She works hard for what money?
Oh, so you’re a woman? Excuse me while I significantly reduce the amount of your salary so that it in no way matches that of your male co-workers.
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the average full time working man earns about 18% more than an average full time working woman.
But why is that?
One interesting idea suggested by BBC World News anchor Katty Kay and ABC News Contributor Claire Shipman is that women have a ‘confidence gap’. They say that women are more likely to downplay their abilities and qualifications, not apply for jobs unless they satisfy all the criteria and apologise for talking about their career goals. Another suggestion is the choice of careers where women tend to go for more humanities oriented jobs that have a lower salary compared to jobs in the STEM sector.
And then there is Helen Conway, director of the Workplace Gender Equality Agency who said, “…many organisations simply don’t realise they have a gender pay gap.”
Seriously?
And it’s not just white and blue collar jobs that have this gap, just take a look at Hollywood. Jennifer Lawrence was paid about 23% less than all her other male co-stars in American Hustle.
Hollywood is notorious for gender disparities. Earlier this year Wikileaks released some emails between Marvel CEO Ike Perlmutter and Sony CEO Michael Lynton talking about their reluctance to make another female superhero film. They mentioned how Catwoman, Elektra and Supergirl were basically disasters and didn’t bring much money at the box office. Don’t get me wrong, I love Marvel films but I think they certainly have the capacity to make a good superheronie film. There have been many fans vouching for a Black Widow film (myself included) and it would be wrong to assume that it would be bad based on previous female led superhero films that were not so great.
On a skit on Saturday Night Live, Scarlett Johannson even poked fun at Marvel by starring in a trailer for a Black Widow movie:
I think these pay gaps are completely wrong. Women go to the same schools, the same universities and have the same jobs as men (well unless you went to an all-girls/all-boys school) just to wind up getting paid less? No. It is long past time for change.
We Want it Yesterday
I saw snow for the first time in my life last year and I was absolutely ecstatic. This was during my exchange semester in Canada and though I expected it to snow at some point, I wasn’t prepared for just how amazed I would be. There I was, transfixed at how vividly it changed Vancouver’s ever-green landscape. Every exposed surface blanketed in a layer of soft fluffy snow. It was sublime.
Snow at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. Photo credit: Sharon Masige
Originally, the word sublime referred to the feelings of awe one has in relation to natural wonders. However in this digital age, it has been adapted to the term ‘technological sublime’ which in turn means the way one reveres or gets excited over the latest technologies.
Western society is obsessed with the latest and greatest technology. This obsession has been called the ‘cult of the present’ where new phones, televisions, computers and so on are fetishized. It also relates to the idea of planned obsolescence where gadgets are built to be quickly replaced in a short amount of time. And it’s true. No one brags about having a flip phone these days…
But in our quest to get the next best thing, we tend to neglect what happens to all our ‘old’ technology. That brick computer or equally brick-like television has to go somewhere and though we may think they get recycled, in most cases they end up in developing nations. Much of the industrialised nations’ technological waste – or e-waste – is dumped in countries such as Ghana and India. Not only can this be done illegally, it also creates huge environmental and health problems.
Image credit: The Conversation
So what do we do?
Firstly, we have got to find other uses for this waste. I think we should try our best to hang on to our current technologies for as long as we can before buying a new one. An article in The Guardian even suggests putting the onus on tech giants to create products that last longer. And I agree. One company is even designing the Fairphone which they want to be long lasting and reusable.
I also think it’s time we developed technology that uses environmentally friendly products.
Biodegradable television anyone?
The Future is (Literally) in our Hands
Creating a password these days is no simple task.
And yes, this is all done to strengthen our security online.
However, our digital age has long been creating ways to bypass the need for passwords and other old school security techniques with the use of biometrics. This means using parts of your body to verify your identity with devices such as fingerprint scanners, retinal scanners and voice recognition. Not only have these methods been used to open front doors, they can also open cars and unlock your phone. The latest iPhones have been equipped with fingerprint scanners and apps such as EyeVerify can scan the veins in your eye which are as unique as your fingerprint. There is even a wristwatch called nymi that measures the unique pattern of your heartbeat to unlock your devices. Pretty neat if I do say so myself.
