Tag Archives: LGBTQ

Sunday Scraps 100

'

1. GAYS: In the 2010 census, one county in the US reported 0 gay people. None. Zilch. Nada. Explore Franklin County with CNN and find out if the census is true. Hint: Doubtful.

2. SCOTUS: A little late to the game on this one, but Courtney Milan’s concise play-by-play of the Prop 8 Supreme Court case is the first time I actually think I know what’s going on. Sample truncated piece of dialogue: COOPER: But these people were injured. They didn’t want gay people to marry, and now look! Gays. Lesbians. Able to marry at will. It’s very injurious. They’re injured just thinking about it.

3. FEMINISM: I dare you not to cry at this amazing obituary of feminist revolutionary Shulasmith Firestone. Written by the incomparable Susan Faludi, it’s just… a lot. Sniff.

4. POLITICS: To my surprise, I came out of Jonathan Van Meter’s NYT profile of Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin feeling pretty sympathetic for Weiner. Maybe sympathetic’s not the word…

5. FOOTBALL: From Grantland, what would happen if an NFL player died on the field? 8 years ago, Al Lucas died during an Arena football game. Is that where we’re headed?

6. LOOKS: Why does it matter that the President called Kamala Harris good-looking? Amanda Hess at Slate knows why, and I couldn’t agree with her more.

Related Post: Sunday 99: Megan Mullally and Ron Swanson, Tavi Gevinson, Rolling Rock history and more

Related Post: Sunday 98: Chinese marriage market, George Saunders, Lena in Playboy and more

2 Comments

Filed under Gender, Media, Politics, Sports

Rob Portman Part 2

On Monday, I wrote about Senator Rob Portman’s change of heart on marriage equality. I was (am) very frustrated that it took having a gay son to get him to see the light. That said, a lot of people on the internet and in real life have been making some excellent points about parenting, political motivation, and basic human psychology. I think we have too low expectations of our political representatives. Anyway, I stand by what I wrote, with some asterisks.

I expanded on those asterisks in a more formal (hopefully more nuanced) piece for Role/Reboot

Screenshot_3_20_13_9_51_AM

Related Post: That time I met a Republican

Related Post: Do you hope your child will be straight?

Leave a Comment

Filed under Gender, Politics, Republished!

Dear Rob Portman, Why Is Using Your Imagination So Hard?

portmanSo, as I’m sure you know, Senator Rob Portman (Republican of Ohio) has reversed his position on marriage equality thanks to the coming out of his son:

“It allowed me to think of this issue from a new perspective, and that’s of a dad who loves his son a lot and wants him to have the same opportunities that his brother and sister would have — to have a relationship like Jane and I have had for over 26 years.”

On one hand, I welcome you, Senator Portman, to the fold. The fastest way for us to get to marriage equality is for people to change their minds (the alternative is for people to die, which will happen anyway, but it will take longer) and if this is why you switched sides, fine, we’ll take it.

On the other hand, your statement displays a profound and disturbing lack of empathy. You weren’t able to imagine the inequality until your own son was the subject of discrimination? Do you realize how narrow-minded and hypocritical that makes you seem? Even the phrasing of the statement has this weird moral passing-of-the-buck. The subject is “It,” referencing your son’s coming out, and “it” allowed you to see it from a new perspective. Nothing should “allow” or compel you to see from multiple perspectives; that’s basically your job! You serve as a government representative for a state of eleven million people! The whole idea of representative government is that we pick people to, oh, I don’t know, represent us and speak on our behalf. In order to do that job, your #1 skill has to be empathy and the willingness to try on different perspectives!

Mr. Portman, why did you never speak to the parents of the other gay children? Or gay individuals themselves? And if you did, why is the plight of your son the one that tips the scales? Columbus, OH, full of your constituents, is one of the 20 gayest cities in the country, full of thousands upon thousands of gay people. Their friends and family have the same hopes and dreams for them as you do for your son! How can you be so callous of other people’s rights? How can you ignore inequality until it impacts your family? Don’t you see the hypocrisy?

