Talk:Exploitation of women in mass media

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

New article[edit]

There did not seem to be any article explicitly on this topic. I pulled together material from the relevant articles to try to address this in a coherent matter, as distinct from objectification in general. It could use some more work tying the different elements together and some more details on different aspects. Some of these topics have no relevant articles that I could find (for example criticisms of exploitation in film or television). Obotlig interrogate 18:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This needs to be renamed "Exploitation of young attractive women in mass media"[edit]

Then a survey should be commenced asking if the aforementioned young attractive women feel exploited for being paid to exist as opposed to being awakened at 6:30 a.m. by an alarm clock, leaping out of bed, dressing, force-feeding, shitting, pissing, brushing teeth and hair, and fighting traffic to get to a place where essentially you make lots of money for somebody else and are asked to be grateful for the opportunity to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.67.101 (talk) 09:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a valid point of view (in fact some of the absurdity of this occurred to me when pulling the article together), however I was working from the complaints levied against the portrayals and selections of women and did try to include what cited counter-arguments I could find. This article is as much about the effect of the exploitation on other women as on the women portrayed, but could well include negative consequences to the actors and models etc. It does mention negative consequences to women who are similar to those who are disproportionately represented in the media. At any rate, "exploiting" just means making use or taking advantage (in either sense) of. Obotlig interrogate 14:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
To further answer your question without getting into a discussion of this topic, there is a range of thinking about this. That since certain classes of women are paid simply for existing, and are praised simply for existing, this may have a negative impact on them personally, or on how similar women are viewed by society (for better or worse), and how women of different types than those portrayed in the media are affected (for better or worse). All of these concepts are relevant to "exploitation of women" - in other words making use of the qualities of women for leverage or advantage in the field in question, the mass media. Obotlig interrogate 15:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

change in tone[edit]

There seems to be an overall tone of this article that this exploitation of women is not a bad thing. Also, the article implies that only feminists recognize and advocate against this exploitation. In the pornography section, the article says that "some feminists view mass media in general to be objectifying". It is hard to believe that only self-described 'feminists' recognize pornography as objectifying. Perhaps only 'feminists' publicly oppose the objectification, but most people recognize that much of pornography is objectifying towards women. Changes in the article should be made so that readers understand that exploitation of women in mass media is a serious issue that many people believe in.

Hw10239 (talk) 04:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC) some feminists see pornography as objectifying

I think it's really interesting that there is so little information on a topic that is so important. I really like everything you chose to discuss. However, more details are needed. I think this subject could be broadened to cover even more issues of female exploitation as well as focusing in and expanding on some of the already existing topics on your page. I may choose to add to this article for a class project. Thanks for the interesting and thoughtful start! --Laur denis (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Great start, but add more sources[edit]

