nation: Britain/the U.K.

Ricardo G. of Bifurcaciones sent in this ad from a catalog sent to homes in the U.K. by the company Hillier (via):

“Coordinating accessories available.” How thrilling. It reminds me of this post about how housecleaning is depicted as a joyful activity for women.

After being inundated with complaints, the company apologized, claiming it was a joke but they recognize it was inappropriate and should not have gone out.

While this does illustrate the gendering of housework, I think there’s another angle worth thinking about here. A number of the complaints weren’t just about it implying housework is women’s responsibility, but also that it is unromantic and therefore offensive to pose as a potential gift. I’m really interested in the idea of what makes an appropriate gifts, and that gifts between spouses should always be “romantic.” Romantic gifts are often things that have little intrinsic value; their value comes from the emotional and social implications attached to them.

Jewelry, flowers, lingerie–none of these are really helpful items, and they don’t make the recipients’ daily lives easier. A clothesline might, in fact, be a gift that would improve the lives of people who have to hang their clothing to dry. In my family,  both men and women highly value gifts perceived as practical and useful, rather than simply sentimental or romantic. One year my mom and uncle got my grandma an air compressor because she would find it very useful on the ranch; she was thrilled. Once I paid to have my mom’s dog spayed and vaccinated because she’d been too busy to have it done. Men in my family regularly get leather work gloves and tools, and they never seem disappointed.

I think there may be a class element here. In Making Ends Meet, Kathryn Edin and Laura Lein discuss how low-income women often partially rely on the contributions of boyfriends to buy the things they need each month. The women complained, however, that boyfriends often bought unnecessary things they thought the women would like, but that did not really improve their lives, such as a stereo or purse. The women often referred to these gifts as a waste of money, something that was already in short supply. They much preferred to receive gifts that they found useful.

So not to defend a clothesline as a suggested present to women–even my mom got mad when my stepdad gave her a mop for either Mother’s Day or their anniversary–but the construction of “unromantic” gifts as inherently offensive is fascinating, and assumes that everyone believes money should be spent on non-essential items in order to display emotional attachment.

U.K. men’s magazine Asylum promotes itself, women’s objectification:

Thanks to Giorgos S. for sending along the screen shots!

Other examples in which women are products here, here, here, here, here, and here.

—————————

Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

…there’s Kleenex for men:

In case you don’t know that brown, black, and gray = men, it says so right on the box!

Apparently these are on sale in the U.K.  I haven’t seen them in the U.S.

In looking this up, I discovered that gendered Kleenex marketing is nothing new.  This ad, from Life magazine, is from December 1964:

Images found here, here, here, and here.

Also in gendered products: tv dinners, uniforms, candy bars, ear plugs ‘n stuff, deodorant, Pepsi, and mosquito repellent.

—————————

Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

We’re pleased to feature a post by Macon D.  About himself, Macon writes, “I’m a white guy, trying to find out what that means. Especially the ‘white’ part. I live in that heart of the heart of American whiteness, the ever-amorphous ‘Midwest.’”  Macon’s blog, Stuff White People Do, is an excellent source of insights about race and racism.  We thought this post grappled nicely with the complicated phenomenon of (literal and figurative) black face, while addressing a difficult and contemporary form of humor:

————————————

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.

Brady sent me a link to a story in the Times Online about a poster put out by the British National Party, a right-wing anti-immigrant political party. Here’s the poster (found at the BNP website):

They’re clearly trying to connect efforts to defend Britain during World War II to the idea of a modern “battle for Britain,” which this time is against immigrants. However, they missed a detail when the chose the image for their poster, according to the Times story:

[The plane] could be clearly identified by its RF marking as belonging to 303 Squadron, an expatriate Polish unit, even though the BNP campaigns against immigration from Eastern Europe.

The BNP claims they knew it all along and did it on purpose; others believe they’re just trying to cover an incident that they find embarrassing.

Regardless, it brings up interesting questions about nationhood and definitions of who can be included in a country’s idea of its history. In the imagining of the BNP, would immigrants’ contributions be erased? Would they be acknowledged, but only as something that was appropriate and welcome in the past? After all, one of the very groups they’re vilifying played a role in defending Britain during the exact era that the BNP is trying to symbolically connect itself to. I suspect they might try to make an argument that the ex-pat Polish fighters were involuntary and temporary refugees that were being protected by Britain during a time of warfare and were in fact fighting to retake their own country, which is different than permanent immigrants who take British jobs and mess up the culture and whatnot, but that’s just a guess.

Of course, this isn’t something unique to the BNP; nativist groups everywhere face the problem of having to erase or explain away the contributions of groups they’re trying to exclude from citizenship.

Thanks for the tip, Brady!

Via Alas a Blog.

Captain Crab sent in a link to this story in the Mail Online about two girls who were kicked out of school for being “two blonde.” Here are the girls:

The girls claim the headmaster said they would be expelled “unless they dyed their hair brown.” He says he simply sent them home until they had it dyed, and that this is in accordance with the school’s dress code, which does not allow “unnatural” hair colors.

It brings up some interesting questions about “naturalness” and how we alter our bodies. Is an “unnatural” hair color any color that a human has never had without help from some type of chemical or other coloring agent? Or is “unnatural” a color other than what your hair would be if you didn’t dye it? Both of these girls dyed their hair colors that many women dye their hair and that some people do have “naturally,” that is, without bleaching it. Does the fact that they chose blonde have anything to do with the reaction? If they had dyed their hair black or auburn, would they have been sent home? I have no idea, I’m just wondering.

You could also use this story to discuss attempts to control kids at school through the use of uniforms, dress/appearance codes, etc., and the way kids always try to get around them, leading to constant renegotiations of what is acceptable and unacceptable between students and school authorities.

Thanks, Captain!

A Daily Mail story reports that women lawyers are being told by “image consultants’ that to appear “professional” they should enhance their femininity by wearing skirts and stilettos, but avoid drawing attention to their breasts.  Thoughts about the word “professional” after the screenshot (thanks to Jason S. for the link):

A spokesman for the company doling out this advice says that it’s about being “professional.”  This is a great term to take apart.  What do we really mean when we say “professional”?

How much of it has to do with proper gender display or even, in masculinized workplaces, simply masculine display?

How much of it has to do with whiteness?  Are afros and corn rows unprofessional?   Is speaking Spanish?  Why or why not?

How much of it has to do with appearing attractive, heterosexual, monogamous, and, you know, not one of those “unAmerican” religions?

For that matter, how much of it has to do with pretending like your work is your life, you are devoted to the employer, and your co-workers are like family (anyone play Secret Santa at work this year)?

What do we really mean when we say “professional”?  How does this word get used to coerce people into upholding normative expectations that center certain kinds of people and marginalize others?