gender: marriage/family

Kirsten D. sent us this link to a series of Playmobil families.  She notes how the families are all racially marked (using racial categories like “Asian” and “African” instead of nationality categories like “Japanese” and “Somalian”).  The “Mediterranean/Hispanic” category also points to the social construction of race and the way in which social construction varies across cultures (Playmobil are made in Germany).

They families are also racially homogeneous.  In the world of Playmobil (at least how it is sold, though not necessarily how it is played with) there are no interracial families and, therefore, no bi- or multi-racial people.  In this way the toys reify racial categories and naturalize racial matching in relationships.

African/African American Family:

Mediterranean/Hispanic Family:

Asian Family:

Native American Family:

Notice also that all of the families are in contemporary clothes except for the Native American family.  Ethnicized groups are often represented in “native” costume, but this is especially true for American Indians (at least in the U.S.).  It is as if, in the popular imagination, American Indians are extinct; as if there are no American Indians alive today walking around in Nikes (there are).

So, in the world of Playmobil, American Indians are, like Romans, a historical artifact:

Also, because it warrants pointing out, all the female and male children all have gender stereotypical toys.

This is a picture of the illustration on a “sturdy station,” an infant changing table I found in a women’s bathroom (click on the image for a closer look).

I thought it nicely illustrated a number of normative expectations/social constructions:

1. Families include two parents.
2. Those two parents include a male and a female.
3. Males don’t have eyelashes.
4. Males are (at) the head of the family.
5. Females are the primary caretakers of children. While the male is looking ahead, the female is either looking at the baby or looking at the person using the changing table (and is, therefore, identifying with the person using the changing table who is, presumably, also female).

This poster was affixed to a tree on my block:

NEW!  This ad for sea monkeys, found at AdFreak, portrays them in a nuclear family (mom and dad, son and daughter):

I found this collection of vintage ads at the Mail online:

When I was copying the website link, I noticed that this story was in the “Femail” section. There’s the homepage, of course, and then there’s “News,” “Sport,” “TV&Showbiz,” “Health,” “Science&Tech,” etc. etc., and then there’s “Femail,” the section targeted at women. It seems to be mostly fashion with some mother-daughter stories of various types. I wish sometime I’d see a magazine (or magazine section) aimed at women that didn’t see “women’s issues” and science/technology/news/sport/etc. as completely different topics.

I did like this story about elephants doing math, though.

Here’s another great one from Elizabeth over at Blog of Stench (image originally found at Ad*Access):

The text:

Send for a FREE BOOK telling about this grave womanly offense. Learn how no other type liquid antiseptic-germicide tested for the douche is so powerful yet harmless! Isn’t it a shame when a woman doesn’t realize how important it is to always put ZONITE in her fountain syringe? Failure to practice hygiene (internal cleanliness) often results in such needless tragedies–homes broken up, few social invitations, the feeling of being shunned without without knowing why. A modern woman realizes how important hygiene is to health, married happiness, after her periods, and to combat an offensive odor even greater than bad breath or body odor–an odor she herself may not detect but is so apparent to people around her. And isn’t it reassuring to know that NO OTHER TYPE LIQUID ANTISEPTIC-GERMICIDE TESTED FOR THE DOUCHE IS SO POWERFUL YET SAFE TO TISSUES AS ZONITE! Developed by a famous surgeon and scientist–the ZONITE principle was the first in the world to be so powerfully effective yet so harmless. ZONITE is positively non-poisonous, non-irritating, non-burning. Remember that ZONITE is SAFE! SAFE! SAFE! to the most delicate tissues. You can use ZONITE as directed as often as needed without the slightest risk of injury. ZONITE deoderizes by not ‘masking’–it actually destroys, dissolves and removes odor-causing waste substances. And ZONITE has such a soothing effect. It promptly relieves any itching or irritation if present. ZONITE gives BOTH internal and external protection, leaving one with such a refreshed, dainty feeling–so c-l-e-a-n! Complete douching directions come with every bottle. Buy ZONITE today! Get it at any drugstore.

So women who don’t douche face, as Elizabeth says, “sexless marriages, social ostracism and general disaster.” I like how horrified the woman in the ad looks now that she’s figured out the cause of all her problems. On a side note, I think this is the only instance I’ve ever seen of a man being referred to as “frigid.”

