Gender mainstreaming campaign as a casualty of the online gender-based humor: A discourse analysis
Vol 9, Issue 2, 2024, Article identifier:
VIEWS - 620 (Abstract) 248 (PDF)
Abstract
Cultivation of gender-based humor in social media encourages contrarian language to gender mainstreaming. Gender-based humor posed threat on how to deliver equitable gender mainstreaming campaigns through online. The goal of this study was to determine how gender-based humor impact gender mainstreaming campaign in sociolinguistic sense. There were 14 participants in the focus group discussion providing collective narratives on proliferation of gender-based humors in social media. The participants were language teachers, Gender and Development (GAD) coordinators, and GAD advocates. Discourse analysis indicated that language use in social media hampers the delivery of gender mainstreaming campaigns. Social characterization and social distinctions were prominent components of the humor language, which then cultivated gender normativity. Gender-based humor perpetuate stereotypes, promote discriminatory practices, and reinforce power imbalances through linguistic means. In larger scale, humor language influences the reproduction of humor culture in social media. Gender mainstreaming slows down because of massive cultivation of social belief systems. The problem lies on how gender stereotypes are normalized in society through language use.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
1. Paciello M, D’Errico F, Saleri G, Lamponi E. Online sexist meme and its effects on moral and emotional processes in social media. Computers in Human Behavior 2021; 116: 106655. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106655
2. Hofer M, Swan KO. Digital image manipulation: A compelling means to engage students in discussion of point of view and perspective. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education 2005; 5(3): 290–299.
3. Taecharungroj V, Nueangjamnong P. Humour 2.0: Styles and types of humour and virality of memes on Facebook. Journal of Creative Communications 2015; 10(3): 288–302. doi: 10.1177/0973258615614420
4. Shifman L. Humor in the age of digital reproduction: Continuity and change in internet-based comic texts. International Journal of Communication 2007; 1(1): 23.
5. Ford TE, Ferguson M. Social consequences of disparagement humor: A prejudiced norm theory. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2004; 8(1): 79–94. doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0801_4
6. Chavez JV, Prado RTD. Discourse analysis on online gender-based humor: Markers of normalization, tolerance, and lens of inequality. Forum for Linguistic Studies 2023; 5(1): 55–71. doi: 10.18063/fls.v5i1.1530
7. Chavez JV, Lamorinas DD, Ceneciro CC. Message patterns of online gender-based humor, discriminatory practices, biases, stereotyping, and disempowering tools through discourse analysis. Forum for Linguistic Studies 2023; 5(2): 1535. doi: 10.59400/fls.v5i2.1535
8. Siddiqi N, Bains A, Mushtaq A, Aleem S. Analysing threads of sexism in new age humour: a content analysis of internet memes. Indian Journal of Social Research 2018; 59(3): 355–367.
9. Carniel F, Ruggi L, Ruggi J de O. Gender and humor on social networks: The campaign against Dilma Rousseff in Brazil (Portuguese). Opinião Pública 2018; 24(3): 523–546. doi: 10.1590/1807-01912018243523
10. Drakett J, Rickett B, Day K, Milnes K. Old jokes, new media—Online sexism and constructions of gender in Internet memes. Feminism & Psychology 2018; 28(1): 109–127. doi: 10.1177/0959353517727560
11. Hawthorne S, Klein R. Cyberfeminism: Connectivity, Critique and Creativity. Spinifex Press; 1999.
12. Perera A. Cultivation theory: Definition and examples. Available online: https://www.simplypsychology.org/cultivation-theory.html (accessed on 7 July 2023).
13. Gerbner G. Comparative cultural indicators. In: Gerbner G (editor). Mass Media Policies in Changing Cultures. Wiley; 1977. pp. 199–205.
14. Women UN. Gender mainstreaming: A global strategy for achieving gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls. Available online: https://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2020/04/brochure-gender-mainstreaming-strategy-for-achieving-gender-equality-and-empowerment-of-women-girls (accessed on 10 November 2023).
