gender

Markus G. alerted us to some of the coverage of Samantha Davies, one of the few women to ever compete in the Vendée Globe, an around the world non-stop sailing competition.

The coverage, in the Daily Mail, highlights her sexuality instead of her competence as a sailor.  Sexualizing women is problematic because it undermines any notion of her competence by reducing her to one purpose–fulfilling men’s lust–and erases, in doing so, her skills, work ethic, experience, and knowledge.

The headline reads: “Lone Yachtswoman Samantha Davies: ‘Sometimes I sail naked.'”

Text includes such doozies as:

When you see Samantha Davies pottering about in a teeny pink bikini on her pink sailing boat, Roxy, and spritzing her cabin with perfume, it’s difficult to imagine her facing waves the size of houses, 80-mile-an-hour winds and nights without a second’s sleep.

But that’s how life is for Sam, a 33-year-old Cambridge engineering graduate who once wanted to be a ballerina, still loves to dress in girlie clothes onshore and wears three tiny diamond ear studs and a belly ring.

Let’s get her sailing credentials out of the way – then we can move on to the important questions, such as: ‘How do you have skin that looks like a Clarins advert when you don’t sleep and your face gets ravaged by sun, salt and sea?’

‘In rough seas, sometimes it’s too dangerous to boil water, so you just eat freeze-dried food,’ she smiles. ‘But as I’m a girl, my nutritionist acknowledges that I have to eat chocolate each day!’ 

‘Don’t give me big muscles,’ Sam wails. ‘But you’ve got to pull up your mainsail, and you can’t do that without strong muscles,’ replies her trainer. ‘But my objective after the race,’ insists Sam, ‘is to have smaller, ladylike arms and shoulders!’

…she uses her sex to her advantage: ‘Whenever I don’t want to climb the mast to do a job at the top, I wear a short skirt so that I simply can’t get up there.’

Other pictures included in the news story:

The documentary “People Like Us: Social Class in America” (an excellent film, if you haven’t seen it; my students always get a kick out of it) includes a section about Honfest, a yearly festival in Baltimore. The film brings up some interesting questions about Honfest, particularly what it means that one group of Baltimore residents dresses up and acts like a caricature of another part of the population–“hons,” or working-class women (so named for their supposed habit of calling everyone “Hon”).

From the Honfest website:

The Bawlmer term of endearment, Hon, short for Honey, embodies the warmth and affection bestowed upon our neighbors and visitors alike by historic working-women of Baltimore. HonFest is an annual celebration in honor of these women…

In answer to the question, “Is the hon a dying breed?,” Denise Whiting, creator of HonFest, exclaimed, “No! Absolutely not. Hon will live on forever in our hearts, and HonFest gives everyone an opportunity to celebrate and embrace their heritage.”

The festival includes a Miss Hon contest. Here is a photo of Miss Hon 2007:

The website’s description of hons:

…the women who vie to become Baltimore’s Best Hon are a vision of the sixties-era. They are women with beehive hairdos, bright-blue eye shadow, spandex pants and anything with leopard print!

But commentators in the documentary argue that some of the things being parodied–big hair, certain makeup and clothing styles–are still common, particularly in the working-class areas of Baltimore. From this perspective, it’s not just that people are mimicking or parodying the past; there’s also an element of class ridicule involved (since the style, taste, and speech associated with working-class women are being fetishized and parodied by other, often wealthier, women). This brings up a number of questions: Is this just good-hearted fun? Is it truly honoring these women, or mocking them? Does it bring attention to Baltimore’s working class residents, or simply treat them like they are historic relics?

(In)famous Baltimore resident and “Hairspray” director John Waters says,

It’s condescending now. The people that celebrate it are not from it. I feel that in some weird way they’re looking slightly down on it.

This might be useful for a discussion of social class and issues of representation–is Honfest respectful and fun or condescending? Does it make any difference whether some of the styles and mannerisms being parodied are still used by working-class women? Does it matter what the class background of attendees and participants tends to be? You might compare it to the controversy surrounding American Indian sports mascots for a discussion of concerns about representation more broadly.

