Hegemonic Masculinity in 2012 Super Bowl Commercials

Got a new post up over at SociologyInFocus.com titled, "Hegemonic Masculinity in Super Bowl Commercials. It analyzes the three commercials shown below, within the hegemonic masculinity framework:







Check it out. Come on, lots of people watch the Super Bowl for the commercials, not the game itself. The link, again: Hegemonic Masculinity in Super Bowl Commercials


academics blogs

South Korean K-pop, Perpetuating Patriarchy

In the 1990s, The Spice Girls had an infectious global impact on young people across Europe, North America, and Australia – girls in particular. While some may argue women’s sexuality, fandom, and business prowess mix in ways promote female empowerment, others claim that despite having a central position on stage, these mainstream girl groups reproduce male privilege. In contemporary South Korea, this topic is especially germane.

I recently attended a lecture by Associate Professor Stephen Epstein (2011), Director of the Asian Studies Programme at Victoria University of Wellington, where I learned that all female “girl groups” are having major influences in South Korea and across much of Asia through the phenomenon of K-pop.

The Wonder Girls:
According to Professor Epstein, girl groups’ music and videos in the K-pop genre tend to fall in one of four typologies, which make for useful comparisons with popular female artists in the West.

1. “Desire Expressed but Initiative Given to Males” – In videos falling into this typology, female artists communicate a craving to forge romantic relationships with males, but the artists’ physical movements and lyrics privilege the desired male partners. According to Dr. Epstein, the following video, “Tell Me Your Wish” by Oh!, exemplifies this typology since the female artists ask their male partners how they can fulfill the males’ desires:



Going back a few decades, one cannot help but compare this video’s genie theme to the sit-com, “I Dream of Genie.” It is no coincidence that “I Dream of Genie” emerged in the midst of America’s second women’s movement. With women in the broader society advocating for equal pay, “I Dream of Genie” portrayed a woman considered physically attractive with magical powers confined to a small lamp and controlled by her male proprietor. In South Korea’s contemporary K-pop industry, Oh! present a strikingly similar message.

And while not a “genie in a bottle” or part of a larger group, one can still see similarities in Nicki Minaj’s recent video, “Super Bass.” In her video, Minaj and an entourage of female dancers exude a highly sexualized femininity as they indulge males with whom they hope to forge a romance. Hence, the males are ultimately in control, there to sit back as the women work for their affection:



2. “Power through Narcissistic Sexuality” – The second typology includes videos in which girl groups supposedly garner power by brazenly accentuating their sexuality. Scenarios in these videos repeatedly show the South Korean female artists rejecting male suitors as they soak in compliments and climb the social ladder, their increasing popularity tied solely to their sexual prowess. The irony, of course, is that power garnered through sexuality does not alter the gender order. Rather, it reproduces gender norms with women (and girls) objectified as sex articles. This is seen quite clearly in the somewhat comical video “So Hot” by the Wonder Girls (note how cheerleading and American gridiron football is built into the video's gendered dynamics, a sport hardly popular in South Korea):



Again, this typology is not unique to girl groups in South Korean K-pop. Keri Hilson’s recent hit, “Pretty Girl Rock,” includes a number of lyrics that encourage women to publicly flaunt their sexual supremacy: “…Mad cause I’m cuter than the girl that’s with ya. I can talk about it cause I know that I’m pretty and if ya know it too then ladies sing it with me…. Don’t question that this girl’s a 10. Don’t hate me cause I’m beautiful.” As such, men are supposedly relegated inferior to the beautiful woman(en), but in actuality, women are valued strictly for their physical attractiveness. More to the point, Hilson’s video demonstrates this theme manifesting over generations:



3. “Objectified Female Solidarity” – The third typology includes videos where members of the girl groups completely reject males, holding no desire for male attention. With such an overt rejection, a greater female solidarity is definitely present in these videos, and perhaps even a stronger sense of independence. Still, the girl groups’ body language and attire perpetuate the same visual narrative – that women are sexual objects, as seen in Miss A’s “Bad Girl, Good Girl”:



Overlap may exist in these South Korean K-pop videos with those starring Lady Gaga. Lady Gaga has been heralded as a talent who questions authority and speaks to minority issues, but doing so while simultaneously reproducing a visual imagery in line with traditional gender norms.




4. “Revenge Narratives” – The final typology stated by Dr. Epstein was that of the revenge narrative in which the girl group members plan and carry out vengeful acts against promiscuous ex-boyfriends. In doing so, girls bond to presumably reclaim a collective sense of power. However, the over-arching theme of these videos still places women’s and girls’ value in the framework of a heterosexual relationship. See, below, 4minute’s video, “Heart to Heart”:



Though perhaps not a perfect comparison, Christina Aguilera’s “Fighter,” definitely holds similar tenets. Aguilera purports a strengthened individuality after being harmed, presumably by an ex-boyfriend. The song’s lyrics state, “Makes me that much stronger. Makes me work a little bit harder. Makes me that much wiser. Thanks for making me a fighter.” These empowering lyrics on the one hand continue to exist in the context of a woman’s central focus in romantic affairs, thereby cementing the current gender order.

Marketed as a means of increasing girls’ and young women’s power and independence, girl groups in the South Korean K-pop industry follow the same gender lines seen in music videos produced world-wide that emphasize femininity. The music videos may communicate slightly different points, but their messages have the same basic implications.

Girls’ and women’s worth is connected to (1) frequently unhealthy and unattainable beauty standards, and (2) romantic relationships with men. Despite being promoted as empowering for girls and women, the videos do not challenge patriarchy at all. To the contrary, they reinforce a world where gender inequality is embedded in its social systems.

Reference:
Epstein, S. J. (2011 August 4). Girls’ Generation?: Gender, (Dis)Empowerment and K-pop. School of Asian Studies Seminar Series 2001. Auckland: The University of Auckland.

