Talk:Exploitation of women in mass media

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chowa39.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Heyates14.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TedABear.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tarispittman. Peer reviewers: ChrisMoreno24.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MadelaineH123.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Internetuser112, Dancingdebi09, Nansjam.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 February 2019 and 15 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Luke Tvarozna, Sarahke11y.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 6 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Josie Hoffman.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 6 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Caymansimpson11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 February 2019 and 3 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mariabarrera2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

New article

There did not seem to be any article explicitly on this topic. I pulled together material from the relevant articles to try to address this in a coherent matter, as distinct from objectification in general. It could use some more work tying the different elements together and some more details on different aspects. Some of these topics have no relevant articles that I could find (for example criticisms of exploitation in film or television). Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 18:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This needs to be renamed "Exploitation of young attractive women in mass media"

Then a survey should be commenced asking if the aforementioned young attractive women feel exploited for being paid to exist as opposed to being awakened at 6:30 a.m. by an alarm clock, leaping out of bed, dressing, force-feeding, shitting, pissing, brushing teeth and hair, and fighting traffic to get to a place where essentially you make lots of money for somebody else and are asked to be grateful for the opportunity to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.67.101 (talk) 09:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a valid point of view (in fact some of the absurdity of this occurred to me when pulling the article together), however I was working from the complaints levied against the portrayals and selections of women and did try to include what cited counter-arguments I could find. This article is as much about the effect of the exploitation on other women as on the women portrayed, but could well include negative consequences to the actors and models etc. It does mention negative consequences to women who are similar to those who are disproportionately represented in the media. At any rate, "exploiting" just means making use or taking advantage (in either sense) of. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 14:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

To further answer your question without getting into a discussion of this topic, there is a range of thinking about this. That since certain classes of women are paid simply for existing, and are praised simply for existing, this may have a negative impact on them personally, or on how similar women are viewed by society (for better or worse), and how women of different types than those portrayed in the media are affected (for better or worse). All of these concepts are relevant to "exploitation of women" - in other words making use of the qualities of women for leverage or advantage in the field in question, the mass media. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 15:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

change in tone

There seems to be an overall tone of this article that this exploitation of women is not a bad thing. Also, the article implies that only feminists recognize and advocate against this exploitation. In the pornography section, the article says that "some feminists view mass media in general to be objectifying". It is hard to believe that only self-described 'feminists' recognize pornography as objectifying. Perhaps only 'feminists' publicly oppose the objectification, but most people recognize that much of pornography is objectifying towards women. Changes in the article should be made so that readers understand that exploitation of women in mass media is a serious issue that many people believe in.

Hw10239 (talk) 04:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC) some feminists see pornography as objectifying

I think it's really interesting that there is so little information on a topic that is so important. I really like everything you chose to discuss. However, more details are needed. I think this subject could be broadened to cover even more issues of female exploitation as well as focusing in and expanding on some of the already existing topics on your page. I may choose to add to this article for a class project. Thanks for the interesting and thoughtful start! --Laur denis (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Great start, but add more sources

