Final Paper: The Media Use of Women

One of the major media topics of the day is gender stereotypes that are portrayed in television, films, and other sources. Many argue that over-simplified views of men or of women can be damaging to developing individuals and may create a distortion of reality. However there is another issue that, though related, is not being discussed nearly as much – gender-based media interest stereotypes.

Gender stereotypes of media use exist very strongly. The perception is that males tend to gravitate towards media that is action or adventure oriented and focused on violence. Women on the other hand, are perceived as enjoying emotional stories and romance. At their extremes, these stereotypes translate into Spike TV for men and Lifetime for women, two cable channels aiming very directly towards their intended gender demographic. The majority of channels try to appeal to a broader audience, and some do so by mixing elements of action for the men and emotion for the women. However, this is still operating off a simplified assumption of what different genders want out of their media.

Gerard Jones addresses the question of what women are looking for in media in his book, “Killing Monsters: Why Children Need Fantasy, Super Heroes, and Make-Believe Violence.” Studies show that a young age, there are virtually no differences in the play habits and media preferences between girls and boys. However, around age 6, most girls begin to lose interest in action and violent play, and boys begin distancing themselves from playing house. However, Jones noticed that a large number of adolescent and adult females are drawn to elements of action and violence in media – enough to question the basis of the generally accepted gender-based media interest stereotypes.

The book suggests that girls, rather than losing interest in violent and action-driven media at a young age, simply divert their interest into different venues than boys do. Although in general they seem to lose an interested in violence for the sake of violence, girls retain a high level of interest in adventure stories that may contain violence as part of the problem or solution. They do turn their attention more towards the social aspect of their lives, focusing on relationship and social status, but even this at times this can become a sort of complicated war game for girls, as they strategize their own rise in popularity or the fall of others.

One of the ideas proposed by Jones is that girls retain an interest and need for action heroes as much as boys do, but cover this up in ways that are more socially acceptable. He gives the example of Star Wars, saying most women he has talked to about this issue have admitted that they felt more connected to the characters of Luke Skywalker and Han Solo than to Princess Leia, who is only interesting in the context of her relationships with Luke and Han. Similarly, they felt a connection to the character of India Jones and were just as vicariously involved in his adventures as boys watching the films were. However, girls then feel the need to preface this interested by stating that they found Indiana Jones to be attractive, attributing their interest to a romantic one, based on the idea that this is more socially acceptable.

This action of masking the true basis of interest is perpetuated by gender-based media preference stereotypes, as well as other gender stereotypes that exist. It is partially due to a conscious effort to retain gender roles, but it is also due to an unconscious interpretation of their own feelings into something that fits their view of what they ought to be interested in. This action then reinforces the stereotyped view, perpetuating its own acceptance.

One reason this model is intriguing is that it fits with several existing communication theories. According to the uses and gratifications theory, individuals are drawn to media that are useful or interesting to them in some way. This theory doesn’t attempt to define any set interests of groups of people, so certain inferences must be made when applying this theory. The gender stereotype would assume that women are interested in romance and emotional stories, and disinterested in action/adventure oriented stories. However, the model proposed by Jones would expect something entirely different – both men and women can be equally interested in participating in the same types of media, but it is their use of this media only which differs. Women in particular who are drawn to action/adventure media may use it as an outlet to their emotional and social needs.

The process that occurs when women mask their true resonance with the media fits the theory of cognitive dissonance. Women drawn to certain types of media that do not fit their own perceptions of what is acceptable, may alter their own perceived reason for interest in order to make it fit the model.

To further study this proposed model of women’s use of the media, a number of informal interviews were conducted with mostly college aged women, attempting to see whether women’s basic uses and interest in the media coincided with this model, closely followed the stereotype model, or was not explainable by either model.

There should be significant interested in finding out whether this model holds true for most women or not. If this in-depth theory of women’s media use could be shown to apply broadly, it could potentially have a great impact on the world of media, especially media targeting women. Rather than an oversimplified view that men and women have completely different media interests, this theory suggests that there are only slight differences in the application of different types of media. Beyond the influence on the industry, this model could also change the way most women perceive their own media interests – both the true reason for interest and the social acceptability of those interests.

