Blog #3 Stephanie

This article only demonstrates the principle of social learning/modeling in the sense that one of the few things that these children have to guide them in defining their identity is observing their parents. They get to observe what their mother and father do and what they do differently and they get to decide what sort of behavior settles best with them. What they don’t have is the rewards for acting in a certain way so, at home it’s 100% their choice. In the real world, the pressures of society might be a different story.

I understand what they are doing and I definitely appreciate it. They are trying to relive their children of certain pressures that we all grow up with. The problem is, that the children are the ones who are subject to suffering without having had the choice when they were born. Therefore, I do not agre with their decision only because it can cause their children much stress and pain in the future.

I don’t think that it is applicable because this family is striving to construct gender identities in accordance to what they think fits, not in accordance to what society agree with.

I would say that the majority of people would agree with my comment above. Their purpose is respectable, but it is not fair for them so try this with their children knowing that these children will have to grow up with constant criticism and backlash which will definitely interfere with their self esteem and personal growth. I can see how extreme conservatives would be opposed to this just for the simple fact that they are bending the rules that most of society follows.

Blog #3 Jamie

1) How does this article demonstrate the principle of social learning model? I feel that it is demonstrating the lack of social learning. They are trying to take out the influances from outside sociaty. However in to doing this the are also taking aways some very valuable lessons that could/should be taught at a young age.
2) Do you think tha tmore pearents should take thsi approach? 100% no. I do not agree with using your children as an experiment or to prove a point. If they did not want the kids to play with "girl" toys or "boy" toys, than they could have made sure that they had a good balance of toys that would be considered girl or boy. The parents need to make sure that the kids are well rounded, but still guide their paths for the future.
3) Social accountability is defined as a conscious........ How would you apply this definetion/concept to thsi case study. They are trying to let the kids make this choice, but I also wonder how much they are also, even if not meaning to, pushing their ideas on to the kids. Like if they asked for a short hair cut (seeing as they are boys, this could be considered a boy cut) if the parents are willing to do this, or if they talk them out of it. If the parents are so hot in to this, why are they not the ones doing this? They could be the ones hiding their gender from everyone they meet. Don't push it on to the kids, just because they are not "mature" enough to make the choices for them selves, and at what age will they be? I let my kids decide when they want a hair cut, even if I don't agree with what they want, it is their choice, even the five yearold.
4) Why is their decision so controversal? I feel it is because they are using their children in a very extreem expreiment. It is not fair to the kids, because even if they don't go to school, other kids are crule, and unless they keep them from all other social events, than the kids are the ones that are going to be picked on, or bullied. That is not fair for the kids to have to endure that just because the parents want to do something different.

Blog #3: Melanie

1.) How does this article demonstrate the principle of social learning/modeling?

It seems to me that the article demonstrates that the parents do not want their child/children to

be influenced by social learning/modeling. At least not the social influences from the outside

world. The child/children are still being influenced by the behaviors that they are exposed to

within their own family – influences from their parent’s behaviors and ideas as well as from their

sibling’s behaviors and ideas.

2.) Do you think that more parents should take this approach to gender/sex interactions? Why or

why not?

No, I really do not, at least not to this extreme. I totally agree that children should not be forced

or heavily influenced to dress or behave in any certain way simply because of their biological

sex. I don’t believe that girls should only be allowed or heavily influenced to play with dolls,

or other “feminine” toys and I don’t believe that boys only be allowed or heavily influenced to

play with toy cars, or other “masculine” toys. I strongly believe that children have the right to

play with whatever toys they have an interest in playing with as long as that toy is safe. I believe

this allows the child to experience both aspects of femininity and masculinity, and in turn that

having been able to see and experience aspects of both sides they would become more balanced

and have a much better understanding of both. However when it comes to the child’s appearance

I believe there should be some limitations. I am not saying that a girl needs to only wear “frilly”

pink or purple dresses or that a boy should only wear blue or green outfits with sports logos but

there needs to be some consideration for how the child will be received in society. Especially

when the child is too young to understand his/her choices.