This is a great start and you definitely include a lot of important information. However, I think there is a lot more that can be added to this page. It would be helpful if there were more examples and sources provided so readers could see a lot of examples and truly understand how women are exploited in media. One area in particular that I think could use some more information is the beginning when you are explaining what exploitation of women in mass media is. It is a clear definition, but I think more could be included to make the definition stronger and maybe explain why the most criticized aspect is sexual objectification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plotkinh (talk • contribs) 14:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Exploitation of Women in Mass Media This Wikipedia article breaks down into categories where women are the most exploited. Film, porn, advertising, music videos, modeling, television are all culprits of using women to heighten the appeal of whatever it is that they are doing. In music videos, for example rap music videos, the explicit and vulgar images and language used create the idea that the women in the video are to be used not respected. Pornography is the main suspect in exploitation. Many of the videos on porn sites are staged scenarios where the man is more often the main ‘character’ and the women is there simply to draw viewers attention to the video. On television, beautiful busty blonde newscasters stand in front of cameras in skintight dresses with pounds of makeup on their faces and do reports on pressing issues. But because they are in such ‘inappropriate’ clothing, no one pays attention to the topic they are too ficused on the pretty girl on the screen. The examples of exploitation are countless and because of those people who choose to exploit women, have created a wave of people who are in favor of this. Society has now generated stereotypes of the ‘dumb blonde,’ bimbos, and countless others. Women in society now, feel less beautiful because of those busty women and over sexualized ads. They feel like they will never fit in when in reality they do already, society has just created a movement of unrealistic expectations that no one will ever be able to live up to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:5B0E:9500:34CD:D850:F3C8:1EA1 (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Exploitation of Women in Mass Media This Wikipedia article breaks down into categories where women are the most exploited. Film, porn, advertising, music videos, modeling, television are all culprits of using women to heighten the appeal of whatever it is that they are doing. In music videos, for example rap music videos, the explicit and vulgar images and language used create the idea that the women in the video are to be used not respected. Pornography is the main suspect in exploitation. Many of the videos on porn sites are staged scenarios where the man is more often the main ‘character’ and the women is there simply to draw viewers attention to the video. On television, beautiful busty blonde newscasters stand in front of cameras in skintight dresses with pounds of makeup on their faces and do reports on pressing issues. But because they are in such ‘inappropriate’ clothing, no one pays attention to the topic they are too focused on the pretty girl on the screen. The examples of exploitation are countless and because of those people who choose to exploit women, have created a wave of people who are in favor of this. Society has now generated stereotypes of the ‘dumb blonde,’ bimbos, and countless others. Women in society now, feel less beautiful because of those busty women and over sexualized ads. They feel like they will never fit in when in reality they do already, society has just created a movement of unrealistic expectations that no one will ever be able to live up to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.206.150 (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Additions to the Effects on society

I would like to lengthen this section a little but. This would include adding the psychological effects the exploitation of young, attractive women has on aging women in western society.Heyates14 (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Ideas

I wonder if it would be appropriate to add a section on the portrayal of women in children's media, such as television programs that are specifically for children. I feel that this would fit most appropriately in this article and not another.Heyates14 (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Addition

I'm a student working on a Wikipedia project and I want to work and develop a section with exploitation of women in video games, because that seems like a pretty easy topic to add on. TedABear (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Additional Information

This article explores the way women have been exploited in the media ranging from advertising to film to video games. It focuses on the concept of increasing the appeal of media without any regard for the women being depicted, or women in general. This exploitation leads to the development of stereotypes for both men and women, and often results in detrimental behavior. Things like body image disorders and low self esteem can be directly linked to this rampant exploitation and objectification. The most recent edits ranging back to January have been mostly regarding formatting and what subtitles belong under each section. It has also been people correcting unsourced speculation, unfounded claims, and clarifying information. The addition of wikilinks is common as well as people just generally adding more points to reinforce claims. I will probably add to a few separate areas. In the advertising subtitle I will add information that I found when writing my research paper about the concept of victimization. In the current wiki article it only talks about sexualization, but new studies have shown that women also play the role of the victim or someone who needs saving at an alarming rate, which contributes to the exploitation. Also in the category of models, I want to add my findings from my research about the fact that the average playboy covergirl has dropped in size significantly, and the winner of the Miss America pageant has weighed less than the average contestant’s weight in every year since 1975 (not positive about the year but it was the 70s). Thebigtrembowski (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Video games - "may increase rape"

Fellow editors, The article currently includes the following text A study has concluded that video games containing degrading content towards women may increase rape, as they promote rape myth acceptance and decrease sympathy towards victims of rape., sourced to a study, the full text of which is available here.
On review of this source, the source text which is used to verify that statement appears to be the following:

