Professor Stoner & Study Abroad

     Of the two lectures from Monday, I found them both to be interesting in different ways, but learning about Professor Adrian Stoner’s research proved to be the most thought provoking to me.  Her research focuses on the experience of Study Abroad and Culture Shock, and whether or not the increased availability of media technology to keep in touch with those back home lessens culture shock.  Her highest concern was that by being able to communicate so much with those back home, or just get on Facebook whenever with the increased availability of internet, causes a student or person to become less immersed in the culture of a new country.  This is something that I have thought of myself before and wondered how I could survive without talking to my friends and family back home. 

     I recently had a friend’s family visit Mexico for two weeks and the mom said that they were “unplugged” for the entire time.  She said it was a “nice break” from her kids constantly being on their phones, and that they kept busy with activities and interacting with people.  Though this is a short amount of time, I can personally see the benefits of getting away from constantly using media technology.  The difference between my friend’s family and Professor Stoner’s plans for experiment is that an individual is not surrounded by those she knows; therefore the shock of not speaking to them is much greater.

     This has caused me to critically think about whether this makes me less scared to go to a foreign country for more than 3 months at a time if I was able to use my cell phone or internet, and I believe the answer is yes.  Personally, I believe that by talking to family and friends more they will constantly be on your mind.  This will keep individuals from getting too overwhelmed; a time when Professor Stoner says is when you learn the most.  I also want to take another side into account: would speaking to friends and family, and keeping them on your mind, lead to more increase feelings of homesickness, or would the opposite occur?

     One correlation that I made from Professor Stoner’s lecture and COMM101 has to do with Perception. I wonder also if being in contact with those back home will increase the time it takes to overcome stereotypes and change individuals’ schemas of a foreign country.  Cognitive Dissonance is the discomfort at a discrepancy between what you already know (that will be enforced by those back home) and new information or interpretation.  Because it is necessary so that we become “open-minded,” I can’t help but question if Study Abroad will have less of this effect if students are keeping in constant contact with the comfortableness of home.

Gendering of the Internet- Professor Meraz

After reading a couple blog posts on Professor Meraz’s lecture, what I found most intriguing was the idea of gendering in the 21^st century.  From looking over history one would think that this subject must be dead.  As Professor Meraz mentioned, there are many women entering into more types of fields than ever before.  But, after witnessing technology and career interests in my own like and watching Professor Meraz’s lecture, I realize that this is just not the case.  Gendering and sexism are arising in different ways than ever before because of the advancement of technology and increase in different media platforms.  I found her study of women in the computer science field (with its very low numbers) and discussion with the class quite applicable to my own life experiences that I had not thought of before.

Throughout high school and college, I have dabbled in programming and taken the necessary I.T. classes, but past the basic hardware and software issues, I am easily baffled. I have long relied on my brother or boyfriend to help me any time a computer does something crazy on me that I just know nothing about.  I realize, though, this isn’t because I don’t have the ability to figure it out on my own, but socially I have found it acceptable to ask them to do things for me instead.  I believe this is what Meraz was pointing out; girls become socialized to act, like, and dislike certain things from a very young age.  When a young girl is taught that it’s okay to let guys do the dirty work for her, her idea of what is “fun” will definitely reflect that.  Professor Meraz’s idea of socialization as a root in the inequality of women in technology reminded me of our lecture on “Perception” and “Beauty.”  In American culture, attractiveness and extroverted people usually gain success more easily than those without.  This is especially true, it seems, with women.  That is why Meraz’s notion that a girl would be more interested in the technological field (of programming and coding versus design and user interface work that is usual of females) if she were to be exposed to it as acceptable from the very beginning, is a mirroring image of perception as having cultural relativity, just like trends of beauty.

As great as this is to realize, just realizing it will not change the fact that in our American society females just don’t seem as interested in the technological field.  The reasons may be ingrained in our childhoods or treatment by our male counterpart, or even other girls, but the fact still remains.  Professor Meraz even mentioned the increase of female oriented blogs and to me this makes the gender gap seem to only be getting wider.  Hopefully instead of hindering and isolating women in technology, men and more mainstream audiences will be attracted to this blogs in order to balance out their information intake between males in females.  But one can only hope.