3.) Social accountability is defined as a conscious effort to construct your own and others'

gendered identities in ways that make you more socially acceptable. How would you apply

this definition/concept to this case study?

I think in this case the parents have decided to go to the extreme in the other direction. By not

helping guide their children’s choices until they are mature enough to understand these decisions

they have exposed them to needless questions and ridicule. This can be very confusing and

hurtful to the children. I do not necessarily think it is a good or healthy idea to allow your

children to dress in whatever they choose. If the child were simply playing dress up at home, I

would not see that as a problem at all, but to allow your child to dress up in clothes that would

most likely or certainly cause them to be teased, ridiculed, or rejected as a playmate by other

children is a different matter altogether. To me this is not only irresponsible and cruel, but can

also be very psychologically damaging to a young child. Children can be very hurtful when they

tease other children and this can have a very traumatic effect on the child that is being

victimized. Children deserve the benefit of having their parents help guide them through

decisions that they are not yet mature enough to understand. That does not mean that you have

to impose gender roles on your child, it just means that as a parent you have a responsibility to

consider how your child will be treated as the result of your actions. I believe this can be done

carefully and thoughtfully enough to where you are not turning your child into a “stereotypical”

and very limited little boy or girl, but helping them understand both sides of the coin without

exposing them to ridicule that they most certainly would not benefit from or even truly

understand yet.

4.) The Witterick/Stocker's have received a "deluge" of criticism in regards to their choice to

withhold Storm's sex from the public. I posted these on Facebook and it received quite a few

comments and most were not favorable. Why is their decision so controversial? Why is society

so critical of this decision?

The decision is so controversial because it is so extreme and it really does not make much sense

at all. They are allowing their children to make decisions that they are not mature enough to

make and it is the children that will pay the consequences of their parent’s radical “attention

seeking” approach.

I believe society is so critical of this case because it is so radical and there is a tremendous

potential for the children to suffer for decisions that they do not even understand. I do not believe

that it is ever a “good” idea to use small children as some sort of social science experiment. In

my opinion “all harm springs from excess” and this approach seems very excessive to me and

judging by the comments I read on line to many others as well.

Blog #3: Family & Gender

In May, Yahoo! news reported on a set of parents in Canada who do not disclose the sex of their children to the outside world. Here's a link to the story & also photos of the family:

News story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110524/ts_yblog_thelookout/parents-keep-childs-gender-under-wraps

Photos of the Family:http://photogallery.thestar.com/995120

In terms of chapter 7, the focus is on families as social institutions, which communicate gender and are gendered through communication. Institutions are "established patterns of behavior with a particular and recognized purpose; institutions include specific participants who share expectations and act in specific roles with rights and duties attached to them" (Sociologist Margaret Andersen, 2006, pp. 30-31). And are characterized by 3 external factors: 1) Like identities, institutions are complex and intersecting, 2) Are often intertwined with the state, 3) Influence and are influenced by gender.

Gender is a social institution and a cultural ideology. Think about gender as organizing social life beyond just individual roles, but to include the performance of social identities. In terms of family, gender, and communication, family is the first institution that we are introduced to. Family communicates norms about sex, gender, orientation, and other identity ingredients. It is our first source of information and one of our most vital in terms of gender and identity. Through families we learn about roles, are socialized into our roles, and give us social communicative scripts to follow. Families as social institutions do not stand alone, it intersects with politics & law (e.g. the debate over family values, the framing of welfare) and work (e.g. division of labor, second shift, compulsory heterosexuality) among others.

In terms of this week's class and the blog, please carefully read pp. 160 - 164(Parent-Child Communication) and apply the concepts of social learning, modeling, and gender/sex interactions with the Yahoo! news story about the sex ambiguous family. Here are some questions to get you going:

1.) How does this article demonstrate the principle of social learning/modeling?

2.) Do you think that more parents should take this approach to gender/sex interactions? Why or why not?