"If video games degrading (e.g., objectification, battery, murder) women increase rape myth acceptance, as suggested by study findings, and that acceptance decreases victim sympathy, then, based on social learning theory of rape, playing such video games may indirectly promote an increase in rape." - Violence Against Women in Video Games: A Prequel or Sequel to Rape Myth Acceptance? - Beck, Boys, Rose & Beck

This text is taken from the "discussion" section of the paper, which is reliable at a WP:RSOPINION level only, not the "conclusion" section; and is immediately followed by the following:

"Although such a prediction is beyond the scope of this study, it certainly highlights the need for more research in this area." - Violence Against Women in Video Games: A Prequel or Sequel to Rape Myth Acceptance? - Beck, Boys, Rose & Beck

It is clear from this, that the source does not verify the statement made in the article. This claim is explicitly beyond the scope of the study; explicitly not a conclusion of the study.
The claim is also a fairly strong one, with relatively weak support; to the extent of being WP:FRINGE. On the basis of the above, I am removing the statement from the article. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Source says- "If this, then that." Article says- "If this, then that." Your objection is improper, and I very much doubt the assertion that a large section of this paper is reliable only for the opinion of its authors. Because you believe that the source does not support the paraphrasing I've implemented, I will reinsert as the direct text from the paper inside quotes, which will hopefully quell your concerns. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Suggest reading both the whole of the paper and WP:SCHOLARSHIP & WP:RSOPINION. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you have anything to support your assertion that a direct quote from the paper is not supported by the paper? The sentence you highlighted that follows the quote does not contradict or negate the quote. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The phrasing An academic study by Victoria Simpson Beck, Stephanie Boys, Christopher Rose, and Eric Beck wrote that ... implies that this is a finding or conclusion of the study; it is not. Explicitly so. To imply that it is misrepresents that source. The claim is also WP:FRINGE, and its inclusion is WP:UNDUE. The findings of this study may be important and noteworthy; the opinions of the authors are not. If someone goes and does the follow up studies, and shows a causal relationship, then we can include it; until then, it's idle speculation. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Would you be less upset with "An academic study by Victoria Simpson Beck, Stephanie Boys, Christopher Rose, and Eric Beck wrote, but did not conclude, that ...", or perhaps less irritated with "An academic study by Victoria Simpson Beck, Stephanie Boys, Christopher Rose, and Eric Beck wrote in the discussion section of that paper that ..."? PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Did you read the next sentence in the paper? I would very much question including the quote of the author's opinions without properly couching it, as they have done, in the context that the hypothesis is only stated to encourage more research and not as an assumption, fact, or even prediction. I think including such a guess is giving undue weight to a single article when the authors themselves even note the lack of research into the area. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Please see my comment above, where I explicitly address the sentence you are advising me to read. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Posting the whole comment here "If video games degrading (e.g., objectification, battery, murder) women increase rape myth acceptance, as suggested by study find-ings, and that acceptance decreases victim sympathy, then, based on social learning theory of rape, playing such video games may indirectly promote an increase in rape. Although such a prediction is beyond the scope of this study, it certainly highlights the need for more research in this area.". Seems the authors avoided making a direct comparison but offered that more research could be done. I don't think it should be in the wikipedia entry Fangrim (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

"If X, then Y. However, this study does not establish that X." - essentially. And in the article, we were writing up until very recently- "If X, then Y." There would be far less outrage if people would take the time to understand what they are outraged about. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

This is WP:PRIMARY research with weak statistical power. The case for inclusion at all is weak, even without adding speculation the research didn't support. Rhoark (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Mass Comm Class Critique

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? The part that says "Video games' female characters also tend to be portrayed as light skinned, with racial stereotypes coupled with women of color in games, with white male characters often being the main characters with little to no negativity in their presentation." This part needs to be cited with a source when you make a controversial statement like this. Where are the facts? I plan on adding in another section on Exploitation of women throughout social media and how it leads to mental health issues and things of the sort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarispittman (talk • contribs) 01:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I plan on adding an additional section to the article about exploitation of women in modeling. This is only a rough draft and still could use some editing. Here is a link to my sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarispittman/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarispittman (talk • contribs) 02:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

German longitudinal study

I'm not clear on why this was removed. The paragraph I summarized from the Kotaku source was the following:

"We found that the amount of overall video game use at time 1 was not predictive of sexist attitudes/beliefs about gender roles at time 2 (i.e., 2 years later) and that (sexist) beliefs about gender roles at time 1 were equally not predictive of video game use at time 2 (for sample of German players aged 14 and older)."

