politics

In STRATOS, “the premier in-flight magazine for corporate and private jets,” I found this two page article (text below):

Selected text:

High Dollar Highballs

STRATOS travels the globe in search of $1,000 cocktails in another installment of the world’s most exclusive cocktails.

…

Burj Al Arab, the dreamy, sail-like hotel on the water in Dubai, surely serves one of the most impressive… runs about $7,500. But when you factor in the cost of the ingredients, it almost seems reasonable. Start with a healthy pour of The Macallan 55 Year Old Single Malt Scotch… bottles… sell for $15,000 or more… The drink is stirred with a hand-carved piece of wood salvaged from a Macallan oak cask and presented in a Baccarat tumbler of 18-carat gold…

Hotel de Crillon, one of the loveliest hotels in Paris, has a beautiful lounge where barman Philippe Olivier offers perhaps the ultimate Sidecar for $1,600… this version opts for the creme de la creme of Cognac: Louis XIII Black Pearl, a special edition of Remy Martin’s long-aged signature bottle selling for about $30,000…

Master Mixologist Tony Abou-Ganim created Between the Sheets ($10,000) for Eyecandy Sound Lounge and Bar, the lounge at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas. A slug of 200-year-old British Imperial Navy Rum gives this drink its kick, while a pour of Hardy’s Perfection, a rare and expensive long-aged Cognac, provides the subtle flavors… This drink is, naturally, made for two. The bartender assembles it in a sterling silver shaker and strains it into a pair of Baccarat crystal glasses… The lucky couple, once the last drop has been drained, takes home a cherry wood box, complete with engraved name plate, holding the shaker, the glasses and a crystal decanter.

An argument:  Because of the way we are segregated by class in the U.S., people rarely mix socially (pun intended) with others very far outside of their own social class.  For me, paging through magazines aimed at the super rich (see other posts from them here, here, and here), is kind of like flipping through Maxim.  There’s a whole world out there that is not aimed at me and of which I am largely unaware.  The segregation that nurtures this ignorance is part of what sustains our complacency.  Most of the time I can be completely naive to the entitlement to extremes of luxury that is marketed to the very rich, like I can remain blissfully unaware of what they are saying about women and men in Maxim magazine.  Political sociologists suggest that it is not deprivation that incites revolution, but relative deprivation.  That is, not having much doesn’t cause people to resist the system, it is the realization that others have so much more.  As long as we remain unaware, the system is likely to continue unchallenged. 

Maybe it doesn’t even make sense to say that we are segregated by class.  Class does separate people, but it also brings them together.  Working and middle class people are brought directly into interaction with people of other classes when they clean houses, are hired gardeners, and work as receptionists, administrative assistants, nurses, and nannies.  And it has often been this way throughout history (think slaves, indentured servants, etc).  So to say that we are segregated might be a stretch.

I also don’t know how I feel about this argument in light of the rash of reality shows that have emerged over the past 5-10 years that depict real, honest-to-goodness rich people basking in luxuries that most of the viewers could never afford.  Not that (I think as I write this) reality shos are all that different from the non-reality shows that have been on TV for a very long time that depict extreme wealth (e.g., Dynasty).  Do we not, on some level, recognize that those people, at least those in the reality shows, are real?  Or do we identify with them over and against people of our own class?  (I described how this might work in a previous post on McDonald’s coffee.)  Would actual physical integration (insofar as it doesn’t exist) have a different impact on us than the integration that occurs on between us and our television screens?  Or does our current social climate challenge the tenet of relative deprivation?

Asked another way, given that I am a sociologist AND watch TV, why do I still find the stupid article about expensive cocktails so surprising?

Via Slate.

In this video, Campbell Brown analyzesGov. Ed Rendell’s comments, overheard due to standing too close to an open mic, that Janet Napolitano is perfect for secretary of Homeland Security because she has no family (you can also see the video here if the CNN site doesn’t play correctly).

In fact, the wage gap between men and women is made up, almost entirely, by the comparison between men (fathers or not) and mothers. Women without children make significantly more money than mothers. Conversely, fathers make slightly more than men without children.

Women without children do pretty well at work in the U.S. Of course, about 90% of adult women are mothers.

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.

Many of you may have seen the image below. It compares the 2004 to the 2008 vote and shows, by color, how much more Democratic (blue) or Republican (red) each county leaned in 2008. In essence, compared to 2004, in this election Democrats increased the proportion of the vote that they received in most counties.

You may not have seen, however, this next image. This next image shows the same data but compares 1992 to 2008. Looking across those sixteen years it is clear that, while this last election may have looked good for Democrats, the last five have moved the country significantly to the right. If you are a Democrat, then, this election is one step forward after 10 steps back. And, if you are a Republican, it may very well be a very small setback.

(Data from the New York Times; images found here.)

