Masculinity in crisis update;

Hi, all,
Thanks to everyone who visited the final facilitation and offered up great conversation for all three presentations.

Some key takeaways from my presentation were--

1. Identity of masculinity being dependent inherently on what is feminine

2. Masculinity is changing as rapidly as the ongoing discourse of gender itself.

3. Our normative ideals of masculinity are often antiquated, aggressive, and without inhibitors due to the institutionalized hegemony of masculinity.

We also noted it was important that we de-gender acts-- a performance may be considered masculine if it is militaristic, or feminine if it is overly sympathetic. Just as objects are gendered inaccurately we should avoid gendering actions of particular impressionability as being inherently masculine or feminine.

One scholar in the field of gender communication that could be and was used to further the discussion is Bell Hooks.

Another could be Simon De Beauvoir,

Finally, I would like to further part of the discussion on gendered acts,

We saw in class discussion that workplace environments can often present opportunities for masculinity to recede or be used as a tool for assertion. With that in mind, what are some other roles or identities that we assume that we consider typically masculine?

One Last Look Through A Critical Gendered Lens

Hello everyone!

Chapter 12 is entitled "One Last Look Through A Critical Gendered Lens" and it acts as somewhat of a conclusion and summary of the main topics discussed throughout the book. This section of the textbook recaps important foundations to the study of gender in communication like dismissing the gender binary, utilizing a critical gendered lens in our everyday lives and being a good communicator.

This quote from the textbook plays on the overall goal that the authors had in mind: "Gender/sex is about real lives. Everyone faces real consequences if people do not recognize and resist the intensification of hegemonic masculinity and hyperfemininity. We hope you can help create a future in which the people around you -- family, friends, acquaintances, co-workers, children -- will be freer to be themselves without fear of harm. It will take everyone... working... together." This is the ultimate goal of the textbook: to educate the uneducated and in time, make a change to the way people view gender for the betterment of society.

Important terms to keep in mind for the presentation:
- critical gendered lens
- gender difference approach
- choice
- gender diversity vs. gender difference
- adaptability

Consider these questions:
- what kind of small initiative could you take to make a change about the way gender is performed and viewed in society?
- do you think that you look at the world through a critical gendered lens and if so, how has it changed the way that you see the world and gender?
- how do the choices you make about your gender play into the larger political environment of gender itself?

Best,
Conor Donachie

Sexualization of Women

Hello All!

            The section I will be discussing and the topic in which we will be opening up Monday’s class discussion with is the sexualization of women through the institution of media. The selected reading for this upcoming class can be found in the library database entitled Gendered Media: The Influence of Media on Views of Gender, by Julia T. Wood. The article discusses the portrayal of both men and women in media as well as the dynamic displayed between the two.

“Woven throughout our daily lives, media insinuate their messages into our consciousness at every turn. All forms of media communicate images of the sexes, many of which perpetuate unrealistic, stereotypical, and limiting perceptions” (Wood, 1994). Whether it is an advertisement, news story or even just in the comfort of our homes, we see a demonstration of the sexualization of women and the roles that have been assigned to them. Even the dolls children play with possess the “ideal” body type and are dressed in “sexy” clothing. 

Throughout the article, Wood brings up three themes that I want you to be mindful of:

1.     Underrepresentation

2.     Stereotypes

3.     Roles that have been enforced and normalized between women and men

Also, the textbook discusses in depth the sexualization of women. After reading both the chapter and the article consider these questions:

1.     When does sexualization occur?

2.     Where do we see this sexualization occur?

3.     What are the results or consequences of sexualization?

4.     What is self-objectification and in what ways do individuals self objectify?

5.     What behaviors have occurred and been normalized due to sexualization?

I look forward to discussing and exchanging ideas this Monday!


Hello class, 

             I thoroughly enjoyed our last discussion together. We talked a lot about the portrayals of women in media and how this affects our perception of women in the real world. The sexualization of women normalizes violence, reinforces gender expectations and limits women's individuality. Also, it was established that women of color are sexualized differently than white women and that men can also be sexualized. However, we agreed that media is an institution that benefits the white, heterosexual, male. With all of this being said, we seemed to spend the most time brain storming ideas on how to solve the gender inequality that exists in media and how to help prevent negative outcomes from the sexualization of women. 

Continuing the discussion....
            I would love to hear more opinions on how these issues should be approached. Also, we determined that this sexualization appears on various forms of media and that these messages are being fed to us constantly. What are some specific examples of where you all have seen sexualization? Approach this critically and explain the problematic details of this display. 

