gender: masculinity

Beth sent in a link to WowWee, a company that makes robot toys, including Robosapien:

The description of Robosapien:

Robosapien™ is a sophisticated fusion of technology and personality. Loaded with attitude and intelligence, Robosapien is the first robot based on the science of applied biomorphic robotics. With a full range of dynamic motion, interactive sensors and a unique personality, Robosapien is more than a mechanical companion — he’s a multi-functional, thinking, feeling robot with attitude!

There is also a female version, called Femisapien:

From the website:

Intelligent and interactive, RS Femisapien™ speaks her own language called “emotish” which consists of gentle sounds and gestures. There is no remote required; interact with her directly and she responds to your hand gestures, touch, and sound.

So the default robot is male, with the female being not a female Robosapien but rather an entirely different product. And the photos and descriptions of Robosapien emphasize aggression, movement, personality, and “attitude,” while Femisapien speaks “emotish” (seriously?), which is “gentle”–a characteristic that seems to be missing from Robosapien, who is dynamic and, um, maybe shoots lasers from his hands.

It’s a nice example of gendered assumptions being built into product design and marketing. There’s no particular reason that the male and female versions of a robot have to look so very different, but even if they did, the decision to associate one with words and characteristics that evoke emotion and gentleness and the other with aggression and movement isn’t accidental; it’s a result of how we think about males and females.

For another excellent example of the men are people and women are women thing, see this post on the Body Worlds exhibit.

NEW! Kyle M. sent us a link to his post on the advertising for the sci-fi show Surrogates.  He makes some great observations.  I noticed, too, that the way in which the robotic components of men and women were designed differed slightly in gendered ways.  The “spines” of the men are significantly more robust than the thin, spindly spines given to the female characters.  Notice, also, that the way in which the models are posed emphasizes women’s thinness (in all of these ads, she is positioned sideways, minimizing her size) and men’s broadness (positioned so that the width of his body is emphasized).

Abby K. alerted us to this video from the New York Times about boys who cross traditional gender lines to compete on a double-dutch jump-roping team in Brooklyn:

Click here for the NYT article that accompanied the video.

It’s a good illustration of the pressures boys face to avoid anything defined as feminine, usually more than girls are told to avoid things that are masculine (which can sometimes make them cool). ZeAndre Orr’s mom tried to dissuade him from doing something that was for girls, other boys at school picked on him because of his involvement with double dutch, and of course there is the time-honored tradition of calling boys who participate in “girly” activities sissies. For many boys, the fear of such repercussions–particularly harassment by other boys–is enough to make them steer clear of things they might be good at or like doing. And yet, despite these pressures, both boys and girls do cross gender lines all the time…a fact we conveniently forget when we talk about gender in a way that implies that “real boys” just naturally like certain things and not others, for example.

The other thing this made me think about is the way that physical activities get defined as sports…or as something else. If jump-roping were in the “sport” category, it would be socially acceptable, even encouraged, for ZeAndre to take part. And there’s no particular reason I can see that double dutch is clearly not a sport–it requires stamina, physical skill, fitness, and excellent hand-eye coordination, and involves team competition. I’ll probably get myself yelled at here, but seriously, this looks like it has as much of a claim to be called a sport as golf does.

But much like competitive cheerleading, competitive jump-roping has not attained social recognition as an athletic endeavor. Some sociologists argue that physical activities that predominantly attract women tend to be defined as something other than sports simply because we associate athletics with men, not women. I’m not arguing about whether or not competitive jump-roping should be seen as a sport–I really don’t care–but you might use this video as a starting point for a discussion about why we define some activities as sports but not others, and how gender might play into this.

Back to the issue of the messages boys get that discourage them from doing things coded feminine, Nathan M. (see his truly awesome artwork at The House of Tomorrow) sent in a link to this Nike ad (found at gigposters), which makes it clear that parents are supposed to be horrified at the idea that their son would be in ballet:

Thanks, AK and Nathan!

Christoph B. sent in these Goldstar Beer ads, found at BuzzFeed, that show the differences between men and women:

I know that I, for one, immediately start thinking about marriage every time I meet a guy. My new male neighbor waved at me the other day, and I ran out and bought a wedding dress, just in case.

The other thing here is the assumption that a) the viewer is definitely a man and b) of the two options, the “man’s” life is always preferable. I suppose in the second two ads that might be reasonable–although I never experience all that many problems using public restrooms, but whatever–but why is it automatically better to have sex with no emotional attachments or expectations of ever interacting again? I doubt that all men enjoy such encounters, any more than all women are thinking of marriage every time they have sex with someone.

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

Via Adverbox.

Erin S. sent in this screencapture of a set of ebay gift suggestions:

Erin says,

For her?  A Roomba automatic vacuum!  For him?  A new sports car, of course!

Apparently Zunes are an androgynous gift, which is good to know.

