Week 12, Post 3: Name Changing

On page 457 of Chapter 35, name changing is discussed. When Cheris Kramarae was married she took the last name of her husband, which was Kramer. Ohio law required that she take her husband's last name. I don't consider myself an outright feminist but when I think about the "tradition" of taking your husband's last name, I suddenly realize how much we as women give up. I like Kramarae's idea of combining her last name Rae, with her husband's, Kramer. Apparantly, her husband did not change his last name. This "tradition" is really part of the law. And while you as a woman can choose to keep your last name, society will raise its eyebrow at you.



I also appreciated some of the terms that were shown in the excerpt from Kramarae and Treichler's Feminist Dictionary. Again, some of the common, traditional terms we use everyday are completely male-centered or gender-biased. Take the term "family man". As Kramarae points out, no one says that "family woman" because it's practically redundant. But a "family man", well that's a special thing. Not all men are all about their wife and kids. Again, we assume that women HAVE to be all about their husband and kids and if they aren't, there is something seriously wrong with them. Start thinking about some of the words that are in our everyday vocabularly. I know I have, and I realize there's a whole lot more behind a word than just it's definition.

Week 12, Post 2: Man Power

I found the section titled The Masculine Power to Name Experience in Chapter 35 to be very true. As with the standpoint theory, Kramarae notes the difference between the male and female experience in the world. Going further, she points out that "women's talk is subject to male control and censorship" (456). I never noticed that the phrase level playing field was so masculine. I know it's sports related but I never thought about the significance of the phrase. How ironic it is that a phrase related to making things equal between men and women is a "stereotypical masculine linguistic term" (456).

There are also way more derogatory terms for women than there are for men. One example given was the kinds of words that refer to the way that only women talk. These terms, such as catty, bitchy, and gossipy don't apply to male conversation. Also, there are practically ten times more gender-related terms that label women as sexually-loose than there are for men. Obviously, society has been male-dominated and the course language has taken is evident of that. So what do we do with these terms? It would be difficult to get rid of them, as some of them are popular even today. I'm not sure anything can really be done but it is important that muted women are given a voice in society.

Week 12, Post 1: Me Tarzan, You Jane

I really liked the section Chapter 34 about Women As A Marginalized Group. This section basically points out that men and women communicate differently. Julia Wood does not say that this is due to gender differences but rather "cultural expectations and the treatment that each group receives from the other" (444). It really all begins at birth. We "train" our children... we give girls dolls and dress them in pink. We give boys toy trucks and action figures. Essentially, boys and girls understand that they are treated a certain way. Harding and Wood also point out that not all men and women share the same standpoint. At one end of the spectrum, there are minority women, especially Black women who are lesbians. They "are almost always marginalized" (444).

This section also made me think of Tarzan and Jane as a good example of the difference between male and female communication. The way that Tarzan speaks is symbolic of how men communicate: straight to the point. Jane (who is also obviously more civilized) uses more words and uses her communication to build a relationship. We always think of men and women communicating differently, but when the standpoint theory is applied, it makes things more interesting.

Week 10, Post 3: Media Malady Effect

Media malady effect on page 367 in Chapter 28 is "negative economic headlines and stories that depress consumer sentiment and leading economic indicators". This effect seems to be occurring right now. There are so many negative headlines about our economy lately that it has hurt our trust in it. Seeing scary headlines about the crashing stock market and housing market has truly affected our feelings about the economy. In positive times, we seem more willing to buy. Right now, we are so concerned about the future and present situation that we are tightly holding on to whatever money we have. Because media organizations have the power to change our thinking, perhaps more positive stories would help boost the faith of consumers. I'm not sure what positive stories are our there, but if the media has such an effect, then it's worth a shot. The example of air safety and it's effect on the public is a good example. After 9/11, the number of people flying dropped significantly and stayed that way for a while. The negative images on the tv did not help the situation. The images of planes crashing into buildings stayed in a lot of people's minds. You would think that the media would use their power to make more people feel happier. Instead of constantly showing negative stories, the media should show ones that inspire and drive consumerism. Most of the news on tv now is depressing and it only makes you think of how horrible the world is. Perhaps a "feel good" approach to the news would change things.

Week 10, Post 2: The Spiral of Silence

The spiral of silence in Chapter 29 is "the increasing pressure people feel to conceal their views when they think they are in the minority" (372). I see this happening right now with Election Day drawing near. There are some touchy issues on the ballot, such as Prop 4 and Prop 8. I think my mom is experiencing the "spiral of silence". She has strong feelings against a certain proposition and is in the minority with her opinion. As a result, she does not wish to discuss her position with others. It can be difficult to discuss something when everyone else is against you. The spiral of silence seems to be very present in the business world. How many of us have been at a job where something questionnable is going on, but everyone is going along with it. There is always that one person who wants to speak out because they believe it's wrong but they don't say anything because of the spiral of silence.

Noelle-Neumann says that the thought of isolation is scary and stressful to someone who wants to speak out. The person wonders if they will be ridiculed, hated, or banned from their group. These "punishments" often force people to conform and "join the bandwagon". Noelle-Neumann says that "only the criminal or moral hero doesn't care what society thinks" (374). Criminals obviously don't care because they have gone against the norm by committing a crime and moral heroes don't care because they believe in being righteous. The rest of us are too kind and actually care what other people think. I don't think there's anything wrong with that but we need to learn to stand up for what we really believe in and not be scared of other people's opinions.