Before Sociological Images was widely read (when it was just us and our friends), we used to occasionally title posts “Sigh.” But these days, what with people following us on twitter, we must offer more imaginative titles. But really, my instinct was to title this with good ol’ resignation:
Via Racialicious.
—————————
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
In the vintage ad below, Sanka sells coffee by joking about how Mexicans (I think) lack good ol’ American capitalist values (text below):
Text:
“How a kind word ruin by beezness”
1. Everyone takes the siesta in the heat of the day, except I, poor Juan. While all are asleep, the shops are closed. Except my shop, where I sell pottery to the American tourists for ten times what it costs in America.
2. An American senorita comes one afternoon to buy the pottery. “How is it that you do not take the siesta?” she asked, speaking that strange language which I have heard called Highschool Spanish. “Ah, senorita,” I sighed, “I cannot sleep!”
3. “Is it the coffee!” I explained. “I love the coffee. I cannot resist it. But when I drink it with the lunch, then all afternoon I am wide awake!” She nodded. “It is good business to be open when other shops are closed!”
4. “I would give all the beezness for a good siesta!” I cried. “Then you should drink Sanka Coffee,” she said. “It’s 97% caffein-free [sic], and can’t keep you awake!” “It is an American trick!” I scoffed. “How can it be good coffee?”
5. “It’s wonderful! A blend of fine Central and South American coffees!” she replied. “And the Council on Foods of the American Medical Association says: ‘Sanka Coffee is free from caffein [sic] effect, and can be used when other coffee has been forbidden!’ ”
6. So in gratitude I charge her only five times what the pottery is worth. Later, I try Sanka Coffee. Delicious. And I sleep each day during the afternoon. My pottery beezness, he is ruin but ah, amigo… how I enjoy the siesta!
See also our post on the Frito Bandito and a vintage Tequila ad.
Found at Vintage Ads.
—————————
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
Lisa recently posted about a woman who was denied health insurance due to having a C-section in the past; the health care plan would cover her only if she agreed to be sterilized. Mackenzie I.-T. sent in this clip from Anderson Cooper 360 about a woman who was dropped by her insurance company after she was raped, due to her doctors putting her on antibiotics antiretrovirals to try to prevent any possible infection with HIV and her need for therapy:
Embedded video from CNN Video
Classy.
Farrah F. sent us a link to an article on the website for Forward, a newspaper aimed at the American Jewish community. The article looks at the gender gap in pay at Jewish community organizations. According to the article,
…a Forward survey of 75 major American Jewish communal organizations found that fewer than one in six are run by women, and those women are paid 61 cents to every dollar earned by male leaders.
Incomes of leaders of the organizations they surveyed (data is from 2008 unless otherwise specified, and women are highlighted in blue):
The Forward’s survey was drawn from the most recent public records or, if that information wasn’t available, from the organization itself. The median salary for men was $287,702, while the median for women was $175,211, amounting to a ratio of 61 cents to one dollar.
More from the article:
Women comprise about 75% of those employed by federations, advocacy and social service organizations, and religious and educational institutions, but occupy only 14.3% of the top positions. Of the 11 female leaders identified in this survey, three are in interim roles.
In another article, Forward discusses family leave policies at Jewish organizations, finding that relatively few offer paid leave:
UPDATE: A few people have asked why I chose to post about these particular organizations. The short answer is: because that’s what I had. My interest here wasn’t in the religious aspect, but in the gender disparities in volunteer/community organizations; I suspect these same trends occur in a lot of similar organizations, not just Jewish ones. I wish I had info on a more general set, but I so far haven’t been able to find a study like this one, but for a wider array of organizations. If anyone knows of one, I’d love to post it.
Several stores, including Target, Walgreens, and Amazon.com, offered an “Illegal Alien” costume for sale. The costume, which includes a orange (prison?) jumpsuit, a green card, and a space alien mask, conflates undocumented immigrants with aliens from outer space.
After a round of criticism, Target pulled its “Illegal Alien” costume from its shelves.
Hat tip to Lotería Chicana, via Resist Racism.
