Double standard to maternity and work

“Apparently, by virtue of having ovaries and a uterus, women are automatic mommies or mommies-to-be” (Valenti, 2007, p. 151).
There are many discussions on the maternalization of the female body in terms of law and regulation. Frug (2007) argues that in society women have the responsibility to fulfill the motherhood role, and legal discourse supports the maternity issue. However, there are also many contradiction in social system upon the motherhood issue of women. Valenti (2007) perhaps mentioned this as a double standard to woman. As an example, the cultural mechanism permits and mandate women to fulfill particular roles. In these roles, women have the responsibility to give birth and to nurture the children, while labor work market sometimes pushes conflict with mothering role through industrialized and competitive system, that did not give space for a woman to fulfill this role.

 For example, in my country, government worker should be able to move from one province to another if they get mandate from the government. However, the government did not consider if the women should move, what about her husband and children? Should they move, as well? Should they try long distance family? If she did not move, it is difficult for her to increase her professional position. In this situation, the government act like a greedy industry that invade the family union, through their order and command without caring the demand from society to woman as the one who should follow husband and in the same time push them to be a “good mother.” 

Woman in this situation stuck in difficult decision and sacrifice whether the people call them as “ambitious career oriented mother” or “limited-stuck-employee.” Finally, again and again, the one that should be blamed is the woman, because she cannot fulfill all this double standards and also incapable to satisfy everyone who should get the benefit in this issue.

Marriage Vaganza

“We are expected to go from boy crazy when we were little, to bridezillas as adult” (Valenti, 2007, p. 131).

This statement is intriguing for me because I feel that I am included in the construction of “that the only thing on gals’ minds is marriage” (Valenti, 2007, p.135). I have to admit that my decision not to pursue a further career in the US that was “thrown under my feet” is because I want to get married. However, I fully understand the reward and punishment on my decision, and I have to admit to the world that I am a “bridezilla” who is obsessed in the fiesta and privilege of marriage vaganza. Let’s rock on more to this ironic but intriguing discourse on marriage.

In many cultures, adult women are expected to get married. The idea of getting married constructs the individuals to build the social institution. “Bride and groom” and all those “lalala” jazzy things are a respond to the social norm, values, laws, and social pressures (Goode, 1982). In construction level, married become a standard for women and men to pursue the completion of happiness as adults. It is also a part of building commitment between two individuals who want to live together.

Now, let’s go to more pragmatic level of discussion! The economic theory in married leaves the question of how married, as rational choices, can be an option to individual become more productive in a shared economic entity rather than being single (Becker, 1981). Now, the question is, if I can pursue my career that will give me much more income than when I get married, should I get married? Fascinatingly, many research also found that the independency of women will delay the timing of married and the age of women that ever married will be older (Bloom&Bennett, 1990; Oppenheimer, 1988; and Blossfeld& Huinick, 1991). 

 A theory called specialization and exchange also argued that superiority in economic status shrinks the possibility of marriage for women, and as a consequence of the overall number of marriage rates is declining (Becker,1981). In his books “New Home Economics”, Becker argued that people marry to maximize the shared economic benefit and form marriage as a rational choice framework. Thus, women and men fulfill their “want and need” in terms of economic by getting married. In his arguments, he conveys two consequences of the theory. First, higher status women become less attractive because they are less likely to fulfill the domestic role especially in home production or other attractive roles. In this statement, I agree with Valenti (2007) when she mentioned that women in the reality show of the Bachelor are portrayed as stupid, naive, pathetic, gold digger, do awful things to each other, and “do not give a s***” on their dignity.” These portrayals of woman are much more attractive to watch than a smart and elegant woman who has high value to her self. Second, the higher status women also get less benefit from marriage. This theory suggests the gender relationship and roles related closely with economic status and marriage, or often named the “independence hypothesis.” If I am independent, have high status in the economy, and smart, why should I get married?

Therefore, marriage that previously prominent in normative and pragmatic reasons, in the contemporary era, marriage can be seen only as a normative respond, if one cannot find any benefit of married in economic. No, wait! I am not trying to argue that I will not get married. However, I have to admit, the idea of married and career is a “hard food” to “chew and swallow” in my personal decision. I know that my financial condition now can make me independent enough, even better than get married. However, there are many other theories beyond economic and normative. I call it pragmatic love. I’m just drowning in the abundant love that I terribly missed, when I am thousand miles away from my love one. I just cannot wait any longer to embrace my own standard of happiness that may be different with other girls who think that career should be the first. I may be included in the naive bridezilla. However, I construct my own happiness, not because of mass media standard. I construct my standard of happiness based on my own field of experiences, future hopes, and frame of references, and I am happy with it.

