Hashtag Feminism

#TimesUp, #MeToo and #HeForShe were all characterised by hashtags, though this is not a new thing. Other movements, such as the Egyptian Protests in 2011, have been identified by key hashtags (like #Jan25), and the revolution’s success has often been attributed to the utilisation of social media. Hashtags are a short and sweet way to build an online community, but do supposedly ‘feminist’ hashtags contribute to promoting intersectional feminism?

 

There have been various hashtags over the last few years which were established to encourage solidarity amongst minority feminists. Mock created #GirlsLikeUs to raise awareness to the adversity that transgender women are faced with, particularly as they are often underrepresented by traditional mainstream feminism, catering to the white, middle class woman. It is now a quick way for people to search for more information and establish an online community, with 385 873 posts on Instagram using the hashtag. Another example is #BlackGirlMagic, started by Thompson, to celebrate the power and resilience that black women have demonstrated. This particular hashtag has been used almost 8 million times on Instagram, promoting an intersectional feminism, doing so in a more personal way than could be allowed by other media such as newspapers or television. #NotYourAsianSidekick, to represent Asian American women who often find themselves the objects of prejudice, has only been used 1073 times. The use of hashtagging to promote intersectional feminism seems unpredictable – there are a multitude of things that contribute to a hashtag’s success. Algorithms of social media websites mean that hashtagged posts simply aren’t shown to users unless they have a certain amount of engagement (likes and comments) within the first ten minutes of posting. This has the power to kill a hashtag movement before it can begin.

 

Moreover, the phrasing of certain hastags can attract criticism. While #BlackGirlMagic was established to promote feminism amongst all races, it has been perceived by some as excluding women who do are not black. This is an issue which must be addressed, as intersectional feminism cannot move forward unless everyone is of the understanding that feminism is for all women, as Smith says,

 

‘feminism is the political theory and practice that struggles to free all women: women of color, working class women, poor women, disabled women, lesbians, old women—as well as white, economically privileged, heterosexual women. Anything less than this vision of total freedom is not feminism, but merely female self-aggrandizement’ (Smith 1990, 25).

 

 

Scholarly understandings of hashtag feminism are always evolving. Khoja-Moolji of Columbia notes the power of #BringBackOurGirls in rallying support, but realises that it could be more effective when combined with real, offline activism. This raises and interesting concept: individuals have a tendency to be more outspoken and brave on social media, where they would be highly unlikely to do so in a real-life situation. Loza, however, points out that social media could be the means by which feminism is revolutionised: ‘social media has made it possible for women of colour to speak to each other across borders and boundaries’. The internet is a wonderful thing, where, if one has access to it, they have equal ability to make social media accounts – Twitter, Facebook and Instagram are not the sole property of one particular social group. This means that everyone has equal ability to have their voices heard, and thus, equal opportunity to give feminism the intersectional qualities that it has been lacking.

 

Presentation Notes

 

Does social media perpetuate a certain type of Feminism?

INTRODUCTION

  • Jamila:

Mainstream Feminist discourse has been criticised for failing to be inclusive of all women. Bell Hooks points out that the individual opportunism of wealthy white women, predominantly in the US, undermines the appeal for the collective struggle of women. These women can be characterised as ‘college educated, middle and upper class, married white women-housewives bored with leisure, with the home, with children, with buying products, who wanted more out of life’. Their struggle for emancipation thus ‘ignored the existence of all non-white women and poor white women’. In other words, wealthy white women fail to recognise the various intersections of identity which determine an individual’s experience of being a woman.

 

In light of this criticism of Feminism, we have decided to look at how the emergence of social media influences the inclusivity of Feminism, and want to ask whether it perpetuates this narrow focus or serves as a means to ‘democratise’ the feminist movement. We think that social media is an important indicator of the feminist movement because it is a tool of Globalisation, and provides a relatively accessible Global community which is fundamental to Globalisation as the internationalisation of not only markets, goods and services but also of ideas and cultures.

 

Whilst we accept that there are some restrictions to access to social media globally, it remains more accessible than previous platforms for Feminist discourse, which have required women to be of high social status and to be qualified to voice their opinion. For this reason, studying Feminist presence on social media is a useful tool to understanding how women, from all backgrounds, are able to participate in shaping Feminist discourse.

 

Sandi:

 

 

Zuniga, Jung and Valenzuela’s research shows that social media has positively influenced civic participation – a positive correlation is evident between the social media website, SNS, and individual engagement with governmental matters. Social media promotes different perspectives and unites individuals, and they can exist in a supportive cyber community and feel motivated to vote, where in the past, they may have been ambivalent. We decided to test this same school of thought with regards to feminism.

 

This particular research is focused within 2000 to present day, with much of our findings occurring as recently as two weeks ago. Our decision to refine our work to the twenty-first century was based heavily on the overhaul that feminism has been subject to. Feminism is contradiction. It is no longer viewed as a controversial topic, while simultaneously sparking uproar, and feminists themselves are not stereotyped as they once were, while also being criticised under microscopes by people across the world. Social media has undeniably influenced how feminism is perceived, and the joys and dangers of this are that such opinions and perceptions can now be promoted and spread to millions of others, through the use of social media. Online activity is impacting offline feminism, and the question that we pose is as follows: does social media perpetuate a particular type of feminism?

