Should we "Ban Bossy?"

The Title of this Huffington Post article, "When A Boy Asserts Himself, He's a Leader, When A Girl Does, She's Bossy," is much like the controversial Suave campaign that we watched in class. The difference being instead of featuring beautiful, impeccably dressed models posing as professional business women (the majority of whom are white), it is focused on young girls from varied ethnic and racial backgrounds. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/11/ban-bossy-video_n_4937367.html
This topic is always one of interest for me. Undoubtedly because I grew up being stereotyped in this way, and in some ways, continue to be so in my adult life. These amazing girls posit the very real effects, as well as possible future ones that will result from societies continued acceptance of the gender hierarchy that assigns specific personality traits as acceptable or unacceptable according to gender. One girl says, "Here is where I will not lead the defense of a groundbreaking case." Another says," Here is where I wont ask the questions that change the conversation," and another, "Here is where I will doubt myself," "Here is where I will stop raising my hand," "Here is where I will start being interrupted."  In First Impressions of Sarah Palin  (D. Harp, et al) reference the Gender schema theory as to why this is.
Gender schema theory emphasizes the dominant role of gender in not only grasping but also processing knowledge and beliefs and guiding behavior in a given culture (Steinke, 1998). Bem’s gender schema theory explains how girls and boys exposed to cultural definitions of maleness and femaleness—embedded in discourse and social practices—will identify with them.
Because it is embedded in our knowledge that men have historically been the decision makers, the leaders, we have accepted that certain behaviors are associated and justified by this fact. And because women are not associated with this image in our minds, they experience an inverse reaction. While men are assertive, driven, hardworking, and motivated, women are pushy, aggressive, know-it-all, and bossy. So who cares about what people think of you, ladies? Who cares that they call you these names behind your back and attribute your drive or success to negative assumptions of who you are? After all, gossip and judgement are specifically female traits anyway, right? Wrong.
As these girls point out, this male/female, masculine/feminine associations guide their behavior, and determine social practices. Because girls listen to and are aware of the value of masculinity over femininity, but only when appropriated by men, it affects their behavior, their identity, their beliefs about the world.
This video calls for the banning of the word bossy, which is a bit impractical, but warranted all the same. You never hear a guy being referred to as bossy. It is a very gender specific word. Maybe if it was (banned), young girls would not stop raising their hands, asking the questions, and refuse interruptions. Maybe not using that word, and others like it, could have a drastic impact on female self esteem. Maybe, just maybe, it would begin to question the hierarchy that exists, and work to start leveling the playing field.

Whose Language Is It Anyway?

I had written this article back when we read Rebecca Martinez's article entitled, "Languages and Tribal Sovereignty."  The article speaks to the sovereignty of language, or determining who has the authority to define it, speak it, and teach it?

While living in Malawi, I lived in a region in the North where 21 different languages are spoken.  I would often joke that, while riding my bicycle to the nearest town, I would greet each village in a different language.  However, what I discovered through learning these different languages, was that no one in particular seemed to have a firm understanding of which words belonged to which language.  The different tribes had been living so near to each other, and the families had intermixed over such a long period of time, that no one really understood where one language ended and the other began.  This, I imagine, is a commonplace situation for those language groups that live in close proximity.

According to Malawi custom, the traditional authority would be the de facto government for determining sovereighty, though the traditional authority is generally a patrilineal chiefdom. As many of these chiefs were more interested in gaining additional power and status, very few were seriously considerate of their cultural traditions over the favor of institutional government.  It drew the question for me: who then is the sovereignty of each tribe's cultural traditions and language if the legitimate authority has little or no interest?

Academic Prejudice

"The abstract mental idealizations that we call cultures thus develop through social interactions, and are associated with membership of a particular social group -- members of the group are normally expected to typically enact at least some of the cultural traits associated with it."

--Alex Frame from Cultures, Identities and Meanings in Intercultural Encounters

Coming to the end of the quarter, I've been thinking  much more about this idea of cultural development and how we identify and negotiate with the culture of graduate school.  There's a sense among many students that being graduate students makes us superior, makes us intelligent, makes us worthy of a voice regardless of what is said.  There's a sense that academia is a place for expert roles, the heady egos of commanding authorities and intellectual doctrine, a place for adherence and the receipt of dissemination rather than be actors and agents among peers.