The sentence I added to the article was:

"The results of this study concluded both that playing video games was not predicative of sexist beliefs and that sexist beliefs were not predicative of video game play."

How is this not representative? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• It sounds like a good addition to the article. At first I was worried that you were using Kotaku as a source, but it's only a source for a direct quote from the lead researchers. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

My concern is that the Kotaku article which you are using as source is going to great lengths to point out that the conclusion you draw - that "playing video games was not predicative of sexist beliefs and that sexist beliefs were not predicative of video game play" is not conclusive, yet it is presented as such in the proposed wording. The results of the study were very limited, as outlined by the authors in the study, and the Kotaku article was focused on emphasising how that was limited, with the authors of the paper being quoted as saying that it was, at best, evidence but doesn't debunk any claims, and that it was contradicted by other studies. It seems odd to rely on Kotaku as a source and then not present it in the article here in a way that isn't representative of the Kotaku article as a whole. - Bilby (talk) 23:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the word predicative is tripping you up? It is in fact the key point, the downplaying of the over-exaggerated conclusions that have been drawn elsewhere. There's another huge quote in that source from the study's summary that includes this bolded sentence: "Controlling for age and education, it was found that sexist attitudes— measured with a brief scale assessing beliefs about gender roles in society—were not related to the amount of daily video game use or preference for specific genres for both female and male players." Nowhere is a claim being made in the study, nor in the source used, nor in the phrasing I selected, that says sexism is not an issue in video games, among players, or in the wider culture. It simply says, in all three cases, that merely playing video games does not predict sexist attitudes, and sexist attitudes do not predict video game play. This is an extremely specific phrasing, all based exactly on the words of the study summary and a quote from the people who did the study, as reported by a reliable secondary source. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, the point of an encyclopedia article should be to document the topic. It's perfectly fine to have studies that come to a variety of results, as we're trying to paint the full picture here. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I think I may be explaining this badly. It is correct that the researchers also state that sexism in games could be an issue in other ways, but that is not my concern. My concern is that the authors made it very clear that the study was limited - for a small age range, sampled using no controls on the types of games, they had a particular finding which contradicts other studies. As they say in the Kotaku piece, "We would be careful in saying that the study debunks any arguments. It provides some evidence that there are no broad cultivation effects of games, meaning that video games alone do not make anyone (more) sexist." [1] They are being very careful in distinguishing between their findings in a limited study, and what it might mean overall. However, the proposed wording does not make this distinction - it just says that "The results of this study concluded both that playing video games was not predicative of sexist beliefs and that sexist beliefs were not predicative of video game play" - which lacks the context that the Kotaku article was trying to provide. What would be more accurate would be "The results of this study concluded both that playing video games was not predicative of sexist beliefs and that sexist beliefs were not predicative of video game play in the case of 14 year old boys playing an unspecified range of games, but this contradicts other studies and needs further examination", but that's not particularly useful.

