gender

Sport is socially constructed.  What counts as a “real” sport is determined by social convention, as any hard core cheerleader will tell you.  Sports are also gendered and the degree to which an athletic activity is feminized correlates pretty closely with whether or not we feel it is a “real” sport.  This translates into an interesting phenomenon in which excelling at athletic activities deemed feminine and not-really-sport includes obscuring the athleticism involved.  That is, part of what it means to be a good athlete in that sport is to be able to hide exactly how athletic you are.

Feder makes this point in her excellent article, “A Radiant Smile From A Lovely Lady.”  She explains that female figure skaters are required to perform femininity and hide their athleticism with costume, make-up, feminine gestures, and softened movements.   One coach was quoted as saying, “I always tell my girls: think like a man, but act and look like a woman.”

At the time her article was published (1995), the U.S. and International Skating Union still called them “ladies” and required them to wear skirts (after Debi Thomas wore a unitard at the Olympics, horror of horrors).  Women were only allowed to do one triple jump (while men were required to do at least two) and they were disqualified if they did a back flip.

Further, media coverage of women skaters tends to focus not on their physical prowess, but on their dreams, how beautiful they are, and their relationships… all drenched in soft lighting and pretty music.  Feder quoted commentators saying that when women jump they “float like a leaf”; their jumps are “less like stunts than whitecaps bubbling out of waves.”

What does Sasha Cohen have?  “Unstoppable” strength?  Oh.  No.  “Unstoppable charm.”

Because of ice skating’s reputation as a feminine not-sport, men who choose to figure skate are often subject to a lot of policing.  Their masculinity is fundamentally called into question by their proximity to so much femininity.  And, don’t forget, this is a bad thing… or so we are led to believe.

This, of course, is sexist, homophobic, and illogical (tell me again why the guy with his hands all over the girl is gay?).

I go over all of this because of a new campaign by Skate Canada to change ice skating’s image in response to the low participation of boys men in the sport.  Instead of, however, challenging the misogyny, rigid masculinity, and irrationality of the “male ice skaters are gay” attack, they have decided to endorse the attack and simply re-frame ice skating as hypermasculine.

In this clip from CBC sports, representatives of Skate Canada explain how they’ve been policed for their participation, and then explain how “tough” ice skating is and how they’re the ones “dealing with all the… pretty ladies.”  So ice skating is redeemed by reframing the  sport as (athletically and sexually) hypermasculine, instead of calling into question hypermasculinity itself.

Of course, it’s much easier to re-frame your object to fit cultural norms than it is to change cultural norms.  I get it.  It’s practical.  And that’s exactly the point.  When it comes down to it, most people will re-frame rather than fight and this is why social change is so difficult.

Bri A. sent sent in photos of two ads found in complimentary magazines provided on a recent flight she took (she doesn’t remember the names of the magazines). Both have some interesting gender aspects.

The first is for Magnolia Hotels:

Notice the suggested reasons women might be visiting the hotel: party, wedding, reunion, shopping, weekend, date, meeting, girl’s night, skiing (maybe? They’re light purple…). For men: big contract, date, presentation. Bri says,

The only professional woman presented to us in the ad is a woman who is going to a “meeting”. The woman’s shoes however, are a little racy for business and unlike her male colleagues, one of which is doing some sort of jig and the other which has forgotten his pants, she is giving us a little flirty heel raise rather than being humorous or professional. Another interesting difference that stuck out to me was the attire of the man and woman going on a date. The man going on a date is wearing a nice white suit, while the woman is wearing a much less formal and good deal more provocative outfit.

Actually, almost all the female feet are doing flirty little heel raises or half-kicks or something, which somehow doesn’t have quite the same effect as the kick the “big contract” guy is doing.

