work

This sign was posted in sight of the customer at the Days Inn (where I stayed when I failed to get out of Logan airport after the American Sociological Association meetings in August of 2008).  I have incuded three observations after the image and text.

Text:

At Days Inns…

We Promise…
“Service with a smile, a cheerful greeting, a pleasant Hello.”

We Mean It When We Say…
“It’s no trouble at all.”

We Want To Know…
“If you enjoyed your stay.”

Because At Days Inn…
“We look forward to seeing you again.”

That’s our promise to you from every member of the Days Inn family.

(1) It is a nice example of the kind of emotional work that employees are required to do.  It’s not just about getting customers into rooms efficiently and politely, it’s about a putting on a shit-eating grin and kissing their asses.  Or else you’re fired.

(2)  It’s also an example of a for-profit company calling itself a “family.”  You are supposed to do things selflessly for your family, but you work at a job for money.  Comparing a company to a family, I suspect, is one way to get employees to give to the company out of kinship-like duty instead of on contractual terms for money.  This, of course, and ironically, lines the pockets of executives quite nicely.

(3) The logic behind their use of quotation marks eludes me.

NEW: I took these picture in a Kaiser Permanente hospital in Hollywood in October 2008.  Close-ups and remarks below.

Like in the Days Inn example, employees at Kaiser are to do more than simply do their job effectively, they must do it “pleasant[ly]” and with “care.”  It is one thing to be instructed to “gather information with consideration for confidentiality,” and quite another to be asked to “convey trust and confidence.”  Scholars of emotion work note that the emotional part of jobs is (1) rarely seen as a skill or (2) a toll that makes your job trying and is, therefore, (3) undercompensated.  Yet, the ability to “convey trust and confidence” in strangers is certainly a special one and the health insurance employee that can do that is certainly valuable.  Unfortunately, like with other type of care work (i.e., nursing, teaching), that “value” is mostly lipservice and rarely translates into anything with exchange value (i.e., CASH).

For another example of emotion work, this one a sneak look behind the counter, click here.

Susanne T. sent us this image of an ad at a busy stop at the University of Bremen, Germany (comments after the image).  Susanne translates the ad to read:

Kids are only well when mothers are well.  Her project ‘wellcome’ helps families to order the everyday chaos.  Strong women, strong country.

Feminist theorists note that there are two ways to integrate women into a society as equals to men: as citizen-workers (who perform the same tasks as men, namely breadwinning) or as citizen-mothers (who perform different tasks than men, namely parenting). If, and this is a big if, we truly valued parenting as much as we valued breadwinning, then the latter is a perfectly viable strategy with which to bring about a gender egalitarian society.

In the U.S., we conflate the idea of equality with gender sameness, assuming that any difference between men and women is a sign of oppression.  So, to many Americans, the fact that this ad makes fathers invisible and holds women alone responsible for parenting is problematic (as Susanne noted).  But different isn’t necessarily unequal and Germany (as well as France) has a tradition of supporting women as mothers.  By “supporting” I mean generous social policy that rewards women in concrete ways for reproducing the nation.

I’m not sure to what extent Germany still supports mothers with pro-natal policies.  Susanne’s critique may very well be more accurate than my comments about different ways of integrating women into the state.  However, I think it’s useful to problematize our assumptions about what equality would look like.  If women were truly valued for their unique contributions, that would be okay.  The problem in the U.S. is that we hold women responsible for childcare and also devalue that work. 

Adding freedom to that equality, of course, means state support for both citizen-workers and citizen-parents (of both sexes) and equally valuing both contributions.

Also see this post on equating motherhood and military service in the Third Reich.

Muriel Minnie Mae sent in this video, a cartoon that presents a lot of the “men are like THIS, but women are like THIS!” stereotypes. The “female” is a circle and the “male” is a square (a very common type of imagery–things depicting masculinity are often angular, while those evoking femininity are often round or curvy).

Notice that the woman can’t go on a business trip because she’s (literally) tied to the house. Also, both men and women have the same image of the “ideal partner”–someone who cooks, cleans, and cares for the kids, though of course the man who wants this is a jerk and the woman who wants this is, presumably, dreaming.

At the very end of the video it says “stereotypes?” I don’t know what the intention of the makers of the video is–to parody stereotypes, or if they actually accept them, but it doesn’t really matter, as far as I can tell, because the video is useful either way.

Good for providing a quick, funny overview of lots of stereotypes and the way our gender myths lead us to believe that men and women literally do everything differently. Also, you can pick up a little Italian.

NEW! In an example of the “men and women are totally different!” trope, Rachael H. let us know about Maxim’s helpful flow charts showing how men and women argue:

Oh, crazy illogical women and their poor put-upon male partners!

NEW! (May ’10): Juniper, Corina C., and Dana G. sent in another example of this genre, this time videos by members of Harvard’s sailing teams:

We’ve been so busy with PETA, we’ve forgotten about American Apparel.  What does one have to do with the other?  They both sacrifice one social justice issue in pursuit of another.  I find this leftist balkanization–where lefty groups choose one and only one social justice issue and ignore the rest, or even exacerbate them–fascinating.  It leads to, if you will allow me to mix metaphors, a leftist cannibalization.  We are eating ourselves. 

