Here are some graphs about income inequality over time:
From the Working Group on Extreme Poverty.
history
These images capture the Columbia University class of 1909 posing as “Zulu Savages” (found here thanks to Penny R.) We may not be so surprised to see such mimickry of blacks in 1909, but I think that when compared to these pictures of college students at race-themed parties in 2007, it might make for some interesting discussion of humor, mimickry, racism, and the notion of progress… especially as Halloween approaches.
Here are some graphs on the income and wealth gap between Whites and Blacks in the U.S.
This next one shows homeownership rates. I know some people are going to point out that Blacks are more concentrated in urban areas than Whites are, and so it might make more sense to break down homeownership by area (rural, urban, suburban). While that might be a legitimately useful comparison, it also brings up the question of why African Americans would be more concentrated in urban areas, which could lead to a discussion of government programs that encourage Whites to buy homes in the suburbs after WWII while denying those opportunities to Blacks.
One way of explaining higher unemployment rates among Blacks is that there is some individual or cultural deficiency–African Americans are lazy, or want a hand-out, or don’t look for work, etc. etc. I like to show trend comparisons like these because they undermine those types of explanations. If African American unemployment was due to laziness, a “culture of poverty,” or other deficiencies, it would be unlikely for Black and White unemployment rates to show the same pattern (or, for that matter, any pattern–unless you believe African Americans just got a lot lazier in, say, 1982). What we see here is that Black and White unemployment rates follow a very similar pattern, but that during hard economic times, sugh as the early 1980s and around 1992, African Americans suffer disproportionately.
This one shows the slow but steady trend toward resegregation of our schools:
All of these were found at the Working Group on Extreme Inequality website.
Marriage–as a social and legal institution–has not always been what it is today.
In early American history, when families largely lived on farms and worked for sustenance, people didn’t marry because they loved each other. And they certainly didn’t split up because they did not. Marriage choices were highly influenced by their families and, once married, husbands and wives formed a working partnership aimed at production. They teamed up to support themselves and make children who would take care of them when they were old and help them in the meantime.
Today, we still (generally) think of marriage as comprised of a man, a woman, and kids, but mutual love and happiness are now central goals of marriage. This idea only emerged in the 1900s. It hasn’t actually been around all that long.
I bring this up in order to shed some light on the pro- and anti- gay marriage rhetoric.
On the one hand, those against gay marriage need to define “marriage” in a way that excludes same-sex couples. One way to do this is to refer to a “traditional” marriage (image found here).
But there is no such thing as a “traditional” marriage, just a long history of evolving forms of marriage. For example, few anti-gay marriage types would actually be in favor of returning marriage to one in which women were property that can’t contract, vote, testify in court, own anything, and have no rights to their own bodies or custody of their children (though the idea that women are property is still out there today). Because there is no such thing as a “traditional” marriage (that is, no reason to privilege one historical form over another), when someone speaks of “traditional” marriage, they actually just mean “the kind of marriage that I like that I am pretending existed throughout all time before this current threat right now.”
On the other hand, to make an argument in favor of gay marriage rights, the movement must either (1) change the collective agreement as to what marriage is (the social construction of marriage) or (2) convince the collective that gay marriage already is what we believe marriage to be.
This ad in favor of gay marriage does the latter. Mobilizing the social construction of marriage as about love, the commercial then defines same-sex relationships as about love. If you accept both premises, then, presto, you are pro-gay marriage. That is exactly what this commercial is trying to do:
NEW! This Swedish commercial for Bjorn Borg’s dating website, sent in by Ed L., similarly mobilizes the idea that marriage is for love and that gay men’s marriages are, therefore, beautiful:
Before there were flight attendants, there were stewardesses. Below a vintage commercial for airlines (found here thanks to AdFreak, see also this print ad):
While pressure on airlines to be less sexist means that we don’t see ads like this anymore, Stephen W. alerted us to the ongoing sexism in “general aviation,” that is private planes and jets owned by individuals and companies.
Airports have FBOs (or “fixed based operators”) which are, essentially, glorified gas stations for planes. A private pilot can choose which airport and thus FBO, or which FBO at which airport, to patronize. So FBOs will compete for customers. Stephen pointed to one strategy: plying pilots, assumed to be men, with sex.
This website allows pilots to see what “FBO Girls” all over the country, the women working behind the counters at FBOs, look like. Another website, FBO Hotties, allows pilots to submit their favorite girls.
Flower Aviation promises that you will be guided into your parking spot by “girls in short ‘skorts’ and tank tops.”
