Sociology Lens

In a new study from the Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism at the University of Southern California, it was revealed that women are both underrepresented and sexualized in the mainstream motion picture industry. The study, headed by Dr. Stacy L. Smith and Marc Choueiti, evaluated 100 films released in 2008 though survey and content analysis methodology and focused on the gender of all speaking characters, behind-the-scenes employees, and the hypersexualization of on-screen characters. Overall, their findings show that only 32.8 percent of speaking characters were female, 8 percent of directors were female (i.e., 92% were male), 13.6 percent were writers, and 19.1 percent of producers were females. Lastly, the findings report that females, especially 13- to 20-year olds, are sexualized on screen through sexually revealing attire, partial nudity, and an emphasis on a small waist and physical attractiveness. In their conclusion, Smith and Choueiti report that, “Our findings reveal that motion picture content is sending two consistent and troubling messages to viewers. The first is that females are of lesser value than are males. This is evidenced by their on screen presences and the lack of employment opportunities behind-the-camera. The second is that females are more likely than males to be valued for their appearance.”

While these findings work to substantiate the concern over both the symbolic annihilation of women in media (both in front and behind the camera) and the sexualization of young girls, this report does not directly address the question: Why do these findings matter? On page four of their report, the authors offer a slight mention of “effect,” but fail to elaborate on why these troublesome findings matter. In other words, how do these findings impact the industry, future constructions of media texts, and audience reception? They write, in reference to hypersexualization, “These findings are troubling given that repeated exposure to thin and sexy ideals may contribute to negative effects in some viewers and reinforce patterns of lookism in the entertainment industry.” What are the negative effects? What is “lookism?” As media scholars continue to grapple with the question of “effects,” it would have been extremely helpful to gain insight to Smith and Choueiti’s understanding of how these findings will “effect” audiences and cultural practice. While these scholars most likely have a theoretical framework for effects and audience reception, it was lost in the pages of the available report. So the question remains: What do these findings tell us about media’s relationship to gender inequality? What do these findings tell us about the status of hypersexualization in the film industry? In the end, these findings are extremely important, but without support from a cultural analysis, remain couched as an “industry update” and miss out on an opportunity for a critique of gender inequality, the sexual division of labor, and the continued social sexualization of women at the societal and cultural level.

Sexualised culture and young people’s sexual health: A cause for concern? By Clare Bale (Sociology Compass)

On March 25, The International Women’s Media Foundation revealed its two-year study, “Global Report on the Status of Women in the News Media” during its Leaders Conference in Washington, revealing that – not surprisingly – there is gender disparity in newsrooms worldwide. According to the final report (2011), “More than 150 researchers interviewed executives at more than 500 companies in 59 nations using a 12-page questionnaire” (p. 7). Although the report offers a regional breakdown of findings, the global results suggest that, overall; women are not in a position to make choices that impact the production of news. The findings of the study show that, “In this long-awaited extensive study, researchers found that 73% of the top management jobs are occupied by men compared to 27% occupied by women. Among the ranks of reporters, men hold nearly two-thirds of the jobs, compared to 35% held by women. However, among senior professionals, women are nearing parity with 41% of the newsgathering, editing and writing jobs” (p. 9).

Facing these numbers, the female media executives that met at the International Women Media Leader’s Conference in Washington were faced with developing a plan of action, and according to The Women’s Media Center blog, one of those strategies included quotas in order to level the playing field. Further, goals were developed based on the needs of specific regions. For example, for North America, delegates made a “pledge” to “Create a cross-platform executive-level coalition with an emphasis on salary transparency and negotiation.” Although the continued condition of the gender wage gap makes these findings appear predicable, the difference lies in the generation of nuanced findings rather than abstracted support for the disparity. In other words, the “Global Report” allows for the development of both globally- and regionally-specific strategies that can assist in the development of policy, social action and ultimately, change. And, drawing from the work of political economy of communication scholars such as Robert McChesney, John Nichols, and Ben Bagdikian, a policy of “leveling the playing field” in journalism affords an environment that is directed more toward democracy and inclusiveness and less toward the profit-motive and exclusivity. (more…)

While social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter have gained global notoriety for their influential stake in recent political movements, a recent article in the New York Times has shed light on another form of new media praxis that includes neither a “like” button nor a hashtag. The article, titled “Keeping Women Safe Through Social Networking,” brings attention to the success of an organization called Hollaback!, a project that, according to the website, “is a movement dedicated to ending street harassment using mobile technology.” Hollaback! began as a blog in 2005 and by 2010, has become an organized movement that includes various city-based sites covering areas such as Buenos Aires, London, and Portland, Oregon. Emily May, the organization’s current executive director, partnered up with Oraia Reid, executive director of the New York City-based RightRides for Women’s Saftey, “to launch a mapping project that would allow folks to map their sexual harassment experiences in real time for the first time in history.” If an individual experiences sexual harassment, the website offers three ways to share their story: through a phone application, email (through phone or computer), or submitting the story on the website. The ability to send in a story through an individual’s mobile device allows for instant reporting and allows the user to send in a picture of either the site or the perpetrator, or both.

