Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Evaluation of Digital Media Usage of Women Through Motherhood Models as a Cultural Ideology

Year 2019, Issue: 31, 137 - 167, 28.12.2019

Derya Gül Ünlü

https://doi.org/10.16878/gsuilet.658080
Cited By: 1

Abstract

Widespread use of internet and mobilization of digital means of communication came with several transformations in the social structure. One of the most important transformation in this sense is individuals, starting to participate in digital communication by utilizing digital communication tools. As digital content, generated in these media are shared and popularised, readers with access to this content come up with new information or suggestions, which are related to their parenting roles and can make use of said content according to their needs. In this regard, investigating the digital transformation of the communication of parents with each other, as well as that with their children based on the mothering role, which is not independent of the cultural codes of social structure, is considered to be important. Since motherhood is not only an act of giving birth, but also a social role with cultural implications attached; revealing the differentiation in individual tendencies to use digital communication media according to the mothering model they adopt is also important. To that end, this study aims to investigate maternity roles and how women, who assume this role participate in digital communication processes, thus understanding the cultural transformation, which is also a by-product of digital communication process. In line with this objective, semi-structured face-to-face interviews were carried out with 16 mothers, who adopted 2 different mothering roles (gendered talent/conscious collaboration) determined by Cowdery and Knudson-Martin (2005). Questions, aimed at revealing the mothers’ tendencies of utilizing digital communication tools, using social media applications and mobile applications, as well as questions to determine the mothering model of selection by the participants were asked in these interviews. Consequently, the study found that the age range of children is a determinant in the way, in which mothers use digital communication tools, and women, who adopt mothering as collaboration, use both their social media accounts and mobile applications more actively, compared to women, who assume the other mothering role. This study is thought to carry significance in terms of evaluating women’s practices, which are categorized as ‘motherhood models’, based on the duties and responsibilities that are shouldered within the family, over involvement in and utilization of digital communication settings.

