What Warrants A Slide Show?

by lisa, Jun 6, 2009, at 10:34 am

Steve W. sent us this USA Today article about some Southern California coffee shops that now feature “scantily clad” waitresses. It reads:

They are serving up strong Vietnamese brew, delivered to tables by young women in bikinis, spandex, fishnet sarongs or lingerie, displaying bountiful skin and cleavage.

Lots and lots of cleavage.

I could post about the objectification of women and the fetishization of Asian femininity, but mostly I just wanted to point out that USA Today decided that the article deserved a slide show. All eight of the photographs are embedded after the jump:

capture5

capture11

capture21

capture45

capture41

capture51

capture65

capture6

I understand so much better now.

Fiona D. sent us a story about the Lingerie Football League. During the Superbowl halftime, you can tune in to watch women in lingerie play the game. The story apparently warranted fifty-nine photographs. Nope, not a typo, fifty-nine (59) photos in a slideshow.

Oddly, I kind of found some of them to be a bit subversive (emphasis on a very little “bit”). These, for example:

45_93443s1

46_93442s

58_93456s

59_93457s

But most of them were along the lines you might imagine:

6_93446s

11_93415s

13_93413s

20_93405s

32_93418s

40_93436s

Kiera S. sent in a link to a slide show on the Huffington Post. She writes:

Rather than offering any type of sociological, economical, or even entertainment-value analysis, HuffPo merely says that New York has lots of sexy billboards and you should look at them and rate them, and even submit your own! I thought that this might fit in with your blog’s discussion about what warrants a slide show. This slide show is obviously not up on HuffPo so that we can wonder why our society is so ridden with sexual imagery, it’s up because they think (know?) that the public likes looking at naked people and want page views.

slide_2112_27526_large

slide_2112_27527_large

slide_2112_27528_large

slide_2112_27530_large

slide_2112_27533_large

slide_2112_27534_large

slide_2112_27535_large

NEW (Feb. ‘10)! Mark C. alerted us to the fact that the Sun Sentinel decided to hold a slide show-based competition for which South Florida team had the best cheerleaders. I”m getting lazy and bored now, so here’s image #4 of 185 (you’ll get the idea):

Comments

giotto 11:47 am on June 6, 2009 | # | Reply

That third image too perfectly updates Gauguin’s Two Tahitian Women. The woman is still exoticized and is, in Gauguin’s words, “”very subtle, very knowing in her naïveté.” You know, slutty but virginal….
Maggie 12:51 pm on June 6, 2009 | # | Reply

obviously, what warrants a slide show are some HAWT CHICKS who deserve to be objectified by the media.
Ian Aleksander Adams 1:01 pm on June 6, 2009 | # | Reply

USA today is such a shit rag
Trabb's Boy 1:26 pm on June 6, 2009 | # | Reply

Oh, this is so fucking sexist and racist, it makes me want to scream. The “Asian women are properly subservient” thing is so dismissive of the women’s movement, and the turning of Southeast Asia into a giant sex-trade Mecca largely thanks to the Vietnam war is a huge national shame. Christ, we should be doing everything in our power to try to correct this image. It is bad enough that the coffee shop is catering to that attitude, but to have USA Today promote it like that is grotesque.

I actually love the third picture. I bet it says more about the place than all the rest of the article.
melissa 2:33 pm on June 6, 2009 | # | Reply

I see teenage white girls dressed not too differently roaming the malls in North Dallas and Plano….
L 3:13 pm on June 6, 2009 | # | Reply

Yeah, but, melissa, those girls aren’t being paid to dress like that. Their ability to keep a paying job doesn’t depend on their willingness to submit to this ridiculous dress code. Sure, both sets of young women are catering to the (white/hetero/Western) male gaze by performing traditional femininity, but the women pictured above are obviously coerced into this performance in ways that the white teenagers aren’t.

I agree: This is disturbing. It’s been going on a while, though — I can’t find a link now, but there was a coffee shop in Seattle or Oregon somewhere that required their staff (all female) to wear lingerie to work. And there’s a topless coffee shop in Las Vegas. The coffee shop featured here has the added bonus of exoticizing Asian women — too bad most of the dudes who frequent the place likely have no idea what “intersectionality of oppression” means.
Larry C Wilson 3:33 pm on June 6, 2009 | # | Reply

And just what does “intersectionality of oppression” mean?
Redhead Metalhead 5:31 pm on June 6, 2009 | # | Reply

That would be horrible dressing like that for strangers instead of someone you’re in a very close relationship with.

