Sunday, April 10, 2011
Good Marketing, Bad Idea
This week’s readings were very upsetting to me. It was interesting to see how much money businesses can make by targeting the teen/ tween girls market. From a business standpoint, the AM&M Corporation is very smart. We have learned throughout this class how much the internet now affects the lives of young girls. We also have studied how much media plays a role in shaping young girls’ identities. The combination of both these aspects in the marketing done by the AM&M Corporation is what is the most upsetting to me. The Alloy.com website acts as a “community” for girls, almost like gURL.com that we have discussed in the past. However, Alloy.com does not truly give a “community” in which the girls can express their identities and explore new ideas. Instead, Alloy.com poses as a community and in reality reinforces the societal ideas of how a girls should be. Girls should be “girly” and wear makeup and dress in the latest trends. They advertise this idea through everything, such as horoscope posting, “editorial articles”, book reviews, and celebrity information. They even provide links so they can make it easier for the girls to buy these products. One example in 2.0 was the Clinique Boot Camp which was a way for girls to get tips from Clinique as well as buy Clinique products. The author points out that the site never mentions the idea that you do not have to wear makeup; rather they give you tips on how to use your makeup better. Also, the thing that really upset me was the non-acceptance of homosexuality. 2.0 Talks about the expression of “crushes”, and hose crushes are only portrayed as being male. Also, in the “PDA” section of Alloy.com, girls can send in photos of themselves and their boyfriends to be posted on the site. There are no pictures of girls with their girlfriends because homosexuality is not accepted. I am very disappointed in this corporation and others like it because they are just continuing the idea of gender roles through the new form of technology.
The Influence of the Media in a Virtual World- week 13
While reading this weeks assignment, I couldn't help but think of just how much the media affects the minds of our youth and the mass influence it has on them. We live in a world filled with so many different products, that it makes it difficult to select which one to purchase. Therefore these advertisers must market themselves in order to promote their products while competing with other companies. These marketing companies are very successful in reaching the tween/teens population through the Internet (as well as other means) while not only promoting their products but also enforcing expected heterosexuality characteristics within our society. It's difficult enough just trying to grow up in this world filled with the pressures of identity, peers, authority, and society as a whole, that many young people look to the Internet to find a safe place searching for security and acceptance. With this longing for a place to connect it creates a perfect environment for the advertising companies to benefit from this vulnerability. "It is crucial to understand how corporate and advertising outlets have interceded in this relationship in order to further their own interest and the strategies for selling to tweens and teens" (II 95). These marketing strategies use techniques on the web pages such as banners, spam, pop ups and automated bots (which are programed to answer questions) promoting certain products in addition to the idea that consumption can be pleasurable, empowering, and naturally feminine (II 97), basically instilling the expected values of our culture while defining the feminine values. When visiting the Alloy.com website and browsing through it, I observed all the channels of media advertising. The "Oh No She Didn't " frame, shows how someone is poorly dressed ( according to Alloy's standards) and encourages others to vote and comment (personally I think this behavior promotes bullying). It seems that this site does not embrace the ability to be different or express individual identity. This site encourages the values and standards that are expected in order to sell the products that sponsor them or that they profit off themselves. These ideas range from looking like famous female celebrities - "get this look" to discussing romantic male idols, having a crush and encouraging that it's hip to have a boyfriend. Personally, I feel that these young girls should not be encouraged to have boyfriends and wear make up, whats wrong with being involved in athletics's, remaining single when your young and striving to succeed academically as well? Though in the past, studies revealed that girls used the Internet to stay connected while boys mostly downloaded games and music. However it seems that now the differences in the two sexes are becoming more similar being that boys are now using the Internet for social connections as well. Whatever the reasons for Internet use, the fact remains that the population being target for these marketing companies are vulnerable and impressionable. Many of these websites can shape the attitudes of these girls enforcing the expectations of what girl's should not only look like but her sway her interests as well. Advertising companies market this population on certain websites for their own profit while posing to be a friendly safe place to stay connected on the World Wide Web.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Generation Y
Adolescents who are now referred to as the millennial or Generation Y are perceived by large internet marketing corporations as the “sometimes elusive marketing demographics of adolescents,” and as such, they have since embarked on a carefully designed and well orchestrated marketing strategy to capture that market. Internet companies such as AOL/Time Warner, Microsoft, and Yahoo believed that they have hit the jackpot with Instant Messaging (IM) with regards to reaching that elusive target market.
They began with the use of robots, or “chat robots/chatter box” which are artificial intelligence driven computer programs, and designed with artificial intelligence to hold conversations. The first widely known robot used to sell a product was “Ellegirlbuddy” in 2002. However, what this does is that it uses the artificial voice it was designed with to mimic the tone of a teenage girl in order to have a conversation through IM and a visit to ELLEGIRL on line magazine site. This site offers products such as ACUVU brand contact lenses that an adolescent may actually be interested in.
The IM carries advertisements such as banners, spim, bots wallpaper and icons. Some of these carry flirty, sexy, teen models like the one at Yahoo’s BPNordstrom. This is certainly not appropriate for adolescents. It appears that these marketers stereotype adolescents as shopaholics, and are trying to exploit such misconceptions. I say this because they cannot say for sure that all their electronic robotics strategies are a success. I agree with some of the old fashion critics who claim that women are marginalized. They do not have this same kind of aggressive marketing for young men.
They began with the use of robots, or “chat robots/chatter box” which are artificial intelligence driven computer programs, and designed with artificial intelligence to hold conversations. The first widely known robot used to sell a product was “Ellegirlbuddy” in 2002. However, what this does is that it uses the artificial voice it was designed with to mimic the tone of a teenage girl in order to have a conversation through IM and a visit to ELLEGIRL on line magazine site. This site offers products such as ACUVU brand contact lenses that an adolescent may actually be interested in.
The IM carries advertisements such as banners, spim, bots wallpaper and icons. Some of these carry flirty, sexy, teen models like the one at Yahoo’s BPNordstrom. This is certainly not appropriate for adolescents. It appears that these marketers stereotype adolescents as shopaholics, and are trying to exploit such misconceptions. I say this because they cannot say for sure that all their electronic robotics strategies are a success. I agree with some of the old fashion critics who claim that women are marginalized. They do not have this same kind of aggressive marketing for young men.
Emergence: Teens and Tweens
Alloy.com seems to have found a niche in capitalizing on the tween/teen consumer market. According to Mazzarella, editor of Girl Wide Web 2.0, Alloy.com is the most visited website among kids ages 13-17. It started as a media platform in 1996 to target hard-to-reach young consumers. Tweens (8-14) spend $51 billion per year while the teens spend $175 billion per year. Alloy decided to become the major marketer for these groups by not just selling products but by investing in the idea of becoming a brand that could reach girls between the ages of 12-24. Alloy Media and Marketing (AM&M) exploits the young girls’ market by creating virtual spaces which include entertainment, advice, friendship, community, and shopping. The traditional parks and other outdoor activities that young girls use to visit for recreation are becoming a thing of the past. The actual physical space has disappeared and is being replaced by virtual space. It is sad to learn that young people are now growing up with less time for physical activities. The school system would not be in a position to help either because of budget cuts. The core classes of reading, writing, math, and science take a priority over physical education.
I am not against AM&M but sometimes I think they are over indulging in the nature of their advertisement. If they are claiming to be the leader of providing products and services to young girls, they should ensure that what they offer is age appropriate. They claim that they position themselves as friends or big sisters who understand what tween/teen girls are undergoing in the transition from girlhood to womanhood, so they provide social space and trendy products. However, many “teens now aspire to dress as if they were women in their twenties” (p.267). Tweens are confused as they are caught “betwixt and be tween” girl child (p. 267).
Large retail sites like AM&M who masquerade as online companies do have a social responsibility. They must not allow success and profits to blind their vision of producing goods and services that are more age appropriate.
I am not against AM&M but sometimes I think they are over indulging in the nature of their advertisement. If they are claiming to be the leader of providing products and services to young girls, they should ensure that what they offer is age appropriate. They claim that they position themselves as friends or big sisters who understand what tween/teen girls are undergoing in the transition from girlhood to womanhood, so they provide social space and trendy products. However, many “teens now aspire to dress as if they were women in their twenties” (p.267). Tweens are confused as they are caught “betwixt and be tween” girl child (p. 267).
Large retail sites like AM&M who masquerade as online companies do have a social responsibility. They must not allow success and profits to blind their vision of producing goods and services that are more age appropriate.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Camgirls and Counter-Publics.
Because of some personal issues, this is extremely late and I'm not going to be including a question as a result. However, I found this text fascinating and very informative, pursuant of my personal interests in this class. I focused primarily on the discussion of the pornographic implications to cam sites, as well as the gap bridged between public spaces and counter-publics, through camming. My digital analysis is focusing on the communication between digitally expressed girl culture and its representations to the general public (keyword), especially adults who jump the most extreme conclusions regarding young people and the Internet.
This is epitomized by the beginning of the chapter, "The Public, the Private, and the Pornographic," when Theresa Senft, our author, talks about her experience as a contributor on The Diane Rehm Show. I must preface my analysis of this chapter by stating that I am a diehard NPR fan and The Diane Rehm Show is on during my midmorning commute to UCF, but I refuse to listen to it because she is quite possibly the most boring news contributor on their payroll, in addition to possessing what can only be described as the opposite of a voice for radio, so the way Senft wrote about the interview made me incredibly self-satisfied in my own longheld opinions. Diane Rehm, who is turning seventy-five this year, just to paint a picture, mediates the conversation by turning to Senft as a negative example of Internet-age disconnection and media-related transgression, which is a complete misrepresentation of the way Senft herself views her forays into broadcasting her life on the Internet. While this discussion is interesting in that it illuminates that even in the eyes of Internet commentators, cam culture is associated with perverse voyeurism, rather than a being viewed as a wholly legitimate way to explore performative identity, it was also very valuable to me because it segues into Seft's explanation of the origin and importance of publics and counter-publics, concepts as related to feminist theory that I have always failed to grasp to my own satisfaction.
Within this discourse, Senft argues, camming is a panacea for women being locked out of public discourse, as her sexuality is not essentially the only thing locks her into it, but rather, the engagement itself, which may just be broadcasting the minutiae of daily life. Establishing separate spaces (counter-publics) through the opportunities afforded by the Internet is very misunderstood, though one of the most potentially valuable aspects of its democratizing nature, and this text in general, especially its conclusion, which includes a letter that writes the whole endeavor off as self-indulgent, is a perfect example of that.
In this vein, there is a very precarious relationship between the use of sexuality in cam culture and true sexual agency. Senft seems to suggest that the conduits through which women are allowed to use their sexuality is constructed voyeurism, and since it is behavior that does not represent behavior they're taking part in for the sake of itself, but rather, for a profit, it is not inherently an example of positive identity construction, as it can often lead to some degree of psychic damage. Her next point is that digital drag, just as the traditional implication of the word implies, mocks the paradigm, much in the way Homi Bhaba's concept of mimicry turns colonial race relations on their head (I've been doing a lot of work in critical race studies lately, so pardon the digression). In taking on a new persona, the subject is either taking part in "identity tourism," or simply acting out a different kind of identity, accruing experience as though in a different body. This theme resounds throughout Internet communities and is not particular to cam culture, yet if placed within the paradigm of sincere life blogging or sexual voyeurism, one possible issue is the possibility of appearing disingenuous in the performance. I suppose that depends entirely on what your audience knows or feels entitled to know about your "real" identity, and what their expectations are therein.