15. Mallett RK, Ford TE, Woodzicka JA. What did He mean by that? Humor decreases attributions of sexism and confrontation of sexist jokes. Sex Roles 2016; 75(5–6): 272–284. doi: 10.1007/s11199-016-0605-2
16. Argüello-Gutiérrez C, Carretero-Dios H, Willis GB, Moya M. Joking about ourselves: Effects of disparaging humor on ingroup stereotyping. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 2018; 21(4): 568–583. doi: 10.1177/1368430216674339
17. Argüello-Gutiérrez C, Cubero A, Fumero F, et al. I’m just joking! Perceptions of sexist humour and sexist beliefs in a Latin American context. International Journal of Psychology 2023; 58(2): 91–102. doi: 10.1002/ijop.12884
18. Woodzicka JA, Mallet RK, Hendricks S, Pruitt AV. It’s just a (sexist) joke: Comparing reactions to sexist versus racist communications. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 2015; 28(2): 289–309. doi: 10.1515/humor-2015-0025
19. Abrams J, Bippus A, McGaughey K. Gender disparaging jokes: An investigation of sexist-non stereotypical jokes on funniness, typicality, and the moderating role of ingroup identification. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 2015; 8(2): 311–326. doi: 10.1515/humor-2015-0019
20. Kochersberger AO, Ford TE, Woodzicka JA, et al. The role of identification with women as a determinant of amusement with sexist humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 2014; 27(3): 441–460. doi: 10.1515/humor2014-0071
21. Thomae M, Pina A. Sexist humor and social identity: The role of sexist humor in men’s in-group cohesion, sexual harassment, rape proclivity, and victim blame. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 2015; 28(2): 187–204. doi: 10.1515/humor-2015-0023
22. Abrams JR, Bippus AM. Gendering jokes: Intergroup bias in reactions to same- versus opposite-gender humor. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 2014; 33(6): 692–702. doi: 10.1177/0261927X14544963
23. Dyson RA. The mean world syndrome diminishes human security. Journal of Human Security 2011; 7(1): 1–6. doi: 10.3316/JHS0701001
24. Chandler R. Meme World Syndrome: A Critical Discourse Analysis of the First World Problems and Third World Success Internet Memes [Master’s thesis]. University of Central Florida; 2013.
25. Jorgensen JJ, Ha Y. The influence of electronic word of mouth via social networking sites on the socialization of college-aged consumers. Journal of Interactive Advertising 2019; 19(1): 29–42. doi: 10.1080/15252019.2018.1533500
26. Klinkenberg L. Exploration of the ‘Mean World Syndrome’ in Dutch older persons. Student Undergraduate Research E-journal 2015; 1. doi: 10.25609/sure.v1.1021
27. Morgan M, Shanahan J. The state of cultivation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 2010; 54(2): 337–355. doi: 10.1080/08838151003735018
28. Nabi RL, Prestin A, So J. Facebook friends with (health) benefits? Exploring social network site use and perceptions of social support, stress, and well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 2013; 16(10): 721–727. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2012.0521
29. Dainton M, Zelley ED. Explaining theories of mediated communication. In: Applying Communication Theory for Professional Life: A Practical Introduction. Sage Publishing; 2005. pp. 196–218.
30. Hammermeister J, Brock B, Winterstein D, Page R. Life without TV? Cultivation theory and psychosocial health characteristics of television-free individuals and their television-viewing counterparts. Health Communication 2005; 17(3): 253–264. doi: 10.1207/s15327027hc1703_3
31. Hetsroni A, Tukachinsky RH. Television-world estimates, real-world estimates, and television viewing: A new scheme for cultivation. Journal of Communication 2006; 56(1): 133–156. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00007.x
32. Tsfati Y, Tukachinsky R, Peri Y. Exposure to news, political comedy, and entertainment talk shows: Concern about security and political mistrust. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 2009; 21(4): 399–423. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edp015
33. Martins N, Harrison K. Racial and gender differences in the relationship between children’s television use and self-esteem. Communication Research 2012; 39(3): 338–357. doi: 10.1177/0093650211401376
34. Gerbner G, Gross L, Morgan M, Signorielli N. Living with television: The dynamics of the cultivation process. Perspectives on Media Effects 1986; 17–40.
35. Mosharafa E. All you need to know about: The cultivation theory. Global Journal of Human-social Science: A Arts & Humanities—Psychology 2015; 15(8): 23–38.
36. Morgan M, Shanahan J, Signorielli N. Yesterday’s new cultivation, tomorrow. Mass Communication and Society 2015; 18(5): 674–699. doi: 10.1080/15205436.2015.1072725
37. Scharrer E, Warren S. Adolescents’ modern media use and beliefs about masculine gender roles and norms. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 2022; 99(1): 289–315. doi: 10.1177/10776990211035453
38. Stein JP, Krause E, Ohler P. Every (Insta) Gram counts? Applying cultivation theory to explore the effects of Instagram on young users’ body image. Psychology of Popular Media 2021; 10(1): 87–97. doi: 10.1037/ppm0000268
39. Calaro MF, Vicente MB, Chavez JV, et al. Marketing campaigns leading to the purchase of accommodation products: A content analysis. Journal of Namibian Studies: History Politics Culture 2023; 33: 4221–4236. doi: 10.59670/jns.v33i.2696
40. Chavez JV, Adalia HG, Alberto JP. Parental support strategies and motivation in aiding their children learn the English language. Forum for Linguistic Studies 2023; 5(2): 1541. doi: 10.59400/fls.v5i2.1541
41. Chavez JV. Narratives of bilingual parents on the real-life use of English language: Materials for English language teaching curriculum. Arab World English Journal 2022; 13(3): 325–338. doi: 10.24093/awej/vol13no3.21
42. Nikolopoulou K. What is purposive sampling? | Definition & Examples. Available online: https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/purposive-sampling/ (accessed on 3 July 2023).