Believe it or not, I’ve heard of a restaurant that’s basically the opposite of Hooters, and the male waiters wear g-strings. I can’t remember the name of it, though. I’m glad to hear that both sexes are doing that kind of thing, but it’s also sad to realize that it’s more common among women.

And it’s not surprising to see in the pictures that every single patron is male. I noticed a lot of TVs, too. I feel having just one in a restaurant is bad enough, but in the fifth picture, there are three in a row that show the same channel.
L 5:38 pm on June 6, 2009 | # | Reply

@ Larry: Intersectionality on Wikipedia.
SarahMC 7:03 pm on June 6, 2009 | # | Reply

You might also find this helpful, Larry.
rina 11:23 pm on June 6, 2009 | # | Reply

“That would be horrible dressing like that for strangers instead of someone you’re in a very close relationship with.”

while it might be horrible for YOU to dress like that for strangers, you have absolutely no idea how those women feel, and you shouldn’t assume that you do. they may feel, as i do in my work, that the money they make fairly compensates them for the work they do. they may feel, as many women do, that their work is fun.

“the women pictured above are obviously coerced into this performance in ways that the white teenagers aren’t.”

i think perhaps you might want to examine your assumption that these women do no have choice and agency of their own. I’m not sure what you’re basing that on.
rina 11:25 pm on June 6, 2009 | # | Reply

do not*, sorry
M 11:40 pm on June 6, 2009 | # | Reply

The coffee shop is using sex to sell drinks. USA Today is doing the same thing to sell papers. There is nothing new here.

I am thirsty for coffee now tho…
Redhead Metalhead 2:53 am on June 7, 2009 | # | Reply

Rina, you shouldn’t assume that I just haven’t the slightest inkling in the world, like the world revolves around me just for posting something that I felt personally. I’m sorry if I seem to be assuming that last part, but that’s what I’m getting from reading your comment, and I’m quite offended.

Speaking of assumptions: “they may feel, as many women do, that their work is fun.” As many women do? Where did you get that one from?
cq 10:00 am on June 7, 2009 | # | Reply

Although the race element isn’t as present, this reminds me of the “sexpresso” stands in the Seattle area, where in order to be more competitive, baristas started serving espresso in lingerie.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003535398_coffeegirls22e.html
L 11:02 am on June 7, 2009 | # | Reply

“the women pictured above are obviously coerced into this performance in ways that the white teenagers aren’t.”

i think perhaps you might want to examine your assumption that these women do no have choice and agency of their own. I’m not sure what you’re basing that on.

What I’m saying is that the women who work at the coffee shop discussed in the original post are required to wear this clothing in order to keep their jobs. This is a form of coercion. Acknowledging that money/maintaining a livelihood is coercive isn’t the same as saying that people have no agency or choice — just that the choices available (for self-expression, expression of sexuality, etc.) are limited. Yes, all jobs are coercive to some extent, but I think we get into really problematic territory when we expect women to sell themselves as sexually available (in ways that the straight, mostly white, Western, male customer base approves of) in order to sell coffee.

I also wonder whether the coffee shop reimburses their make-up purchases — that shit gets expensive.
Larry C Wilson 11:31 am on June 7, 2009 | # | Reply

“Intersectionality” is just another example of the jargon used to impress the inpressionable. A more straightforward use of English is called for here. But of course I’m just a 66-year-old white male historian who rejects deconstructionism in all its forms.
Anon 2:08 pm on June 7, 2009 | # | Reply

Whoop-de-shit, Larry.
Anon 2:22 pm on June 7, 2009 | # | Reply

Why is it noteworthy that Asian women are paid to dress like this, while plentiful mobs of white women dress in clothing that is similarly revealing without any news article about it? These women aren’t being asked to do anything more than what many do willingly.
imnotemily 3:10 pm on June 7, 2009 | # | Reply

then perhaps you’re hanging around the wrong blog, Larry.

Anon: I think the mixture of race, gender, and capitalism is what pushes this into “newsworthy” (with a very relaxed definition of that word). Sex work, which this is, is obviously a hot topic in our cultural consciousness. Add to that the titillation factor of pictures of women in lingerie, and you’ve got yourself a shitty article.
Tiffani Warren 3:32 pm on June 7, 2009 | # | Reply

Eh. I don’t see a problem with the article. Having a server dress in a teddy is no more problematic thank having them wear khakis and a polo. The employees have the option of applying to companies that represent their values. Personally, I’d rather work at this coffee shop than Starbucks – it looks like fun, at least. If somebody is uncomfortable with showing their body or with being looked at as attractive and sexually desirable, then they can skip this store when applying for jobs.

