who enjoy stereotypically high-maintenance feminine activities (pedicures, massages, fancy food, expensive accessories) need to be turned back into “real,” authentic dogs by eating meat, in the form of Alpo. I’ll leave comments about whether or not Alpo has what can realistically be defined as meat in it to others. Here are some screenshots from the site. Notice the language is always “he” or “his” if a gender is specified:

Here are two questions from a quiz you can take to find out if your dog is a Fido or a Fifi:

I’ll just say, for the record, there’s no way that a vegan doggie spa just let someone in to feed Alpo to customers’ dogs without their permission. Absolutely and entirely no way. Their customers would freak out. Also, they would have a horrid, horrid mess to clean up about a half hour later.

What I find interesting here is the association between masculinity and authenticity, while femininity is associated with the upper class, superficiality, and high-maintenance luxury. So “real” dogs like sports and sex (and meat), while dogs who are pampered are somehow less authentic dogs (and presumably don’t care about sex or sports).

And I don’t know where my dogs fit in! They aren’t super-pampered, so at first I thought they’re “real dogs,” but then I realized they’re both neutered, so they don’t care about sex. Are they Fifis or Fidos? [Note: I went through and randomly selected answers in the quiz without even reading the questions and the response was that my dogs are “Vegas” dogs; given that’s where we live, I guess it’ll do.]

Anyway, you might use this to talk about the associations between a certain working-class masculinity and authenticity, in opposition to the way femininity is often connected to artifice and fakeness.

Thanks for the tip, a. brown!

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

What do we really mean when we ask someone if they’re a dog person or a cat person?  Wait… think hard… what are you really asking?

I think we’re asking if a person is more masculine or feminine.  After all, don’t we stereotype women as cat people and men as dog people?  And don’t we think men with cats are a little femmy or, at minimum, sweeter than most… even, maybe, gay?  And don’t we imagine that chicks with dogs are a little less girly than most, a little more rough and tumble?  The cat person/dog person dichotomy is gendered.

This might explain why we continue to insist that dogs and cats are natural enemies. We tend to insist that dogs and cats don’t get along in the face of millions of households in which they get along just fine.  These are Gwen’s pets (clockwise Shadow Cat, Rocky, and Corky):

They are clearly at each other’s throats constantly.

And, have you ever noticed that being a dog person is sort of cooler?  Like, it’s cool to be a dog person, but less cool to be a cat person?  I mean, no one ever fears ending up a “crazy dog lady,” and it’s not just because of the lack of alliteration.  You see because gender is hierarchical, so is the dog person/cat person dichotomy. I hate being asked if I’m a dog or cat person.  I have two cats, but I love dogs equally, and that doesn’t make me less cool than Gwen.  (We’re obviously equally cool.)

Also!

Cats aren’t all alike.  Neither are dogs.  So you can’t be a dog person or a cat person.  It’s nonsensical.

And another thing!

If you want to get all stereotypical about it, I’ll just say that (1) if dogs are dependent, passive, and happily subordinated to their owners, while cats are independent but offer nice companionship, and (2) women are “cat people” and men are “dog people,” then (3) men are really oppressive bastards who can’t stand a relationship with an equal and women are inherently democratic and don’t desire power (none of which I believe).  So let’s not go there, okay?

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.

Mary T. sent in a photo she took of the cover of the Spanish (as in, from Spain) magazine Muy Interesante. It’s Not Safe for Work.

more...

Text: “The Hunt Is On.”

A fashion spread (note the “safari” colors”):

Other ads had the text: “Going in for the kill has never been so satisfying” and “Animal attraction is meant to be acted on.”

Text: “Her primal urges may be fulfilled, but he’s still hot on her trail.”

Text: “He spots his prey…”

Five-page ad for Dentyne:

Text:

INTRODUCTION:  Admit it, guys.  No matter where you are, you’re thinking about it.

It’s okay.  Ever since you were a cave dweller.  Hunting has come naturally.   But you won’t get anywhere with cave breath.

So aside from having a mouth that won’t scare her off, we’ve outlined some fundamental basics you’ll need to master when out on the hunt.

