Module II 500 word blog post

Gender Differences in "Social Portraits" Reflected in MySpace Profiles is an article written by Melissa Magnuson and Lauren Dundes elaborating on gender roles which become evident even upon MySpace. Magnuson and Dundes use an experiment as support for their opinions. The experiment consisted of 100 individuals, 49 of which were male, and the remaining female. In order to provide an accurate experiment, profiles were simply viewed without asking questions to prevent inaccurate data. While looking at peoples profiles between the ages of 17 to 29 they took note of different parts of the profile, such as: personal quote, age, gender, relationship status, education level, containment of significant other in profile picture, number of times significant other was mentions in both the "About Me" and "Interests" sections, number of opposite sex friends in Top Eight, and the number of total friends. For most of the previously listed, gender differences were unapparent, the results remained the same for both sexes. Though distinct differences became present with regard to mentioning your significant other in your profile. As with males, 43 percent didn’t' mention their significant other at all, almost half, 43 percent mentioned them once, and only 14 percent mentioned her more than once. Compared the females, where 16 percent didn't mention their significant other, 47 percent mentioned him once, and 37 percent mentioned him more than once. Magnuson and Dundes conclude that this conveys the idea women revolve their lives around men, and that women feel they must be the partner who is more devoted in the relationship. They go on to mention how women tend to use men to define their identity while men seem to treat women as another section in there already completes life. I agree with their idea, from personal experience it seems that women seem to glorify the fact of them having a boyfriend. While guys, whose are in no rush lose any of their masculinity, continue about their normal rituals with the incorporation of a female into their schedule. When watching sitcoms on television consider the role that the male plays, in most cases he is the insensitive jerk who tends to put his “guys” first. You typically see this character ditching his wife for a football game, or showing up late because he was at the bar with his friends. No wonder these gender roles are so apparent, because even the media instills them upon us. This is not to say that these really are sensitive or don’t care as much about their significant other as she does for him, but it is just roles which must be maintained due to fear that he will feel emasculated by showing this behavior. Aside from gender roles there is another perspective to be examined when considering why girls mention guys more then guys mention girls. Perhaps guys are more insecure than women and the fact that they mention their significant other less increases the chances of another feel approaching the man. Thus, providing means to boost his ego. When someone receives the label of “taken” they become a lesser object of interest to the opposite sex, maybe men still want to feel desired by more than just their girlfriend. The females are most likely more susceptible to mention guys because they take pride in having a significant other and like to parade this to everyone else. MySpace provides a great basis to show many of these, but drawing the conclusions can become vague, only one thing is for certain and that being that there are great differences between genders.

