gender: masculinity

As an exercise I sometimes ask the students in my gender class to try on the pants of their friends of the opposite sex. That is, I ask women to try on men’s pants and men to try on women’s pants. They often react with surprise at how effectively the jeans make their bodies look like the bodies of their opposite sex friends. (Women often complain that their guy friends look “better” in their jeans than they do!) This starts a discussion of the many ways that our choices about what to wear make it appear as if our bodies are in fact “opposite” when, in fact, they’re not quite as different as we often believe.

We dress ourselves to emphasize certain beliefs about what men’s and women’s bodies should look like by choice, because not doing so carries some negative consequences, and because doing so is institutionalized. It’s institutionalized insofar as department stores have separate men’s and women’s sections (and no unisex section) and jeans are made for and marketed as men’s and women’s.

It doesn’t have to be this way, and wasn’t always. Check out these ads from the 1960s and ’70s:

Found at Vintage Ads and the Torontoist.

—————————

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

The following is a print ad from those one-trick ponies over at Axe Body Spray in an ongoing effort to market shower products to men.

The text pointing to the black part of the “Axe Detailer Shower Tool” (the name of which is worth a post all by itself) says:

“Washes Jessica’s perfume off your ear.”

The text pointing to the red part of the “Tool” says:

“Scrubs Jessica’s Mom’s perfume off your knees.”

I guess the take-home message is that you can exfoliate, but still be masculine enough to have a creepy three-way sexual relationship with women who are related to each other by blood.

By the way, what’s up with that?  The heterosexual male fantasy of being sexually serviced by two women is so common as to have become a cliché, but what about the less-frequently endorsed but still prevalent fantasy about those women being sisters (or better yet, identical twins!) or a mother-daughter pair?  Is it simple attraction (i.e., if you’re attracted to one woman in a family, it’s likely you’ll be attracted to other women who look/act like her)?  Is it the taboo element?  Or does the power to coerce women into an incestuous situation serve as its own reward?

Still, Axe got one thing right with this product.  When I think about a guy who would buy this sponge in the hopes of securing sexual relations with a woman and her mother, I can’t help but think of him as a, well…tool.

Natasha L. sent in a link to the site The Plunge, a wedding planning site for men. She says,

I’m getting married in a month.  My facebook knows this, and usually gives me wedding-related ads.  Today it had one that said, “Give us your fiance, and we’ll give you a groom.  A wedding site written by men.”

Here’s one page:

The site accepts the whole “wedding planning is women’s responsibility, and your wife is going to turn into an insane bridezilla” and “this is the end of your life, buddy” ideas so popular in our culture at the moment; this isn’t a site advocating for men to really be involved in planning weddings, or interested in them. The tone is of a fellow guy who knows how annoying it is that you have to pretend to go through all this shit and pretend you care:

How do you try to convince men that it’s ok for them to read something as stereotypically feminine as a wedding planning website? By implying that not reading it is unmanly, of course! Notice the last paragraph here:

So it’s actually masculine to read the planning site, because by doing so, you are showing that you are clueless about weddings, unlike women–since our “innate, feminine” selves know immediately how to plan them. That’s why you never see wedding magazines or websites designed for women–we instinctually know how to plan them, so there’s no market.

Well, ok, there is a site for women. Here The Plunge differentiates itself from The Knot:

The site gives you helpful tips for avoiding “emasculation”:

There’s a whole page on tips for convincing a woman to take your last name if she’s reluctant to do so. Of course, since this is an enlightened period, The Plunge first tells you that you should maybe just accept your bride-to-be’s wishes…

…but then provides a whole list of tactics, including playing on her future mom-ness by pointing out the kids will have a different name than her and that will be confusing and weird (who’s ever heard of children with a different name than one of their parents?). If she tries to turn the argument back on you by saying that if it’s no big deal to change last names, why don’t you take hers, then…

What I find tiresome about this site is that it pretends

NOTE: Apparently WordPress didn’t post everything I wrote at the end, which is why the post ends abruptly with the above half-written sentence. I’m sure what I originally wrote was brilliant. I know I mentioned that what I hate is that the site pretends to reject all this traditional wedding stuff, but it really totally buys into the idea that weddings are women’s things, and men should do as little as possible. And it’s pretty selective about what parts of modern weddings and marriage it criticizes–it can point out how absurd some of the prices of things are, but not equally mention that it might be stupid to get hung up on your bride-to-be not wanting to take your name?