Though the interviews were for the most part informal, each began asking the women about their own general media interest and their reasons for these interests. Then the model was explained, and asked if they felt their own interests mirrored it at all. At the beginning of the interview, the majority of women named “safe,” gender-acceptable titles and reasons for their interests. Classic and current romance films were named, as well as romance, drama, or fashion oriented television shows. However, as each interview progressed, it became very easy to tell that each individual woman’s media interests were anything but stereotypical. Some women had a more difficult time admitting these interests than others. Some admitted to loving hard science-fiction, others to enjoying action oriented series such as “Lost” or “24.” One interviewee gushed about her recent obsession with the TV series “The Office.” When asked what appealed to her, she at first detailed the romantic tension between the characters of Jim and Pam. When asked what other aspects of the show she enjoyed, she seemed to resist showing interest until the character of Dwight was mentioned. “Watching Jim torture Dwight is one of the main reasons I watch,” she admitted, going into the details of some of her favorite pranks.

Even some of the more “girly” media mentioned is indicative of interests beyond emotion and romance. The film Mean Girls was enjoyed by many of the women, a film that has elements of romance, but centers heavily in the social warfare of high school girls, backstabbing each other in a race for popularity and acceptance. The film is punctuated by a few scenes of comedic violence as fighting breaks out between different social groups, and one girl is hit by a bus in a scene that feels very much like divine retribution. The fact that such a film has become so popular with women strongly correlates with this theory, suggesting that women can accept and even embrace fighting and violence that relates to social and emotional interests.

When referring to the Star Wars or Indiana Jones examples, most women agreed that they were much more interested in the male protagonists than the female leads in both cases, and in several other examples as well. When asked why, many did immediately respond by attempting to show some level of romantic interest in the character or actor. As the interviewer attempted to delve deeper into their reason for liking these characters, some women were surprised. One admitted after the interview that she’d never thought about her own interest beyond attraction before, as no one – including herself – had ever assumed there was another reason. Other women were very aware of their own interests. One in particular completely lit up while explaining her underlying reasons, obviously excited that someone had finally assumed it wasn’t just attraction. She detailed her love for the action stars of fantasy series and films, admitting that she’d always identified with them and had wished she could have similar adventures when she was younger. When asked what she thought of the “damsel in distress” characters she made a disgusted face. “They’re useless,” she replied, laughing.

None of the women interviewed had heard of this model before, though a few of them immediately admitted that it made sense and resonated with their own media use. One interviewee immediately began nodding in total agreement. When asked if she had read the book she admitted she hadn’t, but that the theory seemed to make complete sense. Another interviewee was quiet as she contemplated the idea. When asked if she felt if it was indicative of her own behavior, she not only agreed, but confessed that the theory had perfectly put into words feelings she’d had her entire life.

However, not all women were as open to the theory. Though nearly all the individual women showed interest in very non-stereotypical media, some had alternative explanations. One felt that her interest in male characters was only due to the fact that male characters were so often the only leads available – if more female stars existed she would be more likely to be drawn to them. Another suggested that even though she did like one or two more action oriented shows, these were exceptions and the majority of her interests were for less violent, more emotional based media.
The topic of deferring their own interests to a more socially acceptable standpoint also received some very diverse feedback. A few of the women admitted that they were very aware of the fact that they’d felt outside pressure to conform their interests to fit a socially acceptable model. Of the women who this concept was new to, a few said it might be true, but most seemed skeptical. A few were very against the idea, firmly stating that they were aware of their own interests.

The skepticism in this model shown by the women may in part be due to the fact that this model assumes that women may on an unconscious level interpret their own interest media to fit the more socially accepted model. One major drawback faced during the study was the fact that if this process does indeed occur, it is not cognitive in most women. Only a small handful of women in the study readily admitted that this unconscious process may be occurring. Over half the women expressed either uncertainty or denied that this was the case. It’s fair to assume that most women wouldn’t want to believe that they aren’t directly aware of their own media uses and interests. Because of this, it can’t be declared whether this was indicative of evidence against the model or an argument for it. Direct questioning may not be the best approach to getting to the root of this issue.

In this case, it’s not likely that a scientific quantitative research project would be able to delve any deeper. The women participants seemed to offer more information during the most informal parts of the interview. For this reason it seems that a qualitative discussion group or ethnography type research project would be the best option for exploring this idea more in depth. If there is to be any further research, indirect questioning and observing the actions and interests of women might provide more insight than direct questioning was able to.

The study was able to show that the first part of this proposed model seems to be correct – women can in fact be drawn to action/adventure and violence, especially when used towards social and emotional goals. This can occur even if the program is aimed primarily at men. Despite the fact that there are a number of explanations that might explain this, there was also evidence that Jones’ model may be correct – enough to possibly warrant additional research into this model. Another sister-study researching the male use of drama and emotion in media may also provide additional insight.