Let’s get started.  Happy hunting.

THE SPECIES:  First of all, you have to know what you’re hunting.  Here are some common species you may encounter on your expeditions.  Good luck.

THE CAREER GIRL:  The one in a power suit with a cell phone attached to her ear, tends to be icy and dismissive but can be melted.  Play your cards right and you will be a kept man.  Habitat: Gym, high-end shoe stores, assertiveness-training classes.

THE HOT GIRL: Hot and know it.  Will toy with you like a cat with a mouse (if she even notices you).  Tame this one and you can write your own guide.  Habitat: The market, the bus, living next door to your girlfriend.

Text:

THE EASY GIRL:  Appearances vary, but the same willing soul resides within.  A sure thing that can be a temporary boost to the ego.  Habitat:   Could be anywhere.  Good chance you’ll spot her at happy hour.

THE TEASE:  Easily mistaken for the easy girl, she’s anything but.  Habitat: Anywhere.

THE CHATTY GIRL:  You won’t recognize her until you say ‘Hi.’  Then it’s too late.  To escape, fake getting a phone call and say you’ll be ‘right back.’  Habitat: Almost anywhere except a library.

THE BOHEMIAN ROCKER GIRL: Odds are she’s no musician.  Just dresses like one.  Look interested when she talks about all the ‘projects’ she has going on while not being an administrative assistant.  Habitat: Used record stores, art museums, open mic night.

Text:

RULES WHEN OUT IN THE FIELD:

Look her in the eye, not the anatomy.

Practice chivaly.  Unless she’s a militant feminist, she’ll like it.

Compliment her outfit.  Lie if you have to.

Look interested when she talks about her cat.

If you get shot down, move on to one of her friends.

Pop in a piece of Dentyne before making any moves.

RED FLAGS:

In the first five minutes, she mentions an ex.

She says she has to go home and take her ‘medication.’

She’s made plans for the two of you next weekend.

She knows every bartender by name.

She has an adam’s apple.

Text:

THE ARSENAL:

Money (it never hurts).

Your own place.  Living above mom and dad’s garage doesn’t count.

Perseverance, it’s tough out there.

Plenty of Dentyne gum.

These all remind me of an unfortunate Target billboard.

Thanks to my students who have brought these in over the years!

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 my post a few weeks back about stuff kids bring to college, I had a photo of a teddy bear lying atop a pile of belongings that included pink bed linens. Obviously, it belonged to a girl. (There was a purse in the picture, but even without it. . . .)

A couple of days later, Lisa at Sociological Images had a post reminding us that pink was once the color for boys. She linked to an article by Ben Goldacre in the Guardian.

The Sunday Sentinel in 1914 told American mothers: “If you like the colour note on the little one’s garments, use pink for the boy and blue for the girl, if you are a follower of convention.”

Goldacre uses this bit of history to debunk the claim recently made by evolutionary psychologists that girls’ preference for pink was an outcome of evolution.

But what about the teddy bear? Isn’t there something feminine, a maternal instinct perhaps, that leads girls to keep these soft, childhood objects? It is only girls, right?

Wait, now I remember seeing NYC sanitation trucks with a teddy bear mounted on the grill like a bowsprit mermaid. And Sebastian Flyte in Brideshead Revisited who takes his bear Aloysius with him to Oxford.

Now there’s a DVD* about a Teddy bear snapshot exhibition by Canadian Ydessa Hendeles – thousands of photos from the early twentieth century of people posing with their bears. And it’s not just girls.

*The DVD is of a documentary film by Agnès Varda, who interviews the visitors to the exhibit.

Hat tip to Magda

Jay Livingston is the chair of the Sociology Department at Montclair State University. You can follow him at Montclair SocioBlog or on Twitter.

This, dear reader, is a pound of Kopi Luwak Arabica coffee, for sale here:

You can buy a pound of this gourmet coffee for just $180. If you’re on a budget, you can get 2 ounces for $40.