For more of Dr. Epstein’s work, conducted in tandem with his colleague, James Turnbull, go Turnbull's blog, TheGrandNarrative.com.


blog

Dominant-Minority Relations: Malmo, Sweden

Joseph Rodriguez, with the BBC World Service, has an interesting piece posted titled, "Open Eye: Swedish racial tension." The photofilm effectively demonstrates dominant-minority relations in a community of Malmo, Sweden, known as Rosengard.

The piece is an effective tool in illustrating how social stratification (social inequality) influences youthful minority group members. As the photofilm shows, young people from Rosengard, live in a heavily segregated community, estranged from the majority population. And in this community, young Palestinians, Iraqis, Somalis, and so on compete with one another for respect in a space with limited resources.


Those interviewed speak of exclusion and stereotyping on the part of the dominant Swedish culture, who do not always offer young minority students equal opportunities to be exposed to conventional workplaces. Interviewees also describe examples of avoidance, in that some minority group members feel more comfortable remaining in ethnic enclaves, speaking their native language rather than Swedish.

Deviance is displayed as a reaction among minority youth, who resist what they define as an oppressive and exclusionary broader Swedish culture, as well as retreatism into substance use and withdrawl from the overall social system.

Because the photofilm is so heavily fixated on the minority youths' perspectives from Rosengard, viewers get a biased perspective on how these groups are integrating (or not integrating) into Sweden's culture. In other words, although youth interviewed overtly state most minority youth from Rosengard do not engage in deviant behaviors, the overall sense in the photofilm is that minority, immigrant youth tend to be trouble-makers (this is a concern that emerges whenever a complex issue is condensed into a piece with limited time).

Finally, the piece (in particular, the lengthier 22-minute podcast) offers excellent content for discussing how a society can address social stratification and deviance. Youth discuss Sweden's robust educational and rehabilitative social services. Again, unfortunately, because youth who are not succeeding according to the majority groups' standards are profiled, listeners are left thinking minority group members are more inclined to exploit these services, rather than use them constructively to secure upward social mobility.

Overall, this is a fantastic film that can spark a number of important conversations regarding multiculturalism, immigration, governmental/social support, dominant-minority relations, and how one coveys messages to the public through media outlets with limited timeframes.


academics blog

This is SportsCenter: The Predictable Gender Trend

On today’s SportsCenter, ESPN closed out showing their “This is SportsCenter” commercials. As described on ESPN’s official YouTube, "This is SportsCenter" channel:

This is SportsCenter is the name of a series of comical television commercials run by ESPN to promote their SportsCenter sports news show. The ads are presented in a deadpan mockumentary style, lampooning various aspects of sports, and sports broadcasting. The commercials debuted in 1994.

As of tonight (December 24, 2010), ESPN’s YouTube channel profiles 77 of these short videos. Not every "This is SportsCenter" commercial is profiled, but I'm just going with what is up on this page now as the sample data set. I generally enjoy these commercials. Many of them are witty, and they are all short (around 30 seconds). Here are a few examples:

















As can be seen, the commercials typically profile a famous athlete and/or a SportsCenter anchor, and on occasion a non-sports-related celebrity (e.g., Richard Simmons). In examining what athletes the commercials profile on ESPN's YouTube page, a highly predictable trend emerges. Here are the individual athletes the commercials profile (note: when no athletes are profiled and only anchors, gender of anchors profiled noted instead):

1. Dwight Freeney (football; male)


2. Derek Jeeter (baseball; male)


3. Floyd Mayweather (boxing; male)


4. Tim Lincecum (baseball; male)


5. Wayne Gretzky (hockey; male)


6. Dwight Howard (basketball; male)


7. David St. Hubbins (musician; male)


8. Arnold Palmer (golf; male)


9. Oregon Duck (football; gender neutral)


10. Usain Bolt (track & field; male)


11. Larry Fitzgerald (football; male)


12. Matt Ryan (football; male)


13. Brett Favre (football; male)


14. Adrian Peterson (football; male)


15. Joe Mauer (baseball; male)


16. Adrian Peterson (football; male)


17. Manny Ramierz (baseball; male)


18. Josh Hamilton (baseball; male)


19. SportsCenter Anchors (all male)


20. Jimmie Johnson (car racing; male)


21. SportsCenter Anchors (all male)


22. Manny Ramirez (baseball; male)


23. David Ortiz & Jorge Posada (baseball; male)


24. David Wright (baseball; male)


25. Chad Ochocinco (football; male)


26. Chad Ochocinco (football; male)


27. Ladanian Tomlinson (football; male)


28. Chad Ochocinco (football; male)


29. Tony Romo (football; male)


30. Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett, & Ray Allen (basketball; male)


31. Michael Phelps (swimming; male)


32. Ladanian Tomlinson (football; male)


33. Jim Kelly (football; male)


34. Dale Earnhardt Jr. (car racing; male)


35. Chad Ochocinco (football; male)


36. Stephen King (writer; male)


37. Michael Phelps (swimming; male)


38. Jimmy Rollins (baseball; male)


39. Richard Simmons (fitness pro; male)


40. Maria Sharapova (tennis; female)


41. Steve Smith (football; male)


42. Jose Reyes (baseball; male)


43. Pat Summit (basketball; female)


44. Dale Earnhardt Jr. (car racing; male)


45. Carmelo Anthony (basketball; male)


46. Chris Paul (basketball; male)


47. Keyshawn Johnson (football; male) & Kobe Bryant (basketball; male)


48. "Moving the Franchise" (all male anchors)


49. "Yahtzee" (male anchors)


50. Kerri Strug (gymnastics; female)


51. "Talent Search" (male anchors)


52. Globetrotters (basketball; male)


53. Dan O'Brien (track & field; male)


54. "Journalistic Integrity" (male anchors)


55. "Sportscaster Celebrities" (male anchors)


56. "Live on the Set" (predominantly male anchors; female anchor at end)


57. Michael Andretti (car racing; male)


58. Gordie Howe (hockey; male)


59. "Reading Lips" (all male anchors)


60. "Makeup Buddies" (all male anchors)


61. "Athletes Bribing" (multiple male athletes from different sports)