Thank you all for an interesting semester! 
Kait 

Masculinity in Crisis

Class,

Monday, along with other peers, I will be presenting on 'Masculinity in crisis.'

Julia T. Woods-- "The media present a distorted version of cultural life in our country. . ." (1994.)

Robert Hanke-- "hegemonic masculinity is won not only through coercion but through consent, even though there is never complete consensus. . ." (1998)

Having these quotes in mind we can examine five defining characteristics of U.S. Hegemonic Masculinity within scope : (Nick Trujillo, 1991.)

1. power means physical force and control;

2. occupational achievement;

3. familial patriarch; in which the man is the breadwinner;

4. symbolized by the frontiersman and the outdoors man;

5. heterosexual.

The textbook examines traditional prominence of what is considered 'masculine' in an array of media outlets, as well as hashing over how, and what, responses arise out of a perceived collapse of the traditional every-man.
We've collectively been exposed to traditional heroes like Siegfried, Achilles, even Super Mario, for centuries. More contemporarily the John Waynes, Steve McQueens, Chris Pratts, Chris Evans and Arnold Schwarzeneggers have been idols of those seeking a mold or model for the actions of the manly-man.
In questioning this role, one could ask;

1. Is it necessary to have ideals for masculine and feminine types? Do they require wider consensus if so?

2. Is masculinity in crisis to begin with? Or is its acceptance of typically feminist critique just an example a growing reach of what is considered masculine?

3. Is reinforcing masculinity typically or inherently violent? Or harmful/dangerous for other individuals or role and identity types?

4. Can masculinity be 'soft'?

5. Who is the most masculine person you know and does their perceived identity accentuate or hide this?


Terms to keep in mind:

--Hypermasculine

--Caregiver and Breadwinner

--Normalization

--Crisis

--Fulfillment

--Competence

Julia T. Woods Article on Gendered media: https://www1.udel.edu/comm245/readings/GenderedMedia.pdf

Veiling Practices (updated since presentation)

Hi Everyone!

Presentation link if anyone needs to reference it at all:
http://prezi.com/wr2r-d8y-nzr/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy=

Also another cool video that tricked me a couple times: (Watch and see how many you can get right)

https://www.facebook.com/MvslimInspires/videos/1171243186278954/


So here is the article that we have decided to use in order to fully understand religion as a means for liberation and oppression:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/opinion/wanted-leaders-to-turn-interfaith-conflict-into-trust.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FMuslim%20Americans&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection&_r=0

In the class discussion there was talk of appropriation and what exactly was considered appropriate when deciding to wear a head covering when not practicing this religion. Overall, If you are playing "dress up" for the sake up playing dress up and not paying respect to origin then it could possibly align with appropriation of other cultures. Also, we discussed the issues of Islamophobia and the strengthening of that issue as people find excuses to come out of the wood-works because they think it is okay to behave that way. I think as a class we could conclude that there is a blanket of ignorance when other religions view veiling practices; not knowing that most religions in fact practice these kinds of covering practices (i.e. nuns, wedding ceremonies, etc.). Maybe we could consider ways that may create religiously diverse tolerance for one another. How do you think this could happen successfully?

The reading may help explain the question above as it offers a means for understanding and calls attention to the issue of religious intolerance across the board. An article like this could have been useful years ago and persistence is key. You can not create acceptance and safety in religious practice only when a political election doesn't go your way; there needs to be constant discussion. What do you think?

Basic Info From The Presentation:
In veiling practices there are many different perspectives that can be taken. One of the easiest way to understand the veiling practices from each religion is to converse with the person who is actually wearing the veil or covering. Though veiling has been present in most religions at some point or another, most often it is only referenced when discussing Islamic culture and tradition. Consider the type of veil being worn, and on what occasion. Different veils have different messages and different representations. The article cites instances of religious intolerance and ignorance as a need to resolve interfaith conflict. I think that this is a valid perspective to take, however it also cites the election of president elect Trump as fuel to consider the racial intolerance as "new" issues; Do you think this is valid?

Given that overview and reading the article, consider the following discussion questions for commentary:

1. What are your experiences with veiling practices?

2. Based on the article, what are the implications of freedom of expression, via the veil practice, when considering the new government that will take place in January?

3. What are some suggestions to dealing with religious bias or intolerance conflict?

4. How would you take the definition of "religiously diverse democracy" (from the article) and form your own definition based on how you experience the tensions?

