The feminist movement has restructured the way faminly life is today. We no longer see the females playing the roles of nurturers and homemakers (as we discussed in class). It is because of feminism, that this push for equality among genders is now the only acceptable way of living. However, there is still controversy over the feminist theory. Even though women are in the workforce and hold very important positions in our society, feminists still believe there is discrimination. In one article, a study showed that more than half of sunday morning news shows did not include women, whether they be the host or guest. Refer to this article: http://www.feminist.com/resources/artspeech/media/shesource.html
Do you think the statistics listed in this article are surprising?
After I read this article, I thought that the numbers were very surprising. I watch the news in the morning but never really noticed if women are equally on the shows as men. Perhaps this is because the study was done between 2004 and 2005. It stated that the news we recieve currently comes from male voices and perspectives, yet I tend to question this. Kelly Ripa? Nancy Grace? The ladies on the view? Aren't these all women who relay the current news messages to us too? This article makes you question whether or not males do dominate media or is it just feminist groups surveying only "SUNDAY NEWS" and not looking elsewhere? So now we see one article examining the media for not putting women more in the spot light. YET, today we have a female presidential candidate running. Hilary Clinton, the first female candidate to run for president, has a huge number of supporters (and may even win this race according to some sources). Whether this happens or not, Clinton, a female politician, is in the spotlight just as much as the other male candidates.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/26/AR2007012601626.html
This article talks about how women now may be voting for the right reasons with a female candidate running. It found that women vote on impulse or because of the information they get from their husbands/fathers. They rarely read political magazines for information. As stated, "Two million more men than women read either Time or Newsweek; more men listen to radio news and talk radio, read the paper and get news online. Only broadcast television news plays to more women than men, and a lot of that is TV news magazines and morning shows. Not only do fewer women read the newspaper, but almost half the women surveyed said they "sometimes do not follow international news because of excessive coverage of wars and violence."
Hilary Clinton is attracting more women and they seem to be interested in learning about her/politics. As stated in the article, "They saw her as "smart" and determined not to be just another first lady." Do you think this is a political decision or personal decision for women that are more interested in voting now?
This article raises many questions dealing with women and politics. What do you think this means?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
The article from feminism.com had some surprising statistics. But, if the authors looked at more than just Sunday news programs they would see that, at least in the example of Good Morning America, male and female representation in terms of hosts is equally balanced. GMA has two anchors, both female. This is balanced by a male weatherman and a male news anchor. If this article is true, whose is to blame for the lack of female representation on Sunday morning news shows? Are the networks responsible for this? Maybe the decision makers feel that using a female expert to discuss Elizabeth Edwards and breast cancer will resonate more with the public than using a male expert. And, perhaps, networks feel that having a male expert commenting on the Iraq war will somehow give the story more validity. Or is it audience based? Do more men watch these programs and therefore networks feel that they must appeal to their audience by using more male experts and hosts?
My comment is in regards to whether of not the decision to vote and the reason why people/ women are interested in voting for a woman president. If we look at the coverage all the candidates are getting (not just Clinton) we see that a large portion does not even mention their political views and more whether or not we are "ready" for a female/ black president. Sure, some women are going to vote for Clinton simply because she, like them is female. Just like in the case of Obamah, black people, I am sure will vote in his favor just because they share similar physical/ historical characteristics and backgrounds. On the other hand I am sure there are women out there who will vote against Clinton because they disagree with her political plans/ outlook even though they are female. I think in the end it comes down to a balance between personal and political interests when it comes to voting. Some will indeed out weigh others and will be specific to each person and how much they are informed and or educated plays a major roll.
I think that Hillary Clinton's bid for presidency is good and women's interest in the election is as well, on either account, be it political or personal. If her candidacy only increases the number of women voters then it will have accomplished something positive in terms of modern feminism.