Here are some of the images from the website, notice that when you spend money on fuel, they reward you with red meat (and fresh baked chocolate chip cookies):
So, there you have it. Private aviation, still very much a man’s world.
Other than the objectification, I think an interesting sociological question might be: Why have the airlines dropped overt sexist advertising, while general aviation has not? One possibility is that general aviation is, literally, less public and, thus, less vulnerable to public censor. Another may be that pilots are still overwhelmingly men, unlike the customers served by airlines, and so there may still be profit in sexism for general aviation, but not in commercial aviation. I’d welcome your thoughts as well.
Yesterday Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama for President. In the cartoon below, syndicated cartoonist Gordon Campbell compares Powell to Benedicte Arnold, a general in the American Revolutionary War who defected to the British Empire. So, Powell’s endorsement makes him a traitor. Comments after the image.
As Rob Tornoe discusses at Politicker, this feeds into the idea that Obama isn’t a real American and, accordingly, neither is Powell. That this is about skin color is revealed by the fact that he put Arnold in blackface. and uses the term “Race Patriot.” The implication is, Powell is endorsing Obama because he’s black and that’s treason (i.e, anti-white and therefore anti-American).
It also speaks to white privilege and a phenomenon I’ve seen elsewhere during this election. It is white privilege to be able to vote for Obama without your endorsement being attributed to the color of your skin.
(Found via Jezebel.)
Demonizing Obama by demonizing youth, of course. The text compares Barrack Obama [sic.] to Marx, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Castro and says that “Each and every one called upon youth movements!”
According to Shakesville, this was spotted in the John McCain campaign office in Pompano Beach, Florida.
This New York Times article discusses the cigarette industries co-optation of nascent feminism. Hat tip to Jezebel, where Sadie writes:
In the early 20th century, smoking was regarded as unladylike. In the 1920[s], realizing they were missing out on millions of potential customers PR expert Edward Bernays encouraged the American Tobacco Company to play on women’s nascent sense of modern independence… and the smoking feminist was born!
Also in co-opting feminism: make-up, more make-up and, of course, botox; cars and bras; more cigarettes; cleaning products, eyeglasses, and pants; diamond rings; credit cards, cigarettes, and cars; easing kitchen duty; and fashion (I think).
These images capture the Columbia University class of 1909 posing as “Zulu Savages” (found here thanks to Penny R.) We may not be so surprised to see such mimickry of blacks in 1909, but I think that when compared to these pictures of college students at race-themed parties in 2007, it might make for some interesting discussion of humor, mimickry, racism, and the notion of progress… especially as Halloween approaches.
Here are some graphs on the income and wealth gap between Whites and Blacks in the U.S.
This next one shows homeownership rates. I know some people are going to point out that Blacks are more concentrated in urban areas than Whites are, and so it might make more sense to break down homeownership by area (rural, urban, suburban). While that might be a legitimately useful comparison, it also brings up the question of why African Americans would be more concentrated in urban areas, which could lead to a discussion of government programs that encourage Whites to buy homes in the suburbs after WWII while denying those opportunities to Blacks.
One way of explaining higher unemployment rates among Blacks is that there is some individual or cultural deficiency–African Americans are lazy, or want a hand-out, or don’t look for work, etc. etc. I like to show trend comparisons like these because they undermine those types of explanations. If African American unemployment was due to laziness, a “culture of poverty,” or other deficiencies, it would be unlikely for Black and White unemployment rates to show the same pattern (or, for that matter, any pattern–unless you believe African Americans just got a lot lazier in, say, 1982). What we see here is that Black and White unemployment rates follow a very similar pattern, but that during hard economic times, sugh as the early 1980s and around 1992, African Americans suffer disproportionately.
This one shows the slow but steady trend toward resegregation of our schools:
All of these were found at the Working Group on Extreme Inequality website.
Marriage–as a social and legal institution–has not always been what it is today.
In early American history, when families largely lived on farms and worked for sustenance, people didn’t marry because they loved each other. And they certainly didn’t split up because they did not. Marriage choices were highly influenced by their families and, once married, husbands and wives formed a working partnership aimed at production. They teamed up to support themselves and make children who would take care of them when they were old and help them in the meantime.
Today, we still (generally) think of marriage as comprised of a man, a woman, and kids, but mutual love and happiness are now central goals of marriage. This idea only emerged in the 1900s. It hasn’t actually been around all that long.
I bring this up in order to shed some light on the pro- and anti- gay marriage rhetoric.