But one device that takes it one step further is the RFID implant. These implants – a microchip slightly longer than a grain of rice – are inserted into the space between your thumb and index finger and virtually replace your keys, credit cards and yes, even your passwords. Like a magician, all you have to do is wave your hand over the chip reader and voila! Instant access. While it seems to me like something for more tech savvy individuals, employers are also taking to this phenomenon. Technology companies like Epicenter in Sweden have given employees the option of using RFID implants instead of having to use a swipe key.
Xray of an RFID chip in a hand
Ironically this does raise issues of security. What else could it be used for in the future? What if it gets hacked? Especially if you have consolidated all your information into it.
One of the pioneers of RFID implants is Amal Graafstra who has one of these chips. He outlines some misconceptions of them and suggests that they are quite safe because they use a low signal range. Someone has to be really close to you to get anything from it.
But another overarching question still remains with devices like these:
What about our privacy?
While we are busy worrying that we are always being watched from the outside (CCTVs, hacking of laptop cameras and baby monitors etc.) we may soon have to worry about who’s watching from the inside.
Goodbye surveillance, we are entering into the realm of ‘uberveillance’.
The Difficult Reality of Factory Farming
When you think of Australia, you think: beach, sun, surf and of course the barbecue.
Eating beef is part of the Australian culture and in Meat and Livestock Australia’s latest advertising campaign their message to the public is, ‘You’re better on beef’:
Australia is one of the world’s biggest exporters of beef however with the release of the ABC Four Corners report on the live exporting of cattle to overseas slaughterhouses, the problem of animal cruelty within these production facilities exploded onto screens and into mainstream media.
The shock, disgust and horror that this report provoked points to a key issue in beef (as well as pork and poultry) production sites: how much we don’t know about how we get our meat.
For the Four Corners report, journalists were able to gain access to one of the slaughterhouses but for many other journalists, factory farms are tightly regulated to keep them out. One major inhibiting factor of reporting on animal cruelty in these industries are ‘ag-gag’ laws. These are designed to stop journalists, animal welfare activists, whistle-blowers and undercover reporters from capturing and recording what happens inside agricultural facilities.
In America, the state of Iowa passed an ‘ag-gag’ law that makes it illegal for journalists or investigative reporters to work in a factory farm to ultimately prevent undercover videos of animal cruelty surfacing. What this does is prevent further public knowledge of the often terrible living conditions of the animals. Though these laws are more prominent in America, Australia is looking to introduce them, as Katrina Hodgkinson, the New South Wales Minister for Primary Industries considers animal activists who illegally obtain footage of animal cruelty as vandals and criminals.
But despite the exposure of the abuse that journalists and activists present, why does it continue to happen?
One idea is what Animal Studies academic Melissa Boyde calls an “open secret.” Despite us knowing that these cows were severely abused before their slaughter, many of us ignore or choose not to take on the challenge that comes with this knowledge. Sure there are those who commented about their disgust and perhaps signed petitions to stop live exporting. Further still, there are the vegetarians and vegans who may have chosen that lifestyle specifically for that reason. But for the majority, we would rather be indifferent or turn a blind eye than to be burdened with the responsibility of solving such a huge issue.
But despite how much we may not want to know, the point is that we should know in order to better facilitate the lives of the animals who give us sustenance.
I mean, yes there might be a high demand for meat and yes these animals are going to be die eventually but I think it is completely unnecessary for them to be horribly treated in the time that they are alive. I love eating meat and surely in this technological age we should be able to develop safer conditions for the animals. They have feelings too!
Are You What You Wear?
At an ‘Around the World’ themed dress up party I was invited to, I decided on India and proceeded to complete my outfit with a bindi – a dot placed in the middle of my forehead. But how far does my wearing of the bindi – usually worn by Hindi women – show an appreciation of their culture compared to a potential degradation of their cultural identity?
A series of photographs by Sanaa Hamid poses the question of cultural appropriation in our current social climate. Her work, titled Cultural Appropriation: A Conversation, was featured on the website flavourwire.com, a site that focuses on showcasing popular culture trends; anything from books to television to artworks. Hamid began this project in September 2013 where she photographed individuals from a number of backgrounds and allowed them to comment on a particular item of clothing that would be considered culturally or religiously significant. She compared items such as scarves, turbans and the Christian cross and what some would consider sacred cultural symbols, others regarded a fashion statement.