Now, you may be wondering, is it worth it? Should I spend so much for coffee? Luwakcoffee.com believes that it is:

Yes, the coffee is expensive, but so are all of the better things in life. You have to pay more for quality or uniqueness. This is a class issue: part of what you are paying for is exclusiveness, the knowledge that not everyone can afford a Chanel bag or Christian Louboutin shoes or Kopi Luwak coffee. Its inaccessibility to the masses is part of how you know it is worth having. And from this perspective, Kopi Luwak is quite desirable: at most 1,000 pounds or so make it to market each year, which makes it so expensive. It’s so desirable, it was included in the 2006 Emmy Awards gift bags for celebrities!

Now, at this point an ignorant but aspiring gourmand might ask, “What, pray tell, is so special about Kopi Luwak coffee? What is this ‘unusual phenomenon’? I’m so anxious to know!”

Why, my dear, the beans for your coffee were eaten by a civet and then handpicked out of its crap to be brewed into coffee for you! It’s terribly adventurous, isn’t it?

What, don’t believe me? Here is your Kopi Luwak coffee, pre-handpicking (image found here):

Delicious! If you’d prefer to buy it in this form (called “natural” coffee), you can buy it that way too. [For the record: I will never be able to eat a Payday candy bar again.]

In researching this topic for you, Reader, I found many properties ascribed to Kopi Luwak coffee. It is supposedly lower in caffeine than regular coffee because the civet’s stomach acids digest some of the caffeine. Or something. It’s supposedly less bitter and has less of some protein or other, and that’s why it tastes so much better. One researcher said it is “earthy, musty, syrupy, smooth and rich with jungle and chocolate undertones,” although I question how much better it can taste since “[though] certified blinded human tasters could find little difference in the overall flavour and aroma of the beans, an electronic nose machine could detect that the aroma of the civet coffee beans is also affected.” I’m glad a machine thinks they smell fantastic.

Why did I decide to post this on Soc Images? Well, one, the pure absurdity of it. However, there are some sociologically useful things you could use it for. One might be to discuss food and our cultural taboos on food. My guess is if you had students make lists of things they’d never, ever eat, no matter what, and then made them slowly pare them down based on the assumption that they were starving, people might give in and say, “Ok, I’d eat a slug,” but few people would say “Fine, I’d eat poop if I had to.” I could be wrong, but I think most people would see eating another animal’s fecal matter as beyond disgusting. And yet here we have an example of people doing it under no duress (that I can see) and considering it a delicacy.

I suspect that students would then express horror and shock at the idea of drinking such coffee, but you might then point out that many of them probably eat the product of an animal’s digestive tract somewhat regularly: honey. Bees digest pollen to turn it into honey. It could lead to a nice discussion of how we come to think of foods as normal or disgusting, and why we might continue to eat honey and think it’s just fine, since we’re used to it, but think people who eat beans picked out of civet poop are gross.

Of course, you could also use it as an example of how, if it is sufficiently expensive and difficult to find, anything can be labeled a delicacy and sold to upper-middle-class yuppies. Even wild cat* crap.

*Not really a cat, though it’s called the civet cat.

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

Jo B. sent us a link to Icebreaker, a New Zealand clothing company. One of their products is wool underwear. As she pointed out, there are some distinct differences in how the men’s and women’s underwear lines are depicted.

The men’s line is called beast. When you go to the site, there’s a little intro part. The following phrase shows up on the banner at the top:

As Jo says,

The overall idea seems to be that men have some kind of innate, primordial aggression (thought I’m not sure how this is supposed to relate to woollen underwear).

Indeed, socialization “cages” men’s true nature, but just barely–its hold is “frail and fragile” and, I presume, could burst forth if you aren’t really careful. I don’t quite follow how the city “brings the beast alive,” or how reconnecting with nature “balances” the beast; since the beast is supposedly men’s real nature, I think reconnecting them with nature would bring out the beast, but whatever. I’m clearly applying too stringent a level of logic. Also, for the record, if all it takes to reconnect with nature is a natural material (made from a domesticated source), then cotton, angora, and mohair would work just as well.

The women’s line is called Nature. When you go to its site there’s also an intro, but without any useful summary of what women are like to compare to the Beast.

