"boy" words
"girl" words
click to see this image larger
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
How Toy Ad Vocabulary Reinforces Gender Stereotypes
How Toy Ad Vocabulary Reinforces Gender Stereotypes
"boy" words
"girl" words
click to see this image larger
"boy" words
"girl" words
click to see this image larger
Monday, April 11, 2011
Girls getting bombarded
Girls and advertising has become an extremely interesting issue to me, as I often consider how certain advertising methods are affecting girls. Its interesting to note that in these advertisements, a lot of the times girls aren’t even the ones being targeted. For instance, girls aren’t really going to be buying cars or houses yet they will still be bombarded by advertisements regardless. I was really interested to hear about how IM robots can be used in this matter, because I remember talking to IM robots when I had an AOL screen name. I was always so excited and in awe about these interactions that I didn’t even put it together that I was being sent advertisements through them. I find it almost insulting now that this bots would use shorthand and IM abbreviations in order to get girls to relate to them. To me, this is somewhat exploitative albeit effective advertising. Social networking has taken this all to a next level. As the book mentions, Myspace allowed regular people (namely aspiring musicians) to advertise themselves and essentially get famous based on these solicitations alone. On top of this self promotion, a plethora of companies and corporations place large, flashing advertisements throughout the website. It was interesting to note that many girls aren’t really buying into all of this advertisement. If anything, girls feel indifferent or annoyed with these bombardments. They definitely generalize and group all young girls together, regardless of the fact that they are individuals. They assume that all young girls use shorthand and emoticons when typing and emulate the same, for example. Companies hurt themselves as result because girls really have such varied interests and their advertising does not cater to this fact.
I also really enjoyed the Alloy article, and found that things like the design and style of your websites makes a big difference in being popular. Alloy.com got popular because it was styled after a magazine. Essentially, girls got the same kind of content they would get in a magazine without paying and with the benefit of more communication. Sites like Alloy essentially create an entire bubble of a community where girls can turn, whether they want to read about celebrities, get makeup tips or communicate with other girls virtually.
Tweens in the market.
What better group to target then Tweens in the market. they have no bills to pay and are just looking for a place to spend their allowance.Websites like Alloy that offer not only a place to shop, but also a place to look up celebrity gossip, horoscopes and advice about boys really attract these young people.Can you blame them for wanting to really dig deep into an untapped market? Selling the latest fashion trends to these girls could be looked at as exploiting them, and maybe it does push girls to think that they have to look a certain way or think a certain way. But as far as the market strategy is concerned, they are doing exactly what they are aiming for, which is giving girls a place to "feel comfortable" and a place to chat with others, a community some may say,to get advice and read up on all the latest news. And at the same time,suggesting some really cute clothes they should buy. I have to say that someone mentioned on a blog that by selling these clothe to young girls, they are helping them "transition" from girls to young women, and "sexualizing" them. I have to say I cant agree with this. If you look at a lot of the clothing on this site, there isn't much that is overly revealing or "sexy", it isn't like they are being show lingerie.Teens are supposed to go through a stage where they start growing up and becoming young women, and the website hits the nail in the head with their marketing strategies.
Terri Senft's Videotaped Responses to Your Questions
Hello Virtual Girls students!! Here are some links to Terri Senft's replies to your questions/thoughts about CamGirls. She was so generous with her time and ideas that I would be thrilled to see some of you post video replies to her. Not required but strongly encouraged. Let me know what you think! Leandra
(from Terri)
Hi Leandra,
(from Terri)
Hi Leandra,
Please thank your students for their wonderful readings, their thoughtful comments and their great questions. I've read everything they've written on the blog, and have tried to grab selected questions (working as well with the list you provided).
I have seven videos done. Hoping to get the rest out of the way this weekend. Would be delighted if any students wanted to make video responses of their own, this semester or next time you teach the book.
Click links for short (under 8 min) videos on each of the following:
1. Are people more honest offline or online? http://www.youtube.com/watch?
2. Can you have sustainable friendships online? http://www.youtube.
3. What should be the role of the net in "real" activism offline? http://www.youtube.
4. How well do you think your viewers know you? http://www.youtube.com/
5. Why are all the camgirl sites devoted to porn now? http://www.youtube.com/
6. What about pre-teens and young teens who want to become camgirls? http://www.youtube.
7. Can you speak about creating "safe spaces" for women and others? http://www.youtube.com/watch?
Freeze time!