If our cultural representations are formed mentally and also simultaneously through social interaction, which of these two opposing agents has the control over flows?  Do we receive direction from our teachers as necessary students, or are we merely buying into temporary social constructions that are centralized more around the power and privilege that has been afforded to each participant for playing a role?  Are our constructions of each other as students and professors, first years and second years, receptors of knowledge and disseminators of knowledge a willful act of agency or a submission to the authority of those who have the knowledge over those don't?  Or are these simply mental idealizations that can be changed?

Child Brides Magazine

“The importance rests on the idea that mass media play a role in structuring our understanding of reality and helping us make sense of the world. This is particularly true when we as a community lack first-hand knowledge.” (pg. 292).

                The quote is from the article on “First Impressions of Sarah Palin” that we read. It particularly fits into the campaign that Catapult, a small non-profit organization, is utilizing the covers of well-known and read magazines in the United States, and changed the covers to reflect issues on Child Brides, Slaves and human trafficking. The PR campaign has brought attention to the problems at hand in time for the International Woman’s Day celebration.

                I feel like this is a particularly important issue, as we celebrate women around the world.  We need to protect our girls from these horrific situations, and bring these issues to the forefront, just like the women before us brought issues to the forefront for us.  I believe, as a woman, that the constant portrayal of women in the media, objectifying women, is an asset to this campaign.  It shows what the reality and real life objectification of girls does around the world.

                The covers, like Child Brides, have captions like, “The wedding you’ll never forget, but wish you could” or “Exercise secrets, you CAN get in shape for giving birth, at 14” seem ridiculous in the context of American magazines, as we turn a blind eye to these issues as a whole.  It makes the reader uncomfortable, which is the point.  Make the person receiving this message uncomfortable enough to act.  Perhaps then, we wouldn't need to use this tactic to encourage change.  

Harp, Dustin, Loke, Jaime, & Bachmann, Ingrid. (2010).  First Impressions of Sarah Palin: Pit Bulls, Politics, Gender Performance, and a Discursive Media (Re)contextualization.  Communication, Culture & Critique 3 (2010) 291–309. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/07/international-womens-day-magazines_n_4921241.html

Sarah Palin, Six Years Later

During discussions of gender performance in January we reviewed an article by Harp, Locke and Bachmann analyzing the media representations of Sarah Palin. The study focused specifically on media from major broadcast video segments during the first week following the announcement of Palin to join John McCain’s ticket. Recent media attention, and events, has brought Palin back to my attention. In looking at articles in major newspapers, it is interesting to see some of the same motifs occurring that were identified by Harp et. al.

As a bit of a refresher, Palin’s emergence into the national spotlight was characterized by three major themes according to Harp et. al.: the devoted mother, the beauty queen, and the touch politician. The authors noted that Palin was presented with an unusual combination of a “female’s politician’s toughness” with that of an “ultra-feminine frame.” Palin received attention for both her physical looks and her toughness (p. 304).

The Washington Post reviewed her closing speech as the 2014 CPAC last week, article here. In this article, Palin is presented as the tough counter to the liberal agenda under President Obama. Her message to “hunker down and refuse to budge on conservative principles,” was a combative contrast with that of other speakers including Christie, Ryan, and Gingrich. Here, you see the toughness described by Harp et. al. coming out full force. However, this article seems to lack the “ultra-feminine” frame when it briefly discusses the conference’s focus, though not Palin’s, on how to attract women and minorities to the conservative party.

An MSNBC article similarly focused on Palin’s toughness during her CPAC speech, article here. Only briefly alluded to in the Washington Post article, MSNBC focused more attention on Palin’s comments regarding women. Unlike her first week of prominence, however, her comments and those of the article focused mainly on her calls for the “sisterhood” to push other women to fight for conservative ideals. Palin commented that women “know better than to fall for that victimization line from the president and his party.” Here, even in discussions of women’s rights, Palin is no longer being portrayed with the “ultra-feminine frame.”

