I have to say, this class has been difficult, yet enjoyable. I have learned many useful techniques in this class that I will take away with me. I hope you enjoy reading my final post!
I have decided to use WordPress.com as my blogging platform. I think it will be the best place for my Inquiry Project because I already know how to use it well because I have worked on it here, and because I can link videos and hyperlinks easily to the post without a lot of complications. Videos and hyperlinks are basically all I will be adding to my project so it will be perfect for it. The easiness of using WordPress.com is the highlight because my project does not have to be complicated to understand, just needs some video examples and hyperlinks to go more in depth.
Does does the music video industry influence the objectification of women and how does it affect our own thinking? Well, people watch, and they learn. If they see people using women as objects and sexualizing them, they will think that it is okay. There have been many different studies that all agree, especially in young adults, that showing how to treat women, will influence their own opinions about women. People who watch the more sexualized videos tend to have greater acceptance of women as objects, sexual permissiveness, stereotypical gender roles, and acceptance of rape. We live in a society where sex sells and more often than not, it is a women selling it. We are supposed to be evolving as a world but instead we are perpetuating the notion that women are objects for men or women to look at and use. Sexualizing women in music videos, and even other forms of media, will soon have women thinking that ist here worth and they will see themselves as sexual objects. I am not saying it isn’t a bad thing to be proud of who you are, including your looks and sexuality, but when men and even women are objectifying women it gives the wrong message to viewers.
The problem that I still have after all of my research is: why is it okay to objectify women but when women retaliate and do the same to men, it causes and uproar. For example, the Blurred Lines parody, Defined Lines, was removed from Youtube due to so called hate speech on a group (males). Yes, they took it a little far, but when Robyn Thicks’ Blurred Lines video came out, people loved the video with the naked girls dancing around. Listening to the lyrics, people pointed out that they were “rapey”. So men can sing a song insinuating rape, with half naked women jumping around, but women can’t have a video making fun of the original song, with half naked men dancing around? It is hypocritical on so many levels.
Another example is Jennifer Lopez’s music video for her new song “I Luh Ya Papi.” It opens to JLo and friends discussing how men are allowed to have music videos on yachts and at mansions with half naked females running around and dancing but women can’t do that with men. The music videos goes into her singing her new song, on yachts and at mansions with half naked men running around. It doesn’t have hate speech like”Defined Lines”, it literally just mirrors other pop and hip-hop music videos but switching gender roles. It created a lot of uproar due to the fact that even thought they try to make a point about he objectification of women, JLo still objectifies herself by dressing herself in very little clothing, and dancing provocatively. One of the friends at the very end of the video asks why “the guys gotta have all the fun?” Casey Kovarik made a very good point in her article about Lopez’s video. Kovarik states, “Objectification is never fun. The solution to men objectifying women is not to retaliate.” While I completely agree, I also don’t see why people like JLo and the ladies who made the Defined Lines video get nasty comments and even their videos removed, when other videos, who objectify women don’t get much backlash. It is terrible that today’s society is so used to the objectification of women that when women objectify men, it is retaliation, causes a scandal, and is “faux-feminism.”
My overall argument is that music videos influence the viewers opinions about the objectification of women due to the sexual content shown in the videos. What people see is what they learn, and the perpetuation of using women and her body to sell something, especially music, is not okay. Some people may disagree, and say that it is fine because it is the social norm and most people are okay with it, but just because people don’t think much of it anymore, doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong.
I believe the music video industry does influence objectifying women and changes the viewers opinions, normally to have a greater acceptance of stereotypical gender roles, rape, and sexual permissiveness because
- what they see is what they know, and if Drake or Lil Wayne is doing something in a music video, they want to do the exact same thing.
- research shows that there is a correlation between how sexualized a video is and how it changes a viewers acceptance rate.
- sex sells, even music, and using someone’s sexuality to promote a product is showing that they are an object and people will treat them like one.