In this instance Hamid allows two subjects to provide their opinion on wearing the bindi. The first represents the ‘modern’ approach as this woman, “Mia”, comments, “I don’t really understand what the problem is, I’m only appreciating the culture.”
“Mia”
But what struck me was the comment from the other woman, “Krishna” who wrote, “The bindi for me symbolizes religion and heritage. It’s a symbol of strength and love. It defines me.” This is the image I will use for my analysis.
“Krishna”
This photograph draws on the idea of semiotics – the study of signs – and the way people interpret them differently. Chandler noted that “anything can be a sign as long as someone interprets it as ‘signifying’ something – referring to or standing for something other than itself.” This is where “Krishna’s” comment comes into play. She sees the bindi as a way of expressing her background and religion and most importantly as a way of defining herself. So by saying that the bindi is a way of identifying herself and her religion, is it wrong for those of us who are not perhaps Hindi to then be wearing it?
Her image also relates to Stuart Hall’s theory on encoding and decoding of messages. Though Hall focused mainly on television, his idea does highlight that different meanings are developed largely from interpretation. His theory is expanded by Louw who notes that “meanings cannot be ‘fixed’ by a communicator because the meanings are produced (encoded) and can be interpreted (decoded) in a multitude of different ways.” So in this case, an individual’s idea of a particular symbol is determined by their own beliefs and experiences.
Hamid states that she has taken a ‘neutral’ stance on this issue of cultural appropriation and rather lets the audience interpret certain symbols for themselves. Although Hamid has taken this impartial stance, she still seems to question modern society’s role in using cultural symbols. She asks whether we wear certain symbols because we are part of a certain sub-culture or religion or whether we just find it fashionable. It would be interesting to find out where the women Hamid chose came from and whether “Krishna” is indeed Hindi.
Other questions to ponder are when do appropriations stop being about culture? At what level of fashion do these items become offensive? Does it mean that our current social climate is more negligent of cultural symbols?
The Walking Dead ft. Beyoncé
Beyoncé and The Walking Dead represent two quite different aspects of today’s popular culture. While Beyoncé is focussed mainly on music, dancing and empowering women, The Walking Dead is based on a series of comics by Robert Kirkman about survivors during a zombie (or should I say ‘walker’) invasion.
The Tumblr blog Survivor – Beyoncé vs. Zombies by UK illustrator Ali Graham is dedicated to creating cartoon mash-ups of Beyoncé’s video clips and scenes from the Walking Dead – both of which are American based.
“If I were a boy”
Here, we see Beyoncé portrayed as Rick, one of the main characters in The Walking Dead. The caption If I were a Boy is both the title and main lyric of one of her songs and relates to the video clip in which Beyoncé, like Rick, is a police officer. By using one of the iconic stills of Rick, but casting Beyoncé, Graham has appropriated both texts and created a different meaning…
The Character Rick Grimes from The Walking Dead
The word mashup originated from pop music where the lyrics from one song were combined with the backing track of another song to make something new. It is ironic in this case as Graham has instead mashed-up the video clip rather than the song itself. This links directly to Axel Bruns’ idea of produsage – where the audience becomes both the user and producer of a particular form of media and constantly builds and improves content that already exists. Bruns and Jacobs note that our society has become ‘produsage based’ where “users are active produsers of a shared understanding of society which is open for others to participate in, to develop and challenge, and thus to continually co-create”. We are no longer restricted to passively absorbing what we see or hear, we are more inclined, if not encouraged, to take it and make it our own.
The audience is a key player in this idea of produsage and Graham demonstrates this in her blog. Though it may seem comedic, this blog shows the audience’s response to an idea Beyoncé has always enforced: being a strong and independent woman. By placing Beyoncé in a powerful and authoritative role, Graham has captured Beyoncé’s message and brought her own interpretation to it. It highlights this process of giving back; of understanding and then recreating. Not only has Graham brought her own ideas to the texts, she has also enabled those who may have been fans solely of Beyoncé or solely of The Walking Dead to come together and appreciate both these texts in a new way.
Tumblr itself has acknowledged our society’s fascination with recreation, with its tagline “Follow the world’s creators.” But then with this idea of ‘creators’ where do we draw the line at originality? Does it mean that something is original only if no one else has done it before? By taking nothing from a previous form of media? And if not then will original thought eventually cease to exist?