The gender-based media interest stereotypes used today are generally acknowledged as just that – stereotypes. It’s commonly understood that individual interests are more complicated and diverse. However, there doesn’t seem to be many in-depth theories on the differences or similarities of media interests and uses between genders, so the stereotypes are often used to some extent to predict and understand interest differences between genders. This can often times be more harmful than useful, especially if it proves to be causing a massive misunderstanding within individuals of their own media needs and uses. A different model needs to be provided – one that offers increased insight into this topic.

 
Sources
Jones, Gerard. Killing Monsters: Why Children Need Fantasy, Super Heroes, and Make-Believe Violence. Basic Books. 2002. Chapter 5. pp. 77-96.

Paley, Vivian Gussin. Boys and Girls: Superheroes in the Doll Corner. University of Chicago Press. 1984.

Inness, Sherrie. Tough Girls: Women Warriors and Wonder Women in Popular Culture. University of Philadelphia Press. 1998

Smith and Connolly. The Ecology of Preschool Behavior. Cambridge University Press. 1972.

Thirteen informal interviews with women, mostly college age. Conducted in November, 2007.

Portfolio 3: Personal Media Use and Effects

I have noticed that my own media tendencies are not the same as those around me. There are areas where my consumption tends to follow general trends, but there are also areas where my personal preference differs quite a bit. Although with the availability of media these days in this country, it’s very unlikely that two individuals in my age and social group could be considered to have identical media tendencies as anyone else.

I tend to choose the internet over other media sources because of its versatility. It fulfills a variety of my needs and wants, including social, entertainment, and educational. It’s a good way to relax at the end of the day, and it’s impossible to run out of things to do online. A lot of people my age in this country are very drawn to the internet, for what I assume are the similar reasons to my own – it’s versatility and ability to fulfill many uses. Though the US doesn’t have the highest number of internet users, it does have the greatest level of internet penetration, according to the World Internet Usage Statistics website.

Obviously the internet has such a wide range of material that the needs and wants I fulfill could be vastly different than another individual. For example, I currently have an internet blog, yet I have a lot of friends and family members who don’t have one, or who dislike the idea of an online journal. The idea probably appeals to me because I like writing and playing with words. I also tend to keep most of my thoughts to myself and don’t really get very many chances to share them in social situations. A blog allows me to write them down and put them out on the web with the chance that someone will read it and know what I’m talking about.

I do have friends who have blogs, but I tend to use mine for very different reasons that other people I know do. Some friends write about the course of their day, or short personal thoughts on issues. I tend not to use my blog as a list of daily events, or free-for-all of my deepest thoughts. Instead I try to present well written thoughts on issues, reviews of films I have watched or games I have played, and when I do portray personal thoughts I try to present it in a complete and well written format, discussing both sides of an issue and coming to some sort of conclusion at the end. Perhaps part of this is due to my tendency to want to appear polished and well presented most of the time. I have observed a great deal of people who seem to lose several levels of intelligence when they go online because of their anonymity. I try to separate myself form these people by at least partially identifying myself depending on the situation, and attempting to portray a sense of thoughtfulness in my comments. Also, because I tend not to share things that are very personal in social settings, it makes sense for this to carry over into the internet world as well.

Another media activity I really enjoy is video games. Most of my friends are also video game players, so it generally surprises me when I hear people say they don’t play them, or have never been very interested in them. I also get occasional reminders that while I’m far from the only female who plays video games, I do seem to be in the minority among women in general. According to the ESA (Entertainment Software Association), 38% of gamers are female, and only 30% are females over 18.

I’ve wondered before why this medium appeals to me. In the past I’ve assumed it appealed to almost everyone, but this isn’t really the case, especially when taking my gender into account. I do have some tomboyish and feminist tendencies, and am generally against the idea of female characters being portrayed as nothing more than a damsel to be rescued or the sex object in media. Perhaps because video games put the controls in my own hand is one reason I’m drawn to this medium. The fact that I’m usually drawn to the small number of games with respectable female protagonists and strong female characters would also correlate with this explanation.

Another reason might be my love for interactive media in general. I would much rather feel like an active participant during media consumption than a passive audience. This would explain why in general I enjoy video games more than film and television, and would also explain another reason the internet is such a large part of my media consumption. Both internet and video games give me the power to control what I spend time on, when I engage in certain events, and how much time or effort I put into a particular activity.

