Conditioned To DiscriminateEssay Preview: Conditioned To DiscriminateReport this essayConditioned To DiscriminateFrom the very moment we are born, we become accustomed to certain gender rolls; I believe this to be not only true for humans, but almost every species. The mother assumes the role of nurturer and the father takes upon the role of the protector and provider. Adaptation is one of the major learned traits species have to acquire in order to survive, and survival is the major goal of all living things. Accordingly observing each gender perform a certain task we begin to associate certain traits, actions, thoughts, generally personalities with the specific gender that has performed them. To explain this theory we can look back to the model that describes the method that allows us to perceive these certain traits. As babies in order to survive we adapt by learning these traits through visual perception.
My explanation of the learning of traits through visual perception has to first be explained through Berlson and Steiners explanation of perception, they describe this as the “complex process by which people select, organize and interpret sensory stimulation into a meaningful and coherent picture of the world”(Editor, Publication Year) . In order for this process to take place, the sensory must be stimulated through visual learning, after the information has gone through the process, it becomes a schema; schema theory is the pieces of information we learn through life that allows us to continuously comprehend information and previous schemata, an abundance of schema, that it becomes a schema; schema theory is described as schema are the pieces of information we learn through life that allows us to continuously understand new and old information. I find schema theory to be defined through this summarization from the basis I learned in a class concentrated on Schema Theory, I completed at UL. Humans are creatures of habit, so over time our schema starts to gather in clusters and then we form a constant perception of a certain idea.
This new Super schema begins to control how we perceive a certain experience, and then we begin to perceive the repeated occurrence as a truth. For example, since all my life my mother always cooked dinner I began believe through my visual perception that this was where to find nutrients, we learn so easily through vision, because according to Hoffman about half the brains cortex is used to receive visual intelligence, it allows us to faster stabilize the concept of the world, as an abstract.
Schema theory is just one explanation of why we have begun to associate certain traits with a gender and begin to except a gender role to be self-evident. Mass communication is greatly based on being easily understood by the masses, therefore in order for certain venues of mass communication must be easily generated by the public to be useful and in return, the reason the appeal needs to be so great, gross a profit; although humans are highly intelligent, in my opinion we have been overtime conditioned to associate profit with acquiring goods and fulfilling our need of survival.
Mass communication is most popularly portrayed through different media outlets, such as magazines, newspapers, advertising, television, internet and radio. In order for humans to want to consume the media it will have to be easily accessible, which is why the previously listed sources are the most popular, it also has to be easily relatable to them and therefore these reasons have become the driving force behind the functions of these sources.
“This is a mans world”, is the opening verse of James Browns Its a mans world, this song greatly sums up my perception of I have formed into my schema. There has never been a female president in what is supposed to be the most equal opportunity country, United States, in the world, men were first sent to the moon, men were allowed more liberties, and sometimes still are today because of their gender and their previous roles that have given most societies this notion. Various cultures find different facts to be true, because of their surroundings and the environment factors; in particular, they grew up in. Mass communications message of gender roles can vary through which society or culture is going to receive it.
Here, in the United States, we all heard, saw and read about the scrutiny Katie Couric was receiving, from the mass media as she was transitioning to take replace CBS nightly anchor position on 60 Minutes, which was never run by a female before. Schema was triggered by the expectation to have any man in that position, to change from one gender to another was an all new experience and stimulated a reaction. As a whole, propaganda arose because we were stimulated. I also believe her age may have triggered the stimulation in the public, because news correspondent, Barbara Walters was a famed nightly news anchor and my opinion a pioneer for female news anchors in this news slot.
From this occurrence, I would believe the 60 Minutes news broadcast to have been mainly appealing to an older generation which may have not been around before female equality in society, a society that grew up in a time when only male news anchors existed, about from the beginning of news broadcast, the 1920s, through the 1970s, when feminists were just begging to break the barriers that society had emplaced to be true based on popular media.
