Occasionally we here at Sociological Images like to put up something we really like. To that end, I submit to you this public service announcement for science careers in the European Union (made by a German ad agency):
I like that it’s actually creative, instead of relying on the good ol’ objectifcation, nudity, violence, sex, or all of the above. I also like that the people in the commercial just look like people. Proof that you don’t need people in the 99.9th percentile of beauty and thinness/beefiness to make a good ad. What do you like about it?
The following image is of a USC quarterback named, and I swear I’m not making this up, John Booty. In fact, if you look closely, the title of the text in the photo is “Booty’s Call.”
This could be useful in discussions about the social construction of masculinity and sexuality. Imagine any other scenario in which two men were posed this way in a photograph without being labeled as homosexual. However, since they are playing football, they manage to get away with this blatant violation of the rules. In fact, they manage to break the rules of gender and sexuality in a way that manages to reinforce those same rules.
Talk about moving the goalposts…
One thing you may not know about the peoples of the pre-Columbian Andean region: they were fond of making pottery with exaggerated penises. These were often pipes or water vessels and forced the user to place his or her mouth on the gigantic penis. Images can be found here, here, here and here.
I like these because they remind students that sexual humor (making pottery that forces someone to drink out of a penis, for instance) is not even close to being a modern invention. I’m sure there are lots of other interpretations–that this actually shows an obsession with the penis than indicates a patriarchal culture, that it was part of a cult of warrior potency, and so on–but I bet there was also a level of joking going on too.
Gwen Sharp is an associate professor of sociology at Nevada State College. You can follow her on Twitter at @gwensharpnv.
A student pointed me to bharatmatrimony.com, a matchmaking website targeting the general Indian sub-continent:
You can choose to search a variety of more specific groups (Hindi, Punjabi, Tamil, etc.). Among other search criteria, you can specify caste and sub-caste.
I did a quick search (I put in “any” for caste) and found that the profiles are publicly available (presumably you only have to pay if you actually want to contact them), and include such information as complexion (one profile said “wheatish”), blood type (??), eating habits (vegetarian or not), horoscope and whether or not the person requires a good horoscope match, the person’s caste and sub-caste, annual income, and their preferences in a partner (they can state a caste and first-language preference but not a complexion preference, from what I can tell).
The website might be useful for any number of discussions–about technology and the increasing global reach of the internet, of modern methods of dating, about what type of information we might think is important at first glance about a person (although in the U.S. I bet many people would say asking about someone’s complexion is inappropriate or racist, I presume we have things on our dating sites that would seem rude in India; also, I’d argue American users of dating website don’t openly ask about complexion but can get that information from photos and so may be judging potential partners on it anyway). This could also bring up an interesting discussion of language–I suspect many students would be horrified at the idea of a “matchmaker,” which implies arranged marriages to some degree, but a “dating service” seems different (even though eharmony and other sites call potential partners “matches”).
The same student also uncovered these anti-dowry posters:
They can be found here. I have tried to find a website for The Sisterhood Collective or the ad agency that supposedly made these posters but have not be able to, so I do not have definitive proof they are real (I have no reason to say they aren’t, only that I’m usually cautious of things that supposedly were displayed in other countries that seem a little too funny/horrific to be true, so I always try to do a little digging if I can. Snopes.com didn’t have anything on it.
One thing that I thought was interesting about the anti-dowry posters was that when I first saw them, the language (“you fucking prick”) made me assume they were directed at men, although when I looked at them again I realized there was no reason they couldn’t be directed at women. If they were meant to target a male audience, it could lead to an interesting discussion of the implication that only men are engaged in patriarchal oppression, ignoring the role that older women (particularly potential mothers-in-law) play in reinforcing dowry and the devaluation of women.
Finally, here’s the cover (found here) of the very first issue of Vogue India, from October, 2007:
Here we see that the image of beauty provided by the magazine to the millions of women in India includes a narrow set of features: light skin, straight hair, stereotypically “European” facial features–and, of course, very, very thin bodies. Compare to this Indian ad for skin-lightening cream for a discussion of standards of beauty and how a generalized “White” ideal of beauty has been increasingly globalized.
Thanks, Kellie G.!
Watch how this 60 Minutes clip from August 2006 manages to completely confuse three very different things: sex identity (believing you are biologically female or male), gendered behavior (conforming to cultural rules about girls/women and boys/men are supposed to do and like), and sexual orientation (which sex you are attracted to sexually). For examples, you know your boy is going to grow up wanting to have sex with men because he likes to “help out in the kitchen” or thinks he’s a girl. These are all very different things. It also includes some wretched study design.
Part I
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoZoRbP-0WM[/youtube]
Part II
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTLAof9oXCI[/youtube]
By the way, funny story: When my nephew was about 2 years old he loved brooms and vacuums. My parents told me that it was because he liked “tools.”
Thanks to Joseph DeM. for the tip!
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.
Keeley c. sent in this comic strip:
Keeley writes:
I think this strip is an amazing commentary on the fluidity of gender and especially gender identity, and how unrelated it can be to one’s outward biology. I also love how it’s unclear whether the speaker’s ability to shift from man to woman is their own perception of themselves or the way they believe others perceive them when they don’t conform to the norm of thier biological gender. There’s a lot of layers piled into the very simple text.
Thanks!