Through its function as a database for collecting personal accounts of sexual harassment, Hollaback! is a project that is working toward not only awareness of these offenses, but their eradication as well. By contextualizing each incident through mapping, Hollaback! visually tracks reported offenses so that users can witness their material nature. According to the website, “By collecting women and LGBTW folks’ stories and pictures in a safe and share-able way with our very own mobile phone applications, Hollaback! is creating a crowd-sourced initiative to end street harassment. Hollaback! breaks the silence that has perpetuated sexual violence internationally, asserts that any and all gender-based violence is unacceptable, and creates a world where we have an option – and, more importantly – a response.” While the website does not offer a detailed strategic plan in terms of ending street harassment, it appears that their database will serve as evidence for policy change or the updating of current laws regarding sexual harassment. Along with larger plans for social change, the site offers a sense of immediate community for women who have experienced sexual harassment while alone on a business trip, traveling, or any other number of unfortunate experiences. (more…)

After CBS released a statement (15 February) that their chief foreign correspondent, Lara Logan, had been, “surrounded and suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers,” news of the unfortunate event (which occurred on 11  February, the day Mubarak stepped down) instantly spread to various mainstream news media outlets, including BBC News (“CBS’s Lara Logan attacked by Egyptian mob in Cairo”) to The Huffington Post (“Lara Logan Suffered ‘Brutal’ Sexual Assault in Egypt“) as well as feminist blogs including Feministing (“When rape is a risk that comes with the job”) and Jezebel (“CBS Reporter Lara Logan Sexually Assaulted in Egypt”). The Committee to Protect Journalists, an organization of which Logan is a current member, released the following statement from CPJ Chairman Paul Steiger: “We have seen Lara’s compassion at work while helping journalists who have faced brutal aggression while doing their jobs. She is a brilliant, courageous, and committed reporter. Our thoughts are with Lara as she recovers.” While sexual assault is an otherwise private matter for most, the CBS statement ended with the following – “There will be no further comment from CBS News and correspondent Logan and her family respectfully request privacy at this time” – confirming that the story was released with Logan’s consent. This story has received so much attention that by 10:07pm MST, The Huffington Post version of the story had been recommended by 4,564 Facebook users and had generated 1,346 comments.

After a review of comments from various posts/articles, it appears that this incident has been received with divergent reader reactions, including worries over the future of female journalists, worries over the worry over female journalists, anger at Egyptians, and anger at Logan for returning to Cairo after she was previously detained by Egyptian authorities. However, aside from reader reactions, other interesting and related questions remain: What are the politics behind releasing this particular story at this particular time? Why was a story about the sexual assault of a female journalist the primary story on The Huffington Post? Is this story being “used” politically? If we take into account the agenda-setting function of media and its notion that “media don’t tell us what to think but what to think about,” this particular story, officially released four days after the assault and during a wave of new protests from Islamic countries, may work to reignite fears about the Egyptian public, anger at Obama for supporting Egypt, fears about protests in Bahrain, etc. and, in addition, may serve as detrimental support for the argument that female journalists should no longer cover dangerous situations. On the other hand, however, this story could bring attention and success to the need to enact policy on the protection of female journalists (based on gender violence, not gender inferiority). According to Feministing’s post: “Doing everything in our power to ensure the safety of women reporters – and supporting them unequivocally when that safety is threatened or violated – isn’t just important on feminist grounds. It’s important on journalistic grounds, too.”

Unspoken: Foreign Correspondents and Sexual Abuse by Judith Matloff (Columbia Journalism Review)

Studying the Sociology of Journalists: The Journalistic Field and the News World by Roger Dickinson

In the midst of escalating events in Egypt – including the recent announcement from President Hosni Mubarak that he will not run for another term, yet will remain in office until fall elections – an interest in bringing Al Jazeera English (launched in 2006) to American television sets has begun in reaction to data that nearly half of the 2,500% increase in online traffic (since 28 January) – which includes video of its television feed –  has been due to American viewership. At present, Al Jazeera English, in broadcast form, is only available in three American cities: Washington, D.C.; Toledo, Ohio; and Burlington, Vermont as well as the national channel of MHz Networks, available through DirecTV, while the rest of American viewers are relegated to its online format. According to Tony Burman, head of North American strategies for Al Jazeera English, this limited arrangement is a direct result of pre-Obama politics and subsequent reluctance from cable companies. He was quoted in a Huffington Post article as stating the following: “There was reluctance from these companies to embark in a direction that would perhaps be opposed by the Bush administration. I think that’s changed. I think if anything the Obama administration has indicated to Al Jazeera that it sees us as part of the solution, not part of the problem.” However, according to a recent (31 January) LA Times article, both Comcast and Time Warner declined to comment on their interest in carrying Al Jazeera English.