Here’s another Zonite ad that I found at the Museum of Menstruation (who knew such a thing existed?):

I’m too lazy to transcribe the full text, but it’s basically the same story–if only she’d known about Zonite, she wouldn’t have suffered such social humiliations (and notice the scowl on the woman’s face).

These will be great for illustrating the ways women were (and still are) told they need to douche regularly or they would smell bad, as well as to have a healthy vagina–although the douches themselves often destroyed normal, healthy vaginal bacteria, causing the problems they claimed to solve. I’m going to use these in my women’s studies course in conjunction with our discussion of Joan Jacobs Brumberg’s book The Body Project, which discusses the rise of the feminine hygiene industry and the increases pressure on women to keep more and more parts of their bodies under control, whether through sanitary pads, bras, or anti-acne products.

Thanks, Elizabeth!

In the comments, Abby says,

This also ties into lessons about contraceptive history.  Andrea Tone has written about how Lysol (yes, that Lysol) and Zonite were ostensibly marketed as douches for “freshness” but were understood to be useful for preventing pregnancy.  If I recall correctly the main era for this was the 1930s, when most contraceptives were illegal.  There is a double meaning when these ads say that women can “banish their fears” – not just odor, but also unwanted pregnancy. (Never mind that douching with these chemicals is NOT healthy!)

As an example, Holly Mac. sent in this ad for a Lysol douche:

Text:

A man maries a woman because he loves her. So instead of blaming him if married love begins to cool, she should question herself. Is she truly trying to keep her husband and herself eager, happy married lovers? On most effective way to safeguard her dainty feminine allure is by practicing complete feminine hygiene as provided by vaginal douches with a scientifically correct preparation like ‘Lysol.’ So easy a way to banish the misgivings that often keep married lovers apart.

 

Germs destroyed swiftly

 

‘Lysol’ has amazing, proved power to kill germ-life on contact . . . truly cleanses the vaginal canal even in the presence of mucous matter. Thus ‘Lysol’ acts in a way that makeshifts like soap, salt or soda never can.

 

Appealing daintines is assured, because the very source of objectional odors is eliminated.

Use whenever needed!

 

Yet gentle, non-caustic ‘Lysol’ will not harm delicate tissue. Simple directions give correct douching solution. Many doctors advise their patients to douche regularly with ‘Lysol’ brand disinfectant, just to insure feminine daintiness alone, and to use it as often as necessary. No greasy aftereffect.

 

For feminine hygiene, three times more women use ‘Lysol’ than any other liquid preparation. No other is more reliable. You, too, can rely on ‘Lysol’ to help protect your married happiness . . . keep you desirable!

Notice the way in which “feminine allure” is described as “fragile.” I guess just a few years ago that relentless male sex drive was believed to be easily interrupted!

Also note the threat of divorce (and likely economic ruin) and the use of “science” to sell this product.

Ben O. sent in a link to several ads for douches and feminine deodorants (all at Found in Mom’s Basement). This douche ad makes it clear that douching is about pleasing your male partner:

Notice this feminine deodorant is called Pristeen; it promises to help make “girls” attractive:

From the text:

The real problem, as you very well know, is how to keep the most girl part of you–the vaginal area–fresh and free of any worry-making odors…Whatever starts those those troublesome vaginal odors, Pristeen stops them–effectively. And nicely…Why take chances? Starting today, why not make Pristeen as much a part of your daily life as your bath or shower. It’s just as essential to your cleanliness. And to your peace of mind about being a girl. An attractive, nice-to-be-with girl.

Bidette Towelettes promise to give women “all-day daintiness”:

Thanks, Ben!

Kim D. sent us in another example, found at the Museum of Menstruation:

NEW! Taylor D. sent in a link to eleven more vintage Lysol douche ads, including this one:

My friend at Trucker Bomb alerted me to this clip from the 1956 film “Indestructible Man.” I’m saving it until one of my students waxes nostalgic about the “good old days” in which gender roles were clearer, and people didn’t have to be so confused all of the time about, say, whether it’s okay to open a door for a “lady”. This sort of comment often comes up when we discuss the difference between courtesy (which can apply to everyone) and chivalry (which is predicated on the notion that women are weaker than men). It could also be useful in discussions about gender as it relates to marriage, careers, or golly, just about anything!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgGFzUS4tkg[/youtube]

Man, the good old days were awesome, in a pause-while-laughing-to-barf-a-little kind of way.