Media Hegemony or Polysemy, Media Polyvalence

Hi everyone! I will be presenting on Thursday about media hegemony and polysemy as well as media polyvalence. As an introduction to my topic, here is a brief description of the terms:  

• Media hegemony is the way a dominant ideology is diffused to, and accepted by, subordinate groups. In other words, the way that media can portray a certain idea to the public to make the public take that specific belief as the truth, with little to no room for interpretation.
• “...mass media have a considerable power over people as they “churn out products which keep the audience blandly entertained, but passive, helping to maintain the status quo by encouraging conformity and diminishing the scope of resistance” (p. 228)

• Polysemy counters this belief. Media polysemy is the idea that media is open to a range of different interpretations at different times. This suggests that it is not determined by the media providers but is created individually by each member of the audience. This side argues that “people do not consume media offerings mindlessly but instead actively and creatively engage with them” (p. 228).
• Media polyvalence occurs when audience members share understandings of the denotations of a text but disagree about the importance of these denotations to such a degree that they produce notably different interpretations. This means that viewers generally agree on the meaning or ideas of a given message, but may or may not agree with what the message is actually trying to convey.

You can find the article that I have chosen at this link and I would like you to read pages 9-16: http://wmc.3cdn.net/83bf6082a319460eb1_hsrm680x2.pdf

Here are a few questions to keep in mind while you are reading and to think about in preparation for class:

1. Why do you think the media, specifically news coverage, is still so dominated by men? Do you think this has anything to do with hegemonic, polysemous or polyvalence ideologies?
2. Think of an advertisement or a commercial that you’ve seen, how does that advertisement, or advertising as a whole, relate to these ideals?

*UPDATED SINCE PRESENTATION*

In class, we talked about the different theories in which media is interpreted by an audience and how these theories affect our understandings. We had a discussion about the various usages and examples of these forms, but specifically hegemony, within media. We talked about how these concepts are commonly shown within media and how these can correlate with gendered representations, such as within the article. The article talks about how media is predominantly a male a field, it also discusses how the majority of female journalists report on topics related to the home or cooking while men are assigned much different stories. Why do you think this is and how can this relate to the aforementioned theories of interpretation?

Scholar Bonnie Dow (1996) argues that media is “simultaneously a commodity, an art form, and an important ideological forum for public discourse about social issues and social change”,  thinking about the examples shown in class, or  examples from your own experiences, how important is it for us to recognize media as entertainment as well as an important and accurate representation of current societal landscapes?

Who Is Represented In Media

Hey guys! here is the link to the article I chose on who is represented in media. It is a PDF with many pages, so I would like you to read pages 58-62.

http://wmc.3cdn.net/83bf6082a319460eb1_hsrm680x2.pdf

Here are some questions to keep in mind when reading the article for when we have class on Thursday.



Q: Have you noticed a trend when using media that certain people are underrepresented? Were you surprise by the statistics provided?

Q: What are some specific examples in some of the shows you watched or any media that you have used recently where this had occured?


Thank you for your participation and I will see you on Thursday!

Gazes and Media

Hi! I will be talking about Communication and Media on Thursday, 12/8. Most medias, especially social medias, create gender identities today.
The contents from the textbook that I will cover is from page 230 to 237.
Please read and think about the connections between the contents and your own experience, and share it in the class!

I also want you to read the article from Women's Media Center, WMC.

http://www.womensmediacenter.com/blog/entry/girls-investigate-pop-culture-problems-social-media-snags-by-julia-lo

According to the textbook, women are more likely to be looked at than men.
The article shows how women become eager to be beautiful to gather attentions.
 People's ways of seeing changes all the time, so people have to keep up with the trends to be fashionable.

I want you to prepare for answering to the questions below.

1.  There are many criterions about the appearances for women to be an ideal. For example, women should be skinny and have big eyes. Women unconsciously follow the tacit criterions to get more gazes like actresses and celebrities. Do you think these criterions that could judge people by their appearances should be gone and we need to focus on the personalities? Or do you think it is also important?

2. According to the article, people get plastic surgery to be beautiful like models on the medias, and also to just post the beautiful profile picture on their social media accounts. What do you think about it? Do you think it is because of medias?

Thank you for reading!


---------------------Update Post Presentation---------------------

First, I just want to thank you all to participate to my presentation discussion and provided some comments. I hope you got ideas of how medias, especially social networking sites, form the gender identity in these days. In movies, dramas, posters and drawings, women are mostly object to be gazed, and men are the ones to look at them. Recent advertisements enhance that women should be more women and men should be more men. There are many people who are trying to be like the one in the ads. When they desire to be like models too much, they almost lose their own identities as well.