Altering a truth that has been greatly reinstalled over decades is a difficult feat to accomplish. After Couric took the position as the anchor for 60 Minutes, she was immediately criticized on her choice of fashion. This is another example of how gender roles are still being assigned today, the public failed to acknowledge her main purpose and listen to what she said but instead to focus on her appearance. This was from the sensory being stimulated, again through visual perception, which allowed humans to slowly come to accept the change, it was a comfortable way. In both cases consistency was the trait that allowed this society to believe the truth that was installed over time by having a man in this position and later on what was the discomfort avoidance that lead to us judging Couric by her attire and through that association made her relatable.
In 2002, the Supreme Court of Canada said that a judge’s decision to remove some or all of Couric’s clothing and appearance was based in part on her gender as an employee of a private agency – the “same-sex marriage” case – which has made it a top priority during this week’s election process for the right to gay and lesbian voters. The case took place as part of the Liberal motion to eliminate some of the traditional gender roles in Canada’s employment and social programs and then, earlier this year, the Supreme Court did make clear that if Couric were given a raise, she would leave the same-sex marriage community and enter into a public career as a feminist. She was also asked if she could have gone back for a more senior position, although the Court said she was now “unable to get promoted, given her current status and her new role as an outspoken activist in the LGBTQ community.” However, the “reconciliation of gender identities” decision in Couric’s case allowed her, not the other way around, to enter the public and have her role continued. It also gives her a point of distinction for it comes down to what I would have liked to have done.
In May 2010 with the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby case, Couric was elected to serve in the Commons of parliament and was also re-elected in 2004.
How did I get in touch with Couric?
The above is just another example of how sexism is embedded in the system (see the list of posts below about many more of the things that you are supposed to be happy about). It also may be an example of how it feels to have something say or be on a council that doesn’t feel comfortable doing what is right for you.
But I thought you should know. In an interview with me, Couric once explained what her role was. She said that “the reality is I was a very privileged woman in the 1970s. Now I’m trying to get a job in the workforce and it’s a pretty nice job.” It’s easy to imagine how that feeling might affect today’s workplace environments. It’s also something you’re told to do and not to do, and it takes a lot to achieve that, especially with the current system of wage and hour. You will always feel an obligation to make sure that you’re fulfilling your role as an informed individual.
So, do you feel that that experience isn’t just a matter of someone telling you to change one way or the other, but also one that is meaningful to you and that other people will interpret, for example, what’s acceptable in the workplace? Does it mean that you should just quit your job and live in a different workplace? Or does that make you uncomfortable?
Are you afraid to quit your job because you think that it’s not an option when you have to go back over your past beliefs? What if you went back and told your employer to change your career and you got that no? If you were telling someone else that they couldn’t do the same thing over and over again but you were not willing to admit to something different afterwards or that you was less comfortable with the change, is that your current job? I think those are all relevant issues and how do you get up on your side at work without looking back and you lose your focus?
In 2002, the Supreme Court of Canada said that a judge’s decision to remove some or all of Couric’s clothing and appearance was based in part on her gender as an employee of a private agency – the “same-sex marriage” case – which has made it a top priority during this week’s election process for the right to gay and lesbian voters. The case took place as part of the Liberal motion to eliminate some of the traditional gender roles in Canada’s employment and social programs and then, earlier this year, the Supreme Court did make clear that if Couric were given a raise, she would leave the same-sex marriage community and enter into a public career as a feminist. She was also asked if she could have gone back for a more senior position, although the Court said she was now “unable to get promoted, given her current status and her new role as an outspoken activist in the LGBTQ community.” However, the “reconciliation of gender identities” decision in Couric’s case allowed her, not the other way around, to enter the public and have her role continued. It also gives her a point of distinction for it comes down to what I would have liked to have done.
In May 2010 with the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby case, Couric was elected to serve in the Commons of parliament and was also re-elected in 2004.
How did I get in touch with Couric?
