Monthly Archives: June 2011

Gender, Race and Class in Google Doodles

A post today at SocImages about today’s Father’s Day doodle at Google talked about the class implications of using a necktie to symbolize “father.” As Lisa Wade discusses in the post, this directly positions “father” as a middle class, white collar person who is the family breadearner because of his office job. It also calls to the “tradition” (often mocked) of giving such a father a necktie as a Father’s Day gift. (One might recall an early episode of The Cosby Show where Cliff demands better Father’s Day gifts because of the plethora of tacky gifts his children have given, one of which was a necktie which had lights spelling out dad that blinked when a switch was flipped.) The necktie = dad idea suggests that the importance of a father is directly linked to his work outside the home, not his work fathering. Lisa asked: “Can you imagine a Mother’s Day symbol emphasizing her workplace instead of her time at home?”

This led to me wonder how Google has been depicting mothers, if dads are neckties and therefore breadwinners. Fortunately, I didn’t have to idly think about it, because Google archives their holiday/event related Doodle changes. If you go back, you can see the differences between Mother’s Day and Father’s Day doodles starting in 2000, the first year they had them.

Rather than steal Google’s bandwidth or download all their images, even though this is for critique purposes, I’ve instead linked to each doodle artwork in the descriptions below.

Year Mother’s Day Father’s Day
2000 A rose corsage under the logo with the link to “A Tribute to our Moms” which was a photogallery page of the mothers of Google workers the first “O” is wearing a man’s hat, the lowercase “G” is wearing a necktie and underneath in small, grey letters “Happy Father’s Day”
2001 the doodle is a duplicate of 2000 and again there was a photogallery of employees’ mothers A cartoon bear father stands in front of the uppercase “G” where a female bear child appears ready to jump into the father’s arms. A male bear child hangs acrobatically in the center of the second “O”
2002 the first “O” is turned into a red rose The Os are turned into an armchair where a cartoon bear father sits (in a hat and tie) as a female child bear offers a gift of another necktie and a cartoon son bear is seen hiding a gift behind his back
2003 the “L” is turned into a vase of red, pink and yellow roses a white man is shown laying in a hammock that’s stretched across the logo to hang from the “G” and the “L.” A lawnmower is parked nearby, signaling that he’s resting — or shirking — from yardwork
2004 the first “O” is turned into a pink rose (a near duplicate of 2002) the father from 2003 remains in his hammock, as two male children are now using the lawnmower while the father appears to sleep
2005 the “L” and “E” of the logo become the stem and bloom of a red rose the father of the previous two logos returns, this time oriented in the opposite direction, and instead of children, his dog is at his feet, bringing him his newspaper
2006 two pink tulips and greenery sprout between the Os of the logo the Os of the logo are replaced with a view from behind of a father and son sitting on a park bench at water’s edge, fishing together
2007 the Os of the logo are replaced by two sheets of paper meant to depict a child’s crayon drawings, one of a daisy-like flower, one of a white-coded stick figure with long curly hair, presumably meant to be a mother the second “O” of the logo is replaced with a drawing of a white man is floating in water an innertube, hat over his face as if asleep, a drink with an umbrella in his hand, while nearby, a male-coded child wearing a diving mask and snorkle pokes his head above the surface of the water
2008 the second “G” of the logo is replaced by a white duck gazing lovingly at two ducklings, one of which is presenting a pink tulip in its beak as a gift a father and what appears to be a female child are standing on a hill “behind” the logo, the child holds string connected to a kite which replaces the logo’s “L”
2009 the letters of the logo are all turned pink rather than their traditional primary colors, and the “L” is replaced by a vase of red, pink and orange flowers a man and a female child dig and use a bucket to construct a sandcastle in front of the logo, which is stylized to appear constructed of sand as well, with a traditional castle shape replacing the second “O”
2010 U.S. logo: the letters are all transformed into glass vases, the first “G” and the “L” are filled with pink and purple flowers, respectively

Global logo: the letters are turned pink, the “L” and “E” are replaced by the stems and blossoms of pink and red tulips (note: this a reuse of the 2010 Russian Women’s Day doodle)

 various traditional, bow and bolo neckties are arranged to replicate the color and lettershapes of the logo (this was first used for Germany’s father’s day in mid-May, then repeated for the broader father’s day in June)
2011 the letters have been turned purple in a less bold than normal font, and the “L” becomes a stylized purple flower with a green stem, the entire logo is surrounded by a white frame with feminine detailing in the corners the logo appears to be embossed on a piece of heavy stationery or fabric, in a more typewriter-style font than normal, all in dark blue, with the “L” replaced by a traditional necktie

So over the span of 11 years of doodles, we see not a single depiction of Mother’s Day having anything to do with humans mothering. Mother’s Day is symbolized every year and in every doodle with a flower somewhere, and once with a maternal animal. Actual women, while still doing a supermajority of childrearing work worldwide, do not figure in Google’s representations of what Mother’s Day is about in any fashion, in any country, in any year.

Additionally, one Mother’s Day doodle is a retread of a “women’s day” doodle, neatly solidifying the overarching theme of the Mother’s Day doodles: feminized and pretty and floral, but not showing actual women, and not certainly not depicting women doing the work that earns them the honor of the holiday to begin with.

Father’s Day began with paternal animals, the mythical “papa bear.” Once the doodles segued to humans, for the first several years the men were not shown doing the work of fathering, but instead having a day off from any fathering duty and in two instances, not paying any attention to their children who were engaged in activity that requires adult supervision (using a lawnmower and snorkeling). Where human children are shown, the majority are depicted or coded as male; the only clearly presented female child is dressed in a bikini. Only one of the logos has a depiction of people who might not be white, but the people are very small and it’s quite ambiguous.

Several doodles go to the necktie (and hat) representation of a white collar and/or upper socioeconomic class breadwinner father. The hammock father doodles allude to a middle class homeowning family (with so much lawn the maintenance of it wears the father out) with a father who deserves to set aside all responsibilities, including the safety of his children, because he works so hard.

All in all, these holiday doodles are fairly problematic. They definitely portray a message about the merit of women and women’s work (little to none) to whomever in Google’s vast team is responsible for the doodles. They also show how easy it is (and how willing Google is) to reinforce stereotypical western societal stereotypes and privileged class mores with repeated depictions of white, middle+ class men who are only engaged with their kids during playtime.

Google has previously come under fire for their non-holiday doodles, which celebrate historical events and the birthdays of notable historical figures. There has been a stunning paucity of commemoration of women and their achievements, especially women in the realms of science or academia that has only recently began to turn around. Interestingly, Shelby Knox wrote in that critique:

…we’ve lived with the myth that men created the world and everything good in it for long enough. As long as men get to designate who and what in history is important, young women will continue to learn that all their sex has contributed throughout all of history is their wombs.

And yet here, on the day celebrating women solely via motherhood status, Google disappears the women, once more.

Google says that they take feedback seriously so I offer only this suggestion: either give mothers some parity of depiction or just admit that you’re not interested in even basic recognition of women via the Google Doodles, so that we’ll know.

Christine Jackman, on the campaign of cyberbullying and online attack on assault survivor Nina Funnell:

There’s a ‘lighten up squad’ out there where everyone says ‘if it’s too hot, get out of the kitchen’. But perhaps the kitchen shouldn’t be so hot in the first place. This is not just about women. It’s about any sort of hate speech that is systematically directed against any particular group, designed to intimidate them or shut them down. It’s about freedom of speech versus speech that defames, threatens or intimidates.

Read the full article at The Australian. Trigger warning for violent assault, attempted rape and hatefully abusive and threatening comments.