WS798: Presentation Comments (part 2)

Rachel dove into the topic of how mental illness, particularly schizophrenia, is portrayed in the media. This often brings up the question of corporate responsibility to accurately portray mental illness. Are producers obligated to accurately portray individuals with mental illness? I honestly don't think movie producers (or screen writers) can get in trouble for this since they don't portray every other person accurately either. But what I thought was interesting was the question of why is the only exposure to mental illness "bad" exposure? Persons with mental illness are most often depicted as hurting someone, raping someone, committing a crime, etc. I think it can be somewhat difficult (to an extent) to know whether mental illness is portrayed accurately if you've never had experience with or prior knowledge of any persons with the illness. I think that is one way that stereotypes develop: an illness is portrayed inaccurately, but because it is in the media and it's the only exposure some people will have, people assume those are the truths for that illness and assume all people who have that illness go through that same experience that was portrayed in the one movie they saw. I think it's important that we take a second look before accepting these portrayals as fact.

Katie's presentation was pretty brief, but I did find the differences between eharmony and compatiblepartners that she mentioned interesting, especially since compatiblepartners is owned by eharmony. While I don't think I would ever use a dating website anyway, I am extremely turned off by eharmony and would not recommend it to anyone I know. In fact, I would probably discourage people from using that site. As Katie mentioned, eharmony only allows for heterosexual users and, since it is religious in nature, does not allow people to select agnostic or atheist as a religious preference. I find it ridiculous and extremely discriminatory that eharmony has one website for people they consider "normal" or acceptable, but then also created a separate website, compatiblepartners, not because they are interested in helping other people to find partners, but because they realize there is a market and they will make more money by hosting this website. On compatiblepartners, same-sex options are available, as are agnostic and atheist options for religious preference, but on this website preferences for marriage and children are not allowed. This is further discrimination from eharmony and its absolutely ludicrous.

One quote that stuck out from David's presentation was "cyberspace highlights the performance of identity", which he exemplifies using the manhunt.net website as evidence. Manhunt is a dating website for gay males. Although it is exaggerated and over-stereotyped, Manhunt shows one way in which gay males perform homosexuality. Other dating websites (mainly heterosexual dating websites) focus on finding a person to have a committed relationship with and promotes marriage and family. Given the pictures found on the website and the questions that were placed in the user profiles, Manhunt essentially focuses mainly on having sex. I don't think I would even consider Manhunt to be a dating website, I would be more apt to call it a website for sexual encounters. Basically the creators of Manhunt are making money off of gay men having sex. I'm not sure if that is what David meant by saying "queer fetish develops has a commodity in these queer dating sites", and maybe there's more to it than that, but that is how I understand the concept of queer fetish as a commodity.

The part of Kelsey's presentation that interested me the most was when she said young boys and girls sometimes think that cyberbullying is somehow "better" than physical bullying because there is no physical harm done. It reminded me of a discussion I had in a class once. The professor asked our class if they thought physical or mental abuse was worse. People had arguments for both sides, but I said that I don't think anyone can judge which form of abuse is worse. I think it depends on each individual situation, but even then no one has the right to judge how bad an experience is for someone. This applies to physical/mental/cyberbullying as well. Kelsey mentioned that she feels cyberbullying can sometimes be more harmful because it goes out on the internet and once it's out there it won't go away. I don't think this is a valid argument to say that cyberbullying is worse than physical or mental bullying because there are ways that all three types of abuse can last a lifetime. People need to understand that no hierarchy exists for abuse or bullying because our world is not that black and white.

Leah's presentation on women in the military in the media was a compelling topic because I had just had a conversation about it in a class earlier that day and I know a few people in different branches of the military. Leah posed the question of whether military women are actually being treated more fairly in real life than in the past and the public only thinks they are being treated poorly because the media portrays them in that way. I don't think this is the case at all. I don't think women are being treated more fairly in the military. Women are constantly blamed for anything that goes wrong, they are harassed and assaulted on a daily basis, and they are treated like they aren't as tough or as dedicated as the men. I know Leah has a strict focus of where she wants her paper to go, but I was a little disappointed when Leah said she wasn't going to look at the way the media portrays sexual assault of women in the military. There might not be a lot of scholarly sources on this topic, but it would be interesting to see what is out there and what is being talked about, if anything is being talked about at all.