Politics has long been considered a masculine domain.  After all, there are issues, and there are “women’s issues.”  However, in this election season, The View has delved deeply into politics.  Reactions to this reveal the assumption that politics are for men.

First, Bill O’Reilly’s appearance on The View can be described as nothing if not sexist.  Essentially, his message was “Don’t worry your pretty, little emotional heads about politics, ladies!” The View is just “entertainment,” according to O’Reilly, because it’s for women.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6rR2OwaY1c[/youtube]

Second, soon after Joy Behar appeared on Larry King, King asked her “When did ‘The View’ become this?  When did it go off-track?”  King’s question reveals his assumption that women’s media is for women’s issues, and those are, simply, not real politics (read the transcript here).

Ironically (awesomely), after 12 years on the air, this election season marks the first time that The View has been the #1 watched daytime show, “…garnering its biggest aud[ience] ever (6.2 million) on Nov. 5, the Wednesday after the election” (source).

So, it turns out, women are interested in politics after all.

(Thanks to Gwen for help on this post.)

Motrin shows ads on the sides of bus shelters in the Boston metro area. Here’s one, which says, “High heels…when you strut, we feel your pain.”

Another ad in the series says, “30-pound stroller…when you lift, we feel your pain.” I can only find these 2 examples so far, and it seems they are both gendered feminine, associated with a shoe style worn almost exclusively by women and with an activity [stroller use = child care] connoted as feminine.

Burk brought my attention to the video game Battle Raper. I found a Battle Raper website, but it was all in Japanese, and I couldn’t find an English version, so I will provide you a short description from Wikipedia:

Battle Raper is a 3D fighting game in which the objective is to strip, grope, and sometimes actively rape the female characters, including a special move by the boss character and only male fighter where the female opponent is forced to perform fellatio as the camera zooms in. Like in most Hentai games, however, the penis is rendered invisible or transparent. There is also a feature in the game which allows the player to have sex with the female characters.

Here is a screenshot (found at Something Awful) of a female character crying because she is being forced to perform oral sex on the male character:

You can also damage your opponent by molesting their breasts or crotch. Once you win the game playing each of the different characters, you open a function where you can look at all the rape scenes. Here’s a shot of a female character’s face as she’s being raped:

Apparently in Battle Raper 2, they took out the rape function.

A simple description of this game will have to do, because I just can’t bring myself to write any commentary about it.

UPDATE: For the record, I’m not saying a) the Japanese are more sexist than other cultures, b) this game is (or isn’t) representative of video games in general or hentai games in particular, c) that video games lead to any particular behaviors or make people act violently, or d) that people shouldn’t be able to play these games in the privacy of their own homes.

It was sent to me as a possible post, I thought it was interesting, and I thought the discussion by some gamers I found on different websites was also fascinating: lots of people saying “Oh, I play violent stuff, but this was unacceptable even for me!” and saying how they put rape in a different category than any other type of violence, so these types of games are worse than “regular” violent video games. I thought of it as a case that might be useful for discussions of cultural representations of rape, and particularly how we often treat rape as a “special” type of crime that is somehow worse than any other type, possibly even murder. Why we do that, and what it means (particularly, how does it impact the stigmatizing of rape victims, who are often treated as though they are permanently broken and defiled?), are sociologically interesting questions.

NEW (Apr. ’10)! Dmitriy T.M., Beth W., Tom M., Abby D., and Jillian Y. all sent in another game with the same theme. The narrative for this one, called Rapelay, is as follows:

The player plays as a chikan (a perverted man who frequently fondles women) in crowded subway trains. A young woman named Aoi has the player arrested for molesting her. Afterwards, the player plans to exact revenge by molesting and raping her entire family (source).

This is the cover:

A still from the game:

Most media coverage won’t offer images, saying that they are too graphic to show.

A main source of the wage gap between men and women is job segregation.  Men and women are sorted into different jobs and jobs associated with women are paid less.

Below is a list of occupations and their average wages for 2007 from The Bureau of Labor Statistics.  I picked out occupations that were rather straightforward (not a random sample, just an illustrative one), put them in order from lowest to highest, and colored them according to whether they are feminine (pink) or masculine (blue) occupations.  Comments below.