I’ve grown up in an age of unparalleled media consumption, but I’ve also taken a lot of time for personal contemplation and meditation. I definitely feel like I’m able to separate my personal knowledge and preferences with those I’ve viewed in the media, but at the same time I know that in certain areas the media has a large impact on my worldview and even my view of myself. Because of this, I tend to subscribe to limited but powerful media effects. I feel that the majority of the time, I’m more in control of the media I use than it is in control of me. I’m very drawn to the uses and gratifications theory, because I believe that I choose the media I do for reasons. I have the power to pick what I consume, and I also have the power to choose which messages I will accept or reject. I personally try to remain an active participant in most of my consumption to limit the effects media has on me. I don’t believe it has the power to change me against my will. Part of me would like to believe that media has little to no effect on the individual, but I realize this isn’t true. I do believe that in certain situations the media can have a profound impact, and there are certain areas of my life where my personal experience is limited and I must rely on the media for most of my information. But as a whole, I believe that in most cases the individual is able to control their media consumption and use it to their benefit to grow and change as a person. I don’t believe that the media can significantly shape our growth and change without our own intention to do so.

Sources

Internet Penetration by World Region. World Internet usage Statistics News and Population Stats. 2007.
http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

Game Player Data. Entertainment Software Association. 2002-2004.
http://www.theesa.com/facts/gamer_data.php

Portfolio 2: Popular Media as explained by Contemporary Rhetoric Theory

It’s strange how the world can change so much in such a short period of time. Not only the events of our day to day lives, but our perceptions of the world around us and our theories for dealing with it can differ so vastly to what was once thought was truth. Ancient philosophers and rhetoric theorists enjoyed relatively simple communication theories, because they experiences relatively simplified communication systems. Individuals lived and conversed with each other, but beyond the occasional governmental decree, public event, or orator’s speech, “mass media” was not yet developed enough to complicate everything. With the appearance of more multi-media than anyone could ever fully utilize, the very definition of “rhetoric” has changed. Rather than public oral presentations, rhetoric is described as any form of persuasive communication at. A speech, a newspaper, a film – or a simple conversation about a film – are all “text” that can be considered rhetoric.

The contemporary rhetoric theorists all differ in their interpretations of how and why individuals perceive and share events. One of the more interesting theories presented is Ernest Bormann’s idea of “language as a symbolic convergence.” His theory presented the situation of one person in a small group making a comment about a person or event not present. He called these comments “fantasies.” He observed that these comments, when resonating with other group members, would often energize a group, causing other members to contribute information, opinions, or their own theories, resulting in a “fantasy theme.”

To understand how this theory applies in everyday life, let’s look at the example of “The Truman Show,” a film released 1998. The plot focuses around Truman Burbank, a man who lives inside the world’s most extensive Hollywood set. His entire life is a fabricated television series and he’s the only one who doesn’t know it. The film raised a lot of questions about reality, how we view our worlds, and how well we know those around us. The movie itself was good, but by no means was it an epic Hollywood film. The music was good but simple and special effects were minimal. Yet the film did very well both critically and with audiences. There was a huge buzz about the film after its release and it became a very hot topic of conversation for a while aferwards.

The appeal of this movie is very nicely explained by Bormann’s symbolic convergence theory. This particular film left a lot of room for “fantasies,” because it presented so many unanswered questions and unexplained symbols. If a small group viewed the film, afterwards someone might suggest that the film was a critique on modern day reality shows. Someone else might agree, and note the critique of commercialization in the film. Another might say that he thought the film was an effective allegory for how in real life, people often act out a role depending on how they want you to perceive them, and the first two members might agree that the theme certainly played a part in the film. As the comments chain out, the creation of a fantasy theme has already begun. This group now shares this fantasy. Rather than simply exchanging their opinions on the film’s message, they have all become actively engaged and eager to contribute to the group’s interpretation of the message. Everyone involved has shared their thoughts, and everyone will take away from the conversation insight gained from someone else’s opinion.

Anyone having had conversations about this film can probably still remember them, as the film lends itself to a lot of in depth discussion. It’s not difficult to find evidence of people’s desire to converse about this film. The Rotten Tomatoes website lists several critical reviews, and rather than simply critiquing the film’s acting or plot, nearly all reviewers offer their interpretation of what the film means. One reviewer from The Apollo Guide calls the film “a deliciously vicious and intelligent satire on the media who manipulate us, and the audience who encourages it.” Rory L. Aronsky from Film Threat discusses the religious connotations of the film in his review.

The retail site Amazon.com allows customer reviews, of which there are 454. Other films have garnered more than this, yet this is still an impressive number. Again, nearly all reviews move past simply critiquing the quality of the film and give their various impressions on what the film means. It’s somehow important for people to share with others their interpretation of the message, and many people have read the reviews, shaping their own thoughts about the film.
The reason Social Convergence Theory is important is because these shared fantasies help in the creation of identity; both the dynamic identity of the group, and the identity of the individual as he or she understands their own world and relates to others. Years later when the same group gather’s to see “The Matrix,” they will be able to draw from their conversation about “The Truman Show,” and continue to develop the same fantasy theme. This will in turn further develop their relationships with each other, and help shape their own views of reality, social structure, and film in general.