62. George Mikan (basketball; male)


63. Mary Lou Retton (gymnastics; female)


64. "Tour" (all male anchors)


65. "One Track Mind" (predominanty male anchors; female anchor at start)


66. "Shoot" (female anchor)


67. "Paws" (all male anchors)


68. "Serious Journalism" (all male anchors)


69. "Write Your Own Stuff" (all male anchors)


70. "Sweet Science" (predominantly male anchor; short appearances by a female anchor)


71. "Potty Talk" (male anchor)


72. "Memories" (all male anchors)


73. Keshawn Johnson (football; male) & Kobe Bryant (basketball; male)


74. Glenn Robinson (basketball; male)


75. Barry Melrose (hockey; male)


76. Landon Donovan (soccer; male)


77. Jimmie Johnson (car racing; male)

When going through the data set, we find that out of the 77 commercials, women only appear 8 times (10.4%), in some cases in relatively peripheral roles. When looking specifically at athletes, only 3 female athletes are profiled, all 3 of whom represent historically "acceptibly feminine" sports: Mary Lou Retton and Kerri Strug (both gymnasts) and Maria Sharapova (tennis). One commercial profiles Pat Summit, the famous women's basketball coach from the University of Tennessee. All other commercials featuring athletes have males.

Examining the content of the commercials is also important. For instance, the commercial with Sharapova clearly relies on Sharapova's status as a femininized beauty figure in athletics. And while all the commercials are "presented in deadpan mockumentary style," the humor clearly calls upon dominant notions of heterosexual masculinity -- take for example the commercials that mock femininity among males, such as those in which the male anchors share makeup and mock Richard Simmons as a conditioning coach.

The trends shown here are highly predictable. It is hardly surprising that males are over-represented numerically in the commercials, both as athletes and anchors. Likewise, it is unsurprising that the humor utilized in these commercials so often mocks femininity among males in the sporting world or uses female athletes as sexualized figures.

What we see here in ESPN's "This is SportsCenter" commercials is the typical way that gender is constructed in sport -- patriarchy is reified within an institution historically reserved for heterosexual males.

academics

Permissible Violence: Kobe Bryant, Jimmy Kimmel, and Call of Duty: Black Ops

In 1997, Hutchins and Phillips published an important article in the International Review for the Sociology of Sport, titled "Selling Permissible Violence." The article utilizes Australian rugby to illustrate that standards of violence fluctuate in society. These fluctuating standards of violence are contingent upon the market's commodification of violence, evolving technology and media, and political ideology. And while Hutchins and Phillips's article centers on sporting violence, the concept of permissible violence can be extended to other forms of popular culture, as well as war.

To this end, recently, National Basketball Association (NBA) icon, Kobe Bryant, and television late show host, Jimmy Kimmel, were featured in an XBOX 360 advertisement for the recently released game, "Call of Duty: Black Ops," re-enacting combat in war. Here's the commercial:



Link to commercial here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yzeCsv-qrM

It is important to note a few other dimensions of the commercial. First, it makes a concerted effort to include a very diverse array of additional characters -- men, women, younger people, older people, those from different ethnic and occupational/class groups. This diversity tactic then leads to an ending slogan: "THERE'S A SOLDIER IN ALL OF US." In other words, all of us (supposedly) have the innate capacity and desire to partake in war (or at least buy the video game).

The commercial has generated a small degree of controversy. On ESPN, sports pundits discuss whether or not Bryant's participation in the commercial warrants a response from NBA Commissioner, David Stern:



Bomani Jones hits the nail on the head. With approximately 1 minute left in the video, Jones points out that if Bryant was re-enacting what's portrayed in the video game, Grand Theft Auto (e.g., murder, assaults, prostitution), he would be reprimanded by Commissioner Stern. However, because Bryant, Kimmel and the other actors are re-enacting war against each other, and presumably against American enemies in the game, the portrayed violence is at the very least permissible, and more likely glorified as a kind of American patriotism.

And this is the problem with America's blind fascination with war -- the general public only sees what our media wants us to see. We see the most extreme violence (death) glamorized and commodified in "benign" video games, leaving the public completely misdirected from the realities of war.

Bryant and Kimmel's participation in the commercial, and in turn support of this war-based game, speak nothing to the physical and mental health concerns soldiers (including American soldiers) experience because of war (listen to Terry Gross's fantastic interview for a discussion on soldiers' mental health concerns: Psychologist Craig Bryan: Treating Vets For PTSD).

Likewise, "Call of Duty: Black Ops" speaks nothing to the alleged war crimes that American soldiers have been accused of committing in Iraq and Afghanistan (Leaked U.S. Video Shows Deaths In Baghdad; A Murder Controversy in Afghanistan).

What we see in this commercial, is that war is not just permissible. It is cool. If Kobe Bryant and Jimmy Kimmel can have fun re-enacting war games and show "they have a soldier in them," video gamers should likewise view war-based video games that bring death upon others in fiction uncritically. But in real life, these media blitzes simultaneously and covertly also support American military efforts, without problematizing the tragic outcomes of war on all sides of the battlefield.

Should society be glamorizing war to make money, and turning to celebrities to peddle these products? I wonder, how many of the marketers for "Call of Duty: Black Ops" have been in combat, lost a limb, dealt with severe war-related mental health problems, killed someone, or had a loved one killed?

Photo via ESPN; more from The Orlando Sentinel: ESPN shot down by Call of Duty Black Ops creators over Kobe Bryant ad, Examiner.com: Activision denies ESPN use of COD: Black Ops commercial with Kobe Bryant, 'Call of Duty: Black Ops' video game commercial controversy, Media Bistro: Activision Shoots Down ESPN’s Request To Air Kobe Bryant Commercial.


academics

Teaching Sociology: How American Media Uses Violence Against Women in Afghanistan to Veil the Public

One of the more difficult things I find when teaching popular culture is getting students to connect media trends to broader trends in society. It is not difficult for students to identify patterns of discrimination. But identifying discrimination alone misses critical context.