And on the other hand, if we are so keen to put our own spin on certain media, what do we get in return? Why aren’t we simply satisfied by what someone else has probably worked most of their lives to establish?
But perhaps the real question isn’t why do we want to re-interpret what someone else has created, but rather, why not?
The End is Nigh
This international media and communication subject has exposed much more of the media world than I had previously been aware of. I have always been interested in many international issues and this subject has taught me so much more…
What has been the most interesting was learning about transnational film. I guess I already had a slight understanding of this concept with the processes of making a film (and obviously that it involved people from many different countries), but I was surprised to hear of just how much is adapted from films from other countries. The whole debate over the ‘Americanisation’ versus the hybridity of film has been quite fascinating particularly in regard to the films such as Avatar that have taken many concepts from Eastern culture.
The concept of film and television shows adapted for different contexts was another intriguing topic. It was awesome finding out all those mainstream television shows I assumed were American were actually created elsewhere (like Ugly Betty from Colombia and The Office originally a British show). I am a huge fan of television and film and there is nothing more exciting than finding out the origins of a particular show and how it has been appropriated for other cultures, like The Simpsons being changed for an Arabic audience.
Something else I have learned through this subject was a different approach to reading and listening to the news. I had some knowledge of the way news media could potentially sway an audience to think a particular way about a particular issue depending on the owners of the corporation but the idea of ‘informational bias’ was something I had not come across before. The challenge for journalists to give a balanced report on an issue versus the actual facts was eye opening, especially when it came to global warming. I always thought there was a clear, equal, two sided view of it occurring but obviously there is more evidence to suggest that global warming is happening. This new approach to global warming was even more shocking because of how much damage has already been done. I was completely unaware of the islands of Tuvalu sinking as an effect of global warming. I guess I just thought that global warming was something we’d have to worry about later but the thing is, it’s here and it’s happening right now.
This subject has, and still is, teaching me a lot about international media from hip hop to global media capitals. As this subject is coming to a close, I’m excited to see what else there is to learn about the wonderful, complex, media heavy world in which we live.
The Stark Reality of Climate Change
There has been so much uproar over climate change and global warming. We’ve been subject to many ads showing disintegrating ice caps, polar bears drifting away on melting sheets of ice, schizophrenic weather conditions and heard of Al Gore at one stage or another. The thing is, our idea of climate change has been so heavily mediated that even though we may think there is an obvious two sided, equal argument, it is not exactly the case…
Effect of climate change on the island of Tuvalu – the island is sinking
When it comes to climate change, the main question seems to be whether it does in fact exist. The answer is yes (and you can read some excerpts from experts at NASA here) but the mainstream media has a tricky role to play when giving us information about it. On one hand, journalists have a responsibility to ‘the public’s right to know’. Australia’s Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) code of ethics states that journalists are to be ‘honest’ and ‘fair’ and in the case of global warming they should theoretically provide both sides of the argument. The problem with that is the idea of ‘false balance’. What the media does is show that both the arguments for and against the existence of global warming are totally equal however most scholars agree that it does exist (so there is essentially no need to heavily publicize critics and sceptics). This is a form of ‘informational bias’ as a few sceptics have their ideas amplified for the sake of putting in their opinion.
Tuvaluan citizen on the impact of global warming
On the other hand, journalists are also to be objective when reporting on every issue. According to the Society of Professional Journalists, journalists have a responsibility to ‘give voice to the voiceless’ as both ‘official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid’. Despite this idea we still seem to get the same kind of news over and over and the more scandalous it is, the more hyped and talked about it becomes. What we never seem to hear of in the case of climate change is the struggle of the islands that are affected by it right now. Countries such as Tuvalu have their island sinking due to the rising sea waters and are looking for options on where to relocate their people. There is not nearly enough coverage about this issue compared to the politics that are surrounding what we should be preparing for, as if global warming hasn’t happened yet. How are we to help these people if no one gives them the opportunity to speak?
Journalists have an important role. In most cases it is essential to provide evidence from both sides but when it comes to climate change, there is clear evidence that its current effects should be amplified instead of criticised.
What You Don’t Know Can’t Hurt You.. Or Can It?
As I continue my studies into the world of media, I’m becoming more aware of how much is not said in mainstream news.
This is where the idea of what is chosen to become news fits in. There are a number of ‘news values’ that are used to sort out what will ultimately be featured in the news. These include:
Cultural proximity – Does the story have similarities to that of the country it is broadcasting in?