I hadn't really given much thought to Kenlyne's topic of cybercheating, but I found it engaging nonetheless. She brought up, as an example, a couple who had been together for seven years and while the girl's facebook was deactivated the guy was having a secret relationship with another girl and posting about it on his facebook. All I could think about was how much it would suck being the last person to know that your boyfriend has another girlfriend and then wondering where things went wrong and questioning the last seven years you spent together. I understand where Kenlyne was coming from when wondering how much one person can really know another, especially when a couple of seven years can fall victim to cybercheating and one partner has no idea anything is wrong. Thinking about your partner in this way (wondering how much you really know them) can sometimes stir up skepticism and mistrust over nothing. I think if two people are in a committed relationship and have never had a reason to distrust each other, they should believe what the other is telling them. And if something questionable pops up on facebook or twitter or whatever, it would probably be best to ask your partner than assume anything is going on otherwise because that can break down the relationship unintentionally and cause unnecessary drama.

WS798: Presentation Comments (part 1)

I found Dana's topic to be really interesting because the concept of using the internet as a replacement for consulting a professional goes far beyond pregnant women using it for medical information. I was intrigued by the thought of other people using the internet as a replacement tool as well. For example, websites can be used as organization tools to plan their own wedding instead of hiring a wedding planner, a resource for legal information instead of consulting a lawyer, or a guide for how to use or troubleshoot a computer instead of calling an IT specialist.

Rebecca's topic made me wonder about how personal preferences can get in the way of the loyalty of doctors to their patients. One of my doctors told me about her personal preference on how she would help me, but also gave me several options and asked what I would like to do. I feel like it could have been so easy for her to just tell me the method she preferred and gave me that medication without presenting me with any options. And I've definitely heard of that kind of thing happening with other people I know. There are debates on many medical topics out there and certain doctors have their own personal preferences with how they would treat a certain illness or steps to take to diagnose a certain disease. I think that doctors should be obligated to present their patients with information on all of their possible options as well as all side effects so that the patient can make the decision that best suits them.

Danielle's topic made me curious about the desensitization to violence that results from people playing violent video games. I'm sure that there are people who would argue that playing a video game does not affect how people act in real life, but I think the opposite. I wouldn't argue that every person who plays grand theft auto will steal a car and run people over with it, but I would argue that the games alters people's attitudes toward certain actions. If people are repeatedly stealing cars, shooting people, beating people up, killing people, raping women, etc., then they are likely to find it more acceptable and not react quite as passionately when this type of violence occurs in real life.

I found Jayne's topic on mistrust, jealousy, and infidelity on facebook to be somewhat psychological. I tend to think that the human brain is capable of tricking people into believing things that aren't necessarily true, such as making up situations that haven't occurred and then believing wholeheartedly that they are the truth. I haven't studied psychology at all, but I did find it interesting to think about the human brain in this way and wondered how people perceive actions differently. Relating to facebook, one person can see a wall comment that says "i had a really fun time last night" to mean several different things, but a jealous significant other might automatically assume that comment means something intimate probably occurred.

Niquesha's topic about homophobia in the Black community, especially in the religious Black community, reminded me of a conversation that happened in one of my classes last semester. Some people wonder, why would a group that is marginalized (the Black community) turn around and hold such a stigma for another marginalized group (the gay community) when they know how it feels to be a minority? This isn't the first time this re-victimization has happened. When white women began to form a radical movement demanding rights for women, they too held stigmas against the Black women that wanted to join the movement. And then there is the gay rights movement. People have always lumped transgender folk in with the gay community (even though gender identity and expression is different than sexual orientation) and when it came time to vote on laws the gay community abandoned our transgender brothers and sisters in hopes to alleviate some of the stigma and obtain rights for the gay community. I see it like this: one group that is marginalized wants to gain a respected place in the community and won't accept being an ally to another marginalized group (especially one that is seen as MORE marginalized) because they don't want to carry any of that stigma. I find it to be complete bullshit that people actually put faith in that logic, but that is what still exists out there today.

Emily chose a topic that brought up a lot of discussion in class: online dating and social inequalities such as racism and homophobia. I happen to think that the internet is a pretty accurate portrayal of what happens in reality. Real life attitudes and behaviors such as relationships, advertising, religion, art, entertainment, shopping, etc., are mirrored onto the internet. I find inequalities and oppression to be no exception. I think it's cool that Emily is going to get specific and focus on inequalities on dating websites because they are used by so many people and some people (usually people who are privileged) don't even notice the discrimination that happens so blatantly on these websites.

I thought Ben's topic was interesting because it is similar to mine, except that she is focusing on transmen and my paper encompasses how people use vlogging on youtube in general. My topic focuses a lot on using youtube as a tool for both self reflection and a sense of community. I think her topic is an interesting compliment to mine, as she delves deeper into the community aspect of youtube and is exploring how transmen use this community to ask for and give each other advice and stay connected for support.

WS798: What is the digital divide?