Since 2001, the media has been saturated with coverage of “The War on Terror” (or whatever the slogan of the day is). I recently read an extremely interesting journal article by Carol Stabile and Deepa Kumar (2005) in Media, Culture & Society, titled “Unveiling imperialism: media, gender and the war on Afghanistan.”

Stabile and Kumar’s article makes the following key points:

• Prior to 9/11, American politicians and American media were not concerned at all with women’s rights in Afghanistan or other Middle Eastern countries. Following 9/11, all of a sudden, the American military became Afghan women’s saviors across American televisions and in major print sources.


• American media constructs the military’s efforts to liberate Afghan women from their oppressive Afghan male counterparts as a first-time effort, thereby dismissing any and all efforts Afghan women have taken to liberate themselves.


• American media fails to acknowledge that when the United States armed and trained the mujahideen in the 1980s to push back the Soviet Union, the CIA was completely aware of the mujahideen’s extreme sexist tendencies. Thus, American efforts were far more invested in securing contracts to oil pipelines through Afghanistan and winning the Cold War than they were in humanitarian/women’s rights.


• American media never acknowledges that since the Soviet Union was ousted and the Taliban took over Afghanistan (due heavily to American support), Afghan women’s rights declined immensely.


• And since America’s military presence in Afghanistan, our media suggests Afghan women’s conditions have improved, when in reality they have hardly changed.

Some text from Stabile and Kumar’s article:

When we look at the condition of women today in Afghanistan, it becomes clear that the US never really had their liberation in mind. While some things have changed since the collapse of the Taliban for women, much remains the same. So, for instance, women may now venture out in certain regions without a male escort, but they still do not enjoy basic human rights. And while 1.5 million Afghan children now attend schools – one third of them girls – more than 3 million children do not go to schools because no infrastructure exists. Reports reveal that women are still punished according to Islamic laws. Kabul jail had no women prisoners shortly after the fall of the Taliban, but as of April 2002 women were being incarcerated for crimes such as leaving their husbands or having relationships with members of the opposite sex (Ahmed-Ullah, 2002). One year after the US attacked Afghanistan, the war-ravaged country had the second highest maternal mortality rate in the world (Sierra Leone was number one): 1700 out of every 100,000 women died during pregnancy or childbirth. In the US, the maternal mortality rate is 12 out of every 100,000 (Reuters, 2002). In December 2002, Human Rights Watch released a report documenting continued violence against Afghan women, particularly in the Western regions of Afghanistan (Human Rights Watch, 2001). (p. 775, 776).

The bottom line is that the American media does not present a realistic, accurate portrayal of Afghan women because Afghan women's so-called emancipation due to American efforts serves as a moralistic veil, influencing the American public to continue supporting the war. But what’s clear is American economic, political, and military efforts are not truly invested in Afghan girls’ and women’s rights; they are interested in oil.

How then, do we interpret TIME magazine’s recent issue and its cover portrait, showing Aisha – an 18-year-old Afghan woman whose nose and ears were cut off after she fled her abusive in-laws? Richard Stengel, Managing Editor for TIME, discusses the cover portrait in his article, “The Plight of Afghan Women: A Disturbing Picture”:

In the end, I felt that the image is a window into the reality of what is happening — and what can happen — in a war that affects and involves all of us. I would rather confront readers with the Taliban's treatment of women than ignore it. I would rather people know that reality as they make up their minds about what the U.S. and its allies should do in Afghanistan.

The much publicized release of classified documents by WikiLeaks has already ratcheted up the debate about the war. Our story and the haunting cover image by the distinguished South African photographer Jodi Bieber are meant to contribute to that debate. We do not run this story or show this image either in support of the U.S. war effort or in opposition to it. We do it to illuminate what is actually happening on the ground. As lawmakers and citizens begin to sort through the information about the war and make up their minds, our job is to provide context and perspective on one of the most difficult foreign policy issues of our time.

Explicitly, it appears TIME is taking an apolitical approach, simply reporting the news so to speak – reporting what is out there, in turn, allowing the public to make their own assessments. Implicitly, however, it is what is not reported (what is never reported) that makes this picture and the attendant discourse entirely political.

The messages implicitly conveyed: Afghan men and Afghan culture are horrible; American culture is great. We are, once again, the white knights coming in to save the tortured, helpless women of color from their demonic brown-skinned men. Orientalist discourse, truly at its best.

The messages never conveyed: American foreign policy helped set the stage for this hideous practice to transpire by knowingly supporting a regime rooted so deeply in sexism years ago. And now, America continues to invest more in its ubiquitous war machine than it does in say Afghan women’s and girls’ education (seriously, how many schools have been built and sustained by American efforts?) or in public health facilities. Oh, and dimensions of sexism (institutionalized and personal) persist in the United States.

At the risk of being opportunistic myself, the TIME magazine portrait and its attendant stories, coupled with Stabile and Kumar’s article make for an excellent teaching/learning opportunity. Simply viewing the TIME magazine cover and articles, one could easily point to horrifically sexist norms, and stop there. With Stabile and Kumar’s article, the questions and discussion become much richer.

Does the mainstream American media inadvertently (or deliberately) collude with American political, economic, and militaristic entities by using women’s rights as an opportunity to make our country look good, when really, we simply want resources? If efforts were truly being made to impede violence against women, why isn’t our military taking a stand in and around the Democratic Republic of the Congo (listen to this inspiring podcast)? What should America’s role really be in the Middle East if women's rights are a central concern?

Full Reference:

Stabile, C. A., & Kumar, D. (2005). Unveiling imperialism: media, gender and the war on Afghanistan. Media, Culture & Society, 27 (5), 765-782.


Academics Blogs

When Whiteness Matters in Sport

This is not a major social issue, and I am not going to make it one. Rather, I think the way this story is being presented in the media effectively illustrates how race matters and is constructed in particular social contexts. Among track and field (“athletics”) aficionados, the 100 meters is frequently considered the premier event. At the elite level, the 100 meters is a power sprint, measuring fast twitch, explosive, kinetic energy manifested through meticulously honed technique.