I don’t remember what else I said, except pointing out that the site helpfully provides tips for if you sleep with someone else before your wedding. Their advice: do not come clean about it, unless a) it happened repeatedly or b) it was with someone the bride knows and she’s gonna find out. Also, it’s not quite as bad to cheat with a stripper as a “random girl.”

I’ve suggested that the fact that men do not feel compelled to wear make-up is a “triumph of gender ideology over capitalism” (see here).  Companies that sell make-up, after all, have halved their profits by giving up on selling to men.  We should expect, then, a tug-of-war between the profit motive and a gender ideology that suggests that men and women are opposite.   On the one hand, if men and women are opposites, then the requirement that women primp and preen (with the help of dozens of products) would imply that men do not.  On the other hand, if they accept this gender binary, companies lose half their customers.

Accordingly, Gwen and I were shocked to see an ad at Jezebel, sent in by Frank D., overtly marketing scrotum shaving.

We have seen this a bit with products aimed at men and their hair already (see here, here, and here), but I’m still surprised to see this.  I can’t imagine anything harder to shave on anyone’s body, male or female.

So how are they trying to convince men to do it?

They are using the same tactics that they use against women.  They are either (1) shaming men into thinking that they are disgusting and no woman (or man) will have them unless they alter their body (see here, here, and here) or (2) naturalizing shaving such that it is just a fun thing that all men inevitably participate in (see here, here, here, and here).

Check out the second paragraph in this screen shot of the Norelco-Phillips website:

Text:

Did you know that women like men who shave down there? Having silky smooth balls is a lot nicer than finding a huge bush or choking on your pubes!   Today’s trend is to have it clean or at least trimmed.  This helps both aesthetically and hygienic wise as well.

They are also using a gendered logic.  We’ve seen this with other examples of companies trying to sell self-maintenance to men.  They hyper-masculinizing the product.  For examples, see our posts on hair product for men (with “stand tough” hair gel), make-up for men ( with “blo-job bronzing powder”).  We see this with other feminized products and activities too (for example, ice skating and chocolate).  In this case, they don’t say, “If you don’t shave your balls, you won’t be pretty.”  They say, “When there’s no underbrush, the tree looks taller.”

Yeah, no.  I’m not paraphrasing:

One thing we might discuss is whether this this represents a “female gaze” that matches the “male gaze” that requires women to always be a pleasurable object for others to view… or that, alternatively, this is just the male gaze being applied to men.  Some of the marketing for men’s body shaving appears to be clearly marketed towards gay men (see this website, especially here).

Another interesting thing to consider is the extent to which the social invisibility of the pubic area facilitates marketer manipulation.  If you’re straight, unless you’re willing to ask a partner, you have to trust the advertisers to tell you what “today’s trend” is.  What a great deal for the companies.

Oh, and, I’m wondering which you think is going to win this tug-of-war: the companies with their profit motive or gender ideology and a resistance to the feminization of men?

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.

Since I’m visiting my family in Oklahoma, and they raise cattle, I thought it was appropriate to post this Campbell’s soup ad from the 1940s (found at Vintage Ads):

Of course, there’s a long history of associating masculinity with meat, with poor families often reserving meat and other foods considered particularly nutritious for men, since they were believed to need it most in order to perform hard physical labor. Writing about the British working class during the late 1800s in his book Sweetness and Power, Sidney Mintz argues, “…wives and children were systematically undernourished because of a culturally conventionalized stress upon adequate food for the ‘breadwinner'” (p. 130). Men’s privileged access to meat actually spurred the consumption of sugar: “…while the laboring husband got the meat, the wife and children got the sucrose…” (p. 145). Sugar provided a relatively cheap source of calories for women and children’s diets to make up for the fact that they got less of other foods. Of course men also ate sugar, but historical evidence indicates that their diets were made up of more protein and less sugar compared to women and children. Sugar provided an energy boost and source of calories for women and children, but at the cost of providing little nutritional value.

Mintz also describes how cultural beliefs emerged to justify this consumption pattern:

One (male) observer after another displays the curious expectation that women will like sweet things more than men; that they will employ sweet foods to achieve otherwise unattainable objectives; and that sweet things are, in both literal and figurative senses, more the domain of women than of men. (p 150).

And of course this belief that women like sweet things more than men, and use them to “achieve” objectives (say, eating chocolate to soothe a broken heart after a breakup) is still with us today.

