gender: masculinity

No longer just for the lovely, Unilever’s “Fair and Lovely” is being marketed to men (see here and here for ads for “Fair and Lovely”).  The marketing is interesting on at least three levels:

(1) The ads exploits men’s insecurity about their appearance, just as they do for women.

(2) However, they masculinize the product with the “Fair and Handsome” name and, in the second commercial, by emphasizing the sporty-fighty-ness of the men using the product (see also our posts on make-up for men,  masculinizing hair product, and selling hair dye to men).

(3) Though I don’t understand the language, the imagery of the arrows representing “Fair and Lovely” bouncing off of men’s skin seems to affirm the idea that men are inherently and biologically different from women… so much so that there would need to be a totally different product (kind of like the old “P.H. balanced for a woman” argument). Do correct me if I’m mistaken.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgBevCTBTJw&feature=related[/youtube]

Via MultiCultClassics.

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.

Click here for a nice gender and race analysis of a range of Halloween costumes for adults and kids by our blogger, Wendy.  We’ve also highlighted two costumes in particular: the Sexy Scholar and Anna-Rexia.  And, of course, just a few days ago, we posted about the Halloween display that includes a lynched Sarah Palin and a screenshot of an Obama mask found by searching for “terrorist costume.”  And don’t miss our jack-o’-lantern tribute to Max Weber.  See also, if you like, my Huffington Post about the race, class, and gender politics of Halloween.

To our newest Halloween material:

Andrea G. scanned in an entire Halloween costume catalog and offers some global observations about the breadth of costumes made available.  You can check out her flickr account here or scroll down for the images and some of Andrea’s commentary.

The Cover and Back:

Boys’ costumes:

Boys’ costumes (continued) and girls’ costumes:

Girls’ costumes (continued):

Women’s costumes:

Plus women’s costumes:

Plus women’s costumes (continued) and adult men’s costumes:

Plus men’s costumes:

First, Andrea notes how gendered the costumes are.  Women overwhelmingly are supposed to look sexy, while men are supposed to look funny or scary.  Note that this doesn’t vary much by age.  The costumes for adults and children are strikingly similar.

Second, Andrea points to how often men’s faces are covered by masks and how infrequently women’s are.  She writes that “5 out of the 198 costumes categorized under “female” or “girls” were masked (2.5%)” and “96 of the 180 costumes categorized under “male” or “boys” were masked  (53.3%).”  Andrea thinks: “I think this touches on the double standard American society holds for females/girls to be attractive and beautiful, while males/boys do not have to cater to this social rule, for the most part.”

Third, Andrea notes that there are costumes designed to make men look fat, but not women.  For example, this “Freshman 15” costume:

Thanks Andrea!

First, the commercial (found here):

I love and hate this commercial because of androcentrism.  Androcentrism is the idea that we value masculinity over femininity such that we admire both men and women for performing masculinity.  Androcentrism explains why we tend to like it when women drink beer, play sports, and become lawyers, but do not typically think it’s equally awesome when men cry, wear skirts, learn to knit, or become interior designers.   Here is my crash course on androcentrism.

In any case, I kinda love the fact that the hot chick in this commercial represents strength and we’re obviously supposed to think she’s awesome.  But the guy in the commercial, who is supposed to represent sissy hippy environmentalism, doesn’t exactly come off as awesome.  He is funny, stupid, ridiculous.  And I kind of hate that.  In a perfect world, men would be allowed to do things associated with femininity without being considered uncool.

One of the preview ads for the Blackberry Storm is shot from the point of view of a guy approaching a Blackberry on a table. We hear his internal monologue, then see his hand reach for the Blackberry. As music wells up and the scene disappears, we’re supposed to assume that he’s been impressed or sucked into an alternate reality or something.

The framing of the ad puts the viewers in the man’s place. assuming that the viewers are heteronormative white bourgeois men and, if they aren’t, imposing this status upon them. It’s a nice example of how modern US middle-class society continues to assume that hetero white men are the default type of people.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbWsQCbqcE0[/youtube]

Breck C. sent in a video of the original “Wassup” Budweiser ad. What strikes me about the commercial is the portrayal of male friendship: men don’t actually talk meaningfully, they just mention sports and yell catchphrases at each other. Yet this is associated with “true” friendship (as is Budweiser).

After watching it, I was trying to decide to what degree I thought race was an important factor in the commercial–were viewers likely to read this as how Black men interact, specifically, or just what men are like, more generally? African Americans are sometimes stereotyped as loud and more boisterously expressive than other groups, but lots of commercials portray men in general as sort of loud idiots (or children or animals) of some type or another.

I looked for some more “Wassup” commercials and came upon this one:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDTZCgsZGeA[/youtube]

The only male shown being annoyed by the screaming–and not part of the friendship group–is the White guy at the end. I got the impression that he’s used to hearing it from them, so presumably he could have learned to like it as much as they have.

Both Breck C. and Burk sent in this update of the video, made by an independent director with all the original “Wassup” actors (and not in any way related to the Budweiser company):

Apparently this commercial became sufficiently imprinted in the public consciousness that it occurred to someone to update it as a political ad, assuming people would still remember and feel affection for the catchphrase and the characters. I had no idea.

Thanks, Breck and Burk!

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

Both men and women should be troubled by representations like this.  It is insulting to men, of course. But representations of men as childlike also contributes to the idea that men cannot be held responsible or accountable for bad behavior.  As I have explained elsewhere on this blog:

So long as we buy into the idea that we can’t expect men to be good partners or fathers, we will tolerate women’s responsibility for the second shift and their placement on the mommy track at work.

This extends, too, to not coercing women sexually, not cheating, and being partners and lovers who give as much as they receive.

