WS798: Research Paper Proposal

In the past couple of months I have familiarized myself with vlogging and have been very interested in watching other people's vlogs. Vlogging refers to video blogging, that is, videos posted by an individual to a blog with regular entries. To date, the most popular video sharing website is YouTube, the home of millions of user vlogs. People who vlog keep a sort of online diary over a certain period of time and they vlog for the purpose of initiating dialogue between them and their viewers, via the comment tool. People vlog about a multitude of topics, usually whatever is happening in their life at the time of the post, good and bad. Some vlogging gets very personal and people share what is closest to their hearts, including gender identity disorders, a list of what they've done that day, this week's crush, discrimination they've experienced recently, an update on any changes in their personal relationships, any recent news they've received, a new job they've gotten, they're current playlists, etc. After these video diaries are recorded they are posted into cyberspace, where millions of YouTube users can watch it and potentially leave their comments, questions, advice, etc. Taking advantage of these feature, YouTube users often use vlogging as a form of self-therapy.

I'm going to observe how YouTube reinforces the “looking glass self” and serves as a tool for self-reflection. Unlike on ChatRoulette, people can choose what content their viewers see because it is recorded before it is uploaded and users can view it before submitting it to their vlogs. By watching their videos beforehand, they can see how their viewers are going to see them, thus determining what content they're going to allow their viewers to see. Vlogs are self-produced and self-distributed, defining the “looking glass self”—people see themselves based on how others see them and respond to them. These people enter cyberspace because they're feeling a disconnect with the “real life” people in their lives. They use YouTube as an attempt to connect with other people and form a community—an ultimate attempt to reconnect with humanity. I'll also touch on how people tend to express human values in their vlogs that are not necessarily prevalent in society. Other areas I am considering looking at include how vlogging has changed ideas of community, how vlogging has changed social interaction and integration, and how vlogging helps shape identity.

University of New Hampshire Students Shred Porn

I was at this demonstration shredding some magazines myself and I am in this video clip, but I bet you can't find me!


"Leaders of the student organization Womyn's Club organized the event which originally intended to burn the magazines, but weather forced them to resort to shredding. The group is looking to raise awareness about pornography by giving people an opportunity to destroy any piece of literature that relates to or portrays sexual domination, misogyny or racism."
-FOX 25 / MyFoxBoston.com

WS798: Blog Audit.

This week is a blog audit and I attempted to re-read all of my past blog entries and notice what topics I choose to write on and how I choose to analyze them. Interestingly, I did find several themes that I didn't expect and are good to keep in mind when writing future blog entries.

First, I want to comment on the tone of my posts. I noticed that some of my posts actually sound a bit hostile without meaning for them to be. I guess it depends on how a person reads the post, but I noticed this tone in entries such as “I hate the patriarchy”, “Individuality or Conformity?”, “AVATAR: A Movie About the Na'vi Clan, starring a human”, and “Multiple Identities = Multiple Oppressions: A Response to 'It Gets Better'”. I also notice that in a few of my posts I aim my whole argument around disproving another person's argument (“Human evolution has gone digital. What's next?”, “Individuality or Conformity?”, and “Multiple Identities = Multiple Oppressions: A Response to 'It Gets Better'”).

I find myself questioning a lot of things instead of taking everything I see, hear, and learn as fact. I recently watched a documentary about a sociological study involving two people where one asked questions to the other and for every wrong answer they would press a button that sent an increasing voltage of electrical shock into the other person's body. There was a researcher in the room observing and recording the situation and facilitating when needed. The object was to see how high people would increase the voltage and shock another other person while they were screaming in pain, just because there was a person in a white lab coat telling them to. At the end of the experiment the researcher revealed that there was actually no electrical shock being transmitted, the screams were fake, and they were debriefed on the experiment. It turns out that over 50% of the people that participated in the study continued until the voltage was increased to a fatal level—450 volts—even when the other person stopped responding. I think these findings parallel people's actions in the real world. It is all too common that people go along with what the government, media, politicians, authoritative figures, or anyone in a power position tells them. They go along with the accepted rules and norms of the community—and don't question what they're doing. Questioning what was given to me was one duty I think I did well in my blog entries (i.e. instead of accepting that technology is making people dumber I questioned why technology is necessary in our society, instead of accepting that there is no policy limiting or restricting the use of pornography in public libraries I questioned why consuming pornography is an acceptable practice in our culture, instead of accepting Dan Savage's “It Gets Better” campaign I took a step back to question who honestly benefits from this campaign, etc).