As this article is only supposed to provide a summary of the issue, perhaps these findings are best left for the main article where they can be provided in context. - Bilby (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

There are already other studies mentioned in the article. The fact that this one comes to a conflicting (not necessarily contradictory) result is clear from reading that whole section. Also, you've misread the source article. It wasn't just for 14 year old boys. I quoted the exact sentence in my opening: "(for sample of German players aged 14 and older)." I would be fine with adding an additional caveat to my original addition, as follows: "A German longitudinal study from 2011 to 2015 explored the connection between gaming and sexist attitudes. The results of this study concluded both that playing video games was not predicative of sexist beliefs and that sexist beliefs were not predicative of video game play. The researchers stressed, however, that the study did not, nor was intended to, disprove the existence of sexist attitudes in general."—Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you are still missing the point I was trying to make, but that's ok. The caveat doesn't address the issue - my concern is not that it suggests that there aren't other problems with sexist attitudes in gaming, but the study is too limited for the big claim that "The results of this study concluded both that playing video games was not predicative of sexist beliefs and that sexist beliefs were not predicative of video game play." The statement is true, but only in regards to the significant limitations of the study. Which is what the source you are using and the authors of the study quoted in that source are saying. This is much better handled in an article where we can provide context. - Bilby (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bilby: On review of the Kotaku article[2], I'm not sure that it supports exclusion on this basis. The researchers, as quoted in that article, seem to be saying that the conclusion in Torchiest's inclusion is supported by the study, but that is the only thing that the study supports; that it should not be further generalised, beyond that specific conclusion, to make comment on wider issues of sexism in gaming culture. I personally would prefer the more usual (and softer) "found no connection", but the phrasing used by Torchiest is closer to a direct quote. Do we have a copy of the study available to review any caveats or discussion of limitations made therein? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Specifically:

"Stephen Totilo, Kotaku: What arguments would you say the study is debunking?

Rachel Kowert (Dept. of Communication, University of Munster) and Johannes Breuer (Dept of Psychology, University of Cologne): We would be careful in saying that the study debunks any arguments. It provides some evidence that there are no broad cultivation effects of games, meaning that video games alone do not make anyone (more) sexist (in terms of endorsing traditional gender roles; see also our comment about the quote above)."

It does provide some evidence, but the limitations of the study are such that the claim "The results of this study concluded both that playing video games was not predicative of sexist beliefs and that sexist beliefs were not predicative of video game play" is true only within a context that is missing from what we had included. My issue is not that this study can't be covered, but that the proper place for the discussion is at the main article, Sexism in video gaming, where there is space for the other research and broader findings. A short summary shouldn't really be emphasising the results of a single, limited study. - Bilby (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Apologies if I seem obtuse, but the interview answer seems to be asserting that the study is supportive that there are no broad cultivation effects of games on sexist attitudes; this is the same as "playing video games is not predictive of sexist beliefs". The conclusion per the abstract is "Controlling for age and education, it was found that sexist attitudes—measured with a brief scale assessing beliefs about gender roles in society—were not related to the amount of daily video game use or preference for specific genres for both female and male players." which also seems to align. The cautions in the interview are about using the study for other, broader, conclusions - not for using the study for the conclusion that it actually makes. I'm also not quite understanding what is meant by is true only within a context that is missing from what we had included or the earlier significant limitations of the study; could these be elaborated? I would generally concur that a short summary shouldn't really be emphasising the results of a single, limited study., but we are including here the results of 3 other individual studies, each as limited as this one, if not more so. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Reviewing the Kotaku source, I'm concerned that the recent additions here may not be directly supported. I couldn't find anything which supports the results were contradicted by previous studies and the study can not debunk previous work on its own; these do seem like editorialising, rather than letting the source & the work speak for itself. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

For the first, the results were contradicted by previous studies, there is this, from the study, quoted in Kotaku:

“These findings conflict with the results of previous cross-sectional and experimental work that found some evidence for links between sexist video game content and benevolent sexism and tolerance for sexual harassment. However, these studies were either cross-sectional or looked at short-term effects. They also focused on very specific games and types of sexism, whereas the present study was longitudinal and looked at general beliefs about gender roles in society and overall use of video games. Both the design of the current study and its main findings are more in line with previous cultivation studies on violence in video games that found no or only very limited evidence for cultivation effects.”

