Penny R. sent in this image (found here via Pennamite) of a 1919 magazine cover. The image is of two women embracing. One represents “Justice” and the other “American Womanhood.” It is captioned “At Last.”
gender
In honor of the election, we offer you a summary of all our election 2008 posts.
This election has certainly brought racial tensions front and center. We highlighted two racist caricatures of Obama: on a waffles box and as a cannibal. We also discussed the cover of The New Yorker on which Barack and Michelle Obama were caricatured as terrorists. Whether or not this was racist was widely discussed and offered an interesting opportunity to ask “Who decides what we talk about?” In response to the argument that we were being too sensitive about the caricatures, we offered some evidence that caricatures of black people do not need to be racist.
Anti-Obama propaganda also included comparison with OJ Simpson, a monkey, celebrities, Osama Bin Laden, fascists and communists, a terrorist, a terrorist again, and a “half-breed Muslin.” See here for other racist anti-Obama propaganda. Gwen asked “So what if Obama is an Arab?” (Note, too, this satirical T-shirt.)
We saw racialization–or the active production of racial meaning–in the fist bump controversy, in calling Michelle Obama a “baby mama,” and in asserting the whiteness of the White House. We discussed the resemblance between Obama and his Grandfather and the meaning of “Main Street” to illustrate the social construction of race. And we offered examples of white privilege: in one we discuss the option of white ethnics to emphasize their ethnicity; in two we discuss a cartoonist who calls Colin Powell a race traitor for endorsing Obama and a Howard Stern clip that suggests that Blacks only endorse Obama because he’s Black. We also remark on how easy it is to deride social theories of inequality.
The McCain/Palin ticket was no stranger to derision. See also our post in which the McCain/Palin ticket is said to be favored by Nazis, another in which Palin effigy is lynched, and a third that discusses ageism in the election.
We’ve also seen plenty of sexism in this campaign. Hillary Clinton has been represented as a nut buster, asked to “iron my shirt,” critiqued for crying, and called a “bitch.” There are more examples here and here. Also see this montage of sexism among political pundits. Both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin were sexualized. See here, here, and here for Clinton and here, here, here, here, and here for Palin. (By the way, Barack Obama was sexualized as well, see here, here, and here.)
We commented, more sociologically, on the gender politics of this election. We discussed the mothering of baby Trig, conservative feminism, the politics of pink, and took a humorous look at the women’s vote with Sarah Haskins.
We also pointed to the way in which Obama and Clinton attempted to appeal to small town people and the ease with which we make fun of them.
For the intersection of race and gender, see our post in which Michelle Obama is called an angry black woman, is said to need to “soften” to be a First Lady, and our post that features the Bros Before Hos T-shirt (scroll to the bottom). For the intersection of race and class, see our post on Obama’s negotiation of the “elitist” label. And, in making intersectionality invisible, see the SNL skit, “bitch is the new black.”
Looking more broadly at politics and media coverage, we discussed the portrayal of evil in the Reverend Wright scandal, McCain’s trivialization of war, the linking of a Democratic adminstration with a terrorist attack, pundit hypocrisy, political networks, a voter registration campaign that uses bondage imagery, suspiciously delicious polling techniques, how cell phones shape polling findings, and trends in media coverage of Obama versus Clinton and Obama versus McCain.
In addition, we offered some examples of punditry from alternative media: on young voters, a call for alliance from the labor movement, a call to get your Jewish grandparents to vote for Obama, a political revival of the Budweiser Wassap video, and two examples of art inspired by the election (here and here).
We also put up posts of figures representing public opinion on blacks, a woman president, and politician parents. And we offered images illustrating how the world would vote.
Finally, our favorite: “We’re not sociologists, we’re Americans!”