So anyway, American Apparel is American Apparel because they are supposed to care about fair wages.  You know, made in America according to fair labor laws.  Anti-sweatship and all that good stuff.  What a lovely thing.  Except… their ads (stolen from Copyranter).  They make me want to wash my eyes out with soap. 

Um… not safe for work.

more...

In a New York Times article today, Patricia Cohen describes the changing demographics of the American professoriate. It had two main points:

(1) Profs are WAY OLDER now then they used to be.

(2) The older ones appear to be more liberal than the younger ones, so we can expect academia to be more moderate as the older profs retire. This table shows how “liberal,” “moderate,” and “conservative” professors report being by age and academic field (click to enlarge so you can see it better).

Cohen summarizes this table as follows:

‘Self-described liberals are most common within the ranks of those professors aged 50-64, who were teenagers or young adults in the 1960s,’ they wrote, making up just under 50 percent. At the same time, the youngest group, ages 26 to 35, contains the highest percentage of moderates, some 60 percent, and the lowest percentage of liberals, just under a third.

I’m not sure I buy it.

First, notice that they’re comparing two groups (26-35 and 50-64) and making a claim about a trend instead of a claim about group difference. You can’t do that. Look at the data on the age group between them (36-49), they are all over the place, not neatly sitated between the age groups that sandwich them. (This also points to the always interesting question of how the data looks if you chop up your continuous variables–in this case, age–differently.)

Second, if you stick to group differences, they are comparing the youngest group and the second to oldest group in their data. Why? If you compare the youngest to the oldest group, the data looks a bit different.

Third, their interpretation of the overall “trend”–that is, the average difference across all fields–is obscuring some really interesting variation by subfield! So maybe the overall interpretation works for the social sciences, but wow look at the physical and biological sciences! Again, here we see a choice about reporting that obscures one finding in favor of another. The choice to emphasize averages/means/medians versus ranges/variety has consequences for how we understand our world.

Finally, there is the possibility that what it means to be “liberal,” “moderate,” and “conservative” differs in a systematic way across age groups. The reporter doesn’t address this at all.

There’s are also some really interesting assumptions about what counts as “political” in the article. Cohen points to the fact that quantitative research is somehow thought to be inherently less ideological than pure theory or qualitative research. And she quotes Marxist sociologist Erik Olin Wright saying: “in the late ’60s and ’70s, the Marxist impulse was central for those interested in social justice.” “Now,” Cohen adds, “it resides at the margins.” But it seems to me that it is Cohen who is assuming that quantitative research isn’t justice-oriented. Her example of a not-so-politicized younger professor is Sara Goldrick-Rab, also a sociologist, who says, “My generation is not so ideologically driven.” But whose projects, detailed in the story, include college opportunities for low-income students and the way that welfare reform decreased college attendance by the poor. Goldrick-Rab also complains about the lack of support for women academics who are also mothers. Those all sound damn political to me. But Cohen writes, partially quoting Goldrick-Rab: “They [older professors] want to question values and norms; ‘we [younger professors] are more driven by data.’ ” In this sentence, Cohen puts values and data on opposite ends of a spectrum. (It’s also interesting how she opposes Goldrick-Rab’s quote to her own words, we have no idea what Goldrick-Rab meant to oppose to being data-driven.)

I am troubled by the reproduction of the binary between “objective” and “normative” “science.”

I love, however, seeing the places and people of my alma mater described! Go Wisconsin!!!

This is an image of brass stencil that was used to identify products made by women during WWII.

Found here thanks to Breck C.

I snapped this picture at my local grocery store. Sorry about the blurriness. It reads: ” ‘THE CUSTOMER IS THE REASON FOR OUR BUSINESS’… Please, Thank Check Writing Customers BY NAME!” And then under the smiley face it says “Customers First. NO CHATTER!”

What an amazing example of how employees are required to do emotional labor! First, the employee should refer to them by name if possible, thereby pretending to know them. Second, the employee should be friendly and chat with his or her customers, but only if they initiate. So no one cares if the employee is in the mood to chat, he or she must respond to the customer’s initiation or lack thereof.

As someone who has not had a service job like cashier at a grocery store in a very long time, I am distressed by how insulting this little “reminder” is… with it’s CAPITAL letters, exclamation points, and mocking smiley face.

A good book on the topic of emotion work is Fast Food, Fast Talk by Robin Leidner. An even better one is The Managed Heart by Arlie Hochschild.

Kay Steiger blogs about the decline in wages since 2001 for college graduates. Figure A shows that both men and women college graduates are earning less than they did in 2001. The wage gap between women and men has decreased, but only because men’s wages have been falling. To top it off, Figure B shows that a lower percentage of college graduates are getting health insurance and pension coverage.

Might this be related to the shrinking middle class?

Via Matthew Yglesias.