But alas, you’re not alone. Last week Mother Jones took a look at the voting records of members of Congress to see if having a daughter impacted their votes on women’s issues. They used the NOW (National Organization for Women) score as a proxy for “voting well on women’s issues,” and found that, as you might suspect, members of Congress from both parties who have at least one daughter have higher NOW scores. Why does it taking having a female child to get you to think critically about the rights of women? Why is it so hard to get outside your own privileged little skull and walk in someone else’s shoes? 

This is not just an exclusively Republican failure, either. We have a habit in this country of electing people very much unlike ourselves. Congress members are three times more likely to send their kids to private school. About 40% of them are millionaires. They’re overwhelmingly white and male. There’s nothing inherently wrong with this, since one does not have to be of a certain group to work on behalf of that group, but this system only works of those that we elect are diligent about understanding the needs of their constituents, not just the needs of their peers. And they’re not.

That’s why I find Portman’s change of heart so… disheartening. It shouldn’t take a gay kid to lead you to the conclusion that our government should treat people the same. It shouldn’t take having a daughter to know that autonomy over your body is the foundation of economic and social equality. Waiting until these realities slap you in the face in the form of your own offspring, that’s just some lazy, lazy representing. Glad you’re with us now, but you should be ashamed it took you so long.

Related Post: A letter to guys who harass women outside of bars

Related Post: That time I started a petition against Facebook

5 Comments

Filed under Gender, Politics

Fox News’ Big Whoops + Suzanne Venker’s Latest

If this doesn’t make your Saturday, I don’t know what will. In the latest insufferable piece by Suzanne Venker (more on that in a moment), Fox News accidentally selected a photo of a same-sex couple to illustrate an article about the value in traditional gender roles. They’ve since changed the photo to, literally, the boy/girl stick figures that adorn bathroom doors (if that’s all you’ve got left, I think it means we’re winning), but luckily Jessica Valenti nabbed a screen shot before they figured out their awesome error.

marriage

From Jessica Valenti

Whoops!

The article this excellent photo used to sit atop is classic Venker. If you’re not familiar with her work, imagine all of the least logical things you’ve ever heard anyone say about gender roles, all the worst mischaracterizations of feminsim past and present, all of the broadest stereotypes about men and women, and give that lumpy ball of icky ideas a pulpit.

Her piece is called, “To be happy, we must admit women and men aren’t ‘equal.’” A few key ideas, though please, by all means, read the whole gd mess.

The complementary nature of marriage—in which two people work together, as equals, toward the same goal but with an appreciation for the qualities each gender brings to the table—has been obliterated. Today, husbands and wives are locked in a battle about whom does more on the home front and how they’re going to get everything done. That’s not a marriage. That’s war.

Feminism didn’t result in equality between the sexes – it resulted in mass confusion. Today, men and women have no idea who’s supposed to do what.

Prior to the 1970s, people viewed gender roles as as equally valuable. Many would argue women had the better end of the deal! It’s hard to claim women were oppressed in a nation in which men were expected to stand up when a lady enters the room or to lay down their lives to spare women life

That’s enough of that, I think.

A few notes in response:

  • Replace “Gender” with “Person” and You Have My Attention: She writes about appreciating each gender for what they bring to the partnership table. If we swap that out for “person,” you might get me on board. I’m not saying there are not statistical differences in skill sets and preferences between genders, but I’m arguing that the variation between Man 1 and Man 2 is probably just as great as between Man 1 and Woman 1. In other words, bucketing ourselves by gender in order to make a partnership work is pretty likely to fail. So she wants to stay home with kids, great! But what if he’s the one who cooks? Oh no! How will we ever bring our best gendered selves to this marriage! Instead, bucket yourselves by, oh I don’t know, what you’re good at, what you prefer, what your logistical and emotional bandwidth can bear, what you compromise on, etc. All of that requires more communication than assuming she of the ovaries will be the nurturer and he of the big muscles will be the provider.
  • Protectionism and Pedastalism Are Not Equality. We’ve talked about this before, but it’s worth remembering. If your primary argument is that ladies were treated more delicately back in the day, and that more of them survived the sinking Titanic (yes, this is actually in her essay), don’t you think that’s pretty weak? I do not want men to stand for me when I enter a room. I want them to listen to me when I talk. I want to be part of the conversation. I want to be an equal player in decision-making. They can keep sitting, that’s just fine. As for holding doors open, I have no strong feelings about who should enter buildings first, all I know is that if I’m carrying something heavy, help me out, you know?
  • Mass Confusion Isn’t the Worst Thing – I will give Venker this; I think there is a lot of confusion out there about what it means to be “manly” or “womanly” in this day and age. I write about gender on the internet and much of the feedback I get is about “not knowing the rules.” Should a guy pay for a date? Should a girl let him? If she offers to split should he accept? How do you flirt with objectifying? Is a little objectifying okay, especially if we all do it? This shit is confusing! And it should be! The change I want to see is for the conversation to reorient from how do I treat this person because they have XX or XY chromosomes to how do I treat this person like a human, i.e. with respect for their agency, their preferences, and their stated desires.
  • Every Partnership Isn’t Going to Look the Same - And this is also a good thing. In most of her writing, Venker consistently ignores non-hetero couples. It kind of makes sense; if you’re whole money-making MO is to be the voice of reason on traditional gender roles, you kind of have to cross your fingers and hope no one asks you about all those other couples that don’t have the parts that help you know what they’re “supposed” to do. But by ignoring same-sex couples (or any other non-Cleaver family arrangement), Venker is taking the rhetorical easy way out. Plenty of people have to negotiate the “mass confusion” she speaks of because there are no existing structures for who should do the laundry and who should pay the bill. These people have figured out ways around this horror show of a rules- free existence, and I think we heteros can take some lessons.

Okay, so I’m done with that. She gets me a little riled up, you know? Can we go back to making fun of Fox?

Related Post: Things that are not the opposite of misogyny

Related Post: Can we get some historical context please?

6 Comments

Filed under Gender, Media

Sunday Scraps 92

sunday92

1. CHICAGO: Love this story from Chicago Magazine about the millionaire founder of Land’s End’s financial and emotional commitment to personally reinvigorating the neighborhood he grew up in.

2. TINA: Blurgh! It’s over. At least the dearly departed 30 Rock  has left us with some serious vocabulary, as catalogued by Slate.

3. TINA #2: More on 30 Rock, because it’s just that important, Wesley Morris for Grantland specifically focuses on the show’s portrayal of race.

4. ART: Photographer Paul Schneggenberger captures couples sleeping over a 6 hour period and creates sort of wierd, mostly awesome portraits of sleep.

5. GUNS: Illinois has super harsh gun laws and yet Chicago has a serious gun problem. What gives? NYT has a map showing where Chicago guns come from.

6. MARRIAGE EQUALITY: My new favorite NBA player, Kenneth Faried, introduces his two moms (who seem quite reluctant to be on camera) to lend his voice to the fight for marriage equality.

Related Post: Sunday 91 – McDonald’s and books, sci-fi gender swapping, celeb high school photos

Related Post: Sunday 90 – Lindsay Lohan, Frida, Tina + Amy Forever

2 Comments

Filed under Art, Chicago, Hollywood, Media, Politics, Really Good Writing by Other People, Sports

Sunday Scraps 91

sunday91

1. Books: So, apparently McDonald’s is giving away 15million books instead of plastic crap. This seems like a good thing, no?

2. SCI-FI: Jim Hines, a fantasy author, illustrates some of the ridiculous lady-poses of sci-fi and fantasy covers with some creative posing.