Blanca and Stephanie brought this video, called “The Race Flag,” to my attention. In it, a referee penalizes African Americans who use “the race card” too eagerly (go here if the video doesn’t show up right):

It’s an interesting clip that plays on the idea of African Americans as over-sensitive, bitter whiners who see racial insult (or at least claim to) where none was intended. It might be useful for sparking a discussion about what we mean by “playing the race card.” For instance, what’s the difference between playing the race card…and pointing out actual incidents of discrimination? Obviously the difference, based on this video, is that playing the race card means the person is over-reacting and making ridiculous accusations. But “over-reacting” is a subjective term, and the idea of playing the race card assumes that there wasn’t any actual discrimination or prejudice. But most of the time we don’t have video cameras that can clearly catch everyone’s intentions and actions on tape for review. Concerns about playing the race card tend to ignore the very real fact that minorities often do face discrimination and prejudice (as well as backhanded compliments like “You’re so articulate!”) in the workplace. While I’m sure there are African American workers who make unwarranted accusations of racism (just as there are examples of almost any behavior you can think of), I’m also quite certain that there are employers and coworkers who engage in discriminatory actions but then deny any racist intent and accuse anyone who complains of playing the race card.

I’d also point out that Whites use the race card, too: I cannot tell you how many of my White students have told me that they did not get a job, into a particular college, etc., because they are White. Sometimes they say a manager/friend/etc. told them the company “had” to hire a minority “to meet quota.” Other times they’ve simply inferred, from the fact that they can see no other possible explanation for not getting said job/college acceptance letter/etc., that it must have been because they are White.

You might pair this with the chapter “‘Racing for Innocence’: Whiteness, Corporate Culture, and the Backlash against Affirmative Action,” by Jennifer L. Pierce, from White Out: The Continuing Significance of Racism (2003).

Apparently the same people who made that video made this one, which laughs at the idea of the Republican Party trying to woo African Americans (found here):

I’ll leave the commentary on that one to our readers, if they feel so inclined.

Thanks, Blanca and Stephanie!

Politics has long been considered a masculine domain.  After all, there are issues, and there are “women’s issues.”  However, in this election season, The View has delved deeply into politics.  Reactions to this reveal the assumption that politics are for men.

First, Bill O’Reilly’s appearance on The View can be described as nothing if not sexist.  Essentially, his message was “Don’t worry your pretty, little emotional heads about politics, ladies!” The View is just “entertainment,” according to O’Reilly, because it’s for women.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6rR2OwaY1c[/youtube]

Second, soon after Joy Behar appeared on Larry King, King asked her “When did ‘The View’ become this?  When did it go off-track?”  King’s question reveals his assumption that women’s media is for women’s issues, and those are, simply, not real politics (read the transcript here).

Ironically (awesomely), after 12 years on the air, this election season marks the first time that The View has been the #1 watched daytime show, “…garnering its biggest aud[ience] ever (6.2 million) on Nov. 5, the Wednesday after the election” (source).

So, it turns out, women are interested in politics after all.

(Thanks to Gwen for help on this post.)

Blanca M. sent in this clip by Penn and Teller, in which a woman gets people at a World Fest rally (which appears to be an environmental event of some sort) to sign a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide…commonly known as water:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw[/youtube]

You might use it in a discussion of social psychology and the way that people tend to go along with what they see other people doing and to do what they are asked or instructed to do without asking many questions (that is, if someone asks you to sign a petition, very often you will, whether or not you really know what it’s about). You could also use it to talk about perceptions of environmental risk, and how bad we are at evaluating it: if something has a chemical-sounding name, we tend to assume it’s bad (but if it sounds “natural,” we think it must be safe).

I think it would be a good clip for talking about political participation and the limitations of passive forms of participation such as these: the require very little of people, so while they might be quick to sign, they’re unlikely to know much about the issue or to follow up. My guess is that politicians keep this in mind, too. Burk M. was a Senate campaign consultant for a while and says that though written petitions are generally taken seriously by elected officials (particularly if signed by constituents and delivered personally in the presence of a media outlet), email petitions are completely ignored (I knew it!) because there’s no real concern that the people who signed it will ever check back in to see what happened (assuming they’re real people to start with). Government agencies, such as the EPA, may not show as much concern for even printed petitions, since they are not made up of elected officials who fear their constituents might be watching what they do. Thus, these forms of minimal-involvement political participation may make people feel like they’re doing something about an issue, when in fact there is little impact (particularly in the case of email petitions).

Thanks, Blanca!

Michael T. sent in an observation about the Yes on Proposition 8 website, which (successfully) aimed at amending the California constitution to disallow gay marriage.  Along the top of the screen, the four different images below accompanied the slogan “Restoring Marriage & Protecting California Children.”  These marriages, Michael surmises, must be the ones that need protecting.   In addition to reproducing heteronormativity and childbearing, notice that the images are self-consciously diverse, but represent all marriages as within race.

Thanks Michael!