bodies

A quick Google image search suggests that Prince William and the to-be Princess Duchess of Cambridge Kate Middleton conform to Western culture’s expectation that a man be sufficiently taller than his woman.  Not so for Prince Charles and Princess Diana.  In light of today’s royal nuptials, I thought I’d re-post this fav of mine. Originally cross-posted at Jezebel.

In the U.S. and the U.K., one of the most unbreakable rules of mating involves height. He must be taller than her, preferably significantly taller. Men and women often pick one another in such a way that any given couple follows this rule even if, given random assortment, some couples would involve women who the same height or taller than their male partners.

Rumor has it, though I can’t prove it, that Hollywood routinely puts leading men in platform boots or on stools so that they appear appropriately tall relative to their leading ladies.

Philip Cohen, however, alerted me to a case that can be nicely shown: Prince Charles and Princess Diana.  As these photographs show, Charles was about the same height as Diana, perhaps even shorter.

(Daily Mail)

When Charles and Diana were posed together formally, however, they were typically arranged so as to suggest that he was significantly taller than her, or at least to disguise the fact that he was not.

A photo from their engagement announcement with Charles on a step behind her:

(BBC)

And more:

(Family Inequality)

This effort to make Charles appear taller is a social commitment to the idea that men are taller and women shorter. When our own bodies, and our chosen mates, don’t follow this rule, sometimes we’ll go to great lengths to preserve the illusion.

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.

Last year I posted about a new ad campaign for Pretzel Crisps. The ads’ use of the phrase “you can never be too thin” inspired one man to alter one ad posted in NYC, including taping up images of news stories about individuals who have died of eating disorders. After the story got some attention, Snack Factory, the company that makes Pretzel Crisps, eventually apologized and said they were taking the ads down.

A victory, right? Except it seems like Snack Factory didn’t quite get the message. They replaced that ad with one that said “tastes as good as skinny feels.”

Dmitriy T.M. let us know that they then also released this ad, which similarly seemed to miss (or not care about) what the concerns were about the original:

So…they reinforced the message about thinness, and throw in an extra insult on top of it. Classy.

Via Jezebel.

In one store, you’re a Size 4, in another a Size 8, and in another a Size 10 — all without gaining an ounce.

So starts a New York Times article, forwarded along by Kristin, Valerie, and Dolores.  It features this handy graphic illustrating just how much both sizes and proportions vary from store to store:

It’s interesting that this article is specific to women, as if the sizes and proportions in men’s clothes don’t vary. Hint: they do.

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.

Cassie C. sent us a vintage ad that illustrates the way that beauty standards can change dramatically over time. The ad, for products called Fat-ten-u and Corpula, promises to help you get fat, a clearly desirable state:

Available at the Library of Congress.

Of course, it’s also worth noting that the woman in the photo likely wouldn’t be considered fat by current standards, partially because of a small waist that probably resulted from corseting.

Side note: The link Cassie sent us, at Whole Health Source, has two black and white ads as well, but I haven’t been able to verify them as authentic or find any info on where they were found or originally appeared, and I’ve found some questions about their authenticity.

History and women’s studies professor Keri Manning, along with Aydrea at The Oreo Experience, Sully R., and Dmitriy T.M., sent a link to a series of illustrations of pin-up girls (from the ’50s, I’m estimating) alongside the original photograph on which they were modeled (Buzzfeed).  Today we bemoan photoshopping, and here we have pre-photoshop examples of the kind of free-reign that artists had in idealizing their subject.  Dr. Manning notes, for example, that overall:

Bellies become flatter. Breasts become perkier.  Cleavage appears that wasn’t there before.  Waistlines shrink; the difference between the bustline and waistline gets more pronounced.  Hair gets longer.  Hair goes from brunette to blonde.  Inner thighs emerge from the shadows.  Cheeks become flushed, lips are quite red.

An interesting look at a photoshop forerunner. See the images at Buzzfeed and Pristina.

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.

Yvette, Kari B., and Yet Another Girl all sent in links to articles about Dove Ultimate Go Sleeveless deodorant. The campaign for the deodorant focuses on the fact that it supposedly makes your armpits look better. Here’s one commercial (via The Consumerist; it’s not the best illustration of how much Dove is pushing the attractiveness angle, but it’s the only commercial from this ad campaign I could find):

According to research cited on Dove’s website, 93% of women think their underarms are unattractive and thus may refuse to wear sleeveless clothing.

Libby Copeland at Slate sums up what’s going on here:

Dove’s empowerment-via-shame marketing approach for Go Sleeveless has its roots in advertising techniques that gained popularity in the 1920s: a) pinpoint a problem, perhaps one consumers didn’t even know they had; b) exacerbate anxiety around the problem; c) sell the cure.

Ladies, it’s not enough to shave and deodorize your underarms. They need even more prettification than they’ve been getting. How this deodorant does that, I don’t know. But it does. You’re welcome.

Stephen Colbert discussed Dove and advertising based on insecurities recently:

In a society where being fat is considered a personal and social tragedy, it is difficult to imagine that anyone would be fat on purpose.   But if fat makes a person socially ineligible for the sexual gaze, then this can be quite functional for a couple of different reasons.

Women who find men’s sexual attention especially disturbing or scary, sometimes report gaining weight on purpose.  Being fat, they hope, will protect them from being looked at, unwanted touching, and sexual assault.  In a study by sociologist Julie Winterich, a lesbian suspects that she gained weight for this kind of purpose:

You know, I remember thinking one time, maybe one of the reasons I’m overweight is so that men would not be attracted to me, because I knew that I wasn’t attracted to them.

Another reason to become or remain fat would be protect oneself not from the attention that comes with the male gaze, but the fear that you would not be lovable, even if thin.  Being judged as sexually-unacceptable, in this scenario, is less terrifying than being judged as simply unacceptable.   This was the idea expressed in a recent confessional PostSecret postcard:

Source: Winterich, Julie. 2007. Aging, Femininity, and the Body: What Appearance Changes Men to Women with Age.  Gender Issues 24: 51-69.

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.

Cross-posted at Ms.

Growing up in America, we learn that sweets and junk food are “guilty pleasures.” Women, especially, are supposed to refrain from such indulgences.  And, if they cannot — if they, for example, desire more than that modest slice of cake served to each birthday guest — then they should feel not only guilt, but shame.  For overindulging is grotesque and it, accordingly, should be hidden and kept secret.

This is the cultural background to Lee Price‘s realist paintings of women (mostly her) eating sweets and junk food.  She draws two contrasts.  First, she makes very public something we are supposed to do only in private.  Not only do the paintings literally display the transgression, the birds eye view and frequent nudity exaggerates the sheer display of the indulgence.  And, second, she takes something that is supposedly disgusting and shameful and presents it in a medium associated with (high) art, challenging the association of indulgence with poor character and a lack of refinement.  Fascinating.

Visit Lee Price’s website.
Via BoingBoing.

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.