While all of the readings in their entirety were interesting this week, there was one issue that kind of jumped out to me and made me think a bit more than the other things that were talked about. In 2.0 on page 267 the author says “…coming of age, something that is sold to girls as empowering.” This can be verified by younger girls dressing like they are 20 years old, in movies like 13 going on 30, etc. Now, to me, this in an interesting occurrence just because of the small age range women are supposed to try to fit eternally in to. We see these younger girls trying to look like women in their 20’s, dressing certain ways, talking about issues a younger child wouldn’t be heard talking about, yapping away on their cell phones. But then, when we look at the opposite spectrum, we see older women a lot of the time trying to act like younger women, again dressing as a 20 something year old would normally dress. So, while this article was talking about young girls trying to be more mature and fit this ideal woman that the media is portraying, could it really just be that society only wants to be interested in women who fit the niche of the 20 something year old, female hottie? We rarely see men trying to look younger or young boys trying to look older and that’s because they are more accepted at all ages of their lives. Women are only attractive and wanted it seems while they are in their “prime” for reproducing. There we have it again, the main purpose of a woman… to reproduce. So obviously the only tie one should want a woman is when she is at her peak in being able to fulfill her societal role of producing babies.
Tweens & Everything in between
Target marketing or "niche" marketing as it's sometimes called can either be helpful or a hazard. When done right, target marketing on the internet can help companies completely advertise to a targeted demographic. Thanks to pop ups and ads, web pages have become billboards for companies to get their products out to people who frequent different sites. And no matter how old are how young you are surfing the internet, 9 times out of 10, your favorite site will have an ad on it, if not more than one. Nowadays ads have evolved from just "click here" images to audio messages, and motion graphics. And while some companies consider this a good way to reach their target audience, I don't know if there are many people who go to the internet to find out about new products being offered from big money companies they already know of. In the text, Shayla Stern refers to these ads as "moving pictures and flashy gimmicks users may click on". And I for one have never really purposely clicked on an ad, but I have on accident. Which brings me back to the point of tracking traffic for these ads. Usually these companies find out how well their ads are doing by the amount of clicks they receive, but how accurate can that be? I know I'm not the only one who has clicked on an ad by mistake. There are so many ads out there that end up just being distracting, but in the case of ads geared towards adolescent girls, (ie: clothes, make up, modeling) we find out that although they are being heavily targeted, they aren't buying into the ads. And rightfully so, because at the end of the day, these huge corporations really know nothing about the young audiences they target their products to. They are completely out of touch with the personal aspect of the consumer, and they believe that these mass advertisements will help them in their plan towards success. Generation Y as it's called seems to be the money market for these companies. These teens are using IM platforms to communicate, and they use the web on a daily basis. It's pretty clear that these marketing tactics used don't get the job done, but who knows what it does to the psyche of young adolescents. Changing the perception of Generation Y is as easy as it looks, but we can't completely leave it up to these corporations to taint the minds of the young future. The younger generations use the internet to communicate, now more than ever, and at the sam
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Commodity Fetishism and Tween Culture.
Tweens as consumers were, until recently, a relatively untapped market. Teenaged girls are extremely easy to market to and have been since the dawn of consumer culture, but manufacturing an "aspirational identity" for the in between stage of adolescent development is basically more the product of my generation and beyond, rather than a well-established, historical cultural paradigm. Girls have been reframed through their desire to be women, to develop into more evolved versions of themselves, so there is never full presence in their actions, but rather, a desire for something that will prove largely unattainable as time goes on, since it is modeled by celebrities, rather than peers. The creation of the celebrity is, in fact, contingent on what marketing conglomerations think girls will read as "cool." This is evidenced in Alloy's section on "Daily Gossip" and the pervasiveness of young Hollywood (Mazzarella and Atkins 272). However, what strikes me here is that the identity constructed by websites like Alloy is hardly what I deemed "cool" as a tween. Even when I read texts that were marketed to me, there was always an edge of corniness to them (the abbreviations for words, the entire culture of it), and there's a very complicated relationship between how sexualized young girls are expected to be, within reason, while they're conversely insultingly infantilized. I did actually read those Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants books, and they weren't awful, but that was never the product of being marketed to, as much as my complete, unabashed love of bookstores. I forced my parents to take me to Borders nearly every weekend because I could not read enough, and certainly not only from the Young Adult Fiction section. This conceptual, idealized image of the 11-13 year old girl is, in my experience, a myth, or when it isn't, it directly corresponds with social constructionism. The question becomes this: what came first, tween yearning or the image of the yearning tween?
