I came across this letter to Slog today and wanted to share/remember it. The statistics she cite, about the "serve passenger" trips that women are far more likely to make than men has long troubled me when we talk about all sorts of movements that are embraced in progressive circles: bicycling, community gardening, permaculture, greening, and locavore-ism. I continue to believe that we have to talk more about where people go -- how, where, why, and with whom they travel -- and what they do within their households. If we don't, pleas to eat more fresh, local produce or ride your bike become unfunded mandates, the burden of which falls disporportionately to women -- the people who, in most multi-person households, still do the bulk of the shopping, food preparation, housework, and childcare.
So, here's the most relevant part of the letter:
"In the United States, about 23% of all cyclists are women (which is based on Census data about commutes). In fact, the number of women who commute by bicycle has decreased from from 33% of all bike trips in 2001 to 24% in 2009 (this is from the American Community Survey, which is conducted by the Census Bureau). For comparison, 55% of all bicycle trips in the Netherlands is by women, and 49% in Germany.
The above data about the US is especially striking if you consider that bike trips are up significantly during the same period of time (2001 to 2009), which indicates that many more men are taking to the streets by bike but women are not.
There's something different about the United States. And it's infrastructure. Studies across all sorts of disciplines show that women are more risk-averse, and indeed, concerns about riding in traffic are overwhelmingly the reason women cite for not riding their bikes. Women also have different travel patterns: they perform the vast majority (77%) of all "serve passenger" trips (hauling people, usually children, around), engage in more "trip chaining," and run more errands, like grocery shopping. They also drive fewer miles to their commutes (this is all based on the 2009 National Household Transportation Survey).
And where have we invested in segregated bicycle lanes? Along recreational corridors, that don't lead to schools, daycare centers, grocery stores, or major employment centers. In other words, the safest bicycle facilities have been installed where few women really want or need to go."
Showing posts with label gender. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gender. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Artificial Gender
A friend stumbled on this and I'm playing with it this morning.
This 'analyzer' looks at a blog and guesses/predicts the gender of its author. Breaking the Code was rated as likely written by a woman: 67%. My other blog was got a 72% 'woman' rating.
I've seen these kinds of programs for other types of writing in the past and remember trying out some of my grant language years ago when Peggy and I were working on increasing assertiveness in our professional language.
What reminded me of that was running another friend's (now somewhat neglected) blog through the "genderanalyzer" and finding it got a 55% woman rating.
Hmmm... the last group of students in my Women and Public Space class regularly dissolved into debates over whether the internet was a truly or at least potentially gender-free public space. I think I will send them to this site next time around and let them play with it. Will they argue that gender is fluid, that gender can finally be divorced from biology, or that, based on the existence of the website in the first place, gender persists as a fundamental category of social organization even in realms where physical bodies are not present?
This 'analyzer' looks at a blog and guesses/predicts the gender of its author. Breaking the Code was rated as likely written by a woman: 67%. My other blog was got a 72% 'woman' rating.
I've seen these kinds of programs for other types of writing in the past and remember trying out some of my grant language years ago when Peggy and I were working on increasing assertiveness in our professional language.
What reminded me of that was running another friend's (now somewhat neglected) blog through the "genderanalyzer" and finding it got a 55% woman rating.
Hmmm... the last group of students in my Women and Public Space class regularly dissolved into debates over whether the internet was a truly or at least potentially gender-free public space. I think I will send them to this site next time around and let them play with it. Will they argue that gender is fluid, that gender can finally be divorced from biology, or that, based on the existence of the website in the first place, gender persists as a fundamental category of social organization even in realms where physical bodies are not present?
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Layers of Fear
This ad – from its basic premise, to its music, to its lighting – is most certainly about fear.
On the surface, the advertisement plays on fears of “identity theft” by suggesting not that our financial privacy might be invaded but rather that our individuality is at risk. The irony, of course, is that it is another mass market product being offered to save us from the fate of conformity (which in this case has been foisted on us by Lexus).