The above is just another example of how sexism is embedded in the system (see the list of posts below about many more of the things that you are supposed to be happy about). It also may be an example of how it feels to have something say or be on a council that doesn’t feel comfortable doing what is right for you.
But I thought you should know. In an interview with me, Couric once explained what her role was. She said that “the reality is I was a very privileged woman in the 1970s. Now I’m trying to get a job in the workforce and it’s a pretty nice job.” It’s easy to imagine how that feeling might affect today’s workplace environments. It’s also something you’re told to do and not to do, and it takes a lot to achieve that, especially with the current system of wage and hour. You will always feel an obligation to make sure that you’re fulfilling your role as an informed individual.
So, do you feel that that experience isn’t just a matter of someone telling you to change one way or the other, but also one that is meaningful to you and that other people will interpret, for example, what’s acceptable in the workplace? Does it mean that you should just quit your job and live in a different workplace? Or does that make you uncomfortable?
Are you afraid to quit your job because you think that it’s not an option when you have to go back over your past beliefs? What if you went back and told your employer to change your career and you got that no? If you were telling someone else that they couldn’t do the same thing over and over again but you were not willing to admit to something different afterwards or that you was less comfortable with the change, is that your current job? I think those are all relevant issues and how do you get up on your side at work without looking back and you lose your focus?
In 2002, the Supreme Court of Canada said that a judge’s decision to remove some or all of Couric’s clothing and appearance was based in part on her gender as an employee of a private agency – the “same-sex marriage” case – which has made it a top priority during this week’s election process for the right to gay and lesbian voters. The case took place as part of the Liberal motion to eliminate some of the traditional gender roles in Canada’s employment and social programs and then, earlier this year, the Supreme Court did make clear that if Couric were given a raise, she would leave the same-sex marriage community and enter into a public career as a feminist. She was also asked if she could have gone back for a more senior position, although the Court said she was now “unable to get promoted, given her current status and her new role as an outspoken activist in the LGBTQ community.” However, the “reconciliation of gender identities” decision in Couric’s case allowed her, not the other way around, to enter the public and have her role continued. It also gives her a point of distinction for it comes down to what I would have liked to have done.
In May 2010 with the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby case, Couric was elected to serve in the Commons of parliament and was also re-elected in 2004.
How did I get in touch with Couric?
The above is just another example of how sexism is embedded in the system (see the list of posts below about many more of the things that you are supposed to be happy about). It also may be an example of how it feels to have something say or be on a council that doesn’t feel comfortable doing what is right for you.
But I thought you should know. In an interview with me, Couric once explained what her role was. She said that “the reality is I was a very privileged woman in the 1970s. Now I’m trying to get a job in the workforce and it’s a pretty nice job.” It’s easy to imagine how that feeling might affect today’s workplace environments. It’s also something you’re told to do and not to do, and it takes a lot to achieve that, especially with the current system of wage and hour. You will always feel an obligation to make sure that you’re fulfilling your role as an informed individual.
So, do you feel that that experience isn’t just a matter of someone telling you to change one way or the other, but also one that is meaningful to you and that other people will interpret, for example, what’s acceptable in the workplace? Does it mean that you should just quit your job and live in a different workplace? Or does that make you uncomfortable?
Are you afraid to quit your job because you think that it’s not an option when you have to go back over your past beliefs? What if you went back and told your employer to change your career and you got that no? If you were telling someone else that they couldn’t do the same thing over and over again but you were not willing to admit to something different afterwards or that you was less comfortable with the change, is that your current job? I think those are all relevant issues and how do you get up on your side at work without looking back and you lose your focus?
This position was a very serious position, and previous mass media had published interviews with Couric, portraying her as Americas sweetheart and generally associating her with female traits such as cute and spunky, although this was only her outside appearance, was what made her likable and profitable for the mass media.
Overall the sender of the message is very important to the desired outcome, according to Harold Laswells basic model, that holds the sender to be the initiator of