Since I changed my topic from double standards in all digital media to the more specific topic of the objectification of women in music videos, I have had to do a lot of my old research over again. Sorry for the late post!
|Articles||Author(s)||Uses college aged people as test group||Women objectifying women||Focus on hip hop music||Other media platform besides music videos||Point sytem to determine the scale of sexuality||Determined music videos affect peoples opinions||Correlates objectififying music videos w/ an increase of sexualizing thoughts in the viewer||Only use one test certain group|
Does Exposure to Sexual Hip-Hop Music Videos Influence the Sexual Attitudes of College Students
|Michelle E. Kistler & Moon J. Lee||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes|
|Equal Opportunity Objectification? The Sexualization of Men and Women on the Cover of Rolling Stone.||Erin Hatton & Mary Trautner||Maybe||Yes||Yes||Yes|
|Check That Body! The Effects of Sexually Objectifying Music Videos on College Men’s Sexual Beliefs.||Jennifer Stevens Aubrey, K. Megan Hopper & Wanjiru G. Mburne||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes|
|Race and Genre in the Use of Sexual Objectification in Female Artists’ Music Videos||Cynthia M. Frisby & Jennifer Stevens Aubrey||Yes||Yes|
|Factors Influencing University Students’ Explicit and Implicit Sexual Double Standards. .||John K. Sakaluk & Robin R. Milhausen||Yes||Yes||Yes|
|Sexual Objectification in Music Videos: A Content Analysis Comparing Gender and Genre.||Jennifer Stevens Aubrey & Cynthia M. Frisby||Yes||Yes|
The Relationship Between Exposure to Sexual Music Videos and Young Adults’ Sexual Attitudes.
|Yuanyuan Zhang, Laura E. Miller, & Kristen Harrison||Yes||Yes|
|Blurred Lines, Defined Lines, and Double Standards: How Our Mainstream Media Remains The Biggest Enforcer Of Gender Stereotypes||Caley Seaton||Yes||Yes||Yes||Yes|
|Women Objectify Women in Music Videos too, Researchers Find||Randy Lewis||Yes||Yes|
The first hyperlink lead to an article on redorbit.com about over all research about connections of emotions on Facebook. yes ti tells us the sources once we click the link, but if a person decided not to click the link, what research? It is so very vague. I see its’ relevance, but it didn’t show a certain research study that was done, just a summary of multiple studies. The second link had absolutely no connection to Facebook. It just stated the difference between infectious and contagious. It is not relevant to the article at hand, especially since we aren’t talking about a disease whatsoever, we are discussing emotions.
2. There have been studies done on Facebook and all the emotions related to posts. “We have enough power in this data set to show that emotional expressions spread online and also that positive expressions spread more than negative.”
Pretty much everyone all over the world, knows what Facebook is, we don’t need a link to the website since it doesn’t help with the study at hand. I know I am guilty of putting the Facebook.com link in my Concept Experience #5 as well, but it really isn’t necessary. For example, I just sat on Facebook for twenty minutes due to the fact that it popped up when I clicked that link. The second hyperlink again lead to me to the same article discussing contagious and infectious diseases as was in #1. That doesn’t even connect to what the sentence is discussing whatsoever. It might be a mistake with hyperlinks getting jumbled, but it really has no context whatsoever.
3. Researchers in a new study have found that feelings displayed on Facebook are contagious. They found enough data to show that “emotional expressions spread online and also that positive expressions spread more than negative.”
This link works better here for the fact that it is talking mostly about the ew study at had. In point #1 it is very vague and doesn’t belong where it is, but it fits a lot better in this new position. There is still a lack of citations and credit where credit is due, especially for the quotation. Where is the quotation from? Who said it?
4. In a new study, researchers from University of California, San Diego have found that feelings displayed on Facebook are contagious. Publishing a paper in the journal PLOS ONE, the team analyzed over a billion anonymous status updates from more than 100 million Facebook subscribers across the United States and found that positive posts beget positive posts and negative posts beget negative posts. They said that while both are common on the site, the positive posts are more influential. They concluded, “We have enough power in this data set to show that emotional expressions spread online and also that positive expressions spread more than negative.”
This section, since it is from a real, credited article it has all the right citations and information to help us out. The first hyperlink takes us to the actual study, unlike #3 which took us to an independent article that discussed the study. This links us to valid research instead of any opinion piece where the author can say what they want about the topic. The second hyperlink, PLOS ONE, shows us that PLOS ONE, is credited and has all the qualifications to be a scholarly article and is peer reviewed. It validates their authority on the subject at hand.
