gender

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck14LKBI9GM[/youtube]

Make what you will of this. The sexual availability of the female…um…wildlife, all of whom are sexy and sexualized and dancing with the one male, the bottles of Orangina erupting from between the female zebras’ legs, and the female octopus squeezing Orangina out of her boobs…there’s a lot to work with.

Gah.

Christine B. sent in a link to set of Orangina ads on Flickr:

There are quite a few others, but I’m sure you get the idea.

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

I LOVE this image. It’s a fashion spread.

Question:
Who’s taking care of those little tow-headed boys behind the white picket fence when both mommy and daddy go to work?

I use this picture to talk about the way in which middle- and upper-class women are “getting equal” with men by transferring their caretaking responsibilities to less privileged women… who are, as in this ad, invisible.

This “delightful” quiz in Us magazine asks viewers, segregated by sex, to judge women’s breasts and what they do with them. Don’t miss the fact that 56% of men and 31% of women prefer Heidi Montag with breast implants.

What, exactly, a reader is supposed to do with this information is a mystery to me. But there must be a use for this in some class somewhere.

The Dodge La Femme (1955 and 1956):

Here are some pictures of some restored La Femme’s:

Pink rosebud patterned upholstery:

It even came with matching accessories!

An umbrella and raincoat:

A compact:

A coin purse:

I think showing this car would be interesting in comparison with the contemporary marketing of feminine guns (see Gwen’s post here). The guns look surprisingly like the car.

It would also be interesting, I think, to do a discussion about whether and how they market cars to women today. They do, of course, but the ideal femininity has changed and so, therefore, have the cars. Women, though, haven’t changed very much. One of the reasons that the La Femme didn’t sell was because women were, frankly, offended.

NEW (Jan. ’09)!  I found this effort to market cars to women from 1969, the “women-winning” Barracuda with “pop prints” and “gals in mind”!

NEW! (Nov. ’09): Tim McC. sent in this trailer for a Volvo concept car specifically for women. It’s really interesting to compare the marketing of a car to women in the 1950s versus today.

Notice that while beauty is still important, today there’s also an emphasis on the car being tough–but not too tough, not brutal.

Tim adds,

YCC has some fairly significant design decisions (some arguably limitations) that seems to imply certain things about the intended market. For example, the car has no hood that can be opened by the owner. Instead, the car must be taken to the shop for engine maintenance and oil changes. The tires are also run-flat, meaning that the tires will continue to work after a flat, again so that the car can be taken to a garage for the tire change. This seems to imply that the company assumes that women are too ignorant or too afraid to fix their own mechanical problems. This also implies that DIY work on engines or really any technological product is a male pursuit. Keeping women from working on engines seems to say that women shouldn’t have to even consider working with technology. It also features automated parallel parking (a feature common on luxury cars, but prominently emphasized in the materials), which may carry sexist undertones å la the “woman driver” stereotype. The drive train is hybrid-electric, which implies that environmentalism is a feminine concept.

Women, if you are lucky, you too could look like a piece of Chex Mix:

NEW! You desire these kitchen counters and cupboards like you desire that “dream” woman’s curves.  I know you do.  (Thanks Sarah N!)

I also have to ask: Above her head it reads “Studio White — Featuring Curves.”  Could this be a race joke?  You know, black women are curvy, so a white woman’s curves is a special feature?  I don’t know.  I may be reading too much into it.

Clearly this ad is making a connection between being “tough” and doing blue-collar work. The implication is that desk jobs are not “tough.”

Here’s what’s really fascinating about this: I found the ad in a magazine called Entrepreneur, a magazine clearly aimed at an upper-middle or upper class audience who do desk jobs. Since I find it unlikely they’re trying to actually alienate the readers of the ad, I’m guessing the point is to let these desk workers gain some “toughness” by buying a Ford truck.

Newsweek had an article today wondering if girl’s Halloween costumes might be too risque. I wasn’t surprised (I remember being shocked when I saw young girls dressed up as Spice Girls in 1998) so I decided to look around the Internet to find other questionable costumes. Not surprisingly, Halloween costumes are markers of not only gender and heterosexuality, but of race and class as well.

And look at how race is marked with some of the children’s costume models (2 cats, and a dancer):

Anyway, happy Halloween!

Dehumanizing women; women as toys, useful only for fucking; women as interchangeable:

By the way, on the back it says: “Isn’t that why women have more than one hole?”

Here it is in a pillowcase:

Different take, same message:

Trivialization of rape:

Glamorization of violent sex and the priviliging of men’s sexual pleasure:

Trivialization of relationship violence:

This last one says: “I like my women like my chicken, battered.”