I also appreciated Senft's point about commodity fetishism, that the commodified body cannot be understood on its own terms, but rather, subjectively, and only with respect to the situation in which it is placed. She points this out with respect to underage "cam whores" and the way their sexual expression is pegged by adults (more on that in my Digital Analysis), but I think the point can be used with respect to most culturally influenced products made in the Internet age: blogs, cam sites, whatever. Similar points were made with her comments on what would happen if a person were to run into someone they had just watched for five hours on their cam site, as this in between place regarding "intimate strangerhood" is transgressive against the place-based nature of the transaction, and make no mistake, it is a transaction, even if no money or sex is involved. In that case, however, the person behind the camera is trafficking in exposure, and is receiving an audience for, as mentioned above, acting out the every day. The thought I came away from this with is that regardless of how long someone watches you, and how unaware you become of it, in simply forgetting you're being watched, can the actions observed ever be completely natural? Probably not. More than that, though, the point Senft makes at the close of the chapter, one that I've heard time and again from my friends who blog, is that the picture the "public," which doesn't even qualify as a pure public because it's only the audience that finds the space through a series of networked connections, receives from what the blogger puts out is extremely two dimensional, not at all nuanced, but flat and easily commodified, and it takes quite a bit of effort to make the subject take on human form.
This is epitomized by the beginning of the chapter, "The Public, the Private, and the Pornographic," when Theresa Senft, our author, talks about her experience as a contributor on The Diane Rehm Show. I must preface my analysis of this chapter by stating that I am a diehard NPR fan and The Diane Rehm Show is on during my midmorning commute to UCF, but I refuse to listen to it because she is quite possibly the most boring news contributor on their payroll, in addition to possessing what can only be described as the opposite of a voice for radio, so the way Senft wrote about the interview made me incredibly self-satisfied in my own longheld opinions. Diane Rehm, who is turning seventy-five this year, just to paint a picture, mediates the conversation by turning to Senft as a negative example of Internet-age disconnection and media-related transgression, which is a complete misrepresentation of the way Senft herself views her forays into broadcasting her life on the Internet. While this discussion is interesting in that it illuminates that even in the eyes of Internet commentators, cam culture is associated with perverse voyeurism, rather than a being viewed as a wholly legitimate way to explore performative identity, it was also very valuable to me because it segues into Seft's explanation of the origin and importance of publics and counter-publics, concepts as related to feminist theory that I have always failed to grasp to my own satisfaction.
Within this discourse, Senft argues, camming is a panacea for women being locked out of public discourse, as her sexuality is not essentially the only thing locks her into it, but rather, the engagement itself, which may just be broadcasting the minutiae of daily life. Establishing separate spaces (counter-publics) through the opportunities afforded by the Internet is very misunderstood, though one of the most potentially valuable aspects of its democratizing nature, and this text in general, especially its conclusion, which includes a letter that writes the whole endeavor off as self-indulgent, is a perfect example of that.
In this vein, there is a very precarious relationship between the use of sexuality in cam culture and true sexual agency. Senft seems to suggest that the conduits through which women are allowed to use their sexuality is constructed voyeurism, and since it is behavior that does not represent behavior they're taking part in for the sake of itself, but rather, for a profit, it is not inherently an example of positive identity construction, as it can often lead to some degree of psychic damage. Her next point is that digital drag, just as the traditional implication of the word implies, mocks the paradigm, much in the way Homi Bhaba's concept of mimicry turns colonial race relations on their head (I've been doing a lot of work in critical race studies lately, so pardon the digression). In taking on a new persona, the subject is either taking part in "identity tourism," or simply acting out a different kind of identity, accruing experience as though in a different body. This theme resounds throughout Internet communities and is not particular to cam culture, yet if placed within the paradigm of sincere life blogging or sexual voyeurism, one possible issue is the possibility of appearing disingenuous in the performance. I suppose that depends entirely on what your audience knows or feels entitled to know about your "real" identity, and what their expectations are therein.
I also appreciated Senft's point about commodity fetishism, that the commodified body cannot be understood on its own terms, but rather, subjectively, and only with respect to the situation in which it is placed. She points this out with respect to underage "cam whores" and the way their sexual expression is pegged by adults (more on that in my Digital Analysis), but I think the point can be used with respect to most culturally influenced products made in the Internet age: blogs, cam sites, whatever. Similar points were made with her comments on what would happen if a person were to run into someone they had just watched for five hours on their cam site, as this in between place regarding "intimate strangerhood" is transgressive against the place-based nature of the transaction, and make no mistake, it is a transaction, even if no money or sex is involved. In that case, however, the person behind the camera is trafficking in exposure, and is receiving an audience for, as mentioned above, acting out the every day. The thought I came away from this with is that regardless of how long someone watches you, and how unaware you become of it, in simply forgetting you're being watched, can the actions observed ever be completely natural? Probably not. More than that, though, the point Senft makes at the close of the chapter, one that I've heard time and again from my friends who blog, is that the picture the "public," which doesn't even qualify as a pure public because it's only the audience that finds the space through a series of networked connections, receives from what the blogger puts out is extremely two dimensional, not at all nuanced, but flat and easily commodified, and it takes quite a bit of effort to make the subject take on human form.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Alloy.com and Commodity Fetishism
The chapter “Community, Commodity, and Commerce: Alloy.com and the Commodification of Teen/Tween Girl Communities” focuses on the use of community/fashion websites as a marketing tool aimed at young women. The website in question is Alloy.com, a clothing company that makes fashionable, feminine clothing. I found myself feeling somewhat attacked in this chapter because I’ve always dressed “girly,” and used to buy from Alloy.com when I was in high school. I never participated in the message boards, or read the articles online but I did receive the catalog in the mail and occasionally found things that I liked in it. I don’t think that it’s fair to limit Alloy’s marketing at “commodity fetishism,” because some girls do enjoy following the trends even if they are “mainstream.” This article seems to unfairly label girls who dress in a way that is “normal,” by society’s standards as being affected by marketing and thus, ignorant consumers. I would have enjoyed this article more if it had attacked the fashion magazines themselves, which in my eyes are much worse, because they are more widely circulated among girls and directly play into commodity fetishism by being bought and collected.
When I was in high school, I remember flipping through the Alloy catalog and sometimes chuckling to myself at how young the girls in the pictures looked. Sometimes I wondered if I was too old to be ordering from the catalog. Usually I would flip through until I had a list of a couple shirts, some shoes, and maybe a bag or something and then beg my mom to give me an allowance to order them. I had no idea the website or the catalog were so popular and never did the thought cross my mind of being marketed towards. I was most concerned with fitting in while still having a personal style I believed was my own. I didn’t play sports or wear uniforms. My mom had long since stopped picking out my clothing. For me, shopping and creating outfits was a way to express myself visually and form a public identity. I liked dressing up. As I thought more about the article, I wondered was this all a set-up? Am I really just a vessel for some corporate, gender normalizing scheme? The article says of the tween demographic, “The anxieties that are the hallmark of the pubertal and pre-pubetral years are relieved through the acquisition of aspirational products-makeup, jewelry, halter tops, and so on. In fact, part and parcel of the construction of the tween/teen girl identity in this concept of “normative femininity”-a narrow, culturally prescribed vision of what the ideal woman/girl should be like” (267). The article goes on to say that the culturally ascribed version of feminity focuses on female’s relationships with the opposite sex and the commodities needed to accomplish the goal of a relationship (clothes, makeup, etc). While I agree that the website serves both of these perceived needs; I do not think that the generalization of Alloyers as prescribing only to normative feminity is accurate. If you actually look through an Alloy catalog there are no boys. Girls are pictured with each other, socializing. They’re dressed in clothes for school or work, and play. The implied message to me is that there are clothes appropriate for certain situations and that interaction with peers is important. These two things are not “gender normalizing” but simply facts of life for both sexes. I grew up understanding these concepts and have accomplished many goals I set for myself by acting (and dressing) appropriately for the situation. My point is that somewhere we need to draw the line between persecuting girls for their success at being “mainstream,” and encouraging girls to break free from normalizing forces.
This article, unlike the others in Girls 2.0, really kind of put a negative spin on the idea of style as self expression. It’s not that I flat out hate the article and disagree with everything it says, it’s just that it hurts to be labeled, for lack of a better word, a “tool.”
When I was in high school, I remember flipping through the Alloy catalog and sometimes chuckling to myself at how young the girls in the pictures looked. Sometimes I wondered if I was too old to be ordering from the catalog. Usually I would flip through until I had a list of a couple shirts, some shoes, and maybe a bag or something and then beg my mom to give me an allowance to order them. I had no idea the website or the catalog were so popular and never did the thought cross my mind of being marketed towards. I was most concerned with fitting in while still having a personal style I believed was my own. I didn’t play sports or wear uniforms. My mom had long since stopped picking out my clothing. For me, shopping and creating outfits was a way to express myself visually and form a public identity. I liked dressing up. As I thought more about the article, I wondered was this all a set-up? Am I really just a vessel for some corporate, gender normalizing scheme? The article says of the tween demographic, “The anxieties that are the hallmark of the pubertal and pre-pubetral years are relieved through the acquisition of aspirational products-makeup, jewelry, halter tops, and so on. In fact, part and parcel of the construction of the tween/teen girl identity in this concept of “normative femininity”-a narrow, culturally prescribed vision of what the ideal woman/girl should be like” (267). The article goes on to say that the culturally ascribed version of feminity focuses on female’s relationships with the opposite sex and the commodities needed to accomplish the goal of a relationship (clothes, makeup, etc). While I agree that the website serves both of these perceived needs; I do not think that the generalization of Alloyers as prescribing only to normative feminity is accurate. If you actually look through an Alloy catalog there are no boys. Girls are pictured with each other, socializing. They’re dressed in clothes for school or work, and play. The implied message to me is that there are clothes appropriate for certain situations and that interaction with peers is important. These two things are not “gender normalizing” but simply facts of life for both sexes. I grew up understanding these concepts and have accomplished many goals I set for myself by acting (and dressing) appropriately for the situation. My point is that somewhere we need to draw the line between persecuting girls for their success at being “mainstream,” and encouraging girls to break free from normalizing forces.
This article, unlike the others in Girls 2.0, really kind of put a negative spin on the idea of style as self expression. It’s not that I flat out hate the article and disagree with everything it says, it’s just that it hurts to be labeled, for lack of a better word, a “tool.”
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
CamGirls- true entertainment
I believe Camgirls have taken the idea of having a unique internet identity and then they pushed it to the limit. The examples and stories recorded in the book simply exaggerate what every girl tries to do behind her computer screen when she shapes her own e-persona and displays it to others via internet. Every one of these camgirls amazed me by their willingness to display their lives on the internet for basically anyone to see. One on hand, I wonder that if I had the courage and bravery to do the same thing, would I take the risk of being judged and critisized? For these girls, they seem to think the pros outweigh the cons.
Although I cant help but think these girls may have minor underlying issues such as low-self esteem or a narcissistic persona- can there really be harm in using a computer and a camera as a source of therapy? If you take a good look at what is really going on in American culture- from the corrupt efforts of our government to drug users and other extreme criminals, these girls arent doing anything wrong and why should we put out all of our energy to talk about their choices as long as they arent hurting anybody.
I have to say that at first glance the role that camgirls play be easily exploited, but after reading this book I realize that they are okay with whatever it is their viewers and fans get from seeing them live. If the participants are okay with it, then let them be. I believe this scenario is a new age form of self-expression and creativity. I would never be able to be a camgirl, but I am amazed by their lifestyles and risky actions.
Although I cant help but think these girls may have minor underlying issues such as low-self esteem or a narcissistic persona- can there really be harm in using a computer and a camera as a source of therapy? If you take a good look at what is really going on in American culture- from the corrupt efforts of our government to drug users and other extreme criminals, these girls arent doing anything wrong and why should we put out all of our energy to talk about their choices as long as they arent hurting anybody.
I have to say that at first glance the role that camgirls play be easily exploited, but after reading this book I realize that they are okay with whatever it is their viewers and fans get from seeing them live. If the participants are okay with it, then let them be. I believe this scenario is a new age form of self-expression and creativity. I would never be able to be a camgirl, but I am amazed by their lifestyles and risky actions.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
On mah video phone...