Does Exposure to Sexual Hip-Hop Music Videos Influence the Sexual Attitudes of College Students?
Kistler, M. E., & Lee, M. J. (2010). Does Exposure to Sexual Hip-Hop Music Videos Influence the Sexual Attitudes of College Students?. Mass Communication & Society, 13(1), 67-86. doi:10.1080/15205430902865336
You can find the article here.
“In this article they did a study using college students and they had them watch 5 music videos with varying degree of sexual content. Both women and men were in the test groups. The final outcomes were that men who were in the high sexualized video category agreed with the objectification of women, gender stereotypes, and acceptance of rape. The main videos that were shown were hip-hop videos, and that is due to the alarming amounts of sexualizing women in them. With a large amount of today’s youth listening to hip-hop music, they are going to be very influenced by what the artists are saying in their songs. With the points of interest they were studying being the objectification of women, gender stereotypes, and acceptance of rape, the most outrageous findings were how the males viewed rape after watching the highly sexual videos. Music videos are changing teenager’s and young adult’s thoughts on how women should be treated.
“Experimental evidence specifically addressing effects of music video is scarce, although the studies that do exist focus specifically on sexual aggression, rape myth acceptance, and gender stereotypes. Barongan and Nagayama Hall (1995) conducted an experiment whereby male participants were exposed to either misogynous rap music or neutral rap music, and then exposed to a sexually violent, an assaultive, and a neutral film vignette. Thirty percent of the men in the misogynous rap condition chose to show the sexually violent vignette to a female confederate, as compared to only 7% in the neutral condition, suggesting that exposure to misogynous rap facilitates sexually aggressive cognition and behavior. It seems reasonable, then, to conjecture that sexually themed music videos might have similar effects regarding sexual aggression. Kalof (1999) examined this very phenomenon and found that female undergraduates exposed to a sexually stereotyped music video indicated greater acceptance of interpersonal violence (i.e., violence within relationships) than those exposed to a neutral music video. She also found that both male and female participants in the sexually stereotyped condition indicated more adversarial sexual beliefs (e.g., the belief that sexual relationships are manipulative), gender role stereotyping, acceptance of interpersonal violence, and acceptance of rape myths than those in the neutral condition. Only one music video was used in each of the two conditions in this study; therefore it is difficult to decipher what exactly was manipulated as well as the success of the manipulation. In addition, the two music videos used were of different genres and neither video was of the hip-hop genre. “
Like most of my other articles about music videos, they are testing basically the same three things: gender stereotypes, rape myths, and sexual aggression. It has been shown that men that watch very sexual music videos tend to have a greater opinion of those three topics. What they watch definitely influences their thinking a lot, while the men in the neutral category had lower opinions. After females watch the sexualized videos they had a tendency to have a greater tolerance of interpersonal violence, which explains a lot about today’s young female population. If the male or female participant had watched the video with more sexual content, they pretty much had greater acceptance of gender stenotypes, interpersonal violence, and rape myths. The fact that women have a tendency to objectify their own gender just because they see other people doing it is ridiculous.
“The findings in this study can be interpreted within a theoretical framework, particularly social cognitive theory and parasocial interaction. Long-term exposure to such videos by fans of hip-hop music could provide vicarious models to emulate and serve to reinforce traditional gender attitudes and distorted sexual norms. On the other hand, those who find the depictions distasteful or unattractive can also utilize the information for 82 KISTLER AND LEE how not to think or behave. The fact that the hip-hop fandom was shown to be a significant predictor of objectification of women seems to support this concern. It could also be that individuals who already have such a belief are more likely to seek out media that reinforces that belief. Either way, the reciprocal pattern of this phenomenon may promote distorted sexual norms and its consequences.”
You are more likely to watch and read media that agrees with your beliefs. If you believe in typical gender stereotypes you will watch videos containing those same gender roles. The hip-hop genre keeps gaining popularity due to the fact that people who agree with what they are saying about women, will continue to listen and watch their music videos. The more people who watch the more popularity they will gain, and because of their growing acceptance they will think it is okay to continue with what they are doing. It is a long chain of events that perpetuates the objectification of women.