3. MARRIAGE EQUALITY: The argument against marriage equality has taken a turn for the strange, in my opinion, with this emphasis on unintended pregnancy and accidental babies….

4. CHICAGO: I’m kind of obsessed with these little graphic illustrations of Liz Fosslien, especially her very accurate understanding of all things Chicago. See especially, the Board of Trade drink ratios.

5. CELEBRITY: God bless NYMag for the gift of 60 high school photos of celebrities, from Amy Poehler to Channing Tatum, Alec Baldwin to Zooey Deschanel.

6. TECH: Really fascinating piece from HuffPo on how Siri came to be and how she changed when she went Apple.

Related Post: Sunday 90 – Frida, Lindsay Lohan, James Deen, Zadie

Related Post:  Sunday 89 - Mr. Wright, Matt and Ben, avalanches

6 Comments

Filed under Art, Body Image, Books, Chicago, Food, Gender, Hollywood, Media, Politics

So How About That

More tomorrow on the election in general, but for now let’s talk about Tammy Baldwin.

She was the one who got me started with the crying.

I’ve been doing a lot of reading at work about corporate diversity and inclusion initiatives, and the idea I keep coming back to is bringing one’s “whole self” to work.

What does it do to people when they feel like they can’t post a photo of their family, or talk about their personal lives, or speak with their real voices? How can you truly contribute if a piece of your brain is worried about letting slip the wrong pronoun?

There was a generation, no… several generations, who had to choose between being themselves and becoming a public servant. The election of Tammy Baldwin, the first openly gay senator, is another crushing blow to that Chinese wall that queer Americans have had to create between their personal lives and their professional lives.

Fuck, sometimes America is pretty alright.

Related Post: When NYC passed marriage equality.

Related Post: Andrew Sullivan on marriage equality.

1 Comment

Filed under Gender, Politics

So What Do You Do Exactly? HIV Testing Edition

And we’re back with the latest entry in my jobs series, So What Do You Do Exactly? This is Clara Bertozzi-Villa. She works on a federally funded project to expand routine HIV testing in Chicago. Her work includes collecting and analyzing HIV testing data from participating sites, and then following the cases of patients with positive tests that receive care at her clinic. I would never play favorites, but if I did, this would be win “Most Informative SWDYDE”:

What’s your actual job title? HIV Testing and Linkage to Care Coordinator

What would your title be if it actually described what you do? That’s actually pretty accurate!

What’s a sample day like?  On any given day, I am usually working on some combination of data management, clinical follow-up, and new projects.

In the morning I catch up on importing data from collaborating testing sites into our database or analyzing data for a poster or report. I’m in clinic about one afternoon a week with patients who test positive and are receiving care at the University of Chicago Infectious Diseases clinic. I tend to meet them along with the physician and social worker and then spend some time visiting with them myself.

Let’s talk about the state of HIV these days in the US. I feel like I haven’t heard it in the news since Magic Johnson! It’s funny that you mention Magic Johnson—he was just on The Daily Show promoting the OraQuick rapid test which can now be taken at home. He’s a great spokesman for testing, prevention, and stigma reduction, but younger generations probably aren’t so familiar with his story (he made his status public in 1991).

I’m happy to say that a lot has changed since the early 90s, however, the annual number of new infections has stayed pretty consistent at around 50,000 per year. These days, the rate of new infections is rising fastest in young black gay men (or, in the lingo, men who have sex with men—MSM) and black women.

Chicago and DC are good examples of how different the epidemic can be even within urban areas (this has a lot to do with how racially and socioeconomically segregated they both are). Chicago, for example has LGBT neighborhoods where HIV prevalence is higher than the national average and concentrated in white MSM; and neighborhoods (mostly on the South Side) where the epidemic is growing fastest in black men and women. DC has an HIV prevalence of 3%—this may sound small, but it rivals the prevalence of several countries in Sub-Saharan Africa.