I'm not satisfied that a simple "contradicted" covers this; the differences in methodology, and the limitations of the other studies, seem the key "take aways" that the researchers are highlighting here. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

All I'm getting here are edit conflicts trying to reply to this, and to be honest I'm a tad frustrated, so I'll sit the talk page out for now. I'll try alternative wording. - Bilby (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Add a section on the effects of the exploitation of women in the media

Children see the exploitation in the media, internalize it, grow up and think that it is okay, that it is normal. Human sex trafficking is an effect on the exploitation of women because there is certain image of what a women should look, think, talk, and dress. I plan on adding this section into the article.

Wassup3 (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Exploitation of women in mass media. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071030030642/http://home20.inet.tele.dk:80/gorzelak/dps/anmeldelser/barbano_kutchinsky.html to http://home20.inet.tele.dk/gorzelak/dps/anmeldelser/barbano_kutchinsky.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Exploitation of women in mass media. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120203171037/http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/DIAM/effects_pornography.htm to http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/DIAM/effects_pornography.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120223120504/http://www.pluggedin.com/familyroom/articles/2007/isaveragethenewugly.aspx to http://www.pluggedin.com/familyroom/articles/2007/isaveragethenewugly.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Photos

The photos accompanying the article are good examples of exploitation but seem inappropriate. It seems like at least a censored photograph should be featured as to not encourage the concept of exploitation. Also, the section on advertising seems a bit outdated, as I am sure there are more updated studies in regards to the effect of exploiting women in advertising after the 2000s.

Combatcait (talk) 05:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I definitely agree with combatcait. The photos needlessly use nudity in a way that, I feel, almost makes the use of the images exploitative? There are many ways in which the media exploits women in the article that don't have to directly involve nudity, and to use such images says otherwise and practically creates an act of exploitation in using them. I think that finding images that demonstrate a wider variety of the ways in which women are exploited as shown in the article could be important to improving its integrity and message. Ballinm (talk) 05:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I've been following this page for a while and I agree with both of these statements. It seems to be unintentional irony that we are trying to identify the exploitation of women in media by exploiting them on a form of media? Unless there is a meaningful counterargument, I plan to remove this image. Feel free to discuss this further on my talk page. 64.132.43.3 MTTorres (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

How are children affected by media exploitation?

in regards to the question "Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or under-represented?", i think that this article could benefit greatly from adding in the effects on how this exploitation of women at different stages of life. Young girls and children are exposed to this media craze against women and they are bound to be affected by this as well. Especially now with technology advancing, children are being exposed to media more so than ever before. How is this effecting the view point of themselves? Other women? The article states how aging women are effected, but no where in the article does it reference younger children and the effects on their upbringings. Kyleeobrien (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)kyleeobrien

Mass Comm course posting final article please provide feedback

Hello, I worked on this article for my Mass Comm course in my sandbox in particular, the modeling section. Please take a look at the work that I have posted to the live page. This is a learning experience for me, please provide feedback if you can rather than removing the work if it does not meet the standards for Wikipedia. Thank you so much. Tarispittman (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Addition of information about societal effects

I added some information regarding how the objectification of women in the media resonates beyond cultural boundaries, to affect various races of women to a different degree. This could be elaborated further, but I felt that it was significant enough to contribute to the article. Internetuser112 (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I added two subheadings in the heading of societal effects; one pertained to the effects upon children and adolescents and the other related to the specific effects upon minority women in the United States. Utilizing sources from the Sex Roles journal and the American Psychological Association, I plan to further analyze these categories as I feel that they differentiate further from the general view of societal effects. The experience of the implications of oversexualized media is highly supported to affect women of different ages and ethnicities in very different ways. I would love suggestions about how to contribute further to this discussion and encapsulate each viewpoint of the content. Internetuser112 (talk) 09:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Added subheading "Music" and started adding information