 

Smith argues that ‘feminism is the political theory and practice that struggles to free all women: women of color, working class women, poor women, disabled women, lesbians, old women—as well as white, economically privileged, heterosexual women. Anything less than this vision of total freedom is not feminism, but merely female self-aggrandizement’ (Smith 1990, 25). It appears that we exist in a society where only the second part of this is true. Ethnic minorities, transgender, homosexual and working class women have found themselves underrepresented in the past, but is this changing in the digital age?

 

We need to include our hypotheses in the introduction, one of mine is –

H1: social media usage increases offline feminist activism

This follows Zuniga, Jung and Valenzuela’s pattern of hypotheses, so it isn’t outlandish to say, but it also relates to our own argument.

 

I will also add some stats to justify our choice of social media websites ie how many users are on each and how many countries have access to them – I included this in a blog post but just need to copy and paste.

 

  1. Jamila Chapter Arguing social media helps to democratise feminism + one opposing paper

Whilst critiques of feminism have often focused on the movement’s inability to be inclusive of all women, Steiner and Eckert, in 2016, published a paper which argues that twitter has the potential to democratise the feminist movement. Whilst intersectional inequalities have dictated that white wealthy women have had a monopoly on feminist discourse, primarily because of the wider range of opportunities open to them which have allowed them to become the most qualified, platforms such as twitter are increasingly accessible and so provide a platform for more marginalised women.

 

They go on to point out that, of Americans who have access to the internet, 22% of black people use twitter in comparison to 16% of white people. The idea, here, is that Twitter is clearly a platform which is available to historically marginalised voices, thus has great potential to make social movements more inclusive, as well as easily globally distributed.

 

Although Steiner and Eckert analyse the use of Twitter in the US alone, and demonstrate it provides a voice to those who are marginalised within US society specifically, their findings suggest that access to social media has the potential to give globally marginalised women a platform to express their views, or feel included in debate.

 

The question, then, is whether mere access to social media empowers women globally to have a profound input in Feminist discourse. Though Steiner and Eckert make a valid point about the accessibility of platforms, they do not explore whether or not access to this platform has any real significance in shaping Feminist debate.

 

Jones argues that social media, in particular Twitter, offers a problematic portrayal of Feminism because it erases the opportunity for any nuance in argument. Furthermore, mere accessibility of the platform is not sufficient to show that Feminist messages have global reach or offer universal empowerment to all women.

 

In order to explore whether social media is an opportunity to democratise Feminism, or if it merely perpetuates the dominant voice of wealthy white women, we will now explore some prominent Feminist hashtags, the messages the portray and their global reach. (it doesn’t).

 

 

  1. Anastasia: HeForShe Movement.

 

Address the global aspect of Feminism.

 

HeForShe is a solidarity campaign for the advancement of women initiated by the UN. It started in 2014, when the UN Women Goodwill Ambassador Emma Watson attended the campaign event and made a speech that quickly became one of the Internet’s most discussed video. HeForShe became a relatively popular hashtag and drew considerable public attention.

 

Grounded in the idea that gender equality is an issue that affects all people—socially, economically and politically—HeForShe seeks to actively involve men and boys in a movement that was originally conceived as “a struggle for women by women”.

 

Within the first three days of the campaign, 100 000 men got involved into the programme, including the former US president Barack Obama, the former UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon as well as some famous actors.

 

As part of their ambitious plan, HeForShe launched the IMPACT 10x10x10 initiative, which aims at engaging  the “key decision makers in governments, corporations, and universities around the world to drive change from the top”. The project encourages institutions to implement specific strategies that will promote gender equality and provide for a harmonious society, where women and men are treated equally. The institutions, which adopt the IMPACT framework, sign the Women’s Empowerment Principles and implement suggested empowerment-focused activities. Further, every institution participating in the  IMPACT programme has to submit a detailed report on the results achieved, with measured progress on achieving equality.

 

Further, as students, we decided to collect some information on the campaign’s achievements in the field of education. Here is what the 2016 report said:

 

“In total, the ten universities have committed to monitoring their progress on 30 commitments. 70% of IMPACT Champions have committed to closing the gender gap in administration; 40% have committed to closing the gender gap in academia; 30% have committed to creating centers of excellence in gender equality; and 40% have committed to ending violence on campus”

 

The group of 10 IMPACT universities span across eight countries on five continents, including Georgetown University, USA; Institut d’études politiques de Paris (Sciences Po), France; Nagoya University, Japan; the University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; the University of Leicester, UK; University of Oxford, UK; the University of São Paulo, Brazil. However, it is not very clear what exactly has been done to close the gender gap and end violence on campus. Nevertheless, the Oxford University website showed numerous pages as a result of typing HeForShe into the search bar.

 

In its turn, the ‘news’ tab of HeForShe website appears to be updated not on a regular basis. The latest dated post is from September 2017.