By William Hughes
Jun 27, 2014 3:30 PM
Scientists at Facebook have published a paper showing that they manipulated the content seen by more than 600,000 users in an attempt to determine whether this would affect their emotional state. The paper, “Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks,” was published in The Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences. It shows how Facebook data scientists tweaked the algorithm that determines which posts appear on users’ news feeds—specifically, researchers skewed the number of positive or negative terms seen by randomly selected users. Facebook then analyzed the future postings of those users over the course of a week to see if people responded with increased positivity or negativity of their own, thus answering the question of whether emotional states can be transmitted across a social network. Result: They can! Which is great news for Facebook data scientists hoping to prove a point about modern psychology. It’s less great for the people having their emotions secretly manipulated.
In order to sign up for Facebook, users must click a box saying they agree to the Facebook Data Use Policy, giving the company the right to access and use the information posted on the site. The policy lists a variety of potential uses for your data, most of them related to advertising, but there’s also a bit about “internal operations, including troubleshooting, data analysis, testing, research and service improvement.” In the study, the authors point out that they stayed within the data policy’s liberal constraints by using machine analysis to pick out positive and negative posts, meaning no user data containing personal information was actually viewed by human researchers. And there was no need to ask study “participants” for consent, as they’d already given it by agreeing to Facebook’s terms of service in the first place.
Facebook data scientist Adam Kramer is listed as the study’s lead author. In an interview the company released a few years ago, Kramer is quoted as saying he joined Facebook because “Facebook data constitutes the largest field study in the history of the world.” It’s a charming reminder that Facebook isn’t just the place you go to see pictures of your friends’ kids or your racist uncle’s latest rant against the government—it’s also an exciting research lab, with all of us as potential test subjects.
How I determined what links I was going to add was just by deciding what could lead to a new article. I added some to give and interview with Adam Kramer, a couple other articles that discuss the outcomes of the study, and a few more to show the Facebook Data Use Policy and where to find all the information they discuss in the article. Reading all the new links definitely helped me understand the article better. I went onto Kramer’s actual Facebook page and he made a status discussing the lash back Facebook was getting from the study. It was cool to read and hear his point of view.
The more I read, the more I wanted to edit the article to explain certain parts more and discuss another side of it. This article was short, and pretty vague, but it discussed the important parts of the information the readers needed to get out of it. Just reading it and researching I wish it was a tad more in depth. Their discussion of the study was a little to broad and I wasn’t very clear on what the study was actually on until I found the real study and read more into it. Making it clearer would’ve been better, but since we added hyperlinks, I just added a link to the original study so that other readers can find it easily and make up their own opinions. By not clicking on the links I have added, the reader could be missing out on full explanations and seeing why the decided to do this study. I liked that they did this study because it showed us that emotions are pretty much contagious, even over social media.
Equal Opportunity Objectification? The Sexualization of Men and Women on the Cover of Rolling Stone
Hatton, E., & Trautner, M. (2011). Equal Opportunity Objectification? The Sexualization of Men and Women on the Cover of Rolling Stone. Sexuality & Culture, 15(3), 256-278. doi:10.1007/s12119-011-9093-2
Link to article can be found here.
I found this article to be very interesting and continued on with my theme of sexualizing humans in media. The authors, Erin Hatton and Mary Nell Trautner, explore how the popular magazine, Rolling Stone, sexualizes both men and women on the cover of their magazine. They started with the 1st issue of the mag in 1967, and continued all the way to 2009, which included 1,046 covers. They had a point system to calculate how sexualized the person on the cover was in their photo. They gave points for type of clothing, nudity, sexual touch, how they posed, whether their mouth was open or closed, and many more factors. They calculated their points together for each cover to find that their was a large percentage increase in sexualized pictures of females on the covers while men only wavered slightly. Their conclusion came to be that more studies need to be done analyzing this sort of objectification in the media, since Rolling Stone is only a small slice of popular media.
