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.

WS798: Individuality or Conformity?

So, check out the picture on page 145 of Lisa Nakamura's Digitizing Race: Visual Culture of the Internet. The picture has the caption: "Beaner Dreamers avatar group portrait". Just looking at this picture stirred up so much conflict and contradiction for me.

This picture is supposed to portray all the ways that people can manipulate their avatars to express their different social identities on the internet, because users are able to change the avatar's clothing, hair color, skin color, add limited piercings and tattoos and add that little baby bump to signify pregnancy--and this is supposed to be a better expression of their individuality than plain text on the internet. Well, news flash for the people creating these avatars: changing your avatar's skin color does not signify race or ethnicity. The choices that avatar programs have are extremely limited--there are about 3 choices of skin tone: very dark brown, medium brown, and pale peach. Maybe a small percentage of people can pick a color that matches their skin tone, but even then what does that tell you about your race or ethnicity? Does that medium brown tone translate to light-skinned African American? Hispanic or Latino? Indian? Egyptian? What color does a person who is of mixed races with Irish and recessive African American genes (they have light skin and red hair) choose? And what the hell is pale peach? There are many different shades that would be needed to actually portray how a person looks, and even then it doesn't actually show specific races or ethnicities.

Next, I noticed they all have the same facial features, body types, hair types, and height. How expressive is that! There are no overweight avatar options, no options for people that don't have big doe eyes or petite noses, no options for girls without curves, or who don't have a D cup bra size. As far as I can see, the only thing that someone can actually learn about another person from looking at their avatar is the person's name that is stamped next to it. By offering such a narrow scope of "customization options," people are actually being told to conform to societal expectations of what women should look like, which is very limited. It is socially acceptable for women to have small waists, curvy hips, perfectly done up hair, blemish-free skin, fashionable clothing, a prominent jaw line, big breasts and an innocent stance--all for an overall feminine appearance. This picture is a giant contradiction in and of itself. People make avatars so they can express their individuality, but they're actually being molded to fit into a narrow socially acceptable box.

WS798: I hate the patriarchy.

Over the summer, a man from Exeter was caught watching child pornography in the Dimond library. Our class has been debating the idea of a policy limiting or restricting the consumption of pornography in public libraries. As a class activity, on Tuesday September 14th, David, Ben and I interviewed six people about this summer's incident and the idea of a policy in public libraries. We asked their opinion on a policy, what they would do if they found someone viewing pornography in the library, and if they had been previously informed of this summer's incident. This is what we found from the six people:

1. Female, second year Grad student in Education:  She had not previously heard about the occurrence from this summer. She believes that there should be restrictions- just as in public schools people should have to log on to the computer to be held accountable for their actions because viewing pornography is not appropriate to do in public. She said if she witnessed someone viewing pornography in the library that she would approach them and let it known that it is not appropriate and then inform a librarian.
2. Male, Senior in Forestry: He had not previously heard of the occurrence from this summer. He does not believe there should be any limits in censoring the consumption of pornography, except in the case of child pornography. He said if he witnessed someone viewing pornography in the library he would find it amusing and just laugh it off.
3. Male, Professor of Philosophy: He had not heard of the occurrence from this summer. He believes in free speech and would frown upon policies that would restrict the consumption of pornography, stating that restrictions don't work well and it would be overprotection. He said if he witnessed someone viewing pornography in the library he wasn't sure what he would do. He may report it to a librarian if it is child pornography but says it is hard to tell what is pornography unless it is very offensive.
4. Female, State Senator (re-running): She had previous knowledge of the event from this summer. She stated that the creation of a policy restricting or limiting the consumption of pornography in public libraries is a slippery slope and doesn't believe in it, but maybe a policy for child pornography.
5. Female, Sophomore in Women's Studies & Social Work: She did not know about the occurrence from this summer. She believes there should be a policy restricting all forms of pornography in any public space. She said if she witnessed someone viewing pornography in the library she would inform a librarian and secretly unplug their computer if she could.
6. Male, 5th year Senior in Mathematics & Philosophy: He did not know of the occurrence from this summer. He does not believe there should be any restrictions or limitations on the consumption of pornography in public libraries, even adult magazines, except in the case of child pornography. He said he would not do anything if he witnessed someone viewing pornography in the library, unless it was child pornography, then he would report it to a librarian.

To sum up this mini-research project, only one person had heard of the event that happened this summer, two people believe there should be restrictions on viewing all pornography in public libraries, five people mentioned some kind of policy restricting consumption of child pornography, one person said they would approach a person seen viewing pornography in the library, two people said they would inform a librarian if they witnessed someone viewing any kind of pornography, four people said they would inform a librarian if they witnessed someone viewing child pornography, one person said they would do nothing at all if they witnessed someone viewing any kind of pornography in the library.

Conclusion & reaction: Just the fact that only one person out of six people (including a grad student and a professor!) had heard about what happened this summer is disheartening, although not hard to believe. I know the student personally who witnessed the man viewing the child pornography and she informed me that everyone involved in the situation--including any students, faculty, and staff--were asked not to talk about the incident to reporters of any kind--including TNH, our university's own newspaper! Now all I can ask is why this should be kept a secret? I think our campus has the right to know that viewing child pornography in the library (or anywhere really) is not okay and you will be arrested. University administration is way too concerned about their appearance and public opinion of the university. Shouldn't the well-being of the students be one of the administration's top priorities? Well, you would think so.

Four of those people do not believe there should be a policy restricting the consumption of pornography in our public library and four people said they would not inform a librarian if they witnessed someone viewing pornography in the library, except in cases of child pornography. Okay, so what if a person walked into the children's section on the fourth floor, opened a laptop and started watching adult pornography with children present in the room? Would someone care then? What if it was your children who were there trying to read? Or your younger brother or sister? People need to start asking questions and reflect on why certain acts or behaviors are considered okay in our society. So many people just give into the patriarchal way of living without ever thinking twice about it because nobody asks questions. The patriarchy tells us that it is okay for women to feel they have no choice but to participate in the production of pornography in order to guarantee they will get a pay check at the end of the day. Then the patriarchy tells us that it is okay for pornography to normalize violence against women and make women of color look like animals and inform us that all women are objects--sex objects--conveniently here for the sole purpose of pleasuring men. Lastly, the patriarchy tells us that is okay for people (as long as you're over 18...) to consume these messages--even in the comfort of your university's public library!

And I just wanted to add that another man was in the library and had seen the man viewing the child pornography. He seemed to have felt uncomfortable so he got up and moved to the other side of the table so he could no longer see the man's computer screen. Then, when questioned by the police whether or not he had seen a man viewing child pornography he denied it! I was taken aback when I heard this because it didn't make any sense to me. The man clearly did not support the consumption of child pornography as it made him uncomfortable enough to move, yet he was reluctant to tell police that he had witnessed the man watching it. I mean, really? Maybe he thought he was going to get in trouble for witnessing it and not doing anything about it, but what about that man he is now trying to let go free? He was doing more harm than good in lying to the police. It turned out that the man from Exeter had a previous charge on him and is a registered sex offender. Maybe if he wasn't caught he'd spend tomorrow on a bench at the public playground watching your children play together in the sand.