This is a great start and you definitely include a lot of important information. However, I think there is a lot more that can be added to this page. It would be helpful if there were more examples and sources provided so readers could see a lot of examples and truly understand how women are exploited in media. One area in particular that I think could use some more information is the beginning when you are explaining what exploitation of women in mass media is. It is a clear definition, but I think more could be included to make the definition stronger and maybe explain why the most criticized aspect is sexual objectification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plotkinh (talkcontribs) 14:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Exploitation of Women in Mass Media This Wikipedia article breaks down into categories where women are the most exploited. Film, porn, advertising, music videos, modeling, television are all culprits of using women to heighten the appeal of whatever it is that they are doing. In music videos, for example rap music videos, the explicit and vulgar images and language used create the idea that the women in the video are to be used not respected. Pornography is the main suspect in exploitation. Many of the videos on porn sites are staged scenarios where the man is more often the main ‘character’ and the women is there simply to draw viewers attention to the video. On television, beautiful busty blonde newscasters stand in front of cameras in skintight dresses with pounds of makeup on their faces and do reports on pressing issues. But because they are in such ‘inappropriate’ clothing, no one pays attention to the topic they are too ficused on the pretty girl on the screen. The examples of exploitation are countless and because of those people who choose to exploit women, have created a wave of people who are in favor of this. Society has now generated stereotypes of the ‘dumb blonde,’ bimbos, and countless others. Women in society now, feel less beautiful because of those busty women and over sexualized ads. They feel like they will never fit in when in reality they do already, society has just created a movement of unrealistic expectations that no one will ever be able to live up to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:5B0E:9500:34CD:D850:F3C8:1EA1 (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Exploitation of Women in Mass Media This Wikipedia article breaks down into categories where women are the most exploited. Film, porn, advertising, music videos, modeling, television are all culprits of using women to heighten the appeal of whatever it is that they are doing. In music videos, for example rap music videos, the explicit and vulgar images and language used create the idea that the women in the video are to be used not respected. Pornography is the main suspect in exploitation. Many of the videos on porn sites are staged scenarios where the man is more often the main ‘character’ and the women is there simply to draw viewers attention to the video. On television, beautiful busty blonde newscasters stand in front of cameras in skintight dresses with pounds of makeup on their faces and do reports on pressing issues. But because they are in such ‘inappropriate’ clothing, no one pays attention to the topic they are too focused on the pretty girl on the screen. The examples of exploitation are countless and because of those people who choose to exploit women, have created a wave of people who are in favor of this. Society has now generated stereotypes of the ‘dumb blonde,’ bimbos, and countless others. Women in society now, feel less beautiful because of those busty women and over sexualized ads. They feel like they will never fit in when in reality they do already, society has just created a movement of unrealistic expectations that no one will ever be able to live up to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.206.150 (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Additions to the Effects on society[edit]

I would like to lengthen this section a little but. This would include adding the psychological effects the exploitation of young, attractive women has on aging women in western society.Heyates14 (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Ideas[edit]

I wonder if it would be appropriate to add a section on the portrayal of women in children's media, such as television programs that are specifically for children. I feel that this would fit most appropriately in this article and not another.Heyates14 (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Addition[edit]

I'm a student working on a Wikipedia project and I want to work and develop a section with exploitation of women in video games, because that seems like a pretty easy topic to add on. TedABear (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Additional Information[edit]

This article explores the way women have been exploited in the media ranging from advertising to film to video games. It focuses on the concept of increasing the appeal of media without any regard for the women being depicted, or women in general. This exploitation leads to the development of stereotypes for both men and women, and often results in detrimental behavior. Things like body image disorders and low self esteem can be directly linked to this rampant exploitation and objectification. The most recent edits ranging back to January have been mostly regarding formatting and what subtitles belong under each section. It has also been people correcting unsourced speculation, unfounded claims, and clarifying information. The addition of wikilinks is common as well as people just generally adding more points to reinforce claims. I will probably add to a few separate areas. In the advertising subtitle I will add information that I found when writing my research paper about the concept of victimization. In the current wiki article it only talks about sexualization, but new studies have shown that women also play the role of the victim or someone who needs saving at an alarming rate, which contributes to the exploitation. Also in the category of models, I want to add my findings from my research about the fact that the average playboy covergirl has dropped in size significantly, and the winner of the Miss America pageant has weighed less than the average contestant’s weight in every year since 1975 (not positive about the year but it was the 70s). Thebigtrembowski (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Video games - "may increase rape"[edit]

Fellow editors, The article currently includes the following text A study has concluded that video games containing degrading content towards women may increase rape, as they promote rape myth acceptance and decrease sympathy towards victims of rape., sourced to a study, the full text of which is available here.
On review of this source, the source text which is used to verify that statement appears to be the following:

"If video games degrading (e.g., objectification, battery, murder) women increase rape myth acceptance, as suggested by study findings, and that acceptance decreases victim sympathy, then, based on social learning theory of rape, playing such video games may indirectly promote an increase in rape." - Violence Against Women in Video Games: A Prequel or Sequel to Rape Myth Acceptance? - Beck, Boys, Rose & Beck

