Wysocki
First of all, when she states, "When I experience pleasure and offense so mixed, I know I have a good opening into critical work--no matter where it leads me or how strange." I really like how she articulates this, I think it is so true. Often I find myself not sure whether I should be, or I am, hugely offended by something or hugely curious/infatuated by something. I usually sit on this conflicted feeling for a while, just as she is saying she has a good opening into critical work. I just wanted to mention this because although we all probably experience it frequently, she has been the first to articulate this in a meaningful way.
Doctorow
"We copy like we breath" Cory Doctorow states, and I have to agree with him. He goes on further to discuss that when discussing copyright, it is not whether we like it or not, but which rules we want. "Copyright should serve as an inventive to creativity" I think largely it does. Without this looming gray cloud of copyright above us, we would viciously (even more than we already do) copy everything and anything, poorly attempting to reinvent the wheel rather than create new ideas. But should copyright be seen as this gray cloud? I don't really think it should. I think it should be seen as a supporter to creators, rather than a nuisance or roadblock.
The See-Through CEO
I think this is a brilliant idea. Honesty and transparency are such crucial qualities but so easily dismissed in today's world. No matter the profession or the field, honesty and transparency equates to trust. Of course, all companies want their customers to trust them. But, they have been learning ways to cut corners and assume a trustworthy facade and a lot of the times it works. "Online is where reputations are made now," says Leslie Gaines Ross, chief reputation strategist said. However, daunting, this is true, and businesses, people, and politicians must act accordingly. Bloggers now clog up so much of google searches, and although so much of blogging is questionable in its credibility, people still read it. Rumors, facts, and ideas go viral and people read and react.
Jamieson
The book I am currently reading, "Full Frontal Feminism" by Jessica Valenti, states "what are the worst things you can call a guy? Fag, girl, bitch, pussy. I've even heard the term "mangina." Notice anything? The worst thing you can call a guy is a girl. Being a woman is the ultimate insult" (Valenti, 5). This goes with Jamieson's notion that "to call a woman manly is to praise her." All of this bullshit about a manly voice equating to persuasion and a feminine voice equating to pleasure is unfortunately still ultra-present, and, excuse me again, but I am going to use politics as an example.
When female politicians make speeches, the media most often critiques their appearance before critiquing the content of the speech and its messaging. Comments mentioning a new haircut, a new designer outfit, etc., are explicitly directed at women and not at men. When the media turns the attention to physical appearance when describing physical appearance, it turns out it really hurts their chances of winning.
"Name It. Change It. released a study showing
that when the media focuses on a female politician’s appearance, voters
actually vacate her in droves. This spring, the organization staged a
“hypothetical congressional contest between female candidate Jane Smith and
male candidate Dan Jones,” presented a series of fake news stories about each
candidate to 1,500 likely U.S. voters, then asked participants how they’d cast
their vote. Voters who heard a pair of mundane stories that detailed Jane and
Dan’s responses to an education bill split their votes pretty evenly between
the two candidates. But when voters heard stories that sneaked in references to
Jane’s physical appearance, Jane lost serious ground to Dan." http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/04/08/pretty_politics_female_politicians_can_lose_elections_when_the_media_focuses.html
Again, the importance of women running in the first place can not be forgotten. Seeing female leaders in business, politics, or otherwise, is hugely importantly to dismantling these stereotypes.
Wow, you brought up a great point about the female politician's appearance working to her disadvantage. I wonder why the media (and people in general) should pay more attention to a female politician's appearance rather than a male? Maybe we assume that appearance reflects values. For example, if someone appears on television with their clothes neatly pressed and matching, hair in place, and teeth free of lunch leftovers, we might subconsciously assume this person values order, hygiene, and professionalism. If, on the other hand, a "starving artist" appeared on television looking a little less put together, we might assume (coupled with our knowledge of his or her profession) that here is a person who values creativity, individualism, and self-expression more than pretense and public opinion.
ReplyDeleteHowever, appearance may not only suggest values, but also characteristics, of a person. Perhaps people focus on a female politician's appearance because they think it reflects who she is as a person. For example, if she always dyed her hair, wore heavy makeup, and constantly changed the style of her wardrobe, people might think she is subject to flightiness or lack of self-confidence. Of course, in this particular example, you could interpret her appearance as expressing her sense of adventure or independence, but honestly, people are quicker to search for and find the flaws (or supposed flaws) in others rather than strengths. When pitted against the predictability of men's attire, women's attire with all its subtle variations becomes paradoxically, glaringly obvious to the public and open to all sorts of excessive interpretation.
Haha, this is all just guesswork on my part. Maybe you have further insight into this?
Cassidy,
ReplyDeleteI think it's pretty sad that to call a man a woman is the worst insult and to call a woman a man is the highest praise. Even for kids growing up, this bullshit masculine ideology becomes engrained in them on the playground. This is just an aside.
I wonder why it is that discussion of personal appearance affects a woman’s credibility as a politician. I’ve been reading a lot about gender lately, most recently Laura Mulvey, and she says that the subject/gazer is always masculine and the object/gazed-upon is always feminine. I wonder if the female politician is naturally perceived as sexless (or maybe even masculine), but as soon as discourse alluding to her appearance is circulated, she becomes necessarily objectified, that is the subordinate to the gaze of thousands of spectators. I wonder if that shift in power due to her perceived gender reversal is at all at play in that dynamic. There are probably many more factors, but that is one thing that comes to mind for me.
I often do not find myself as offended as I do curious. I guess being in the world of marketing nothing really shocks me anymore; the crazier you are the more people will talk about you, and all publicity is good publicity. Think of how many people have been offended as well as disgusted by Miley Cyrus VMA performance, and her recent stunt at the EMAs of lighting up a joint on stage. However, she is being talked about, everyone knew about her VMA performance within 24 hours. I hate to admit it but she is doing it right; and she gets to do anything she wants. A documentary was made and she was filmed saying how she was chilling, and laughing at everyone’s reactions; she’s completely in control, she planned for the negative publicity. And it makes me think, people remember way more bad incidents than they do good ones.
ReplyDelete