Finally, I can say that I am a bridezilla who want to enjoy the marriage-Vaganza, because I believe in my normative value and commitment. I decide it, (for now) not because of any social constructions, pressures, or punishment to force me, but because I am pursuing my happiness that cannot be measured by any economic value, and I called it as “love.” As a human being, who identify my gender role in feminism values, I feel comfortable to choose to get marriage and take another chance for other career because,

“When a woman and man have promised to give each other love, to be mutually supportive, to bring together care, commitment, knowledge, respect, responsibility, and trust, even if there are circumstances of inequality, no one uses that difference to enforce domination” (Hooks, 2004, p. 177).

I do not feel any domination of my partner or either way. We are happy, even though we may not as rich as when we are apart as individuals. We just believe to be together now, perhaps a little bit poor, but at least two souls can be gathered as one. No more worry to look for another, and feel lonely. Perhaps it is too naive. But that is me, and I am happy about it.

Research ideas:

1. Research about the construction of marriage in different countries.

2. Research about the language people use to categorize those who are not marriage, such as spinster, leftover women, miss. cheesy, etc.

3. What about the gay marriage issue and the utterances about this issue in digital media such as blogs, online forums, and facebook?

Media and The Lonely Deviant

Every time I consume mass media such as TV, podcast, newspaper, etc; I always have a battle in my main. The main question appears in my brain: 

Am I the “queen/king audience?” (who can be freely interpret the media and have full command to my mind), or Am I the “slave audience” who follows the representation in media message and follows the media interpretation power about the world? Frankly speaking, I do not like to be in the second choice because: “I’m (not) a slave for you (media)” (Britney Spears, 2001) but my resistant and rejection doesn’t mean that I am immune to media message injection. 

Orthodox media concern on “media polysemy and semiotic democracy,” which means that the audience will have diversity in understanding the media message. Diversity and resistant exist but it doesn’t mean that the audience is free, have power, and strengthen the idea of audience democracy. The second challenge is the audience is not necessarily always able to analyze, reject, or interpret the media. Therefore sometimes (for certain issues especially something that the audience have no direct connection with it) audience will get influence by the media. I have seen an interesting research when I was in high school. Someone put a glass of water which is labeled “HIV person has drunk from this glass, would you dare to drink from the same glass?” and no body dare to try it! After I ask whether they believe that HIV AIDS has no influence through saliva, and they say yes, but they just fell disgust and reduce any possibility of AIDS in their life. It means that active audience does not necessarily immune to media exposure (p.415) and inconsistency in interpretation and reaction occur.  

In my opinion, people tend to have stronger opinion to fight the mainstream media message if the issue is connected with their daily experience or the issue tend to jeopardize their communal believe. For example it is easier for Indonesian people to distrust the media message that Indonesia is the invader of East Timor (such as from the news of CNN, ABC or documentary film from Noam Chomski). They have personal experience from communal sharing or parental information that many people of East Timor want to be part of Indonesia but they are forced to be in East Timor or East Timor is poor and unstable therefore it is disadvantages for them to release from Indonesia, and all the idea that Indonesia “save” East Timor from problem by “in-vade-tegrate” them (Facebook response).

The resistant or diverse believe is strong because of the collective meaning has confirm individual believe. I think I am able to be resistant to media message or association for certain issue related to my life. However I am not the “strong queen”, I need various dependent variables to help me convince myself that my belief is true through communal validation (culture or behavior), alternative media confirmation (still media but at least it is not mainstream), and personal experience (which should be confirm by other’s experience). Those are all my excuse of being deviant. 
“I can be deviant but I do not want to be alone!”

"HOT" Ideas for future research:

a. Research in the variety of news/issues perspectives in digital media, such as YouTube, blogs, or website. For example: How Web 2.0 frames an issue, such as abortion, East Timor, tobacco campaign, etc. (choose one)

b. Research using FGD or interview about people's opinion on certain controversial news or news that is assumed as biased in mass media

c. The motivation of people looking for alternative information in digital media than conventional media.

Media and New Revelation of Public Sphere

I personally agree to skeptical opinion of Habermas in his prediction that mass media (pollster and media experts) will more likely emerge the public opinion. Pollster is one of the ways of shaping the public opinion. From our education, we are trained to complete our argumentation which is based on evidence, statistic, or number. Therefore, when we see statistic somehow we think that it is the whole fact without considering the methodological and validity of the statistic. United State have pre-polling (polling before election), and I found that certain media sometimes make one candidate win and other loose or at least slightly loose in pre polling because this media is the align of one candidate. 