For males, breaking the 10-second mark is still a colossal accomplishment. One might not think so since track and field doesn’t get much media attention in general (at least not in the United States), and when it does, we’re now more accustomed to watching Usain Bolt blast away his competitors, seemingly cruising to numerous sub-10-second performances (his world record currently stands at 9.58). A few weeks ago sprinter Christophe Lemaitre won France’s national competition with a time of 9.98 seconds, squeaking below that 10-second mark. A typical headline of Lemaitre’s accomplishment (from Reuters.com, July 9, 2010):

Lemaitre first white man to run 100m in under 10 seconds

And from the article:

PARIS (Reuters) - France's Christophe Lemaitre became the first white man to run the 100 meters in under 10 seconds when he clocked 9.98 on Friday, the French athletics federation said.

Lemaitre, 20, set his time during the French championships in Valence, southern France.

"He is the first white man to run the 100 meters in less than 10 seconds," Jean-Philippe Manzelle, French athletics Federation press officer, told Reuters.

There have been other white sprinters who have excelled at the world level in recent years. Lolo Jones comes to mind in the 100m hurdles; Jeremy Wariner dominated the open 400m in recent years. And if we’re talking sprinters of “outlier” ethnicities in general, Liu Xiang of China recently held the world record in the 110m hurdles. But the early discourse around Lemaitre could be a bit more pointed in the way he is being constructed through the media as a great white hope.

When should race matter in sport, and when it does, how should it be discussed? In this case, at the very least, Lemaitre’s race is framed such that his being “white” is of greater importance than his win. As the track and field season moves on and should Lemaitre continue to run sub-10-second times, I expect to see increased media coverage about his whiteness. He is not going to beat Usain Bolt or America’s top sprinters at international competitions. But on the European circuit, I expect he will make waves. Mainstream media discussion of his success or failure should be interesting to follow.

Update (7/28/10): This post was re-posted over on Sociological Images, and in the comments section of that post, commenters have noted that Lolo Jones is multi-racial and identifies as such. My bad!

Blogcatalog

Interpreting the "Old Spice Guy": Diverse Masculinities Rolled Into One

When I first saw the Old Spice commercial with the "Old Spice Guy," I immediately considered it good blogging material. What markers of masculinity are portrayed throughout the commercial? Though the commercial cannot be embedded here, it can be seen over on YouTube.

Let's see: the commercial parodies a rugged, chivalrous masculinity, where the character (actor, Isaiah Mustafa) embodies some of the typically desired masculine traits for those women who emphasize femininity -- sensitivity towards his romantic partner (cake baking), woodworking skills, striated musculature, a proclivity for the outdoors, deep voice, clean, and generally speaking, confident.

I didn't realize until yesterday how wildly popular this commercial has become. The Old Spice producers and actor have even made a bunch of attendant YouTube videos for fans (celebrities and non-celebrities), including one for NPR:



And I thought the one responding to Alyssa Milano was pretty funny, referencing her previous "home" on the 1980's sitcom, "Who's the Boss."



The commercial's idiosyncratic, humorous nature definitely helps, but I'd bet this commercial's popularity is traced more to society's current conception of hegemonic masculinity, combining diverse power-based traits that resonate with viewers from a wide array of demographics. Let's break down the traits a little more.

The outdoorsy guy with carpentry, bike riding, and log-rolling skills taps into the rural, rugged demographic. Yet, he's also metrosexual -- well groomed, clean, boasts of smelling good (it is an Old Spice commercial). Physically, he's athletic (former pro football player in real life at some level) and muscular. Then ethnically, he taps into the African American viewing demographic. Again, the way actor exudes confidence ties in neatly with a hegemonic masculine ideal. He's a provider ("dream kitchen he built you with his own hands"). And finally, heterosexuality is blatantly expressed. The commercial begins with the line, "Hello ladies. How are you? Fantastic. Does your man look like me? No. Can he smell like me? Yes..." [emphasis added].

That opening line is key. The average, everyday male cannot be entirely like the "Old Spice Guy." Heck, the "Old Spice Guy" says so himself. However, the "average Joe" can take baby steps to work towards that masculine ideal by buying Old Spice bodywash (body wash containers, by the way, are bad for the environment) and trying to conform to some of the other hegemonic masculine traits.

A gender-based hierarchy is clearly defined ["Old Spice Guy" at the top in this example, male viewers below in pursuit, and domesticated women below (perhaps this last point can be teased out more)]. Just as commercials that emphasize femininity rely on women's gender-based insecurities, so does this commercial for males. It just does so in a way that reaches numerous demographics, while laced (i.e., masked) with humor.

Updated 7/21/10 with an even more overt example:



Blog Directory

Ethnocentric, Biased Media: "Strangle" those Palestinians

Mark LeVine is quickly becoming one of my favorite writers, and not just because he's faculty over at the University of California, Irvine (GO EATERS!). Levine's latest piece over on Al Jazeera, titled "The meaning of strangulation," demonstrates an extraordinarily biased and ethnocentric American media.

Many will recall the recent comments made by White House reporter Helen Thomas, who said Jews "should get the hell out of Palestine." Why will so many recall these comments? Not only because of their content (anti-Israel), but also because they made headlines all over the American media. Heaven forbid an elderly, retiring reporter with Middle Eastern roots express her opinions on a charged political issue, let alone an opinion that challenges Israeli occupation. In any case, the point here is, her comments made big news and threatened to taint her legacy as a reporter.

I hadn't realized, however, what LeVine points out:

Thomas was forced into retirement for declaring that Jews "should get the hell out of Palestine," but New York Senator Chuck Schumer, one of the most powerful politicians in the US, has avoided any criticism or even major press coverage for remarks he made only days later that supported the continued "economic strangulation" of Gaza; in part, because, he essentially argues, the inhabitants of the benighted Strip are not Jewish.

Schumer made his remarks during a brief talk to the Orthodox Union, a well-known politically conservative Jewish educational, outreach and social service organisation.

