A real man...

Thanks to Camille for this excellent discussion:

Are you a real man? Do you know someone who is a ‘real’ man?

1.       Are they chivalrous and respectful? That’s pretty ‘manly.’

OR

2.       Are they disrespectful to women and constantly put them down? That seems to be pretty ‘manly’ these days too.

Herein lies our paradox.

Jackson Katz’ book, The Macho Paradox, profoundly challenges the definition of manhood. Are men real men when violence against women is involved physically and verbally? Are men programmed to be violent or are people naturally violent?

Society and culture are highlighted repeatedly in this book. Concepts of gender and power are major features, as men fearing women constantly slam women to defend their ‘masculinity.’ Are men brought up this way, passed down by enculturation? Has violence against women accelerated along with the technology that allows access to the 10,000 porn videos released in the U.S.A every year? This pattern has led people to evaluate continuity and change that come with gender violence and how societies can prevent it. 

From Eminem to high school sex scandals, this type of violence concerns every individual and influences them to make decisions. This is not a ‘women’s issue’, it is something that men play a role in too and it should be acknowledged. True manhood most certainly shouldn’t involve harming of another human being. Jackson Katz’ discusses hundreds of factors more on this topic from personal experiences to quantitative data. He also acknowledges the book called the ‘Cinderella complex’, where it claims that very independent women still desire to be protected by a male. The gender stereotypes are overwhelming and cease to end! The Macho Paradox proves to be as complex and puzzling as society and culture itself.

See the powerpoint accompanying this here.

Race in TV

Thanks to Marianne for this review of current issues of race and culture in TV media.

The article relates to society and culture concepts because it highlights cultural stereotypes and the power the media has to dictate what is put on television; people are highly influenced by what we see in the media. This also links to continuity and change because Australia has become a more multicultural country in the last 20 years, so we should therefore portray this image on TV. However, the media still perceives the Australian audience to be intolerant to other races and believes we would rather see white people on TV.

Major television networks are accused of TV racism as it is believed that there are few roles on commercial television for people from Australia’s ethnic mix. Soap operas such as ‘Packed to the Rafters’ and ‘Home and Away’ are being criticized for ‘Racial Tokenism’ as well as reality game shows and news/panel/chat shows which are being described as very anglo-centric. Multicultural Arts Australia also say that when there is racial diversity it usually depicts cultural stereotypes which is being labelled ‘Colour Blind Casting’. A lot of ethnic actors are portrayed as the villain, eg  Middle Eastern actors are portrayed as drug dealers and‘Wog criminals.’

 TV networks and advertisers argue that they are worried that white Australians will tune out if there is more ethnic mix in the media, despite 2009 census revealing that 44% of Australians are born overseas or have at least one foreign born parent. Hence, Australia would be more accepting of other cultures and more ethnic groups might watch shows if they were being represented on television. A professor of sociology also claims that media are worried that they may portray ethnic races in a way that people may deem as offensive and so they stick to the white, ‘mainstream model’.

Read the full article from The Vine.

The importance of EVALUATING YOUR SOURCES!

Last night (3/3/12) a documentary, 'McDonalds Gets Grilled', was aired on Channel 7 where six Australians are invited to spend a week touring farms and factories where McDonald's produce is sourced and made.

However did it give us a RELIABLE view of what things are really like overall?


Knowing the details behind your source of information is important.
-WHEN was the data collected? (currency)?
-WHO collected the data - what are their own perspectives or vested interests? (Bias)?
-HOW was the data collected? Is it a reliable and accurate method? (Accuracy and reliabililty)?
-WHO or WHERE was the information based on/taken from? Is it VALID for all other people/places?

The word documentary makes us think it is a serious and objective source. However it was funded and initiated by McDonalds itself! So is it really going to give us an UNBIASED view?? Probably not - although you can see what their spokesperson and Channel 7 and the Telegraph had to say here.
It gave a pretty positive image of McDonalds farmers and suppliers. But we need to consider:

- Were the farms and suppliers and restaurants shown in the documentary a large enough sample to be representative of all those that they use/run? i.e.  were the results RELIABLE and VALID?
- How was the sample of farms, suppliers and restaurants selected??
- Can we be sure that this is an accurate representation of the whole of McDonalds throughout Australia? What about the rest of the world?

These are the sorts of questions you should be asking about any SOURCE you use and any PRIMARY data you collect yourself!!