I see that my posts are becoming increasingly feministic as the semester goes on. For example, my first post held only an argument about technology and my second post only held an argument about sustainability, and I did not tie in much of what I've learned from women's studies. Especially beginning with “I hate the patriarchy”, I noticed my analyses coming from the feminist lens that I was talking about in one of my first introduction posts for this blog. I largely attribute this to the fact that I'm learning valuable information from the readings in my two Women's Studies classes, as well as from the conversations that I have at work in the Women's Studies office. My original goal for this blog was to really open up to see the world through a feminist lens and reflect that in the analyses that I write in my blog posts. It's comforting that I am starting to see that show up and it makes me excited to write future blog posts.

I did recognize that “Individuality or Conformity?” was, in my opinion, the worst post that I have written to date. I didn't take the time to write an introduction or even conclude the post in an interesting way. My ideas were all over the place and not organized or developed well at all. That is the type of blogging that I want to stay away from and is probably the one post that I wrote that I don't feel is worth revisiting (unless it is to completely revise the post).

I also realized that I don't have many comments on my blog. I have one from a person in our class and the other is anonymous so I'm not sure... Part of our grade is commenting on our classmates' blogs so I can't help but wonder why I only have one comment. I'm guessing it's either because I don't write anything of substance and nothing is worth commenting on, or because my posts are too lengthy for my classmates to want to read and write a thoughtful comment on. Not to be conceited, but unfortunately, I'm thinking it's the latter. I would really like feedback on my blog in some form, because for all I know I could be rambling aimlessly and not making any sense to anyone but myself.

From my posts, I can't tell if I didn't go into the depth of analysis that I should have, or if I just have new opinions from newly gained knowledge when re-reading them now. Because although some of my posts are a little lengthy, there is still more analysis that I wish I could have included. There haven't been many comments on my posts but I also realize now that my posts could use a little more clarification. I think sometimes I get so into my argument and after I think I've proven my point, I just submit the post without re-reading it. This kind of blogging is pretty new to me and I think it would be a more useful tool if I really thought about what I want to communicate to my audience. Re-reading, revising, and clarifying points would definitely help (especially with the few spelling mistakes that I found!).

However, I do like that I get my opinions across and still leave room for audience interpretation—at least I hope that is how my posts come across to others. It is difficult reading and taking apart my own blog entries because I know what I was thinking when I wrote them and it's hard to be objective and read them with different eyes. Overall, I think many of my posts are well written and are worth revisiting. I think it is easy to see that I do not just write entries to get credit for blogging in the class, but also to really take the time to analyze the information I am learning, ask questions about it, and apply it to real life situations and my own experiences.

WS798: Multiple Identities = Multiple Oppressions: A Response to 'It Gets Better'

Dan Savage started a campaign called "It Gets Better" to reach out to LGBT youth who are struggling with bullying and he attempts to let them know that despite the hard times they may be going through now, to stick it out because in the future, their lives are sure to get better. Joelle Ryan responds to his campaign in her blog by making several important points. She blatantly disagrees with Dan Savage and offers several examples from her own life where she states that she faces transphobia, fatphobia, and classism everyday and it certainly has not gotten any better for her. Joelle even goes so far as to say, "Telling vulnerable queer and trans teens that it gets better when it doesn't is incredibly cruel and heartless" (Ryan, 2010).

I think it is important to bring up these intersectionalities of social identities, especially if it results in multiple oppressions for a single person. This is something that Dan Savage cannot relate to, as he is a white, gay man and really only speaks about the hard times he has had regarding his gay identity. He doesn't face racial, classist, or sexist discrimination on a daily basis and, for some people, their multiple oppressions are what put them over the edge. Several times, Joelle mentions that LGBT youth need to be told the truth about the patriarchal world they're about to grow up in, instead of sideswiping them with the fallacious notion that their future will be better and brighter if they just wait around for it long enough. The truth is, not all children can look forward to a rosy future with promises of health, prosperity, acceptance, and happiness. Dan Savage's story is just one experience and there is no way he can speak for all gay youth in America. I am not a pessimistic person, I am honest and rational, and would rather speak a realistic truth than an idealistic lie.