This text is taken from the "discussion" section of the paper, which is reliable at a WP:RSOPINION level only, not the "conclusion" section; and is immediately followed by the following:

"Although such a prediction is beyond the scope of this study, it certainly highlights the need for more research in this area." - Violence Against Women in Video Games: A Prequel or Sequel to Rape Myth Acceptance? - Beck, Boys, Rose & Beck

It is clear from this, that the source does not verify the statement made in the article. This claim is explicitly beyond the scope of the study; explicitly not a conclusion of the study.
The claim is also a fairly strong one, with relatively weak support; to the extent of being WP:FRINGE. On the basis of the above, I am removing the statement from the article. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Source says- "If this, then that." Article says- "If this, then that." Your objection is improper, and I very much doubt the assertion that a large section of this paper is reliable only for the opinion of its authors. Because you believe that the source does not support the paraphrasing I've implemented, I will reinsert as the direct text from the paper inside quotes, which will hopefully quell your concerns. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Suggest reading both the whole of the paper and WP:SCHOLARSHIP & WP:RSOPINION. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Do you have anything to support your assertion that a direct quote from the paper is not supported by the paper? The sentence you highlighted that follows the quote does not contradict or negate the quote. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The phrasing An academic study by Victoria Simpson Beck, Stephanie Boys, Christopher Rose, and Eric Beck wrote that ... implies that this is a finding or conclusion of the study; it is not. Explicitly so. To imply that it is misrepresents that source. The claim is also WP:FRINGE, and its inclusion is WP:UNDUE. The findings of this study may be important and noteworthy; the opinions of the authors are not. If someone goes and does the follow up studies, and shows a causal relationship, then we can include it; until then, it's idle speculation. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Would you be less upset with "An academic study by Victoria Simpson Beck, Stephanie Boys, Christopher Rose, and Eric Beck wrote, but did not conclude, that ...", or perhaps less irritated with "An academic study by Victoria Simpson Beck, Stephanie Boys, Christopher Rose, and Eric Beck wrote in the discussion section of that paper that ..."? PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Did you read the next sentence in the paper? I would very much question including the quote of the author's opinions without properly couching it, as they have done, in the context that the hypothesis is only stated to encourage more research and not as an assumption, fact, or even prediction. I think including such a guess is giving undue weight to a single article when the authors themselves even note the lack of research into the area. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Please see my comment above, where I explicitly address the sentence you are advising me to read. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Posting the whole comment here "If video games degrading (e.g., objectification, battery, murder) women increase rape myth acceptance, as suggested by study find-ings, and that acceptance decreases victim sympathy, then, based on social learning theory of rape, playing such video games may indirectly promote an increase in rape. Although such a prediction is beyond the scope of this study, it certainly highlights the need for more research in this area.". Seems the authors avoided making a direct comparison but offered that more research could be done. I don't think it should be in the wikipedia entry Fangrim (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
"If X, then Y. However, this study does not establish that X." - essentially. And in the article, we were writing up until very recently- "If X, then Y." There would be far less outrage if people would take the time to understand what they are outraged about. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
This is WP:PRIMARY research with weak statistical power. The case for inclusion at all is weak, even without adding speculation the research didn't support. Rhoark (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

German longitudinal study[edit]

I'm not clear on why this was removed. The paragraph I summarized from the Kotaku source was the following:

"We found that the amount of overall video game use at time 1 was not predictive of sexist attitudes/beliefs about gender roles at time 2 (i.e., 2 years later) and that (sexist) beliefs about gender roles at time 1 were equally not predictive of video game use at time 2 (for sample of German players aged 14 and older)."

The sentence I added to the article was:

"The results of this study concluded both that playing video games was not predicative of sexist beliefs and that sexist beliefs were not predicative of video game play."