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

Taylor sent in this ad, found at Blame It on the Voices:

It ran in Esquire in 1959 and our post on the emergence of Playboy Magazine may give the ad some interesting context.

Both Aani B. and Sarah F. sent in a link to a commercial for the new diet Pepsi (Pepsi Max, of course) being aimed at men. 

Also don’t miss this commercial (embedding disabled) in which they describe the ingredients of Pepsi Max as the crushed bones of a Viking, the spit of a rapid Wolverine, pepper spray, and scorpion venom.  The can? Made from the hull of a nuclear submarine.  The crushing of cans on heads ensues.

Over at I Blame the Patriarchy, a reader named Kate sent in a snapshot of some advertising for the product at the intersection of 6th and Anza in San Francisco:

Slogans:

“The first diet cola for men.”

“Save the calories for bacon.”

“0 calories. Great taste. Welded together.”

“No gut. All glory.”

This is, of course, all in jest. Yet is still re-affirms the idea that being this way is the epitome of manhood, if taken to a ridiculous extreme.  Eh, I’ll just let Twisty say it. As usual, she says it better than I:

What’s the big whoop? Well, you can’t have a “soda for men” unless “men” are considered a class unto themselves, defined in terms of the bacon-eating, welding, glorious nukular submarine-squashing aspirations that separate them from dainty vulnerable “women.” These ads are jokey, depicting average-looking dudes, but they tacitly allude to the noxious he-man/fragile damsel dichotomy that’s been chapping actual women’s hides lo these many millennia.

It also, of course, points to the fact that dieting really has been for women all along (see posts here and here for examples). In fact, it denies that diet-soda-for-men is about dieting at all: note the slogan “save the calories for bacon” and the name, Pepsi Max, which implies adding something to the beverage as opposed to taking something out.

See other examples of marketing for diet products aimed at men: Nutrisystem (“get ‘er done!”) and Weight Watchers.

We recently critiqued Facebook’s “neutral” avatar for appearing both white and male.  Both Abby J. and Noah Brier pointed us to the fact that Rob Walker at Murketing has been collecting default avatars.  His collection is really interesting.  First, it demonstrates that the avatars don’t need to be gendered at all.

Flikr:

Hotmail:

Google:

Vimeo:

My space:

Friendfeed:

Yahoo:

Youtube:

Second, it demonstrates that the avatars don’t have to human at all:

Twitter:

Posterous:

Third, his collection also suggests that, when the avatar is human and discernibly gendered, it usually appears to be male.  There’s the Facebook avatar, as well as…

EBay:

Car Domain:

Topix:

Yammer:

The avatar tends to be male, unless the company produces a default male and a default female.

Blip FM:

Goodreads:

This collection reveals that the appearance of a company’s default avatar is by no means inevitable or accidental.  Companies must make choices and they are, indeed, making choices about what kind of person is the default person.

Check out his whole collection.  It is growing.

Jamie R. sent in a link to a video that presents a lot of attention-grabbing statistics (which may or may not be accurate). At first it appears that the avatar could be unisex, but then at about 1:18, we see the “female” avatar:

Did You Know? from Amybeth on Vimeo.

At no other place in the video do we see the female avatar except when the “neutral” one is presented as married…indicating, from the context of the video, that it is not unisex or neutral, but male.

MORE! You may have noticed that our revamping of the site involved putting our names up.  Lo and behold, these male avatars popped up next to our names.

So we went into the admin page to see if we had some other option, like maybe something non-human or a female avatar if necessary.  These were our options:

First, blank is really the avatar you see in the first screenshot, it’s neutral which, in reality, is male.  So there is no way to opt out of having an avatar (our tech guy, Jon, is still working on it).

Second, there is no female avatar option.

Third, though there is no female avatar, there is a Monster and a Wavatar option, whatever the hell that is.   So WordPress is allowing you to represent yourself as a Wavatar, but you’re not allowed to be a chick.

Amazing.

NEW (Apr. ’10)! Keri sent a screenshot of her WordPress menu which, she noted, represents the users with two different skin colors.  It’s a nice counterpoint to much of what we see above:

For more on how certain kinds of people get imagined as just people, while others get imagined as certain kinds of people, visit our posts on the Body Worlds exhibit, “flesh” colored products, Pixar films, gender and clothes, and Plan and Playmobile toys.