Here is my Final Research Paper for EMAC 6300 – “Is There Room for Flawless Feminism?”
Annotated Bibliography for “Is There Room for ‘Flawless’ Feminism?” Research Paper
Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, believes in radical transparency. It’s a term that he coined that basically suggests that “the idea of humanity would be better off if everybody were more transparent about who they are and what they do (MacKinnon, p. 150). This point is echoed more than once in Rebecca MacKinnon’s Consent of the Networked. While this is an admiral statement and one that I actually agree with, the chances of it happening are slim to none in regards to digital media as a whole. There are several people on my friends list who have alias names (or possibly nick names mixed with their real names) such as “The Main Event” or “Lisa QueenB Fields”. Would Zuckerberg deactivate all of the accounts that have pages with alias name in the Facebook data base today? Probably not. The truth is, in the grand scheme of things, alias names are really not that important, especially when they contribute to the masses of social media. Those masses help keep sites like Facebook thriving and in existence. “A user name search on Facebook for “Donald Duck” turns up many dozens of users by that name…..The abuse teams say they cannot go after everybody and must prioritize the accounts that have unusual patterns of activity or that other users actively report as having violated the terms of service (MacKinnon.p.156)”.
The forbidden fruit is always sweeter. Bradley Manning’s story (“We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks” video) is a great example of this. The glitz and glammer surrounding his case of downloading hundreds of thousands of sensitive and top secret government files is not the simple fact of collecting them. The fact that he was able to obtain all of the information unbeknownst to so many people around him is the jaw dropping factor. Manning wanted to share all of the information he found with the world, in an effort to be completely transparent. However, had he been totally transparent from the beginning, his clever plan would have never even taken lift off. I’d be interested to see what Zuckerberg’s take is on the transparency (and ironically lack thereof) from Bradley Manning and WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange.
Although there are some people that may not intentionally forge transparency in the digital media realm (creating alias user names, posting false pictures of themselves or others, exaggerating their accolades, etc), we all do it in some form or fashion. Think about the last time you signed up for a user license agreement. Did you read all of the fine print? If you’re anything like me, then your answer is probably no. We skim over sections that speak about illegal copying of a body of work or art (a great example is music). No one announces that they may “borrow music” from a service or app. In actuality, they are not being totally transparent. This is primarily because the cost benefit analysis of being totally transparent before you do something does not outweigh the option of masking your intentions and asking for forgiveness later (if you even get caught).
Of course, navigating through the world of digital media (and life in general) would be much easier if everyone were completely transparent. We would know their motives, understand their thoughts and never be caught off guard. But where’s the fun in that? As long as people neglect to be transparent in their personal lives, we can’t expect them to turn on an honesty switch and be transparent when using digital media. Plus, isn’t that part of the thrill of digital and social media (finding out what’s authentic or not)?
Digital Media at Frito Lay1 Power Point Presentation
*Photo taken from Beyonce CD art work*
On Friday, December 13, 2013, singer Beyonce released her self-titled album strictly on iTunes. She sent fans into a downloading frenzy, as the actual hard copy of the CD was not available until a few weeks later. One of the album’s songs, “Flawless”, was touted as a bonus track on the album. “Flawless” features Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie as well. However, Chimamanda is not featured in the sense that she was in the studio with Beyonce recording her part of the song. Her featured section is actually a collection of unaltered snippets from her TEDx speech that she gave in April 2013, speaking about feminism and its misconceptions. The song also features an old audio clip from an episode from Star Search, in which Girls Tyme (a precursor to Beyonce’s former group, Destiny’s Child) competed. The snippets of the Star Search TV show and most importantly the speech from Chimamanda highlight remix culture and exactly how it’s being used in pop culture today.
