The vintage ads from The Art of Manliness, submitted by Dmitrity T.M., reveal that we have been trying to use technology to change our appearance for quite some time. Cosmetic surgeries are a brave new world of personal body modification, but they do not represent a break from the past, so much as a historical trajectory.
—————————
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
Chrissy Y., Stacey S., and a former student of mine, Kenjus Watson, have all suggested that we post about the controversy over Olympic athlete Caster Semenya’s sex.
A lot of people are talking about whether or not it’s appropriate to be asking about her sex and why we would be so obsessed with knowing the answer. Those are fine questions (and I address them secondarily). But first I would like to suggest that, even if we were to decide that it is appropriate to want to determine her sex (that we are obsessed with it for a good reason), it would be impossible to actually determine her sex definitively. Let me explain:
If you were to try to decide what qualifies a person as male or female, what quality would you choose?
I can think of eight candidates:
1. Identity (whatever the person says they are, they are)
2. Sexual orientation (boys dig girls, vice versa)
3. Secondary sex characteristics (e.g., boobs/no boobs, pubic hair patterns, distribution of fat on the body)
4. External genitalia (e.g., clitoris, labia, vaginal opening/penis and scrotum)
5. Internal genitalia (e.g., vagina, uterus, and fallopian tubes/epididymis, vas deferens, seminal vesicles, prostate, etc)
6. Hormones (preponderance of estrogens/androgens)
7. Gonads (ovaries/testes)
8. Chromosomes (XX/XY, the SRY gene)
Most of us assume that these criteria all line up. That is, that people with XY chromosomes have testes that make androgens which creates a penis, epididymis, vas deferens etc… all the way up to a male-identified person who wants to have sex with women. We also assume that these things are binary (e.g., boobs/no boobs), when in reality most of them are on a spectrum (e.g., hormones, also boobs, likely sexual orientation).
But these criteria don’t always line up and sex-linked charactertics aren’t binary. Examples of “syndromes” that disrupt these trajectories abound (e.g., Klinefelter’s syndrome). And all kinds of practices, including surgeries, are sometimes used to force a binary when there isn’t one (e.g., intersex surgery to fix the “micropenis” and “obtrustive” clitoris and breast reduction surgery for men).
If these criteria don’t always line up, then we have to pick one as THE determinant of sex. But any choice would ultimately be arbitrary. The truth is that none of these criteria could ever actually definitively qualify a person as male or female.
The alternative would be to require that a person qualify as male or female according to ALL of the criteria. And you might be surprised, then, how many people are neither male or female.
I think the debate over whether we should test Semenya’s sex is getting ahead of itself, given that there is no such test.
———————————————–
Yet, while we won’t be learning anything definitive about Semenya’s sex, the controversy does teach us something about our obsession with sex difference. On MSNBC, Dave Zirin explains what the controversy over is really about:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK-w6lDOZ5Q[/youtube]
To me, one of the most interesting things that Zirin says is that sex isn’t actually a good indicator of athletic ability. He may be a guy, he says, but having a penis doesn’t translate into outrunning anyone.
He is implying that sex segregation in athletics, as a rule, is more about an obsession with sex categories and their affirmation than it is about sports. Remember, Semenya’s sex is being questioned not just because she appears masculine to some (she always has), but because she kicked major ass on the track.
Kenjus, my former student, writes:
…why didn’t they test Usain Bolt? He did amazingly well… Yet, his otherworldly accomplishments are considered the result of his never-before-seen body structure… Usain, however, is a big, strong, fast Black man. The fact that his times are just as mind-boggling as Caster’s gets lost in the widely accepted narrative that big, strong, fast Black men accomplish amazing athletic feats. It’s what they’re built for.
But this woman has apparently baffled the athletic and scientific experts because her body is not doing what a woman’s body is supposed to do. More specifically, her shape is too muscular, her voice is too deep, and her time is too fast. Essentially, “Semenya-the-woman” CANNOT exist in an exclusively two-gendered (i.e. men and women) society in which men are innately bigger, stronger, more deeply-voiced, and particularly FASTER than women…
Semenya is getting far more media attention than the recent cheating scandals of higher profile athletes. This is precisely because there’s something that separates Caster from an A-Rod, a Marion, a Sosa… The world is captivated by Caster because something that should be certain; unquestionable; medical; pre-ordained, is in flux. It is regrettable that some athletes take illegal drugs to gain an edge over the competition. It’s entirely unethical, unnatural, and ungodly for an athlete to not fit into our narrow specifications of what constitutes gender or sex.
Indeed. Our obsession with Semenya’s sex, in addition to being hurtful and invasive, says a great deal more about us, than it does about her. And perhaps the reason we are so obsessed with proving Semenya’s sex, to bring this post back to its beginnings, is because binary sex doesn’t actually exist. Me thinks we protest too much.
(Thanks to Mimi Schippers, via the Sociologists for Women in Society listserve, for alerting me to the video. Images found here and here.)
—————————
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
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.
Larry Harnisch of the L.A. Times blog The Daily Mirror sent in some old images from the Times archives that show how photos of stars were touched up to show less skin. Here’s one of Frances Farmer (from Larry’s post about her):
The image comes from the 1940 movie “Flowing Gold.” Apparently it was considered too revealing and the Times had someone draw in a dress above her wrap…with what appears to be a black magic marker.