43. Caulfield J. How to do thematic analysis | step-by-step guide & examples. Available online: https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/thematic-analysis/ (accessed on 3 July 2023).
44. Cameron D. Language and gender: Mainstreaming and the persistence of patriarchy. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 2020; 2020(263): 25–30. doi: 10.1515/ijsl-2020-2078
45. Sarikakis K. Power, patriarchy, profit: Barriers to gender mainstreaming in media policy. Available online: https://mediagovernance.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/p_mediagovernance/Publikationen/PowerPatriarchy.pdf (accessed on 10 November 2023).
46. Anggraheni P, Perbawani FCL, Aryani MI. Gender-mainstreaming, digital security and perception on online gender-based violence: A case study in Bpir Upnvjt. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, Proceedings of the 3rd International Media Conference 2021 (IMC 2021); 13–14 October 2021; Surabaya, Indonesia. Atlantis Press; 2021. pp. 197–204.
47. Crawford M. Gender and humor in social context. Journal of Pragmatics 2003; 35(9): 1413–1430. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00183-2
48. Zijdervelt AC. The sociology of humor and laughter. Current Sociology 1976; 31(3): 3–100. doi: 10.1177/001139283031003003
49. Kotthoff H. Gender and humor: The state of the art. Journal of Pragmatics 2006; 38(1): 4–25. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.003
50. Bergmann M. How many feminists does it take to make a joke? Sexist humor and what’s wrong with it. Hypatia 1986; 1(1): 63–82. doi: 10.1111/j.1527-2001.1986.tb00522.x
51. Borsotti V, Bjørn P. Humor and stereotypes in computing: An equity-focused approach to institutional accountability. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 2022; 31(4): 771–803. doi: 10.1007/s10606-022-09440-9
52. Philips M. Racist acts and racist humor. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 1984; 14(1): 75–96.
53. Ford TE, Boxer CF, Armstrong J, Edel JR. More than “just a joke”: The prejudice-releasing function of sexist humor. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2008; 34(2): 159–170. doi: 10.1177/0146167207310022
54. Ford TE, Woodzicka JA, Petit WE, et al. Sexist humor as a trigger of state self-objectification in women. Humor 2015; 28(2): 253–269. doi: 10.1515/humor-2015-0018
55. Dall’Ara E, Maass A. Studying sexual harassment in the laboratory: Are egalitarian women at higher risk? Sex Roles 1999; 41(9–10): 681–704. doi: 10.1023/A:1018816025988
56. Walton KA, Pedersen CL. Motivations behind catcalling: exploring men’s engagement in street harassment behaviour. Psychology & Sexuality 2022; 13(3): 689–703. doi: 10.1080/19419899.2021.1909648
57. Gardner CB. Passing by: Gender and Public Harassment. University of California Press; 1995.
58. Signorielli N. Gender stereotyping on television. Media Psychology. Palgrave Macmillian; 2012. pp. 170–186.
59. Ward LM, Grower P. Media and the development of gender role stereotypes. Annual Review of Developmental Psychology 2020; 2(1): 177–199. doi: 10.1146/annurev-devpsych-051120-010630
60. Lomotey BA. Exploring gender ideologies in social media jokes during the coronavirus pandemic. Gender Studies 2020; 19(1): 65–89. doi: 10.2478/genst-2021-0005
61. Shaw J. Philosophy of humor. Philosophy Compass 2010; 5(2): 112–126. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00281.x.
62. Dobson K, Knezevic I. ‘Liking and Sharing’ the stigmatization of poverty and social welfare: Representations of poverty and welfare through Internet memes on social media. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 2017; 15(2): 777–795. doi: 10.31269/triplec.v15i2.815
63. Hristova S. Visual memes as neutralizers of political dissent. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 2014; 12(1): 265–276. doi: 10.31269/triplec.v12i1.507
64. Gbadegesin VO. Gender ideology and identity in humorous social media memes. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 2020; 35(3): 529–546. doi: 10.1093/llc/fqz039
65. Anderson ML. Thinking about Women: Sociological and Feminist Perspectives. Collier Macmillan; 2008.
66. Haider AS, Al-Abbas LS. Stereotyping Arab women in jokes circulated on social media during the coronavirus crisis. The European Journal of Humour Research 2022; 10(1): 168–185. doi: 10.7592/ejhr2022.10.1.569
67. Attardo S. Linguistic Theories of Humor. Mouton de Gruyter; 1994.
68. Cameron D. Gender and language ideologies. The Handbook of Language, Gender, and Sexuality. John Wiley & Sons; 2014. pp. 279–296.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.54517/esp.v9i2.2044
(620 Abstract Views, 248 PDF Downloads)
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2023 Jason V. Chavez, Jhordan T. Cuilan
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/