Keywords

digital communication gender motherhood digital motherhood cultural ideology

References

  • Ammari, T., Kumar, P., Lampe, C. and Schoenebeck, S. (2015). Managing children’s online identities: How parents decide what to disclose about their children online. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM Press: New York, p.1985-1904.
  • Ammari, T., Morris, M. and Schoenebeck, S. (2014). Accessing social support and overcoming judgement on social media among parents of children with special needs. Proceedings of AAAI International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, p.22-31.
  • Ammari, T. and Schoenebeck, S. (2015). Understanding and supporting fathers and fatherhood on social media sites. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York, p.1905-1914.
  • Arendell, T. (2000). Caregiving and investigating motherhood: The decade’s scholarship. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 199-213.
  • Archer, C. and Kao, K.T. (2018). Mother, baby and Facebook makes three: does social media provide social support for new mothers?. Media International Australia, 168(1), 122-139.
  • Baber, K. and Allen, K. (1995). Women in families: Feminist reconstructions. New York: Guilford.
  • Badinter, E. (1981). Mother love: myth and reality. Motherhood in modern history. New York: Macmillan.
  • Bal, S. (2014). Reklamların eskimeyen yüzü “muhteşem annelik”. İlef Dergisi, 1(2), 59-85.
  • Barak-Brandes, S. (2017). Ideologies of motherhood in contemporary Israeli TV commercials. Communication, Culture & Critique, 10, 58-75.
  • Bartholomew, M.K., Schoppe-Sullivan, S.J., Glassman, M., Kamp Dush, C.M. and Sullivan, J.M. (2012). ‘New parents’ Facebook use at the transition to parenthood. Family Relations, 61(3), 455-469.
  • Bernard, J. (1974). The future of motherhood. New York: Dial Press.
  • Brady, E. and Guerin, S. (2010). Not the romantic, all happy, coocy coo experience: a qualitative analysis of interactions on an Irish parenting web site. Family Relations, 59(1), 14-27.
  • Budig, M.J., Misra, J. and Boeckmann, I. (2012). The motherhood penalty in cross-national perspective: The importance of work-family policies and cultural attitudes. Social Politics, 19(2), 163-193.
  • César, F., Costa, P., Oliveira, A. and Fontaine, A. M. (2018). “To suffer in paradise”: Feelings mothers share on Portuguese Facebook sites. Frontiers in Psychology, Available online: https://bit.ly/2qhz0Dg
  • Christopher, K. (2012). Extensive mothering: employed mothers’ constructions of the good mother. Gender & Society, 26(1): 73-96.
  • Collin, F. and Laborie, F. (2015). Annelik. In. H. Hırata, F. Laborie, H. L. Doare, and D. Senotier (Eds.), Eleştirel feminizm sözlüğü (pp.39-45). Ankara: Dipnot Yayınları.
  • Cowdery, R.S. and Knudson-Martin, C. (2005). The construction of motherhood: Tasks, relational connection, and gender equality. Family Relations. 54 (3), 335-345.
  • Drentea, P. and Moren-Cross, J. (2005). Social capital and supporton the web: the case of internet mother site. Sociology of Health & Illnes, 27(7):920-943.
  • Dreuth, L. (2003). A priori vs. experimental models of parenting in the assessment of mothering. Atlantis: Critical Studies in Gender, Culture & Social Justice, 28(1): 72-79.
  • Dolan, B. (2013). Report finds pregnancy apps more popular than fitness apss. Mobile Health News. Available online: https://bit.ly/2OH3n15
  • Dworkin, J., Connell, J. and Doty, J. (2013). A literature review of parents’ online behavior. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 7(2): 1-12.
  • Eagle, R.B. (2019). "“Have you tried ginger?”: severe pregnancy sickness and intensive mothering on Instagram. Feminist Media Studies, 19(5): 767-769.
  • Elvin-Nowak, Y. and Thomsson, H. (2001). Motherhood as idea and practice: A discursive understanding of employed mothers in Sweden. Gender & Society, 15, 407-428.
  • Erdoğan, T. (2008). Nancy Chodorow’un düşüncesinde toplumsal cinsiyet organizasyonunun merkezi unsuru olarak annelik. Aile ve Toplum. 10(4): 73-82.
  • Gibson, L. and Hanson, V.L. (2013). Digital motherhood: How does technology help new mothers?. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York: ACM Press, p.313-322.
  • Glenn, E.N. (1994). Social constructions of mothering: A thematic over-view. In. E.N. Glenn, G. Chang, and L. R. Forcey (Eds.), Mothering, ideology, experience, and agency (pp.1-39). New York: Routledge.
  • Glenn, E.N., Chang, G. and Forcey, L.R. (1994). Mothering: Ideology, experience, and agency. New York: Routledge.
  • Güler, A., Halıcıoğlu, M.B. and Taşğın, S. (2015). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Hays, S. (1996). The cultural contradictions of motherhood. New Heaven: Yale University Press.
  • Hearn, L., Miller, M. and Fletcher, A. (2013). Online healthy lifestyle support in the perinatal period: What do women want and do they use it?. Australian Journal of Primary Health, 19(4), 313-318.
  • Jang, J. and Dworkin, J. (2014). Does social network site use matter for mothers?: Implications for bonding and bridging capital. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 489-495.
  • Johnson, S. (2014). Maternal devices, social media and the self-management of pregnancy, mothering and child health. Societies, 4(2), 330-350.
  • Johnson, S. (2015). Intimate mothering publics: Comparing face-to-face support groups and internet use for women seeking information and advice in the transition to first-time motherhood. Culture, Health, & Sexuality, 17(2), 237-251.
  • Johnston, J. and Swanson, D.H. (2003). Invisible mothers: A content analysis of motherhood ideologies and myths in magazines. Sex Roles. 49(1-2): 21-33.