The talk covered several foreign policy issues, including Iran and Israel/Palestine. When the topic turned to the Israeli attack on the Gaza aid flotilla Schumer began by explaining that the "Palestinian people still don't believe in the Jewish state, in a two-state solution". But that is not all, he continued: "They don't believe in the Torah, in David."

Because of this, and because they chose to elect Hamas, Schumer went on to argue, Israel is right - and the US should support its desire - "to strangle them economically until they see that's not the way to go".

I, like most Americans, was made well aware of Thomas's statement, but not Senator Schumer's. LeVine then extrapolates on the social significance of Schumer:

...through his representation of New York, the state with the largest Jewish population in the US, he is a leading pro-Israel voice in congress who has the ability directly to impact the nature of US policy towards Israel and the Middle East more broadly.

In other words, what Senator Schumer says actually can cost people - Palestinians, Israelis, Americans - their livelihoods and even their lives, not to mention help prolong or alleviate one of the world's most intractable conflicts. And yet no one in official Washington even blinked.

To consider the implications of these comments, it is worth considering what would happen if any Arab or Muslim, never mind a US senator, explained that because Israelis do not support a two-state solution, and do not believe in the Quran - that is, have not converted to Islam - and have voted in one of the most right-wing governments in their country's history, the US, or the world more broadly, is justified in trying to "strangle Israel economically" until it moderates its policies.

Imagine the uproar. Consider what would happen to the person - a columnist or congressman - who made such a comment. Yet hardly anyone has even noticed, never mind considered the implications of Schumer's remarks, which on YouTube have garnered about 1,500 views.

I've re-presented a good portion of the essay, but there's a lot more. Excellent read. And here's a clip of Schumer's speech, along with a general summary of LeVine's points afterwards:

More MMA Stuff That Makes Me Shake My Head

I have no intention of writing about this now. For the few people who follow my little blog, I'm just kind of posting these videos so I have them cataloged and can write about them at a later date. Enjoy, be disgusted with a sport for which I once had more respect, or both...


Via BloodyElbow.com


Via BloodyElbow.com

How Sports and Leisure Stunt Social Resistance

This blog is quickly turning into the “Sports Sociology Blog.” LeBron James of the Cleveland Cavaliers recently came out with a book titled Shooting Stars, co-authored with Buzz Bissinger. As such, James has been making the rounds across talk radio. He was recently interviewed on NPR’s Fresh Air with Terry Gross (9/9/09) and then on Talk of the Nation with Neal Conan (9/15/09).

I particularly enjoyed the first interview with Gross in which James discusses his childhood friendships (that serve as the basis for his book), racial politics in high school athletics, getting dunked on, and his relationship with his mother. I noticed one of his comments illustrates the way that popular culture subdues social resistance in contemporary society. From a transcript of the interview:

GROSS: You're one of the people who went very suddenly from poverty to wealth. You write in your book, you know, your mother had you when she was 16. Her mother died when you were three. It was hard for your mother to support you. You had to keep moving a lot because of eviction notices and, you know, rent problems. Did you think of basketball as a way out, as more than just a game?

Mr. JAMES: Oh, I think it is more than a game. Basketball, and I think sport period, gives you an opportunity to forget about anything that may be going on in your life, back away from that particular sport that you may be playing. You know, I definitely used the game to get my mind off some of the bad things that may have been going on as a child.

GROSS: Like what?

Mr. JAMES: You know, just things you never want your kids to see, you know, violence and things like that. You never want your kids to see that. So, you know, I used the game of basketball to keep me away from that.

While it is unclear from what type of violence (e.g., family) James was escaping when playing basketball, what is clear is that in escaping from the violence, the violence went unchallenged by James. Granted, James was describing a time when he was a minor, so this example is not to be taken literally by suggesting James should have been expected to challenge the violent perpetrator(s).

Rather, James’s comments exemplify one of the functions of popular culture in a society rooted in conflict – to help the exploited escape temporarily from their problems, thereby allowing the exploiters to go about their business unchallenged by the masses. From John Storey’s An Introductory Guide to Cultural Theory and Popular Culture:

The function of the culture industry is therefore, ultimately, to organize leisure time in the same way as industrialization has organized work time. Work under capitalism stunts the senses; the culture industry continues the process: ‘the escape from everyday drudgery which the whole culture industry promotes … [is a] paradise … [of] the same old drudgery … escape … [is] predesigned to lead back to the starting point. Pleasure promotes the resignation which it ought to help to forget.’ In short, work leads to mass culture; mass culture leads back to work. (p. 105, 106).

In other words, those who are victims of violence in various settings (e.g., family, work, school, religion), can temporarily go off and play a game of pickup, catch a movie, take a vacation, pray, or engage in whatever form of leisure/escape they choose. Doing so simply recharges the victims’ batteries, makes them feel rewarded, and ultimately encourages them to return to their place of exploitation. Popular culture and leisure activities are part of the capitalist system, secretly painted as social rewards. In reality, sporting and leisure industries in general help those in power go unchallenged.

Today, sporting institutions have become so popular that society virtually ignores the way athletic industries symbolize and perpetuate global exploitation. Unlike some athletes from yesteryear who cared about social issues and actually attempted to do something about them (Martina Navratilova, Muhammad Ali, Arthur Ashe, Jackie Robinson), today’s LeBron James, Tiger Woods, the Williams Sisters, Roger Federer and so on, follow the lead of an utterly apolitical Michael Jordan.