Beyonce’s song “Flawless” was originally titled “Bow Down” and features the harsh lyrics “…..Don’t forget/Respect that/Bow down bitches/H-Town vicious”. This isn’t quite the message that Ms. Adichie originally gave during her talk, “We Should All Be Feminists”. She’s a Nigerian author and female activist, who has been recognized for her literary works well before Beyonce’s “Flawless” was even thought of. She uses title feminist boldly and does not understand why people in today’s society are often refer to it in a negative context. She embraces feminism and equality for women (and everyone else for that matter) full force. Although the song gives credit to Chimamanda and her speech, there has been no word on what her opinion of Beyonce’s use of her speech is.
The music industry specifically has thrown out a lot of backlash for those participants and users of the remix culture. Ironically, many musicians, including Beyonce, are taking part in this phenomenon. Remixing involves taking a piece of another culture, song, movie, speech, etc and mixing it in with a song. Many artists see this as copyright infringement of their work (if not used by permission), despite the exposure that the remixed version of their work may bring them. However, to their defense, who wants to miss out on any potential earnings of a successful song? In relation to Beyonce’s “Flawless” song, the question isn’t one of copyright infringement, but of faulty interpretation (being a strong, feminist woman vs. telling “bitches” to bow down). Could Beyonce’s example of remix pop culture present a flawed (pun intended) view of feminism, or at the very least one that Ms. Adichie (and other feminists) never intended?
“Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie On The TEDx Talk Beyonce Sampled and Why We Should Forget Feminism’s ‘Baggage’”, Huffington Post.
“Meet the Feminist Writer Beyonce Samples on Her New Album” US News
“We Should All Be Feminists: Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie at TEDx”
The Feminine Mystique. Friedan, Betty. 1963
The F Word, Contemporary UK Feminism
Photo Caption (photo and caption from CNN website): Justin Bieber had a rough 2013, and 2014 doesn’t appear to be shaping up much better. U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers searched an airplane — thought to be the one pictured — carrying Bieber and others on January 31, at Teterboro Airport in New Jersey. Officers said they detected an odor of what seemed like marijuana after the plane landed, law enforcement sources told CNN. It’s just the latest development in a series of troubles for the pop star.
Media (and social media especially) has taken over our lives with such a strong force that we are now using it for everything from promotion to gossip, and sports to entertainment. With this entire information overload, it’s sometimes difficult to determine which source is the best to use. Facebook provides news feeds, detailed profile pages and like buttons. Twitter gives short informational bits with articles, pictures, quotes and hashtags. Instagram chooses to focus primarily on images and more recently, short video clips. Of course, there are countless others, but these are just some of the heavy hitters. But what happens when these news sources, social media sites and collective online sources become too convoluted to sift through the diamonds from the useless rocks?
These media forms can take a life of their own, but they’re truly nothing without the people that use them. This is the point that Jaron Lanier makes in his article, “Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism”. Although his harsh rant (“The hive mind is for the most part stupid and boring”) is reserved primarily for Wikipedia, it’s easily transferrable to other platforms. How many times have people used home remedies or political commentary found online as trusted sources, only to be misled? Don’t all raise your hands at once. I’ve been a victim of this as well. Trusted sources such as CNN and The New York Times are even beginning to add more “fluff” and less substance lately to keep the attention of the masses. By the masses I mean the general public whose attention span is shorter than the average Superbowl commercial.
Just today, CNN released an article with the headline, “Justin Bieber Jail Video to Be Released with His Private Parts Blurred”. There’s something to be said for lighthearted news. It’s funny, intriguing and someone has to do it. But is CNN really the source for it? I would expect an article like this to be reported on Huffington Post’s website, but not CNN. I don’t understand how Justin Bieber’s jail release is so newsworthy from such a historically trusted news source. Lanier makes no secret about his frustration with another trusted news source, The New York Times. He criticizes them for publishing “op-ed pieces supporting the pseudo-idea of intelligent design”. Again, the issue here isn’t so much on what’s being reported, but who is reporting it.
