Social Construct of Gender.

WHAT is considered masculine or feminine? Since I'm taking a gender studies class this semester, I've learned a lot about the social construct of gender. We live in a society where we are constantly being evaluated by how we look or what we do and whether on not it is too feminine or masculine for whatever gender a person chooses to go by. As the reading notes, woman do more of the housework whenever they make a higher income than their male partner. Housework has been socially constructed as feminine work. Males feel like since they aren't financially the main income to the family, they can't do housework because it will "lower" their masculinity even more. Though this feminine and masculine scale are all socially constructed. As a society, we have labeled "housework" as a woman's job. Just like having a higher income is  associated with masculinity. Thanks to more woman empowerment movements and LGBT rights slowly becoming a part of our cultural norm, it is a start to breaking these ideas we have of what is feminine or masculine. Many people are trying to break away from these gender role norms, but currently, they are still a huge part of our culture. 

Claude Steele did a study about gender stereotyping that really relates back to the article. In his study, he had two groups of test takers taking the same test. Group one was given instructions about how he noticed a difference between genders on how they did one the exam. While in the other group, he gave no instructions discussing anything about gender differences. His results concluded that woman did worse in group one when they were told about the gender differences while in group two, there was no difference between the scores on the exams. 

Stereotype threat was a term used in the study to show that when the threat of being stereotyped is in the person's mind, they will basically fall within the stereotype. 

Just like when men just think about making these then their wife or female spouse (that masculinity vs femininity scale popping up in their head) , their behavior changes. 

Reference: Gender Studies : Professor Karen Prager 

The Clothes Behind the Man

For 9/29

I found the article about enclothed cognition very interesting because it immediately flashed me back to high school. I attended a magnet school that specialized in health careers and therefore, in lieu of a uniform, we were all given the option to wear medical scrubs every day to class. Now back then, I had no idea of the possible effects of wearing those clothes to school day in and day out.
After reading this article, I'm very curious as to how other clothes with symbolic meaning would affect those wearing it; would wearing a police officer's uniform make you more protective, or a firefighter's uniform make you more prone to putting yourself in danger. Also, who's to say that wearing the white robe and believing that it was a painter's robe didn't enhance the creativity within those wearing it. And why even limit it to specific professions? Would you not be more inclined to notice ancient hematological artifacts if you were dressed as Indiana Jones, or make startling deductions were you wearing Sherlock Holmes's garbs.
Although these examples may not necessarily be in line with the clothes affecting one's cognitive processes, and might be more focused on behavior, but it is one's cognitive process that results in behavior. And regardless, I believe the overall cause is the same. Because we are aware that our "clothing affects how other people perceive us", when we dress in a way that we know will elicit a specific view about us, and it is not in line with how we view ourselves, then our mind will essentially "pick up the slack" and make us slightly more like whatever characteristics are symbolically associated with the clothing.

Announcement: Swapping 9/22 & 9/29 classes

Dear all,

For reasons I will explain in class tomorrow, I'd like to swap our 9/22 and 9/29 classes. In short, this Thursday we will learning about priming, and we will move the in-class exercise and its associated deadline to 9/29.

Since this is an impromptu change, you will have until 9pm on Wednesday (9/21) to post your responses for readings assigned for the priming lecture. I hope this extended deadline helps alleviate the inconvenience of the class swap, though do let me know if this extension does not work for you and we can work something else out. 

So, to summarize:

• We will do the priming lecture (which is originally on 9/29 according to the syllabus) this Thursday
• Reading responses for Thursday's class on priming is due by 9pm on Wednesday unless otherwise arranged with me
• We will move the media effects in-class exercise (and its due date) to next Thursday (9/29)

Does this make sense? Please let me know if you have any questions.

See you tomorrow!

Media Manipulation

9/27

While reading through the "Research in India suggests Google search results can influence an election" reading, I went ahead and tested the Google search results to see if any form of manipulation or favor was being done in regards to the recent presidential candidates. Surprisingly, my search results were exactly the same for both the candidates. In fact, I noticed a pattern in my search results. The search results came out to be very biased as both the candidates had a mixture of negative and positive information. When I typed in "Hillary Clinton “on one window and "Donald Trump" on the other, I went ahead on to the news tab of Google and saw that there were two similar articles about the health of the candidates which was very amusing to see.
(Here’s the link to the articles: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/19/us/politics/donald-trump-health.html?_r=0  and  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/19/us/politics/hillary-clinton-health.html)

In the reading, it is mentioned about a psychologist Robert Epstein who discovered that search engines have a high potential in influencing our votes towards a specific candidate without us noticing. In fact, he calls this the “Search Engine Manipulation Effect” or SEME. So how exactly would the articles about the candidate’s health influence my voting and does this manipulate my mind? Yes, it definitely does. In fact, naturally it makes me question their political standpoints and if they are capable enough to endorse them and basically live a healthy life to be able to be the leader of the USA and I believe that with every kind of research we do, we’re more likely to find results that will have our minds thinking in a different way.

This reading opened my mind up into looking deeply into what I’m being exposed to and how it effects my thought process which was very interesting to know because, normally I would just scroll through results and find something that seemed more relevant to my beliefs but, never have I ever thought about how those results are manipulating my thought process towards the subject being mentioned in a very indirect way.

The Gatekeepers (9/27)

For 9/27

When I think of the term, "gatekeeper", I immediately envision a security guard standing outside a big, fancy, iron-detailed gate. But, in the world of media, a gatekeeper isn't necessarily that. A gatekeeper is anyone (or any company) that filters information and decides what the general public knows. Facebook, Google, and many news sources such as Fox and CNN are some of the more common known gatekeepers of mass media.