Relevance – Is it new? Current?
Rarity – Is it unexpected?
Continuity – If it has already been ‘news’, will it continue to be news but to a lesser degree?
Elite references – Are there any key nations involved or key people?
Negativity – Why is it that bad news gets more attention than happy stories?
Composition – Is there a balance of different news stories?
Personalization – seeing the ‘human side’ of people eg if the president has kissed a baby
With all these things to consider (on top of the cost to get the stories and how much time there is to broadcast) it can get quite easy for the mainstream media to leave out some key information or just whole stories altogether. How an issue is framed is also key to understanding how something is discussed in the news. For example the asylum seeker debate in Australia has both supporters and criticizers depending on how the story was framed.
Some critics argue that news content these days is ‘homogenized’ and ‘domesticized’ due to the number of filters information has to go through to match up to domestic audience tastes. This video questions what makes a story newsworthy and the objectives of news broadcast stations in the US:
That said, there are a few avenues that account for the problem of domesticized news, namely global media such as BBC World News, Al Jazeera and of course, the internet!
Foreign affairs are somewhat left in a vacuum if they do not relate to a particular country and thus are not covered in depth during prime news channels. In Peter Lee-Wright’s article on news values, Al Jazeera is identified as one of the most trustworthy sites when it comes to reporting news, particularly in regards to the Arab world. Another good thing about Al Jazeera Lee-Wright notes is that it gives a voice to the oppressed, rather than just sticking to ‘authoritative’ personnel (which is great). We need to be able to see news stories from different angles to become well versed in issues both domestic and foreign.
The thing with news is that it is not always black and white. The media have to find a balance between how much information is put in a story and what the audience needs to know. We as the audience also need to take into account the purpose of certain news broadcast stations and what side they seem to be leading us to believe so that we too can figure out if there are any sides to the story we need to hear about.
It’s a Joke… You’re Supposed to Laugh
Everyone loves a bit of comedy once in a while but when it comes to translating comedy into a different cultural context, things can either go quite well or miss the point completely…
According to Susan Purdie, comedy depends on the breaking of rules of language and behavior. You have to know what is acceptable before you find humor in what is unacceptable. It depends on whether or not you ‘get’ a joke and can be either inclusive or exclusive depending on which way you approach it. (So are those people laughing with you or at you?)
University of Wollongong Professor Susan Turnbull notes that comedy makes reference to things (or people) a particular culture would recognize or identify with; it’s culturally specific. So, when a comedy show is re-adapted in another country, it may have to undergo a number of changes to make it fitting for a new audience and culture. This process is called ‘cultural translation’.
Australian Kath and Kim
Take the popular Australian TV series Kath and Kim and the American version. There were many concepts and references that would have been understandable to Australians and their culture. The main humorous aspect of the original Kath and Kim was the irony in the way the characters viewed themselves and how they actually were presented on screen. Kath viewed herself as a ‘hornbag’ and Kim thought herself absolutely gorgeous despite her obvious ill-fitting clothing. Turnbull highlights that adaptions can sometimes lose the key gag of the original series and this was the case with US version of Kath and Kim as the mother-daughter duo cast were quite attractive, losing the irony.
Despite its success mainly in the UK, there was much criticism from both Australians and Americans on the US adaptation of Kath and Kim which you can read about here.
On the other hand, the US version of The Office is considered by some as one of the best adaptations of British comedy. The characters in the US adaptation were renamed and had different characteristics to appeal to the American audience and it worked, making the show a success not only in America but all over the world. Knowing what the audience expects is important before making an adaptation and the writers did well to convey more culturally specific humor. You can watch when Ricky Gervais (the lead in the UK version) make a cameo on the US version as he bumps into Steve Carrell (his US adaptation) here.
The US version of The Office
There have been plenty of television adaptations that have come from places all over the world such as the Arabic version of the Simpsons, Al Shamshoon. This clip reveals the changes that had to be made and how the original creators don’t really see it as the same:
There is even a Russian version of How I Met Your Mother!
Conveying humor on TV comes down mainly to the audience, there has to be something within the joke they can understand otherwise it could fall way below the punch line.
Sources:
Purdie, S, 1993, Comedy: the mastery of discourse, Harverster Wheatsheaf, New York.
sharonsdigitalden 