How is this not representative? —Torchiest talkedits 15:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

  • It sounds like a good addition to the article. At first I was worried that you were using Kotaku as a source, but it's only a source for a direct quote from the lead researchers. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
My concern is that the Kotaku article which you are using as source is going to great lengths to point out that the conclusion you draw - that "playing video games was not predicative of sexist beliefs and that sexist beliefs were not predicative of video game play" is not conclusive, yet it is presented as such in the proposed wording. The results of the study were very limited, as outlined by the authors in the study, and the Kotaku article was focused on emphasising how that was limited, with the authors of the paper being quoted as saying that it was, at best, evidence but doesn't debunk any claims, and that it was contradicted by other studies. It seems odd to rely on Kotaku as a source and then not present it in the article here in a way that isn't representative of the Kotaku article as a whole. - Bilby (talk) 23:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps the word predicative is tripping you up? It is in fact the key point, the downplaying of the over-exaggerated conclusions that have been drawn elsewhere. There's another huge quote in that source from the study's summary that includes this bolded sentence: "Controlling for age and education, it was found that sexist attitudes— measured with a brief scale assessing beliefs about gender roles in society—were not related to the amount of daily video game use or preference for specific genres for both female and male players." Nowhere is a claim being made in the study, nor in the source used, nor in the phrasing I selected, that says sexism is not an issue in video games, among players, or in the wider culture. It simply says, in all three cases, that merely playing video games does not predict sexist attitudes, and sexist attitudes do not predict video game play. This is an extremely specific phrasing, all based exactly on the words of the study summary and a quote from the people who did the study, as reported by a reliable secondary source. —Torchiest talkedits 04:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Furthermore, the point of an encyclopedia article should be to document the topic. It's perfectly fine to have studies that come to a variety of results, as we're trying to paint the full picture here. —Torchiest talkedits 04:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I think I may be explaining this badly. It is correct that the researchers also state that sexism in games could be an issue in other ways, but that is not my concern. My concern is that the authors made it very clear that the study was limited - for a small age range, sampled using no controls on the types of games, they had a particular finding which contradicts other studies. As they say in the Kotaku piece, "We would be careful in saying that the study debunks any arguments. It provides some evidence that there are no broad cultivation effects of games, meaning that video games alone do not make anyone (more) sexist." [1] They are being very careful in distinguishing between their findings in a limited study, and what it might mean overall. However, the proposed wording does not make this distinction - it just says that "The results of this study concluded both that playing video games was not predicative of sexist beliefs and that sexist beliefs were not predicative of video game play" - which lacks the context that the Kotaku article was trying to provide. What would be more accurate would be "The results of this study concluded both that playing video games was not predicative of sexist beliefs and that sexist beliefs were not predicative of video game play in the case of 14 year old boys playing an unspecified range of games, but this contradicts other studies and needs further examination", but that's not particularly useful.
As this article is only supposed to provide a summary of the issue, perhaps these findings are best left for the main article where they can be provided in context. - Bilby (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
There are already other studies mentioned in the article. The fact that this one comes to a conflicting (not necessarily contradictory) result is clear from reading that whole section. Also, you've misread the source article. It wasn't just for 14 year old boys. I quoted the exact sentence in my opening: "(for sample of German players aged 14 and older)." I would be fine with adding an additional caveat to my original addition, as follows: "A German longitudinal study from 2011 to 2015 explored the connection between gaming and sexist attitudes. The results of this study concluded both that playing video games was not predicative of sexist beliefs and that sexist beliefs were not predicative of video game play. The researchers stressed, however, that the study did not, nor was intended to, disprove the existence of sexist attitudes in general."—Torchiest talkedits 18:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I think you are still missing the point I was trying to make, but that's ok. The caveat doesn't address the issue - my concern is not that it suggests that there aren't other problems with sexist attitudes in gaming, but the study is too limited for the big claim that "The results of this study concluded both that playing video games was not predicative of sexist beliefs and that sexist beliefs were not predicative of video game play." The statement is true, but only in regards to the significant limitations of the study. Which is what the source you are using and the authors of the study quoted in that source are saying. This is much better handled in an article where we can provide context. - Bilby (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
@Bilby: On review of the Kotaku article[2], I'm not sure that it supports exclusion on this basis. The researchers, as quoted in that article, seem to be saying that the conclusion in Torchiest's inclusion is supported by the study, but that is the only thing that the study supports; that it should not be further generalised, beyond that specific conclusion, to make comment on wider issues of sexism in gaming culture. I personally would prefer the more usual (and softer) "found no connection", but the phrasing used by Torchiest is closer to a direct quote. Do we have a copy of the study available to review any caveats or discussion of limitations made therein? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Specifically:
"Stephen Totilo, Kotaku: What arguments would you say the study is debunking?
Rachel Kowert (Dept. of Communication, University of Munster) and Johannes Breuer (Dept of Psychology, University of Cologne): We would be careful in saying that the study debunks any arguments. It provides some evidence that there are no broad cultivation effects of games, meaning that video games alone do not make anyone (more) sexist (in terms of endorsing traditional gender roles; see also our comment about the quote above)."
It does provide some evidence, but the limitations of the study are such that the claim "The results of this study concluded both that playing video games was not predicative of sexist beliefs and that sexist beliefs were not predicative of video game play" is true only within a context that is missing from what we had included. My issue is not that this study can't be covered, but that the proper place for the discussion is at the main article, Sexism in video gaming, where there is space for the other research and broader findings. A short summary shouldn't really be emphasising the results of a single, limited study. - Bilby (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Apologies if I seem obtuse, but the interview answer seems to be asserting that the study is supportive that there are no broad cultivation effects of games on sexist attitudes; this is the same as "playing video games is not predictive of sexist beliefs". The conclusion per the abstract is "Controlling for age and education, it was found that sexist attitudes—measured with a brief scale assessing beliefs about gender roles in society—were not related to the amount of daily video game use or preference for specific genres for both female and male players." which also seems to align. The cautions in the interview are about using the study for other, broader, conclusions - not for using the study for the conclusion that it actually makes. I'm also not quite understanding what is meant by is true only within a context that is missing from what we had included or the earlier significant limitations of the study; could these be elaborated? I would generally concur that a short summary shouldn't really be emphasising the results of a single, limited study., but we are including here the results of 3 other individual studies, each as limited as this one, if not more so. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Reviewing the Kotaku source, I'm concerned that the recent additions here may not be directly supported. I couldn't find anything which supports the results were contradicted by previous studies and the study can not debunk previous work on its own; these do seem like editorialising, rather than letting the source & the work speak for itself. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