  • Keelan, J., Pavri-Garcia, V., Tolimson, G. and Wilson, K. (2007). Youtube as a source information on immunization: A content analysis. JAMA, 298(21), 2482-2484.
  • Kraschnewski, J.L., Chuang, C.H., Poole, E.S., Peyton, T., Blubaugh, I., Pauli, J., Feher, A. and Reddy, M. (2014). Paging “Dr. Google”: Does technology fill the gap created by the prenatal care visit structure? qualitative focus group study with pregnant women. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16(6): e147.
  • Lagan, B.M., Sinclair, M. and George Kernohan, W. (2010). Internet use in pregnancy informs women’s decision making: A web based survey. Birth, 37(2), 106-115.
  • Longhurst, R. (2016). Mothering, digital media and emotional geographies in Hamilton, Aotearoa New Zealand. Social & Cultural Geography, 17(1), 120-139.
  • Lupton, D. (2016). The use and value of digital media for information about pregnancy and early motherhood: a focus group study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 16(171). Available online: https://bit.ly/2D03f4r
  • Lupton, D. (2017). “It just gives me a bit of peace of mind”: Australian women’s use of digital media for pregnancy and early motherhood. Societies, 7(3): 3-15.
  • Lupton, D. and Pedersen, S. (2016). An Australian survey of women’s use of pregnancy and parenting apps. Women and Birth. 29(4), 368-375.
  • Madge, C. and O’Connor, H. (2006). Parenting gone wired: Empowerment of new mothers on the internet?. Social & Cultural Geography, 7(2), 199-220.
  • Marshall, H. (1991). The social construction of motherhood: An analysis of childcare and parenting manuals. In. A. Phoenix, A. Woollett, & E. Lloyd (Eds.). Gender and psychology motherhood: meanings, practices and ideologies (pp.66-85). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  • McDonagh, E. (2002). Models of motherhood in the abortion debate: Self-sacrifice versus self-defence. In. D.L. Dickenson (Ed.). Ethical issues in maternal-fetal medicine (pp.21-232). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Miller, T. (2005). Making sense of motherhood: a narrative approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Morris, M.R. (2014). Social networking site use by mothers of young children. Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, New York: ACM Press, p.1272-1282.
  • Morrison, A. (2010). Autobiography in real time: A genre analysis of personal mommy bloging. Cyberpsychology, 4(2): 1-14. Naples, N. (1992). Activist mothering: Cross-generational continuity in the community work of women from low-income urban neigborhoods. Gender & Society, 6(3): 441-463.
  • O'Higgins, A., Murphy, O.C., Egan, A., Mullaney, L., Sheehan, S. and Turner, M. (2015). The use of digital media by women using the maternity services in a developed country. Irish Medical Journal, 108(10): 313-315.
  • Pedersen, S. (2014). Is it friday yet?: Mothers talking about sex online. Cyberpsychology. 8(2), 2-4.
  • Pedersen, S. and Lupton, D. (2016). What are you feeling right now?: Communities of maternal feeling on Mumsnet. Emotion, Space, and Society, 1-7.
  • Phoenix, A. and Woollett, A. (1991). Motherhood: social construction, politics and psychology. In. A. Phoenix, A. Woollett, and E. Lloyd (Eds.). Gender and psychology. motherhood: meanings, practices and ideologies (pp.13-27). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  • Ribbens, J. (1994). Mothers and their children: A feminist sociology of childrearing. London: Sage Publication.
  • Rich, A. (1995). Of woman born: Motherhood as experience and institution. New York: WW Norton & Company.
  • Robinson, A., Lauckner, C., Davis, M., Hall, J. and Anderson, A.K. (2019). Facebook support for breastfeeding mothers: A comparison to offline support and associations with breastfeeding outcomes. Digital Health, Available online: https://bit.ly/34PO0Yb
  • Schoenebeck, S.Y. (2013). The secret life of online moms: anonymity and disinhibition on Youbemom. Paper presented at the 7th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM’13), Boston.
  • Stearney, L.M. (1994). Feminism, ecofeminism and maternal archetype: motherhood as a feminine universal. Communication Quarterly, 42(2), 145-159.
  • Tardy, R.W. (2000). “But i am a good mom” the social construction of motherhood through health-care conversations. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 29(4), 433-473.
  • Thompson, L. and Walker, A. (1989). Gender in families: Women and men in marriage, work and parenthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 51, 845-871.
  • Thomson, E., Mosley, J., Hanson, T. and McLanahan, S. (2001). Remarriage, cohabitation, and changes in mothering behavior. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(2): 370-380.
  • Tiidenberg, K. (2015). Odes to heteronormativity: Presentations of feminity in Russian-speaking pregnant women’s Instagram accounts. International Journal of Communication, 9(13): 1746-1758.
  • Walker, S., Dworkin, J. and Connell, J. (2011). Variation in parent use of information and communication technology: Does quantity matter?. Family & Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 40, 106-119.
  • Yam, S.S. (2019). Birth Images on Instagram: The Disruptive Visuality of Birthing Bodies. Women's Studies in Communication, 42(1): 80-100.
  • Yıldırım, A. (2013). 4. Eğitim bilimleri araştırma günleri nitel araştırma semineri çalışma yaprakları. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Yıldırım, A. and Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Young, K. (2011). Social ties, social networks and the Facebook experience. International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society, 9(1): 20-34.