Again from Jo:

The female models are slim, delicate, and tend to pose in a way that suggests passivity (static poses, arms held behind body…) and instability (balancing on her toes).  The images in the female range focus more on being attractive, while the men’s range is about being active and aggressive.

The marketing campaign also reinforces the difference in the way we talk about men and women and their association with nature. When we connect men to nature, it’s in an aggressive, predatory sense (the beast). When women are associated with nature, it’s often in a way that implies harmony, an appreciation for the natural world, perhaps some intuitive sense that women have (or, you know, their connection to the moon and stuff because of menstrual cycles). The background is part of this; the grey background of the men’s line doesn’t look nearly as peaceful as the serene white background for the female models.

Thanks, Jo!

FYI:  Jo sent an email to the company complaining and this was their response:

Hi Josephine,

Apologies for the delayed reply. I am writing on behalf of Jeremy Moon to thank you for taking the time to give us your views about Icebreaker’s marketing of its underwear lines for men (Beast) and women (Nature). We understand your concerns, and we really appreciate the level of thought you have put into sharing them with us.

Gender representations are a sensitive issue in marketing, and Icebreaker certainly had no intention of promoting negative or damaging images of men or women in our Winter 08 campaign.

In most of our collections, our marketing approaches to men and women are almost identical. We aim to make Icebreaker garments as stylish as possible, but our clothes are based on performance above all – regardless of the gender of the wearer.

In our Bodyfit, Icebreaker_GT and Superfine collections, for example, women are photographed in exactly the same way as men – pushing their physical boundaries in the outdoors. Our marketing for the garments in these core collections centre on photographs of athletic-looking women skiing, hiking and climbing mountains. None of the images are of women in a passive or decorative role: they’re of women who are confident, independent, adventurous and strong.

We chose a different approach for our underwear ranges. For obvious reasons, we couldn’t adopt our usual approach of showing women taking part in outdoor sports – clearly they wouldn’t play sport in their underwear alone. The other factor we took into consideration is that Nature and Beast, although both underwear collections, are very different ranges.

Men tend to buy underwear for its practical benefits. Our aim was to position Beast as a premium range that has the same performance factors (such as breathability, a critical benefit for underwear) as Icebreaker’s outdoor clothing and yet is sufficiently stylish to be worn at work. Our marketing approach refers not to aggression, but to energy – the same energy (or performance benefits) that works equally well in both outdoor and urban environments. You’ll notice our marketing refers to “creative energy” and also the “harmoniousness” of nature.

The Nature range is our most feminine range by far, and much of our marketing focuses on the way it looks – its styles and its nature-inspired designs. Nature is made from the lightest, most luxurious grade of 100% pure merino, as we understand customers’ concerns against wearing traditional wool (rather than merino) against their skin, so our marketing talks about concepts like “100% pure”. While the photography for the rest of our collections is based around the outdoors, Nature images are designed to show off the styling and softness of the garments.

Our campaigns are designed to be edgy, and we’re very sorry if in this instance you feel our approach conveyed the wrong messages. Please be assured this was not our intention. Thank you for writing, and be assured we will bear your concerns in mind when planning future campaigns. I hope this email helps lesson your disappointment with our brand,

Regards
Alice

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

I found this two page article in a travel magazine aimed at extremely, excessively, egregiously rich people. There is a long history of exploration tourism in which locals are positioned as subservient–see, for example, this colonial era travel poster–and this history immediately came to mind when I saw these two pages.

There is nothing overt here, but I did notice that the author tells us the name of the elephant, but not the guide.  It may not seem like a big thing, but this erasure of the African guides as subjects is troubling to me given the history.  Text below the images.

Text:

We were about 100 feet from a herd of Cape buffalo. They stood perfectly still, their curly horns giving them a comical George Washington-wig look. Even though they are one of the deadliest of the big six animals, from where we stood they looked almost cuddly. My elephant handler stayed just long enough for me to get several great photos before urging Lundi, the elephant we were riding, to move forward. My guide saw several giraffes up ahead and wanted to get there before they galloped away.