—————————
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
As far as I can figure it, Halloween costumes come in three categories: scary, funny, or fantastical. This is why dressing up like another “race” or “culture” for Halloween is racist. A “Mexican Man,” for example (see below), should not be presented as scary, funny, or fantastical.
Brooke, at Whebr’s Hotub’s Blog, expresses her frustration for people who dress us like an “Indian”:
Why is it socially acceptable to dress like the stereotypical Indian: “Brave”,”Chief”, “Princess”, “Squaw”, “Maiden”? Pardon Moi, but when did the Native American enter the realm of Wizards, Fairies, Super-heroes, Goblins, or Ghouls? When did it become ok to reduce the diversity, language, and culture of nearly 500 different Indigenous tribes into a tacky “costume” of cheap suede, colored feathers, plastic beads, and fringe? Who decided that the history, identity, and lineage of Native Americans could be easily put on and taken off like greasy Halloween face paint?
Brooke features a whole host of “Indian” costumes at her site, including this one:
Illustrating the way in which these costumes tend to collapse culturally distinct groups into a cheap stereotype, Costume Craze has a whole section of the website devoted to “History and World Culture Costumes.”
Here’s a sample of the “Asian costumes” (don’t miss the fantastic font):
“Indian costumes”:
“Mexican costumes”:
Fatemeh Fakhraie, at Racialicious, points out how “Middle Eastern” costumes reinforce both ignorance and negative stereotypes. Regarding the “Sheik of Persia Arabian Costume” costume shown below, she says:
History lesson: Persia didn’t have sheikhs, they had shahs. And Persia and Arabia were two different places! AKH!
…of course he has a knife! All Middle Eastern men are dangerous, didn’t you know? You can even tell by his face: he’s pissed, and he’s going to take it out on some infidels!
For good measure, Cindy at Lotería Chicana has collected a set of racist Halloween costumes that she photographed at a store called Spirit in San Francisco. A selection:
UPDATE! Awesome tidbit from Rosemary in the comments thread:
The geisha one in particular makes me wince, partly because the “kimono” is tied the wrong way (the only time you ever tie it that way is when a person is dead)…
Of course, that’s actually perfect for Halloween! But somehow I don’t think that’s what SPIRIT is going for.
More…
And my favorite, the “Dream Catcher”:
Does making fun of white people (“tighty whiteys”) make it all equal?
The thing that amazes me most about these costumes is that they’re everywhere. You can’t escape them. And no one seems to notice or care. For example, this “Hey Amigo” costume can be purchased at the Linens N Things website:
—————————
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
Joshua found a post over at Letters of Note about this letter, written by an Australian government employee in 1963 to the Director of Trade Commissioner Services, arguing against hiring women:
Text:
WOMEN TRADE COMMISSIONERS?
Even after some deliberation, it is difficult to find reasons to support the appointment of women Trade Commissioners.
In countries where publicity media is well developed, such as North America and England and where there are no other major drawbacks, such as the Islamic attitude towards women, a relatively young attractive woman could operate with some effectiveness, in a subordinate capacity. As she would probably be the only woman Assistant Trade Commissioner in the whole area, as other countries employ women in this capacity hardly at all, she could attract a measure of interest and publicity.
If we had an important trade in women’s clothing and accessories, a woman might promote this more effectively than a man.
Even conceding these points, such an appointee would not stay young and attractive for ever and later on could well become a problem.
It is much easier to find difficulties, some of which spring to mind are:-
(i) Women are not employed, except to an extremely minor degree, as career Trade Commissioners in any known service;
(ii) It is difficult to visualise them as Trade Commissioners, firstly because they could not mix nearly as freely with businessmen as men do. Most mens clubs, for instance, do not allow women members;
(iii) Relationships with businessmen would tend to be somewhat formal and guarded on both sides. This would make it more difficult for a woman to obtain information;
(iv) It is extremely doubtful if a woman could, year after year, under a variety of conditions, stand the fairly severe strains and stresses, mentally and physically, which are part of the life of a Trade Commissioner;
(v) A man normally has his household run efficiently by his wife, who also looks after much of the entertaining. A woman Trade Commissioner would have all this on top of her normal work;
(vi) If we engaged single graduates as trainees, most of them would probably marry within five years;
(vii) If we recruited from the business world, we would have a much smaller field from which to recruit, as the number of women executives in business is quite small;
(viii) A spinster lady can, and very often does, turn into something of a battleaxe with the passing years. A man usually mellows;
(ix) A woman would take the place of a man and preclude us from giving practical experience to one mail officer. She could marry at any time and be lost to us. she could not be regarded as a long term investment in the same sense as we regard a man.