Evaluation of Digital Media Usage of Women Through Motherhood Models As a Cultural Ideology

Year 2019, Issue: 31, 137 - 167, 28.12.2019

Derya Gül Ünlü

https://doi.org/10.16878/gsuilet.658080
Cited By: 1

Abstract

Widespread use of internet and mobilization of digital means of communication came with several transformations in the social structure. One of the most important transformation in this sense is individuals, starting to participate in digital communication by utilizing digital communication tools. As digital content, generated in these media are shared and popularised, readers with access to this content come up with new information or suggestions, which are related to their parenting roles and can make use of said content according to their needs. In this regard, investigating the digital transformation of the communication of parents with each other, as well as that with their children based on the mothering role, which is not independent of the cultural codes of social structure, is considered to be important. Since motherhood is not only an act of giving birth, but also a social role with cultural implications attached; revealing the differentiation in individual tendencies to use digital communication media according to the mothering model they adopt is also important. To that end, this study aims to investigate maternity roles and how women, who assume this role participate in digital communication processes, thus understanding the cultural transformation, which is also a by-product of digital communication process. In line with this objective, semi-structured face-to-face interviews were carried out with 16 mothers, who adopted 2 different mothering roles (gendered talent/conscious collaboration) determined by Cowdery and Knudson-Martin (2005). Questions, aimed at revealing the mothers’ tendencies of utilizing digital communication tools, using social media applications and mobile applications, as well as questions to determine the mothering model of selection by the participants were asked in these interviews. Consequently, the study found that the age range of children is a determinant in the way, in which mothers use digital communication tools, and women, who adopt mothering as collaboration, use both their social media accounts and mobile applications more actively, compared to women, who assume the other mothering role. This study is thought to carry significance in terms of evaluating women’s practices, which are categorized as ‘motherhood models’, based on the duties and responsibilities that are shouldered within the family, over involvement in and utilization of digital communication settings.

