gender: health/medicine

Myra M. F. sent us these four breast cancer awareness ads to compare and contrast (find them here).  They are all super pink-ified (because men don’t get breast cancer… oh wait, they do), but the first two use stereotypical femininity and the latter two challenge them.

(1)  Ah the lovely young middle-aged woman (I stand corrected), the ruffley white blouse, the slight head tilt, and the fashionable breast cancer scarf.  You too can look oh so good while you fight breast cancer!  Go Ford!

(2)  “Expose the Truth.”  Those awesome knockers on that gorgeous anonymous babe could someday be victims of breast cancer.  And we can’t have that!  Support breast cancer research!

Consider how different these next two are:

Here we see a woman who accepts some conventional definitions of femininity (make-up, pearls, earrings and, of course, pink), but rejects the idea that women should be ashamed to lose markers of femininity (“We can live without our hair.  We can live without our breasts.”) and instead looks bravely towards a cure (“We cannot live without our hope for a cure.”)  Plus, this image is about action (a race) instead of fashion (a scarf), suggesting that it is also a rejection of the idea that to be feminine is to be passive or powerless.

And this image actually mocks the symbolic ribbon and, I will add, bracelet activism (how feminine are ribbons and bracelets?), in favor of appropriating a masculine symbol (heavy machinery) by turning it pink and putting it to work against breast cancer.  The text at the bottom says: “Stop breast cancer!  It’s in our power!” 

Four ads, all with the same message, all mobilizing femininity, but in two very different ways. 

Thanks again to Myra!

The propaganda below, from World War II, was distributed by the U.S. government.  In the posters, venereal disease (later known as sexually transmitted disease, and even later as sexually transmitted infections) is personified as a woman. Remember, venereal disease is NOT a woman. It’s bacteria or virus that passes between women and men. Women do not give it to men. Women and men pass it to each other. When venereal disease is personified as a woman, it makes women the diseased, guilty party and men the vulnerable, innocent party.

In this ad, the soldier is made innocent with the label “The Young, The Brave, The Strong.” The first girl is labeled “prostitution.” She says to the soldier: “Two girls I know want to meet you in the worst way.” The two women on the stairs, with the faces of skeletons, are labelled “syphilis” and “gonnorhea.”

Text: “Warning: These enemies are still lurking around.” The women are labeled “syphillis” and “gonnorhea.”

This one is my favorite. A female skeleton in an evening gown walks with her arms around Hitler and Hirohito. The text reads: “V.D. Worst of the Three.”

Here are three more:

At least some of these can be found here. Thanks to the unbeatablekid pointing out a source in our comments.

NEW: Marc sent us a link to these images (all found here):

A matchbook:

A pamphlet distributed to soldiers:

Thanks, Marc!

Laura R. sent us this 1939 test for husbands and wives, developed by an M.D./Ph.D. in psychology, designed to determine how well each is performing in his or her gendered role with marriage.  For proper behavior the spouse earns merits, for improper, demerits.  Below is the front page and the first page of the test for both men and women.  Click here to see the whole thing (via boingboing).

Thanks Laura!

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.

Larry brought my attention to Save the Ta-Tas, a breast-cancer awareness company. I can’t quite decide what to make of them–the website says a “portion of gross sales” is contributed to fighting breast cancer, but not how big of a portion. So presumably you are fighting breast cancer by paying $24.95 for t-shirts like this one:

I assume it’s a for-profit company. And the t-shirts are kind of funny, and they’re bringing attention to a worthy cause. And yet it’s another example of consumption as activism (see here, here, and here; there are other examples if you search under the “activism” tag). I mean, you could just donate $25 straight to a breast cancer awareness organization and know all $25 went there, as opposed to knowing some unspecified “portion” of it did. I guess if you’re going to buy a t-shirt anyway, you might as well buy one that will provide some money to an organization you care about, but if your interest is in actually funding breast cancer research, there seem to be more efficient ways to go about it.

On the other hand, I am fascinated by this product:

Despite what your dirty little mind might be thinking, the website informed me that Boob Lube is to be used for breast self-exams. Why you would need lube for that, I cannot say.

Thanks, Larry!

NEW: 73man pointed out the Irish Women’s Health Care “Two Tits and a Vote” campaign to get people to demand that politicians help provide more access to breast cancer screening. Here’s a photo from the campaign:

Note that the Mona Lisa stamp in the background has huge boobs.

This campaign is unlike the first one because it’s not attached to a corporation, as far as I can tell. But it seems like there would be a way to bring attention to this issue without using the body of a model-thin women with big boobs.

Then again, I guess maybe those are the type of boobs politicians would be most worried about being damaged.

Thanks, 73man!

These two images were part of the campaign to raise awareness about breast cancer at my college this year. I think it is fascinating that, even when spreading a message about women’s health, the images include sexualization and objectification (on the right) and a woman posed to look insecure, vulnerable, and maybe slightly scared (on the left).

Perhaps related to increasing wealth and income inequality in our society, the gap between the life expectancy of the rich and the poor is also increasing. This image is from a New York Times article on the topic:

Dr. Singh, who was part of the study, explains:

In 1980-82… people in the most affluent group could expect to live 2.8 years longer than people in the most deprived group (75.8 versus 73 years). By 1998-2000, the difference in life expectancy had increased to 4.5 years (79.2 versus 74.7 years), and it continues to grow.