Next up are certainly some of the fears that my faithful commentator Biscodo mentions: fear that comes from being lost, disorientation, fear that your possession is gone (could it be stolen?), etc.
My read of these fears, of their impact, is, not surprisingly, deeply colored by where the action is located: in an otherwise deserted parking deck. One in four women will be raped. Women know this and the parking garage is the quintessential setting for such a crime to occur – it is the physical confluence of everything a woman is taught to avoid: it is visually and audibly isolated, it has dark corners/sections and limited sightlines, it has limited exits… There is room to fudge with restrictions in other areas of advice toward women on how to stay safe (“I wouldn’t normally walk to my car by myself, but it was just across the street from the restaurant”), but not with parking decks. The message is clear. You are absolutely never, ever supposed to go into one by yourself if you are a woman.
In the opening scenes of this commercial, there are only a few cars in the deck and it is a lone woman in heels heading to her car – looking confused, then concerned, then tentative, then nervous, then panicked, then scared, then terrified.
As I have no doubt been well conditioned to do, I identify with her. I can read in her face her own realization that she is not doing what “common sense” would dictate (and whether it is there or not, whether or not it is the intended message is immaterial, I see it… I FEEL it). She is breaking the rules by going to her car alone. She is wearing stupid shoes that will keep her from running effectively should she need to, and now, not being able to find her car, she is breaking the rule that says “always look like you know exactly where you are going.”
As her fear grows, my own chest tightens. The music grows more ominous. Then she goes around a corner and sees a sea of cars that all look like hers. Is this better for her or worse? More likely her car will be here, but more places where someone ready to do her harm might hide. Next, she is running. Panic. Then the sound of a car approaching. Here, I’ve had trouble deciding on just what I see in her face as the black Audi rounds the corner. Could it be a mixture of relief (someone else is there) or fear (will this someone be ‘friendly’?)? After replaying the shot from inside the Audi several times, I’m convinced that the driver is a woman – or is intended to look like one. There a touch of long hair and relatively ‘feminine’ hands on the wheel. Doesn’t this then minimize the threat? Our subject will perceive the car and its driver as less of a threat if the driver is a woman… she will, perhaps, think of herself in the position of power behind the wheel – and in the relatively safe environment of the personal automobile (one she can get into, anyway!).
But that shot showing a hint of the Audi driver is extremely brief. And that is representative of what I find so reprehensible (and, to give its creators their due, brilliant) about this commercial – it is, on the surface, defensible.
“Of course, this isn’t a commercial designed to tap into women’s fears of being raped, we put words up on the screen that tell you we are playing off fears of ‘identity theft’.”
“Of course, this isn’t a commercial designed to tap into women’s fears of being raped, the driver of the car that comes around the corner is driven by a woman.”
The problem is that there is enough ‘unstated’ fear already built up, that the ‘identity theft’ statement and the flash of feminine in the driver won’t dissipate what has already been triggered.
One of my students suggested that the other commercial for this vehicle makes it even more clear that the ad agency intentionally played with gender to make their pitch. In this ad, kids are confronted with a sea of identical cream-colored cars picking them up from school. Along comes the ‘distinct’ black Audi, allowing the fortunate child of the driver to emerge from the crowd of confused and unclaimed children. One significant difference in this commercial is that we get a full look at the driver… a man. Does that matter? Sure. Check out the hands waving out of the identical vehicles… they are all feminine. The Audi will preserve your masculinity as you engage in traditionally unmasculine activities. You can do it better. Faster. You will still be you. Not them.
I can go through the motions to analyze this second commercial, but it does not hold my interest the way the parking deck one does. Buy a car. And you won’t be trapped. Or vulnerable. Or where you are not supposed to be. And if you’re not a woman? Then, nevermind, this is just a clever play on current societal obsessions with identity theft.
