gender

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.)

Stephen W. sent us a link to a Walmart YouTube channel that recreates the supermom mythology.  The website encourages moms to submit videos of themselves explaining how they’ve figured out how to save money while shopping, cooking, and cleaning.  The website reads:

With creativity, ingenuity, and Walmart’s unbeatable prices.  Moms can do anything.

(I bet they can’t coupon us out of this economic crisis though.)

Here’s a screen shot:

My first thought was: So apparently the wife is the one doing all the spending and, if she is a good little wife, she’s frugal and makes her husband’s hard-earned money go further.  This would reproduce the husband as money-earner/wife as money-spender stereotype.

But then I realized: There’s no mention a dad or any earner anywhere on the front page.  It’s nothin’ but moms.

Aaron B. sent in this 1947 video clip (found here), titled “Are You Popular?”:

Notice the caution to women: if you go “parking with all the boys,” you might think you’re popular, but you’ll ultimately find yourself ostracized and friendless. To be really popular, you need to be well-dressed, have the respect of girls at school, and carefully guard your reputation.

Thanks, Aaron!

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

Robin B. sent us a link to a story in the New York Times magazine chronicling one woman’s decision to have a surrogate carry her biological child.  Surrogacy is, from one perspective, extremely expensive and, from another perspective, extremely lucrative.  The photos accompanying the story illustrate, almost as if by design, how “mothering” is being spread out in systematic ways to different kinds of women. Robin note that the accompanying article bought up lots of issues, but did little to think them through.   In contrast, she points to a set of letters written in response.

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.

In my post a few weeks back about stuff kids bring to college, I had a photo of a teddy bear lying atop a pile of belongings that included pink bed linens. Obviously, it belonged to a girl. (There was a purse in the picture, but even without it. . . .)

A couple of days later, Lisa at Sociological Images had a post reminding us that pink was once the color for boys. She linked to an article by Ben Goldacre in the Guardian.

The Sunday Sentinel in 1914 told American mothers: “If you like the colour note on the little one’s garments, use pink for the boy and blue for the girl, if you are a follower of convention.”

Goldacre uses this bit of history to debunk the claim recently made by evolutionary psychologists that girls’ preference for pink was an outcome of evolution.

But what about the teddy bear? Isn’t there something feminine, a maternal instinct perhaps, that leads girls to keep these soft, childhood objects? It is only girls, right?

Wait, now I remember seeing NYC sanitation trucks with a teddy bear mounted on the grill like a bowsprit mermaid. And Sebastian Flyte in Brideshead Revisited who takes his bear Aloysius with him to Oxford.

Now there’s a DVD* about a Teddy bear snapshot exhibition by Canadian Ydessa Hendeles – thousands of photos from the early twentieth century of people posing with their bears. And it’s not just girls.

*The DVD is of a documentary film by Agnès Varda, who interviews the visitors to the exhibit.

Hat tip to Magda

Jay Livingston is the chair of the Sociology Department at Montclair State University. You can follow him at Montclair SocioBlog or on Twitter.

In a comment a while back, Elena pointed out that Diego Velázquez’s painting “Infante Felipe Próspero” (from 1659) provides a good example of how pink was acceptable for males to wear…as were, in some cases, dresses, which the young prince is wearing:

Elena says,

…until the late 1700s little boys would wear dresses or petticoats for as long as they could until they could dress as miniature adults…This was mainly for ease of bodily functions.

Of course, today most parents would be appalled at the idea of dressing toddler boys in dresses–dresses with frills and ribbons, at that.

The painting “Pope Innocent X,” also by Velázquez (1650) shows the Pope in light pink clothing:

Both images found at the National Gallery’s Velázquez page.

You might also check out Kent State University Museum’s Centuries of Childhood exhibit for examples of how children’s clothing has changed over time.

Thanks for the tip, Elena!

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?

Select text: “These well-stacked Sno-Balls have more than sex appeal… they have sales appeal!”

The 1960s via Found in Mom’s Basement.

More sexualization of food here, here, here, here, here, here, and especially here.