One possible panacea that I see to the overabundance of forced consumerism vis-Ã -vis product placement is that the parental guides to morally objectionable material on television or in movies that are readily available on the Internet now sometimes include reviews of the amount of product placement or nudges towards consumer ideals, as this is considered very obtrusive or even offensive. This poll, conducted by The Guardian, even seems to suggest that this brand of brash marketing is uniquely American in its scheme, which honestly, I find quite sad. I'm aware that parents cannot shield their children from all brands of lifestyle construction, which can often be very damaging to their ways of forming their own personalities without the influence of culturally imposed heteronormativity and gender constructs, but efforts can be made. This perspective on girls is too cynical to me, that the only way to accrue social capital is through consumption of goods and services that make one more desirable to boys, and eventually, men. Resistance to it may prove unrealistically idealistic, but working in that direction can't possibly be anything but positive.
One possible panacea that I see to the overabundance of forced consumerism vis-Ã -vis product placement is that the parental guides to morally objectionable material on television or in movies that are readily available on the Internet now sometimes include reviews of the amount of product placement or nudges towards consumer ideals, as this is considered very obtrusive or even offensive. This poll, conducted by The Guardian, even seems to suggest that this brand of brash marketing is uniquely American in its scheme, which honestly, I find quite sad. I'm aware that parents cannot shield their children from all brands of lifestyle construction, which can often be very damaging to their ways of forming their own personalities without the influence of culturally imposed heteronormativity and gender constructs, but efforts can be made. This perspective on girls is too cynical to me, that the only way to accrue social capital is through consumption of goods and services that make one more desirable to boys, and eventually, men. Resistance to it may prove unrealistically idealistic, but working in that direction can't possibly be anything but positive.
eh...just "x" it out
If implemented correctly, marketing can be the difference between a successful or failing business venture. When advertisers tap into their target markets and are able to measure their success by an accurate reading of “traffic” through their websites companies can make money in droves. However, whether you are a teenager or a grown adult, more often than not the ads that cover the top, bottom, and sides of your web pages become more annoying rather than helpful. Within the text of chapter five we see the author Shayla Theil Stern, discuss the “moving pictures and flashy gimmicks that users may click on”. Companies believe that they can accurately measure the success of their advertisement based on how many clicks there were that brought users to the web pages. I don’t believe this is fully accurate because many people click on these web pages by accident. Another idea that was a topic within the chapter was the idea of “bots” or “chat robot/chatterbots” that work through programs like AIM. These are different interactive technological counterparts that engage in chat sessions with consumers or people with questions on a variety of topics. While some people might think this invention is a good idea, I believe that it would be more beneficial for the consumer or user to do his or her own research on any given topic. Some companies probably believe this saves them the manpower of having to staff someone behind the computer screen; the conversations might not have an organic flow to them. What it comes down to is that these ads appear to be more distracting and annoying rather than helpful and time saving. When I am on a specific web page or when I pull up a blank page to compose an email I rarely ever pay attention to the ads that trim the pages. On the flip side as I try to look at the reason behind such advertisements I understand that many web pages are made possible because of these advertisements that off set the costs it takes to run and public sites. Therefore, I can understand why such ads exist, but I find it hard to see these ads as helpful, especially to teenage girls. I know that this is a popular market to reach in the advertising world. Young females are very into their appearances, popularity, and building their persona. It should be vital that advertising companies posts ads that are helpful to young girls, rather than harmful. This is where digital literacy is very important for young girls and where they need to know the difference between garbage and the good stuff.
-Melissa King
What Would Howard Zinn Think about Virtual Girls as Consumers?
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of leaders…and millions have been killed because of this obedience…Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves… (and) the grand thieves are running the country. That’s our problem." - Howard Zinn
In Girl Wide Web 2.0, Sharon R. Mazarella and Allison Atkins present"Community, Content, and Commerce." In particular, they discuss Alloy.com which was begun in 1996 as a "media platform to reach hard-to-reach young consumers..." Wait a minute? Is it just me, or doesn't this already sound like a crock?
Mazarella and Atkins note, this is a day and age when "actual physical spaces for youth (e.g., parks, acitivity halls, and so on) have disappeared." Instead, "virtual spaces have become welcoming spaces for the young as they combine entertainment, advice, friendship , community, and shopping" (266). Ah, now I get it -- and so does Alloy. Girls are online -- and they just so happen to be spending lots of money. Girls ages 8-14 spend $51 billion dollars a year, consuming mostly that which promises to give them self esteem in the form of appearance - beauty products, fashion, etc. Little do they know Alloy Marketing is spending more than 3X as much to keep them believing the consumerist lies that keep them buying and eventually segue them into the $175 Billion teen market. So while they may promote themselves as being "friendly and understanding social space for young girls," this is obviously not the case. Their forums and articles are simply a ruse, with the ultimate goal of doing exactly what their co-founder Matt Diamond says in the first place, target young girls as consumers "and act as a conduit for corporate America" (264).