I think the statistics on readership and viewership are interesting and that women today do get their political news, as one woman in the Washington Post article stated, from men. The two-step flow exemplified and accrediting men (husbands, fathers, TV guest experts, news anchors…) as the leaders in this case.
There have been many advances in the feminist push against male hegemony in America's patriarchal society, but there are many more to be made. Knowledge and information are the empowering tools and a major way to level the playing field would be to have more women in power, or, men with feminist agendas. Also, changing the apparent two-step flow of information in regards to politics could have positive, equal results. Creating new outlets of this information curbed toward women is an option.
I think Hillary Clinton's bid is good at the very least because it brings these issues up and will perhaps spark new studies and fund new programs.
I was a little surprised by the statistics showing far fewer women covering the news than men. There seems to always be a female counterpart to the male on the set so I guess this took me by surprise. As for the election. Unfortunetely, people sometimes vote on things other than policies (personality, race, gender, background etc...) How many times have we seen candidates lose races because they weren't "fluent enough" and didn't have enough charisma. Because of this, many women will vote for Hillary just because she is a women, just as many men will not vote for her citing the same reasons. Also, Clinton is getting much recognition because of her last name. Another Clinton in the White House excites some people and angers others. Whatever the reasons for the coverage, there is no doubt women in politics have played an increasing role and are demanding the rest of the country to take notice. Whether it is Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton, women are showing they are truly equal in the workplace.
Should there be a balance between males and females delivering the news? Also, it is important to look at the rest of the staff behind the scenes in the production of a television program, such as the writers, artists, producers, etc. Should there be an equally balanced amount of male and female creative talent behind the scenes as well? What about sponsors and corporations who are financially involved with a news program, how do they influence the content of a program and what gets read, and by whom? I don't find the statistics in the article surprising, but I do not necessarily believe them either. There are many ways in which someone can present data in order to try and validate something. I feel as though the study they conducted was extremely limited and weak, and should be taken with a grain of salt. As far as the election is concerned, I believe that female voters will be just as critical of Clinton as they will be of any other candidate.
-Derek Varga
Apparently all women do is sit on the couch all day and listen to the men in their lives talk about international affairs.
Thats what I got from reading the "You've Come A Long Way, Maybe" article.
This article was presented as one about women and voting, not women and their apparent ignorance in politics or news...which is what the article turns into. Many people don't read newspapers, get their political beliefs from other people, and don't vote for a candidate for issues un-related to campaign or policy issues. This piece makes it seem like women are an exception to the majority, a rare group of foreign species who aren't completely absorbed in politics.
Some of the focus, about halfway through, is about women getting their political information from other people and not literature. Who doesn't subconsciously form beliefs based on others? We may not realize it, but engaing in political conversation and simply listening to other people has a profound impact on our political thoughts.
Who says Clinton only can appeal to women? I definitely agree that her run for the White House will draw more women voters, but if women are going to make a presidential vote based completely on gender, they shouldn't be voting at all. This goes for anyone.
As for the earlier article about more men as anchors and guests than women, the percentage was 56. Thats 6% more men on news shows than women. Why is this something to be damned? I think that number is pretty amazing actually. It's almost completely split evenly. I could've sworn feminism was about equality, not domination.
Honestly, how many times have you watched the news and said, "geez, I wish there was a woman delivering the news" ? I'm not sure how much people even think about whether a man or a woman is telling them the news -- it's just us and other scholars sometimes (over)analyzing what goes on in the media landscape.
Someone brought up the idea that newsrooms should be the ones that are diverse. I completely agree with this point...I think the newsroom and the people behind the scenes should be the most diverse of any area of the media outlet. As media professionals, we have to make sure our newsrooms are diverse so different opinions and ideas are brought forward. And getting people with different races/religions, etc. isn't good enough. Newsrooms should also make it a point to get people from different geographic locations. People that come from California or Michigan might have two completely different approaches to a story…taking advantages of these differences is something that would be helpful to the news organization.
Post a Comment