I created a new subheading for music, specifically the lyrics in songs, and how they factor into the exploitation of women. Music is one of the most popular forms of media so I think it should be acknowledged on the page. I began adding data from reliable studies to begin explaining how music does contribute to exploiting women in mass media. I will add more data and examples of this occurrence in music lyrics and how this affects society. Dancingdebi09 (talk) 03:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Added subheading "Social Media"

I created a subheading for social media specifically because it is an aspect of media relevant to the discussion about exploitation of women. I've only added two cited sentences, but will continue to add info as I research. Nansjam (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Additions to "Music" Sub-heading

My goal for adding a music subheading was to begin the conversation on how music lyrics can contribute to exploiting women. I started by using data to show how frequently people listen to music. I then used examples of common song lyrics to show how negative lyrics are commonly embedded in lyrics. I chose to begin a discussion specifically in how music lyrics can affect children and adolescents because they listen to music more than other age groups. I began to support the idea that music lyrics containing derogatory language could lead to negative treatment of women by using a specific example of how music can alter behaviors and attitudes of people. A list of sources I utilized can be found at My Sandbox. The music section has room for lots of information to be added and I included links to some extra articles that are relevant and interesting. Please leave feedback on any improvements I can make or ideas for how to contribute to the article in the future! Dancingdebi09 (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Additions to "Social Media" subheading

I will be adding additional research to the social media subheading pertaining to new research developments. These developments reveal the hyper gender orientation and gender stereotypes prevalent on social media. It further displays how women are subjected to more scrutiny, show higher levels of emotional expression on social media, and more often offer a "sexy" self-respesentation. I will not publish yet as my research is not yet finished and my writing has not tied together the information in the most coherent flow as I have yet to find all the right resources. If anyone has any information to contribute to this topic please let me know! Nansjam (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Video games

Hi guys,
As per WP:NOR let's please avoid including content that is based on the results of a primary source.
If there is an absolute need to cite a primary source, please make sure the impact factor of the journal and the citation counts of the article are of very high quality.
-Mwright1469 (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Not sure it's an WP:NOR issue, but it's often better to seek a secondary source than to remove valid information. So I found a review that cited that primary result, and added a citation to that. The information is still based on the primary source, but the secondary source backs up the core of it, in the company of other such study results. Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Awesome, good find. I'll look for a reliable secondary source for the third sentence when I get the chance and will add to it.

What are your thoughts on the first sentence? -Mwright1469 (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

wbm1058 has proposed merging Women in mass media into Exploitation of women in mass media. Please use the space below to discuss the proposal. -- Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I've boldly converted Women in mass media to a redirect, there's no content in that stub that isn't already detailed in greater depth and more encyclopedic terms here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC) not watching this page, ping me if you respond

Untitled

Cayman Simpson edited "Film" section to sound less like a personal essay. Caymansimpson11 (talk) 06:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Addition to Lead Section of Article

I will be adding to the lead section of this article by giving a brief historical context of the exploitation of women in the media, which dates back to the 19th century. I feel that this will give the reader a brief bit of background knowledge in order to understand the full spectrum of women's exploitation in the media. It will also help to give context to the lead section itself, therefore giving a more broad understanding of all of the types and variations of exploitation.

Edit: Sexual exploitation of women in the media dates back to 19th century Paris, in which ballerinas were exposed to harassment and objectification. The ballerinas in the Paris Opera Ballet were ogled by their male audience members and often even expected to perform sexual favors for the male subscribers behind the scenes.

--Kmartin53 (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to this article. You are quite correct that the lead needs expansion. As it says in MOS:INTRO, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". With regard to the Paris Opera Ballet, I have a concern that theatre would not normally be classed as an example of mass media. Theatre is not listed in the mass media article, for instance. Hence I am not sure that this addition to the lead is entirely appropriate for the article. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Additions to "Film" Subheading

In the "Film" section of the article, I will be adding a few more research points pertaining to the statistics of female nudity in films. I feel that adding facts and figures will help to solidify the idea that women are often hypersexualized in the film industry.