Muriel Minnie Mae sent in this video, a cartoon that presents a lot of the “men are like THIS, but women are like THIS!” stereotypes. The “female” is a circle and the “male” is a square (a very common type of imagery–things depicting masculinity are often angular, while those evoking femininity are often round or curvy).

Notice that the woman can’t go on a business trip because she’s (literally) tied to the house. Also, both men and women have the same image of the “ideal partner”–someone who cooks, cleans, and cares for the kids, though of course the man who wants this is a jerk and the woman who wants this is, presumably, dreaming.

At the very end of the video it says “stereotypes?” I don’t know what the intention of the makers of the video is–to parody stereotypes, or if they actually accept them, but it doesn’t really matter, as far as I can tell, because the video is useful either way.

Good for providing a quick, funny overview of lots of stereotypes and the way our gender myths lead us to believe that men and women literally do everything differently. Also, you can pick up a little Italian.

NEW! In an example of the “men and women are totally different!” trope, Rachael H. let us know about Maxim’s helpful flow charts showing how men and women argue:

Oh, crazy illogical women and their poor put-upon male partners!

NEW! (May ’10): Juniper, Corina C., and Dana G. sent in another example of this genre, this time videos by members of Harvard’s sailing teams:

Pro- and anti-natal policies are those that encourage and discourage childbearing respectively.  There’s an excellent article in the New York Times today about pro-natal efforts in Europe.  The population is falling there due to a low birth rate.

One of the things they mentioned in the article was the Third Reich “Mother’s Cross” (I found this one here).  Women who had four children were awarded a bronze medal, women who had six a silver, and women who had eight a gold. (This was a eugenic strategy, of course; an effort to increase the birthrate for pure, white people.) 

I think one of the most fascinating things about this medal is not so much the pro-natal, or even eugenic story, but the explicit linking of military service with motherhood.  There are plenty of good arguments to make that being a mother is a service to the nation just like military service.  After all, as is recognized in Europe, if women stop having babies, eventually there will be no nation at all.  Also, being a mother involves sacrificing yourself, taking time out of the labor force and, indeed, risking your life and health.  (Ann Crittenden makes this argument in The Price of Motherhood.)  Of course, in the U.S. we don’t value motherhood the way we value military service.   And, sigh, we are awarded no medals for bringing new human beings into existence.  We do, however, have pro-natalist policy.  The fact that we get a tax write-off for every child we have is a direct economic incentive to reproduce. 

Vesko J. sent in several images from “Bee Movie,” the cartoon with Jerry Seinfeld as the voice of the main bee character, Barry. He says:

Female bee workers exist in the movie, but are hardly visible (unless sexual presence is needed.) They can be seen only for a few seconds in the distant background and don’t have any lines of dialogue (as opposed to random male bee workers, who are clearly visible and have lines of dialogue).

Even the bees, that pollinate the flowers, are male. They are called “pollenjocks” and all the female bees fall for these strong, muscular, brave guys.

These are the pollenjocks. In case you didn’t know, it’s actually female bees who collect pollen.

The pollenjocks are big, muscular male figures who tower over the females, who, as far as I can tell, could be called pollengroupies. They aren’t really individuals with personalities; they exist as background to show how awesome the pollenjocks are. On the other hand, the female characters that are treated as individuals tend to be in the home, such as Barry’s mom. Barry’s love interest is not a female bee but a human female, a florist.

Now, I get it. It’s a kids’ movie, and there’s going to be a lot of anthropomorphizing and such. But how animals are anthropomorphized tells us a lot about our social assumptions and what we’re comfortable with. There’s no reason the worker bees’ sex has to be changed, except that it makes more “sense” to us that the hard-working providers would be male. The choices to make the males the center of the story, to make them bigger than the females, and to portray female bees as fawning groupies desperate for male attention tells us an awful lot about the gender stories we tell ourselves about humans, and that they’re important enough to us that even children’s movies have to recreate those stories, no matter how much fiddling with reality it takes. And even though this is an animated children’s movie about bees that talk, flirt, and wear clothes, I bet an awful lot of people will think the gender hierarchy in the movie is fairly accurate.

Thanks, Vesko!

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