 

Overall, the campaign has an ambitious plan, but it has also faced a lot of criticism from both women and men. Here are the main points of criticism to consider:

 

HeForShe is not really trying to engage men in conversation about feminism and equality, but simply asks them to join the movement

(logo)

Contradictory statements about gender:

The Symbol of

Gender Equality

The HeForShe logo unites traditional icons of gender to create a new symbol for our shared humanity. Its dynamic shape and strong contrast remind us what’s possible when unique individuals stand together for the benefit of all.

HeForShe believes gender isn’t binary. How would you like to be counted?

But the logo shows only two genders!

 

Launched by the UN, HeForShe is a politically involved campaign, which has numerously stated its global significance. In the age of an easy access to information, Internet and international news, such a project seems to be a perfect platform for a truly global movement. However, we decided to check how popular has it got since its foundation in 2014.

 

How global is it on the social media?

 

254 796 instagram posts under the hashtag #heforshe

369 k followers on Twitter

229 k followers on Instagram

566 k followers on Facebook

VS.

28 m followers on Twitter (Emma Watson)

44.2 m followers on Instagram (Emma Watson)

 

 

Problem of inclusivity

(Clip)

EW claims that women will be free when men are free from their own insecurities and that things will change for women as natural consequences => women need men while men do not need women to be free => this creates inequality, not eliminates it.

 

“If men don’t have to control, women don’t have to be controlled”, “if men don’t have to be aggressive, women don’t have to be submissive” => falling into gender stereotypes, not breaking free from them

 

The campaign makes too heavy emphasis on women’s dependence on men’s opinion and support; Emma Watson grants men the leading role in the campaign.

 

Vagueness: there is no clear data or statistics on gender-related problems faced by women

=> men are expected to join the campaign without any relevant and important knowledge => men really have no idea what it is like to be a woman in a modern world => inactive men => inactive campaign

 

Asks men to speak and act FOR women rather than TOGETHER WITH them => are we expecting men to solve women’s problems? Is that real feminism?

 

What kind of feminism are they propagating? Passive, men-reliant?

UN could have used its high political status in order to launch a stronger and better thought-through campaign.

 

 

  1. Sandi: Hashtags on Feminism– do these help change our perspective? Who do they include in their message- are they intersectional? How many tweets used the hashtag- how broad was their reach?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/21-hashtags-that-changed-the-way-we-talk-about-feminism_us_56ec0978e4b084c6722000d1

#BlackGirlMagic

#GirlsLikeUs

#EffYourBeautyStandards

Hypothesis- they are intersectional but probably have less of an audience than more mainstream hashtags.

 

Hashtags are a short and sweet way to express one’s opinion on current affairs, as proven when Twitter and Facebook were flooded by a sea of “#MeToo”s over the past few months. Hashtags are no longer considered irrelevant to serious issues – just look at #Brexit and #VoteLeave in the lead up to the 2016 referendum. We all know how that ended, so perhaps such social media did have a degree of influence in winning over Brexiteers.

 

But, do supposedly ‘feminist’ hashtags contribute anything to feminist movements? I remember tweeting #StandWithWendy to support the state representative throughout her thirteen-hour-long filibuster, executed so that women would not be subject to repressive, male-run, abortion reforms. I think that many would argue that this is a prime example of slacktivism, however, the hashtag was a great way to unite people who shared the same stance on a crucial issue, and I argue that hashtags can assist in forming online communities which have the power to further a movement.

 

Of course, hashtagging is all good and well, but is it influential in perpetuating a feminism that is wholly inclusive? The short answer is: sort of. Mock created #GirlsLikeUs to raise awareness to the adversity that transgender women are faced with, particularly as they are often underrepresented by traditional mainstream feminism, catering to the white, middle class woman. It is now a quick way for people to search for more information and establish an online community, with 385 873 posts on Instagram using the hashtag. Another example is #BlackGirlMagic, started by Thompson, to celebrate the power and resilience that black women have demonstrated. This particular hashtag has been used almost 8 million times on Instagram, promoting an intersectional feminism, doing so in a more personal way than could be allowed by other media, such as newspapers or television. #NotYourAsianSidekick, to represent Asian American women who often find themselves the objects of prejudice, has only been used 1073 times. The use of hashtagging to promote intersectional feminism seems unpredictable – there are a multitude of things that contribute to a hashtag’s success. Algorithms of social media websites mean that hashtagged posts simply aren’t shown to users unless they have a certain amount of engagement (likes and comments) within the first ten minutes of posting. This has the power to kill a hashtag movement before it can begin. The wording of a hashtag can invoke anger at being aimed at a certain social group, with some people believing that this divides rather than unites. This is counterintuitive given that minorities are underrepresented by mainstream feminism, and puts forward the notion that we cannot advance intersectional feminism until we have addressed these concerns.

 

Scholarly understandings of hashtag feminism are always evolving. Khoja-Moolji of Columbia notes the power of #BringBackOurGirls in rallying support, but realises that it could be more effective when combined with real, offline activism. This raises and interesting concept: individuals have a tendency to be more outspoken and brave on social media, where they would be highly unlikely to do so in a real-life situation. Loza, however, points out that social media could be the means by which feminism is revolutionised: ‘social media has made it possible for women of colour to speak to each other across borders and boundaries’. The internet is a wonderful thing, where, if one has access to it, they have equal ability to make social media accounts – Twitter, Facebook and Instagram are not the sole property of one particular race. This means that everyone has equal ability to have their voices heard, and thus, equal opportunity to give feminism the intersectional qualities that it has been lacking.