In 2008, CNN polling reported that 55% of people think Obama cared to more people, and 30% think McCain cared to more people (Oct/7). Interestingly, FOX created polling and made McCain slightly win than Obama, which is 45% for McCain and 42% for Obama (Sept/8). This is aimed to create public opinion in each group of audience. In another aspect, mass media such as newspaper or online news has power to transform editorial opinion to public opinion because of the strong power of message dissemination and if the society is weak in their critical thinking or society already agree on the opinion but need confirmation from media, therefore it is ‘a piece of cake’ to shape public opinion. For example CNN editorial which I think tend to refer to the idea of Democratic Party, would usually create editorial that send the message which they hold on such as “peace, freedom, and equality”. 

As a sample, the editorial of Dean Obeidallah who is an award-winning comedian Arab-American. He has appeared on "Axis of Evil", "The View, "What the Week", etc. He portrayed clearly in the value of Democratic Party and obviously pointed at FOX as those who demonize religion or race. I think CNN can create public opinion about certain value and strengthen the opinion which co-exist within their permanent audience and ‘brainwash’ their newbie audience by bringing them to media owner opinion.

New media, such as blog, facebook, twitter, e-group discussion, in my opinion bring new atmosphere in the debate of public sphere. It is an alternative path to find public dialogue, debate, and permeate the boundaries of equality, geographic, and social structure (you can be anonymous in internet, thus “nobody know you are an intelligent dolphin or the genius penguin Madagascar in the internet”). Even though there are many weakness of internet in facilitating public sphere, but Arab spring has proved that national revolution could be organize through Facebook, or Burma movement against Junta Military could be formed through SMS, even one hundred thousand dollar for donation could be reach through Twitter from Justin Bieber who make sympathy status statement to Christchurch. This era, somehow bring conventional media (TV, radio, Newspaper) change their strategy to fulfill the society spirit to engage in citizen participation and mediate the public sphere in more optimistic way. I am calling this the new revelation of public sphere. It brings new spirit, new direction of life and new hope, just like the revelation era of mega churches in 1950. Maybe I am too optimistic to contemporary media, and too pessimistic to traditional media, but I believe when society participate in all kind of media and the access for the emerging democracy will appear. 

"Hot" Ideas for Further Research:

 a. Comparing political polling framing in conventional media. Find out who is the winner in media A and who is the winner in media B.

b. How digital media engage citizens in political conversations? Good question, can you do the research?

c. You can also explore this one: The participation forms of particular group such as young people, mother, senior citizens, veteran, etc in digital media and politic (choose one and focus).

The Resistance of Hidden Group in the Blogosphere: Watch out! Your Enemy Might Make a Blog About You, Babe!

NOW, let’s talk about the media we use, the BLOG! Blogosphere is a medium that reaches a worldwide community, is unbounded by time and geography. Practically, blog users must affirmatively search the blog, thus many scholars argue that blogs attract homogenous group readers or niche audiences who have pre-existing interest to the issue or particular subjects (Terrilli&Arnorsdortir, 2008). Mark Warren Liew, in his study on the exploration of student resistance, contends, “an informal blogosphere thrives beyond these official uses, characterized by all manner of backstage talk, from casual chatting, joking, and banter to vicious complaints, slander, and rumor” (2010, p. 306). Thus, individuals or groups use blogs to express their opinion towards authoritative objects, such as religious leaders, teachers (yeah, the teacher that become the “student enemy”), governments, legislators, and maybe you ... With the freedom of expression in the blogosphere, individuals or groups are able to publicly humiliate, criticize, and mock the authoritative objects. This expression is a part of the resistance towards the hegemonic culture or dominant publics. This is include corporations or conventional mass media.

 As Samuel Terrilli and Liney Inga Arnorsdottir contend that blog is not a “no choice” area, where people have no choice to consume the message, people need to affirmatively search the blog (2010), just like you end up finding this blog. For example, a medium such as a public advertisement sometimes “imposes” its message on the audience. However, blogs are located in a virtual area, where people choose to search it, click it, open it, and eventually read or consume the message. Blogs are not a “pop up” media (taaa daaa…), where people can get a surprise because the message suddenly appears and audiences are “forced” to see it (I’m a bit hyperbolic here). Therefore, in terms of choices, exposing blogs’ messages requires more effort because blogs are in a virtual free public access; people have to search for this blog, and eventually decide to look at the content (audience “on demand” process).