For the first, the results were contradicted by previous studies, there is this, from the study, quoted in Kotaku:

“These findings conflict with the results of previous cross-sectional and experimental work that found some evidence for links between sexist video game content and benevolent sexism and tolerance for sexual harassment. However, these studies were either cross-sectional or looked at short-term effects. They also focused on very specific games and types of sexism, whereas the present study was longitudinal and looked at general beliefs about gender roles in society and overall use of video games. Both the design of the current study and its main findings are more in line with previous cultivation studies on violence in video games that found no or only very limited evidence for cultivation effects.”

I'm not satisfied that a simple "contradicted" covers this; the differences in methodology, and the limitations of the other studies, seem the key "take aways" that the researchers are highlighting here. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
All I'm getting here are edit conflicts trying to reply to this, and to be honest I'm a tad frustrated, so I'll sit the talk page out for now. I'll try alternative wording. - Bilby (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Add a section on the effects of the exploitation of women in the media[edit]

Children see the exploitation in the media, internalize it, grow up and think that it is okay, that it is normal. Human sex trafficking is an effect on the exploitation of women because there is certain image of what a women should look, think, talk, and dress. I plan on adding this section into the article. [1]

Wassup3 (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Exploitation of women in mass media. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Unicef. "Not an Object: On Sexualization and Exploitation of Women and Girls". Unicef: Children First. Unicef. Retrieved 11/11/2016.  Check date values in: |access-date= (help)