While I had an understanding of what camgirls were before reading this book, I wasn’t really positive and probably thought more along the lines of the pornographic sites that present images like those described by the author. There were a few things in the book that really caught my eye and made me fill the margins with notes. In the beginning where Senft talks about access to the internet she says “the belief that everyone counts in network society – or will, once they are given access – is a naïve one.” It was interesting to read this because it directly contradicts one of our first readings we had in this course about girls from the Dominican Republic and gaining access to the internet. That entire piece was about girls being able to succeed and go farther in life if only they were to have internet access. It’s funny though because when I read the article about girls in the DR I agree with it, but then Senft makes a valid point about how technology isn’t a good way to determine social power. I had never really thought about the different ways that people who have access to the internet use the internet and in what capacity. It would be interesting to see what these two writers have to say about each other’s’ pieces of work.
Something else that was intense and caught my attention was Senft’s recollection of watching one of her subjects (“friends”) try to commit suicide. “I’d argue that theory and practice were equally important. Hadn’t today shown me that speaking about something and doing something are not equivalent.” This was a bit disheartening to read because I’ve always been one to think that theory and practice go hand-in-hand, you definitely can’t have one without the other. In this case it was very evident that speaking about doing something or Karen and actually doing something for Karen would have been two very different things with two very different outcomes. After reading this I thought back, was there a time when one of the two outweighed the other for me? A time when it actually made a difference? Would this only apply to life or death situations? I still feel that one will never truly understand the theory that they are reading unless they actively participate in practice centered around the theory. However, sometimes the practice can in fact be practiced without having read the theory, but then how much of an effect does that have on someone if they don’t understand why they are doing what they are doing, why they are “choosing” to think a certain way. It was just an interesting statement and I’m still trying to think about a time when these two weren’t both equally important… does anyone have any good examples?
This was a great book! I learned a lot of things I had no idea about, especially since I’m not technologically savvy, so that was nice. The question I have isn’t really about the book itself, but rather a feeling after the fact. Looking back on your book and reading what you wrote, do you feel bad for feeling like Karen was being a nuisance? For instance, when you wrote “…it told me just how much I didn’t want to deal with this situation.” It seemed kind of harsh, although I completely understand where you’re coming from, especially given all that was going on with you in that moment in time. Ultimately it seems like you thought that Karen was just seeking the attention of her estranged boyfriend by pulling a stunt with the pills, if that is the case, do you think her entire webcam life was just to get attention from people?
Thanks again for the book! It was fabulous!
Something else that was intense and caught my attention was Senft’s recollection of watching one of her subjects (“friends”) try to commit suicide. “I’d argue that theory and practice were equally important. Hadn’t today shown me that speaking about something and doing something are not equivalent.” This was a bit disheartening to read because I’ve always been one to think that theory and practice go hand-in-hand, you definitely can’t have one without the other. In this case it was very evident that speaking about doing something or Karen and actually doing something for Karen would have been two very different things with two very different outcomes. After reading this I thought back, was there a time when one of the two outweighed the other for me? A time when it actually made a difference? Would this only apply to life or death situations? I still feel that one will never truly understand the theory that they are reading unless they actively participate in practice centered around the theory. However, sometimes the practice can in fact be practiced without having read the theory, but then how much of an effect does that have on someone if they don’t understand why they are doing what they are doing, why they are “choosing” to think a certain way. It was just an interesting statement and I’m still trying to think about a time when these two weren’t both equally important… does anyone have any good examples?
This was a great book! I learned a lot of things I had no idea about, especially since I’m not technologically savvy, so that was nice. The question I have isn’t really about the book itself, but rather a feeling after the fact. Looking back on your book and reading what you wrote, do you feel bad for feeling like Karen was being a nuisance? For instance, when you wrote “…it told me just how much I didn’t want to deal with this situation.” It seemed kind of harsh, although I completely understand where you’re coming from, especially given all that was going on with you in that moment in time. Ultimately it seems like you thought that Karen was just seeking the attention of her estranged boyfriend by pulling a stunt with the pills, if that is the case, do you think her entire webcam life was just to get attention from people?
Thanks again for the book! It was fabulous!
CamGirls
I really enjoyed reading Camgirls. I, like many of the others on here, wasn't really sure of what being a cam girl meant. After reading the book it does bring up questions like why would anyone want to put so much of their life online for the world to see. Are they just calling out for attention? Is it because they lack self esteem and feel as if they can gain from doing this? It is true when you look up can girls many websites of pornographic nature pop up. Websites like facebook and twitter allow people to put up their life's stories, but only video websites like youtube allow people to make literal videos of their life. I agree with one of the other students here that said they thought camgirls were just the people who did makeup and hair tutorials on sites like youtube, but it is so much more then that. It used to be about women wanting to become instant celebrities, but now it seems as if you cant even find out what a cam girl used to be, because now our society has made it much more sexual, and put a pornographic spin on it. My question for the author is whether there are websites you can find original type of cam girl posts that arent pornographic.
Camgirls LIVE
I thought the book was very interesting. It was the first subject so far that I had a harder time grasping. I was thinking about it more in terms of women on YouTube who have channels and even make a living from make-up, hair, or perfume channels (those are just types I know or subscribe to). I also thought about it in terms of the more sexual types of webcam channels. I think I was too young to fully understand the predecessor to that sort of celebrity and community online either way in 1998, when it was at its peak. The first time I learned about webcams was from the Disney Channel show Jett Jackson, who played an actor who played a spy on TV and had "futuristic" technology, but he used it more like skype to talk to his parents.
I agree with another classmate who said that Senft made very clear distinctions between those camgirls who looked to be voyeurs and those who were interested in showcasing their lives and identities in a way that was very raw.
I found the ideas about identity really interesting because we hadn't really touched on what makes people online respond to some things that are posted and not others. I thought the lookism concept was true in terms of the fact that visual stimulation does get a larger reaction and that people feel like they need to offer their opinions. Because of this, I couldn't decide if being a camgirl or a "micro-celebrity" was liberating or burdensome. I guess that depends on the individual, and from the text, I got the impression it could easily go either way. The whole idea just seems very alienating. There is the idea that you are the star of your own show and fame has its own double-edged sword of being alienating and liberating at the same time.
I was very surprised that one woman said that she felt "macho" and "aroused" the day she set up all her cameras and that the author said she felt nauseas before her webcam debut. I suppose I have felt this way before when (don't laugh) I would take a lot of pictures and pick which one looked the best to make my Myspace profile. I guess I was excited about the responses I might get. Things start to run through your mind that make you anxious and excited. I can only imagine that a live stream of video, or constant still images like earlier in the camgirl timeline, would be an even more intense way of doing that.
My question for the author: Through your own experience being a camgirl, did you find that your online identity was more liberating or more restrictive to how you or other people feel match up your "real" identity?
For my digital analysis I am doing a video zine and was originally just going to make it as visual as possible without, but I'm kind of curious enough to consider taking it in the direction of a camgirl site. Hmmm. We'll see.
I agree with another classmate who said that Senft made very clear distinctions between those camgirls who looked to be voyeurs and those who were interested in showcasing their lives and identities in a way that was very raw.
I found the ideas about identity really interesting because we hadn't really touched on what makes people online respond to some things that are posted and not others. I thought the lookism concept was true in terms of the fact that visual stimulation does get a larger reaction and that people feel like they need to offer their opinions. Because of this, I couldn't decide if being a camgirl or a "micro-celebrity" was liberating or burdensome. I guess that depends on the individual, and from the text, I got the impression it could easily go either way. The whole idea just seems very alienating. There is the idea that you are the star of your own show and fame has its own double-edged sword of being alienating and liberating at the same time.
I was very surprised that one woman said that she felt "macho" and "aroused" the day she set up all her cameras and that the author said she felt nauseas before her webcam debut. I suppose I have felt this way before when (don't laugh) I would take a lot of pictures and pick which one looked the best to make my Myspace profile. I guess I was excited about the responses I might get. Things start to run through your mind that make you anxious and excited. I can only imagine that a live stream of video, or constant still images like earlier in the camgirl timeline, would be an even more intense way of doing that.
My question for the author: Through your own experience being a camgirl, did you find that your online identity was more liberating or more restrictive to how you or other people feel match up your "real" identity?
For my digital analysis I am doing a video zine and was originally just going to make it as visual as possible without, but I'm kind of curious enough to consider taking it in the direction of a camgirl site. Hmmm. We'll see.
IRL vs. the Internet
While I found the ideas presented in Camgirls generally interesting, my lack of knowledge about the history and politics of webcam/camgirl subculture is leaving me a bit at a loss for responding to the text as a whole. Certain parts of the text, though, particularly Senft’s discussion of the perceived and enacted legitimacy of social networking in online communities, did strike me as especially compelling and accessible. Given my experiences as a user of LiveJournal for going on five years now, I can attest, at least from my own perspective, to Senft’s description of the process and dynamics of LJ “friendship”. As Senft explains, there is very much a constant sense of power of relative privacy and access, as well as the need to maintain that power even as you alter the relationship it creates between you and specific other users on the site, in LJ friending interactions (99-101). But what I hadn’t considered before about these interactions is Senft’s later connection of the power dynamic that underscores them to the ways in which our online interactions simultaneously fit and refute the public/private dichotomy. Most obviously, this is through the user’s creation of a public/private divide within their journal content by restricting viewership of some entries and leaving others open to general, often unknown visitors. Such a choice, like the choice to then allow some users greater access to different levels of private content in recognition of online “friendship”, consciously recreates the public/private division and represents on the user’s part not only an adherence to offline social beliefs in the necessity of this division, but also an active desire to regain control over the dubious public of the online sphere by replicating familiar, restrictive-access offline behaviors within it.
This behavior is not in and of itself a bad thing; where it becomes problematic is when it is further complicated by the ways in which we conceptualize the online sphere as always, first and foremost, a private space. Among my LJ friends, and even in the content of my own journal, is constant talk of things “IRL” and the implied need to keep online activities, experiences, and social connections separated from those had “in real life”. Again, the public/private division is replicated, this time with a greater sense of prioritizing the sanctity of the public, IRL image over that of the private, online one. Implicitly, the sentiment expressed here is one of the public needing protection from the private, and of that protection coming through the medium of distinct separation and space: online content (including, as has been discussed in earlier readings, exploration of sexuality, politics, religious affiliation, interests/hobbies, and other aspects of individual identity, especially those positions/identities typically marginalized in normative culture) and any discussion of it are relegated firmly to the online sphere, leaving the offline identity “free” to continue performing and operating securely within appropriate social norms.
Obviously, there are innumerable problems with this line of thought, most of which trace back to more standard feminist critiques of the general public/private dichotomy. But what I found especially interesting about Senft’s discussion was the connection she made between replicating the public/private division online and her concept of tele-ethicality. As Senft argues, relegating our online interactions to the private sphere compromises our ability to recognize them and the aspects of identity they unlock as legitimate. Further, the distance we create from our online networks is also distance between us and any causes, activist or otherwise, related to them that demand our action and support. In this light, the model of camgirls, who Senft assesses as holding power precisely because they straddle and explode that public/private division, becomes, in a sense, a model for what would be achieved by ideal online interaction. At the very least, it is a call for us to reconceptualize our understanding of the online/offline spheres, this time with greater allowance for the necessary complexities created by the increasing prevalence of online networking as a tool in not only social, but also activist endeavors.
Work Cited
Senft, Theresa M. Camgirls: Celebrity and Community in the Age of Social Networks. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 2008. Print.
And my question for discussion with the author: In your discussion of tele-ethicality, you seemed to be making a few interesting points about ethical imperatives in not only how we allow ourselves to identify/interact online, but also how we then apply those aspects of our identities to activism. In particular, your recollection of being told a few times to disconnect from the online sphere and do “real” and “worthwhile” feminist work struck a chord with me, as that critique is one I have encountered (from others as well as myself) before. Outside of what you discussed in the text, how have your experiences helped you justify your continued involvement in online interactions and activism in the face of such critiques? Do you have any recommendations for ways to bridge the perceived gap between online and “real”/“real-world” activism?