Corporate ties to athletic industries, such as Nike, inhibit athletes from using their social power in ways that oppose the most hideous forms of globalization. In the 1980s and beyond, multinational corporations shifted in five ways that perpetuate global disparities:

1. …1890s firms largely employed Americans to produce their product; in the 1990s, the firms extensively employed foreign labor and made the overwhelming bulk of their goods abroad.
2. …while the late-nineteenth-century firms largely traded in natural resources (oil, iron) or industrial goods (steel, paint), the late-twentieth-century firms traded in designs, technical knowledge, management techniques, and organizational innovations.
3. A third characteristic of transnationals, such as Nike or Coca-Cola, was their increasing dependence on world markets – not solely U.S. – for profits.
4. …transnationals of the late twentieth century depended on massive advertising campaigns to make people want their products…. Such advertising often sold not merely a product (as sneakers), but a lifestyle (“Just Do It”) that in most instances was based on American culture.
5. The new transnational…became so global by the 1980s that a single government had power over only a part o the firm’s total operation… Thus, for example, when the makers of athletic equipment were found in the 1990s to be exploiting low-paid Southeast Asians who worked in horrible conditions, the U.S. government’s power to remedy the problem was limited. The transnational was, as its name declared, transcending the boundaries of individual nations.

From Michael Jordan and the New Global Capitalism (LaFeber, 2002, p. 55-57).

Today, transnational corporations (like Nike) continue to exploit Southeast Asian workers and only claim awareness of the exploitation and do something about it after it has been exposed by others (see below).



In the meantime, society’s athletes and sports fans go about getting ready for the next sporting event while the corporate executives' oppressive and global work-leisure-work system goes on unchallenged.

(Photo courtesy of NPR).

Fighting for the Right to Fight: Part III -- Blatant Sexism Tolerated

FIGHTING FOR THE RIGHT TO FIGHT: PART III -- BLATANT SEXISM TOLERATED

[Cross-posted on FightTicker.com]

With Christiane Santos and Gina Carano headlining a major mixed martial arts (MMA) card, this 3-part series examines the state of women in MMA. Part I of this series overviews the progress women have made in MMA, with Part II covering the normalized forms of sexism that frequently go unnoticed.

This piece presents the more overt forms of sexism that still transpire in MMA and contemporary sport. While many in the MMA community do not promote or approve of these sexist acts, the acts are ultimately tolerated by the industry since the perpetrators are rarely punished and gender equity is not seen as a priority by the public at large, especially when cast as a threat to the sporting status quo.

When Not Fighters, Women are Relegated to Sexualized Appendages of Male Fighters

Again, the proportion of female fighters relative to males is extremely small. Thus, when women are not included in competition during MMA fight cards, women's inclusion tends to come in the form of displaying their sexuality and nothing else. Obviously, this exemplifies how women are valued within sport -- as voiceless, commodified sexual appendages to the more central male athletes.


In this UFC 100 promotional video shown on YouTube (assist to Steve Ficca), it is glaringly evident how women are utilized in MMA when they are not athletes.

When EliteXC aired MMA's first fight card on primetime network television (May 31, 2008), Gina Carano and Kaitlin Young competed in a marquee match. However, women were also featured as dancers. This theatrical spectacle was not continued in subsequent EliteXC fight cards.

EliteXC did a great deal to promote women’s MMA, but its initial inclusion of female dancers did not reflect well on the organization's overall portrayal of women.

Still, this sexist practice continues across the MMA industry. For UFC 100, rather than have female athletes or commentators for the centennial event, the promotion increased its use of women by adding Holly Madison as a guest Octagon Girl. Occasionally, fighters will have women accompany them to the ring or cage in theatrical arena entrances. And for no apparent reason except to add to this hypermasculine culture, sexualized women are sometimes added for MMA fighter photo opportunities.

Similar practices of course happen in numerous sports -- in football with cheerleaders, in basketball with dancers, in boxing with ring girls. The predominantly male market calls for this portrayal of women, and sporting industries perpetuate the demand. Angela Harris, a University of California, Berkeley professor of law, theorizes that society's patriarchal culture confines men and women to rigid gender roles, which when challenged, result in public shaming (Harris quoting James Gilligan):

The male gender role generates violence by exposing men to shame if they are not violent, and rewarding them with honor when they are. The female gender role also stimulates male violence at the same time that it inhibits female violence. It does this by restricting women to the role of highly unfree sex objects, and honoring them to the degree that they submit to those roles or shaming them when they rebel. This encourages men to treat women as sex objects, and encourages women to conform to that sex role; but it also encourages women (and men) to treat men as violence objects. (p. 789, 790).

Additionally in MMA and sports at large, there are simply fewer financial opportunities for women outside of these limited occupational spaces. Thus, when women do capitalize from their sexuality in or out of MMA, they are turning to a viable avenue to earn income made possible by the industry and broader patriarchal demands.

Sexist Language

Sports have always been characterized by women's subordination. Too often, this occurs through language used by athletes, coaches and those who oversee sporting institutions (e.g., promoters, commissioners). Use of clichés, such as "You throw/hit like a girl" or "Quit being a little bi*ch" relies on the collective understanding that femininity is subordinate to masculinity. Thus, when one uses those types of clichés in an insulting manner, even if conscious intent to denigrate women is not present, the process supports a broader sexist culture.

Examples of this type of language abound in MMA and undergo minimal scrutiny. In MTV’s MMA-based reality show, Bully Beatdown, characters in virtually every episode utilize language that subordinates femininity. The following are a small sample of such lines expressed in the reality show: "Adam and Josh went to Mayhem for help cause they couldn't do it themselves. They're too much of a little bi*ch to take care of business on their own" (episode two); "On your back like a little bi*ch!" (episode four); "Easy targets. They put themselves out there. They're little girls. They cry about everything. They just don't know how to take a joke. They're not men that's all" (episode three).

And while not the norm, it is not uncommon to hear male MMA fighters use similar language in pre-fight interviews. In the widely viewed special, UFC Primetime, which hyped the UFC 94 match between B.J. Penn and Georges St. Pierre, Penn said of GSP, "GSP, saying he's not a quitter, but I was right there watching him quit. You tap from strikes, you're a little bi*ch."


EMBED-Dana Whites Fight Night 18 video blog - Watch more free videos

In probably the most obvious example from April of this year, UFC President Dana White closed out an official UFC Fight Night promotional video log with the following statement: "You fu**in' dumb bi*ch. Fu** you Loretta Hunt." Additionally in the same piece, White used the words "retard" and "fa**ot" as a way to disparage various individuals. As noted previously in Part II, Hunt is one of the few female journalists in the MMA industry.