Interestingly, these reports come at the same time (1 February) as data from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press claims that there was, as their headline suggests, “Limited Public Interest in Egyptian Protests” during the last week in January. According to their findings, which were drawn from “telephone interviews conducted between January 27-30 among a sample of 1,007 adults 18 years of age or older living in the continental United States,” there was a disconnect between the amount of media coverage of the protests in Egypt versus “news interest.” While “the media devoted more attention to news about unrest in the Middle East (20% of coverage) than any other story last week,” only 11% of respondents “cite news about protests in Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries as the story they followed most closely last week (after stories covering the aftermath of the Arizona shootings and the State of the Union address). While criticisms could be made of sample size and quantitative research in general, these findings do tell a story about the “general population” to a certain extent, at least those who pick up their phones and participate in a research survey. So what does Pew’s findings have to do with Al Jazeera English and its availability in the United States? (more…)

By Rachael Liberman

In a recent critique posted on The Huffington Post (18 January), Bestselling Author and Speaker Rebecca Walker (note that this “title” introduction comes from The Huffington Post and fails to include her work as a prolific feminist) poses the following question, which also serves as the title of her article; “Does This Lego Toy Send the Wrong Message to Children?” Stemming from her concern over the possible normalization of the prison-industrial complex,” Walker points out that one of the Lego Group’s toys, the “Prison Transport Vehicle,” presents incarceration as “play,” which is similar to her, and other’s, conceptualization of the way that African Americans are treated in the criminal justice system vis-à-vis the disciplinary power elite. She writes, “But at a time when more African Americans are in the criminal justice system than were enslaved in 1850, the mass incarceration of one – arguably targeted – group is a lot like war, and thus the Prisoner Transport Vehicle most definitely qualifies as making ‘war seem like child’s play’. Or, in this momma’s speak: indoctrinating kids into a for-profit system that often denies citizens adequate legal representation; strips them of basic human rights; criminalizes them for a lifetime; and rarely offers hope of rehabilitation or opportunity for personal, psychological growth.”

Later in the article, Walker calls for “a little more scrutiny” over the Prisoner Transport Vehicle as well as other toys that “normalize incarceration.” So what aspects of incarceration is this toy normalizing? Drawing on Foucault’s reading that the process of normalization creates an effortless dichotomization of “normal” and “abnormal,” it appears that this toy has the potential to make getting transported to jail “normal,” getting handcuffed and arrested “normal,” etc. In other words, it seems that playing with the Prisoner Transport Vehicle allows for children/adults (the website offers products for individuals aged 0-12+) to channel their knowledge about the criminal justice system and incorporate it into “play.” Whether or not these children will incorporate the act of consciously “playing God, symbolically or otherwise,” as Walker suggests, is based on many factors, including their cultural context. That being said, Walker’s concern with the possibility of children combining this particular toy with racist ideologies they’ve learned from their particular socializing bodies is an astute observation. Normalizing practices come in many forms, including the body shape and size of Barbie, as well as the fact that when I went to the LEGO website there was a separate category for “girls” within the sixteen categories available for purchase. (more…)

By Rachael Liberman

Now that Wyclef Jean has officially announced his bid for president of Haiti, serious questioning has (temporarily) replaced snap skepticism in an attempt to understand the recording artists’ motives, plans and eligibility. While Jean’s “Open Letter” offered a characterization of his emotional investment, a recent interview with Rolling Stone offers more campaign-specific clues. According to a report posted on the magazine’s website today (10 August): “Jean says ‘the number one problem in Haiti is corruption,’ and in addition to repairing the nation’s infrastructure, he would make it a priority to move all of the earthquake-displaced citizens out of their makeshift tent cities and into ‘agrarian villages’ that will provide basic necessities like food, water and shelter. Jean also foresees a solution for the unemployment problem. ‘With everything going on in Haiti right now, the contracts that will be coming in within the next six months to a year, you should be able to put a population to work right now’.” The FAQ section of his campaign website offers additional outlines for change on issues such as education and poverty, but it refrains from any concrete political plans. Citing Nelson Mandela as a significant influence, Jean is running as a non-partisan “neutral” candidate under the “Viv Ansamn” (“Live Together”) party, which is primarily interested in hearing multiple points of view rather than staunchly sticking to one ideological perspective.