The nature of the blogosphere, also determines the typological audience from this message. The audience who do not demand to search for a particular message will not get exposure to it. Amanda Lenhart and Sussanah Fox also pointed out the homogenous audience and the niche community of the blogosphere, providing a unique audience and community interaction.

“HOT” IDEAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH:

a.     Exploring the conversation in the blog about the form of resistance from “opposition” group of society to government or dominant group

b.     Search for visual production as a symbol of resistance in the blog

c.      (this one a bit scary) find “unique” group such as terrorist group, polygamist group, or rebellion group, and observe their conversations in the blog.

Baidu VS Google: Who wins?

Search engine such as Baidu and Google can be considered as an important source for information gathering, surveillance upon particular issue, and understanding information framing perceived by Internet users (Segev, 2010; Li, 1998, Kennedy, 2009). Using the Panopticon metaphor—what the hec is this Panopticon thing? Well, read Foucoult and you’ll understand, simple thing I could say is government control every movement of citizen-- (Tsui, 2001), Baidu’s system limits information, news, and article for the government security issue and targets the Chinese users (Barbosa, 2010). Even though Google also obeys the Internet censorship policy by the “Great Firewall of China” (BBC, 2006), but Google have less restricted content, targets for more global users, and concerns with more global content (Rand, 2008). Therefore, Baidu become more Chinese oriented search engine and Google become more global oriented search engine.

If you ask me who is the winner? Then, the answer will be depending on which market are you talking about? In China, there are 77% users for Baidu, and only 33% Google. But in the world, Google is the king! Now, Google or Baidu is your choice. If you speak, understand Chinese writing, and you want to get information about China, Baidu is the answer. But if you speak English, (I think so, if not how could you come to my blog and read these things hehehe…) then Google can answer you question. 


So Google it! Opps… no Verb for google BABY! coz google do not want to loose the copyright of its name… hehehhe…(this one would be another discussion in another post)

“HOT” IDEAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH:

hmmm… maybe these are useful for the marketing students:

a.     I wonder how Baidu attracts more Chinese, I mean in which aspects Baidu is more attractive than Google, name, “Made in China” thing, or what? Explore this question, babe!

b.    Search for the panoptical practices in Baidu, that would be interesting

c.     Examine the different result findings between Baidu and Google.

Want to Vomit, Turn it off, or Vegetarian? Meet Your Meat Video

I am overwhelmingly drawn to video of “Meet Your Meat” in Youtube, which is posted by PETA and simultaneously sickened by them. For years I have been eating meat on my plate in various forms of food without thinking where and how this meat came from and how the animal is killed for the sake of delicious friend chicken, yummy steak, hamburger, etc.  Awww… I am hungry now.

The video portrays the undercover investigation of animal farm, to see how human treat animal during their life in the farm and how human finally killed this animal. The brutalization of the image in “Meet Your Meat” is often bravely shown blood, the painful voice of animal, violation action to animal, etc. (Don’t vomit, and keep reading, this pain will soon be finished). 

Thus, the video is not only shown slaughtering process of animal, but also the torture that human has done in order to give painful remark in every slice of meat. The conventions of scene in the video are disconcerting for me as “meat-tarian” and pushing me to change my life style to be vegetarian, to overcome my guilty feeling as a human who involved in killing the animal by consuming them. CONFESSION: Well, eventually I am still a meat lover, xixixixi.....

 The video from PETA is one of the videos in digital media, which uses persuasive approach through emotional appeal, to create certain sensation to their audience through the visualization of animal torture. The viewers of this video reach until 14.353.689 viewers (9/17/11). Through the development of Internet, individual or organization can easily upload video to gain their objective. 

The video of PETA has illustrated the idea of power and image.  This video has created a disturbance in audience cognition (Maybe you remember CDT, Cognitive Dissonance Theory by Festinger, 1957), vivid memory, and persuasive message in the same time. PETA wants to offer emotional attach to the audience with the issue they want to advocate in the public sphere. However, the use of visual rhetoric for emotional appeal may in lead into action, but also rejection, development of other emotional appeal, and confirmation of co-exist commitment.

“HOT” IDEAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH:

Actually many researches have been done for PETA, because PETA is pretty “interesting” for scholars, but you still can have research on:

a.  Exploring the audience’s response on PETA video through quantitative research such as survey or FGD

b.   Research on other PETA’s persuasive message, because they have tons that pretty much similar. Maybe textual analysis or rhetorical criticism can be done

c.  Find out the visual pattern of vegetarianism through YouTube content analysis, Fun!!!