Previous two chapters described unquestionably negative factors contributing to a female celebrity's online experience related to social media. It it important to notice that the ordeal was also involuntarily; an unforeseen consequence of seemingly innocuous actions, rooten in the trust put into leading Internet companies, and, obviously, other users.
Among the undeniably adverse occurrences, it is, however, necessary to remember that famous American women are not fated to encounter problems every time they log into their accounts; social media, above all, provide an opportunity not only to defend oneself and respond to criticism and comments about sudden vulnerability, but also to take a stand against it, as well as other forms of mistreatment experienced by the victim, and others.
Moreover, besides expressing internal, personal feelings, social media allows users to share concepts and ideas they support with a large and usually diverse audience.
The term “activism” might bring to mind taking literal physical action and steps towards reaching a chosen goal or drawing a wider attention to a situation or a problem. Examples of such processes involving or centering around women can be traced – most noticeably – from past decades (suffragettes being probably the most recognisable one) to the present day (Iranian women publicly opposing mandatory veiling in hopes to regain the right to present themselves in accordance with their beliefs and will).
Even though those movements, among others, were, and still are, widely discussed and popularised through the Internet and, ipso facto, social media, they did not specifically start within the online community. In his book, Tweets and The Streets. Social Media and Contemporary Activism, Paolo Gerbaudo (2012) informs the reader that online activism is not as foreign and unfamiliar of an occurrence as it might seem.
“Where self-managed activist internet services like Indymedia and activist mailing lists were the media of choice of the anti-globalisation movement, contemporary activists are instead shamelessly appropriating corporate social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter. Commenting on this enthusiastic adoption of social media, pundits and journalists have readily resorted to expressions like ‘the Facebook revolution’ or ‘the Twitter revolution’.” (p. 2)
As with many popular movements, online activism gets divided into categories and manifests itself within different realms of focus. The types of activism described in this chapter are going to be divided into two categories: societal issues and political activism.
Aforementioned mandatory veiling can be considered related to the first category, however it is associated with a law upheld in a Middle Eastern country. In Women and Politics in Iran: Veiling, Unveiling, and Reveiling, Hamideh Seghdi (2007) details the coercion to the reader:
“From the outset, unveiled women became a social anathema but veiled women acquired revolutionary credentials. Extolling the concealed women, women's bodies were ordered to be disguised like “pearls protected inside a shell”, as street murals conveyed and communicate today. Veiling guarded Islam, but significantly, it hid women's sexual power/energy from eliciting public disorder by distracting and arousing men sexually.” (p. 211)
Taking cultural differences into account, one might wonder what decree or societal norm western women, especially those who are famous, might struggle or have issues with? From being the first to be granted the right to vote, to being in a complete control over their lives and choices (which, sadly, still cannot be attributed to women and girls in numerous contemporary societies), the lives of the female part of the populations of North America and Europe appear desirable and praiseworthy.
However, behind the facade of liberty, there are various concerns and questions, still unanswered, that shatter the seemingly perfect notion of such life, and, by the fact itself, motivate female celebrities to try to have a say in discussions and debates about a certain commotion.
In the early seventies the Supreme Court in the United States decided that providing an access to abortion as well as the procedure itself would no longer be treated as a criminal offence. The infamous case is known as “Roe vs Wade”, as those were the name and the alias of the opposing sides that took part in the case. Since the legal settlement American abortion clinics have been providing approximately 300000 terminations every year. In their book, Abortion Politics: Public Policy in Cross-Cultural Perspective, Marianne Githens and Dorothy Stetson (1996) describe the long-lasting effect of the case:
“(...) In 1973 the Supreme Court ruled in the case Roe vs. Wade that abortion fell within a woman's zone of privacy and struck down a restrictive Georgia abortion law in the companion case Doe vs. Bolton, the right to obtain an abortion has continued to be hotly debated (…). The case for an against abortion is regularly made in homes, in churches, in the media, and in legislatures across the country.” (p. 7)
Abortion and access to contraceptives (often called “reproductive rights”) for many seem to be a big part of western women's liberation. Even though the concept of a woman's right to choose her own way of living is mostly seen as positive, the meaning of liberation varies. Just as the accessibility of medical procedures mentioned above might be seen as an improvement on women's life, there are those – also females – that bear a different perspective.