3.) Social accountability is defined as a conscious effort to construct your own and others' gendered identities in ways that make you more socially acceptable. How would you apply this definition/concept to this case study?

4.) The Witterick/Stocker's have received a "deluge" of criticism in regards to their choice to withhold Storm's sex from the public. I posted these on Facebook and it received quite a few comments and most were not favorable. Why is their decision so controversial? Why is society so critical of this decision?

Blog #2: Melanie

1.) What is Kilbourne's central thesis? (i.e. if you had to summarize her central message in 1-2 sentences, what would it be?)
· That there is nearly constant and overwhelming amounts of pressure put on women to fit into a section of society's idea of what a woman must be in order to be considered worthy of success, love or even acceptance. This pressure constantly bombards women to feel like they must "fit" into an unhealthy and even impossible physical ideal. This pressure is nearly everywhere you look, in advertisements, movies, television, magazines and it is extremely unhealthy and very damaging to women, young and old. Unfortunately as long as these forms of advertisements continue to sell products, and audiences swarm to the movies filled with size "Zero" starlettes this immense pressure will undoubtedly continue to palgue society.

2.) Is the advertising industry responsible for acknowledging these toxic cultural constructions?

· Technically/legally, probably not, however, I think they should be. This has been such a well publicized issue that they can hardly feign a lack of knowledge regarding the damage these advertisements can lead to. Simply acknowledging the toxic cultural constructions seems hardly sufficient.

3.) How can we as critical consumers and women push back against these narrow constructions?

· I think it is fair to say that society bears a great deal of responsibility for this problem as well. Society can send a strong message and have a powerful influence on advertising if more of us would simply show our opposition to this appalling situation by not only voicing our strong disagreement with this practice but also if we would actually stop buying or supporting products and movies/television that continue in this manner. By not showing our strong opposition for this situation we are in a way endorsing it and are thereby also sharing in the responsibilty for the consequences.

4.) Do you agree with Kibourne's claim that turning a person into a thing is the first step towards violence?

· Yes, I absolutely do agree with her. I believe it makes hurting someone much easier and guilt free if the aggressor can somehow make themselves beleive that their victim does not feel things in the same way that others do and are not wothy of better treatment or somehow deserves to be punished

Response to Blog #2 by Stephanie

I think that Kilbourne’s basic thesis is that the media and advertisements are creating an image of what is beautiful in our society that is just downright unrealistic. These unreachable goals for beauty create public health problems such as an obsession with thinness and violence against women because the media objectifies them. Kilbourne’s message is for us to recognize these issues and take a stand against them.
I believe that the media does have a responsibility for creating these unrealistic goals and ridiculous expectations of beauty. The images that they continue to fill adds, T.V., and movies with give society the idea that those images are what it beautiful and nothing else. People can’t help but feel the pressure to try to achieve these ridiculous images. If the media would start portraying more normal and realistic images via their advertisements and characters, less people feel this horrible pressure and less people would live their lives with such low self-esteem.
As women and consumers we can push back by, first of all, maintaining a positive body image. If we take care of ourselves solely to stay healthy and make OURSELVES happy, we can be influential on other women who are trying to attain unrealistic images. Also, we can push back by boycotting brands and products of companies that are repeat offenders in objectifying humans and portraying them in unrealistic ways.
I wouldn’t say that turning a person into a thing is the first step toward violence in every case, but in some cases yes. Psychological studies of murderers and physical abusers have shown that in many cases their motive for their actions is to assert their power over and individual and therefore, make themselves more powerful. Objectification of humans can contribute to them being able to feel more powerful over another person. Men and women who view their spouses and simply “eye candy” or “trophy wives” are more likely to be violent toward them because they do not view them as humans.