Charlton Heston was also retroactively covered up. Both of the following images come from The Daily Mirror. This is a still from a 1957 episode of “Shlitz Playhouse.” Someone very obviously, and badly, drew a shirt on him:
Though the photo was touched up by the L.A. Times staff, it’s not clear whether it actually appeared in the paper. This photo most definitely did, however; it accompanied a review of “The Omega Man” from August 27, 1971. They did an even better job with the shirt this time:
It provides some perspective on how ideas of how much uncovered skin is appropriate to run in a mainstream media outlet have changed over the years. It’s also interesting that both men’s and women’s chests were covered. But mostly they just crack me up. The last one is my favorite.
Also check out the post about Sacha Baron Cohen naked on the cover of GQ and spoofing magazine covers that have naked people on them.
The income gap between the rich and the poor is larger in the U.S. than in most other industrialized countries. Last year we posted data about the percent of total U.S. income that went to the top 1% of earners (23% as of 2006).
The graph below, recently updated to 2007, shows the percent of total U.S. income that went to the top 0.01%, that is 1/100th of one percent, of earners:
As you can see, in 2007, the top 1/100th of 1% of earners in the U.S. brings home 6% of the total income earned in the U.S. This represents the largest proportion of total income since at least 1913, and is the endpoint in a trajectory of rising inequality that began in the early 1980s.
Also see our posts breaking down CEO compensation, on the disproportionate tax burden by social class, and on class inequality across U.S. states.
Data borrowed from economist Emmanuel Saez, via Matthew Yglesias.
—————————
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
Associations of black people with monkeys and apes have been used for centuries to make them seem less-than-human and justify hatred and exploitation. This associations continue to be propagated (e,g., here, here, and here). This week Costco pulled the black “Lil’ Monkey” baby doll from its shelves, along with its white “Pretty Panda” counterpart, as a result of protests that it was racist.
As you can see, the black doll has on a hat that says “lil’ monkey,” is surrounded by products that have monkeys on them, as well as a stuffed monkey. A peeled banana points at the child’s mouth.
Here is the white counterpart, the “Pretty Panda” doll:
The manufacturer of the dolls is claiming that there was no intention to be racist. Specifically, they argued:
We don’t think in that way. We don’t operate in that kind of thinking.
Social psychologists have shown, robustly, that any given member of a society, even those who are the target of negative stereotypes, will hold pre-conscious stereotypical beliefs common in that society. (If you’d like to test your own unconscious biases, and see aggregate test results of others, I highly recommend Harvard’s Project Implicit.)
The fact that we are all racist already, whether we like it or not, is the point that the manufacturer completely misses. They do think in that way. We all do. Not thinking in that way consciously doesn’t mean that racism didn’t play a role in the manufacturing of a black Lil’ Monkey doll. In fact, their defense actually makes things worse. Their refusal to think about racism, in favor of a defensive reaction, is as racist as the doll itself. We can’t fight racism unless we’re prepared to admit that we hold unconscious biases.
By the way, in my opinion, the proper response should have been: “Oh hell, we messed up bad. You are absolutely right. We are really bleeping sorry,” but with stronger curse words. And also: “Can I say I’m sorry again? In addition to racist, we were profoundly insensitive to centuries of violent hatred… and it is simply not okay.”
UPDATE: Commenters alerted me to alternative media coverage that made it clear that “Pretty Panda” and “Lil’ Monkey” dolls both came in black, white, and “Hispanic”:
I’m not sure why none of the media coverage I came across noted this.
In any case, I think this raises an even more interesting question: Does the history of associating black people with primates, and I will refer you again to this post, actually make any product that does so problematic? Does the fact that the doll comes in white and Hispanic erase any concerns about the fact that the black doll exists?
As usual, our readers are quick to ask difficult questions and this discussion is already well under way in the comments. What do you think?
Images from here, here, and here, via Resist Racism.
UPDATE: Comments on this post have been closed.
—————————
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
Hans Rosling illustrates the change in the percentage, but not the number, of people living in extreme poverty:
Found at GapMinder.
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.
The idea that work and home are in different places was institutionalized only recently in human history (and is still not reality everywhere). In early American history, most people were farmers. Both men and women worked at home. The technological advances that brought industrialization removed work from home. The factory was invented to house large machinery and many workers. Enter: wage work, the commute, and wives that “just” stayed home.
Today, the idea that work and home are separate places is largely taken for granted (though this may be reversing a bit) and is, in fact, institutionalized with zoning laws that specify whether space is to be used for work (and what kind), living, or both.
Dmitriy T.M. sent us a link to the images below. They compare the population of New York City and its boroughs the bottom two-thirds of Manhattan and parts of New Jersey, Brooklyn, and Queens during the day and night. It reveals nicely how we are organized so as to use different spaces differently.
—————————
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
I love how this ad from the 1950s acknowledges how exhausting and mind-numbing housekeeping and childcare can be!
The ad also illustrates the post-WWII efforts to cultivate a market for new food technologies (easy and instant foods that were developed for the war). This ad for Campbell’s soup describes the phenomenon in more detail.
For another vintage Jell-O ad that takes an entirely different approach, see here.
—————————
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