Even for those people who do decide to live in the "it gets better" mentality, what about the present, the here and now? Some people are literally dying out there and can't just sit around and wait for their lives to get better. Children are ostracized, bullied, mocked, beaten, and abused everyday and they need help now. I think a more effective approach is to be active. Dan, if you really want to help the youth of America, educate them, give them resources, give them support, give them truth. Give them anything but false hope. I am in complete agreement with Joelle when she says "I wish more people had been real with me about what was ahead for me in this patriarchal world" (Ryan, 2010). I wish I were better prepared to live in such a hierarchical way of life. Maybe somebody could have explained to me that under the patriarchy, hierarchies exist for every social identity and at least for race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, sex, gender expression, religion, political affiliation, and class, I am close to the bottom rung of the ladder and I should expect members of the dominant identities to step on me as they make their ways to the top. At least then I would have known the only thing that can help me survive is my own strength, because as we know, the bottom rungs of the ladder encounter the most weight.

WS798: AVATAR: A Movie About the Na'vi Clan, starring a human.

•  

As Lisa Nakamura points out in Digitizing Race, "...the massification of the Internet has not damaged the market for traditionally racialized representations of people of color... White people are still depicted as the users that matter in these narratives that are so influential among popular audiences, especially young audiences" (208). This holds true for James Cameron's 2009 science fiction film, Avatar. The movie takes place in 2154 when humans discover a valuable mineral, unobtainium, on Pandora, the home of the Na'vi clan who are non-technological and worship Eywa, a mother goddess. While scientists have created avatars for humans to observe and learn about the Na'vi and the biosphere, the RDA of the military plots to send a former marine to Pandora via an avatar to persuade the Na'vi clan to move away from Hometree, the clan's dwelling, which sits on top of a particularly rich mining site for unobtainium. Obviously, a war ensues between the Na'vi and the military, and guess who saves the day? The White male human--and former marine--who befriended the Na'vi through deceit and manipulation.


Now, let's for a moment imagine that Jake Sully(the ex-marine) hadn't joined the Na'vi clan. How would this movie have ended? Well, presumably the Na'vi clan would have been wiped out or forced to relocate when the military waged war on them, attacking them with tanks, guns, and other advanced weaponry, and leaving the Na'vi to defend themselves with bows and arrows and an apparent defeated response to their home being destroyed. So basically, the only reason that the clan survived and overpowered the military is because they had an alpha male human on their side to tell them what to do. I also must add that even though most of this racism isn't only through human races/ethnicities, it is between species, that the actors and actresses who play the main Na'vi characters (the lead Na'vi female--Neytiri--whom Jake falls in love with, the clan chief, Neytiri's mother, and the Na'vi male that is skeptical of Jake) are all played by Dominican, African American, or Native American people. No White people. And the main human characters (Jake Sully, the head scientist and doctor, and the military men--the colonel, corporal, and private) are all played by White actresses and actors. Now, that's interesting. How stereotypical is it that they cast a Native American man to play the Na'vi chief? And the only main human character who is not White is Trudy, the Hispanic female pilot who turns against the military and steals a helicopter--like a true criminal (which is a typical stereotype of Hispanic people, in case you didn't catch that).

In Avatar, it is clear that the White humans are the superior race and species, as they have the access to all the technology--they have advanced military weaponry and robots and advanced scientific technology to create the avatars and mentally link them to humans. The Na'vi are so obviously depicted as being primitive, non-technological, and sexual. The Na'vi's only weapons are bows and arrows! They of course have to add a sex scene (although not human sex, it is still sex) between Jake in his avatar body and Neytiri, the lead female Na'vi. Even before the actual scene where they have sex, Neytiri is portrayed as being sexy and one can see how she is slowly seducing Jake although it is meant to appear that she does this unintentionally or subconsciously. Right.

Lastly, I want to discuss the title of this post. Avatar is geared towards a variety of audiences, but is clearly meant to be enjoyed by young people, as it is rated PG-13. Most people, but particularly young people may watch Avatar and only see a movie about the Na'vi clan who live on Pandora, deal with their home almost being destroyed by humans, but ultimately surviving and then living happily ever after. I watch Avatar and see a movie about White guilt. It is a movie that is perceptively about the Na'vi clan, but ultimately stars a human (hence, "A Movie about the Na'vi, starring a human"). This movie could have done without having Jake Sully as the hero for the Na'vi and especially being the praised Na'vi clan member like they all owe their entire species' survival to him. James Cameron could have easily had one of the Na'vi be in the lead role and save their own species from obliteration without the help of any humans. But sadly, he would have rather portrayed the guilt that White people have from being superior to other races (and causing them oppression and distress) and casting that into the movie in the form of human guilt of being superior to the Na'vi, which is why Jake Sully switches sides in the end and betrays the military (and ultimately all humans) to help the Na'vi. Oh, and Jake also gets the perks of being allowed to permanently living in the Na'vi clan and having the daughter of the clan's spiritual leader as his mate.