 

However, what about locations where there is limited access to social media (such as North Korea)? These women are still faced with the same issues, but how can they be liberated?

 

Perpetuating a non-inclusive feminism – Emma Watson as representation, excludes the working class by going to universities, excludes transgender

 

 

  1. Federica: Hollywood`s TimesUp movement:

 

–       While Ana has provided an example for the exclusion of women from the feminist discourse, we shall now turn our attention to the other side of the spectrum and consider a case study where men are being ignored by the discussion

 

–       The TimesUp movement was founded on January 1 by 300 of Hollywood`s leading women who published an open letter in the New York Times and Spanish newspaper La Opinion in order to address and fight sexual harassment, rape and gender inequality in the workplace, regardless of the victims` class, culture, race, or religion.

 

–       However, judging form the statement`s choice of words it appears to exclusively address female victims and ignore the many cases in which men fell victims to sexual harassment as Kevin Spacey`s example proves where he assaulted a younger man.

 

–       this hypocritical attitude is damaging the movement`s success meaning, that it reinforces the idea of positioning the sexes against each other, as opposed to uniting them in order to work on a solution together

–       The result of this cycle eventually has a negative impact on the campaign`s efficacy, success and authenticity which can further be demonstrated on the example of the Oscars.

 

–       The 90th Academy Awards took place on the 4th of March this year and – in theory – provided an ideal platform to promote TimesUp and attract global attention seeing that millions were following the ceremony online or from their homes on TV. In fact, according to Twitter, the hashtag #TimesUp was retweeted over 500,000 times from more than 100 countires within the first hour of the ceremony, which suggests international interest and participation in the movement`s cause.

 

–       In practice, reality looked different:

–       For example did the Academy still promote and award several men accused of sexual misconduct. Harvey Weinstein or Kevin Spacey might have been banned from the event, but they still awarded Kobe Bryant, winner for Dar Basketball who was charged with sexual assault in 2003

–       Or Gary Oldman who accepted his trophy for The Darkest Hour despite having been accused of sexual assault in 2001.

 

–       This year`s Oscars also saw the fewest female participants nominees and participants since 2012

 

–       And the statistics revealed for 2017 and 2018`s prospective figures show that women are still extremely underrepresented across the film industry:

8% of directors

10% of writers

2% of cinematographers

24% of producers

14% of editors

 

–       Now, what can we learn from this? Well, it shows that movements such as TimesUp and HeForShe appear to be successful online but keep failing offline

 

–       Why? For starters because of the superficiality of online feminism: to keep it simple: it is easy to support feminism on social media, use hashtags, tweet and retweet, and then forget about it in real life.

 

–       Secondly because of the exclusivity mentioned earlier: feminism is not a gendered issue but concerns the whole of society. Its promotion therefore requires the attention and participation of everyone, men and women.

 

–       Overall, we therefore came to the conclusion that social media, including hashtags, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram accounts seem to have become a convenient substitution for real life actions by perpetuating a non-inlcusive, superficial, commercialised type of feminism

 

 

Commercial Feminism- International Women’s Day 2018. Jamila

Disney has a Twitter following of 5.88 million, McDonalds of 3.57 million and coca cola an Instagram following of 2.4 million. These are 3 examples of countless multinational brands who showed their support of International Women’s Day.

 

Similarly to criticisms of the TimesUp movement, these brands seem to perpetuate a superficial, performative brand of feminism which allows them to give the message to consumers that they are in support of the Feminist movement, potentially without any meaningful action beyond these posts.

 

All 3 brands can be criticised for this online performativity, because their profiles as multinational companies have been associated with the exploitation of workers and consumers globally. McDonald’s gesture has been dubbed a cheap PR stunt, with one Twitter user responding ‘incredible, now give your workers a living wage’. Similarly, though Disney’s message seemingly supports women, the brand still utilises sweatshops which outsource exploit workers globally in order to manufacture their products. Coca cola, in its many years as an established brand, has been criticised of multiple exploitative practices, which have a disproportionate effect on non-Western nations.

 

The exact details of this exploitation are not relevant, but the notion of commercial or superficial activism which is prevalent on social media. Though this does not seem to be an overwhelmingly gendered issue, these brands do seem to fall to Bell Hooks’ criticism of Western feminism. They appeal to their white, Western, middle class consumer with no regard for the people, including women, who they exploit in the process of manufacturing. Therefore, performative Feminism by brands online seems to be a means to present a superficially progressive message without taking any action to remedy the working conditions of the women who work for them.

 

  1. Conclusion– yes social media does perpetuate a certain kind of feminism. Why should we care? Statistics?

 

Overall, Steiner and Eckert do make a point that the accessibility of social media platforms offers the opportunity to drastically democratise feminism, giving the most marginalised women a platform to voice their opinions and concerns.