Blog #2 Jamie

Kilbourne's central thesis is that as long as sex sells, and that is what we depend on selling product, the dehumanizing of women and men will continue. We have to change what gets our attention to things, or things will not get better, they will continue to get worse.
The advertising industry is not the only responsible party for this toxic cutlural construction. If we as consumers were not buying in to the ads, they would have to come up with other ways to sell the product. So we are all respoinsible for this issue. There have even been law suits for false advertising for things like beer, because when they guy drank it, the beautiful women did not come up to him like they did in that ad. That is how sick our culture has became.
I am not sure how we can push back against the narrow constuctions, slowly what people think is attractive changes over timel. There are many people that think that models are too thin, but just thinking it is not going to change anything. We as a whole need to get back to thinking that healthy is attactive. In other cultures very large women are found to be the most attractive because they are a sign of health.
I do agree with her claim that by truning a person in to a thing it is taking the frist step in to violence. That is how the Hollicost started with the Nazi's. They turned the Jewish people in to things in the eyes of others, so it was "ok" to hurt them because "they were not even human". This also happens in other types of violence. And it has been happening for a long time. As a person that was in a violent relationship, trust me, the first step is becoming an object and not being a person.

Blog #2 Reminders

Remember please post your response to my blog post as a separate post. Also you will need to read and comment on each of your classmates' blogs. You need to have your blog post submitted by 8pm Friday and you need to comment on your classmates' blogs before class on Saturday.

As for Saturday's class, we will begin with the quiz on Learning Unit #2. Following the quiz we will discuss Chapter 4 Bodies and the blog. After that I will give a short lecture combining chapters 3 & 5.

Study guide for your first quiz is posted on this blog and also accessible via Dropbox. Please let me know if you have any questions about the quiz or the materials prior to class on Saturday.

Cheers!

~Sara

Blog #2: Attractiveness - Gender as Body Performance

This week we build upon core definitions and theories by examining how gender operates in interpersonal communication through voices, bodies, and language. It is important to note that gender and communication is not just limited to verbal "battles" between men and women over masculinity and femininity, but are most often displayed through nonverbal communication especially through Butler's concept of gender as performance.

The authors of your text call specially attention to cultural norms that define bodily beauty in very narrow, limiting ways. These boundaries do however shift over time (yay?), and our cultural interpretations of attractiveness do change as society evolves and changes. Remember when pale skin was beautiful or full figured frames were valued?

I don't really remember these times either, but sources say that we didn't always want to look like this:

Due to our narrow cultural conceptualization of beauty, and its ever changing depiction, unfortunately these standards have and will always be very, very difficult to attain. Advertising analyst Jean Kilbourne has been an active and vital voice in gender research that seeks to critique these unattainable, cultural constructions of beauty. Her documentary series, Killing Us Softly, has been a vital tool for critiquing not only the advertising industries, but some of our larger cultural discourses. For this week's blog, I would like you to watch this clip from Killing Us Softly and respond to the following questions:

1.) What is Kilbourne's central thesis? (i.e. if you had to summarize her central message in 1-2 sentences, what would it be?)

2.) Is the advertising industry responsible for acknowledging these toxic cultural constructions?

3.) How can we as critical consumers and women push back against these narrow constructions?

4.) Do you agree with Kibourne's claim that turning a person into a thing is the first step towards violence?

Quiz #1 Study Guide

Key Terms:

Intersectionality

Gender

Sex

Sexual Orientation

Heteronormativity

Race

Ethnicity

Hegemony

Identity

Heterosociability

Power

Culture

Chapter 1:

1. What does the metaphor “gender wars” mean?

a. How is it a structural metaphor according to Lakoff?

2. Describe one of the 4 reasons behind the pervasiveness of the gender wars myth (see pg. 6 – 7)

3. Define communication

a. How does communication relate to gender/sex?

4. What does the phase “systems of hierarchy” mean?

a. Name and define the 3 components of this system?

Chapter 2:

1. What is a worldview/paradigm?

2. What are the 3 approaches to gender and what are the assumptions behind each of these approaches?

3. Explain social learning theory and provide an example (either from the text or from real life experiences).

4. Explain a descriptive cultural theory and provide an example.

5. Explain a critical cultural theory and provide an example.