Adriana E. sent in this video made by The Human Rights Action Center, featuring Tila Tequila, designed to inspire opposition to human rights abuses in Burma. Like other organizations, such as PETA (see here and here), this PSA uses sex appeal to inspire activist outrage.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK8inPfHg_0[/youtube]
Ironically, as Adriana notes, Tila Tequila is famous for being bisexual, but really only interacts suggestively in this video with the boys. I guess hypersexualizing a woman is all fine and good, but bisexuality would be a real turn off.
Do any of you think that this is effective in inspiring concern for Burma?
In U.S. culture, the stereotype of Black women includes being too loud, aggressive, etc (i.e., masculine). Thus, to fit into the role of first lady, according to Reuters, Michelle Obama must “soften” herself. Note that the text accompanying this headline emphasizes that she’s just going to be a mom.
In contrast, Cindy McCain already “fits” “with her elegant clothes and pefectly coiffed blond hair.”
Click on either image to enlarge. Full articles can be found here and here. Via Jezebel.
See also this post where Michelle Obama is called an “angry black woman.”
Nevada is a battleground state, and the state elections have gotten nasty (on both sides); the mailers I get every day don’t even pretend to be about issues any more, they’re just attack ads. I got this one, against a Democratic candidate, a couple of days ago:
I thought the photo they chose to illustrate “radical groups” was interesting. There were no specifics about what type of “radical” groups, or what they are radical about. To me, this image seemed like it was supposed to bring up the threat of radical (angry) feminists, but I don’t know if that was the specific type of radical this was meant to evoke or if that’s just what it makes me think of.
Anyway, it might be useful for a discussion of political discourses (for instance, how groups selectively use words like “radical,” “progressive,” “traditional,” “regressive,” and so on to depict change as either good or threatening), as well as what types of political agendas even appearances have become associated with “radical” politics (for instance, a woman wearing multiple necklaces and dreadlocks symbolizes radicalism).
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!
As Melissa at Shakesville writes:
…Subway reminds women that the only reason they have to feel good about themselves is being thin, that their self-worth is predicated on their looks, that psychological health is evidently dependent on being pretty, that fat axiomatically equals ugly, and that no man would ever love a fat girl.
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.
In honor of the election, we offer you a summary of all our election 2008 posts.
This election has certainly brought racial tensions front and center. We highlighted two racist caricatures of Obama: on a waffles box and as a cannibal. We also discussed the cover of The New Yorker on which Barack and Michelle Obama were caricatured as terrorists. Whether or not this was racist was widely discussed and offered an interesting opportunity to ask “Who decides what we talk about?” In response to the argument that we were being too sensitive about the caricatures, we offered some evidence that caricatures of black people do not need to be racist.
Anti-Obama propaganda also included comparison with OJ Simpson, a monkey, celebrities, Osama Bin Laden, fascists and communists, a terrorist, a terrorist again, and a “half-breed Muslin.” See here for other racist anti-Obama propaganda. Gwen asked “So what if Obama is an Arab?” (Note, too, this satirical T-shirt.)
We saw racialization–or the active production of racial meaning–in the fist bump controversy, in calling Michelle Obama a “baby mama,” and in asserting the whiteness of the White House. We discussed the resemblance between Obama and his Grandfather and the meaning of “Main Street” to illustrate the social construction of race. And we offered examples of white privilege: in one we discuss the option of white ethnics to emphasize their ethnicity; in two we discuss a cartoonist who calls Colin Powell a race traitor for endorsing Obama and a Howard Stern clip that suggests that Blacks only endorse Obama because he’s Black. We also remark on how easy it is to deride social theories of inequality.
The McCain/Palin ticket was no stranger to derision. See also our post in which the McCain/Palin ticket is said to be favored by Nazis, another in which Palin effigy is lynched, and a third that discusses ageism in the election.
We’ve also seen plenty of sexism in this campaign. Hillary Clinton has been represented as a nut buster, asked to “iron my shirt,” critiqued for crying, and called a “bitch.” There are more examples here and here. Also see this montage of sexism among political pundits. Both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin were sexualized. See here, here, and here for Clinton and here, here, here, here, and here for Palin. (By the way, Barack Obama was sexualized as well, see here, here, and here.)
