gender 6

1) Communication 1) Communication

This week’s topic is communication, which in our society comes in forms influenced by gender, among other factors. Communication encompasses verbal, written, and body language, along with various forms of print, analog, and digital media—all processes that are inflected by power relations. In US society, face-to-face as well as mass media communications are often shaped by unequal power relations, including “the absence of women in the communications industries, as well as the capitalist system that sells products and avoids offending potential consumers with more realistic images. If we add race, sexual orientation, class, disability, and age to what is missing in the centers of power, this absence of many underrepresented groups serves to eliminate accurate images of many groups of people in the media” (Disch 222).

One of the most pervasive ideologies about communication in our society is that men and women inhabit different “communication cultures.” Popular books like John Gray’s Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus have propagated notions like women being more emotional and attuned to relationships whereas men tend to lack empathy with others and are less emotionally expressive. According to such pop psychological theories, women’s greater attunement towards others is intrinsic and qualifies them to be better listeners, friends and parents than men, while men are more prone to being emotionally unavailable and unsupportive of others. According to another popular book, You Just Don’t Understand, author Deborah Tannen argues that women “use their unique conversational style to show involvement, connection, and participation, while men use speech to indicate independence and position in a hierarchy”—and because of their differing communication styles, men often interrupt women. If we are to go by the prevailing pop psychology, men and women’s different communication cultures destine them for constant misunderstandings, “ships eternally passing each other in the night” (227).

In “Men and Women Are from Earth,” Rosalind Barnett and Caryl Rivers argue that such notions are simply not true and are not backed by empirical evidence. Men do not constantly interrupt women, especially in situations where women are in positions of power. As one study shows, it is power, more than sex differences that influence who gets interrupted, how, and when. Citing various research studies that show that men and women’s communication styles and emotional dispositions are more similar than different, Barnett and Rivers conclude that the “difference rhetoric can harm both men and women” (230). By continuing to spread such sex-based stereotypes, both men and women will continue to expect less of each other and act based on gendered expectations, thereby turning such rigid stereotypes into “self-fulfilling prophecies” (229).

2) "The New Momism" by Susan Douglas and Meredith Michaels 2) "The New Momism" by Susan Douglas and Meredith Michaels

In “The New Momism,” Susan Douglas and Meredith Michaels chart a “set of ideals, norms, and practices” that have emerged and gained in strength since the 1980s. Propagated in large part by mainstream mass media, the “new momism” or “intensive mothering” involves “honey-hued ideals of perfect motherhood” in which “motherhood is eternally fulfilling and rewarding, that is always the best and most important thing you do, that there is only a narrowly prescribed way to do it right, and that if you don’t love each and every second of it there’s something really wrong with you” (237). Such ideals, Douglas and Michaels argue, simply create impossibly high standards for mothers for whom the everyday realities of mothering are often difficult and messy. They write that the new momism is defined by “the insistence that no woman is truly complete or fulfilled unless she has kids, that women remain the best

caretakers of children, and that to be a remotely decent mother, a woman has to devote her entire physical, psychological, emotional, and intellectual being, 24/7, to her children” (238).

With the cutbacks to social programs for mothers and families beginning with the Reagan administration in the 80s, many women with children were in situations with few structural aids and collapsing public institutions. At the same time, the conservative Republic administrations that governed the US from 1980 to 1992 engaged in a moralizing practice of “mother blaming” in which mothers were charged with failing to raise fit future citizens. According to this ethos, mothers were not only supposed to be individually responsible for the well-being of their children, but they were also shouldered with the moral burden of the fate of the nation.

Along with media dissemination of images of bad welfare, teenaged, and “crack” mothers, arose impossibly perfect ideals of the “good mother,” often depicted as white, affluent, and heterosexual. Buttressed by Martha Stewart-style representations of domesticity, the good mother is supposed to be an excellent housekeeper, cook, engage in handmade crafts and other stimulating activities with her children, and participate in furthering and ensuring their proper education. Even if a woman works a full-time job, she is still supposed to make her children a priority and not expect her male partner to pick up the slack—in short, she needs to be a superwoman. Douglas and Michaels argue that these ideals are prohibitive and serve to redomesticate women who had benefitted from the feminist movements of the 70s.

The “contorting contradiction” of the “good mother” who also works is that she is encouraged to be tough, competitive, and behave like men on the job while at the same time being patient, compassionate, and selfless at home. The irony is that both stay-at-home mothers and working mothers, assert Douglas and Michaels, “get to be failures. The ethos of intensive mothering has lower status in our culture (‘stay-at-home mothers are boring’), but occupies a higher moral ground (‘working mothers are neglectful’)” (244). Mainstream mass media have been staging “mommy wars,” which pit stay-at-home mothers against each other, even though the reality is that many women have either been one or another at various points in their lives. In turn, women who are not mothers get cut out of the picture.

QUESTIONS

1- Gendered communication cultures This week’s topic is communication, which in our society comes in forms influenced by gender, among other factors. Communication encompasses verbal, written, and body language, along with various forms of print, analog, and digital media—all processes that are inflected by power relations. In US society, face-to-face as well as mass media communications are often shaped by unequal power relations, including “the absence of women in the communications industries, as well as the capitalist system that sells products and avoids offending potential consumers with more realistic images. If we add race, sexual orientation, class, disability, and age to what is missing in the centers of power, this absence of many underrepresented groups serves to eliminate accurate images of many groups of people in the media” (Disch 222).

