Feminism Today?

I think that chapter 35 is interesting in the fact that it explores the 'muted' voice of women, the dominance and origin of masculine words and influences, and just the power that men hold in general. I find it funny, that as I'm reading, I realize how much negative connotation the word "feminist" has with it, for people who consider it out of the 'norm'. Also made evident by the definition of the word made by Rebecca West in the example of the feminist dictionary. West defined feminist as "not knowing precisely what feminism was, but only knowing that people called her one whenever she expressed sentiments that differentiated her from being a doormat." (p. 462). Another side note that caught my attention, was how Cheris Kramarae came to be (her name). Because this is something I've always thought of-- whether I would keep my last name or not when I get married. My last name would stop with me if I chose to take my husbands, as my father does not have any sons that will be able to carry on his name. I've heard many stories of debates about why women should take the last name of their husband, rather than the other way around... it's such an antiquated practice... or maybe become what is known as 'tradition' or proper ettiquette. But Kramarae definitely came up with a creative way to solve that.... by combining the two names. Granted, not everyone will have as easy a time creating combined names as Kramarae, but I have also noticed the surge of hyphenated last names these days as an alternative solution. But I wonder......... will men ever take the names of their wives?

Women as a Marginalized Group

Along with the Standpoint Theory, comes the idea of women as a marginalized group. First of all, to elaborate on standpoint theory, I strongly believe that "gender is a cultural construction... gender is a system of meanings that sculpts individuals' standpoints by positioning most males and females in disparate material, social and symbolic circumstances" (p. 443). Men and women are taught by society how they should act based on cultural expectations and treatment. I think we have become so accustomed to it, it's hard to distinguish. Harding and Wood claim that there is a discrepancy found in all societies, and notes that "a culture is not experienced identically by all members. Cultures are hierarchically ordered so that different groups within them have positions that offer dissimilar power, opportunities, and experiences to members" (p. 444). It has been the norm that women have been underadvantaged while men have been overadvantaged in many ways; the workplace being one of them. Statistics show that women working the same position as men, doing the same job with the same experience have earned a significantly different income. Usually white men predominantly have the upper positions of power and wealth.

I do have to say though, I know that we are progressing and moving away from this.... although it still does exist. A really interesting article I came across made me feel good to see, was one in the Wall Street journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122608990529609245.html#project%3DTOP50WOMEN%26articleTabs%3Dinteractive

It's about the top 50 women to watch out for who hold executive level jobs, you tells you a little bit about what they do and what companies they work for when you click on their picture. So we'll see how much this really begins to change as time goes on.

Standpoint

Chapter 34 is quite an interesting chapter for me. Just the beginning alone really struck a chord with me because it made so much sense! Griffin defines the concept of standpoint as "a place from which to critically view the world around us" (p. 441) and your perspective, viewpoint or outlook is contingent on where you stand... To me, the idea of this makes perfect sense, it seems that it would be common sense... but when you really think about it-- how many of us really stop to think 'Hmmm, my viewpoint is this way because of where I'm standing [or other words, affected by what I've experienced]' Personally, I'd like to think that I pause to think that, but I know I don't, even though it's completely true. My standpoint completely affects the way I view the world: how I communicate with others and myself. I'm still barely getting used to the idea that not everyone sees things as I see them, or see me as I see me for that matter... but now, I'm trying to keep in mind, that everyone looks at things from their own eyes which can be portrayed differently based on experience.

The example to illustrate standpoint given by Harding in the beginning of the chapter really helps understand the concept of standpoint with the illusion of the bent stick, or what appears to be bent. If you are standing on the other side of the pond, you can see that the stick is not bent at all. But based on my position and location, I'll call things as I see them. But if we open up our minds to realize that there is never going to be ONE way to see things, I think it would open up so much more possibilities/opportunities to understand one another.

