This is a tough one, but there is something about this image advertising the Metropolitan Museum of Art that just screams privilege. Is it the perfect blonde hair? The perfect white teeth? The neat upper-class masculinity? The turtleneck? I can’t quite put my finger on it!
Thanks Jason!
These images came to us from Dianne who saw this on BoingBoing and dug deeper to find all these great examples!
Illustrating the way in which whiteness is taken-for-granted and others are always, well, other, Plan Toys sells these doll sets labelled “Ethnic Family,” “AsianFamily,” and, “Doll Family.”
They also sell a “farmer” and a “farmer’s wife.” Dianne notes: “Women don’t farm, apparently, they just marry men who do.”
They also sell this generic “Native American set” of which they write:
“Children can create imaginary stories with the Indian figures, camp, teepee and authentic accessories. They can learn about the traditional American tribe and their lifestye.”
Notice how American Indian tribal difference is erased with the phrase “the traditional American tribe.” Diane pointed out that the set actually combines teepees and totem poles which were traditions of tribes in the plains and on the west coast respectively.
In the “How to Play” section, it says:
“Children can imagine and tell stories about Red Indians, helping to stimulate their imagination and expanding their horizon.”
Yes they really do say “Red Indians.”
Diane notices that, just like the doll family is obviously white, “here again, apparently the default child is white, who can ‘imagine… stories about Red Indians.'”
Ironically, the company claims that they are “socially & environmentally responsible” and promote “good values.”
Thanks so much Diane!
NEW: Kirsten D. sent us this link to a series of Playmobil toys. All of the non-white characters are given racial designations, but the white characters are not. I included some examples below.
African/African American Family:
Asian family:
Grandparents:
Medical Team and Patients:
Prince and Princess:
Also in the neutral and the marked: men are people and women are women and from pale to pumped with racial stereotypes.
This famous Life Magazine cover from 1971 trumpeted the feminist movement:
Six years later, in 1977, Time Magazine reminded us that gender difference (and inequality?) was genetic and, thus, out of our control:
And don’t miss the famous 1978 Hustler cover that appeared the very next year!
These two images were part of the campaign to raise awareness about breast cancer at my college this year. I think it is fascinating that, even when spreading a message about women’s health, the images include sexualization and objectification (on the right) and a woman posed to look insecure, vulnerable, and maybe slightly scared (on the left).
I posted this first image back in October. This ad is disturbing because you can’t really tell if it’s consensual or an attack. And the perfume is called “Unforgivable.”
One of my students recently pointed out the ad for Unforgivable for Men:
Could provide a really interesting discussion of differing images of masculine and feminine sexuality and power. Thanks, Laisa P.!
NEW: Here’s an ad for Isaia Napoli clothing that is very similar:
Thanks, Laura L.!
Gwen Sharp is an associate professor of sociology at Nevada State College. You can follow her on Twitter at @gwensharpnv.
An ad for a bar at the Monte Carlo casino in Las Vegas. I found it in Las Vegas Living.
I just found this ad for a bowling alley in Las Vegas Weekly.
NEW! Here’s another ad that uses the idea of “scoring” to refer to sex:
Truthfully, I don’t think I have ever seen so many symbols of masculinity mobilized in so short a time. I had to watch it three times:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Anl_7Q05C8c[/youtube]
Thanks a bunch to Christine who recommended this in our comments.
Notice it’s melon-flavored gum.
