![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beccaelizabethThe section about 'class and audience reception' p858 mixes it together with gender. Actually, is mostly about gender. Which is interesting, yes, but not what the subject heading is about!
Really, I keep on getting told off for not sticking to my titles, now the stupid textbook isn't either. Tell off textbook!
Its mostly stuff like saying men watch more sport and science fiction, mostly in an all male context. Women in an all female or on their own context watch weepy romance.
Somebody probably got paid for this research.
They looked at 30 women. 30 seems like a very achievable sample size. But I don't know what they did, if they did a questionnaire or watched them or what.
It surely ought to say, just to be useful! I mean if this is all self report, then what it is finding out isn't video *use*, it is as much about what is *valued*. People might report only what was expected! Need to know the details of the study to know what particular difficulties there might be.
This whole chapter is light on the 'evaluate' thing that the other chapters have. Annoyance!
Anyways, now in my head I'm designing questions to ask about LGBT viewers. Obviously there would need to be more than two categories for gender, for a start. And then we could find out if gay guys also watch sport or SF or weepy romance. With studying.
Somebody surely did that? Somewhere?
It reckons science fiction is male and fantasy is female.
F&SF is all smudged together round the edges, gets shelved together, so how is it figuring that?
Would 'Buffy' be in either category?
I want to poke the data to see how it figures these things. Partly because they seem stupid things to figure. I mean look at all of the people I know who are into Stargate or any Trek or whatever - women everywhere! And, yeah, statistically valid sample issues. So I can't just say they're wrong.
But I can wonder. I suppose I'd have to look up in the bibliography and poke around for the study... Ann Gray (1992) Video Playtime, Routledge, London. So it is a book. There's a 1987 and 1999 one of roughly similar sounding titles too. Interesting.
The bit about class - what its supposed to be about - looks a bit interesting, with conclusions like "The higher the social class, the more concern there was about children using the television and video 'too much' and the more effort was made to control their use. The lower the social class, the more television and video were an accepted (and dominant) part of life and conversation. The higher the social class, the more preference there was for 'classics' and British productions (a perceived sign of quality)."
But the comparison is between professional and skilled non-manual, not the whole spectrum of classes. It don't even divide up like class does in most of the rest of the book. Elsewhere they talk middle vs working. That isn't what they talk about here. Irritation.
It also says "In all classes women tended to give control of the viewing to men", and talks about viewing in the context of family, male+female, or male only or female only. Does that mean it is comparing only 30 nuclear families? The ones with a male and a female and children? But the families chapter said they make up only a quarter of households, iirc. Yup, table 8.7 p495, couple with dependend children, 23%. Studies on nuclear families are therefore studying the minority, even if most people are part of a nuclear family at some time. There was a ton in the section on conjugal roles that pointed out weaknesses in studies. I'm wondering how many of those weaknesses apply to this here video watching study. I'd have to hunt down the book to find out.
This chapter has some very muddled sections, it really does.
Is possible I'm also in a cranky mood.
... er, any of you that don't want to read sociology stuff... sorry...
Really, I keep on getting told off for not sticking to my titles, now the stupid textbook isn't either. Tell off textbook!
Its mostly stuff like saying men watch more sport and science fiction, mostly in an all male context. Women in an all female or on their own context watch weepy romance.
Somebody probably got paid for this research.
They looked at 30 women. 30 seems like a very achievable sample size. But I don't know what they did, if they did a questionnaire or watched them or what.
It surely ought to say, just to be useful! I mean if this is all self report, then what it is finding out isn't video *use*, it is as much about what is *valued*. People might report only what was expected! Need to know the details of the study to know what particular difficulties there might be.
This whole chapter is light on the 'evaluate' thing that the other chapters have. Annoyance!
Anyways, now in my head I'm designing questions to ask about LGBT viewers. Obviously there would need to be more than two categories for gender, for a start. And then we could find out if gay guys also watch sport or SF or weepy romance. With studying.
Somebody surely did that? Somewhere?
It reckons science fiction is male and fantasy is female.
F&SF is all smudged together round the edges, gets shelved together, so how is it figuring that?
Would 'Buffy' be in either category?
I want to poke the data to see how it figures these things. Partly because they seem stupid things to figure. I mean look at all of the people I know who are into Stargate or any Trek or whatever - women everywhere! And, yeah, statistically valid sample issues. So I can't just say they're wrong.
But I can wonder. I suppose I'd have to look up in the bibliography and poke around for the study... Ann Gray (1992) Video Playtime, Routledge, London. So it is a book. There's a 1987 and 1999 one of roughly similar sounding titles too. Interesting.
The bit about class - what its supposed to be about - looks a bit interesting, with conclusions like "The higher the social class, the more concern there was about children using the television and video 'too much' and the more effort was made to control their use. The lower the social class, the more television and video were an accepted (and dominant) part of life and conversation. The higher the social class, the more preference there was for 'classics' and British productions (a perceived sign of quality)."
But the comparison is between professional and skilled non-manual, not the whole spectrum of classes. It don't even divide up like class does in most of the rest of the book. Elsewhere they talk middle vs working. That isn't what they talk about here. Irritation.
It also says "In all classes women tended to give control of the viewing to men", and talks about viewing in the context of family, male+female, or male only or female only. Does that mean it is comparing only 30 nuclear families? The ones with a male and a female and children? But the families chapter said they make up only a quarter of households, iirc. Yup, table 8.7 p495, couple with dependend children, 23%. Studies on nuclear families are therefore studying the minority, even if most people are part of a nuclear family at some time. There was a ton in the section on conjugal roles that pointed out weaknesses in studies. I'm wondering how many of those weaknesses apply to this here video watching study. I'd have to hunt down the book to find out.
This chapter has some very muddled sections, it really does.
Is possible I'm also in a cranky mood.
... er, any of you that don't want to read sociology stuff... sorry...