So what’s the goal of your program? The goal of the program is to implement routine HIV testing in health care settings for everyone aged 13-64. An estimated 260,000 HIV positive people (out of 1.2 million nationally) don’t know that they are infected. This group accounts for at least 50 percent of transmission and they often don’t find out their status until they are already sick enough to receive an AIDS diagnosis.

From a public health standpoint, testing everyone is both cost-effective and necessary to slow the epidemic. Our job is to find and diagnose people that wouldn’t otherwise get a test and then make sure they receive care. In the HIV/AIDS world, “linkage to care” means that the patient has returned to a health care setting after testing positive to have a CD4 T cell count and a viral load drawn. Successful “retention in care” means that the patient has been to the clinic repeatedly since testing positive.

How’s it going and what are the biggest obstacles? So far our program is doing quite well—testing has increased significantly in almost all of our sites since the project began, and the nurses in one of our emergency rooms in particular are playing a huge role in maintaining momentum and high testing numbers. The hardest part is getting institutions to play along for reasons ranging from concerns about insurance reimbursement to insufficient staff education, not to mention that providers can be reluctant to institute routine testing programs when they don’t feel like the state of the epidemic is severe enough to warrant the inconvenience.

If you were President, is there one HIV policy that you think would make the most difference in the US? I think that routine testing really is the way to go, but I would completely eliminate the consent process and include it within the standard blood panel of people who do not have a test in their records. I think that part of the stigma around HIV testing survives because people still feel like it’s something they have to go out of their way to get or ask for in some sexual health-specific setting. If everyone receives an HIV test as part of a wellness visit or ER admission, then we’re closer to achieving nationwide testing and to reducing the burden and stress of the test on both the individual and the provider.

Look, in a perfect world, we would have a vaccine or cure, exceptional sex ed programs that encourage condom use, and clean needle programs for injection drug users. Working with the epidemic as it is today, I think the best thing to do is to find all new infections and educate those who test positive (or those at high risk who seek testing) about how to protect themselves and others. This is actually pretty close to the National HIV/AIDS Strategy, except that we are not allowed to perform an HIV test without informing the patient that they will be tested.

What are your patients like? I do my best to meet patients on their first visit to clinic, and then follow up with them at their subsequent appointments. Since I started working a few months ago, the new patients I’ve met are just starting to begin taking antiretroviral therapy.

No one that I’ve met so far has viewed it as a death sentence, and in the US, it need not be. People with HIV who are adherent to their meds have a life expectancy that is barely below the national average. In fact, physicians now have to think seriously about geriatric HIV care. Some people have been in successful treatment for so long that, as they age, HIV is no longer their major health concern.

How do you maintain an arm’s length from such emotionally fraught work? The extent to which a visit upsets me depends entirely on the patient. Sometimes I walk away from clinic feeling really optimistic because a client has taken his diagnosis incredibly well, and other times I’ve been angry and sad because the patient just realized she was infected by (someone she thought was) her monogamous partner. Situations like the latter are especially difficult because the patients are not putting themselves at risk in ways that we usually define it and are not at all prepared for the diagnosis—someone that they trusted lied to them, and now they have a chronic, lifelong illness. It’s daunting, and I cope with it by covering myself with latex every time I leave the house.

In all seriousness, though, I have been interested in the epidemic for many years at every possible level—virology, immunology, sociology, epidemiology, etc.—but this has been my most significant exposure to people living with the virus. It’s humbling and grounding and reminds me why the global response is so massive and so important.

Do you think we’re close to a cure? Is there a cure? Or will HIV become the new chlamydia… gross but only annoying? I could talk all day about the fascinating ways the virus makes it really difficult to design a vaccine or cure, but no, I don’t think we’re especially close. And until we find a cure, HIV will never be as simple to treat as STIs like chlamydia and syphilis (let’s not even talk about multi-drug resistant gonorrhea). There’s no way to clear the virus from the body—even when your viral load is below the limit of detection, you can’t stop taking medication or it will rebound.