Also, although I agree there’s not really much of a need for a slideshow, it doesn’t seem out of line to me either. All kinds of articles get slideshows; this article happens to refer to an establishment that emphasizes the aesthetics. And I personally think the photos were very tastefully done. It’s not all “boobies boobies!” There are other facets of the work being shown, including the interesting reactions of the patrons vs. the servers (look at that last photo!)
Gina 10:22 pm on June 7, 2009 | # | Reply

As an Asian woman, I don’t know whether to laugh at how those Asiaphiles are getting used or vomit at the way these women are playing dress up to these colonial fantasies. The best thing I can say is: At least they aren’t dressed in pseudo-”Oriental” clothing.
rina 11:27 pm on June 7, 2009 | # | Reply

Redhead Metalhead,

perhaps it’s a language issue, but it made me very uncomfortable that you didn’t say “I would feel horrible etc”

I should have perhaps said “as many women who get their clothes off for money do”. and i “get that” from knowing it to be true that many people (myself, my friends in the industry) who are sex workers (or who do not consider themselves sex workers but otherwise get their clothes off for money) really enjoy, and have fun at their jobs.
- Redhead Metalhead 12:35 pm on September 22, 2009 | # | Reply
  
  Sorry I haven’t replied in ages, Rina, but I just found this post again after a search.
  
  First off, don’t get picky with my words like that. It’s quite rude, especially considering I’m trying to sympathize here, but I guess that’s not good enough for you.
  
  Regardless, I don’t consider your answer to my question reliable, especially considering that I am, in fact, a woman (I can understand why you might have thought that I was a man, although you would’ve known that had you read my blog). Either way, I want a hard answer, not just something personal. In other words, I don’t consider you saying that “you and friends in the industry” as a solid answer. You can’t prove it to me that way.
rina 11:35 pm on June 7, 2009 | # | Reply

L,

I agree with you that all work is coercion. I do not agree with the implication (if I have read you correctly) that trading sexuality for money is worse than, say, selling a perky attitude, long hours in the office, or creative control.

data point- the article actually states that the customer base is largely vietnamese.

and agreed- makeup/outfits are crazy expensive. if they’re on the books they can claim it, though!

What I’m saying is that the women who work at the coffee shop discussed in the original post are required to wear this clothing in order to keep their jobs. This is a form of coercion. Acknowledging that money/maintaining a livelihood is coercive isn’t the same as saying that people have no agency or choice — just that the choices available (for self-expression, expression of sexuality, etc.) are limited. Yes, all jobs are coercive to some extent, but I think we get into really problematic territory when we expect women to sell themselves as sexually available (in ways that the straight, mostly white, Western, male customer base approves of) in order to sell coffee.

I also wonder whether the coffee shop reimburses their make-up purchases — that shit gets expensive.
rina 11:35 pm on June 7, 2009 | # | Reply

all kinds of copy and paste errors. oops.
Katrina 11:53 am on June 8, 2009 | # | Reply

Rina, I think you might wanna correct the copying and pasting, it makes it look like you’re saying what you’re disagreeing with?
In any event, I think Rina is on to something. And it would be far more interesting to actually discuss the attitudes of these workers from their own vantages, instead of just assuming, apriori, that they are oppressed simply because part of their work involves commodified sexual appeal. Check out Laura Agustin’s excellent work on migrant sex workers in Europe titled * Sex at the Margins: Migration, Labour Markets and the Rescue Industry * .
On the ‘intersectionality’ meme, it seems to be a ‘theory’ that explains little and is very oriented to methodological individualism. That is, it’s mostly focused on explaining individual situations with little in the way of a collective focus. Durkheim and the other classical scholars first theorized the interconnections long ago. The intersectionality orientation does a great job describing, but explains little.
Endor 12:16 pm on June 9, 2009 | # | Reply

“ut of course I’m just a 66-year-old white male historian who rejects deconstructionism in all its forms.”

Translation: I rest on privilege to make excuses for my lack of empathy for non66-year-old-white-males.
Brady 4:02 pm on June 9, 2009 | # | Reply

Can I just put on my theory nerd hat for a minute and remark that there is a big difference between a sociologically-informed critical reading of some image and “deconstruction” in the sense that Derrida and his followers wrote about it, which as far as I understand it describes inherent features/puzzles of language use, not an intentional act by a reader who is trying to tease out a coded message?