“In contrast, the cover image of Laetitia Casta is hypersexualized. Like the members of Blind Melon, she is both naked and kneeling, but her back is arched to emphasize her breasts and buttocks. Rather than posing on an unremarkable white background, Casta is kneeling on a bed of pink rose petals. Her body faces away from the camera, but her head is tilted back and is turned so that her eyes can meet the viewer’s gaze. Her lips are slightly parted. Her arm is raised over her head and touches her hair, which falls down her back. Her skin glistens, as though it has just been oiled. Casta, the text tells us, is the star of Rolling Stone’s “hot list.”
The difference between these two images is clear, yet measuring nudity alone would not capture it. Our scale of sexualization does. By our measure, the Blind Melon cover scored 9 points, placing it at the top of the sexualized category. The Casta image, by contrast, scored 15 points, placing it well into the hypersexualized category. A gestalt-level analysis conﬁrms this difference; in this paper we offer the tools to measure it. In the following sections, we detail our ﬁndings and discuss their implications.”
Hatton and Trautner compare a cover of a group of males and a single female. they have two sexualization categories, sexualized covers and hypersexualized covers. While the band Blind Melon’s cover falls under sexualized, model Laetitia Casta’s cover falls under hypersexualized.
You can look for yourself and see they are very similar, but as the authors discussed, there are big differences that put off a different sexual vibe. Slight things will put of a different message. Blind Melon is like “hey we are a band and we are naked on a cover of a magazine awesome”, while Casta is more like “oooh I’m hot people should want to have sex with me.” At least that is how I see it. This is all due to how the posing and body language is and how the magazine represents these people. In my last research post about music videos and sexualization of women in them, by seeing all of these different covers on a very popular magazine, it shows that the media objectifies women and men. Men a lot of times won’t be overly sexualized, but women will be shown as a sexual object.
“If similarly sexualized images can suggest victimization for women but conﬁdence for men, consider the implications when women are sexualized at the same rate as men are not sexualized, as they were on the covers of Rolling Stone in the 2000s. And the vast majority of those sexualized images of women—some 74%—were hypersexualized, meaning that they did not exhibit only one or two signals of sex, but a multitude of them. Often women in these images were shown naked (or nearly so); they were shown with their legs spread wide open or lying down on a bed—in both cases sexually accessible; they were shown pushing up their breasts or pulling down their pants; they were described as having ‘‘dirty minds’’ or giving ‘‘nasty thrills’’; and, in some cases, they were even shown to be simulating fellatio or other sex acts.
Some researchers argue against using the phrase ‘‘sexual objectiﬁcation’’ to describe such images because they often depict women as active, conﬁdent, and/or sexually desirous (e.g., Bordo 1999; Gill 2003, 2008, 2009). We argue, however, that the intensity of their sexualization suggests that ‘‘sexual object’’ may indeed be the only appropriate label. The accumulation of sexualized attributes in these images leaves little room for observers to interpret them in any way other than as instruments of sexual pleasure and visual possession for a heterosexual male audience. Such images do not show women as sexually agentic musicians and actors; rather, they show female actors and musicians as ready and available for sex.”
All the different ways of showing the people on the covers of Rolling Stone as “sexy” are objectifying them. You don’t have to be completely naked or blatenly doing something sexual as long as you are giving the impression that you want sex. They talk about a lot of touching things such as lifting up of breasts and pulling down of pants. These imply sexual thoughts, as well as simulating sex acts. They give the example of fellatio, and gave a picture of a cover starring Blake Lively and Leighton Meester.
As I went to search for this picture to include it showed other pictures from their Rolling Stone photoshoot and every single picture had something in their mouth, whether it was their hands or candy or ice cream. This all implies a sex act which hypes up the sexuality, and promotes the thought that this is what they want to be doing. All of my past research about sexualization of people has shown the same thing, you imply it, and that is what people will think about you.
As the article goes on it talks about how some researchers believe that while something can be called sexually objectifying, it could also be called showing women as confident and sexually desirous. That is true but once you start seeing celebrities touching themselves and implying sex acts on the cover of a wide spread magazine, then that is them being a sex object. They don’t show them as what they are known for, a.k.a their talent and why they are famous, but as someone you should want to have sex with, and aim for that.