Module II research essay

Joseph Fenner
Professor Yerks
Composition 106
30 October 2008

Cell Phones: a Progression of Society

“The ’regressive’ and ‘subversive’ impact of landline phones is very much amplified and generalized by mobile phone devices because they empower informal micro-social networks to communicate much more efficiently beyond any institutional control” (Geser 9). Hans Geser is wrong to say this; the mobile phone holds a progressive impact on society. He makes several points, stating that mobile phones undermine societal development by: increasing the pervasiveness of primary, particularistic social bonds, reducing the need for time-based scheduling and coordination, undermining institutional boundary controls and replacing location-based with person-based communicative systems, providing support for anachronistic “pervasive roles.” I disagree with all of these beliefs and find myself in complete opposition. Mobile phones may be a result of some of these, but the negative effects are minute and the benefits effectively outweigh the costs.
Geser states, “The mobile can function as a ‘pacifier for adults’ that reduces feelings of loneliness and vulnerability in any place and at any time.” He considers this a regression while from a different perspective it could be considered a solution. If there is an opportunity to reduce loneliness and vulnerability, why not use it? In moments of social awkwardness people tend to look to their cell phone for support. When support is available for use, why ignore it? Geser would respond, “Individuals may become less prone to develop certain ‘social competencies.’” I must disagree, although cell phones are available to us at most instances sometimes they are not. “…the device does not always fit into the flow of co-present interaction, but that when thinking of mediated interaction within the group, mobile communication facilitates the development of cohesion through the use of various ritual devices (argot, greeting forms, humor, gossip) and by playing cupid for lovers” (Ling 175). Ling speaks of face-to-face confrontation, where most of our social skills are directly developed; in such situations there isn’t time to reach out for your lifeline (cell phone). Geser continues, “Individuals may easily unlearn the ability to rely on their own judgment, memory and reflection.” As Geser mentioned there is a social network of close friends, at one time you are bound to be asked for your judgment from another individual in this mobile world; in a sense these abilities are still learned just in a different way.
Geser really focuses on the idea of using cell phones to escape lonely and awkward situations. One must focus their attention on the use of cell phones to escape a dangerous or even life threatening situation. “Emergency calls placed on cellular phones are rising rapidly. People are reporting drunk drivers and staying a safe distance behind them to lead the police to the exact location. The Virginia State Police reported 100 calls to 911 in a single day back in June of 1997. These calls consisted of reports of traffic accidents, drunken drivers, vehicle and brush fires, and some crimes in progress “(D’Aiello). Not a single person can argue that cell phones aren’t vital in situations like these. Whether or not cell phones create prolonged infantile dependency, people can only agree that cell phones have aided in creating a safer environment for all, and that far outweighs any negative result.
When discussing the decline of time-based scheduling and coordination Geser brings for several points. He begins by mentioning the presence of coordinating plants being centuries of age. He states, “cell phones reduce the need for temporal preplanning, insofar as rearrangements can be at any moment even very shortly before an agreed time.” This sounds like a great result but Geser concludes it will result in people having trouble planning their daily life or people becoming accustomed to the informalities of these planning methods. Consider that fact that cell phones have calendars, to do lists, and memo pads which all promote planning. Though Geser feels that this “in an instant” planning will lessen the impact of the future and past. When contemplating this idea, realize it’s the event itself that defines the memory not the anticipation created from the lengthy scheduling process. Considering the benefits allowed by cell phones during the planning process you only see an advancement of social order. Where people are able to cancel plans already in effect, or create plans to fit spaces where they didn’t imagine having the time to do so.
Geser then goes on to mention the deregulation of institutional boundary controls and the shift from location-based to person-based social systems. A location-based system is what is considered our landline phones, in that they are at a fixed location, so the communication is between locations. Cell phones move around with the person, hence the person-based social system. Geser points out that before cell phones one had to phone somewhere to communicate with a specific someone. He states, “cell phones undermine these traditional orders by creating direct links between particular individuals: irrespective of their institutional role and location.” There is such a thing as cell phone etiquette, such as there are right and wrong places to use your mobile device. Restaurants are beginning to issue policies which entail turning your phone on silent while in the restaurant. At movie theatres they mention before the show starts to turn phones off, and most hospitals post signs declaring that all cell phones must be turned off (Lynn). The fact that a person violates these is a result of bad parenting or bad manners, not the cell phone. Some people choose to follow this etiquette, and some people don’t; it’s the same as those who choose to break the law and those who do not.
Geser makes his last point that cell phones are support for the survival or anachronistic “pervasive roles.” Hans Geser brings up the idea that having a cell phone broadens ones professional life. Giving the option to always be at work, whether it is between a doctor and patient, or business owner and customer, the relationship can still be upheld after the institution is closed. He states that this will result in little to no separation between a professional and personal life, allowing for your professional contacts to intrude during your private life. “One higher order consequence of wireless communication is that it makes us more responsible, for both our own actions and those of people for whom we have assumed responsibility. In effect, we become more subject to social control” (Katz 1999: 17). This is true, but one must realize that those individuals who decide to supply their clientele with their phone number assume this responsibility in doing so. They are providing better service to their clients to make sure that they get the best care possible; thus creating a better relation between the two, and benefitting both the business and their customers.
Sure, it does bridge a gap between your professional and personal life but it is also responsible for enhancing your private life as Richard Ling states, “the mobile telephone is the tool of the intimate sphere- that is, the sphere that includes our familial and romantic interests,” and, “we must be open to both intimates and strangers when we interact in daily life, the mobile phone tips the balance in favor of the intimate sphere of friends and family” (Ling 159). Therefore, the mobile phone is responsible for increasing the intimacy of certain relationships and, in fact, strengthening your private life by providing an always available network to reach your loved ones.
Hans Geser viewed the situation from the wrong perspective. He pointed out minute faults created by the cell phones and didn’t investigate the benefits. His views are mostly based on what is considered traditional, which is out-of-date considering how much our world is changing. Norms are being broken constantly to heed way for new ideas and technologies; which is ultimately expected to result in an entirely new social order. Cellular devices provide a social advancement for human beings making our lives easier and supplying us with more opportunities. They have so many capabilities which can make life more manageable. The cell phone is one of the greatest technological advancements ever conceived.

Works Cited

D’Aiello, Alan. What are the Advantages and Disadvantages of Cellular Phones. (n.d.). Retrieved: 27 October 2008. <http://bryant2.bryant.edu/~ehu/h364proj/sprg_98/daiello/page3.htm>
Geser, Hans. Knowledge, Technology, & Policy. Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 8-18. Spring 2006.
Katz, James. Connections. Social and Cultural Studies of the Telephone in American Life, New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1999.
Ling, Richard. New Tech, New Ties: How mobile communication is reshaping social cohesion.
Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2008.
Lynn, K. Cell Phone Etiquette. 26 May 2008. Retrieved: 27 October 2008.
<>