One of the most influential pro-life advocates is a famous California-born journalist Lila Rose. As Marsha Vanderford (1989) explains in Vilification and Social Movements: A case study of pro‐life and pro‐choice rhetoric, the term “pro-life” (as opposed to “pro-choice”) is a name given to a person or organisation that disagrees with abortion, as well as any other form of ending a human life by another person. They also support adoption and promote taking care of the elderly, both of which are alternatives to terminating pregnancies and providing an access to euthanasia for people who are close to their natural passing or death caused by severe or terminal illnesses. Interestingly, in her book, the author also mentions the abundance of pro-choice personalities in media, therefore making the case for activists like Lila Rose:
“Patterns (...) delineated powerful individuals in media, business, and politics as pro-choice supporters. Media executives were consistently linked to pro-choice action.” (p. 171)
Rose, on her website, describes herself as: “a speaker, writer and human rights activist. Lila founded and serves as president of Live Action, a media and news nonprofit dedicated to ending abortion and inspiring a culture that respects all human life.”
Besides more traditional form of online presence, like websites, Rose uses several social media platforms that help the advocate spread her message.
Similarly to Facebook, Twitter does not only allow its users to share content and comment on it in a conventional form. Adding the commentary directly above the shared post is a popular feature which allows the user's remark to be seen by everyone, not just those who directly open the comment section. Rose seems to use this function a lot in order to target a larger audience.
The Twitter posts quoted below come from the activist's account (@LilaGraceRose) and are written in a form of the described reply.
"Since 2015, at least 16 babies were born alive in Florida after failed abortion attempts. We don't know what happened to these little ones. Were they given sufficient medical care to survive? Will we ever get to hear their stories?" as a response to "Over the past few years, according to online reports, there have been 16 abortion survivors born after abortion attempts in the state of Florida."
"Thank you, Nebraska @GovRicketts for ending federal funding to Planned Parenthood through Title X. Planned Parenthood is the largest recipient of Title X funding, and every dollar frees the abortion giant up to pay staff and lobby for more tax dollars." as a response to "Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts signed a budget Wednesday that will eliminate federal family-planning funding to Planned Parenthood of the Heartland."
"Your [Planned Parenthood] abortionists violently tore apart 900 children today, some of them old enough to survive outside the womb. All were helpless.
You took money from parents who were scared and struggling and sold violence and death as a solution to their struggles." as a response to "Everyone has the right to lead a life that is healthy & free from violence (...)"
The tweets, obviously, give the reader and users an insight into the author's view, but, simultaneously, help them understand how social media has alleviated a woman's ability of signalling ideas and engaging in discussion.
Even though a female celebrity might already have a degree of recognition and capability to use long-established means of sharing her opinions (interviews, authoring a book), a direct message with an option of an easy engagement in conversation creates a sense of ability – and, in many cases, the ability itself – to actually take part in a case one is interested in supporting or debating. Davidson (2008) details the importance of such opportunity:
“Managers and leaders routinely use a variety of techniques, such as encouraging informal social interaction and creating and maintaining strong organizational to help people feel a part of the whole organization (Schein, 1985). One's sense of feeling included is most crucial because it strengthens affective commitment to the organization.” (p. 172)
Societal issues – abortion and adoption being not only not an exception, but a popular and returning points – are thoroughly linked to politics. On the other hand, they rarely stem out of it, however, an issue discussed publicly by a politician or a party might start a nationwide debate, involving, besides ordinary voters', the opinions of those with an already established fanbase and following.
The 2016 American presidential election seems to be a good example of such involvement.
One might safely assume that the fact that Hillary Rodham Clinton became one of two main candidates in the race to the White House greatly encouraged female celebrities to start social media based political commentary. Since the wife of the former president, Bill Clinton, had the chance to become the first female to take the office, numerous famous women used their Internet platforms to show their encouragement.
However, similarly to the previously discussed issue related to abortion, there were also those who disapproved of Clinton's candidacy. The opponents did not hesitate to detail their stance by using social media accounts as well, and – what was easily predictable – both sides drafted a wide attention for their activity, which resulted in a great number of favourable, but also, what seemed inevitable, critical comments.
It is important to remember that the purpose of this chapter is to present the famous American woman's availability to debate political turmoil (that had an impact on them as citizens) that presidential elections usually bring, and analyze the experience. The examples and quotations presented below do not ai at judging the person's position or opinion, but are supposed to illustrate and provide details of said online environment.