 

However, contrary to this, our research in social media trends about Feminism, particularly on Twitter, suggests that this goal has not been met. Though there are some trends which offer an intersectional approach to feminism, such as #BlackGirlMagic, #GirlsLikeUs and #EffYourBeautyStandards, they are comparatively less popular than trends such as HeForShe and TimesUp. Whilst HeForShe has been criticised for failing to be inclusive to all women, TimesUp seems to perpetuate a performative feminism which allows individuals to superficially support the movement without any profound action beyond social media.

 

Similarly, multinational corporations’ online support of the feminist movement is not indicative of any change in their functioning to actually support women. Their outsourcing and exploitation of workers shows that their feminist messages are catered only for their western, wealthy consumers.

 

Therefore, it seems that social media does perpetuate a certain type of feminism. Not only does this mean that it overwhelmingly caters for a very narrow demographic of women, but that the ability to superficially support the movement on platforms such as Twitter does little to progress the feminist movement.

 

Overall, though social media is an accessible tool of globalisation, it is insufficient in providing a means for all women to participate, and be equally heard, in the feminist movement.

 

  • Overwhelmingly caters for white/ wealthy/ middle class women- even though there is space for other demographics, their voices are less heard- need a more significant platform.
  • Gives people a way to be performative/ superficially support the movement.
  • (This is just a draft if any of you disagree/ think it’s missing something then let me know!)

________

 

Bibliography:

Bell Hooks, ‘Black Women: Shaping Feminist Theory’, in Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center (New York: Routledge, 2015).       

Linda Steiner and Stine Eckert, ‘The Democratic Potential of Feminist Twitter’, in Race and Gender in Electronic Media: Content, Context, Culture, ed. by Rebecca Ann Lind (New York: Routledge, 2016).                

New York Times, (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/01/arts/02women-letter.html), last accessed: 28 March 2018.   

Women and Hollywood Statistics, (https://womenandhollywood.com/resources/statistics/), last accessed: 28 March 2018.    

HeForShe, http://www.heforshe.org/en [Last accessed 28.3.2018]    

UN Women, http://www.unwomen.org/en [Last accessed 28.3.2018]   

#heforshe: How much does the Internet remember?, http://blog.hashtagify.me/2015/10/13/heforshe-how-much-does-the-internet-remember/ [Last accessed: 27.3.2018]          

Emma Watson’s feminism speech, http://benhourigan.com/2014/09/23/emma-watsons-feminism-speech/ [Last accessed: 27.3.2018]

The Problems with UN’s new campaign He for She: The UN’s campaign may reinforce the very inequality it is trying to erase, https://medium.com/legendary-women/the-problems-with-uns-new-campaign-he-for-she-the-uns-campaign-may-reinforce-the-very-inequality-e5c4ebe83432 [Last accessed: 28.3.2018]                                                                                                                                                                            

Jessa Crispin: the woman at war with lifestyle feminism, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/mar/03/jessa-crispin-the-woman-at-war-with-lifestyle-feminism [Last accessed: 28.3.2018]

Homero Gil de Zúñiga, Nakwon Jung, Sebastián Valenzuela: Social Media Use for News and Individuals’ Social Capital, Civic Engagement and Political Participation <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01574.>

Shenila Khoja-Moolji : Becoming an “Intimate Publics”: Exploring the Affective Intensities of Hashtag Feminism <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14680777.2015.1008747?needAccess=true>

Utility Imperialism v. Liberal Imperialism

In this post I will discuss the contrast between Chinese and Anglo-American Imperialism and its implications in both development and politics.

Aside from imitating American business and development strategies like we saw in the cases of Huawei & IBM tech centres in Africa, Huawei also practices China’s famous ‘no-strings attached’ policy when doing business abroad. One big example is the telecom deal between Huawei, ZTE and the Ethiopian government. It is an $800 million deal that aims to expand the country’s mobile phone and internet infrastructure. Here we can see how China specialises in providing utility to foreign countries and in this way perpetuates its imperialism.

No strings attached, providing infrastructure  – utility imperialism & critics

But it draws attention that the Ethiopian telecom business is state owned and Ethiopia has refused to liberalise its telecom industry, critiques have said this Huawei and ZTE deal further ruled out the chance of liberalising Ethiopia’s economy.

“The deal with Huawei and ZTE will preserve Ethiopia’s state dominance and further put off the opening up of one of Africa’s largest economies. ”

This was back in 2013. Last year Xi has announced the strategy of one belt one road which is doing more business and investment abroad by providing infrastructure. Some have said it is similar to the post WW2 Marshall Plan America offered to Europe and China’s imperialist ambition is revealed.

“Some analysts have compared the One Belt One Road enterprise to the Marshall Plan. After World War II, the United States was such a strong manufacturing entity that it was forced to seek markets for its industrial products. The Marshall Plan required that aid to Europe involve a quid pro quo of U.S. investment and imports.”

On the other hand, 

“If Trump is too tied up with the Deep State and China leaves a bit of clean water, electricity, and road infrastructure – so be it.”

However in general China’s warns us how the West might not understand Africa better than anyone else – that might be a beneficial insight risen from the power rivalry between Chinese and American Imperialism, from a development point of view. One could say that developing countries and their people might want to seek their own way into democracies or whatever they want to and can achieve for their own good, ideally without Western intervention such as aids that come with patronising conditions and sometimes what locals see as hypocritical charities.