On the one hand, those against gay marriage need to define “marriage” in a way that excludes same-sex couples. One way to do this is to refer to a “traditional” marriage (image found here).
But there is no such thing as a “traditional” marriage, just a long history of evolving forms of marriage. For example, few anti-gay marriage types would actually be in favor of returning marriage to one in which women were property that can’t contract, vote, testify in court, own anything, and have no rights to their own bodies or custody of their children (though the idea that women are property is still out there today). Because there is no such thing as a “traditional” marriage (that is, no reason to privilege one historical form over another), when someone speaks of “traditional” marriage, they actually just mean “the kind of marriage that I like that I am pretending existed throughout all time before this current threat right now.”
On the other hand, to make an argument in favor of gay marriage rights, the movement must either (1) change the collective agreement as to what marriage is (the social construction of marriage) or (2) convince the collective that gay marriage already is what we believe marriage to be.
This ad in favor of gay marriage does the latter. Mobilizing the social construction of marriage as about love, the commercial then defines same-sex relationships as about love. If you accept both premises, then, presto, you are pro-gay marriage. That is exactly what this commercial is trying to do:
NEW! This Swedish commercial for Bjorn Borg’s dating website, sent in by Ed L., similarly mobilizes the idea that marriage is for love and that gay men’s marriages are, therefore, beautiful:
Before there were flight attendants, there were stewardesses. Below a vintage commercial for airlines (found here thanks to AdFreak, see also this print ad):
While pressure on airlines to be less sexist means that we don’t see ads like this anymore, Stephen W. alerted us to the ongoing sexism in “general aviation,” that is private planes and jets owned by individuals and companies.
Airports have FBOs (or “fixed based operators”) which are, essentially, glorified gas stations for planes. A private pilot can choose which airport and thus FBO, or which FBO at which airport, to patronize. So FBOs will compete for customers. Stephen pointed to one strategy: plying pilots, assumed to be men, with sex.
This website allows pilots to see what “FBO Girls” all over the country, the women working behind the counters at FBOs, look like. Another website, FBO Hotties, allows pilots to submit their favorite girls.
Flower Aviation promises that you will be guided into your parking spot by “girls in short ‘skorts’ and tank tops.”
Here are some of the images from the website, notice that when you spend money on fuel, they reward you with red meat (and fresh baked chocolate chip cookies):
So, there you have it. Private aviation, still very much a man’s world.
Other than the objectification, I think an interesting sociological question might be: Why have the airlines dropped overt sexist advertising, while general aviation has not? One possibility is that general aviation is, literally, less public and, thus, less vulnerable to public censor. Another may be that pilots are still overwhelmingly men, unlike the customers served by airlines, and so there may still be profit in sexism for general aviation, but not in commercial aviation. I’d welcome your thoughts as well.
Yesterday Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama for President. In the cartoon below, syndicated cartoonist Gordon Campbell compares Powell to Benedicte Arnold, a general in the American Revolutionary War who defected to the British Empire. So, Powell’s endorsement makes him a traitor. Comments after the image.
As Rob Tornoe discusses at Politicker, this feeds into the idea that Obama isn’t a real American and, accordingly, neither is Powell. That this is about skin color is revealed by the fact that he put Arnold in blackface. and uses the term “Race Patriot.” The implication is, Powell is endorsing Obama because he’s black and that’s treason (i.e, anti-white and therefore anti-American).
It also speaks to white privilege and a phenomenon I’ve seen elsewhere during this election. It is white privilege to be able to vote for Obama without your endorsement being attributed to the color of your skin.
(Found via Jezebel.)
Demonizing Obama by demonizing youth, of course. The text compares Barrack Obama [sic.] to Marx, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Castro and says that “Each and every one called upon youth movements!”
According to Shakesville, this was spotted in the John McCain campaign office in Pompano Beach, Florida.
This New York Times article discusses the cigarette industries co-optation of nascent feminism. Hat tip to Jezebel, where Sadie writes:
In the early 20th century, smoking was regarded as unladylike. In the 1920[s], realizing they were missing out on millions of potential customers PR expert Edward Bernays encouraged the American Tobacco Company to play on women’s nascent sense of modern independence… and the smoking feminist was born!
Also in co-opting feminism: make-up, more make-up and, of course, botox; cars and bras; more cigarettes; cleaning products, eyeglasses, and pants; diamond rings; credit cards, cigarettes, and cars; easing kitchen duty; and fashion (I think).