At the end of the film, Truman discovers his world for what it is and decides to leave – to live in the “real world.” Similarly, as media shapes and shifts our world, our own world view must change in order to accommodate it. Contemporary rhetoric theories can be used to better explain the current world than classical rhetoric often can, yet there’s no guarantee that they are absolute unchanging truth. Undoubtedly as the world changes theories will come and go, and Social Convergence Theory may fall out of favor for a different perspective. Yet for the time being it offers a very interesting perspective on shared social experiences and the development of these “fantasy themes.” It’s likely that elements of this theory will stick around and influence future theories that may appear, so it’s definitely worth studying and understanding.

Sources

Rotten Tomatoes Truman Show page
Apollo Guide review summary
Rory L. Aronsky review at Film Threat
Amazon.com Truman Show customer reviews
 

Portfolio 1: Communication Studies Major

When considering which major would best suit a person’s interests and goals, there is a wide range of factors to consider. Because people are so unique and individualized, it seems very unlikely there will be one “perfect” major for most people. The goal then becomes picking on that fits best given it’s strengths and weaknesses, and one that will be the least difficult to integrate into. For me, I believe this program is the Communications Studies major.

One weakness of the Communication Studies major that readily comes to mind is its difficulty to define to others. Whenever I’m asked what major I’m currently in, I’m often met with a blank stare and the question “What exactly does that mean?” After attempting some sort of response, the speaker moves on to an even more difficult subject. “What do you plan on doing with that after graduating?”

I can honestly say that I have no specific answer for that question. There are a number of things I would love to do after leaving college, but no one set idea or plan laid out for me. But this is one of the reasons I believe a major in Communication Studies will be very useful in the future. Rather than any of the other more defined communication majors, the Studies program offers a wide variety of knowledge and understanding about how media is created, projected, received, and how it affect’s the individual. This is information that would be highly useful in almost any media related field. Even aside from jobs, the information gained here will have a great impact on my communication skills and relationships with others. It will help me gain a better idea of how to best guide a family, knowing what effects media can have upon them. Also, it will help me better understand my own relationship with media and avoid allowing it to play an overemphasized or underemphasized role in my life.

One weakness of the Communication Studies major (in my mind) is that at times it doesn’t focus on the things I’m really interested in as much as I’d like. But obviously only so much customability can be allowed, since there are certain things the university would like us to learn that we may not be all that interested in, but will be good for our overall education. For example, there is a huge emphasis placed on research in the Communication Studies program, despite the fact that a research job is only one option after graduation. At first I disliked this emphasis, but the ideas taught are also applicable to several different areas. Being able to determine whether research is valid is an important skill when discussing communication theory, and realizing the best way to evaluate your own theories and media relationships is something that is important in all areas of life. To some extent every individual is already a researcher of the world around them, so learning the skills to be effective and efficient can always be applied.

Another emphasis I might want to change is the fact that the Communication Studies major tends to focus more on news related media, where my interest is mostly in film, television, books, and other fiction media. But the general theories taught can be applied anywhere, and the topic is discussed enough to learn the best way to apply them. It’s probably true that my main areas of media interest are the areas where I spend the most of my personal time. I enjoy a lot of entertainment media. I’m also extremely interested in technology as it applies to communications. How blogging and podcasting have changed the face of media, and how these individual communications affect big media conglomerates, is one area of interest. Current interactive multimedia and the possibilities presented with new technologies like Blu-ray, or innovative uses of the internet to directly connect people are also very intriguing to me. These topics hold great interest for me not only because a communications/media job is where I may end up, but also because these are the topics that are affecting my life ever day. I live and learn and play within a world of massive technological potential that is changing my life, the lives of others, and the face of media as a whole. I’ve not yet seen any major focus on these things, but the concepts being taught in the Communication Studies program are very applicable, and probably one of the majors on campus closest related to these topics. That’s one of the reasons I picked it, and one reason believe it’s a good fit for what I hope to do post graduation.

The Communication Studies program seems to focus mainly on broad concepts and communication theory as a whole. Because of this, it’s a major that teaches you how to learn, and one that can be a good basis for further education down the road. When eventually leaving college I will more than likely seek out a media related job that is somewhat more hands on and technical in nature. The Communication Studies program itself will not teach me how to do such a job. But what it will teach me how to continually evaluate and gain information from the world around me, how to properly use media as a tool in my own life, and generally how to continue learning throughout my entire life. Because I have great interest in a media related field, understanding these things is very important to me, and I feel that this major will help prepare me for a life of media use in the future.