Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
How gender is socially constructed
The impact of gender stereotypes
How gender is socially constructed
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: How gender is socially constructed
The social representation of gender is a constructed concept that pervades all aspects of culture; its institutions, identities, practices and the shared embodiment of human experience. Disability is a fabricated narrative of the body similar to what we understand as the fictions of gender. The evolution of gender studies from the traditional female and male gender binary description has serviced towards a stronger integration and acceptance of disabled bodies as normal. However, disabled figures still remain more precarious than others even with adaptations in human consciousness. I will begin by illustrating the meaning of precarity, performativity and discursive power followed by the analysis of gender and disability within its respective …show more content…
Since Aristotle’s explanation of women as mutilated males, women have been negatively associated with being a genetic disability. For example, the cultural hegemonic stigma of having a female child has led to female infanticide in China through their one-child policy (King, 2014). Within a sexist culture, the female embodiment is considered a disabling condition. The wholeness of the body and the sameness of its sex are socially constructed and must be called into questioned (Stryker, 2006). A study by Fiske, Cuddy, and Glick (2001), showed that housewives, disabled people, blind people, the disabled and the elderly were stereotyped as being similarly incompetent. Butler (1993) explains this occurs due to the materialization of the self in response to an embodied engagement with the social environment. Disabled body variations or transformations are out of sync with the environment which renders disability as incongruent within space and cultural expectations (Butler, 1993). According to Fine and Asch (1988), the relative privilege of heteronormative femininity are denied to disabled women. Culturally stereotyped images disable women as asexual, unfit to reproduce, overly dependent, unattractive-as generally removed from the sphere of true womanhood and feminine beauty (Garland-Thomson, 2002). The media is a widespread and commanding source of imagery within our modern visually-saturated culture. The mechanisms of the media and political institutions shape public consciousness and mainstream
398).It is also stated that news divisions reduced their costs, and raised the entertainment factor of the broadcasts put on air. (p. 400). Secondly, the media determines its sources for stories by putting the best journalists on the case and assign them to areas where news worthy stories just emanates. (p.400). Third, the media decides how to present the news by taking the most controversial or relevant events and compressing them into 30 second sound-bites. (p.402). finally, the authors also explain how the media affects the general public. The authors’ state “The effect of one news story on public opinion may be trivial but the cumulative effect of dozens of news stories may be important. This shows a direct correlation between public opinions and what the media may find “relevant”. (Edwards, Wattenberg, Lineberry, 2015, p.
What comes into one’s mind when they are asked to consider physical disabilities? Pity and embarrassment, or hope and encouragement? Perhaps a mix between the two contrasting emotions? The average, able-bodied person must have a different perspective than a handicapped person, on the quality of life of a physically disabled person. Nancy Mairs, Andre Dubus, and Harriet McBryde Johnson are three authors who shared their experiences as physically handicapped adults. Although the three authors wrote different pieces, all three essays demonstrate the frustrations, struggles, contemplations, and triumphs from a disabled person’s point of view and are aimed at a reader with no physical disability.
Gender has been broadly used within the humanities and social sciences as both a means to categories dissimilarities, and as a logical concept to give details differences. In both the humanities and social sciences. Disability studies has appeared partly as a result of challenges to give details gendered experience of disability and partly as a challenge to contemporary feminist theory on gender which fails to take description of disability. Disabled people have frequently been standing for as without gender, as asexual creatures, as freaks of nature, hideous, the ‘Other’ to the social norm. In this way it may be taking for granted that for disabled people gender has little bearing. However, the image of disability may be make physically powerful by gender - for women a sense of intensified passivity and helplessness, for men a dishonesties masculinity make by put into effected dependence. Moreover these images have real consequences in terms of
In” Disabling Imagery in the media “Barnes asserts,“Disabled people are rarely shown as integral and productive members of the community; as students, as teachers, as part of the work-force or as parents. “(11). Popular culture excludes women with disabilities because they are different. Through Joanne’s character, Nussbaum demonstrates how women with disabilities operate in their daily lives.Nussbaum description of Joanne’s daily routine shows that women with Nussbaum 's character Joanne also demonstrates how women with disabilities are not burdens on
Samuels, E. 2002. Critical Divides: Judith Butler's Body Theory and the Question of Disability in NWSA Journal, Vol. 14, No. 3, Feminist Disability Studies, 2002, pp. 58-76. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
...xual, and as being unable to participate in daily life. This is why we see disabled people the way we see them. If we are fed these stereotypes everytime we see a disabled person, eventually we are gonna assume all disabled people are either of these ten stereotypes. The media needs to change what they give out and realize being disabled is not anything what they think it is.
It could be said that in modern industrial society, disability is still widely regarded as a tragic individual failing, in which its “victims” require care, sympathy and medical diagnosis. Whilst medical science has served to improve and enhance the quality of life for many, it could be argued that it has also led to further segregation and separation of many individuals. This could be caused by its insistence on labelling one as “sick”, “abnormal” or “mental”. Consequently, what this act of labelling and diagnosing has done, is enforce the societal view that a disability is an abnormality that requires treatment and that any of its “victims” should do what is required to be able to function in society as an able bodied individual. The social model of disability argues against this and instead holds the view that it is society, not the individual, that needs to change and do what is required, so that everyone can function in society.