The digital divide is a relatively new concept, emerging with the invention and widely growing use of the internet. The internet has grown by millions of users in just the past few years and it seems that everyone we know has an account on facebook, myspace, twitter, youtube, flickr, skype, or aol instant messanger. We use the internet for school (research, communication with professors or classmates, submitting assignments, registering for classes, etc), work (background checks, communication with our boss or co-workers, research, marketing tips, world, national, and local news, etc), and personal tasks (communication with friends and family, informal advice, how-to guides, quick recipes, online journals, entertainment, etc). If so many people have access to the internet and it is required for so many personal, educational and professional tasks in life, then what exactly is the digital divide, and who is affected? Put simply, the digital divide separates those people who have access to use the internet and those who do not, and people who have the knowledge required to use the internet from those who do not. Being a part of Western civilization, we assume that everyone has the luxury of using the internet because that is all we know. In fact, there are certain communities, and even whole countries, whose governments ban certain websites--like YouTube--or don't allow people access to the education required to use computers.

What can be done about the digital divide? To address the digital divide, it would take a lot of time and money that probably isn't available. It would be nice if computers could be made available to all children at a young age and incorporated into elementary education to provide knowledge of the technology. I also think all public libraries should provide their communities with access to computers and have staff on hand for troubleshooting. It would be ideal to somehow provide educators and technology to anyone who doesn't currently have access to them. For a lot of people, even if there aren't government restrictions, they have financial restrictions that prevent them from keeping up with the technological hype of our era. Unfortunately, not everyone can afford to go to school, and not everyone can afford to buy a computer. Any solutions that I can think of are strictly ideal and would need a lot of unavailable resources to implement.

I do believe the digital divide to be a civil rights issue to an extent. I would say that civil rights are rights that are guaranteed to us. I suppose it can be argued that access to technology is a right that is guaranteed as long as we have the financial means, but it can also be argued that access to food and shelter is a right that is guaranteed as well, and not all people have that luxury either. Technology has become essential to our survival in our modern world and those of us who aren't afforded the luxury of its use get left behind. This is a huge issue because it prevents people from being able to attain certain jobs, communicate with certain people, complete certain tasks, etc. My aunt, who is currently in her sixties, has recently joined facebook, and has been sending me messages asking how to do what I think are simple tasks on her computer. If we grow up with the internet and are up to date on each new piece of technology, we assume that everyone else has that same knowledge until we are told otherwise. I really had to think twice when my aunt was asking how to upload a picture on facebook, how to use online banking, and whether or not searching on google costs money. These things are like common sense to me, but are completely foreign to someone who is new to the internet. My aunt only recently was afforded the luxury of having a computer in her home, but has not been educated on how to use it. I know how well off she is and seeing her so behind in this new age of technology makes me wonder where the rest of the world really is.

WS798: Revised Research Proposal

Revised Proposal:
After doing a little research and looking through articles, my revised proposal is pretty similar to my original one. In my paper I will define all terms I intend on using including the following list:
vlogging - video blogging, usually personal home videos posted on the internet for others to view on a regular posting schedule.
YouTube - the most popular video sharing website and home to many personal vlog channels and social communities.
symbolic interactionism - the theory that people will perform certain behaviors according to the perceived meanings of those behaviors, and the meanings are formed from social interaction and can be changed through interpretation.
looking-glass self - a tool for self reflection; people see themselves how they perceive others to see them.

I am still writing my paper with the assumption that, although vlogging may have begun as a private way to keep a video diary or track progress on a task, etc, it has evolved into a medium of communication and is currently the means by which many users interact on a daily basis and form personal relationships. Communities develop when a group of people create and view vlogs of interest and engage in discussions based on the vlogging topic. I think it is important to extract and observe the relationship between the vlogger and the viewer.

I also think it is important to survey the outcomes of vlogging--whether it weakens our already existing community (face-to-face interactions), enhances community (by creating space for online interactions and communities), or transforms the nature of community (a new definition incorporating online interaction with face-to-face interaction). I personally hypothesize that our world is always evolving and we must learn to adapt to new social situations; as technology becomes an integral part of social relationships, human social interactions and social communities will evolve to incorporate technology.

I realize that this topic may still be a bit broad and I am looking into making it more specific to one community, but this is just a general overview of what the specific topic will cover.


Annotated Bibliography:
Bell, Vaughan. "Online Information, Extreme Communities and Internet Therapy: Is the Internet Good for Our Mental Health?" Journal of Mental Health 16.4 (2007): 445-57. Print.

Bell's article is mostly focused on how the internet affects our mental health in general, but does go into specifics in certain sections. The section regarding internet therapy especially relates to my paper. Bell questions whether the internet can be used as a form of therapy for some users, especially those who may be dealing with extenuating circumstances. Bell introduces "extreme communities", which are used as support networks for people with a multitude of disorders. Extreme communities mentioned by Bell include pro-anorexia, pro-suicide, pro-amputation and likely-psychotic groups. Bell concludes that these communities are effective in helping some people and it may even be beneficial for mental health professionals to actually create online groups as a form of treatment and to provide additional resources to their patients.