Keywords

Digital communication gender motherhood digital motherhood cultural ideology

References

  • Ammari, T., Kumar, P., Lampe, C. and Schoenebeck, S. (2015). Managing children’s online identities: How parents decide what to disclose about their children online. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM Press: New York, p.1985-1904.
  • Ammari, T., Morris, M. and Schoenebeck, S. (2014). Accessing social support and overcoming judgement on social media among parents of children with special needs. Proceedings of AAAI International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, p.22-31.
  • Ammari, T. and Schoenebeck, S. (2015). Understanding and supporting fathers and fatherhood on social media sites. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York, p.1905-1914.
  • Arendell, T. (2000). Caregiving and investigating motherhood: The decade’s scholarship. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 199-213.
  • Archer, C. and Kao, K.T. (2018). Mother, baby and Facebook makes three: does social media provide social support for new mothers?. Media International Australia, 168(1), 122-139.
  • Baber, K. and Allen, K. (1995). Women in families: Feminist reconstructions. New York: Guilford.
  • Badinter, E. (1981). Mother love: myth and reality. Motherhood in modern history. New York: Macmillan.
  • Bal, S. (2014). Reklamların eskimeyen yüzü “muhteşem annelik”. İlef Dergisi, 1(2), 59-85.
  • Barak-Brandes, S. (2017). Ideologies of motherhood in contemporary Israeli TV commercials. Communication, Culture & Critique, 10, 58-75.
  • Bartholomew, M.K., Schoppe-Sullivan, S.J., Glassman, M., Kamp Dush, C.M. and Sullivan, J.M. (2012). ‘New parents’ Facebook use at the transition to parenthood. Family Relations, 61(3), 455-469.
  • Bernard, J. (1974). The future of motherhood. New York: Dial Press.
  • Brady, E. and Guerin, S. (2010). Not the romantic, all happy, coocy coo experience: a qualitative analysis of interactions on an Irish parenting web site. Family Relations, 59(1), 14-27.
  • Budig, M.J., Misra, J. and Boeckmann, I. (2012). The motherhood penalty in cross-national perspective: The importance of work-family policies and cultural attitudes. Social Politics, 19(2), 163-193.
  • César, F., Costa, P., Oliveira, A. and Fontaine, A. M. (2018). “To suffer in paradise”: Feelings mothers share on Portuguese Facebook sites. Frontiers in Psychology, Available online: https://bit.ly/2qhz0Dg
  • Christopher, K. (2012). Extensive mothering: employed mothers’ constructions of the good mother. Gender & Society, 26(1): 73-96.
  • Collin, F. and Laborie, F. (2015). Annelik. In. H. Hırata, F. Laborie, H. L. Doare, and D. Senotier (Eds.), Eleştirel feminizm sözlüğü (pp.39-45). Ankara: Dipnot Yayınları.
  • Cowdery, R.S. and Knudson-Martin, C. (2005). The construction of motherhood: Tasks, relational connection, and gender equality. Family Relations. 54 (3), 335-345.
  • Drentea, P. and Moren-Cross, J. (2005). Social capital and supporton the web: the case of internet mother site. Sociology of Health & Illnes, 27(7):920-943.
  • Dreuth, L. (2003). A priori vs. experimental models of parenting in the assessment of mothering. Atlantis: Critical Studies in Gender, Culture & Social Justice, 28(1): 72-79.
  • Dolan, B. (2013). Report finds pregnancy apps more popular than fitness apss. Mobile Health News. Available online: https://bit.ly/2OH3n15
  • Dworkin, J., Connell, J. and Doty, J. (2013). A literature review of parents’ online behavior. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 7(2): 1-12.
  • Eagle, R.B. (2019). "“Have you tried ginger?”: severe pregnancy sickness and intensive mothering on Instagram. Feminist Media Studies, 19(5): 767-769.
  • Elvin-Nowak, Y. and Thomsson, H. (2001). Motherhood as idea and practice: A discursive understanding of employed mothers in Sweden. Gender & Society, 15, 407-428.
  • Erdoğan, T. (2008). Nancy Chodorow’un düşüncesinde toplumsal cinsiyet organizasyonunun merkezi unsuru olarak annelik. Aile ve Toplum. 10(4): 73-82.
