gender: femininity

My besties gave me a copy of the target toy catalog for 2009 and pointed out the front cover.

At first i thought it was just your typical run of the mill gender socialization propaganda…

White girl on the cover? Check.
Is she wearing pink? Check.
Is she wearing a tiara? Check.
Is she wearing a tutu? Check.
Is the tutu pink? Check.
Is she smiling? Check.
Is she playing with barbie? Check.
Is there a little boy in the image? Check.
Is he doing one of the following: making a mess, eating something or expressing anger? Check.

Ok, the basics are covered.

But upon further inspection, I realize that the barbie is holding Lego flowers…. and… wait a minute… are those church bells I see?!  …

Rachel U. sent us a 1968 American Airlines ad (larger available at Modern Mechanix):

The text:

She only wants what’s best for you.
A cool drink. A good dinner. A soft pillow and a warm blanket.
This is not just maternal instinct. It’s the result of the longest
Stewardess training in the industry.
Training in service, not just a beauty course.
Service, after all, is what makes professional travellers prefer American.
And makes new travellers want to keep on flying with us.
So we see that every passenger gets the same professional treatment.
That’s the American Way.

Rachel says,

Before I read the headline of the ad, my brain registered the woman as a typical “sexy stewardess” image that seems to be standard industry fare when air travel started booming:  knees bent up toward the face, one hand touching her face…extremely focused gaze that seems a bit “come hither.”

Of course, that’s what the pose is. It’s just that being sexually attractive doesn’t mean women weren’t also supposed to also take on a caretaking role. It’s one way we’ve constructed femininity over the years: women were supposed to be nurturing and supportive in a “maternal” way, while also sexually alluring enough to keep their men from wandering (because if he wandered, it was definitely their fault for not keeping him happy at home).

Notice also the implicit denigration of stewardesses in general: at American Airlines they get real training, “not just a beauty course.” At first reading that could seem as though they were saying they emphasize skill, not physical attractiveness, but the image makes it clear you can look forward to getting both.

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

Benno K. sent in a link to some ads he saw in the Netherlands for the Discovery Channel, which Benno describes as “the channel that used to be for science, but is now mostly explosions and motor bikes.” In both posters the men have “women’s” eyes–that is, they appear wide-eyed and long-lashed, with mascara:

The caption says:

Not for women’s eyes. Discovery Channel has television men want to watch. Exciting, smart, interesting, adventurous, and most of all real. Watch for yourself.

I know that as a woman, I hate smart, interesting stuff. It’s just too hard to understand and it makes my brain hurt. I try to only watch TV shows that are dull, dumb, boring, cautious, and totally fake.

I spent a day in Salzburg this September with a man from Dubai.  We had a wonderful time comparing perspectives.

Dubai, he explained, was a wildly modern, multicultural city.  The default language in public was English due to the international population.  He was a stockbroker who had gone to college in London and gone part way through an MBA.

He interacted with veiled, Middle Eastern women and non-veiled Western European women daily.  He seemed to have no qualms with the two styles of presentation, considering them simple choices; they were unpoliticized and carried no deeper meaning.  To him, women who veiled were simply religious, like the men he knew who would not drink alcohol, and himself when he would not eat meat improperly slaughtered.

In any case, women in Dubai, he felt, were liberated.  As an example, he explained how there was now a woman’s taxi service.

“A woman’s taxi service?”

“Yes, with women drivers.”

You see, it is not proper for women to be alone with a non-relative male and, so long as all taxis were driven by men, women (who also do not drive) could not run errands or visit friends.  They were largely neighborhood-bound.  To my friend, a woman’s taxi service was liberation.  And, indeed, from the perspective of their rules, it must have seemed like freedom indeed.

I was reminded of this chat when Happy A. sent in a link to a story about a new women’s taxi service in Mexico.  The taxis, painted pink, are driven by women and only women can hire them. The taxi service isn’t designed to allow women to travel, but to allow them to travel without the threat of harassment and assault.

Women’s groups, however, have called the taxis insulting.  They suggest that the girly pink, the protectionism, and the make-up mirrors in the back seats seem to encourage the very objectification that makes women targets in the first place.

Pink Ladies, in the U.K., rationalizes its service with the same protectionism:

And, in Moscow, they have Ladies Red Taxi:

I think these examples, considered together, do a really good job of undermining any absolutist ideas about what is good for women.

The situations in the different countries are dramatically different.  Women’s taxis improve the quality of life for women in Dubai (who can afford them) much more significantly than the taxis in, say, the U.K.

A radical feminist bent on destroying the system altogether may say that such taxis reinforce a gender binary and are easily co-opted by patriarchy (I wonder whose errands women are doing in those pink taxis?), a reformist feminist may say that the move is a good option for women both there and elsewhere, if not actually an end to male domination.

I think both are good points.

Does the fact that the Mexico service is run by the city and the U.K. service by a private company make a difference?  In the first case it is driven by concern for women’s safety, in the second case it is driven, at least partially, by profit.  Should people be profiting from women’s vulnerability?

Is a woman’s taxi service inherently feminist and liberating?  Or is it always sexist and demeaning?

I’m  not sure what I think about women’s taxis, but I like how cross-cultural comparisons like these remind us that context matters.

Click here for another sociologist’s take on the extent to which the pink taxis should be seen as liberating for women.

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.

Masculine!

Masculine! Masculine! Masculine!

Masculine!

(Thanks for the link, Michael C!)

P.S.: Girls and sissy boys suck!