On the surface, the advertisement plays on fears of “identity theft” by suggesting not that our financial privacy might be invaded but rather that our individuality is at risk. The irony, of course, is that it is another mass market product being offered to save us from the fate of conformity (which in this case has been foisted on us by Lexus).
Next up are certainly some of the fears that my faithful commentator Biscodo mentions: fear that comes from being lost, disorientation, fear that your possession is gone (could it be stolen?), etc.
My read of these fears, of their impact, is, not surprisingly, deeply colored by where the action is located: in an otherwise deserted parking deck. One in four women will be raped. Women know this and the parking garage is the quintessential setting for such a crime to occur – it is the physical confluence of everything a woman is taught to avoid: it is visually and audibly isolated, it has dark corners/sections and limited sightlines, it has limited exits… There is room to fudge with restrictions in other areas of advice toward women on how to stay safe (“I wouldn’t normally walk to my car by myself, but it was just across the street from the restaurant”), but not with parking decks. The message is clear. You are absolutely never, ever supposed to go into one by yourself if you are a woman.
In the opening scenes of this commercial, there are only a few cars in the deck and it is a lone woman in heels heading to her car – looking confused, then concerned, then tentative, then nervous, then panicked, then scared, then terrified.
As I have no doubt been well conditioned to do, I identify with her. I can read in her face her own realization that she is not doing what “common sense” would dictate (and whether it is there or not, whether or not it is the intended message is immaterial, I see it… I FEEL it). She is breaking the rules by going to her car alone. She is wearing stupid shoes that will keep her from running effectively should she need to, and now, not being able to find her car, she is breaking the rule that says “always look like you know exactly where you are going.”
As her fear grows, my own chest tightens. The music grows more ominous. Then she goes around a corner and sees a sea of cars that all look like hers. Is this better for her or worse? More likely her car will be here, but more places where someone ready to do her harm might hide. Next, she is running. Panic. Then the sound of a car approaching. Here, I’ve had trouble deciding on just what I see in her face as the black Audi rounds the corner. Could it be a mixture of relief (someone else is there) or fear (will this someone be ‘friendly’?)? After replaying the shot from inside the Audi several times, I’m convinced that the driver is a woman – or is intended to look like one. There a touch of long hair and relatively ‘feminine’ hands on the wheel. Doesn’t this then minimize the threat? Our subject will perceive the car and its driver as less of a threat if the driver is a woman… she will, perhaps, think of herself in the position of power behind the wheel – and in the relatively safe environment of the personal automobile (one she can get into, anyway!).
But that shot showing a hint of the Audi driver is extremely brief. And that is representative of what I find so reprehensible (and, to give its creators their due, brilliant) about this commercial – it is, on the surface, defensible.
“Of course, this isn’t a commercial designed to tap into women’s fears of being raped, we put words up on the screen that tell you we are playing off fears of ‘identity theft’.”
“Of course, this isn’t a commercial designed to tap into women’s fears of being raped, the driver of the car that comes around the corner is driven by a woman.”
The problem is that there is enough ‘unstated’ fear already built up, that the ‘identity theft’ statement and the flash of feminine in the driver won’t dissipate what has already been triggered.
One of my students suggested that the other commercial for this vehicle makes it even more clear that the ad agency intentionally played with gender to make their pitch. In this ad, kids are confronted with a sea of identical cream-colored cars picking them up from school. Along comes the ‘distinct’ black Audi, allowing the fortunate child of the driver to emerge from the crowd of confused and unclaimed children. One significant difference in this commercial is that we get a full look at the driver… a man. Does that matter? Sure. Check out the hands waving out of the identical vehicles… they are all feminine. The Audi will preserve your masculinity as you engage in traditionally unmasculine activities. You can do it better. Faster. You will still be you. Not them.
I can go through the motions to analyze this second commercial, but it does not hold my interest the way the parking deck one does. Buy a car. And you won’t be trapped. Or vulnerable. Or where you are not supposed to be. And if you’re not a woman? Then, nevermind, this is just a clever play on current societal obsessions with identity theft.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