Unfortunately, however, Jean’s successes within American capitalism as a recording artist and his participation (founder) with the Yele Haiti Foundation after the earthquake (which is under scrutiny for financial misconduct) aren’t winning over the Haitian population. The LA Times reports that even though most of the younger population supports him, older residents are confused due to the fact that he doesn’t speak their language, is not a politician and has not lived in Haiti since he was a child. In an LA Times article titled, “Can Wyclef Jean Save Haiti?” Joe Mozingo quotes several residents that are less than thrilled with the bid. Mozingo writes: “Jean, 39, might need to do more convincing among members of the intellectual and political class, many of whom are skeptical that he could legally qualify as a candidate, much less govern this country. ’First, he doesn’t know how the state works,’ said Laennec Hurbon, a prominent Haitian sociologist. ‘He hasn’t any knowledge of the political parties. This is not a good thing for democracy in Haiti.” In addition, American celebrities (Jean’s colleagues) have been outspoken regarding Jean’s recent political activity. During a CNN interview, Sean Penn stated: “This is somebody who’s going to receive an enormous amount of support from the United States, and I have to say I’m very suspicious of it, simply because he, as an ambassador at large, has been virtually silent. For those of us in Haiti, he has been a non-presence.” And Jean’s former Fugees bandmate and Haitian native, Pras Michel, recently spoke out against Jean, stating that he “wasn’t the right type of leader to help the poverty- and earthquake-ravaged country of Haiti,” according to MTV.com. (more…)

By Rachael Liberman

As box office numbers for Christoher Nolan’s Inception continue to rise  – right now, Variety reports that the film has grossed $6M ($149M total) – so do the number of individuals that are confronted with the question: What if someone could control my thoughts through my dreams? Inception successfully conceptualizes this ability; Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his team of “experts” use unexplained technology to enter dreams and plant “ideas” into the subconscious that will, according to their logic, eventually seep into an individual’s consciousness. By entering through the subconscious mind, covert operations (including being paid to implant an otherwise controversial idea) are carried out undetected. But what if you didn’t even need to enter the subconscious to implant an idea? What if you could manufacture a desire and send it straight to an individual’s consciousness? While audiences have been pondering the radical notion that ideas can be planted into an individual’s subconscious state, they may not realize that “inception” via consciousness has been occurring since the day they were born. Yes, you guessed it: Advertising.

According to Jean Kilbourne (1999),”The fact is that much of advertising’s power comes from this belief that advertising does not affect us. The most effective kind of propaganda is that which is not recognized as propaganda. Because we think advertising is silly and trivial, we are less on guard, less critical, than we might otherwise be. It’s all in fun, it’s ridiculous. While we’re laughing, sometimes sneering, the commercial does its work” (Can’t Buy My Love, p.27). Beyond the notion that advertising turns audiences into commodities (see Dallas Smythe) is the unsettling reality that advertising can successfully plant the idea that we “need” a material object (beauty products, Mac products, etc.). Advertising, as an arm of the Consciousness Industry, appeals to our emotions, and at its most successful, has the ability to alter priorities and rationality. However, as Kilbourne notes, advertising’s genius is that it operates in the form of an effective cultural backdrop; its omnipresence is desensitizing. So, while Inception is a mental exercise in the possibility of subconscious manipulation, advertising is the actual practice (yet not always successful) of manipulating our conscious desires. In the end, entering an individual’s dream seems like a lot of work when all one has to do is construct a seductive message and deliver it to trained and willing participants.

“Advertising” from The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology

By Rachael Liberman

As any respectful Western feminist knows, meddling in the affairs of non-Western women is a theoretical faux pas. Concerns, of course, are one thing, but condemnation outside of historical and cultural contexts, or “border crossing” has been ruled as downright oppressive (see Chandra Mohanty, Gayatri Spivak and Uma Narayan, among others). Issues such as genital mutilation have been fiercely debated among feminists, focusing more on the matter of Western normalizing judgment than the act itself. Discussion over the Muslim veil is another hot-button issue, and with the recent steps that France has taken to ban its adornment (specifically, those that cover the face) in public, it appears that legislation may temporarily replace feminist rhetoric surrounding the debate.

According to an article in The New York Times: “The draft bill says that ‘no one can, in the public space, wear clothing intended to hide the face’. The bill also defines ‘public space’ broadly, including streets, markets and private businesses, as well as government buildings and public transport. A fine of $190 will be imposed on those wearing the full facial veil, and anyone who forces a woman to wear such a veil will be punished by a fine up to $38,000 and a year in jail, doubled if the victim is a minor.” Further, the article reports that the bill is being defended (by the parliamentary leader of Mr. Sarkozy’s party) “on the grounds of public security and as a vital assertion of French identity and values.” The article later quotes Mr. Sarkozy as stating: “The burqa is not welcome in France because it is contrary to our values and contrary to the ideals we have of a woman’s dignity.” (more…)