Even music, something that should be purely for entertainment purposes in some regards, is being reported incorrectly. I would have to agree with Lanier’s opinion though that many of the most influential artists in pop music would probably not have made it on the musical rite of passage that is American Idol. Lanier states that, “John Lennon wouldn’t have won. He wouldn’t have even made it to the finals. Or if he had, he would have ended up a different sort of person and artist”. Today I browsed Wikipedia about one of my favorite groups, TLC. Their page lists that they’ve won 5 Grammy Awards, when they’ve actually won 4. How do I know this? Well, not just because I’m a semi obsessed fan, but because it’s pretty much common knowledge that songwriting categories are awarded to the songwriters and not the artist. The group was listed as the winner of Best R & B Song for “No Scrubs”, a song the group performed, but did not write. This seems like it would have been a no brainer, but apparently someone cited it as a factual statement.
So where do we go from here? Are there enough people out there to decipher between what’s valid and what’s of no substance in the media and social media universe? Absolutely. The scary part, which I believe Lanier is stating, is that the lines are becoming more and more blurred. Some of our parents may believe that Wikipedia is just as good as an Encyclopedia. That’s when we have to step in as the techne mentors and educate them that it’s not as valid as they may think. Hopefully, the lines of distinction between trusted and invalid news bits become more prevalent in the years to come, and less murky.
The videotape of Bill and Sue’s discussion seems, at least at first, to be a random sample of a very ordinary kind of conversation that couples have all the time. No one gets angry. There are no scenes, no breakdowns, no epiphanies. “I’m just not a dog person” is how Bill starts things off, in a perfectly reasonable tone of voice. He complains a little bit – about the dog, not about Susan. She complains, too, but there are also moments when they simply forget that they are supposed to be arguing. When the subject of whether the dog smells comes up, for example, Bill and Sue banter back and forth happily, both with a half smile on their lips.
Sue: Sweetie! She’s not smelly….
Bill: Did you smell her today?
Sue: I smelled her. She smelled good. I petted her, and my hands didn’t stink or feel oily. Your hands have never smelled oily.
Bill: Yes, sir.
Sue: I’ve never let my dog get oily.
Bill: Yes, sir. She’s a dog.
Sue: My dog has never gotten oily. You’d better be careful.
Bill: No, you’d better be careful.
Sue: No, you’d better be careful….Don’t call my dog oily, boy.
How much do you think can be learned about Sue and Bill’s marriage by watching that fifteen minute videotape? Can we tell if their relationship is healthy or unhealthy? I suppose that most us would say that Bill and Sue’s dog talk doesn’t tell us much. It’s much too short. Marriages are buffeted by more important things, like money and sex and children and job and in-laws, in constantly changing combinations. Sometimes couples are very happy together. Some days they fight. Sometimes they feel as though they could almost kill each other, but then they go on vacation and come back sounding like newlyweds.
In order to “know” a couple, we feel as though we have to observe them over many weeks and months and see them in every state – happy, tired, angry, irritated, delighted, having a nervous breakdown, and so on – and not just in the relaxed and chatty mode that Bill and Sue seemed to be in. To make an accurate prediction about something as serious as the future of marriage – indeed, to make a prediction of any sort – it seems that we would have to gather a lot of information and in as many different contexts as possible.
But John Gottman has proven that we don’t have to do that at all. Since the 1908s, Gottman has brought more than three thousand married couples – just like Bill and Sue – into that small room in his “love lab” near the University of Washington campus. Each couple has been videotaped, and the results have been analyzed according to something Gottman dubbed SPAFF (for specific affect) , a coding system that has twenty separate categories corresponding to every second of the couple’s interaction, so that a fifteen minute conflict discussion ends up being translated into a row of eighteen hundred numbers – nine hundred for the husband and nine hundred for the wife…On the basis of those calculations, Gottman has proven something remarkable. If he analyzes an hour of a husband and wife talking, he can predict with 95 percent accuracy whether that couple will still be married fifteen years later.
*All text referenced is taken from Blink by Malcolm Gladwell*