I have noticed, in recent years there has been a gradual shift in Western commentators’ judgements on Chinese business and developed approaches abroad – from mostly critical to curious and reflective nowadays.

“The fact that Western media sources consistently condemn China’s no-strings-attached attitude towards dealing with African regimes as proof that this is a disservice to Africa’s peoples actually demonstrates a certain lack of understanding that the West has of the worldview of many Africans.”

“If China is ultimately successful in bringing about a new surge in African economies, something the West has tried and failed to achieve for decades, then the global conversation on development will be rewritten. At the same time, China find itself one step closer to achieving the “Great Power” status it so longs for.”

Let’s see some local African’s opinions:

“As an African, I don’t really think they care. They’re here for business anyway. What i think many Africans like about them is that they don’t meddle in our affairs. Sorry to say this but the west treats Africans as objects of pity that need to be controlled like kids. Not that we don’t appreciate being helped but stuff like aid has done more harm than good here, in my opinion.”

“We rather work hard to buy the things we need than having someone give it to us as charity in the name of caring. Why subject myself to pity and charity when I have the ability to earn the money fairly?

Some Western professionals actually recognise this concern and have similar opinions too:

“These are fundamental shifts in thinking about what is achievable in the developing world and what the developing world wants to achieve for itself.”

“David Rieff, a contributing writer to The New York Times Magazine and contributing editor to The New Republic, says: “The problem with aid, in short, is that it sets itself up as the kind of know-all and end-all. …Aid, by definition, is outsiders telling people in a place how to do it, and telling them if they don’t behave satisfactorily — that is, the best practices that you now see in humanitarianism: if you’re not democratic, if you are not transparent, if you don’t do this, that or the other thing — then we will withdraw the aid. Well, if ever there was an example of any unequal form of relations, I would submit to you that that’s it, which is why, precisely, in depriving people of their agency, aid does more harm than good.”

“Foreign aid atrophies, and weakens, the state in Africa, and the only people who grow stronger are the donors: governments and NGOs. It damages the prospects for ordinary people to better their lives, and turns ordinary Africans into victims. Africans are hard-working people who like to have an enterprise culture. They are natural capitalists and do not need to be patronised by NGOs, who often have left-wing agendas.”

“Giving money can feed the hungry, and help the sick — but it does not free people from the institutions that make them hungry and sick in the first place.”

However

This would also beg the questions asking whether developing countries know the best about themselves and whether their people understand the significance of long-term development vision and the importance of issues such as human rights.

It is true that Western conditions might just be imperialist expansion in disguise in the name of liberalism and politicians might not really care about Africans. But you cannot say there aren’t indeed countless Western institutions, professionals as well as commoners that continuously offer genuine ideological and educational help and research in their pursuit of a better Africa and a better World. In direct contrast, China’s focus on business partnerships and providing utility and infrastructure might be seen as opportunist, self interested and short-visioned.

“I believe that certain types of health aid — offering vaccinations, or developing cheap and effective drugs to treat malaria, for example — have been hugely beneficial to developing countries.” (Ibid.)

“Humanitarian aid, mostly, does a lot of good. It saves lives and helps rebuild livelihoods. When you think of this, think 15 million starving people in the Horn of Africa in 2011 who would have mostly perished had it not been for aid.”

“I would say, though, it is important to remember, while all of that is true, for the overwhelming majority of the developing world, the story is good rather than bad. Of course, the stories we focus on are the stories of great distress, but in much of the developing world, where people would certainly like to be richer than they are and they would like to have more opportunities for their kids as they grow up as well, the last 30 years or so have been very, very good, and those countries have had more to do with that than we have.”

All in all,

African development: utility first or ideals first? Perhaps both can work side by side in pushing the development of Africa forward and it is also of great importance that cultural, regional, social and racial preferences should always be taken into account in tailoring particular development strategies and approaches.

Politics: But African development falls under the eyes of global powers like the US and China and might have been and will probably continue to suffer from their power contest and imperialist pursuit.

Introduction – how are social media, feminism and globalisation related?

Our research rests upon the foundation of social media, something that is undoubtedly connected to globalisation. Social media has revolutionised the way that people connect. We no longer wait to read today’s news in tomorrow’s newspaper. Instead, we carry around tiny computers in our pockets and have immediate access to current affairs, halfway across the planet, as they unfold. This is an example of the short term effects of social media, the long term effects, however, are less obvious but more intriguing.

Zuniga, Jung and Valenzuela’s research shows that social media has positively influenced civic participation – a positive correlation is evident between the social media website and individual engagement with governmental matters. Social media promotes different perspectives and unites individuals, and they can exist in a supportive cyber community and feel motivated to vote, where in the past, they may have been ambivalent. We decided to test this same school of thought with regards to feminism.

This particular research is focused within 2000 to present day, with some of our findings occurring as recently as a month ago. Our decision to refine our work to the twenty-first century was based heavily on the overhaul that feminism has been subject to. Feminism is contradiction. It is no longer viewed as a controversial topic, while simultaneously sparking uproar, and feminists themselves are not stereotyped as they once were, while also being criticised under microscopes by people across the world. Social media has undeniably influenced how feminism is perceived, and the joys and dangers of this are that such opinions and perceptions can now be promoted and spread to millions of others, through the use of social media. Online activity is impacting offline feminism, and the question that we pose is as follows: does social media perpetuate a particular type of feminism?