Lange, Patricia G. Fostering Friendship Through Video Production: How Youth Use YouTube to Enrich Local Interaction. Proc. of International Communication Association Conference, San Francisco, California. 2007. Print.

Lange discusses the current debate of whether avid internet use weakens community, enhances community, or changes the nature of community. She states that while social networking sites, such as YouTube, connect people on a global level, they are also used to foster local relationships between users. Lange also argues that this form of media can be used to facilitate new social ties or enhance existing ties between people of one local area. Other scholars have argued that relationships that are created over the internet lack emotional cues and, therefore, create an inappropriate atmosphere for emotional exchanges. Vlogging, however, consists of personal videos created by vloggers, which allow for certain visual emotional cues to be disseminated. Lange also states that it is important not to ignore key social particulars that are crucial to understanding how interaction functions in specific contexts.

Lange, Patricia G. "Publicly Private and Privately Public: Social Networking on YouTube." Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13.1 (2008): 361-80. Print.

Lange pays particular attention to how YouTube users form social networks by creating and allowing access to their personal videos. Lange also studies the social relationships that are created among youth by sharing their videos online. As the title of the article suggests, public versus private content is brought into question. Lange describes "publicly private" behavior as "video makers' identities were revealed, but content was relatively private because it was not widely accessed" (Lange, 361), and describes "privately public" behavior as "sharing widely accessible content with many viewers, while limiting access to detailed information about video producers' identities" (Lange, 361). Lange suggests that membership in different social networks is determined by what content is made publicly private, or privately public.

Nardi, Bonnie A., Diane J. Schiano, and Michelle Gumbrecht. "Blogging as Social Activity, Or, Would You Let 900 Million People Read Your Diary?" (2004). Print.

The Nardi, Schiano, and Gumbrecht article reports the results of their study focusing on individual or small group-run blogs with limited audiences. They discuss different motivations for blogging, including in response to requests from their friends, as well as the relationship between the blogger and their audience. Some people leave comments on their friends' blogs and others post their response as a new entry in their own blog. This article is interesting in that the blogger-audience relationship is recognized and analyzed thoroughly. Nardi et al look at whether bloggers reply to comments, how long conversations can go on in the comments, whether the commenting on blogs is reciprocated, as well as who is "following" anothers blog. Nardi et al don't directly address vlogging (which is the focus of my paper), but they speak particularly on blogging. I am using information from this article to provide evidence of the benefits of online communities and relationships that can develop from posting a "diary" online--whether it is in video or text form.

Wesch, Michael. YouTube and You: Experiences of Self-Awareness in the Context Collapse of the Recording Webcam. Hampton Press, Inc., 2009. 19-34. Print.

Wesch's article most directly related to the original idea that I had for my paper. He explores how people use YouTube to experience both self-awareness and self-reflection. Wesch's article directly mentions vlogs (accounts of user's personal lives, short for video logs) and different outcomes or goals when users create, view, and respond to them. Wesch proposes that this process uses a symbolic interactionist framework, as it is globally connected and allows people to share their moments of self-reflection with others, creating community. The premise of the theory is that people will perform certain behaviors depending on the perceived meanings of those behaviors, and the meanings are formed from social interaction and can be changed through interpretation.

WS798: Alexis Pauline Gumbs: "We Are Not Machines!"

After leaving the event with Alexis, I found myself repeating her words, "We are not machines." The event really made me think about how sometimes (perhaps subconsciously) people think of themselves as a machine in terms of doing our day-to-day jobs, or as one part of a machine in terms of our purpose in the greater society. People get so wrapped up in power and capitalism that we begin to only see ourselves as having a purpose in completing an overall task. For example, the women in my sorority can be seen as each holding specific chair positions that are essential to the overall success of the sorority and if one woman is not doing her job, the rest of the sorority will suffer. This trivializes the raw beauty and natural essence that each woman possesses individually. People no longer see themselves as a strong body, energized and ready to play. We think of ourselves and one another as part of a mechanical whole, with only one task to complete.

Another concept that Alexis pushed was "information overload." From what I understand (and this might be a bit off), information overload refers to people being bombarded with information that may be conflicting or repetitive, but received from all around nonetheless. By receiving too much information it is difficult for people to make sense of it and understand it, and therefore not being able to provide an adequate response or make decisions. Making use of the internet, it is very easy to experience information overload, and that is exactly what new users are experiencing, whether it be youth or middle-aged folk who are being introduced to the internet for the first time.

I found it extremely refreshing to hear Alexis' point of view on this topic. She wasn't necessarily a guest speaker for our class, but I somehow felt she was speaking directly to our class because of the content in her presentation, and I felt it to be overwhelmingly related to the subject matter that we've been discussing throughout the semester.