Margaret McE. sent in an image of Gro-Shu kids’ shoes (found at Hoyden About Town), which are sold at Payless Shoes in Australia. They’re a great example of the gendering of products: notice that the boys’ shoe is called Maths and the girls’ is Drama.
I mean, really?
Stephen W. sent in a link to a music video promoting the National Guard. He saw the video before a screening of Taken in Sioux Falls, SD. At the moment, the National Guard website (warning: noisy) features Kid Rock and Dale Earnhardt Jr. The opening graphics, set to a snippet of Rock’s Warrior, feature a military helicopter followed by a race car and then a picture of an anonymous African-American National Guard member with the rock star and car star:
A few clicks into the website leads you to this music video:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeVt4j_T7-8[/youtube]
In the photographs made available, pictures of Kid Rock’s life as a rock star are mixed with pictures of people in the National Guard, and the lines between the two blur:
Some observations on the marketing of military service:
First, the glorification of military service is an American phenomenon. (See this post which features an American and a Swedish military recruitment commercial back-to-back. The difference is quite amazing.) In this video, the glorification is particularly acute when the light-skinned driver of the Hummer manages to avoid hitting the blue-eyed, olive-skinned, dark-haired boy and then comes out with his giant gun to kick the ball back to him, inspiring a look of awe from the child who’s country he is likely (given the politics in the last 8 years) invading. We’re left, assured, that the U.S. military are all around good folk.
Second, in this case we have military service being marketed with celebrity tie-ins. The website deliberately blurs the line between being a famous rock star, a celebrated race car driver, and a member of the National Guard. Similarly, this Air Force recruitment ad blurs the line between various extreme sports and military service:
These links between military service, skateboarding, and being a rock star are disingenuous, to say the least. And it reminds me of a series of recruitment ads I’ve been seeing lately that highlight the super cool jobs you could end up doing in the Air Force (like being a fighter pilot). I don’t know about you, but both of my family members who joined the military (in their cases, the Army) ended up being bus drivers.
Third, which celebrities are being used to market the National Guard tells us something about who they are trying to recruit. Clearly, they are reaching out to young, working class, perhaps rural, white men. This is not part of the National Guard marketing aimed specifically at this group, the entire National Guard website (warning: noisy), at this time, is entirely devoted to this theme. It speaks to who fights American wars? Studies have shown that, while once military service was required of elites, this changed during Vietnam. Today military service is overwhelmingly performed by working- and middle-class men.
Finally, the re-framing of the role from “soldier” to “warrior,” one who wages war, is very interesting. I’d love to hear your thoughts about this.
More fodder for discussion, if you need it:
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.
Behold, “The Ugly Truth” about women and men:
Amanda at Pandagon offers a nice analysis:
It’s the classic modern attempt to mollify women about vicious gender stereotyping by phony flattery through insulting men—men are such dogs, amiriteladeez?! But the “men are dogs” stereotype is ultimately about putting women in their place, because it packages these assumptions:
* Women are naive, emotional, and kind of stupid, which is why men can exploit these “feelings” women have to steal sex from us.
* Women are obsessed with irrational things like weddings and getting flowers, and they lose their minds over this. (Men are compelled by their supposed out of this world horniness, but rarely are they depicted as losing control of themselves to the point where they lose their dignity.) This is why men have the upper hand, because women are too crazy to hang onto it. It’s certainly not that this is a male-dominated society, no siree, and to make that abundantly clear, female rom com characters now usually have a lot of professional power.
* Women don’t really like sex that much; they just tolerate it to lure unwilling men into pretending to care about us.
* Men are cold, unfeeling creatures that just want sex and nothing more. Women cannot change this, so we have to accept it. For some reason, just abandoning men altogether if they suck this much doesn’t occur to anyone.
* But for some reason, if you buy into this bleak worldview where men and women are completely different, and at war with each other, you’ll be rewarded with True Love.
Via Jezebel.
The ad depicts a horde of completely insane women, screaming with excitement… if, as the ad claims, these packs are “goodies for grown-ups,” then why are women the only ones going crazy over the cookies in this ad? The men in this ad react to the woman with a mix of “WTF” and “oh my god, you’re crazy” which only serves to make the women look even more pathetic and ridiculous.
This commercial tells a similar story: women totally lose it in the face of low calorie sweets.
NEW (Nov. ’09)! And, of course, there is holiday shopping (found at Ad Freak):
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wer7b29mreA[/youtube]
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.
This week in the New York Times, Catherine Rampell explained how the recession was affecting the ratio of female to male workers:
The proportion of women who are working has changed very little since the recession started. But a full 82 percent of the job losses have befallen men, who are heavily represented in distressed industries like manufacturing and construction. Women tend to be employed in areas like education and health care, which are less sensitive to economic ups and downs, and in jobs that allow more time for child care and other domestic work.
Here are the results:
Excluding farm workers and the self-employed, women held 49 percent of the nation’s jobs as of November. Including farm workers and the self-employed, women held 47 percent of jobs.
But, Rampell reminds us:
Women may be safer in their jobs, but tend to find it harder to support a family… Women are much more likely to be in part-time jobs without health insurance or unemployment insurance. Even in full-time jobs, women earn 80 cents for each dollar of their male counterparts’ income…
If the recession continues as it has, the U.S. workforce may soon be majority female.
See also this post on job segregation.
Via Feministing, I found this SuperBowl ad for Bridgestone tires, wherein Mrs. Potatohead shouts driving advice to Mr. Potatohead until her mouth flies off and he looks relieved. Silencing women is hilarious apparently.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQkKP-VPUJM[/youtube]
In From Motherhood to Citizenship, Nitza Berkovich traces a global shift. Sometime during the 20th century, nation-states became convinced that women could boost national economies and foster development. Accordingly, states began thinking of their women as potential productive workers instead of reproductive mothers. It was this economic argument, not necessarily a feminist one, that led to women’s incorporation into the public sphere as citizens (workers, voters, etc).
I was reminded of Berkovitch’s book by a short video sent in by Fran. The video, produced by a non-profit called Girl Effect*, argues that if you get girls into school and give them cows, the world will be a better place. As Fran puts it: “Apparently, girls are only worth supporting if they improve the economy!” Here is an image from the website:
“Girl Effect” is defined as:
The powerful social and economic change brought about when girls have the opportunity to participate in their society.
The logic is not that girls deserve education or the opportunity to sustain their livelihoods (a feminist argument); the logic is that we should invest in girls because it is good for the world (a global improvement or humanist argument or something). I’m not arguing that the former is better or worse than the latter, only pointing out that it’s interesting that feminist initiatives (helping girls) can be supported with non-feminist logics.
The video:
* As an aside, I always think it’s interesting when and how people choose to use the word “girl” as opposed to “woman.” In this case, I suspect the activists think girls are more sympathetic than women. Kids always pull at the heart purse strings moreso than adults. I suppose this is because we ascribe to children a sort of innocence. That, in itself (though socially constructed), doesn’t seem troublesome… but, if we can give the benefit of the doubt, we can also take it away. I always wonder, for example: When do boys growing up in poverty transition from innocent victims of circumstance to potential criminals? When do their sisters transition to welfare queens? When do we decide to retract our generous offering of benevolence and replace it with malevolence? These are just things I wonder.
Julie C. drew our attention to this ad for an internet service that filters “inappropriate” content:
Lizvang nicely articulates an objection (my emphasis):
The breasts, the vagina, the uterus and the colon is cut out of an anatomical text book. When did biology and education about our bodies become shameful? Haven’t we as a society moved past the “a woman’s body is dirty” mindset?