Recently, Facebook has been under heat for being too good of a gatekeeper. Former Facebook employees have come out and said that they routinely suppressed conservative stories from their trending news section. With the 2016 presidential election being right around the corner, this really upset people and brought attention to the influence media might be having on the ballot. Not only did these curators decide what stories appeared to be trending, but they also injected news stories when they deemed appropriate - whether it was trending or not. Due to Facebook's algorithm, it takes longer for big stories to make its way to the top of a newsfeed; in comparison to Twitter's instant visibility. Because these curators had the power to inject stories, they were able to release the bias version of the story that congenially aligned with their opinions. Once again, acting as a gatekeeper and furthering the news/media agenda.
(Here's an article going into more detail about this Facebook story: http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006)

The purpose of social media is to see what YOUR friends are thinking, saying, and sharing. The purpose of Google is to receive information and learn. The purpose of news is to understand the world around you by knowing about current events. I know many people tune into specific new sources to align with their congenial opinions, but their audience needs to be aware of the agenda setting bias that occurs. With Facebook and Google, the users of this site do not always realize the effects that algorithms have on the visibility of information. Overall, the general public needs to be smart about how they interpret media.

As one of the articles said, "Humans are very manipulable..." and because of this, it is important we understand the influence mass media has on us.
 

Gender Roles (9/29)

After reading "Even the thought of earning less than their wives changed how men behave," I began to think about my current living situation. My boyfriend and I have lived together for four years now and he's a bartender/bar manager. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but he works mostly late nights as I go to school full time during the day. I feel like in this scenario he realizes that I am going to end up making more money once I graduate than he will, and has taken on the role of what I like to call my domestic engineer. He cooks, keeps the apartment immaculate, and does my laundry; not to mention he's on forever cat box detail. What could be better, right? I feel like I kind of have it made with this unspoken arrangement that I'm very much okay with. He keeps my life incredibly comfortable during my long school week and we're both entirely okay with this situation. It might not work for everyone, but it works for us. He's way better at domestic engineering than I am and he recognizes this.

It's really funny how gender roles have shifted and no one is locked into any particular role. My grandparent's generation was so vastly different. My grandmother, who was very June Cleaver-esque, and her three sisters all were stay at home mothers who were expected to have dinner on the table and the house cleaned upon their husbands arrival home from work. They were all dressed in pretty clothes that their husbands bought them, but I think deep down they were bored. Had the gender norms been bent and twisted as they are now, I feel like their lives could have been very different. Now, career hungry women like myself are able to achieve their goals and aren't expected to pop out a bunch of children and stay at home cleaning all their days. Then I think on the other hand, does the partner that doesn't earn as much as the other subconsciously take on the role of the homemaker? It's hard to say. Couples tend to be meeting more in the middle as far breadwinning and household duties which is truly a partnership in which they contribute maybe differently, but equally.

Choices: Do you choose your own actions?

     After reading today's assigned readings, a constant dialogue ran through my head about who really is responsible for  my own actions? With that in mind who is responsible for any other person's actions as well? I believe that it would not be a true statement to say that media do not effect us? I myself indulge in many forms of influence when it comes to media. I choose what to explore or even  with what to entertain myself. Do those choices influence me? If the answer was a straight black and white answer, then yes. But as in the article ,  What is Media effect,  there are many variables I will need to considered to accurately answer the question. For example the key issues of change  and duration.
Because of  my selective perception, I was drawn to the documentary, Fed up. As soon as I finished watching it, I had already composed in my mind to change my diet and that of my children. Did this media have an effect on me? Yes. Change was made at a long duration. Trust me , my kids look forward to visiting other people's homes, just to eat what they call , "normal" cereal.
But did the media influence me or did my selective perception did?
It was my curiosity and desire to seek an answer to my own questions in my  own world  of why I had an issue with governmental cheese and kool-aid. I sought out something that would answer those questions. The documentary provided an optional answer, I chose to agree with it. I was responsible for my action. Was there influence, perhaps but the ultimate decision to change was mine.

     This brings me to the two articles involving children. As a parent, I believe it is my responsibility to inform and create a safe environment for my children. With selective exposure, i tend to make adjustments accordingly to my beliefs in parenting. I have been told that I have unconventional parenting methods, but yet I may agree that  I may be a bit conservative. I do not allow my son to play with videos games that involves shooting. Will he ever play with some that does, perhaps, but I don't measure his allowances by his age, its his maturity. He has found ways to  express violent behavior on minecraft ironically. Although its very minor, but it raises the question if its truly the video game or external influences, that are organic , because as you would guess I don't allow him to watch movies that are violent. My son chooses to perform theses actions. Are these actions influenced, perhaps but I can't really say that they are from videos games or movies, those variables aren't in this formula. Now in defense of the article about the video game playing, I do agree that if he would to play the game he will demonstrate violent behavior involving the action of shooting a gun. It is because he is being expose to a behavior that is being channel as something fun. My son's maturity level cannot help distinguish the two currently. He cannot make an informed choice.
So this leads to movie ratings, Again , I believe the movies themselves may influence actions but the decision to act still remains in the hands of the individual. However, I believe that it is the responsibility of the movie makers to rate the movies appropriately.  That would involve an extensive amount of research , which apparently seems that they may resistant in doing. it would interesting to see why, but I digress. I also noticed the little plug in the findings of how gender played a part in the parents responses to what was is allowable to watch. Just needed to mention date. My selective exposure came into play.