From another complimentary magazine Bri found on the same trip, an ad for Selective Search, a dating service for the business class:

The company technically serves men and women. But notice that the image only depicts women, and in the second paragraph we learn that “we hand select the must-meet women for our clients.” Close-ups of the lists for “selectively single” men and women:

Notice the men are described as “clientele,” while the women are described as “candidates.” Here are two screenshots from the website, the first from the women’s section, the second from the men’s section:

So ladies, they’ll find you a guy who is commitment-minded, but there aren’t many other specifics–he’ll be a quality, eligible guy, but that could mean a lot of things. Guys get some more specifics–she’ll be attractive and desirable. Somehow a “guy who brings just as much to the table as you do” doesn’t sound quite the same to me as a woman “who meets your exacting standards and criteria.” Bringing as much to the table as you do implies equality. But having exacting standards that must be met doesn’t imply anything about equality–you can have standards for other people even though you couldn’t meet most of them yourself.

Aside from the specifics of the two images themselves, you might talk about the seeming assumption that though the dating service caters to both male and female customers, the people most likely to be reading an ad placed in a business magazine on an airline will be male, and thus the ad should target a male audience (by having images only of women and stressing meeting women in the text). The presumption is either that business people who fly aren’t women, or that women remember to bring their own reading material so they aren’t stuck reading the complimentary magazines the airlines provide.

Thanks, Bri!

UPDATE: In a comment, OP Minded says,

My brother has been in the dating service industry for about 10 years and he tells me that their internal research on this stuff is compelling and very very clear. In searching for a date on a dating service:

95% of women care most about 1) Educational level, and 2) Income.
95% of men  care most  about 1) Looks, and 2) Weight.

Other issues come in to play later in the process, but at the beginning, this is what most of the folks are looking for.

In another comment, Sandra points out,

…I do remember being taught in my undergrad speech department classes that, for instance, in studies on gender effects, when asked to fill out surveys on the street by either a male or a female, women are more likely to respond to the women poll-takers, but the men are also more likely to respond to the women poll-takers [than] men [poll-takers]. So perhaps the marketing move behind the photograph in this dating service ad was based on the idea that, women appeal to women, and women appeal to men. Hence, the women in the image.  It could be the women are intended to see themselves in the photos, as people using this service, and men are intended to see the women as possible dates. 

Good point, Sandra!

According to this JC Penney ad, “Today’s the day to be on display.”  Okay, I get that.  Sometimes it’s nice to show off, to look good, to shine. 

If you look in the bottom right corner, though, JC Penney reminds us that “Every day matters.” 

Sigh.  Bein’ a chick is hard work.

In a comment to Lisa’s post on being a dog or cat person, a. brown pointed out Alpo’s new Get that Dog Some Alpo campaign, in which dogs who enjoy stereotypically high-maintenance feminine activities (pedicures, massages, fancy food, expensive accessories) need to be turned back into “real,” authentic dogs by eating meat, in the form of Alpo. I’ll leave comments about whether or not Alpo has what can realistically be defined as meat in it to others. Here are some screenshots from the site. Notice the language is always “he” or “his” if a gender is specified:

Here are two questions from a quiz you can take to find out if your dog is a Fido or a Fifi:

I’ll just say, for the record, there’s no way that a vegan doggie spa just let someone in to feed Alpo to customers’ dogs without their permission. Absolutely and entirely no way. Their customers would freak out. Also, they would have a horrid, horrid mess to clean up about a half hour later.

What I find interesting here is the association between masculinity and authenticity, while femininity is associated with the upper class, superficiality, and high-maintenance luxury. So “real” dogs like sports and sex (and meat), while dogs who are pampered are somehow less authentic dogs (and presumably don’t care about sex or sports).

And I don’t know where my dogs fit in! They aren’t super-pampered, so at first I thought they’re “real dogs,” but then I realized they’re both neutered, so they don’t care about sex. Are they Fifis or Fidos? [Note: I went through and randomly selected answers in the quiz without even reading the questions and the response was that my dogs are “Vegas” dogs; given that’s where we live, I guess it’ll do.]

Anyway, you might use this to talk about the associations between a certain working-class masculinity and authenticity, in opposition to the way femininity is often connected to artifice and fakeness.

Thanks for the tip, a. brown!

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

What do we really mean when we ask someone if they’re a dog person or a cat person?  Wait… think hard… what are you really asking?