Vietnamese Women- Professor Bui

 

Professor Bui brought up a number of interesting topics about the depictions of Vietnamese women before, during, and especially after the Vietnam War.  Her analysis of Heaven & Earth, The Quiet American, and Three Seasons greatly reminded me of our class analysis of Marnie.  Bui mentioned non verbal indicators that represent the way Vietnam’s history and current events have shaped visions of Vietnamese women. In other movies, through different film techniques, women can be shown as subservient or in a specific stereotype.  Also, we have talked about framing in class before, and I think this translates to this research topic because views on Vietnamese women have been framed by movies, TV, books, and other media platforms.  Bui comments that very often Vietnamese and Asian women are shown in a certain submissive, hardworking role through the use of their bodies.  Female Vietnamese bodies are often shown as rape victims or prostitutes that are passed man to man just to support themselves.  This draws a great comparison with Vietnam and their unstable control of government.  Some movies, such as Heaven & Earth, easily highlight how a Vietnamese woman’s body triumphs over prostitution and can stand on their own, mirrors the history of Vietnam.  But these stereotypes of submissive Asian women and questions of identity are still around today.

I found Professor Bui’s personal account of being stigmatized (as a prostitute) in Vietnam by a businessman something that many Asian-American woman can relate to.  Maybe not in that direct way, but in a similar way of being stereotyped to the point where there is nothing you can do about it.  I am an adopted South Korean who grew up in southwest, rural Iowa; where I was often the only Asian besides my brother for many towns around.  I got asked many times if I was a foreign exchange student at my high school, when I had been in this same town of 1500 people since I was 4 years old.  Even among the most understanding and compassionate people, stereotypes and identity problems are something many Asian Americans are faced with.  I agree with Professor Bui when she said, “Representations have consequences in how we understand who Vietnamese women are.”  I think this is especially true with Asian Americans because more often than not they are depicted as this obedient, dutiful, and hardworking person, often with an accent or roots in an Asian country (maybe strict parents).  Even in the new show 2 Broke Girls their Korean boss is this short, goofy, and shy man who has an accent and is not learned of societal trends at the "appropriate" rate.  This I think is so different than the current generation of Asian Americans, like me and many of my friends, who do not fit this stereotype but are not represented in any different way.  We have freedoms, do not have any speech problems, and are socially functional.  I believe Professor Bui’s critique of how Vietnamese women are portrayed in the media is very valid because the portrayal of Asians, and the multifaceted people they are, is a topic that is lacking in much of our media today.

Caitlin McDonald

Prof. Rojecki- Political Communication

Professor Rojecki in this lecture gave a brief synopsis of political discourse; in particular the Tea Party and how/why they came to be.  Rojecki believes that Americans are in a state of insecurity when it comes to politics and the economy.  Since 9/11 and the spread of globalization (especially jobs like that to China), Americans are less confident in regards to holding jobs, trusting the government, and reaching compromise in politics.  This has led to an increase in partisan politics because Americans question the role of the government in our daily lives.  I thought a very interesting statistic from Professor Rojecki was that 2/3 of Americans believe that past decade has been one of decline in regards to economy and progress of the government.  This is because of the collapse of the housing market which Rojecki and the class spent much time talking about.  They defined the major issue as banks loaning money (giving mortgages) to unqualified people; or NINJa loans (with no interest, requiring no job) which Rojecki points out later in the lecture tend to be minority groups like African Americans and illegal immigrants.  Banks would get this money from overseas, mainly China, and basically were able to lend out this money with no repercussions until the collapse of the housing market.

The Tea Party was formed from this collapse after the government bailed banks out.  They were opposite of Occupy Wall Street who, unlike the Tea Party, believed that the problem was big business, not big government.  Another reason for this split and polarization, which applies to COMM101 and the role of verbal and media communication, is the role of mass media in politics.  People with political tendencies are now turning to specific channels and mediums they believe will reinforce their beliefs, not “accidentally” give alternate ideas.  This can be seen with the 50% ratings increase with FOX and the uprising of the right wing and the new Tea Party Movement.  The media is partially at fault then because this is where the public goes to get their information.

From the class discussion it was apparent that not many students are paying attention, actively participating, or even just plain caring about politics and governmental actions; but they do care about the job market.  I thought the most interesting part of the lecture was how Rojecki tied in globalization and the increase of insecurity which has led to partisan politics and extremists like the Tea Party.  This “disconnect between economy and politics” has led to the extreme movements and an unstable government (example: the rush of support for Obama in 2008 that was completely switched to support of Republicans in the 2010 midterm election).  People are anxious and insecure, as Rojecki says, and has led to an unsatisfied general public looking for fast fixes and who get easily impatient when the government does not show enough progress quickly enough.


Caitlin McDonald
COMM101
Catherine Steele
MWF 12pm