This behavior is not in and of itself a bad thing; where it becomes problematic is when it is further complicated by the ways in which we conceptualize the online sphere as always, first and foremost, a private space. Among my LJ friends, and even in the content of my own journal, is constant talk of things “IRL” and the implied need to keep online activities, experiences, and social connections separated from those had “in real life”. Again, the public/private division is replicated, this time with a greater sense of prioritizing the sanctity of the public, IRL image over that of the private, online one. Implicitly, the sentiment expressed here is one of the public needing protection from the private, and of that protection coming through the medium of distinct separation and space: online content (including, as has been discussed in earlier readings, exploration of sexuality, politics, religious affiliation, interests/hobbies, and other aspects of individual identity, especially those positions/identities typically marginalized in normative culture) and any discussion of it are relegated firmly to the online sphere, leaving the offline identity “free” to continue performing and operating securely within appropriate social norms.
Obviously, there are innumerable problems with this line of thought, most of which trace back to more standard feminist critiques of the general public/private dichotomy. But what I found especially interesting about Senft’s discussion was the connection she made between replicating the public/private division online and her concept of tele-ethicality. As Senft argues, relegating our online interactions to the private sphere compromises our ability to recognize them and the aspects of identity they unlock as legitimate. Further, the distance we create from our online networks is also distance between us and any causes, activist or otherwise, related to them that demand our action and support. In this light, the model of camgirls, who Senft assesses as holding power precisely because they straddle and explode that public/private division, becomes, in a sense, a model for what would be achieved by ideal online interaction. At the very least, it is a call for us to reconceptualize our understanding of the online/offline spheres, this time with greater allowance for the necessary complexities created by the increasing prevalence of online networking as a tool in not only social, but also activist endeavors.
Work Cited
Senft, Theresa M. Camgirls: Celebrity and Community in the Age of Social Networks. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 2008. Print.
And my question for discussion with the author: In your discussion of tele-ethicality, you seemed to be making a few interesting points about ethical imperatives in not only how we allow ourselves to identify/interact online, but also how we then apply those aspects of our identities to activism. In particular, your recollection of being told a few times to disconnect from the online sphere and do “real” and “worthwhile” feminist work struck a chord with me, as that critique is one I have encountered (from others as well as myself) before. Outside of what you discussed in the text, how have your experiences helped you justify your continued involvement in online interactions and activism in the face of such critiques? Do you have any recommendations for ways to bridge the perceived gap between online and “real”/“real-world” activism?
What's a Camgirl?
Webcams have made a huge impact on the digital world, and with the help of programs like Skype and ooVoo, people have found themselves using the webcam more and more for communicating. Once upon a time, there was a certain stigma associated with using a webcam; such as sexually charged video chats, and pornographic images. However, in the book "Cam Girls: Celebrity and Community in the Age of Social Networks", there is an interesting account of different young women and their webcam experiences. The new phenomena of webcam use online, is called "micro-celebrity", according to Senft. Micro-celebrities can be found all over the internet, and especially on Youtube. The status that most young girls desire these days, is almost like a chance to express themselves and be accepted by others. But most people would think about having their life broadcasted for everyone to see as a fear, well for cam girls, these moments where they are on webcam are more liberating than anything. There are moments where the cam girls said they forget the cameras are there. One question comes to mind though, where is the line and when is it crossed? I think as a society, people are interested in seeing the reality of others, as to why, reality shows are so popular. Even though reality shows aren't as raw and uncut as a webcam session, there is still a huge sense of vulnerability there. Many of these cam girls that were discussed by Senft, seem to use the webcam as their own online journal or diary. And in the text, Senft mentions how these moments can evoke emotions from both sides of the screen. Cam girls use the webcam to transform themselves into new people and create new identities. And unfortunately, while these girls use the webcam to find themselves a new identity, they are at the mercy of the "anonymous" users of the internet. These girls put their self-esteem on the line every time they allow themselves to be recorded for their audience to see them in their vulnerable states. Young girls will continue to use new ways to find themselves and find out where they fit in in this world, but the key for girls and cam girls alike is to never let people tell you what things are "supposed" to look like.
cam girls
Reading CamGirls has been my favorite reading this semester. I knew little about camgirls before reading this book. Honestly, I had the impression that most of them did it for attention and thought of themselves as some kind of “microcelebrity”. Early into reading, I realized this was not the case. A lot of the camgirl culture has more to do with the right to self-expression. It also has a lot to do with building a community even if this community is stuck somewhere in between the public and private spheres. In the conclusion of CamGirls, Senft states “On the Web, micropolitical tele-ethical acts might include, among other things, online dialogues, building communities, ‘outing’ oneself online, and even intervening when someone’s safety is at stake, as in my own story” (121). These micropolitical actions are similar to actions we may face in the “real world”. They are the kinds of actions that build solidarity in a community that does allow us to act on a macro-political level.
In Chapter Four Senft explains the controversy that surrounded Ana Voog posting pictures the LiveJournal Abuse Team and community members found inappropriate. Although, Ana and some readers fought to allow her to express herself there was more discussion about the “legalisms” than why she posted the pictures to start with. Senft goes on to say, “Earlier in this chapter, I explained how reading morphs a public into the public through the circulation of texts, as in the phrase ‘public opinion’” (88). After reading this, I realized that ‘public opinion’ can be very similar to ‘grabbing’ where the context of any action can get lost in translation. However, even at the risk of letting the meaning of an action getting lost I think it is sometimes important to grab someone’s attention. Something contraversal can start dialogue on an important issue and it’s what we do with that dialogue we need to pay close attention to.
Cameras and celebrity
Throughout the entire time I read Camgirls, I found myself learning so much more about something (the internet) that I thought that I already knew a lot about. Cam Girls delved into an internet culture that I honestly hadn’t considered or had much knowledge about, and I found the research done by Senft to be really eye-opening. Caming as discussed in the book isn’t as prevalent now as it used to be, however I think it makes a number of important points about women and media.
The idea behind being a Camgirl according to Senft is that some kind of celebrity status will be reached. Is this status really worth compromising your privacy though? Furthermore, is this kind of celebrity the kind one really wants to have? These questions lead me to be interested in what prompted many Camgirls to start cam websites in the first place. Obviously, most people would suggest it is the need for attention, however I wonder if it is something more than that just because of the sacrifices these girls make? One cam webmaster said, “They burn out after a few months when they realize that sustaining a creative edge to the cam isn’t all that easy, or instantly financially rewarding.” (49). This made a lot of sense to me, because just as other avenues on the internet, like blogs for instance, many people often give up because of lack of resources, creativity, time etc.
Vera Little’s experience as a Camgirl who was also an amputee was extremely interesting to me. She discusses how her viewers were mainly artists who viewed her amputations as body modifications and people who had a fetish for her amputated body parts. Although initially she had no problem with being labeled and sexualized, she later grew tired of her cam life, she states (51). Specifically, she states that she had less and less of an interest in keeping an online persona, a statement that I found interesting. Like celebrities, Camgirls too have to keep up appearances and create a persona for themselves in order to reach success. This leads to an important discussion about identity on the internet. Girls can create entirely new identities for themselves on the web, without much consequence. Although I feel this can help develop their identity in real life, one can also argue that it can hinder it because it allows them to create a persona that may not really reflect who they are, leading to confusion and blurred lines.
Another part of the book that really struck a chord with me was Karen’s story on page 69. Karen was a Camgirl who attempted suicide in front of her cameras, and her thousands of viewers save for a couple did absolutely nothing,. This was absolutely disturbing and definitely said something about the “friends” you can amass on the internet. Although a Camgirl can be classified as an Internet celebrity, Karen’s story proves that no amount of celebrity on the Internet can ensure that you have people who will help you when you need it.
Overall, I found the research Senft did about Camgirls fascinating. It led me to think a lot about the evolution of the internet and how people have changed how they seek to gain attention and popularity on the internet, which is what my question for Senft focuses on.
My question for Senft is, how would she compare cam websites and the way girls express themselves on them to social networking websites that are popular today, like Facebook, Twitter etc? Although all of them allow people to be very candid, open and to some voyeuristic, they are still very different. Furthermore, how would she compare the popularity and celebrity that comes from camming to the popularity a lot of current bloggers now receive? Is one more legitimate than the other?
Empowerment v. Exploitation
When I first read the title "Camgirls" a lot of images popped into my mind. In one sense, after noting this and also reading some of the other posts form the class, I realized I might be way more digitally literate then I think -- maybe too much -- but that's another post altogether. The images that popped into my mind foremost were those associated with porn -- Ukrainian barely legals strip teasing and masturbating online in an attempt to to scrape by maybe enough to possibly escape an impoverished life? http://www.oneangrygirl.net/russian.html Of course, I think that is now where the state of Camgirls has landed in popular culture -- which is not surprising, as I have already surmised, the totality of popular digital culture is in a sense ruled by porn.
However, the term also brought to mind a few other scenarios. One, of a friend whom filmed short videos of herself and posted them to her facebook in an attempt to break out of her shell. Another, was of a dancer with a youtube page, who unabashedly spoke about herself and whatever topic she damn well pleased (like how to tie a head scarf or why she doesn't shave 'down there'). I find it interesting that in all three cases, the webcam users believe their efforts to be a form of self-empowerment. Unfortunately, the reality for the case of the first example, proves to be nothing more than exploitation. Though, I think the idea of webcamming as a form of self-empowerment is valid.
This idea has already been posed to us in the book: "What does it mean for feminists to speak about the personal as political in a networked society that encourages women to 'represent' through confession, celebrity, and sexual display, but punishes too much visibility with conservative censure and backlash?" To be fair this http://www.thecamguys.com/ is the top google hit when "Camguys" is entered. So men must deal with these repercussions as well. But as Senft alludes early on in her text, "it is not quite time to start celebrating post-patriarchy. Women and girls still constitute seventy percent of the world's poor, do two-thirds of the world's work, earn less than 1/10th of its income, and own less than 1/100th of its property" (12).
So then, what does it all mean for feminism? Really, I have a hard time wrapping my head around it all. I think the potential for women to be taken advantage of is definitely there and does definitely exist in abundance. However, the flipside to the equation offers women the chance to speak their own truths, making the personal political. Although the repercussions for women who push the boundaries may be worse than for those afforded by men, perhaps this also means that the potential for gain is greater because the risk is higher.
My question for Theresa Senft is along those same lines. Do you think there are potentially greater gains to be had for online women-centered networks than there are for men? Or is that point null because we are still living in a "man's world"?
However, the term also brought to mind a few other scenarios. One, of a friend whom filmed short videos of herself and posted them to her facebook in an attempt to break out of her shell. Another, was of a dancer with a youtube page, who unabashedly spoke about herself and whatever topic she damn well pleased (like how to tie a head scarf or why she doesn't shave 'down there'). I find it interesting that in all three cases, the webcam users believe their efforts to be a form of self-empowerment. Unfortunately, the reality for the case of the first example, proves to be nothing more than exploitation. Though, I think the idea of webcamming as a form of self-empowerment is valid.
This idea has already been posed to us in the book: "What does it mean for feminists to speak about the personal as political in a networked society that encourages women to 'represent' through confession, celebrity, and sexual display, but punishes too much visibility with conservative censure and backlash?" To be fair this http://www.thecamguys.com/ is the top google hit when "Camguys" is entered. So men must deal with these repercussions as well. But as Senft alludes early on in her text, "it is not quite time to start celebrating post-patriarchy. Women and girls still constitute seventy percent of the world's poor, do two-thirds of the world's work, earn less than 1/10th of its income, and own less than 1/100th of its property" (12).
So then, what does it all mean for feminism? Really, I have a hard time wrapping my head around it all. I think the potential for women to be taken advantage of is definitely there and does definitely exist in abundance. However, the flipside to the equation offers women the chance to speak their own truths, making the personal political. Although the repercussions for women who push the boundaries may be worse than for those afforded by men, perhaps this also means that the potential for gain is greater because the risk is higher.
My question for Theresa Senft is along those same lines. Do you think there are potentially greater gains to be had for online women-centered networks than there are for men? Or is that point null because we are still living in a "man's world"?
