I believe that when we accept the fact that men are emotionally different from women that yes we DO break the rules of gender equality.  We are seeing women as different from men, instead of seeing one group (mixed of men and women) more emotional than another group (mixed of men and women).  We all know a man or two who is more emotional than a woman that we know.  Stereotyping men and women, I believe, is always breaking the rules of gender equality.

I believe that feminist today are more concerned with making sure women don’t give in or give up to men in ways such as job and especially sexuality.  I think of feminists today as women who hate the ideology in media of being skinny and beautiful or having to wear make up to be flawless.  I think they whine over petty issues that don’t make too much of a difference, if any at all.  Previous feminists have been more concerned for fighting for serious rights such as voting and equality.  Putting stereotypes aside, women probably are much closer to equality with men than ever before, so I guess modern day feminist have to find something to complain about.  Sure we need people with strong opinions who care enough about an issue to do something about it; however, I believe they should pick and choose their battles carefully.  I feel that many feminists are quite hypocritical.

Maybe social representation of a man has shifted a bit from previous times, but the expectancies are much the same.  Being strong, tough, successful, etcetera are still expected of men today.  I believe that with the gaining awareness and outspokenness of those of an “alternative lifestyle” have been the biggest impact on pulling our society’s head out of our butt with issues such as gender.  They have forced us to see men and women who are the contrary to how we have been socially constructed to think men or women should act.

We shape our realities through the images and ideas we are constantly exposed to.  Our society has formed stigmas and taboos against things, such as nudity, sex, and homosexuality and these have stemmed from the concepts and premises we encounter.  We interpret and understand these things in a negative way because the images, concepts, and premises around us sparked these negative understandings.

Ideology in mass media irks me.  I hate how the media endorses the ideals of being skinny, beautiful, and rich.  It has nearly brain washed our society into thinking these are the things in life to desire.  What happened to finding happiness with who you are and what you already have?  Instead, we continue to buy, buy, buy to reach these ridiculous ideals that some pompous ass holes sitting in big offices created.  These ideals have changed our social construction so drastically over time.  This only reminds me of how scary it is that advertising and people can be so manipulating and persuassive. 

• What do you see? A dog with his tongues stretched around his head
• What else do you see? A car in the bottom corner, a fence and grass in background, text 
• What colors do you see? What do they make you think of? Why? Green, brown, white, black, pink – make me think of the outdoors/nature because of the earthy tones. I associate them with my outdoor experiences
• What are the predominant/primary symbols? What are the secondary symbols? Primary symbol is the tongue around the dogs head which symbolizes speed – I guess the secondary symbol would be the car in the bottom left corner of the ad? 
• Where/How is the product placed in relation to the other symbols? Why do you think it is there? The product is placed in the bottom corner and is very small – I think they did this to call attention to mostly the odd looking dog to catch people’s attention and to entertain so that they would look longer and be interested to see what company the ad was for, thus gaining more view time for that particular ad by each individual viewer.

• What is this ad selling? the Hyundai coupe
• What else is it selling?  speed (excitement/thrill/adrenaline) & comedy
• If there is text in this ad, is it relevant? How? Why? “0 to 100 km/h in 8.4 sec” clearly states how fast the car accelerates, thus it is very relevant to the people they are targeting
• What audience is this ad targeting? Why? Who is being represented in this ad? Who is being excluded? Why? They are targeting men I believe for two reasons: it is a manly dog (not a cute little chihuahua or pomeranian) and secondly, driving fast is usually a particular thrill for men.  Also, the ad is pretty plain, not too colorful or embellished which would particularly attract more women than men.  Age range I would say is 18-30 year old men.  I beleive it also targets middle class – again from the looks of the dog.  It is a tough looking dog - not an elite looking one. 

I really like Fisher’s last assumption of human storytelling – “The world is a set of stories from which we choose, and thus constantly recreate, our lives.”  Stories are so much more than just an interesting interaction between people – we shape our lives through these stories.  When growing up I shaped my life through religious stories told to me by my family.  As I got older, I recreated my self somewhat after being introduced more and more to stories through the media – television shows and music. 

Stories are far more than just a sequence of information.  Storytelling is embelishing a sequence of events – adding emotion, exagerration, rationality, and even lessons or moral conclusions.  We are able to relate to stories we hear because we relate to these little extras like emotional points in a story – not just one event in the sequence.

Scene: A tired/discouraged American population anxious for positive changes in their country

Agent: Barack O’bama

Agency: To eradicate and adjust current governmental policies and unite America

Purpose: To persuade his listener’s that he can be trusted and should vote for him

Obama’s speech was well structured, to-the-point, and effective, or so I thought.  He addressed problems that were most “close to home” to his listeners – issues where they are looking for change.  By constantly putting down the Bush administration in his speech, he is capturing and persuading his audience through victimage – Bush is obviously the “external enemy of all of our ills.” 

Question 1:Hirokawa and Gouran claim that small groups are like living systems.   Do you see parallels between the four functional requisites of task groups and the body’s need for respiration, circulation, digestion, and elimination?

I can somewhat see the parallels that they make with the bodily functions.  Initially, I thought they were obvious: our body most definitely finds a problem, sets goals for the problem, identifies alternatives to solving a problem, and then carries out a plan.  This as crystal clear; however, then I started to wonder if the four functional requisites each had a bodily function that complimented it, instead of our bodily functions as a whole.