Good ol' Corporate America. America's corporate and political elites now form a regime of their own. Remember those thieves Zinn talked about -- yep, you got it. The poor are the majority and always have been. If you are living in a situation of poverty or near-poverty, you are the norm. Corporate America wants you to believe just the opposite. In industrialized nations like The United States being poor carries with it an onus of shame and despair because capitalist societies place value only on productive individuals, and the image of ‘a good life’ that is promoted in countries like ours is not simply one of having enough to eat and wear and a warm place to live. The acquisition of possessions far beyond basic needs is promoted as the difference between happiness and misery. In the Western World, it may even be more psychologically stressful to be poor because all media and societal norms so heavily promote ideals of wealth that are beyond the reach of the majority. And I am speaking of adults carrying these ideals and burdens -- imagine what it must be to be the child navigating through life deciphering the value of her beliefs and actions. Obviously, corporate America, corporations like Alloy.com DON'T CARE.
I think girls today need Alloy.com as much as we need to see another Charlie Sheen interview. What a shameful enterprise. I suggest showing tweens this instead:
In Girl Wide Web 2.0, Sharon R. Mazarella and Allison Atkins present"Community, Content, and Commerce." In particular, they discuss Alloy.com which was begun in 1996 as a "media platform to reach hard-to-reach young consumers..." Wait a minute? Is it just me, or doesn't this already sound like a crock?
Mazarella and Atkins note, this is a day and age when "actual physical spaces for youth (e.g., parks, acitivity halls, and so on) have disappeared." Instead, "virtual spaces have become welcoming spaces for the young as they combine entertainment, advice, friendship , community, and shopping" (266). Ah, now I get it -- and so does Alloy. Girls are online -- and they just so happen to be spending lots of money. Girls ages 8-14 spend $51 billion dollars a year, consuming mostly that which promises to give them self esteem in the form of appearance - beauty products, fashion, etc. Little do they know Alloy Marketing is spending more than 3X as much to keep them believing the consumerist lies that keep them buying and eventually segue them into the $175 Billion teen market. So while they may promote themselves as being "friendly and understanding social space for young girls," this is obviously not the case. Their forums and articles are simply a ruse, with the ultimate goal of doing exactly what their co-founder Matt Diamond says in the first place, target young girls as consumers "and act as a conduit for corporate America" (264).
Good ol' Corporate America. America's corporate and political elites now form a regime of their own. Remember those thieves Zinn talked about -- yep, you got it. The poor are the majority and always have been. If you are living in a situation of poverty or near-poverty, you are the norm. Corporate America wants you to believe just the opposite. In industrialized nations like The United States being poor carries with it an onus of shame and despair because capitalist societies place value only on productive individuals, and the image of ‘a good life’ that is promoted in countries like ours is not simply one of having enough to eat and wear and a warm place to live. The acquisition of possessions far beyond basic needs is promoted as the difference between happiness and misery. In the Western World, it may even be more psychologically stressful to be poor because all media and societal norms so heavily promote ideals of wealth that are beyond the reach of the majority. And I am speaking of adults carrying these ideals and burdens -- imagine what it must be to be the child navigating through life deciphering the value of her beliefs and actions. Obviously, corporate America, corporations like Alloy.com DON'T CARE.
I think girls today need Alloy.com as much as we need to see another Charlie Sheen interview. What a shameful enterprise. I suggest showing tweens this instead:
The New Generation Y
Advertising and marketing companies have been targeting their audience for years - however in this day and age - their marketing strategies are at their fingertips..(literally) I thought it was interesting to learn that Yahoo's BPNordstrom "IMvironment" doesn't have any sort of Imvironment that is geared toward boys and shopping at all- it is geared to only girls and creating an image for the young girls. I was glad to read.."still, despite this ever-pervasive push to sell products to adolescent girls, they are not necessarily buying." (109) I think the ideologies of what these advertises present to young girls have not changed over time at all - they create images and stereotypical ideas of what the "perfect" girl should look like..(buy this outfit and look great)...and as before, it remains the same as today - all these ideologies do a disservice to young girls. The only difference today is how the images find their way into the hands of the young girls. Before it was print models looking "perfect" in the teen magazines and today it is the computer.