Camgirls
Camgirls opened my eyes to an entirely new culture, one that is completely foreign to me. Even the terminology was foreign to me, i.e. - camgirl, homunculus, cyborg, ethnographic etc. Terry Senft's book explained a new world, one of which I could never see myself involved with - but nonetheless one that I found interesting to read about. I don't understand what would draw people to view other people's everyday life via the computer. - I think the whole culture is more a lesson in psychology and narcissism. I am intrigue with the reasons for being an observer, however I am more interested in what makes these woman want to become camgirls; the celebrity? narcissism? insecurity? It is all rather fascinating. As Jennifer Ringley suggested - the webcam was meant to serve as part of a social experiment. On her Web site, Ringley told her viewers that her cam was "to put it most simply, a sort of window into a virtual human zoo" (pg 42) - I still wonder why anyone would want to be a "virtual human zoo"
I was intrigued by Vera Little - as an amputee she could be an inspiration to many while getting the attention she so craved, yet, sitting in clown makeup and dressing up her "stumps" seems tasteless and nonsensical.
"...1 girl
Attempted suicide
Alone
While the world watched.
Guilty bystanders, focus on the good you can do."
What does this say about the web and our culture?
After reading the book - I googled "camgirls" the first 1o sites that pulled up in my search where porn sites. I googled Vera Little - same thing - porn.
Is this where the culture of camgirls have gone?
Exploiting our inhibitions?
“People enjoy watching others in unguarded moments because it portrays a sense of power…we can actually look down on others to some degree…(78).” The author mentions how an audience feeds off of the vulnerability of others very much so how we buy tabloids of our favorite and not so favorite celebrities before buying the autobiography of a well known political figure. However if its person’s choice to offer their reality for display, why should we assume that they’re powerless or that we’re giving them a sense of power. At what point can we label webcamming exhibitionism for a plea of attention or self-expression? Can an individual exploit themselves even though they are fully aware of their actions? If so can we really call it exploitation and invasion of privacy if they’re willing to share what others wouldn’t normally do or say without coercion? You have the personal choice to share what you like regardless of the medium so why is it that sharing our ideas and experiences are of such objection? We already criticize the cliché re-written and rerun entertainment of every reality television show or drama so why not embrace the person who can bare their soul. “Ordinary people are taking the opportunity to turn themselves into celebrities.” Youtube and webcamming has brought the opportunity for consumers to decide on who they find fascinating, what’s hot or not; what people are going to set the trends. A great majority of older individuals such as the generation of the baby boomers tend to find that the internet and all things in relation are a violation of privacy and a portal of indecency. While it hard to completely negate that when you have access to web surveillance or pornography, on the hand, if you look closely enough those who are putting themselves center stage or for exhibition are completely aware of being watched by strangers. They can’t be exploiting themselves. “We are not violating our own boundaries of privacy.”
An Era Of Camgirls
I find Theresa M. Senft's book "Camgirls: Celebrity and Community in the Age of Social Network," to be very informative. In fact, it is a real eye opener for parents to have a better understanding of the kind of online activities their daughters are engaged in. As our society navigates its way along this digital information technology highway, women under the age of forty, and teenage children are both in the driving seat, and they are feeling quite comfortable to venture into new territories, in ways they see fit. While “most camgirls broadcast in silence, still images, women on cam-house sites were usually featured in streaming format – that is, with full motion audio and video” (41). Some teenagers have moved on from their fixation on "Web-cammng" as a means of taking pictures of themselves, to downloading them on the internet for the public to see. Is this the new sign of the times?
This new style of online performance which Senft called “micro-celebrity,” empowers people to broadcast themselves by both text and video over the Web by using technologies such as live journal, my space, and other social networking sites. However, in their quest for micro-celebrity status, it is not uncommon for people to link camgirls with JenniCam, and voyeurism. Senft defines voyeurism as “a sexual fetish in which an unseen viewer spies on an unsuspecting body that is naked, in the process of disrobing, or engaging in sexual activity”(45). Senft did a good job in making a clear distinction between voyeurism which is mostly simulated voyeurism as opposed to camgirls whose online activities are raw and personal, uncensored and unedited. It is human nature for people to paint certain issues with a broad brush, and so they associate the word "voyeur" in a more broader sense than it was intended to be.
We are living in a very free society and are guaranteed freedom of speech. Thus, when women choose to display their activities on the Web, they are exercising their constitutional rights to do so. However, women should not cross certain boundaries in terms of nudity, and vulgarity because the internet is accessible to everyone including young children and teenagers. Teenagers can be naive and they would try to imitate certain things they see on television. Young teenagers do not need another excuse to help them to justify any inappropriate activity. In chapter four, Senft talks about “the public, the private, and the pornographic” (77) in which Company Girls, Independents, and Porn House Girls, have all taken their sensual online activities to a more graphic level.
The question I have for the author is: Are there any safeguard measures in place that can serve as a protection against online predators for young teenagers? Do young teenagers really need unsupervised use of a computer and web cam in their room? How can parents effectively monitor their young daughter’s online activities? Our youths need to find other ways of using the internet to make money, to define their individuality, or become a micro-celebrity.
Adolescent girls do not deserve to lose their innocence at so early an age, simply by surfing the internet.
This new style of online performance which Senft called “micro-celebrity,” empowers people to broadcast themselves by both text and video over the Web by using technologies such as live journal, my space, and other social networking sites. However, in their quest for micro-celebrity status, it is not uncommon for people to link camgirls with JenniCam, and voyeurism. Senft defines voyeurism as “a sexual fetish in which an unseen viewer spies on an unsuspecting body that is naked, in the process of disrobing, or engaging in sexual activity”(45). Senft did a good job in making a clear distinction between voyeurism which is mostly simulated voyeurism as opposed to camgirls whose online activities are raw and personal, uncensored and unedited. It is human nature for people to paint certain issues with a broad brush, and so they associate the word "voyeur" in a more broader sense than it was intended to be.
We are living in a very free society and are guaranteed freedom of speech. Thus, when women choose to display their activities on the Web, they are exercising their constitutional rights to do so. However, women should not cross certain boundaries in terms of nudity, and vulgarity because the internet is accessible to everyone including young children and teenagers. Teenagers can be naive and they would try to imitate certain things they see on television. Young teenagers do not need another excuse to help them to justify any inappropriate activity. In chapter four, Senft talks about “the public, the private, and the pornographic” (77) in which Company Girls, Independents, and Porn House Girls, have all taken their sensual online activities to a more graphic level.
The question I have for the author is: Are there any safeguard measures in place that can serve as a protection against online predators for young teenagers? Do young teenagers really need unsupervised use of a computer and web cam in their room? How can parents effectively monitor their young daughter’s online activities? Our youths need to find other ways of using the internet to make money, to define their individuality, or become a micro-celebrity.
Adolescent girls do not deserve to lose their innocence at so early an age, simply by surfing the internet.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
"On the Flip Side"
Discussion Post:
Throughout your book you mention several different perspectives and bridges that are formed between the owners of the webcams and the audiences that are viewing the webcams. In chapter 3 you mention how viewers identify with camgirls and how it somewhat common for viewers to feel like they know you (or other Camgirls) from just watching what takes place on screen even though there is no direct relationship or dialog. In addition, I recall in the beginning of the book you had mentioned the start of your efforts and how with your fan base you had “realized these people were owed some entertainment” because you were the “camgirl writing about camgirls”. After reading about the viewers’ perspective and some of your own thoughts, my question falls under my interest to find out about your own perspective. Did you feel you had a familiarized or personal relationship with your viewers even though there was no direct verbal dialog through webcam screenings? (Not including your posts or responses that you typed out to fans) If so, how well did you feel like you knew your fans and how accurately did you believe they perceived you?
When you think about having your life broadcasted for complete strangers to see one would often have a lot of questions regarding why someone would volunteer to take part in such an overexposure of your life. However, after reading “Camgirls: Celebrity & Community” many of the questions are immediately answered. As I turned the pages I found several things that surprised me and some things that enlightened me. Throughout the book the author discusses the timeline of webcaming and different aspects what went along with the territory of having live camera feeds in one or several parts of your home. It stuck out in the mind at the beginning of the book when the author speaks about her fan base just getting off the ground and the mentioned how “she eventually realized these people felt they were owed some entertainment” (pg. 9). This got me thinking about the relationship between the audiences and the cam girls. It has to be unlike any other relationship that exists in your life because these are complete strangers that have an active part in viewing your life. Yet the usual dialog that takes place between a cam girl and her audience is typed messages that can be seen in black and white on the screen. At times the cam girls expressed that they forget the cameras are even there and then on the flip side they mention that they “feel exhausted by the constant pressure of the webcam’s eye”(pg. 64). One part of the book that was unexpected and raw was the part where the author talks about one of the cam girls, Karen (pg.67), that she was studying who was struggling with several emotional and mental issues that had unfolded right in front of the eyes of her audience. Some of these issues became life threatening and in essence crossed some type of line that audiences members didn’t even realize existed. It was raw, real, and live for people to interpret and respond. Why leave yourself so vulnerable? One of the things I realized after reading this book is that when you mention cam girls and having constant webcams lives in one’s home people automatically think of forms of entertainment that come in drama, sex, or action. However, throughout the book the author mentions several different emotional encounters on both sides of the webcams. Just when you think you have something figured out and you can pretty much assume how an experience like that would turn out; it has to be said that there is always the realm of the unknown and all of the different possibilities that can come into fruition, which is what we see the author uncover in this book.
Question for the Author:
Question for the Author:
Throughout your book you mention several different perspectives and bridges that are formed between the owners of the webcams and the audiences that are viewing the webcams. In chapter 3 you mention how viewers identify with camgirls and how it somewhat common for viewers to feel like they know you (or other Camgirls) from just watching what takes place on screen even though there is no direct relationship or dialog. In addition, I recall in the beginning of the book you had mentioned the start of your efforts and how with your fan base you had “realized these people were owed some entertainment” because you were the “camgirl writing about camgirls”. After reading about the viewers’ perspective and some of your own thoughts, my question falls under my interest to find out about your own perspective. Did you feel you had a familiarized or personal relationship with your viewers even though there was no direct verbal dialog through webcam screenings? (Not including your posts or responses that you typed out to fans) If so, how well did you feel like you knew your fans and how accurately did you believe they perceived you?
Melissa King
Camgirls Discussion
Camgirls brought me to a place that was unexpected and new. As I have said throughout this semester, I am not very familiar with the digital literacy component in this course. As the semester has gone by I have found myself learning new things that I will be able to use in the future. Before this book I knew a small amount about "digital drag". I knew that people used new tools that were available to talk over webs with people that they were close to like family and friends but I never knew that people disguised themselves as someone different. At least that is what I gathered from the book. I learned that these people online actually feel as they know each other but in reality they know nothing at all. I see how this may be something that women do to satisfy the person on the other end but in reality are they feeling whole as a person or does this make them feel more guilty? Do they feel like they are missing something or wanting something more when the computer is turned off? To me I would think that this lifestyle could be detrimental to all parties involved and it can certainly be to the person on the other end that is getting false interpretations of these women. In my opinion, I think these things are just another way to lure predators, female and male, into people's lives that are unaware and possibly lost, just looking for companionship.
Video girlsss
YouTube and webcam popularity has definitely impacted the digital world. The uses of both are amazing ways of self expression, as opposed to simple text writing or pictures seen on social networking sites. The book, “Cam Girls: Celebrity and Community in the age of social networks” is very detailed on the life of a young women and her webcam, as well as others. It is interesting to discover this world of what was for the most part white, straight or bisexual, vigorous, under the age of forty women in the study seen within the book. The description of how these young women identify themselves through their stories and shout outs, and discussions to the viewers. The information is more raw and personal and the issues and topics are quite delicate, and the author Theresa Senft tries to disprove that cam girls aren’t constantly using their web use for pornographic or sexual acts, but to freely express themselves.