This portrayal of men as children, idiots, animals  (see here and here), and monkeys perpetuates patriarchy, even as this perpetuation is disguised by the denigration of men.

Shoshannah F. sent in this video of a group singing what is titled “Eid Mubarak India Song.” Shoshannah says,

“Eid mubarak” is a traditional Muslim greeting reserved for use on the festivals of Eid ul-Adha and Eid ul-Fitr.

Eid al Fitr, by the way, is the festival celebrating the end of Ramadan; it was celebrated last week.

There are several things in the video I think are interesting. First, it might be a good example of the diversity that exists in the Muslim world. As we’ve talked about before on Soc Images (see here and here) , in the U.S. Islam is often associated very strongly with “the veil” or even “the burqa.” This is used as evidence that Islam is automatically and uniquely oppressive to women. Yet in this video we see some women wearing scarves that cover some of their hair and other women whose heads are completely uncovered. It might be a useful video to show (at least a bit of it) if you’re talking about stereotypes of Islam and the idea that all Muslim women have to wear head coverings.

I can also imagine using a short clip from it to illustrate the fact that students’ frequent belief that Muslim = Arab = Middle Easterner is actually inaccurate. I assign a reading in my race class by Nadine Naber titled “Ambiguous Insiders: An Investigation of Arab American Invisibility” (2000, Journal of Ethnic and Racial Studies vol 23, number 1, p. 37-62). She argues that Islam has been racialized in the U.S., such that most Americans assume all Arabs are Muslims and all Muslims are Arabs, and negative stereotypes of Arabs and Arab Americans are extended to Muslims in general. On a global basis, only a minority of Muslims live in the Arab-speaking world (which is, by the way, the definition of “Arab”); the largest Muslim population lives in Indonesia, and though they are predominantly Muslim countries, neither Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, nor Afghanistan are Arab countries. I might show a small portion of this video as part of a lecture on the inaccuracy of equating Muslims with Arabs.

Another element that really struck me was how certain aspects of the type of masculinity on display here differ from our ideas of how men should act in the U.S. The men are wearing pastel colors that are generally only worn by women in the U.S. (though as this post shows, men are, under certain circumstances, allowed to wear pink). The men also dance closely and hug in ways that would not be acceptable between straight men in the U.S. The video could be used as an example of the social construction of gender, and how the things considered appropriate for men or women to do in one culture may not be viewed the same in others.

Now, I have no idea what the meaning of the guys looking all aghast at the guy in the business suit (at about 3:45) until he starts dancing is. I don’t know what that is supposed to signify–that he’s Westernized and might not take part in the festival? If any readers have any insights on what the meaning of that exchange is, I’d love to hear them.

Thanks, Shoshannah!

UPDATE: Commenter Silviu G. makes a good point:

What struck me was that, in commenting the video, the blogger didn’t emphasize the strict segregation of women and men.

Indeed I didn’t…thanks for pointing out the oversight in my analysis, Silviu! That might add to an interesting discussion of how, in the U.S., we would view men who interacted primarily with one another, hugging and dancing together, and remained entirely separate from one another. In the U.S., such behavior would almost certainly lead to the men being defined as gay; however, I don’t think that is in any way implied in this video, which again points to the variation in norms of gender behavior.

Also, just to clarify…Silviu suggests that I was “praising” Muslim TV for showing women with uncovered hair. That was not my intention–in fact, it would be terribly condescending of me to be all “Hey, look! How nice! They let some women be in public with no headscarves!” My point in mentioning that the women’s heads aren’t covered was just that, at least among my students, there’s often a belief that all Muslim women cover their hair all the time (I’ve had them ask if they have to cover their hair while they sleep), and that this video might be used just to get the point across that there’s no single way that Muslim women dress, any more than all Christian women dress the same, which many of my students found very surprising.

I use TV dinners to show my students that nearly everything, even things they’d never expect, are awash in race, gender, and class meaning.

Hungry-Man is probably the most obviously meaning-laden of the TV dinners.  It is aimed directly at men, of course, with one and a half pounds of food, an excellent blue box, and a strong font in all capital letters.  But it also advertises a particularly working-class masculinity.  In these two boxes, notice the references to “backyard barbeque” and “sports” (XXL).  The food itself, barbeque chicken and pork, mashed potatoes, and beer battered chicken, reinforces this class message.  But this is also about race, as the working-class masculinity is implicitly white.

Stouffer’s, in contrast, is more moderate.  The font for the brand is cursive, for the meal in lower-case.  Without being over the top, it still passes as masculine.

Stouffer’s bistro, in contrast, is a feminine version.  References to a “bistro” makes you think of France (a notoriously feminized country) and the meal here is a “crustini” (something a “real” man would never eat).

Healthy Choice seems to go further towards neutralizing its brand.  The green color is neutral and using the term “healthy,” instead of “diet” or a similar word, keeps the brand from being too feminine.  Plus, there’s a running MAN in the logo.  Still, there’s a feminine feel to the food choices.  The first meal is “Roasted Chicken Marsala… in Wine Sauce with Penne Pasta [and] Green Bean and Red Pepper Medley.”  The second includes “Caramel Apple Crisp” and “Broccoli Florets.”  Descriptions of truly manly food would not include “wine,” “medley,” “crisp,” or “florets.”

The Cafe Steamers sub-brand further feminizes Healthy Choice.  Notice the cursive font and the double reference to “merlot.”

Lean Cuisine is the most feminized brand.  Between the turqoise and orange color scheme, the reference to slimness with the word “lean,” and the delicate all lower-case font on the boxes, the fact that the product is aimed at women is clear.  There is also a class message.  Who eats “Szechuan Style Stir Fry with Shrimp”?  Not the same guy that eats “Backyard Barbeque.”