CONCLUSION
It would seem that the noes have it.
(Signed)
(A. R. Taysom)
13th March, 1963.
P.S. I have since ascertained the following, which, it would seem, only serves to support the foregoing views –
Mr. H. W. Woodruff, U.K. Trade Commissioner:
They have a few women Trade Commissioners but only in capital city posts, for they have found that women cannot operate where contact with businessmen is necessary.
The women are fairly senior people from the U.K. Departments and presumably handle trade policy work only.
Mr. N. Parkinson, External Affairs:
Since their recruitments of trainees are made under the Public Service Act, there is no way of precluding women from applying and in fact, many more applications are received from women than from men. Some are chosen and all appointments are made on the basis of the quality of their educational achievements. About one woman is appointed to every twelve men. This year one out of sixteen, last year one out of twelve and the previous year, none.
They have to be trained for 18 months before going to their first post. The average marries within five years.
It is a very expensive process, but External Affairs lack courage to slam the door because of parliamentary opinion, pressure groups and so on.
(Signed)
(A. R. Taysom)
I find point (v) particularly fascinating, as it expressly recognizes the benefits to male professionals of having a wife at home doing many types of behind-the-scenes labor that contribute to his success, and that a female professional might be at a disadvantage in a world in which she is expected to compete against men who do not have to do a “second shift” of childcare and housework after they get home.
I am 34 and unmarried. Do I qualify as a “spinster lady” yet?
See also our recent post on a U.S. letter from the 1930s begging for women to be fired so men could have their jobs and this rejection letter, based on sex, from Disney’s Painting Department.
In the early 1980s the Reagan Administration engaged in an active campaign to demonize welfare and welfare recipients. Those who received public assistance were depicted as lazy free-loaders who burdened good, hard-working taxpayers. Race and gender played major parts in this framing of public assistance: the image of the “welfare queen” depicted those on welfare as lazy, promiscuous women who used their reproductive ability to have more children and thus get more welfare. This woman was implicitly African American, such as the woman in an anecdote Reagan told during his 1976 campaign (and repeated frequently) of a “welfare queen” on the South Side of Chicago who supposedly drove to the welfare office to get her check in an expensive Cadillac (whether he had actually encountered any such woman, as he claimed, was of course irrelevant).
The campaign was incredibly successful: once welfare recipients were depicted as lazy, promiscuous Black women sponging off of (White) taxpayers, public support for welfare programs declined. The negative attitude toward both welfare and its recipients lasted after Reagan left office; the debate about welfare reform in the mid-1990s echoed much of the discourse from the 1980s. Receiving public assistance was shameful; being a recipient was stigmatized.
Abby K. recently found an old Sesame Street segment called “I Am Somebody.” Jesse Jackson leads a group of children in an affirmation that they are “somebody,” and specifically includes the lines “I may be poor” and “I may be on welfare”:
(Originally found at the Sesame Street website.)
I realized just how effective the demonization of welfare has been when I was actually shocked to hear kids, in a show targeted at other kids, being led in a chant that said being poor or on welfare shouldn’t be shameful and did not reduce their worth as human beings. Can you imagine a TV show, even on PBS, putting something like this on the air today? Our public discourse at this point says that being on welfare is shameful, and that those receiving it in fact aren’t “somebody.” They are dependents, lazy loafers, and their kids are just additional burdens on the state; they don’t have the same rights to dignity and respect as other citizens, and they certainly shouldn’t expect to get it.
Of course, the totally confused looks on some of the kids’ faces are hysterical.