In addition to webcam use, the use of YouTube has grown significantly over the years in popularity and recognition. YouTube may simply seem as a place where videos about this and that are posted, however it has become an important tool for campaigns and politics, fame, and popularity. It’s amazing how far one person can go with a simple upload or web cam blog to display specialties and ideals and such. Fan bases can find whatever they are looking for when they turn to YouTube due to the millions of uploads.
However, directed toward Mrs. Theresa Senft, as a cam girl what has been your biggest personal fulfillment? Have you directly affected anyone’s life? What would one do to impact someone’s life through such a media without negative outcomes?
In addition to webcam use, the use of YouTube has grown significantly over the years in popularity and recognition. YouTube may simply seem as a place where videos about this and that are posted, however it has become an important tool for campaigns and politics, fame, and popularity. It’s amazing how far one person can go with a simple upload or web cam blog to display specialties and ideals and such. Fan bases can find whatever they are looking for when they turn to YouTube due to the millions of uploads.
However, directed toward Mrs. Theresa Senft, as a cam girl what has been your biggest personal fulfillment? Have you directly affected anyone’s life? What would one do to impact someone’s life through such a media without negative outcomes?
Friday, April 1, 2011
Digital Queens
When reading CamGirls I learned a lot about identity transformation and how the internet has helped people make new identities and use the “anonymous” capabilities to change their identities and express themselves in a new way. The most interesting idea was the idea of “digital drag” that was talked about in chapter one. When I took the class on Theories of Masculinity, we talked about drag and how it was perceived both for men and women. We discussed how difficult it was for society to accept those who, for lack of better wording, did drag. The social acceptance of what femininity and masculinity was supposed to encompass did not leave room for people who wanted to experiment with their own identity and the people were often outcasts. This idea of digital drag, as explained by Senft, helped people experiment with their identity in a way that could prevent backlash from society. It also gave people a way to change themselves and escape from the “real world” discriminations based on gender, race, culture, etc. This idea of changing and experimenting with one’s identity is discussed in many of our readings throughout the semester. I personally think that this is one of the best things that has happened for girls of the age range we have been discussing. Unfortunately, the society we live in today discriminates against anything that doesn’t fit into the “box” that society believes one should fit into. This is not healthy for young girls and it can be extremely harmful both emotionally and physically. We have all heard of girls with eating disorders because they believe they are not as skinny as the models they are bombarded with in all forms of media, or girls with low self-esteem because they think they are not “pretty” enough by industry standards. What is worse, some girls are made to be outcasts if they are not “feminine” and participate in drag. The internet and the idea of digital drag give these girls a new way to express themselves, and boys for that matter. It is a new age of making your own identity, regardless of what society may tell you, and not being reprimanded or made fun of because you are being true to yourself.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Cyberstalking Resources
The Director of UCF Victim Services emailed this link to me and I thought it was so relevant and useful that I should share it here. The Canadian Clearinghouse on Cyberstalking includes fact sheets, resources for research, and information for people who may be victims of cyberstalking. Thought you might be interested in checking it out or using it in the future for research or assistance or resources.
While the cartoon below is humorous, it is important to acknowledge that stalking and cyberstalking are no joke and are serious concerns to be aware of and educate others about (which is what the website seeks to provide--information and resources).
Spoiler Alert: Week 12 Camgirls
As I began reading Camgirls, I was immediately struck by the concept of identity formation online, and “digital drag,” mentioned in the first chapter. Senft writes, “people were fascinated by what I call ‘digital drag’: performances in which people (almost always men) attempted to represent themselves in cyberspace as something other than their offline gender, sexuality, race, or ability. Back then, the notion that “On the internet nobody knows you’re a dog” (to quote the caption of a well-known New Yorker cartoon) was particularly attractive to those limited by sexism, racism, ageism, and disability discrimination in the offline world. That said, digital drag was never restricted solely to society’s ‘others.’ The idea of the internet as a limited space had broad mainstream appeal to all sorts of users. Internet ethnographer Sherry Turkle even lauded the practice as a way to work through postmodern ideas of the self” (35). This particular passage reminded me of a mocumentary I watched where a young man begins an online relationship with a woman who he has never met before. The woman sends him pictures, videos, and audioclips which all present her as a beautiful, twenty-something singer/songwriter. The man quickly falls for her as any gullible person might, believing her every word. She even goes so far as to introduce him to her family members. They plan to eventually meet but when he asks her about it she is elusive and vague. Finally by a fluke occurrence he is sent to a city close to where she lives and decides to pay a surprise visit. The story that follows is surprising, but it does not surprise the viewer to learn that she is not who she said she was.
Senft cyber theory implies that identity formation for women online, “helps destabilize feminism’s too easy dependence on identity politics.” For many women, operating webcams online enables a separate identity from the one they’re allowed in daily life. Many of the women interviewed in Camgirls admittedly interact with their viewers in giving them what they want, whether it is more chat time, stills, or visual performance. Some claim that they’re only performing as themselves and that their reality is meant to stand alone as performance in itself. In all cases, the women are aware of at the very least an imagined audience. I think that by being aware of this imagined audience women are naturally driven to perform online, it is only through their mediated interactions that they give in to viewers’ desires. As I read, I struggled with the idea of webcams as a tool for identity formation because of the potential for disaster. Rather than rant on with my own opinion, I would like to ask the question:” At what point does a false identity online become detrimental?” Is it when it begins to effect other people in negative ways? Do we have an obligation to admit who we are in “real life” when we present ourselves as someone else online? Why or why not?
I’m going to post the trailer of the movie I was talking about. I spoiled a bit of it but it’s still good if you have the time to watch it!
Senft cyber theory implies that identity formation for women online, “helps destabilize feminism’s too easy dependence on identity politics.” For many women, operating webcams online enables a separate identity from the one they’re allowed in daily life. Many of the women interviewed in Camgirls admittedly interact with their viewers in giving them what they want, whether it is more chat time, stills, or visual performance. Some claim that they’re only performing as themselves and that their reality is meant to stand alone as performance in itself. In all cases, the women are aware of at the very least an imagined audience. I think that by being aware of this imagined audience women are naturally driven to perform online, it is only through their mediated interactions that they give in to viewers’ desires. As I read, I struggled with the idea of webcams as a tool for identity formation because of the potential for disaster. Rather than rant on with my own opinion, I would like to ask the question:” At what point does a false identity online become detrimental?” Is it when it begins to effect other people in negative ways? Do we have an obligation to admit who we are in “real life” when we present ourselves as someone else online? Why or why not?
I’m going to post the trailer of the movie I was talking about. I spoiled a bit of it but it’s still good if you have the time to watch it!
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
America the Beautiful (??)
I'm going to start showing this in my Girls Studies and related classes...but you can catch it now on Hulu! It's a powerful documentary that you and your friends and your sisters and brothers and friends' sisters and brothers should watch.... so go!!
America the Beautiful
America the Beautiful
UCF student aspires to be first social media model
Orlando is taking the fashion world by storm — through Facebook.
UCF junior Marissa Kay is one of 100 Central Florida models who will be competing for one thing and one thing only — to become the world's first social-media supermodel through the Supermodel Project.
"Social media is what it is all about right now," Kay said. "Everything is about networking and meeting people, and Facebook is just the place."
Here is the link for the rest of the article.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Internet Killed the Video Star: Rebecca Black
So, some guy passed me today singing "Friday", which I will post in case you haven't seen it. (Then you should watch Conan O'Brien's parody). I saw an article about how much money Rebecca Black is getting from the videos and another one about Lady Gaga defending her right to sing about friday and make a video and basically do whatever the heck Rebecca wants, because doing whatever she wants is Lady Gaga's favorite hobby.
There are articles like this that hold the more popular opinion that she and her cohorts on the same record label, which my roommate likes to call something like "White rich-girl records", are cheesy and pathetic. While, I totally see the appeal of writing a song and making a music video before you can drive, I'm kind of on Team Cheesy.
At the same time, thinking about Rebecca Black in terms of the things we're learning in this class, I'm kind of siding with Lady Gaga. While, I don't know if I would ever call her a genius... why should Justin Beiber be able to take a shot at it and not Rebecca? I would be more impressed if she actually produced and posted everything instead of a label probably run by adult men who could care less as long as the money's rolling in. But she is reaching a certain level of fame. And no matter how "ironically" people say they are doing something, they're still doing it. Win for Rebecca.
There are articles like this that hold the more popular opinion that she and her cohorts on the same record label, which my roommate likes to call something like "White rich-girl records", are cheesy and pathetic. While, I totally see the appeal of writing a song and making a music video before you can drive, I'm kind of on Team Cheesy.
At the same time, thinking about Rebecca Black in terms of the things we're learning in this class, I'm kind of siding with Lady Gaga. While, I don't know if I would ever call her a genius... why should Justin Beiber be able to take a shot at it and not Rebecca? I would be more impressed if she actually produced and posted everything instead of a label probably run by adult men who could care less as long as the money's rolling in. But she is reaching a certain level of fame. And no matter how "ironically" people say they are doing something, they're still doing it. Win for Rebecca.
CBS News says "Facebook Depression" a new risk for teens
(AP) CHICAGO -- Add "Facebook depression" to potential harms linked with social media, an influential doctors' group warns, referring to a condition it says may affect troubled teens who obsess over the online site.
Researchers disagree on whether it's simply an extension of depression some kids feel in other circumstances, or a distinct condition linked with using the online site.
But there are unique aspects of Facebook that can make it a particularly tough social landscape to navigate for kids already dealing with poor self-esteem, said Dr. Gwenn O'Keeffe, a Boston-area pediatrician and lead author of new American Academy of Pediatrics social media guidelines.
With in-your-face friends' tallies, status updates and photos of happy-looking people having great times, Facebook pages can make some kids feel even worse if they think they don't measure up.
It can be more painful than sitting alone in a crowded school cafeteria or other real-life encounters that can make kids feel down, O'Keeffe said, because Facebook provides a skewed view of what's really going on. Online, there's no way to see facial expressions or read body language that provide context.
The guidelines urge pediatricians to encourage parents to talk with their kids about online use and to be aware of Facebook depression, cyberbullying, sexting and other online risks. They were published online Monday in Pediatrics.
Abby Abolt, 16, a Chicago high school sophomore and frequent Facebook user, says the site has never made her feel depressed, but that she can understand how it might affect some kids.
"If you really didn't have that many friends and weren't really doing much with your life, and saw other peoples' status updates and pictures and what they were doing with friends, I could see how that would make them upset," she said.
"It's like a big popularity contest - who can get the most friend requests or get the most pictures tagged," she said.
Also, it's common among some teens to post snotty or judgmental messages on the Facebook walls of people they don't like, said Gaby Navarro, 18, a senior from Grayslake, Illinois. It's happened to her friends, and she said she could imagine how that could make some teens feel depressed.
"Parents should definitely know" about these practices," Navarro said. "It's good to raise awareness about it."
The academy guidelines note that online harassment "can cause profound psychosocial outcomes," including suicide. The widely publicized suicide of a 15-year-old Massachusetts girl last year occurred after she'd been bullied and harassed, in person and on Facebook.
"Facebook is where all the teens are hanging out now. It's their corner store," O'Keeffe said.
She said the benefits of kids using social media sites like Facebook shouldn't be overlooked, however, such as connecting with friends and family, sharing pictures and exchanging ideas.
"A lot of what's happening is actually very healthy, but it can go too far," she said.
Dr. Megan Moreno, a University of Wisconsin adolescent medicine specialist who has studied online social networking among college students, said using Facebook can enhance feelings of social connectedness among well-adjusted kids, and have the opposite effect on those prone to depression.
Parents shouldn't get the idea that using Facebook "is going to somehow infect their kids with depression," she said.
The link to the article on the website is here.
Researchers disagree on whether it's simply an extension of depression some kids feel in other circumstances, or a distinct condition linked with using the online site.