Smith argues that ‘feminism is the political theory and practice that struggles to free all women: women of color, working class women, poor women, disabled women, lesbians, old women—as well as white, economically privileged, heterosexual women. Anything less than this vision of total freedom is not feminism, but merely female self-aggrandizement’ (Smith 1990, 25). It appears that we exist in a society where only the second part of this is true. Ethnic minorities, transgender, homosexual and working class women have found themselves underrepresented in the past, but is this changing in the digital age?

HeForShe and “lifestyle feminism”

Today’s feminism, which is often referred to as the third wave feminism, has occupied stable positions in modern culture, media, fashion, academic research and even politics. In the West, the “F”-word is not only a part of a civil initiative but also a form of self-identification: modern women and men often describe themselves as feminists. Feminism has become a powerful commercial tool, which attracts those who want to join the movement with the minimum of actual participation. A new term, “lifestyle feminism”, has emerged from observations of an unprecedented growth of merchandise production, which promotes feminist slogans and symbols in fast-fashion and targets young people, who are willing to follow the new trends and spend more on mass-market products.

«When H&M advertises feminist inspired t-shirts, they’re only looking to profit off of naive white feminists, they have no actual interest in the feminist movement or what it stands for. H&M, a fast-fashion capitalist machine, sells feminism-based apparel that promotes girl power while not even paying their factory workers in Bangladesh (most of which are young womenlivable wagesproviding safe working conditions or enforcing labour laws.»

Same goes for so-called “hashtag campaigns”, create an illusion of participation without achieving actual change. Posting a message under a feminist hashtag on social media is an easy way to show interest in the problem, but not to tackle it. In the 20th century, women went into the streets and fought for the right to vote and equality at workplaces, and even got arrested. Today, hashtags and merchandize perpetuate a «lazy» kind of feminism. In the age of global anonymity on the Internet, it doesn’t require any more to be brave and ready to openly speak one’s mind.

The UN’s global initiative HeForShe is a great opportunity for real action and female empowerment. It is remarkable that the movement has been joined by many African countries, where the problem of women’s rights is more relevant than ever. It is developing and Third World countries, that the UN should really focus on. It is the terrible practice of female genital mutilation and the difficulty to access education, that movements like HeForShe have to address. It is important to not let HeForShe simply become one of many trendy hashtags typed into the search bar by western girls, who study at prestigious universities and wear TopShop hoodies with the word “Feminist” written in pink cursive. Further, when inviting men to engage men in the campaign, it is crucial to explain to them what it actually is like to be a woman in a modern world. Perhaps, complaining about being sexualized by media at the age of 14 (as Emma Watson did in her HeForShe speech), while making a fortune and having millions of fans across the globe, is not the best idea. If rich and successful western women continue complaining about their tough yet luxurious lives, while omitting the whole grand issue of international trafficking of women and children and growing rape rates, the third wave feminism will remain labelled as “lifestyle feminism”. It is precisely this kind of feminism that is being perpetuated by the media nowadays and is pushing modern women away from associating themselves with feminism. However, it is within our power to change the current situation.

10x10x10 IMPACT Initiative

To have a more well-rounded image of HeForShe global impact in regards to the campaign’s aim to engage world leaders, I decided to find out which state leaders and politicians joined the movement. Here is what I have found on the UN Women official website.

 

The following countries take part in the 10x10x10 impact project, which “targets some of the communities that most need to address women’s empowerment and gender equality concerns—and those that have the greatest capacity to make and influence those changes”.

 

Arthur Peter Mutharika, President, Republic of Malawi

Dr. Guðni Th. Jóhannesson, President, Iceland

Ir. H. Joko Widodo, President, Republic of Indonesia

Klaus Werner Iohannis, President, Romania

Nana Akufo-Addo, President, Ghana

Paul Kagame, President, Rwanda

Sauli Niinistö, President, Finland

Shinzo Abe, Prime Minister, Japan

Stefan Löfven, Prime Minister, Sweden

Tabaré Vázquez, President, Uruguay

Taavi Rõivas, Prime Minister, Estonia

Paul Biya, President, Cameroon

 

Further, here is the official list of universities participating in the 10x10x10 IMPACT initiative:

 

Brazil: University of São Paulo

Canada: University of Waterloo

France: Sciences Po (Institut d’études politiques de Paris)

Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong

Japan: Nagoya University

South Africa: University of the Witwatersrand

United Kingdom: University of Leicester and University of Oxford

United States of America: Georgetown University and Stony Brook University

 

The corporate IMPACT champions:

 

AccorHotels

Barclays

Koç Holding

McKinsey & Company

PricewaterhouseCoopers

Schneider Electric

Tupperware Brands

Twitter

Unilever

Vodafone.

Apple & Netflix in Africa Research

Just a quick roundup of the Apple research I will be presenting, with a bit about Netflix at the end.