The good news is that a large study (HPTN 052, if you’re curious) recently demonstrated that people with undetectable viral loads have a very low chance of passing on the virus to their sexual partners, lending a lot of support to the concept of treatment as a form of prevention (TFP). The trial was a groundbreaking affirmation of both TFP and the recommendation that treatment should be started immediately upon diagnosis. Science magazine named it the 2011 “Breakthrough of the Year”, which is kind of like “Sexiest Man Alive” except it’s way more awesome.

What would surprise us about modern HIV treatment/research, etc? Mother to child transmission of HIV is almost completely preventable. With no treatment, transmission occurs in about 25% of births. Because the placenta prevents infection in most cases, the transmission event is often the process of birth itself. Even if you don’t find out that the mother is pregnant until she is in labor, you can use antiretroviral therapy to reduce the risk of infection of the infant to less than 2%. Despite the highest prevalence rates in the country, no child has been born with HIV in Washington DC since 2009. So cool!

Male circumcision is an effective but somewhat contentious method of preventing acquisition—three large randomized controlled trials in Sub-Saharan Africa have shown that circumcised men are around 60% less likely to be infected than uncircumcised men during sex with an HIV positive woman. The WHO recommends male circumcision programs in countries with high HIV prevalence and where the epidemic is mostly heterosexual. Because protection is not absolute, circumcision must be used in conjunction with prevention and testing services, but a 60% reduction of risk is better than any vaccine we’ve come up with so far.

Want more information about Clara’s work? Email her at hivelimination@gmail.com

Related Post: So What Do You Do Exactly? Social Work Edition.

Related Post: So What Do You Do Exactly? Think Tank Edition.

1 Comment

Filed under Chicago, Politics

Six Sides of “Identity”

It’s Chicago Ideas Week here in the Windy City, which means our fair and not-yet-frigid town is full of who’s whos and big wigs. We’ve got mayors and dignitaries, writers, artists, poets, scientists, actors and activists.

Today a coworker stopped by my desk and asked me about the panel I saw yesterday, “Identity,” and I couldn’t shut up even after it was quite clear he was done listening. There was just so much to discuss! What do I do when I can’t get people to listen to me talk? Write a blog post!

LZ Granderson at Chicago Ideas Week

The panel was about all of the ways we identify ourselves and each other, and through six different speakers I got this incredibly well-rounded view on that thorniest of thorny questions.

LZ Granderson kicked it off with a bit of theater. He’s an ESPN commentator who is a black, gay, Christian, single-dad, former gang member, and current country music devotee. He used a bit of theater (big building blocks with those labels) to physically knock around the idea of identity.

Hanna Rosin (editor of XX at Slate) was next, discussing her book The End of Men. Honestly, she was less crazy than I thought she’d be. As I’ve discovered over and over again on the internet, sometimes the value in an incendiary title weighs more than whether it accurately reflects the piece it titles. Rosin was sharp and funny, and her pitch wasn’t so much about the end of men (dramatic as that sounds), but about how this particular moment in history seems to favor (some) women professionally due to a perfect storm of social, political, and economic trends. In fact, contrary to the end of men, she sees an evolution of masculinity (she cited Chris on Up All Night as an example of a caregiving father who is allowed to maintain his sexual appeal).

I thought that the neuroscientist on the roster would be my snooze break, since scans of brains have never really got me going. Instead, James Fallon turned out to be my favorite presenter. He has spent his life researching brain scans of psychopathic killers, looking for commonalities, which he found. The twist, however, was that Fallon’s own brain shares these patterns. After a battery of psychological tests, it turns out that his own physiological profile is identical to the most famous psychopathic killers in history. How’s that for a nature/nurture argument?

There was an artist, Eric Daigh, that I enjoyed (mostly for how uncomfortable his F-bombs made the older members of the audience), and a forensic researcher (the one and only Brooke Magnanti, formerly known as sex blogger Belle du Jour). He talked about portraiture and the myriad of ways a list of characteristics can be illustrated and animated uniquely, and she discussed the history of forensic identification (did you know that finger prints are not actually unique?)