But there are unique aspects of Facebook that can make it a particularly tough social landscape to navigate for kids already dealing with poor self-esteem, said Dr. Gwenn O'Keeffe, a Boston-area pediatrician and lead author of new American Academy of Pediatrics social media guidelines.
With in-your-face friends' tallies, status updates and photos of happy-looking people having great times, Facebook pages can make some kids feel even worse if they think they don't measure up.
It can be more painful than sitting alone in a crowded school cafeteria or other real-life encounters that can make kids feel down, O'Keeffe said, because Facebook provides a skewed view of what's really going on. Online, there's no way to see facial expressions or read body language that provide context.
The guidelines urge pediatricians to encourage parents to talk with their kids about online use and to be aware of Facebook depression, cyberbullying, sexting and other online risks. They were published online Monday in Pediatrics.
Abby Abolt, 16, a Chicago high school sophomore and frequent Facebook user, says the site has never made her feel depressed, but that she can understand how it might affect some kids.
"If you really didn't have that many friends and weren't really doing much with your life, and saw other peoples' status updates and pictures and what they were doing with friends, I could see how that would make them upset," she said.
"It's like a big popularity contest - who can get the most friend requests or get the most pictures tagged," she said.
Also, it's common among some teens to post snotty or judgmental messages on the Facebook walls of people they don't like, said Gaby Navarro, 18, a senior from Grayslake, Illinois. It's happened to her friends, and she said she could imagine how that could make some teens feel depressed.
"Parents should definitely know" about these practices," Navarro said. "It's good to raise awareness about it."
The academy guidelines note that online harassment "can cause profound psychosocial outcomes," including suicide. The widely publicized suicide of a 15-year-old Massachusetts girl last year occurred after she'd been bullied and harassed, in person and on Facebook.
"Facebook is where all the teens are hanging out now. It's their corner store," O'Keeffe said.
She said the benefits of kids using social media sites like Facebook shouldn't be overlooked, however, such as connecting with friends and family, sharing pictures and exchanging ideas.
"A lot of what's happening is actually very healthy, but it can go too far," she said.
Dr. Megan Moreno, a University of Wisconsin adolescent medicine specialist who has studied online social networking among college students, said using Facebook can enhance feelings of social connectedness among well-adjusted kids, and have the opposite effect on those prone to depression.
Parents shouldn't get the idea that using Facebook "is going to somehow infect their kids with depression," she said.
The link to the article on the website is here.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Media Mind Games - Beware of the Internet?
Before the internet, there was a certain kind of safety people would expect for their children. Keeping minors safe on the internet is a lot easier said than done in this day and age. As Edwards mentions in the text, "Victims, Villians, and Vixens", the media plays a giant role in helping create a false perception of the dangers of the internet. Sure, the internet isn't a place for minors (most of the time), but I feel like as long as kids know the basics, then they should be safe. The internet is sort of like real life, and needs to be treated as such. Many kids that end up victims of online predators were indulging in conversations with strangers. And similar to the rules in the real world, no one should be talking to people they don't know. Society is always ready to fuel the fire of the media and shed a negative light on anything that produces a corrupt outcome.
For instance, the media had portrayed the infamous Craigslist killer as a man targeting women on the internet, when in fact, he was targeting women who were soliciting sex on the internet. And due to media uproar, Craigslist was forced to shut down it's romance section because of these murders. Now, is Craigslist an unsafe place on the internet? Not really, but just like prostitution in the street, women who use the internet to sell sex run a high risk of dangerous activity, and meeting up with shady individuals. And contrary to what the media would like us to believe, according to "Moral Panic about Girls Online", since the early 90s, the percentage of girl victims of online encounters has declined. Young girls are at no more of a risk online than anybody else, even though the media constantly shows girls being abducted or victims of online encounters. We have a responsibility when it comes to using the internet, and keeping children safe while using the internet. We can't trust the media to tell us what is dangerous, from what is not, because their job is to catch people's attention, and in most cases, the most negative news is the best news. No one wants to hear about the millions of kids who don't use the internet to meet up with strangers, instead we always hear about isolated incidents. What we should understand from this weeks readings is that we need to educate those who are at a greater risk of being taken advantage of on the net. And that's not just young girls, it's young boys as well as the elderly, and anyone in between who isn't familiar with the ins and outs of the internet.
For instance, the media had portrayed the infamous Craigslist killer as a man targeting women on the internet, when in fact, he was targeting women who were soliciting sex on the internet. And due to media uproar, Craigslist was forced to shut down it's romance section because of these murders. Now, is Craigslist an unsafe place on the internet? Not really, but just like prostitution in the street, women who use the internet to sell sex run a high risk of dangerous activity, and meeting up with shady individuals. And contrary to what the media would like us to believe, according to "Moral Panic about Girls Online", since the early 90s, the percentage of girl victims of online encounters has declined. Young girls are at no more of a risk online than anybody else, even though the media constantly shows girls being abducted or victims of online encounters. We have a responsibility when it comes to using the internet, and keeping children safe while using the internet. We can't trust the media to tell us what is dangerous, from what is not, because their job is to catch people's attention, and in most cases, the most negative news is the best news. No one wants to hear about the millions of kids who don't use the internet to meet up with strangers, instead we always hear about isolated incidents. What we should understand from this weeks readings is that we need to educate those who are at a greater risk of being taken advantage of on the net. And that's not just young girls, it's young boys as well as the elderly, and anyone in between who isn't familiar with the ins and outs of the internet.
LOL and OMG made it in the Dictionary....?? omg!
Thought this was interesting....
'♥,' 'OMG,' and 'LOL' added to the dictionary
It's difficult to avoid letting things such as ♥, OMG, and LOL slip into our text messages and emails, but at least we can now excuse that by pointing out that those are in fact terms acknowledged by the authorities of the English language.
In the latest update of the Oxford English Dictionary, there are a whole new batch of silly words and definitions including several initialisms — abbreviations consisting of the initial letters of expressions — made popular through their frequent use in text messages, tweets, or emails.
The experts at Oxford Dictionaries Online explain that the initialisms added to the dictionary are "noteworthy" and even happen to be "found outside of electronic contexts" at times, and we believe them. After all, how could these language authorities not add initialisms and words like this to the dictionary without a good reason:
- couch surfing
- ego-surfing
- hentai
- la-la land
- LOL
- meep
- muffin top
- OMG
- party-crashing
- wassup
Our favorite thing in this entire update though? A tweak to the definition of 'heart':
♥ to heart
The new sense added to heart v. in this update may be the first English usage to develop via the medium of T-shirts and bumper-stickers. It originated as a humorous reference to logos featuring a picture of a heart as a symbol for the verb love, like that of the famous ‘I ♥ NY’ tourism campaign. Our earliest quote for this use, from 1984, uses the verb in ‘I heart my dog’s head’, a jokey play on bumper stickers featuring a heart and a picture of the face of a particular breed of dog (expressing a person’s enthusiasm for, say, shih-tzus) which itself became a popular bumper sticker. From these beginnings, heart v. has gone on to live an existence in more traditional genres of literature as a colloquial synonym for ‘to love’.
Yes, that's 'wassup' with this month's modifications of the Oxford English Dictionary. Let's hope that next month brings us definitions for more initialisms such as OMGWTF, ROFL, LMAO, and KIT.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Teens, Trust, and Sex Ed Online
Teens, Trust, and Sex Ed Online
This short piece is interesting in light of our readings (esp. around sexuality and the gurl.com discussions). Scarleteen is mentioned, which is great:) How do you negotiate this article with the readings we discussed a couple weeks ago? Thoughts?
This short piece is interesting in light of our readings (esp. around sexuality and the gurl.com discussions). Scarleteen is mentioned, which is great:) How do you negotiate this article with the readings we discussed a couple weeks ago? Thoughts?
A girl's scary life online
A girl’s life online is a really important read for teenagers and parents alike. Katies story is disturbingly realistic and with the online world growing more abundant everyday, it is important to keep the dangers of the internet in the back of our minds because the truth is that they do still exist. Like many young adolescent’s, Katie built her ideal image of beauty based on what she read in the magazines and saw on t.v. This is a huge wake up call for media outlets worldwide to realize they are sending incorrect messages to the youth of today. I remember feeling very similar to Katie as a middle schooler, and wanting to be both skinnier and taller to look like the models that I admired. Luckily for me, I did not fall into the same trap as Katie did with an online predator.
The meeting between Katie and Mark really got my heart pumping. I was nervous and anxious from the second she knocked on the door. I got extremely creeped out when Mark asked Katie to check out the hotel bathroom with him. “He waited until I started moving and then placed his hand on my back to direct me. No one had ever steered me like that before. And with his touch I suddenly realized how uncomfortable I felt with him.” (92) As I read this quote I literally felt like I was in the room with both of them. I couldn’t imagine actually going through what Katie was experiencing. Part of me has sympathy for her and the other part of me thinks she was foolish and made some terrible decisions. Either way, there is a lesson to be learned from Katie’s actions.
As I read the book I payed attention to my emotions towards Katie and Mark. I knew that if I were not an adult and rather a teenager I would have viewed everything differently, but I couldn’t help but look at the book objectively. A huge feeling of relief came over me when Katie’s mom knocked on the hotel room door and practically saved her life. However, I couldn’t imagine if I would feel the same way if I was in Katie’s shoes. I can understand why she was humiliated and embarrassed. However, this was truly a miracle and one can only hope that if their kids were in the same position, they would have the opportunity to rescue them as well.
Overall, this book was very grounding and reminds me to always be cautious online. There has been so many developments with the internet that people get absorbed by all of the excitement and forget about the true hazards. I think that literature pieces like this one are important for all generations to keep a realistic outlook regarding the internet.
The meeting between Katie and Mark really got my heart pumping. I was nervous and anxious from the second she knocked on the door. I got extremely creeped out when Mark asked Katie to check out the hotel bathroom with him. “He waited until I started moving and then placed his hand on my back to direct me. No one had ever steered me like that before. And with his touch I suddenly realized how uncomfortable I felt with him.” (92) As I read this quote I literally felt like I was in the room with both of them. I couldn’t imagine actually going through what Katie was experiencing. Part of me has sympathy for her and the other part of me thinks she was foolish and made some terrible decisions. Either way, there is a lesson to be learned from Katie’s actions.
As I read the book I payed attention to my emotions towards Katie and Mark. I knew that if I were not an adult and rather a teenager I would have viewed everything differently, but I couldn’t help but look at the book objectively. A huge feeling of relief came over me when Katie’s mom knocked on the hotel room door and practically saved her life. However, I couldn’t imagine if I would feel the same way if I was in Katie’s shoes. I can understand why she was humiliated and embarrassed. However, this was truly a miracle and one can only hope that if their kids were in the same position, they would have the opportunity to rescue them as well.
Overall, this book was very grounding and reminds me to always be cautious online. There has been so many developments with the internet that people get absorbed by all of the excitement and forget about the true hazards. I think that literature pieces like this one are important for all generations to keep a realistic outlook regarding the internet.
Monday, March 21, 2011
THE ART OF SELF-DEFENSE
Seven Year Bitch drummer Valerie Agnew tried to talk this out with other friends, and discovered they, too, felt both fears and conflicts. "We were all like Mia, we were all streetwise. But if it happened to her, it could happen to us."
One thought came back over and over to them: "If she knew how to throw a punch, would she be here?"
"They just said it was bad and demanded I accept that view."
I totally agree that in situations of internet predators, girls are seen as victims, police as sole heroes, and eliminating basic right to privacy as the much-needed solution. I think a show like Dateline’s How to Catch a Predator and other news media do perpetuate these social norms and how girls and predators alike deviate from them.
I’m not sure what other literature on the subject is out there and I get the feeling this is an early text from the girls’ perspective either way, but I do think that parents and young girls and people in authority have to read this book. Not because it is incredible in presenting anything they don’t know from the news, but that it is insightful in giving so much more context to how these things happen. Without context of how a girl like Katie, as an adolescent is looking for an equal and for a deeper relationship, how Mark builds a relationship with her over months of constant communication, people have this idea that predators show up with a pack of beer and are easily identifiable as clear lunatics instead of crafty deceivers or even men who just think that kind of behavior is acceptable or something that can't be helped.