Additional articles from Politico, CNN, and the Washington Times all highlight Palin’s toughness and desires to fight the ideals of Obama and the Democratic Party and/or Palin’s reactions and “told you so” comments regarding the crisis in the Ukraine. A possible explanation is that this is merely too small of a sample to compare with the data from hundreds of clips that Harp et. al. reviewed. However, if this is a changed trend, how are we to view this? Has media changed in the last six years? Are the first impressions that Harp et. al. focused on not determinative of long term perceptions? Have Palin’s actions herself allowed for a new perspective on her as a politician? 

Governor says, "It's time for the end of race in America. Now that would be progress."

The coming presidential election has governors and other elected officials jockeying to set forth on the quest to make a name for themselves.  So much so that I often detest even repeating the names themselves.  And perhaps that is fitting for the topic of an article written for Politico.com by the governor of Louisiana.  This governor of East Indian descent puts forth the idea that citizens of the United States ought to drop the hyphenation of their cultural identities, and simply refer to themselves as ‘Americans’ no matter their ethnic divisions.

Personally, I see some value in this endeavor though I do not agree with the context of the statement (within a political campaign) nor do I agree with the more denigrating comments that this kind of public message stirs.  Of course the question of whether we should continue to delineate between the various ethnic diversities of minority identities has important implications within our government and our society.  First of all, removing the identifier that someone uses to describe themselves is as good as eliminating their identity altogether.  Secondly, it is important for people, especially from the privileged and dominant portion of society, to understand the differences in people in order to understand their differences in opinion, wants, needs, desires, and in this case, perhaps even differences in the definition of the so-called ‘American Dream’.

However, creating certain differentiations can also have the opposite effect of creating round holes and square pegs by which many people do not fit into.  We’ve discussed the identity gaps that certain individuals experience because of this feeling of in-between-ness.  What do you think about the necessity or harm of delineating cultural identities along strict borderlines?

A lack of peace journalism

In examining intercultural conflict, Oetzel, Dhar, and Krischbaum discussed the role of media during an international conflict. One part that stood out to me regarded the concept of peace journalism. Oetzel et. al. noted the many organizations around the world dedicated to creating peace and resolving conflicts, but questioned their ability truly have an impact on the policy level decision makers. The authors highlighted the work of Jacobson and Jang who acknowledge “skeptic[ism] about the ability to construct a strong public sphere without the support of the media, which would need to change its philosophy toward social responsibility.”

The concept that journalists would change the way they report on events by abandoning an impartial perspective is assuredly controversial. However, from my perspective, I feel that it is one that is worth national media’s to explore. For a current situation, reporting on the crisis in Ukraine provides examples worth exploring.

An article in the Washington Post from Saturday, “Ukraine on the line: Obama, Putin find little common ground in telephone diplomacy,” discussed the conversations between Presidents Putin and Obama last week. Click here for article. As the title suggests, the article focuses on the lack of agreement between the Russian and American positions. Towards the end of the article, the author brings in comments from Putin that paint the United States as a country that takes illegitimate actions around the world, just as Russia is being accused. Though it is not an outright criticism of Obama as a weak leader (just look at almost any Fox News report, or this Daily Show segment for a more light hearted version), the article does very little to move its reader base towards peace. Instead, it builds up the inevitability of escalation for the conflict.

Granted, the examples I have cited here are from conservative outlets that are more hawkish than some other possibilities. While there may be some instances of peace journalism attempting to change the philosophy of their reporting, as Jacobson and Jang call for, they are not prevalent in mainstream news outlets. Instead, they are calling Obama weak and prodding him to step up his response. They are emphasizing discord between parties. Focusing only on the conflict occurring, and how it may grow. As such, I would argue that this line of reporting is itself biased. If this is a result of impartial journalism, than can we really say that impartiality necessarily leads to balance? Do we not want to see a humanizing account of what is going on, something that focuses on the possibilities for resolution instead of escalation?

Oetzel, J., Dhar, S., & Kirschbaum, K. (2007). Intercultural conflict from a multilevel perspective: Trends, possibilities and future directions, Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 36(3), pp. 183-204.