This is the question that I asked you during my presentation.
Q: Today, so may young people, especially females, get Botox to get beautiful faces. Do you think it is because of social networking sites?

I heard many people's opinions about this questions.
Social medias enhance women to be more object than being human. That is why a lot of females are eager to take beautiful photos and use them for profile pictures of social medias. Objectification became very famous today.
One comment that I'm interested is that in the past, people have parties that all participants must wear masks. In today's society, social medias are like that.
It is true that people now connect with others on the Internet, but they are not sure that the people who they connect with are really who they are. Therefore, the Internet is now kind of mask so that it is same that people communicate with others online with wearing masks.
Women can be more beautiful on the Internet, and get more attention from people around them. Women today are used to be gazed and addicted to seek the ways to be more attractive.

Then, I want you to consider about questions below.

1. How will young people's behavior towards addiction to be more attractive be changed in the future?
2. As mentioned before, it is not too much to say that medias create the recent identities of gender. People get affected too much from that. Should medias change their concept of gender identity? Why?
3. Do you think that the Objectification Theory, which is "Women are seen as objects-things to be looked at rather than people who can act", is true or not?

Rereading the History of Women and Religions

Hello everyone,

Here’s another link to the New York Times article for Monday, Wanted: Leaders to Turn Interfaith Conflict Into Trust: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/opinion/wanted-leaders-to-turn-interfaith-conflict-into-trust.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FMuslim%20Americans&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection

The fundamental lesson I want everyone to remember after our presentations on Monday is the importance of religion in women’s history. 

History itself is an interpretation. We choose how we perceive events of the past with a modern lens, which can limit or enhance our perspective. Unfortunately, our “modern lens” is designed for a white hegemonic viewership, which then normalizes this one perception and neglects the other histories (think intersectionaltiy). Religion and women’s roles are also interpretations. Bible scholar, Helen Sterk, argues that the Bible is, “Not sexist but that society’s sexism has led to interpretations of the Bible that ignore women’s presence” (DeFancisco and Palczeweski, 219). Meaning, that the Bible and other religious scriptures may not be inherently sexist, but today’s sexist society contorts our interpretation of religious doctrines to be sexist. A stigma attached to religion is its justification to oppress women, but this justification may be a result of our contemporary ideas about women and women’s roles. The Bible or the Quran are translated to serve a misogynistic world, yet when these scriptures are interpreted by looking at their female figures religion can become a source of empowerment.Women as justified servants to men, slaves or mothers is only one interpretation of women’s roles in religious scriptures. However, when history is reread for a nonsexist audience, religion has been home to feminist ideals all along. Religion was the initial space where women could excel creatively and intellectually. Historical figures such as the 12th century German nun, Hildegarde of Bingen, became an outspoken advocate for women’s rights within the church. She was a composer, author and leader who could only accomplish her achievements by becoming of woman of the church. Women’s activism in the United States was justified by religion. Initially, women entered public activist spaces in the abolitionist movement and used religious rhetoric to justify their cause. Eventually, abolitionist like the Grimkè sisters, were compelled to defend their rights as women which then became the catalyst for the American women’s rights movement. Throughout the women’s rights movement women used religion as the basis for their arguments. Suffragists and temperance leaders relied heavily on religion to justify universal suffrage and activism. Historically, we are taught about the separate spheres men and women inhabited. Men were considered the dominant gender overall, but women were thought be supreme moral beings compared to men. Religion was the one area where women were dominant and believed to be superior to men. There are many examples of women exercising their rights through religion, such as Anne Hutchinson, Mary Dyer, Frances Willard and much more. 

While you’re thinking about religion and women’s history considering some questions:

1. How do we interpret women’s history today? Is it thought to be important? 
2. What are your experiences learning women’s history? 
3. How can we effectively teach women’s history and the role of religion? 
4. How can we undo “history” to make it more inclusive and diverse? 

****UPDATE****

I thought everyone's insight today was great. I hope I emphasized that history is an interpretation and religion was an avenue for women to excel. Most importantly, religious texts are interpreted through historical and social contexts. Depending on how society interprets these texts they can change a society's values. Arguably, if female figures were highlighted from scriptures then people's perceptions of women could change. We also talked about how many women found their callings through religion, mostly because religion offered academic opportunities that were restricted from them in other areas. Activist women used religion as a means to justify their cause, because they interpreted the Bible differently from detractors.