We commented, more sociologically, on the gender politics of this election. We discussed the mothering of baby Trig, conservative feminism, the politics of pink, and took a humorous look at the women’s vote with Sarah Haskins.
We also pointed to the way in which Obama and Clinton attempted to appeal to small town people and the ease with which we make fun of them.
For the intersection of race and gender, see our post in which Michelle Obama is called an angry black woman, is said to need to “soften” to be a First Lady, and our post that features the Bros Before Hos T-shirt (scroll to the bottom). For the intersection of race and class, see our post on Obama’s negotiation of the “elitist” label. And, in making intersectionality invisible, see the SNL skit, “bitch is the new black.”
Looking more broadly at politics and media coverage, we discussed the portrayal of evil in the Reverend Wright scandal, McCain’s trivialization of war, the linking of a Democratic adminstration with a terrorist attack, pundit hypocrisy, political networks, a voter registration campaign that uses bondage imagery, suspiciously delicious polling techniques, how cell phones shape polling findings, and trends in media coverage of Obama versus Clinton and Obama versus McCain.
In addition, we offered some examples of punditry from alternative media: on young voters, a call for alliance from the labor movement, a call to get your Jewish grandparents to vote for Obama, a political revival of the Budweiser Wassap video, and two examples of art inspired by the election (here and here).
We also put up posts of figures representing public opinion on blacks, a woman president, and politician parents. And we offered images illustrating how the world would vote.
Finally, our favorite: “We’re not sociologists, we’re Americans!”
Adriana E. sent in this video made by The Human Rights Action Center, featuring Tila Tequila, designed to inspire opposition to human rights abuses in Burma. Like other organizations, such as PETA (see here and here), this PSA uses sex appeal to inspire activist outrage.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK8inPfHg_0[/youtube]
Ironically, as Adriana notes, Tila Tequila is famous for being bisexual, but really only interacts suggestively in this video with the boys. I guess hypersexualizing a woman is all fine and good, but bisexuality would be a real turn off.
Do any of you think that this is effective in inspiring concern for Burma?
In U.S. culture, the stereotype of Black women includes being too loud, aggressive, etc (i.e., masculine). Thus, to fit into the role of first lady, according to Reuters, Michelle Obama must “soften” herself. Note that the text accompanying this headline emphasizes that she’s just going to be a mom.
In contrast, Cindy McCain already “fits” “with her elegant clothes and pefectly coiffed blond hair.”
Click on either image to enlarge. Full articles can be found here and here. Via Jezebel.
See also this post where Michelle Obama is called an “angry black woman.”
Nevada is a battleground state, and the state elections have gotten nasty (on both sides); the mailers I get every day don’t even pretend to be about issues any more, they’re just attack ads. I got this one, against a Democratic candidate, a couple of days ago:
I thought the photo they chose to illustrate “radical groups” was interesting. There were no specifics about what type of “radical” groups, or what they are radical about. To me, this image seemed like it was supposed to bring up the threat of radical (angry) feminists, but I don’t know if that was the specific type of radical this was meant to evoke or if that’s just what it makes me think of.
Anyway, it might be useful for a discussion of political discourses (for instance, how groups selectively use words like “radical,” “progressive,” “traditional,” “regressive,” and so on to depict change as either good or threatening), as well as what types of political agendas even appearances have become associated with “radical” politics (for instance, a woman wearing multiple necklaces and dreadlocks symbolizes radicalism).
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!
As Melissa at Shakesville writes:
…Subway reminds women that the only reason they have to feel good about themselves is being thin, that their self-worth is predicated on their looks, that psychological health is evidently dependent on being pretty, that fat axiomatically equals ugly, and that no man would ever love a fat girl.
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.