One of the most pervasive ideologies about communication in our society is that men and women inhabit different “communication cultures.” Popular books like John Gray’s Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus have propagated notions like women being more emotional and attuned to relationships while men tend to lack empathy and are less emotionally expressive. According to such pop

psychological theories, women’s greater attunement towards others is intrinsic and qualifies them to be better listeners, friends and parents than men, while men are more prone to being emotionally unavailable and unsupportive of others. According to another popular book, You Just Don’t Understand, author Deborah Tannen argues that women “use their unique conversational style to show involvement, connection, and participation, while men use speech to indicate independence and position in a hierarchy”—and because of their differing communication styles, men often interrupt women. If we are to go by the prevailing pop psychology, men and women’s different communication cultures destine them for constant misunderstandings, “ships eternally passing each other in the night” (227).

In “Men and Women Are from Earth,” Rosalind Barnett and Caryl Rivers argue that such notions are simply not true and are not backed by empirical evidence. Men do not constantly interrupt women, especially in situations where women are in positions of power. As one study shows, it is power, more than sex differences that influence who gets interrupted, as well as how, and when. Citing various research studies that show that men and women’s communication styles and emotional dispositions are more similar than different, Barnett and Rivers conclude that the “difference rhetoric can harm both men and women” (230). By continuing to spread such sex-based stereotypes, both men and women will continue to expect less of each other and act based on gendered expectations, thereby turning such rigid stereotypes into “self-fulfilling prophecies” (229).

Do you agree with Barnett and Rivers’ argument that sex-based communication differences are based more in fantasy than fact? What do you make of popular notions that men and women are essentially different and are destined to misunderstand each other?

2- The New Momism" - Susan Douglas and Meredith Michaels

In “The New Momism,” Susan Douglas and Meredith Michaels chart a “set of ideals, norms, and practices” that have emerged and gained in strength since the 1980s. Propagated in large part by mainstream mass media, the “new momism” or “intensive mothering” involves “honey-hued ideals of perfect motherhood” in which “motherhood is eternally fulfilling and rewarding, that is always the best and most important thing you do, that there is only a narrowly prescribed way to do it right, and that if you don’t love each and every second of it there’s something really wrong with you” (237). Such ideals, Douglas and Michaels argue, simply create impossibly high standards for mothers for whom the everyday realities of mothering are often difficult and messy. They write that the new momism is defined by “the insistence that no woman is truly complete or fulfilled unless she has kids, that women remain the best caretakers of children, and that to be a remotely decent mother, a woman has to devote her entire physical, psychological, emotional, and intellectual being, 24/7, to her children” (238).

With the cutbacks to social programs for mothers and families beginning with the Reagan administration in the 80s, many women with children were in situations with few structural aids and collapsing public institutions. At the same time, the conservative Republic administrations that governed the US from 1980 to 1992 engaged in a moralizing practice of “mother blaming” in which mothers were charged with failing to raise fit future citizens. According to this ethos, mothers were not only supposed to be individually responsible for the well-being of their children, but they were also shouldered with the moral burden of the fate of the nation.

Along with media dissemination of images of bad welfare, teenaged, and “crack” mothers, arose impossibly perfect ideals of the “good mother,” often depicted as white, affluent, and heterosexual. Buttressed by Martha Stewart-style representations of domesticity, the good mother is supposed to be an excellent housekeeper, cook, engage in handmade crafts and other stimulating activities with her children,

and participate in furthering and ensuring their proper education. Even if a woman works a full-time job, she is still supposed to make her children a priority and not expect her male partner to pick up the slack—in short, she needs to be a superwoman. Douglas and Michaels argue that these ideals are prohibitive and serve to redomesticate women who had benefitted from the feminist movements of the 70s.

The “contorting contradiction” of the “good mother” who also works is that she is encouraged to be tough, competitive, and behave like men on the job while at the same time being patient, compassionate, and selfless at home. The irony is that both stay-at-home mothers and working mothers, assert Douglas and Michaels, “get to be failures. The ethos of intensive mothering has lower status in our culture (‘stay-at-home mothers are boring’), but occupies a higher moral ground (‘working mothers are neglectful’)” (244). Mainstream mass media have been staging “mommy wars,” which pit stay-at-home mothers against each other, even though the reality is that many women have either been one or another at various points in their lives. In turn, women who are not mothers get cut out of the picture.

What do you think about the “new momism”? Do you find that the ideals and practices of the new momism dominate US culture and media representations? What do you make of the double bind of working mothers who feel pressured to “do it all”—be attentive caregivers and successful career women? If you are a mother, do you find yourself influenced by ideals of perfect motherhood?

3- Lauren Zimmerman's article "Where Are the Women? The Strange Case of the Missing Feminists" describes the disproportionate numbers of men, particularly white men, over women in major American TV news programs and anchor desks, and the op-ed pages of major national news publiciations, or in elite opinion journals--all of which "explicate, promote, and even guide national decisions" (257). Her article was first published in 2003, so the media conditions she describes have improved for women in the intervening years--but not all sectors, and particularly not in top leadership or executive board positions (a phenomenon known as the "glass ceiling"--an invisible barrier which prevents certain demographic groups from ascending to upper-level positions in a hierarchy). As the more contemporary report "The Status of Women in U.S. Media" (Women's Media Center, 2019) concludes, men still dominate the media, with "men receiving 63% of byline and other credits in print, internet, TV, and wire news" (23). Below the text here are some graphics from this report that further break down the numbers. (There are more detailed breakdowns in the report itself, so if you're interested, the report is at the above link.)

What do you make of the statistics below? Zimmerman's article asserted that feminist commentators in particular tend to be barred from mainstream national media. One of the few exceptions to male dominance in the media industry are female right-wing commentators like Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter who do not identify as feminists or advocate for feminism. Do you think this informal barring of feminist commentators is still true in today's major news media? Do you think there are more progressive female commentators today with significant media platforms for voicing their views on issues of national significance?