UPDATE: In our comments threat, Reader adilegian offered this great breakdown of the commercial:

0:04. The voice over’s question “Should a phone be pretty?” is visually answered with an effect reminiscent of melting celluloid. The rupture starts on top of the woman’s head, exploding her “pretty” face.

0:06. Women are beheld as dolls.

0:08. Images appear superimposed over images beneath a verbal judgment. The beauty queen (fake) made out of plastic (fake) shown on a television (fake) is definitively stamped “CLUELESS.”

0:10. The commercial erased its first woman by destroying the medium of her representation (supposedly celluloid). The commercial again destroys its second “woman” by destroying the medium of her representation (a television).

0:10 – 0:13. Words across the screen: FAST, RACEHORSE, SCUD. Images: Lightning, racing horse, ripping off duct tape, SCUD missile. Combining these motifs into one single image, we see the SCUD missile flying across the screen with the word RACEHORSE as though it were written with lightning.

0:14. Droid applications: Reality Browser 2.1, Google Sky Map, Qik, Mother TED, CardioTrainer, Where. While I doubt that these applications were developed with the commercial’s themes in mind, their selections reinforce the messages thus far enforced visually: reality (woman of burnt celluloid, destroyed television), sky (SCUD missile), quick (FAST, RACEHORSE), mother (a Freudian slip recognizing the infantile nature of a power fantasy? ^_~), exercise (beef up for manliness stat +4), and going places (which SCUD missiles, race horses, and THE MANLIEST OF MANKIND’S MEN all do).

0:15. Word overlay: DOES. Men do things. Women are pretty and useless.

0:16 – 0:18. Buzz saw cuts banana over a brief yellow outline of a robot.

0:18. Three slim pretty boy models. Again, we see a conflation of all things hitherto condemned: prettiness and effeminacy (designer clothes on fancy-pants, unmuscular pretty boys) and superficiality (plastic people).

0:19 – 0:21. Fruit appears now as a weapon. Hardcore Droid-using man (who is also most likely a fancy, beautiful, professional male model IRL, natch) throws apple at sassy plasticman’s hat, suggesting a Victorian upstart’s rambunctious bucking of all things pretentious with a snowball thrown to knock off a businessman’s hat. Succeeding apples create gore effects.

0:21. Porcelain sheep crushed between the maws of raw, unrelenting MANROBOTPHONE power. Porcelain sheep also conflate all previously condemned messages: prettiness, delicacy, weakness, and artifice.

0:23 – 0:25. Sissy phone explodes into a milky white substance, suggesting ejactulate, with the word NO followed by an image of a woman holding the same ejaculate-phone in her hand with her lips parted. The word PRINCESS is superimposed with glitter effects.

0:25 – 0:27. Layers within mechanical layers give way to reveal the Droid phone.  The Droid phone now appears in the palm of a man’s hand. From his POV (deliciously male gaze, yes?), we see him traveling the world at blinding speed (FAST, RACEHORSE) with city lights blitzing past (lightning).

0:28 – 0:29. MANBOT phone breaks through a white, crumbling wall, again conflating the previously condemned ideas (bland superficiality as connoted by white porcelain sheep, white plastic male models, and light pink plastic Miss Pretty).

A PHONE THAT TRADE HAIR-DO

FOR CAN-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.

I was at the Pittsburgh airport last week and I saw this concourse map and I thought to myself, “Wow, they used pink and they’re not trying to signify WOMAN!  That’s something else!”

Then I looked closer and noticed that this concourse map was specifically for the shopping in the concourse.  Notice it’s a map of the “AirMall”:

Sigh.

Rebecca H. sent us a link to the Clorox website and I thought “Holy Moly! There is actually a MAN on a cleaning product website!” (in the lower right):

Then I looked closer and realized that the man in question is a gay man famous for being on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.

Sigh.

Two opportunities for suffocating stereotypes to be undermined; two opportunities lost.

—————————

Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

Cute Bruiser brought our attention to some Halloween costumes for girls that illustrate parallel trends. Her pictures are from a Shoppers store in Canada.

1. Girls as bratty. In this case, the Drama Queen (“It’s all about me!”):

(I know, that costume doesn’t even make sense.)

2. The sexualization of young girls. In this case, The Ravager from The Covenant:

Since that’s a little blurry, here’s an image from a website:

Miley Cyrus’ 9-year-old sister, Noah, chose to go this direction, as reader Kristyn G., Spagnoli F., and Jen C. pointed out:

—————————

Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

Earlier, in our comments thread to this post, junequest observed:

I also find it disturbing that many of the “sexy” costumes are highly sexualized versions of characters who are supposed to be little girls–Alice (in Wonderland), Dorothy, Goldilocks, Red Riding Hood, and other popular or fairy tale characters.

The fact that many women dress up as sexy little girls points to both the sexualization of female children and the infantilization of adult women.

Jillian York linked to an example from her flickr page, Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz:

Goldilocks from Goldilocks and the Three Bears:

Alice from Alice in Wonderland:

Little Red Riding Hood:

The phenomenon isn’t restircted to the fairy tale.  There is always the classic sexy school girl:

And its zeitgeist version (also from Jillian’s flickr):

And the related Girl Scout, eh em, Cookie Girl:

Just to see, I did a search and I found these sexy “baby” and “girl” costumes:

Actually, I’m not sure if the baby doll is a “sexy” costume, or if I’m so overwhelmed by women + Halloween = sexy that I can’t see anything else.

For more material showing the conflation of women and little girls, see these creepy posts: the cover girl mouth, innocence is sexier than you think, and compete with your daughter’s little girl look.

—————————

Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.