Alloy biffls!!!!!!
When reading through the assigned readings there was so much talk of Alloy.com and how it was such a big influence in consumerism for teens and tweens that it had become a question of whether it had been a social site fused with shopping. I had to check it out and explore it for myself and I had to admit there was quite a bit to be engulfed in. At first glance, it does seem to be a brilliant marketing tool for companies, like the texts explain however as I read further into the articles It makes me question, what the message behind this glorified magazine is? Sites like Alloy, expose advertisements about the latest gossip, TV shows, popular books that undoubtedly shapes a predictable consumer. However I feel that there is a bit of deception here (like all consumerism) the site claims to target ages 12-24 but majority of its viewers are ages 8-14; also known as tweens. While I can’t argue about the definition or the creation of this word, it describes the transitional period of children questioning and creating an identity. Advertisers and marketing experts are very crafty and while I’m not completely blaming them for taking advantage of their product placements, it seems unfortunate that yet again we’re putting more emphasis on trying to be the ultimate feminine persona. “Much of what they sell are products promising to facilitate the transition from girlhood to womanhood, products that often result in prematurely sexualizing girls. On the other hand, I’m a bit curious as to why parents giving their children so much purchasing power to be able to afford their identity through clothes and accessories and never-ending fads. “Tweens (young people aged 8-14) in particular…spend $51 billion spent of their own money each year and influence an additional $170 billion on them each year….similarly AM+M teens, a third of whom carry a credit card, ‘a force in consumer spending, part of a highly influential $175B consumer market.’” I understand that tweens and teens were once an underrepresented and unrecognized force but its astonishing to see how much teens influence the consumer market. It seems that so much goes into making a "..stylish,.... pop culture savvy and.. boy crazy" Alloyer. Additionally the only benefit from this is that it does seem to close the gender gap between online literacy.Boys are still described as the well to do gender among the two however girls are creating more of a "best friend culture" and with terms like biffl (best friends for life) its no wonder. Tweens have found that space to communicate and flourish but I'm precariously and maybe idealistically asking, can we ever create honest space for young women? It seems all this oversexing communicating is only furthering the ideal stereotype about women and I know we can't pretend to overlook the obvious trends and questions that tailor to a teen's life but I'm starting to think that we don't give enough credit to teens, they wanted to be treated like adults in their six inch heels and modern well to do totes but could they really handle looking at what happens beyond the moment of 21? What plans does she have for herself after prom and what's life like when you pay your first bill? Maybe I'm being a little melodramatic... lol
The New Generation Y
We are asked at the beginning of chapter 5 in Instant Identity, “are the girls (teens and tweens) buying the empty vessels of popular culture that the corporate companies have out there to do so with advertisements and pop-up? In their choice of products to advertise on their IM platform, it seems they have little interest in specifically targeting the adolescent population with their advertising and pop-up banners. This might be because the generation that uses IM most prevalently, Generation Y, is often consumer savvy and technologically adept than the generations before it, so the companies that deploy IM messenger services have developed other ways to insert advertising more subtly into the technology (I.I. pg. 96). This surprised me because I figured the main people that actually pay attention to pop-ups and advertisements would be the Generation Y. Some subtle methods they use have been to offer its IM users the use of icons that can be placed on their IM window next to their log-in name – a fun, graphic articulation of taste or identity. This is how hegemonic forces link consumerism and patriarchal discourses in this new space – and it seems to be working in a certain degree: early statistics on this means embedding information within the advertising on IM demonstrate that this type of ad has already shown moderate success with users clicking on the ads at a much higher rate than on typical banner advertising. If this is the cultural ideal that girls are being “sold” – and, if the statistics are accurate, apparently buying into, to a certain extent, then we can expect the stereotypes and cultural expectations of girls as shallow consumers to continue well into this new digital age, even in a medium where they are actors in creativity in its context. This somewhat undermines the notion of encoding/decoding model that assumes that consumers buy into dominant meaning that advertisers intend them to take from an advertising text, clearly, the audiences often resist or even ignore the messages sent from advertisers to suit their own needs (I.I. pg.99). In my opinion, I believe that it’s great that this new Generation Y is smart enough to, for the most part, ignore the media advertisements on computers. If we can continue this then maybe we can all help young women’s self-esteem stay positive and they can come to realize that the media isn’t always the right people to follow. Do you think that the media has a positive or negative affect on Generation Y?
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)