  • Gibson, L. and Hanson, V.L. (2013). Digital motherhood: How does technology help new mothers?. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York: ACM Press, p.313-322.
  • Glenn, E.N. (1994). Social constructions of mothering: A thematic over-view. In. E.N. Glenn, G. Chang, and L. R. Forcey (Eds.), Mothering, ideology, experience, and agency (pp.1-39). New York: Routledge.
  • Glenn, E.N., Chang, G. and Forcey, L.R. (1994). Mothering: Ideology, experience, and agency. New York: Routledge.
  • Güler, A., Halıcıoğlu, M.B. and Taşğın, S. (2015). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Hays, S. (1996). The cultural contradictions of motherhood. New Heaven: Yale University Press.
  • Hearn, L., Miller, M. and Fletcher, A. (2013). Online healthy lifestyle support in the perinatal period: What do women want and do they use it?. Australian Journal of Primary Health, 19(4), 313-318.
  • Jang, J. and Dworkin, J. (2014). Does social network site use matter for mothers?: Implications for bonding and bridging capital. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 489-495.
  • Johnson, S. (2014). Maternal devices, social media and the self-management of pregnancy, mothering and child health. Societies, 4(2), 330-350.
  • Johnson, S. (2015). Intimate mothering publics: Comparing face-to-face support groups and internet use for women seeking information and advice in the transition to first-time motherhood. Culture, Health, & Sexuality, 17(2), 237-251.
  • Johnston, J. and Swanson, D.H. (2003). Invisible mothers: A content analysis of motherhood ideologies and myths in magazines. Sex Roles. 49(1-2): 21-33.
  • Keelan, J., Pavri-Garcia, V., Tolimson, G. and Wilson, K. (2007). Youtube as a source information on immunization: A content analysis. JAMA, 298(21), 2482-2484.
  • Kraschnewski, J.L., Chuang, C.H., Poole, E.S., Peyton, T., Blubaugh, I., Pauli, J., Feher, A. and Reddy, M. (2014). Paging “Dr. Google”: Does technology fill the gap created by the prenatal care visit structure? qualitative focus group study with pregnant women. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16(6): e147.
  • Lagan, B.M., Sinclair, M. and George Kernohan, W. (2010). Internet use in pregnancy informs women’s decision making: A web based survey. Birth, 37(2), 106-115.
  • Longhurst, R. (2016). Mothering, digital media and emotional geographies in Hamilton, Aotearoa New Zealand. Social & Cultural Geography, 17(1), 120-139.
  • Lupton, D. (2016). The use and value of digital media for information about pregnancy and early motherhood: a focus group study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 16(171). Available online: https://bit.ly/2D03f4r
  • Lupton, D. (2017). “It just gives me a bit of peace of mind”: Australian women’s use of digital media for pregnancy and early motherhood. Societies, 7(3): 3-15.
  • Lupton, D. and Pedersen, S. (2016). An Australian survey of women’s use of pregnancy and parenting apps. Women and Birth. 29(4), 368-375.
  • Madge, C. and O’Connor, H. (2006). Parenting gone wired: Empowerment of new mothers on the internet?. Social & Cultural Geography, 7(2), 199-220.
  • Marshall, H. (1991). The social construction of motherhood: An analysis of childcare and parenting manuals. In. A. Phoenix, A. Woollett, & E. Lloyd (Eds.). Gender and psychology motherhood: meanings, practices and ideologies (pp.66-85). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  • McDonagh, E. (2002). Models of motherhood in the abortion debate: Self-sacrifice versus self-defence. In. D.L. Dickenson (Ed.). Ethical issues in maternal-fetal medicine (pp.21-232). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Miller, T. (2005). Making sense of motherhood: a narrative approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Morris, M.R. (2014). Social networking site use by mothers of young children. Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, New York: ACM Press, p.1272-1282.