I think we’re asking if a person is more masculine or feminine.  After all, don’t we stereotype women as cat people and men as dog people?  And don’t we think men with cats are a little femmy or, at minimum, sweeter than most… even, maybe, gay?  And don’t we imagine that chicks with dogs are a little less girly than most, a little more rough and tumble?  The cat person/dog person dichotomy is gendered.

This might explain why we continue to insist that dogs and cats are natural enemies. We tend to insist that dogs and cats don’t get along in the face of millions of households in which they get along just fine.  These are Gwen’s pets (clockwise Shadow Cat, Rocky, and Corky):

They are clearly at each other’s throats constantly.

And, have you ever noticed that being a dog person is sort of cooler?  Like, it’s cool to be a dog person, but less cool to be a cat person?  I mean, no one ever fears ending up a “crazy dog lady,” and it’s not just because of the lack of alliteration.  You see because gender is hierarchical, so is the dog person/cat person dichotomy. I hate being asked if I’m a dog or cat person.  I have two cats, but I love dogs equally, and that doesn’t make me less cool than Gwen.  (We’re obviously equally cool.)

Also!

Cats aren’t all alike.  Neither are dogs.  So you can’t be a dog person or a cat person.  It’s nonsensical.

And another thing!

If you want to get all stereotypical about it, I’ll just say that (1) if dogs are dependent, passive, and happily subordinated to their owners, while cats are independent but offer nice companionship, and (2) women are “cat people” and men are “dog people,” then (3) men are really oppressive bastards who can’t stand a relationship with an equal and women are inherently democratic and don’t desire power (none of which I believe).  So let’s not go there, okay?

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.

Jay Smooth over at Ill Doctrine interviewed Elizabeth Mendez Berry (who wrote an article in Vibe several years ago about domestic violence in the hip-hop community) about the issue, which has received renewed attention in the wake of the Chris Brown/Rihanna incident:

It brings up some interesting issues–the pressure on women to not ruin the reputation of men by “airing dirty laundry” and the still-common assumption that women who are abused might have deserved it, higher rates of domestic abuse experienced by African American and Latina women than White women, etc. You might also use it to talk about the fact that both men and women hit their partners, and what that dynamic means. Overall, women in the U.S. hit more often in terms of total incidents (this includes things like the stereotypical slap across the face, not just punches), but are much less likely than men to inflict significant physical harm. Though the rates of harm caused by female aggression toward males is surely underestimated, there is little doubt that women simply do not inflict the levels of physical injury on men that men do on women each year in this country, particularly harm that requires a hospital stay or that ends in death. But I often encounter the sort of equivalency argument Jay Smooth mentions in the video–if women hit, they should be expect to be hit back, etc. It’s always a really interesting discussion, and Berry’s response might be useful for sparking some thoughts about domestic violence, personal responsibility, appropriate reactions (is hitting someone who has hit you first really the most appropriate response?), and so on.

Lauredhel of Hoyden about Town sent in this ad for Brighton Grammar School, an Anglican boys’ school in Australia:

Text:

BGS boys have mates…and dates. Some people think that our boys won’t know how to interact with girls. That’s not true. Our learning programs are carefully desgined to build each boys self confidence, especially through the awkward teenage years, allowing them to relate to each other, their teachers, and, on regular occasions…with girls.

Huh. I like how they’re using the promise of access to girls to market the school. And indeed, it appears that they do teach boys things, including to expect cute girls to gaze at them adoringly.

I don’t know much about the assumptions surrounding all-boys or all-girls schools. Is there a belief that kids who go to them won’t be able to interact with the other sex? Or is this about fears parents have about homosexuality at all-boys schools? Is the school letting them know they don’t have to worry because their sons will have tons of opportunities to hang out with pretty girls?

Elizabeth N. Sent us a post from InGameNow, a networking/chat site for sports fans. The post shows women posed in “meat bikinis”–that is, with raw meat covering women’s nipples and genitals. The images don’t show totally nude women–the are, after all, dressed in raw meat–but they’re probably not safe for work.

more...