Parking Lot Attendants:  $8.82
Child care workers:    $8.82
Coatroom attendants:   $9.18
Bellhops:  $9.25
Sewing machine operators:   $9.31
Manicurists and pedicurists:   $9.60
Home health care aid:  $9.62
Stock clerks:   $9.85           
Janitors:   $10.00
Hairdressers:  $10.68
Security Guards:  $10.85
File clerks:  $11.06
Pre-school teachers:  $11.12
Barbers:  $11.31
Receptionist:  $11.40
Bus Driver (school):   $12.43
Construction workers:   $13.13
Butchers:   $13.87
Dental Assistants:   $15.17
Bus Driver (city):   $15.94
Roofers:   $15.98
Car mechanics:   $16.43
Truck drivers:   $17.41
Electricians:   $21.53

1. Notice that feminized occupations, occupations that are disproportionately female, cluster towards the lower wage end of this hierarchy.  

2. Notice also that, were we to rank these occupations in order of importance or difficulty, we might come out with a very different ranking.  Importance and difficulty does not necessarily translate into wages. 

For example, child care workers and home health care workers are paid only a bit more or no more than parking lot attendants. And coatroom attendants are paid more. So coats and cars are, I guess, pretty important.

Car mechanics are paid more than dental assistants.  They require a similar amount of training, yet we still pay those taking care of our cars more than those taking care of our teeth.

And pre-school teachers are paid less than butchers and bus drivers.  Is preparing our children for school less important than getting them there?  Do we value the man preparing our meat more than we value the woman tending to our child?

3. Finally, notice that some jobs come in gender specific forms and the feminized form is paid less. For example, maids are paid less than janitors and hairdressers are paid less than barbers.

Marc sent in a link to some sexist vintage ads found at Blog of Hilarity [note: I had an actual link to Blog of Hilarity, but commenter LillyB pointed out that when she clicked on it, she got warnings from her AntiVirus about the site; I just had the same thing happen, so I decided for safety’s sake to remove the link]. Some of them I’ll be adding to other posts, but I thought these deserved their own post.

This one, for Love’s Baby Soft, is so creepy I can hardly stand to look at it:

The shape of the bottles, the sexualization of young girls…ick. A teddy bear? Really? The text below the bottles:

Love’s Baby Soft is that irresistible, clean-baby smell, grown-up enough to be sexy. It’s soft-smelling. Pure and innocent. It may well be the sexist fragrance around.

Notice it’s not grown up…it’s grown up enough. Jean Kilbourne uses this, or a similar Love’s Baby Soft, ad in her documentary Killing Us Softly 3 when she discusses how young girls are sexualized and adult women are encouraged to infantilize themselves.

Here’s an ad for Kellogg’s PEP vitamins:

I know I always look super cute when I’m scrubbing the kitchen.

Finally, this Trix ad seems sort of creepy to me, and I’m not even sure why. Maybe it’s the way the girl is staring at the camera, or that her pupils seem fixed and dilated:

The text isn’t exceptionally interesting, but it does use the word “gay” in the original sense of “happy,” something a company would certainly not do today.

Thanks, Marc!

Xavier M. sent us a link to this print ad, which he saw in a Belgian men’s magazine, that uses sex to encourage organ donation (found here).

Text: “Becoming a donor is probably your only chance to get inside her.”

There are some interesting implications here about why we engage in altruism and who is deserving of that altruism.

See also similar posts on PETA (see here and here) and human rights violations in Burma.

At AdFreak, I discovered that Sea Monkeys are being used to sell sex. Sure enough:

NEW (Mar. ’10)! Christina W. sent in this ad campaign for French cheeses using a pin-up calendar:

The video is a backstage look at a sexy calendar photo shoot for…cheese:

[vimeo]https://vimeo.com/113146614[/vimeo]

NEW (Jun. ’10)! Stephanie DeH. sent in this lovely CPR instructional video (which also got its own post):

ALSO NEW (Jun. ’10)! Lindsey Dale, at Nobody, collected the following ads selling, with sex, archery, a laser detector, tea, and coffee:

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.