I kept thinking about the book Lolita when I read this and the perception people have of it. That novel was written in the 50s and when I would summarize it for people while reading it they still found it totally provocative. I think a lot of what allows people to be predators, namely men, is the way we as a society don’t understand and don’t want to try and remedy the thought process that goes into how predators think and why mainly men think they are entitled to certain actions or reactions from females, especially girls. I think Tarbox’s book shows through her not wanting to ruin his life and being concerned about how they had both been traumatized by the incident that they did undeniably have a relationship and that even though it was manipulative and deceptive, it had been very solidly established.
The other side of the whole Lolita coin is the victimization and blaming of the girls involved. When I was reading Tarbox’s book, I was infuriated at the way people were treating her. I thought it was legitimate that some of the problem was probably that her family and community didn’t know how to react or what to do with her or how to understand, but it didn’t seem that anyone except her friend Ashley was trying. I wanted to slap everyone too. I think a lot of the problem is the victimization. Tarbox put me right back at 13 when it came to making decisions based on building esteem and avoiding things that inflamed insecurities, but more than that was remembering how much people condescended to me at that age. Treating the girl like a victim and a dishonorable deviant doesn’t help anyone. I did find some of her decisions naive though, from my own experiences online. I was calling it off much earlier in the book than Katie was. Still, it’s clear she knew that what she was doing was dangerous. I was also mad about the girl who was assembling bombs in the “Victims, Villains, and Vixens” chapter was seen as a deviant, a sick girl who had something wrong with her. If that girl were a grown man or even just male she would not only be seen, aside from being criminal or crazy, as in a way very intelligent and rebellious in a good sense. Instead she’s some parent’s problem, there’s no way she could have realized her actions.
I think if parents really understood better what the contexts of those kind of relationships were like, police and the government wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) have any say in a person’s privacy. Honestly child blocks are bad enough, the same way censorship can be. Instead of ushering safety, they just cut off all contact, something repulsive and unreasonable online, especially for adolescents and adolescent girls who use it so heavily for communication. I remember I started emailing a guy I met in a chat room feeling exactly what Katie was, knowing very well the situation I was putting myself into. My mom somehow found out or saw an email and told me she would rather I met someone my own age any other way (I wasn’t even allowed to date technically). I suddenly felt the impact of what I was getting into. That nipped it in the bud for me and I’m glad my mother said it in a way that showed concern about the danger instead of just creating a stigma about who I could or couldn’t talk to, my feelings for boys, or what I could and could not do. In fact, I went into chat rooms a lot and talked to strangers provocatively at will that my parents and most of my friends didn’t know about (I took better precautions than Katie) and to this day I’ve never heard anyone REALLY ask someone, myself included of course, why they want that relationship, how it makes them feel, what the interactions are like. It’s so strange how differently we treat online relationships from in-real-life ones. They should be treated differently, not with stigma of what we see in the news, but with a new set of questions and and intent to understand.
I’m not sure what other literature on the subject is out there and I get the feeling this is an early text from the girls’ perspective either way, but I do think that parents and young girls and people in authority have to read this book. Not because it is incredible in presenting anything they don’t know from the news, but that it is insightful in giving so much more context to how these things happen. Without context of how a girl like Katie, as an adolescent is looking for an equal and for a deeper relationship, how Mark builds a relationship with her over months of constant communication, people have this idea that predators show up with a pack of beer and are easily identifiable as clear lunatics instead of crafty deceivers or even men who just think that kind of behavior is acceptable or something that can't be helped.
I kept thinking about the book Lolita when I read this and the perception people have of it. That novel was written in the 50s and when I would summarize it for people while reading it they still found it totally provocative. I think a lot of what allows people to be predators, namely men, is the way we as a society don’t understand and don’t want to try and remedy the thought process that goes into how predators think and why mainly men think they are entitled to certain actions or reactions from females, especially girls. I think Tarbox’s book shows through her not wanting to ruin his life and being concerned about how they had both been traumatized by the incident that they did undeniably have a relationship and that even though it was manipulative and deceptive, it had been very solidly established.
The other side of the whole Lolita coin is the victimization and blaming of the girls involved. When I was reading Tarbox’s book, I was infuriated at the way people were treating her. I thought it was legitimate that some of the problem was probably that her family and community didn’t know how to react or what to do with her or how to understand, but it didn’t seem that anyone except her friend Ashley was trying. I wanted to slap everyone too. I think a lot of the problem is the victimization. Tarbox put me right back at 13 when it came to making decisions based on building esteem and avoiding things that inflamed insecurities, but more than that was remembering how much people condescended to me at that age. Treating the girl like a victim and a dishonorable deviant doesn’t help anyone. I did find some of her decisions naive though, from my own experiences online. I was calling it off much earlier in the book than Katie was. Still, it’s clear she knew that what she was doing was dangerous. I was also mad about the girl who was assembling bombs in the “Victims, Villains, and Vixens” chapter was seen as a deviant, a sick girl who had something wrong with her. If that girl were a grown man or even just male she would not only be seen, aside from being criminal or crazy, as in a way very intelligent and rebellious in a good sense. Instead she’s some parent’s problem, there’s no way she could have realized her actions.
I think if parents really understood better what the contexts of those kind of relationships were like, police and the government wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) have any say in a person’s privacy. Honestly child blocks are bad enough, the same way censorship can be. Instead of ushering safety, they just cut off all contact, something repulsive and unreasonable online, especially for adolescents and adolescent girls who use it so heavily for communication. I remember I started emailing a guy I met in a chat room feeling exactly what Katie was, knowing very well the situation I was putting myself into. My mom somehow found out or saw an email and told me she would rather I met someone my own age any other way (I wasn’t even allowed to date technically). I suddenly felt the impact of what I was getting into. That nipped it in the bud for me and I’m glad my mother said it in a way that showed concern about the danger instead of just creating a stigma about who I could or couldn’t talk to, my feelings for boys, or what I could and could not do. In fact, I went into chat rooms a lot and talked to strangers provocatively at will that my parents and most of my friends didn’t know about (I took better precautions than Katie) and to this day I’ve never heard anyone REALLY ask someone, myself included of course, why they want that relationship, how it makes them feel, what the interactions are like. It’s so strange how differently we treat online relationships from in-real-life ones. They should be treated differently, not with stigma of what we see in the news, but with a new set of questions and and intent to understand.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Danger is Subjective.
In a class that elucidates specifically why the Internet democratizes our experiences in this brave new world, I wasn't sure what a unit on Internet Crime would yield. I anticipated the tempering of some of the more outlandish fears and perhaps a cautionary tale, which was the bulk of the material, but I was very surprised at some of the more sophisticated connections the texts made. The section in "Victims, Villans, and Vixens" about the power of the news media in shaping public perception seemed very akin to the beginning of the "High Tech or High Risk," in that they both highlight that the news media uses scare tactics to bring out the latent fears held by white, middle class America. It recalled for me white missing woman syndrome, that the way the media prioritizes what is important to portray as urgent news usually caters to what the privileged middle class deems appropriate (in the latter article, they illustrate this with the discussion about the PSA).
In codifying Internet crime as absolute truth in such a way as to make certain corners of the internet, such as chat rooms, completely synonymous with danger, I believe that shows like "To Catch a Predator" are capitalizing on the mass hysteria engendered by giving young people, especially girls, the ability to seek out agency in this cutting-edge fashion. Girls are always being portrayed as "at risk," and if they are ever on the other end of an unsavory story, the media is very quick to jump on them as the risk, in a way that I don't believe is gender-neutral. The sensationalized accounts of "cooking up drugs" come across gossipy, in that it highlights the failings of a female subject as so much more egregious than a male of similar budding criminal stature, as made obvious by the fact that it warranted media coverage at all. Girls aren't supposed to do that, right? They're supposed to be above such low pursuits, and if not, it is cause for serious concern, as one bad apple could spoil the whole barrel. Or something. I don't know, I find the whole perspective illogical. Of course, while girls are the subject of this class, the advent of technology as a contribution to risky behavior is not isolated only to them. Videogames and certain music were brought to task after Columbine, as though cultural products can be blamed instead of a system that summarily failed its troubled teens. The media contributed to this hysteria in a not at all negligible fashion, and this should be noted when examining how it constructs the relationship between girls and similar mediums.
One thing these readings illuminated for me that I had never before considered was that girls rarely offer their side in these stories, that their accounts, even in the form of first-person narrative, are always skewed by the media's heavy-handed slant. If we were, for example, to have a discussion on television about the lack of danger that the Internet poses, if used with a measured amount of caution, it would hardly be newsworthy and would be relegated to a channel or time-slot where the message would hardly be received. It is within the drama that the story resides, even if it must be grossly exaggerated to the point of fabrication.
Online DANGERouuus?
Why do parents put the most interest in the internet and the dangers it exposes to young females? I agree the internet is a popular place especially for the young, but there is the real world that everyone lives in everyday filled with danger around every corner. It must be the mystery behind the internet that scares adults because it is an individual experience for everyone and an easy way to keep stuff from others. It’s true that people are scared of what they cannot explain, and I agree that a parent must be cautious with their children and the internet.
Katie Tarbox’s book, “A Girl’s Life Online” was a descriptive life experience, that I feel could be beneficial for a parent to read. Katie’s description of how she viewed her town and the concept of perfectness was certainly disturbing to me, and not something any young female should believe. She wrote how she and her friends based all they needed to know from magazines, and skinny models. Etc. Mothers and fathers should read about this because this is the truth, because middle school was when the growing up started, most of it negative, close to Katie’s experience, not so much with the wealth though. Katie turned to the internet because she wanted attention. When the young are fed unconstructive views of what is beautiful and one feels they don’t fit the description they will turn to whoever will give them attention. Katie sought attention from her online predator and depended so much on him that got her into danger. If a young girl did read this book though I would encourage it to be with an adult, maybe more comfortable with a female but a father figure could work. It’s important to seek the positive aspects of the book as opposed to the negatives.
It is indeed scary to see that 1 in 5 children were sexually solicited online according to a statistic from 2000. (Victims, Villains, and Vixens) The internet is a secretive place where predators cannot be found out so easily and hide behind disguises to creep on the innocent who know no better. I do not feel these fears are not exaggerated, because we as people have lived with our world for a very long time, and had all that time to find the dangers around many corners, and try our best to perfect the system. However the internet compared to the real world is like a baby, and not something we can get around so easily, because there is so much to figure out. So if parents could limit certain things for their children perhaps many dangers could be avoided.
Katie Tarbox’s book, “A Girl’s Life Online” was a descriptive life experience, that I feel could be beneficial for a parent to read. Katie’s description of how she viewed her town and the concept of perfectness was certainly disturbing to me, and not something any young female should believe. She wrote how she and her friends based all they needed to know from magazines, and skinny models. Etc. Mothers and fathers should read about this because this is the truth, because middle school was when the growing up started, most of it negative, close to Katie’s experience, not so much with the wealth though. Katie turned to the internet because she wanted attention. When the young are fed unconstructive views of what is beautiful and one feels they don’t fit the description they will turn to whoever will give them attention. Katie sought attention from her online predator and depended so much on him that got her into danger. If a young girl did read this book though I would encourage it to be with an adult, maybe more comfortable with a female but a father figure could work. It’s important to seek the positive aspects of the book as opposed to the negatives.
It is indeed scary to see that 1 in 5 children were sexually solicited online according to a statistic from 2000. (Victims, Villains, and Vixens) The internet is a secretive place where predators cannot be found out so easily and hide behind disguises to creep on the innocent who know no better. I do not feel these fears are not exaggerated, because we as people have lived with our world for a very long time, and had all that time to find the dangers around many corners, and try our best to perfect the system. However the internet compared to the real world is like a baby, and not something we can get around so easily, because there is so much to figure out. So if parents could limit certain things for their children perhaps many dangers could be avoided.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)