Random, non-sociological story: My ex-stepdad once got my mom a mop for their anniversary. For her birthday he got her a live mouse trap–the type that doesn’t kill them but just keeps them contained so you can take them outside. She actually liked these gifts better than the time he got them “both” a rifle for their anniversary, as a “shared” gift. Ah, romance.

Thanks for the image, Erin!

NEW! (July ’10): Carissa sent in an image of an advertisement for an eBay Coupon Event that provides suggestions for different groups. There’s a clear assumption of who would be most interested in the different categories, with the other gender thrown in as an afterthought. But it’s also an example of how we insist on dividing things by gender, even when there’s absolutely no reason to do so. If you’re acknowledging that both men and women might like everything listed, why bother to categorize them by gender at all? Why not just have  a list under “All Categories” and leave it at that?

Both Cole S. and Toban B. found this Nestle’s candy bar (Cole saw it at World Market):

The Yorkie website was down (the error message said for routine maintenance) when I tried it, but Toban managed to snag some quotes from it earlier that indicate how the bar is being marketed to men. The bar is described as “a big, solid, chunky eat, uniquely for men,” and the site goes on:

Yorkie is positioning itself as a chocolate bar for men who need a satisfying hunger buster. With five solid chunks of chocolate, it’s a man sized eat…

[Earlier] advertising reflected this with macho imagery – lorry drivers who take it one chunk at a time…
Yorkie still holds these values today but was relaunched in 1994 as a hunger satisfying bar.

It’s similar to the way that Hungry Man frozen dinners are marketed: the association with working-class male appetites, which presumably require big, “solid” meals to satisfy them after their hard days of work. Clearly any candy bar this serious isn’t appropriate for women. Oh, excuse me…not a candy bar, a hunger-satisfying bar. Women eat chocolate for emotional reasons or to bask in the luxury of the taste; men eat chocolate just to fill their stomachs. Notice that the advertising doesn’t focus on the types of things we generally see in Dove or Hershey’s ads for chocolate bars: the chocolate being rich, smooth, delicious, etc., which imply that eating chocolate is an indulgence rather than just a practical way to satisfy your hunger.

Also, in our comments Trevor pointed us to a conversation about a pink version of the Yorkie.  I am completely perplexed.  Along the top it says “VERY LIMITED EDITION.”  Along the bottom is says “5 HUNKY CHUNKS OF MILK CHOCOLATE.”  Along the top, diagnolly, it reads: “GET YOUR LIPS AROUND THIS!” 

So is it a girl version?  I can’t tell.  The female figure is still crossed-out with the “no” symbol.  I don’t know what pink thing she is holding.  I am perplexed.

Also note, Men’s Pocky (thanks Lis Riba): 

Candy, like other high-sugar products, are often gendered female.  Perhaps that’s why this candy marketing is making such a big point of making candy manly?  Notice that the Men’s Pocky is “bitter,” i.e., not too sweet.  That seems to be happening a lot these days, as in the new Snickers and Twix marketing, see here, here, here, and here.

NEW! Keely W. sent in a commercial for Mars’ new candy bar aimed at women, Fling (found here).  The message: You shouldn’t (sexually) indulge a lot, but you can (sexually) indulge just a little… with the help of Mars Co., of course.

In The Gendered Society, Michael Kimmel argues that women often have to be very careful how they dress, lest they be seen as too frumpy, too old, too slutty, too smart, trying to hard, etc.  In comparison, men can often just go as a guy.

Two examples:

Nancy: The invitation says black tie, I guess you’ll wear your tux?

Frank: Yup.

Nancy: Mr. Easy.  Once choice, one look.  I have to ponder endless combinations of hair, makeup, gowns, shoes, jewelry.  I have to decide if I want to look sultry, subdued, glittery, basic, bright, dark, modern, traditional…

Frank: Hon, who do you want to please?

Nancy: You, of course.

Frank: I stopped listening after “sultry.”  There, Mr. Easy to the rescue.

Nancy: Gee, thanks.  Sultry’s the hardest one.

The fact that women can’t just be a “person” at the bar or the black tie event is related to the fact that women are a marked category, while men are culturally neutral.  That is, women are women and men are people.  For more posts on this idea related to gender and other categories, see this post on toys for kids and our post on that famous real bodies exhibit.

(I found the first image here; the LuAnn cartoon was given to me by Myra M. F.)

Norms of masculinity include prescriptions to pursue sex. Taught to expect women to resist, “real” men supposedly work around refusals instead of taking them at face value.

In light of this, some sociologists argue that rapists are not non-conformists (somehow deviant), but hyper-conformists. Rapist are men who take rules of masculinity to their logical conclusion.

When I discuss this in class, I show this Gucci ad:

The clean-cut, clear-headed, well-dressed, all-American young man looks calmly and confidently into the camera, while the woman looks as if she is drunk, or drugged, or both.  Barely able to stand, holding onto her shoes, her dress falling off… Has she just been raped or is the rape yet to occur?

And does the imagery in this ad suggest that a (potential) rape scenario is mainstream in America, un-remarkable, even fashionable?  If so, what does that say about the depth of our rape culture?