(Then again, I could be wrong about that. Derrida makes Bourdieu look like Seuss.)

It is one of my biggest theory pet peeves.
Gina 8:08 pm on June 9, 2009 | # | Reply

Endor, you have hit the nail on the head.
Katrina 3:28 pm on June 11, 2009 | # | Reply

Ensor hits nothing on the head. There are women, even women of color (gasp!!) who are critical of deconstructionism, post-modernism, and the like….So much for what one can gain from Endor’s ad hominem…
Sociological Images » What We’ve Been Up To Behind Your Back (June 2009) 12:16 pm on July 1, 2009 | # | Reply

[...] League that apparently warranted a slide show with fifty-nine (59) photos. We added some to our post asking “What warrants a slide show?” (scroll [...]
adam 1:36 pm on July 1, 2009 | # | Reply

The lingerie football league reminded me of the previous posts on how female athletes are expected to remain sexy (if not also heterosexual) for men to warrant celebrity attention and respect.

I mean, the women playing seem pretty in shape, but not in a way that would be optimal for American football. Plus, instead of having a barred face mask, they are wearing helmets with plastic protection so that the (male) audience can see their faces better. And the lingerie don’t offer much protection from those cleats!
Sociological Images » “Body Lexicon” for Aging Female Bodies 10:35 am on August 1, 2009 | # | Reply

[...] recently asked, “What warrants a slide show on a newspaper’s website?” Denise L. sent in an article from the Life section of the [...]
Sociological Images » What We’ve Been Up To Behind Your Back (July 2009) 2:53 pm on August 1, 2009 | # | Reply

[...] York called “Sex in the Sky.” Kiera S. thought it would make a good addition to our “What Warrants a Slide Show” post. We [...]
Annoyed 11:21 am on August 2, 2009 | # | Reply

@Larry C Wilson:

You can’t come on to a sociological blog and bitch about deconstructionism and well established sociological theory. That is what you will see. Brady is correct. Sometimes it is hard to understand, and sometimes it is pretentious, and sometimes it is perfectly valid and you just don’t understand it. If you have problems with specific vocabularies, don’t go into business, banking, medicine, or any academic field. I can’t imagine how a historian came to disdain critical analysis.

Maybe when you were training to be a historian they trained you to list facts and not think about them. But now historians have to do quite a bit of critical thinking. And sometimes they even use theory and hard to understand words.

And yes, Katrina, there are people everywhere of every ethnicity that disdain critical thinking. Sometimes the most oppressed are the most ardent supporters of the status quo. But in Larry’s case, I think they are right.
CNN: “Is It Getting Too Much Coverage? We Better Cover It to See!” » Sociological Images 3:17 am on January 27, 2010 | # | Reply

[...] also the guest post on media coverage of the George Sodini murders and what warrants a slideshow? 4 Comments Tags: media, tv/movies Woman Embodies The HIV Virus In Italian Ad [...]
Sociological Images Update (Jan. 2010) » Sociological Images 11:02 am on February 1, 2010 | # | Reply

[...] C. sent us a link to a slide show featuring 185 pictures of cheerleaders. We added it to our post titled “What Warrants a Slide [...]
Anna 2:21 pm on February 1, 2010 | # | Reply

I was excited by the idea of 185 pictures of cheerleaders. When I thought they were going to be real (ie. competitive, both men & women) cheerleaders — gymnastics, aerials, and so forth. Imagine my disappointment!
Chelle 4:57 pm on February 1, 2010 | # | Reply

The cafe where they use sex to sell drinks, as someone has mentioned, is nothing new. This stuff has been in Japan a long time before this showed up in maid cafés, where waitresses (there were no waiters) dress up in French maid costumes and are extremely submissive to the customers (99% men). They’re just westernizing the cafes to fit American culture (the Japanese, and also now as a trend in Hong Kong, have some French maid fetishes).

And the thing is, the French maids in those cafes are in fishnets, dresses that obviously emphasize their bust (hence bumping up their cup sizes by 2 letters), and just know how to bend to your liking. Of course, the cafe owners said this was nothing immoral, and many otaku guys (Japanophiles) love going there to “unwind” or “relax”.
(Lack of) Global News Coverage in the U.S. » Sociological Images 10:18 am on February 5, 2010 | # | Reply

[...] which missing kids get news coverage?, covering Obama and McCain, covering Obama and Clinton, and what’s worth covering in a slideshow? Leave a Comment Tags: celebrity, discourse/language, globalization, media, nation: [...]