During the presidential campaign in 2016, Katy Perry (full name Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson) – one of the best selling American pop artists worldwide - became a prominent and dedicated supporter of Clinton. Among various public ventures, notably designing shoes named after the candidate and dedicating one of the songs on her album Witness to the loss of the supported Democrat, Perry used her Twitter account, which is currently followed by over 100 users, to show her approval for Clinton. By adding a popular hashtags created by other supporters, she announced:
“YOU GOT THIS @HillaryClinton #DEBATES”
"She's smiling with ease cause #shesgotthis #ImWithHer #debatenight"
"RT if you're already preparing a seat at the table for @HillaryClinton"
As mentioned above, despite the tweets being targeted mainly at the singer's fans and the followers of the Democratic candidate, Perry also faced criticism for her posts. Under the article of the writer Jerome Hudson (Katy Perry Begs Democratic National Convention To Vote For Hillary Clinton), working for the political news site Breitbart, they commentators demonstrated their contempt for the woman's plea and actions. The author of the most popular (given the most votes by other readers) comment claims:
“(...) EMPTY mind, you vapid c_nt. Empty, not open. Make an IQ of at least 110 a prerequisite for voting rights, and all America's problems will be gone. Make it a requirement for performing in public, and we'll never hear from Katy Perry again.”
The statement clearly indicates the person's derogatory attitude towards the woman in relation to her gender (“vapid c_nt”), as well as doubt in her mental abilities, calling her mind “empty”. Even though it is unknown whether Perry saw the comment, it is safe to assume that she must have been aware of the opinion others have of her for supporting the chosen candidate, since the post, as previously mentioned, gained a big applause of the readers of the article.
Nevertheless, since there were two candidates hoping to become the resident of The White House, both of them gathered supporters amongst the famous.
Keeping in mind the point made earlier – that Hillary Clinton could have become the first female president of The United States – it seemed that she was the one to have the majority of female celebrities as allies. Scholars Bremner, Soufer, McCarthy, Delaney, Staib, Duncan, and Charney (2001) support the theory in their article, Gender Differences In Cognitive and Neural Correlates of Remembrance of Emotional Words:
"Studies suggest that men and women have important differences in specific cognitive functions. (...) women rely on emotional content to a greater degree in the processing of information." (p. 56)
The emotional aspect of having a representative of their gender among American leaders was undoubtedly an important factor that lead many female celebrities to show Hillary Clinton their appreciation. Nonetheless, her rival, Donald John Trump, managed to attract various popular names as well.
Kaya Jones (real name Chrystal Neria), a singer raised in Nevada, who was once performing with a popular all-girl music group The Pussycat Dolls, did not conceal her support for the Republican candidate. Similarly to Perry, Jones decided that Twitter would help her spread her opinion and approval:
"I want to show other celebrities who voted for @realDonaldTrump it’s ok to come forward. Better yet let’s show the world how many Americans stand with him. Bullies shouldn’t be allowed for almost a year and a half to bully us without cause. If you voted for him just Like or RT"
She even used a hashtag invented by Trump's opponents to show her support:
"Trump that’s who. Himself even more fabulous #CouldBeatTrumpIn2020"
The statements received a negative feedback as well. In an interview with Willie Pena, as an answer to the question about being criticized for openly supporting the candidate, the woman admitted: “Yes. I've received death threats.”
Jones, however, is not the only famous ally of Donald Trump. Blaire White, a political commentator with a following of almost 400 thousands users on her YouTube channel, admitted to voting Republican in the 2016 election. White is usually considered as phenomenon, since transsexuals have always been associated with the opposite side of the political spectrum, a theory that is backed in Rawyn Connell's (2012) Transsexual Women and Feminist Thought: Toward New Understanding and New Politics:
"The political meaning of transsexuality began to be negotiated in the US New Left (...). Several small, radical transsexual/transvestite groups formed, and they issued a manifesto calling for social justice." (p. 4)
White shares her experience from the point of view of a trans female who has publicly voiced her approval of the candidate. Marie Solis adduces White's interview with Newsweek, where the YouTuber describes a physical assault she has endured:
"I have never been assaulted for being trans. I’ve never had anyone on the street say anything nasty to me about being trans. But I was assaulted for wearing a Trump hat. I think that speaks for itself."
Although such reaction to someone expressing their political leaning might seem exaggerated, Henrik Urdal reminds that, surprisingly, it is to be expected in countries like The United States: "The opportunity literature suggests that the opportunity for political violence is greater the less autocratic a state is (…)" (p. 613)
In summary, the chapter described a new opportunity for famous women not only to join a discussion, usually related to a popular or controversial topics, but also to spread their message and opinions more easily. Despite already having an audience, social media allows a celebrity to engage with followers and commentators in a way that is quick and gives the impression (and, obviously, the real experience) of having an impact on The United States and the world's current struggles and events.
No comments:
Post a Comment