Starting with the latter, I can see how our bodys’ elimination process compliments the evaluation of positive and negative characteristics.  Our body sorts good and bad and flushes out the bad after evaluating.  Beyond this one, I cannot quite see how digestion directly relates to identification of alternatives. 

I can vaguely see how maybe respiration could parallel to analysis of the problem, since our respiratory system is what allows our body’s organs to function from the oxygen it supports thus it allows our bodies to identify problems in the body.   Lastly, I can also see somewhat of a similarity between circulation and goal setting.  Our body circulates blood to help the function of organs that are somewhat in preparation for the functions it needs to perform.

I’m not sure if these connections make the least bit of sense to anyone but myself…sorry. ha.  Maybe we could further discuss this in class? I could obviously use a little guidance on this one.

 ____________________________________________________________________________________

Chapter 19: Info Systems Approach to Organizations

Question 1:Weick’s act now, plan lateradvice seems to contradict Hirokawa and Gouran’s functional perspective, which encourages relational deliberations.  Can you think of a way that both theorists may be right.

I agree on some level with both theories of enactment.  I believe they are both correct when onlooking through the perspective of experience – I believe there is a time where both are perfectly adequate.  For example, when embarking on a new idea, often it is impossible to plan ahead functionally as Hirokawa and Gouran suggest.  In these new exploratory cases, I believe that Weick’s “retrospective sense-making.”  Through this you can discover unknown territories. 

However, to recognize the functional requisites, I believe that in many times, there is a need for a structured plan.  When you know what needs to be done or achieved, there is a need for structure, planning, and premeditation.  With these two different circumstances, I believe one theory is desirable over another. 

I cannot think of a case where both theorist may be correct in the same problem unless maybe a survey is thrown out into public to get information without any serious planning and then after gathering results, a more functional approach is administered to tackle the problem of the gathered information…..

____________________________________________________________________________________

EXTRA CREDIT

1. How does Marymount Manhattan communicate as an organization? Think about how it communicates to its staff, faculty, and student body.

On a whole, the experiment does target an interesting aspect of communication and psychology.  Our opinions are most definitely easily transformed.  Something about saying something contrary to what we believe really does have a strong effect on changing our opinion.  I have always thought that our likings, tastes, opinions are what shape us into who we are…and maybe they really are; nevertheless, this is understandably questionable if our opinions are so easy to change – even without valid evidence or truth. 

My opinions are constantly changing.  My boyfriend is extremely liberal and I come from an extremely conservative family.  From these differences most definitely reshaped many opinions on both of our parts.  I know this is not completely parallel to the experiment; however, I feel the most important thing to take away from the experiment is that our opinions are likely to be changed with new information or conditions. 

 I found it very interesting that the larger the pressure the less tendency for a subject to change his position.  It is most definitely true in most cases I have experienced, yet I am not sure why.  I am just much more obliged to seeing something a different way if I have room for exploration or contemplation instead of a must-do since of feeling. 

Overall, I thought the experiment was very interesting and effective.  The methods were a little confusing and I thought they could have gotten the same results with maybe a less extensive experiment – but maybe not, they are the psychologist, not me.

Being from a small town in the south (my childhood in a small town lends tons of examples in these communication theories) and moving to this city, I have most definitely noticed significant differences in the three attitude zones between people in the two places.  Quite honestly, latitude of acceptance seems to be extremely narrow in small towns- my reasoning being the lack of progression and grasping onto tradition instead of opening up to new ideas as much as the thriving cities around the world.

On the other hand, after moving into the city, my latitude of acceptance has expanded immeasurably-!  I sometimes find it hard to have a conversation with my grandparents because they have so much ego-involvement in the things that fall into their latitude of rejection.  I experienced this over spring break when my grandfather made a racist comment about Barak Obama.  I was furious – I had to remind myself that I have been exposed to much more than they ever could imagine, and additionally, they grew up in a much different time.  I am not saying it was okay for him to say those things, but it does make it more understandable to me (you can judge it on your own.) 

As I said, everything in this chapter is very well stated, however as always it is much easier said than done.  We get so comfortable with things being a certain way that we lose the ability to openly and excitedly accept change.  This, in my opinion, is why communication is so important for relationships.  We cannot predict anyone’s feelings or behaviors, and we cannot predict the future of our relationship so it is important to constantly attempt to communicate in order to ensure you are on the same “paths” or have the same goals for the relationship.  Or is that even important?  If you are happy with the way things are, is there a need to stress open communication of feelings?  After all, don’t we usually say “I love you” in hopes of reassurance and confidence in your relationship with that person? 

I really enjoyed the section on outcome.  I think evaluating relationships and interactions with others before-hand is a great way to ensure only the best for ourselves.  I say this in observance of how impacting relationships with others can be, whether the outcome is negative or positive.  Comparison levels are effective because they allow us to evaluate the outcomes of interactions so that we may decide whether it would be advantageous or detrimental to carry on with that relationship.

Living in such a big city with so many people, I am constantly using comparison levels with my relationships.  My theory is usually to use a lens of progressiveness: is this person making me a better person? If no, I usually find myself looking for more possitive people to be around.  This way, I can still have lots of relationships in this crazy place without losing my true sense of self.