  • Morrison, A. (2010). Autobiography in real time: A genre analysis of personal mommy bloging. Cyberpsychology, 4(2): 1-14. Naples, N. (1992). Activist mothering: Cross-generational continuity in the community work of women from low-income urban neigborhoods. Gender & Society, 6(3): 441-463.
  • O'Higgins, A., Murphy, O.C., Egan, A., Mullaney, L., Sheehan, S. and Turner, M. (2015). The use of digital media by women using the maternity services in a developed country. Irish Medical Journal, 108(10): 313-315.
  • Pedersen, S. (2014). Is it friday yet?: Mothers talking about sex online. Cyberpsychology. 8(2), 2-4.
  • Pedersen, S. and Lupton, D. (2016). What are you feeling right now?: Communities of maternal feeling on Mumsnet. Emotion, Space, and Society, 1-7.
  • Phoenix, A. and Woollett, A. (1991). Motherhood: social construction, politics and psychology. In. A. Phoenix, A. Woollett, and E. Lloyd (Eds.). Gender and psychology. motherhood: meanings, practices and ideologies (pp.13-27). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  • Ribbens, J. (1994). Mothers and their children: A feminist sociology of childrearing. London: Sage Publication.
  • Rich, A. (1995). Of woman born: Motherhood as experience and institution. New York: WW Norton & Company.
  • Robinson, A., Lauckner, C., Davis, M., Hall, J. and Anderson, A.K. (2019). Facebook support for breastfeeding mothers: A comparison to offline support and associations with breastfeeding outcomes. Digital Health, Available online: https://bit.ly/34PO0Yb
  • Schoenebeck, S.Y. (2013). The secret life of online moms: anonymity and disinhibition on Youbemom. Paper presented at the 7th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM’13), Boston.
  • Stearney, L.M. (1994). Feminism, ecofeminism and maternal archetype: motherhood as a feminine universal. Communication Quarterly, 42(2), 145-159.
  • Tardy, R.W. (2000). “But i am a good mom” the social construction of motherhood through health-care conversations. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 29(4), 433-473.
  • Thompson, L. and Walker, A. (1989). Gender in families: Women and men in marriage, work and parenthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 51, 845-871.
  • Thomson, E., Mosley, J., Hanson, T. and McLanahan, S. (2001). Remarriage, cohabitation, and changes in mothering behavior. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(2): 370-380.
  • Tiidenberg, K. (2015). Odes to heteronormativity: Presentations of feminity in Russian-speaking pregnant women’s Instagram accounts. International Journal of Communication, 9(13): 1746-1758.
  • Walker, S., Dworkin, J. and Connell, J. (2011). Variation in parent use of information and communication technology: Does quantity matter?. Family & Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 40, 106-119.
  • Yam, S.S. (2019). Birth Images on Instagram: The Disruptive Visuality of Birthing Bodies. Women's Studies in Communication, 42(1): 80-100.
  • Yıldırım, A. (2013). 4. Eğitim bilimleri araştırma günleri nitel araştırma semineri çalışma yaprakları. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Yıldırım, A. and Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Young, K. (2011). Social ties, social networks and the Facebook experience. International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society, 9(1): 20-34.
There are 65 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Derya Gül Ünlü 0000-0002-3628-715X

Publication Date December 28, 2019
Acceptance Date December 20, 2019
Published in Issue Year 2019Issue: 31

Cite

APA Gül Ünlü, D. (2019). Evaluation of Digital Media Usage of Women Through Motherhood Models As a Cultural Ideology. Galatasaray Üniversitesi İletişim Dergisi(31), 137-167. https://doi.org/10.16878/gsuilet.658080

Cited By

"Hepsi Bir Işık Oluyor Ama Karanlıktaki Ay Gibi, Güneş Gibi Değil": Annelerin Dijital Annelik Tavsiyesine Dair Değerlendirmeleri Üzerine Bir İnceleme
Kültür ve İletişim
Derya GÜL ÜNLÜ
https://doi.org/10.18691/kulturveiletisim.716776
 Download Cover Image

Creative Commons LisansıTRDizinlogo_live-e1586763957746.png