Disability is defined as a long term condition that restricts an individual’s daily activities (Government of Western Australia Department of Communities, n.d.). A disability can be identified in numerous types which are physical, sensory neurological and psychiatric. Due to the assistance with appropriate aids and services, the restrictions experienced by individuals with a disability may be overcome. However, the ways society perceives disability may have a significant impact on individuals living with it and also families around them. Therefore, the aim of this essay is to reflect on the social construction of disability through examining the social model of disability and how it may impact on the lives of people living with disability.
Rather than being a neutral conduit for the communication of information, the U.S. media plays an intricate role in shaping and controlling political opinions. Media is extremely powerful in the sense that without an adequate functioning media, it is virtually impossible for a sophisticated social structure like the U.S. Government to exist. Henceforth, all known sophisticated social structure, have always dependent upon the media’s ability to socialize. The U.S. government generally will exploit the media, often times manipulating the enormous power of the printed word. Ultimately empowering the U.S. government, strengthening it with the ability to determine and control the popular perception of reality. One way in which government achieves this objective, is by its ability to misuse the media’s ability to set the agenda. Contrary to popular belief, media is in fact an enormous hegemony. In fact, separate independent news organizations relatively do not exist. Rather than creating an independent structured agenda of there own, generally lesser smaller news organizations adapt to a prepared agenda, previously constructed by a higher medium. Based upon this information alone, it is quite apparent that media functions in adherence to the characteristics of a hierarchy. This simply means that media is structured in a way that it operates functioning from top to bottom. This is also identical to the hierarchical nature of the human body, in that from the commands of the brain transferred through the central nervous system, the body responds accordingly. In order for the U.S. government to control and determine the public’s popular perception of reality, the government must shape and oversee the information that the media reports to the existing populous. This particular process of democracy is known and referred to by political scientists as cognitive socialization. However, many of us, who do not adhere to the cushioning of political correctness, refer to it as the propaganda machine. Numerous political scientists consider cognitive socialization to be the most effective form of political socialization. According to theory, cognitive socialization is doctored up information, which is strategically fragmented in such a manipulative manner, that the probability of its rationalization is highly predictable. The manipulative properties of cognitive socialization are so diabolical and Machiavellian in nature, that I consider it to be the ultimate perversion of the democratic process. In all seriousness, numerous intellectuals, and gentleman held in good stature agree, that cognitive socialization is the product of an evil genius.
Because of the ambiguity of the definition, there is a requirement to have the social model to help to provide the answers. As the social model illustrates how the social institutions, labels, and stereotypes impact the perceived abilities of a disabled person, it is shown that the definitions of what is “normal”, “good”, and “functional” all come from the current society in which the person lives. Additionally, as culture and these definitions change with time and new ideologies and technological advances, what defines a disabled person will also change with time. This is also true across cultures as there may be different requirements to be considered “functional” or in good health in other cultures. For instance, a man unable to walk may not be as hindered in his freedom of movement if he is only required to stay in a small local area, such as a village, in comparison to a large city. However, it is also important to point out that the social model requires the medical model as well because the social model fails to focus on the individual at a more micro level. A person may see others in a similar circumstance and react in a different
Stromback, J. and Esser, F. (2009) Shaping Politics: Mediatization and Media Interventionism, in Lundby, K (eds) Mediatization: Concept, changes, consequences. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc, pp. 205-223.
“Through the ongoing interaction of theorizing and empirical research consistent with the scientific method, agenda-setting theory has evolved from a tightly focused perspective to a broad theory. Initially, the focus was on the way media affect the public’s view of which issues are important. Later the theory broadened to encompass five distinct aspects of public life: basic and attribute agenda-setting effects, the psychology of these processes, and the consequences of these effects for opinions and behavior. The participation of scholars worldwide has been central to the continuing productivity of the theory” (Maxwell McCombs).
In the essay “Disability,” Nancy Mairs discusses the lack of media attention for the disabled, writing: “To depict disabled people in the ordinary activities of life is to admit that there is something ordinary about disability itself, that it may enter anyone’s life.” An ordinary person has very little exposure to the disabled, and therefore can only draw conclusions from what is seen in the media. As soon as people can picture the disabled as regular people with a debilitating condition, they can begin to respect them and see to their needs without it seeming like an afterthought or a burden. As Mairs wrote: “The fact is that ours is the only minority you can join involuntarily, without warning, at any time.” Looking at the issue from this angle, it is easy to see that many disabled people were ordinary people prior to some sort of accident. Mairs develops this po...
McCombs and Shaw fully developed the theory of agenda setting in respect to public agenda in a study in the early 1970’s. Their cross-sectional study involved the effects of media agenda setting on public opinion. They revealed that there were indeed correlations between the two, which backed the ideas of Cohen (Brosius 5). They derived that, “the basic agenda-setting hypothesis asserts that the issues and information presented on the media agenda become over time the issues and information on the public agenda (Leckenby).
In our democratic society, mass media is the driving force of public opinion. Media sources such as Internet, newspaper, news-broadcasts, etc, play significant roles in shaping a person’s understanding and perception about the events occurred in our daily lives. As long as the newspapers, internet, network television, etc, continued to be easily accessible to the public, the media will continue to have an influence in shaping its opinions. Factors such as agenda-setting, framing and priming help shape the public opinions. Agenda-setting is when the media focuses their attention on selected issues on which the public will form opinion on, whereas framing allows the media to select certain aspects about the problem and then make them appear more salient. Similarly, priming works by repeatedly exposing certain issues to public. As the issues get more exposure, the individual will be more likely to recall or retain the information in their minds. This paper will discuss these three factors played out systemically by media and how our opinions are constantly being influence and shape by them.