Powerful Mass Media

Chapter 29 is a very interesting topic because the concept of the Spiral of silence is a matter that is very real in todays society. People tend to clam up if they are in the minority. I think that the media plays a powerful role in dominating information and opinions, whether it's print or electronic form. An interesting theory is that of pluralistic ignorance which I think occurs more frequently than we think. Pluralistic ignorance is defined as "people's mistaken idea that everyone thinks like they do" (p. 374) due to the fact that the media does not offer the differing viewpoints in proportion to reality of opinions. Noelle-Neumann believes that written word's power to change attitudes could be limited by selective exposure with the abundance of newspapers, magazines and current event material that are available because they could avoid contrary beliefs. But TV itself is extremely powerful, it has an omniscent presence that repeats messages from certain point-of-views and is much harder to escape. This is something I can completely agree with, I do believe that television media is given much more power with its selective exposure of issues. Noelle-Neumann believes the media goes one step beyond agenda setting: "The media in general and television in particular not only tell us what to think about but aslo provide the sanctioned view of what everyone else is thinking" (375).

Framing: What and How to Think

I found myself intrigued by a third case study that was used as evidence that the process of framing actually alters images in peoples' minds when reading or watching the news. Griffin notes the third study conducted by Salma Ghanem for her doctoral dissertation under McCombs' supervision at UT (Univ. of Texas) on page 366. In short, Ghanem analyzed the percent changes of crime concern among Texas residents and actual criminal acts. Concern had gone up even though the frequency and severity of crimes had gone down and realized that the increased salience of crime was driven by the local media. Using the two levels of agenda setting in her study, she tracked the transfer of salience of specific crime attributes as well as the frame of where the crime took place. The frame that crime could 'happen to anyone' was powerful as well the crimes that were 'close to home' versus the ones that happened out of state. The correlations between these media frames and public concern suggest that attribute frames make compelling arguments for people who are exposed to the news.

This case study was interesting to me, because more often than not, when I watch the news, I always find myself thinking how depressing it is with the stories they choose to cover.
I have also fallen for the fear instilled by some of the news stories that some of these crimes portrayed "could happen to anyone" and although that is certainly true, I think that the salience of certain issues is magnified two-fold by the media. I would be interested to see more of these studies conducted in different areas to see if it really holds true.

Important? Says who?

The concept of the agenda-setting theory is a familiar one. As a communication major, although I have no interest in being a journalist, I have heard many times before what the "duty" of a journalist is. I've heard from people who aspire to go into journalism that they wish to 'report the truth, unbiased.' But we all know this isn't true... or at least the case these days. In Chapter 28, McCombs and Shaw developed the agenda-setting hypothesis, believing that "mass media have the ability to transfer the salience of issues on their news agenda to the public agenda." (p. 359). Everyone would like to think that they are independent thinkers... and for the most part, most of us are-- however the news cues us on where to focus our attention. The quote that I find true is: "We judge as important was the media judge as important" (p. 359). And that is evident by the news channels we watch. Stories are quick and run 15 seconds or so, anything that run 30-45 seconds you know has a little bit more significance based on its length and frequency it appears in the media. It hard to tell whether agenda-setting is more of a positive or negative thing, but I suppose it has both aspects. It's a matter of whose agenda is imposed upon the audience, I find myself always thinking, 'who is this coming from?'

But I think the best thing for us to do is take our information and facts from various sources in order to establish our own "truth" and what's important.

Making Meaning...

According to Michel Foucault, his concept of discourse is defined as the "frameworks of interpretation" (p. 337) in order to make sense of relationships between societal power, communication, and mass media. But Stuart Hall claims otherwise-- he claims that the 'primary function of discourse is to make meaning' in his book Representation. The catchy phrase that caught my attention is the one that is stated in the text: "Words don't mean; people mean." That short statement says a lot to me, because it's something that I also believe. I almost interpret it as words don't mean anything unless there is something/someone to validate it, or back it up. But of course, not everyone is going to interpret meanings in the same way. Stuart Hall's theory is that people learn what signs mean though discourse (through communication and culture). He proceeds to explain how culture works in terms of producing and exchanging meanings, and that people of the same culture are likely to interpret the world around them in similiar ways. This makes a lot of sense considering meanings and signs are learned culturally and through past experiences.