When I asked the class, "What's your experience learning women's history?" The answers were not uncommon. Women's history is not a widely taught subject in schools. Like I previously stated, the white hegemonic, colonizer narrative is the accepted interpretation for history education. Women's history, like most histories, are neglected. However, women were (and are) part of every narrative. They were soldiers who fought in the American Revolution, the Civil War and more, yet these stories are untold. When people said they had been taught women's history it was restricted to a small handful of women. This is also a problematic and dangerous notion, because when we surmise women's history to the Susan B. Anthonys and Harriet Tubmans we lose essential parts of the narrative. History education must account for women's roles, individually and as groups. All important moments in history would be impossible without the group effort. Martin Luther King Jr. did not march through the Civil Rights Movement alone, yet history is taught with an individualistic vocabulary. This is where we see the power of historical interpretation, whose story gets told and whose does not. Which figures are emphasized and which are forgotten?

Scholars and women historians have established women's history as a field of academic study, but it is still developing. The National Women's History Museum, which exists only online due to lack of funding, celebrates scholar, Gerda Lerner. Lerner made it her life's work to ensure a place for women in history education. She helped founded women's history as a respected academic field of study and was a member of NOW (National Organization for Women). Her famous essay, Placing Women in History, focuses on how women's history changed from a narrative to interpretation. Lerner's work critically analyzed why women's history was neglected. She made it her mission to study accepted narratives and reinterpret them to rediscover women's roles.

https://www.nwhm.org/education-resources/biography/biographies/gerda-lerner/

When thinking about women's history education consider the following questions,

1) How can we restructure history education to include women's history?

2) How can the power of interpretation contort or censor history? (think in the women and religion context)

3) Based on your experiences in school, what other narratives would you want to include in history education that weren't taught?

4) What woman from history would you want to learn more about and why? 

Thank you everyone! 

African Americans and Religion

Alexandra Reynolds

Blog Post 1

Hello everyone,

The article to be read for Monday’s class on 12/5, is 

“http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/opinion/wanted-leaders-to-turn-interfaith-conflict-into-trust.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FMuslim%20Americans&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection” 

Some key points to keep in mind while reading this article is how you think religion can help bring people together. Although this article doesn’t exactly discuss African Americans in religion I think this is an important article to read about religion in general. Most religions declare a spiritual equality before their supreme deity and it’s important to understand the relationship between spiritual equality and social equality. There are many important historical women who have used religion to inspire them to do their brave acts such as Sojourner Truth and Harriet Tubman. Women in African American religion have been given more invisible roles than the men had. However, African American women have been known to be more religious than men. While the United States is considered a highly religious nation, African Americans are more religious on a variety of measures than the U.S population. Some of the measures include attendance at religious services, frequency of prayer, and religious importance in life. This can be seen through social media that a lot more African Americans are religious than other citizens in the United States. Some questions I will be discussing in class are:

1. African Americans stand out as the most religiously committed racial group in the nation. Why do you believe this is? 
2. What do you think the difference between spiritual equality and social equality is? And why do you think it’s important?
3. How have you seen religion in general bring people together in your own community?

Update (12/5/16)

Alexandra Reynolds

Blog Post 2

12/5/16

As I discussed in class, understanding the difference between spiritual equality and social equality is very important. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28) This is the quote that I started my presentation with and I think it relates to African Americans in general because God won’t judge a person based on things such as their skin color. If we connected social equality with spiritual equality, there would be a lot less oppressed groups, for we are all equal in His eyes. I mentioned four women that have specifically used religion as a means to improve society. Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, Fannie Lou Hamer, and Maria Miller Stewart all were motivated by religion. 

As I also mentioned during the presentation I would be providing the website that I used to find all of my statistics. http://www.pewforum.org/2009/01/30/a-religious-portrait-of-african-americans/ This website does a great job explaining many different factors of African Americans and religion. My questions will not be based on this website but feel free to check it out because it is very interesting.

Stephen D. Glazier is an American anthropologist. He is a Research Anthropologist at the Human Relations Area Files at Yale University. He has done fieldwork in Trinidad focusing on Caribbean religions, which I found interesting. He is interested in Religious Conversion across Cultures, Transcultural Psychiatry, Religion and Ecology, and Caribbean archaeology. He has written many books and articles, one of them being “If ‘Old Heads’ Could Talk.” in 2012. 

A couple discussion questions to think about are: 

1. Discuss a time that religion has played a crucial role in a decision you’ve made pertaining to work, school, friends, etc. 
2. Why do you think religion is very important to African Americans especially?
3. What is the difference between spiritual equality and social equality?
4. Why did many African American socialists use religion as a means of motivation?