Related Post: Last year’s Chicago Ideas Week.

Related Post: A few hours at the Art Institute

1 Comment

Filed under Art, Chicago, Gender

Rosie in the News #8: Gendered Advertising Icons

Ad Age, a trade publication that keeps tabs on the shifting trends and constant mergers of the advertising world (of which I was briefly a member), has published their top 10 female advertising icons of the last 100 years. Guess who clocked in at #4? My girl Rosie. But who else is on the list?

Miss Chiquita

1. Morton Salt Umbrella Girl

2. Betty Crocker

3. Miss Chiquita

4. Rosie the Riveter

5. Josephine the Plumber (Comet)

6. Mrs. Olsen (Folgers coffee)

7. Madge the Manicurist (Palmolive dishwashing detergent)

8. Rosie the Waitress (Bounty paper towels)

9. Clara Peller (Wendy’s)

10. Flo (Progressive Insurance)

Here’s another way to think about that list: kitchen, kitchen, kitchen, Rosie, cleaning, kitchen, cleaning, cleaning, restaurant, insurance.

There’s a chicken and egg argument in the advertising world; can advertising compel social change? Or does social change drive changes in advertising?

Bottom line, advertising is about…bottom line. Advertisers will try create campaigns that resonate with how people currently feel to convince consumers that the product “understands” them. That said, pushing the social envelope can benefit an advertiser if they correctly predict the direction the winds are blowing. In those cases, the visibility an advertising campaign brings to an issue can function as a propelling force, both bolstering a movement and selling a product.

Case 1: Huggies - The Huggies “Dad Test” campaign generated some controversy earlier this year when some commenters argued that insulted fathers by suggesting parental incompetence. The gist of the spot was that leaving babies with their fathers was the ultimate test of a diaper’s dependability, with the clear subtext that dads are buffoons who don’t know how to take care of their children and consequently need a superior product to keep it together.

While the spot is indeed insulting, Huggies’ market is not stay-at-home dads, or even engaged equal-partner dads. Huggies is going after the moms who do feel like their husband are either unwilling or unable to do half the parenting, and unfortunately, that’s still a big market. If the ad didn’t resonate with moms, it would never have made it on the air, so in this case, Huggies placed the right bet. While the brand could bet on the social movement towards egalitarian diaper-changing, they’ve correctly guessed that as a whole, society is not quite there yet, and the “dad incompetency” message is still going to be effective for a few more years. Here’s to hoping that as Millennials start reproducing, the monetary momentum behind this kind of media dad-bashing loses steam.

Case 2: Target - After getting slammed for donating to anti-gay organizations a few years ago, Target has done an about face (at least, on the surface) with their wedding registry print ad that features a gay couple. While Target certainly risks alienating a substantial percentage of the population with an ad like this, their brand managers have judged that the marriage equality movement is gaining enough ground that they want to be on the right side of history. Simultaneously, an ad like this does tremendous work for said movement, as a national brand like Target (like Ellen for JC Penny), validates gays and lesbians as a meaningful and valued segment of America in a public, widespread, visually impactful way.

It’s not so hard to imagine these reversed. Huggies could have decided that equal childcare was close enough on the horizon to get a head-start on appealing to those parents. Target could have decided enough Americans are still anti-gay that this ad was too risky. But brands walk a very tricky balance, and the best ones choose the issues on which they can be an early supporter without sticking their necks too far out of the mainstream.

I bring this up because I think it’s telling that the most recent addition to Ad Age‘s canon is not selling a cleaning, cooking, or household product. Flo sells insurance? Boring? Yes, but not a particularly gendered sphere of consumer marketing (comparatively speaking). Progress? Remains to be seen

Related Post: The whole Rosie in the News archive.

Related Post: Interview with a social strategist.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Advertising, Gender