Edit: Research shows that within the 56 top-grossing films in North America, Scandinavia, Africa, Asia, Latin America and Europe, women and girls were four times more likely than men to be shown wearing revealing clothing; nearly twice as likely to be shown as partially nude; and four times more likely to be shown completely naked.

In addition, I will also be adding more information about the Geena Davis Institute in the third paragraph of this section. I feel that the organization encompasses the investigation of the roles of women in the media, and the studies conducted by Geena Davis and her organization would add valuable information to the roles portrayed by women in the film industry.

Edit: Known for her roles in movies such as Thelma and Louise and Commander In Chief, Geena Davis founded her own nonprofit research in order to research and change the way that young girls and women are portrayed in films. Davis has expressed that throughout the film industry, there has been a lack of female representation and a pattern of inaccurate portrayals of women and girls in movie roles.

--Kmartin53 (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mensk123. Peer reviewers: Maraa09, Jeremyrios88.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 9 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sanlup1998.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 8 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kmartin53.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 17 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jessisilv18. Peer reviewers: Bonniealves1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 4 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Elliesworldd. Peer reviewers: Pgenesis21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 June 2021 and 30 July 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rcantoin. Peer reviewers: Michelle13712.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

POV

This entire article is basically an antipornography screed and represents both POV-pushing and a point-of-view fork from existing article such as Feminist views on pornography. More generally, it suffers from the flaws that "course assignment"-based articles often do, in that they are basically glorified school term papers, often profoundly unbalanced, and lacking in a broad perspective on the topic. I'm going to tag this article as POV and it should remain tagged unless there's an extensive rewrite of the article. More generally, I think the material here should be merged into existing article on these topics rather than continue to exist as a fork. Peter G Werner (talk) 05:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160B

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2022 and 15 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KatrinaBaldeo, MeganRendall (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Xinyue Hu (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Rhetoric 1-06

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 September 2022 and 14 November 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Corrine431, Rahst7, KEAST3, Gabbymcgearyy (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jialeijiang (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Communication Studies

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 2 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mlbeach18 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ariysabella, Andrecarias.

— Assignment last updated by CommDocBDS (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160A

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2022 and 15 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Polinamarkina (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Polinamarkina (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: University Writing 1020 Communicating Feminism MW 1 pm

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 11 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dearnikki (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Dearnikki (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: COMM 500 Theory and Literature of Communication

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Willow333 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: GS2325, Chickadee101.

— Assignment last updated by Chickadee101 (talk) 06:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Edits (10/1-12/15)

Introduction

I Reworded the introduction paragraph, as well as omit unfitting information regarding history. In these additions, I also added new definition and examples of exploitation.

In the media

Film:

Added information about stereotypes in film, as well as added research about the limited perspective on women. Furthermore, I added a new paragraph about Bechdel test history and research and how it relates to. I also added more relevant studies regarding gender roles and stereotypes. I took the paragraphs about male gaze theory and added them to

Social media:

Added new information regarding self image and young girls. The relevant studies in which I added included the topics of body positivity, fitspiration, and self worth.

Pornography:

Added information about how exploitation of women in the media affects relationships. Added relevant studies from Zillmann and Bryant.

Societal effects

Effects on youth:

I changed introduction sentence to tie in existing research

Violence:

Added research to the correlation between violence in the media and violence experienced in real life by women, added information about gender roles and how the theory relates to the portrayal of violence in the media.

Effects on women of color:

Added this section to diversify the article and add more insight to marginalized groups of women, Incorporated research from book- Diverse perspectives.

Theoretical Approaches

Added this section as completely new with the following theories

Gender performative theory, Sexual script theory, Social cognitive theory, Cultivation theory, Male gaze theory (moved from "Film" subsection), Commodification theory Willow333 (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Understanding Intersectionality

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2024 and 1 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SingsaasKyle, Josiesch, A1imack (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Gillian Rens, Eskarzinski.

— Assignment last updated by JaxC135 (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)