Following heavy criticism from numerous MMA media outlets, White quickly apologized for use of the homophobic language. No apology was made for language that belittles women or the mentally challenged. More importantly, it appears no structural changes in the industry have manifested that would aim to shift people's attitudes, raise consciousness, and prevent future discriminatory behaviors (see final section of this post on "equity policies").

In fact, across the MMA blogosphere, although criticism of White's words was quite heavy from online journalists, a large proportion of commenters/readers supported White (see commenters’ statements in response to Maggie Hendricks’s article). Presumably, a high majority of online MMA readers/commenters is heterosexually male, enabling them to interact with one another in anonymous virtual communities where written sexism/homophobia can go relatively unchecked, depending largely on the sites' designers and moderators.

This provides a textbook example of how sexism operates simultaneously on interpersonal and institutional levels. Following a blatant example of sexist language used in an official company promotional piece, support for the victim is minimized because of her minority status in the industry as a whole, where athletes, managers, coaches, fans, and fellow journalists are largely male, and are therefore unaffected (perhaps even privileged) by sexism. Thus de facto discrimination goes on, "business as usual."

Sexual Assault and Harassment

Given the lenient atmosphere that ensconces MMA and sport with regard to sexism, when sexual assault and/or harassment does occur, it is not terribly surprising that it goes on absent of serious scrutiny, even after sexual harassment is carried out publicly.

By now, many sports fans have been made privy to the sexual assault enacted upon ESPN reporter, Erin Andrews who was video taped unknowingly without wearing any clothes through a hotel peephole. The video was then posted over the internet before being removed. Unfortunately, examples of sexual assaults by athletes are bountiful (see for example, here). Nothing so harmful has occurred in MMA (at least not to the public’s knowledge). However, similar occurrences have taken place.

The sexual assault perpetrated against ESPN reporter Erin Andrews was deplorable. Unfortunately, it reflects a broader trend in the sporting industry.

While probably not defined as sexual harassment technically, Gina Carano being forced to undress at the EliteXC public weigh-ins prior to her October 2008 match against Kelly Kobald was completely inappropriate. Although men do this regularly when on the edge of making weight at public weigh-ins, the experience is different since the audience is predominantly male. How many pictures of male fighters weighing in behind towels were plastered across the MMA blogosphere versus those of Carano?

Having a small group of men hold towels around a woman's undressed body while she weighs in as groups of young male voyeurs in the audience take pictures hoping to sneak a peek illustrates a lack of gender awareness and infrastructure in an industry run by males. A simple solution would have been to take Carano backstage and weigh in with a female official and women from her and her opponent's camp. Instead, the public spectacle of having Carano strip down and weigh in behind towels prevailed over a rational and equitable solution.

An example of sexual harassment, this time against MMA reporter Heather Nichols, occurred July of this year when Quinton "Rampage" Jackson, one of the UFC's biggest stars, grabbed Nichols mid-interview and began emulating sexual intercourse with her (see below).

MMA reporter Heather Nichols was not appreciative of how "Rampage" Jackson conducted himself during their interview (assist to Mike Menninger).

Nobody intervened to stop Jackson's actions during the interview. According to a subsequent interview with Nichols, she did not approve of Jackson's actions and at the time of interview had not received an apology from him. That this example happened in the most public of spaces only makes one wonder what occurs throughout the MMA industry behind closed doors and how young males may model their behavior off these types of actions.

Sociological Terms and Models to End Sexism in Sport

What we see in MMA with regard to women's inclusion are the beginnings of "gender equality" with very small degrees of "gender equity." Sports sociologist Richard Giulianotti states, "Equality policies open doors to disadvantaged groups, including women. Equity policies restructure the sports system per se to ensure sport experiences are qualitatively similar for men and women" (p. 89). Though some important structural changes have been made in MMA that indicate equity policies (e.g., 5-minute rounds), what we see much more, are indicators of women slowly being included in a heterosexual men's world, where sexism persists in different forms and on different levels.

Further theorizing gender in sport, Giulianotti relies on work by Jennifer Hargreaves, who offers three political strategies for women in sport: (1) "Co-option" involves women showing greater numbers in sport as athletes, referees, journalists, promoters, etc. In short, co-option pushes for women to join sporting industries like MMA, but without shifting the deeper structural arrangements that privilege masculinity; (2) "separatism" calls for women (or other minority groups) to operate independently from men by creating their own sporting organizations; and (3) "co-operation" seeks for women and men to work collaboratively in creating new sporting paradigms that end gender differences.

A few examples of separatism exist (e.g., women's only MMA promotions), but these organizations are generally not sustainable in a world that relies on capitalism and high ticket sales. Co-operation is a bit harder to identify. That is not to say co-operation does not occur in private settings or in less visible spaces. However anecdotally, it does not appear that co-operation is occurring on significant levels throughout the MMA industry. Of the three models, what we see most in MMA and other sports is co-option. As female mixed martial artists and women in other professions enter the predominantly male world of MMA, they certainly make laudable, courageous progress in fighting for the right to fight and work. But in the process, men are not working with them to create equity policies, at least not at levels that lead to extensive and sustained change. Thus far, women are slowly being included, but on men's terms.


This coming Saturday night, Christiane Santos and Gina Carano will compete in what will surely be the most celebrated women's MMA match to date. As the main event on a fight card full of men, their match marks a symbolic and tangible change in MMA. But simply having one marker of gender progress does not indicate industry-wide equity. We also just had America's first Latina elected to the U.S. Supreme Court, the second woman on the current "roster" and only the third woman ever. In terms of numbers, attitudes, behaviors, and structural arrangements, we've got a long way to go.

Suggested further reading:

• Coming on Strong: Gender and Sexuality in Twentieth Century Women's Sport
• Power at Play: Sport and the Problem of Masculinity
• Public Heroes, Private Felons: Athletes and Crimes Against Women
• Taking the Field: Women, Men, and Sports