Apple, contrary to Tecno, has almost no strategy, and very little market share internationally.

Apple’s original strategy made it the most profitable company in the U.S.. They are selling the same thing as their competitors but making more money. However, it does not rule in the international market in any one of their core products, especially in competition with Samsung and Chinese companies such as Huawei.

Analysts had expected this California-based company to launch a phone with emerging economies in mind. Yet, nothing of the sort has occurred.

Apple is failing in the second-most populous continent of Africa because most of the smartphones bought in the recent large increase of smartphone sales are under $200. The GDP per capita of African countries is falling, making iPhones luxury items.

 

Research:

“Apple saw a slight decline in YoY growth of its share of the market in the face of stiff competition from Samsung and Chinese vendors such as Huawei.” (http://uk.businessinsider.com/apple-focuses-more-on-emerging-markets-2016-12)

“Apple’s original strategy took it to the top. It’s the most profitable company in the world, despite the fact it doesn’t rule worldwide market share in any core product. It just makes more money than any of its competitors selling the same thing.” (https://qz.com/781669/apple-is-punching-down/)

“Analysts expected California-based Apple to launch a phone with emerging economies in mind. So far that hasn’t happened.” (https://afkinsider.com/33748/apple-smartphones-are-lagging-behind-in-africa/)

“Africa, the second-most populous continent, is witnessing a tremendous increase in smartphone sales, but most of them are under $200 and this is why Apple is failing.” “Apple’s share in South Africa, one of the influential economies in Africa where consumers can afford iPhones, has dropped of late, which is bad news for Apple.” “Moreover, the GDP per capita has been declining in most of the African economies, which makes buying an iPhone a luxury decision that consumers are wary of.”(https://seekingalpha.com/article/3966349-apple-failing-emerging-market)

Netflix:

“This California-based company will face different challenges across various African markets, but they’ll have two big things in common in most countries: spotty internet connectivity and pricey data plans.”

(https://qz.com/589907/no-matter-where-netflix-goes-in-africa-it-will-run-into-these-two-problems/)

 

Film Studies Interdisciplinary Methodologies & its Limitations

Despite not researching films, film research methodologies were enabled during this process. A large part of film research is analyzing aesthetics and the importance of them. Clara did this with the emojis and I did this by deciphering the infographics. I was able to use a deconstruction film methodology by looking deeper into political and economic contexts. Instead of focusing on film, I focused on businesses. I was limited in my research methodology as aesthetics and deconstruction are used primarily to draw conclusions from seemingly insignificant things by looking further into the details. Whilst with researching IBM and Apple, it is harder to decipher a CEO’s intention as it is business and not art. The intention can be quite different.

Emma Watson’s speech at the UN 2014

“UN Women Global Goodwill Ambassador, Emma Watson, delivers her moving remarks during the HeForShe Special Event at United Nations Headquarters in New York on September 20, 2014”

Emma Watson’s speech at the UN has become a subject of studies: it is widely analyzed psychologists, sociologists, analysts and even students at schools and universities. From what I found on the Internet, most of the articles praise Miss Watson’s outstanding oratory skills and smart use of rhetorical devices. At the same time, they point at how this well-delivered speech gains its persuasive power from the appearance, voice intonation and gestures of the actress. However, comparatively less attention is paid to the actual content of the speech and what it is its message apart from the speaker’s appeal to invite men to join the HeForShe campaign in its pursuit of gender equality.

Here is a link to a blog article published on the 23rd of September, 2014 by Ben Hourigan, an Australian novelist:  http://benhourigan.com/2014/09/23/emma-watsons-feminism-speech/

I find it important that:

  • the blog post is almost an immediate response to the speech, meaning that this point of view is a rather fresh and authentic one
  • the article is, funnily enough, written by a man, and therefore, someone who is the target of the #HeForShe movement. In a way, he is addressing Emma Watson’s invitation to join the campaign
  • this post provides an alternative viewpoint of the speech and the movement itself, even though some points might seem controversial

I would like to leave here a few quotes from his analysis to illustrate an alternative opinion on Emma Watson/UN Feminist campaign:

“She’s a celebrity making a speech (let’s say she wrote it) to grab media attention for a cause, and she’s done a good job. Perhaps she has a more nuanced understanding of what feminism is than she lets on. But on an intellectual level, giving the impression that there is only one feminism, and that it is universally not misandric, makes you appear naive”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkjW9PZBRfk

“It’s okay to be bossy? That’s great for the bosses”

“Often gender isn’t the only basis of oppression. Feminism often says little about this: broader humanist, democratic, and revolutionary ideologies can”

“If the rights are human rights, why is the movement gender-specific? What about that half-billion or so Chinese women without the vote? Oh, and what of the half-billion Chinese men that go with them?”

“While Watson makes some gestures towards universalizing Feminism, she maintains its female focus. So is Watson’s feminism a human rights movement, or is it female chauvinism looking for male sellouts as allies?”

“Some feminists seem to want more women to get rich and into positions of power—but say nothing about how this will often simply means that poor and powerless women and men alike will remain slaves under new masters”

““Leaning in” isn’t about breaking that down: it’s about taking a slice for yourself”

The official speech video: