Our reading this week struck a cord with some of the other reading I've been doing for our group. We're looking at personality, obviously, so a simple search on avatar personality led me to a book written by David Bell. Bell talks about embodiement, or lack thereof, and of some of the history of the "gender rights movement" for lack of a better term. He mentioned that in the late 90s, a movement developed to keep female gamers out of these online worlds. Women responded by creating groups of girl gamers that used terms like geekgrrls and others. They fought back much like we saw in Ada's story.
Bell also talks about the "cross dressing" aspects as well. He mentions some specific cases of female lesbians being seduced by homosexual men believing the female avatar is actually a man. He then speaks of the sterotypes of maleness and femaleness. The idea is that you must exagerate the sterotypes in order to be a believable avatar.
Up until this point in my reading, Bell had only ticked me off to a mild extent. Then he pushed me right over the edge. He began discussing race and computing. He classed individuals into 3 groups, the Information Users, the Information Used, and those that lack information. By information, he of course meant lack of access. His whole thesis apparently revolved around this point. Apparently minorities and women LACK the needed skills to effectively use the internet and VWs, and it is another ploy by those in the upper tier to keep us all in our proper places. His book was published in 2000.
I growled a few times, skimmed the rest of the work and chalked it up to the hairbrained schemes of the moronic, until I found he's actually published several works on this subject. That really made me angry. While I can see his viewpoint about access, I do not accept his idea that some people (mainly women in his opinion) lack the skills to participate flly in the digital age. To me it is akin to an article in a gaming magazine from several years ago in which the author suggested to his male readers that they should introduce thier girlfriends to gaming through things such as Spiro, or other cuddly, easy games. The author was inundated with enough letters from angry female readers that even he had to admit that perhaps he was wrong. In the year 2000, when Bell was published, I was teaching 7th grade life science at an at-risk in Virginia, where my students were far more technologically savy that I was. Even in 2000, most families had a computer in the home. Though Bell does admit that he graduated from grad school when computer took up several rooms.
I believe he is right that in some cases gender is over exagerrated to be believable, however, I found that usually this is a case of when someone is attempting to project an avatar they are uncomfortable with (ie man project female or vice versa). We won't even get into his thoughts on "furries" as he calls them, and those that would chose them.
Now let me move abruptly to my next topic of frustration for the week. Obviously, since Thursday, much ahs been discussed about violence in the media, ie violent games, movies, tv shows. Everytime some horrible tragedy occurs it's back to the theory of desensitation that causes the young (and not so young) to "lose it" and harm others. I've spent much time in conversation about this lately, and this is not my first post on the subject. But as I watch the things occuring in our world and the increase in technology being blamed for it I feel outraged. I have yet to find a single long term study that links violent media to violent behavior in the young. What I have found are studies that indicate that the "me" attitude of parenting has caused the young to feel isolated and powerless. Obviously there are many good parents in the world, many realize the committment required to parent. Others do not. When the incident at Columbine was blamed on video games and music I (as young as I was) asked why his parents weren't monitoring what they were doing? I find myself now wondering why, even at the age of 27, no one noticed that this young man had gone off his medication, or that something was wrong.
Some discussion in our class has revolved around whether meeting online is truly meeting, whether it is social. Forming friendships online can be just as vital as forming them in RL. No man is an island, why didn't anyone notice? I think again it leads back to the "me" attitude. Well, he stopped showing up to work at the prison, so he's fired, end of story. Why didn't someone go to his home and check on him? It would seem to me if the playing of violent video games is "making" children react violently, then why are parents allowing the games to be played by thier children? While it's not easy to monitor every aspect of what your children's lives, there is quite a bit that can be monitored. I knew most of what was going on in my classroom when I was teaching. I knew who thought they might be pregnant, who was taking drugs, who was living with someone other than thier guardian, who was reading what, and what games they played. I knew which girls braided hair for extra money, and I knew who was "dating" who. I was thier teacher and saw them roughly an hour a day. How can we live in a world where it is SO easy to stay connected, and yet no one knew this young man was about to snap, just like no one knew the young man at Virginia Tech was about to snap. How can no one know?
I think we're living in a time where everyone can be connected. I don't feel that there are classes. While my mother typically uses the internet for shoping, she also knows how to log onto a library system, retrieve materials, and do what she needs to do. She taught herself. Some of the greatest computer users I've met are women and minorities. These are the people that not only can do anything online, but when thier computer is broken, they know how to take it apart and repair it. Not because they had opporunity to learn as children, but because unlike those that have the resources (According to Bell), they cannot replace thier system when it breaks, they fix it. I once epoxied a telephone jack onto my computer when my modem port had broken. It worked that way for years. I've also helped one of my friends reduce her computer to parts in order to find that broken card and replace it. Remember, we are the people that Bell insists have no ability.
I know that this blog has been rambling, but of course during the course of writing it I've had three seperate conversations with my son, taken water to my husband that is recovering from Strep, and I've taken a second to feed my aged cat canned food. But hey, maybe it should be all about me? Come on folks, especially the ladies and minorities, please prove Bell wrong. And remember to take care of each other. Those of us in Grad school know what its like to be far from home, with no one to look in on you. I remember thinking that when I arrived here, 12 hours away from my family and my fiance that the only people that would miss me would be GRU and maybe Cox. Ironically, I quickly made close friends of several cohorts, and we have always taken care of each other. It's not hard. When someone is strapped for cash, take them leftovers from dinner, or invite them over. I can't count the number of meals I've taken to my friends, and how many I've gotten in return. When someone you care about is down, take them out for coffee, watch a movie together, it's just a couple of hours, and can mean the world. The night I called a friend and told her that I was miserable, she picked me up and we drove for three hours talking. Several weeks later, when her sister had an ear infection that sent her to the hospital int he middle of the night, I drove. It's not the things we watch as adults, or the games we play, it's the fact that no person is an island and we all need each other. SL gives us a chance to make connections to people, to keep in touch, and to take care of those, even when they are hours away.
8 comments:
I concur that women and minorities have the abilities just as much or more. Also, that video games are not the cause of violence. The cause is the toxic culture we live in.
Games or gaming systems that are seen as babysitters are a part of this toxic culture. The idea that other human beings are lesser is a part of this toxic culture.
What we need, as Terapyn has stated, is better connections. Not new policy, but a different frame of mind, filled with compassion for others. What hurts another human being, animal, environment will eventually hurt you. It's all connected.
Here's a taste: http://revver.com/video/371575/oneness-is-abundance/
Although this post merits a longer comment since so many issues are raised I only have time for a couple at this moment. Regarding the Bell book mentioned by Terapyn I remind you that much goes in print that is better ignored. If I were to read neo-nazi literature (which abounds) or the insane writings of fundamentalists of all flavors and nationalities, or turn the channel to the religious scammers who milk naive people of their meager salaries to buy the gold fixtures for their bathrooms I would simply be poisoning my thoughts and depleting my energy by going along or being complicit with them simply by spending time of my precious life listening to their sick minds (unless I am a researcher interested in perversion or such things).
Like Terapyn herself suggests, time is much better spent and the world would be a better place to live in, if we paid attention to the needs of those around us to begin with, acting locally while thinking globally so to speak.
Another matter of form is that when you talk about what someone else has written i.e. "Apparently minorities and women LACK the needed skills..." it is a good idea to quote the actual phrase or paragraph that mentions that, or at least a page reference for the reader to draw their own conclusions.
About the "cross dressing" comment, there are two different ideas which I would like to separate. One question is "you must exaggerate the stereotypes to be a believable avatar"; is that an actual quote? If that is the case I don't understand what "believable" means.
The previous comment about the homosexual coming on to the female avatar I can definitely understand and it contradicts the previous quote. Usually, as is the case with drag queens for example, the exaggeration and stereotyping of the female easily reveals that the "performer" is a male.(unless of course that is the intention)
Male cross-dressers in world tend to grossly exaggerate and stereotype the female character and thus are easily spotted either by a real female or in the above mentioned case by a homosexual who would pick up on that as well. So what I mean is that it is contradictory to say that "in some cases gender is over exaggerated to be believable", but rather just the opposite, i.e. Dustin Hoffman in "Tootsie" or Robin Williams "Mrs. Doubtfire".
On Bryan's comment, do you mean "violent video games are not the cause of violence"? I don't think they are THE cause of violence. I do believe they contribute to it in a significant way by exactly what you say ""The cause is the toxic culture we live in" and violence in media is an expression of that. Why would pornography be considered demeaning or insulting to women (or men) and not the gratuitous depiction of violence, another form of pornography?
The question of media violence and its influence on families is the very issue that brought me back to school to work on my PhD... I was attending the National Council on Family Relations conference and heard David Walsh of MediaWise address an international audience of more than 1,000 family researchers. Check out the website at www.MediaWise.org. Walsh is a very vocal and empassioned leader of the anti-violent video game/media movement. He makes a strong case and an excellent argument. They also have done/sponsored and share some very interesting research studies that have shown direct links between violent media and violent behavior among children.
But, the more I dig, the more conflicted I become. I have raised three children, one of whom is a very heavy use gamer and always has been. He is also getting degrees in History, Religion and Philosophy. One of the most gentle men I know. Gaming does not always equal violence, just as having a wine with dinner doesn't make us all alcoholic.. (I think I've said this before... apologies if being repetitious)
The timing of this reading and the tragedy in Illinois makes for powerful discussion. The media was decent in NOT going straight to "must have been a gamer/watched too much violent media" standard about the shooter, but I believe many people had already gone there... including all the presidential candidates. Gun control... media violence. What about mental illness?? I am very interested in doing a content analysis of traditional media coverage of new media to identify what I believe will be the strength of the negative messages. Interesting... I think we can safely assume Jack the Ripper, Jeffrey Dahmer, Danny Rolling and Ted Bundy were not gamers, given that these games were not out during their time. But, today so many blame the ails of our culture on technology. Back to which came first... the chicken or the egg?
I agree with Bryan too... it is about connection... and aren't we doing that in amazingly productive and innovative ways by exploring this work in SL? Many would argue these are not "real" connections. I disagree. Shouldn't we be using these connections to give people the tools they need to be better parents and/or help one another and/or lead more fulfilling lives (not replace... merely support).
Bell's comments remind me of the old prejudices that women and minorities weren't equiped to handle combat in the military and to do police work. You still hear soft comments from the "good ole boys" that women and minorities don't belong in those systems, even though pioneers showed their worth in blood.
Doug
I agree that care for the fellow human being is a quality that needs to be entrenched in all of us. Also inherent is the need to be cared for and heard by others. When one feels a lack of concern from others, it presumably leads to attention seeking behaviors especially among children.
I also believe coping skills need to be taught early and often along with compassion. Lives of children, teenagers, and adults seem to be filled with worries and problems. Children in particular seem to fall victim when both parents are working long hours just to make ends meet, growing up in a single-parent home, and other situations where parental influence is limited. As a result, the problems are often resolved in less than favorable ways. I frequently mediated teenage crises as a teacher when one student said something about the other that was taken as disrespect. Often, they didn’t even hear it said but a friend told them. I broke up a fight between two boys because they bumped into each other in the hallway. In another case, a boy was stabbed to death at a different high school over a girl the other year. What happened to “there are other fish in the sea?”
Coping is a way to analyze and develop a resolution to a problem. Too often, reactionary measures get people into deeper trouble. When I suggest analysis, I believe a problem needs to be situated in the context of all other problems in the world. Then, consequences for different actions need to be considered. For example, it wasn’t long ago while I lived in Orlando; a case of road rage was settled with a gun. If I get cut off by a reckless driver, should I seek to let him/her know what I think or retaliate? Or should I be glad that I didn’t get hit avoiding injury and damage to my vehicle? Or that I even have a car to drive when there are people who can’t afford one? Is it worth the jail time for seeking revenge? While it all seems a little Leave it to Beaver-ish, I think people need to prioritize the real problems from the rest of the issues that clutter our lives. Bobby McFerrin was probably onto something when he sang, Don’t Worry, Be Happy.
People also need healthy outlets for pent up aggression and anger. I prefer sports or some physical activity to work out those feelings rather than unleashing on the bad motorist or worse, on someone I care about.
While I’m on the topic of what needs to be taught, I also see a need to teach the value of life. It’s an extension of caring, but life should be cherished and enjoyed with an understanding of the precious and tentative nature of existence and the finality of death.
On to violence in video games. I agree that ultimately responsibility and blame fall on the parents if their children are not monitored and censored. I can’t believe how many underage children are allowed to have violent video games or are at R-rated movies with their parents, especially if it’s a violent and graphic slasher-type game or film. I was not allowed to watch them as a child. Video games were along the lines of Pong or Asteroids and didn’t know Jason or Freddy Kruger until later in life.
Yet, it’s hard not to associate violent actions with entertainment media influences. I recall the movie Money Train inspiring a series of copycat robberies of ticket booths in the NY subways using an aerosol spray and matches. Or the kids who watched the football movie, The Program, and decided to lay on the painted lines of busy roads until a few eventually were hit and killed by passing vehicles imitating the hazing. To quote my high school film lit teacher, “What you see on film is not real (pun intended).” Many can’t separate entertainment from reality. So, it’s not hard for me to believe that violence in video games is a contributing factor.
As for the writings about gender, I’m going to suggest that the work is outdated as rapidly as technology evolves and becomes a regular part of our lives. I also feel there may have been a generational variable in the reports. Having been a classroom teacher for the last several years in a largely female occupation, I will say that for every tech savvy woman, I also was frequently asked for help from another with their computer, LCD projector, or some other technology tool. I’m saying there is a wide spectrum of technology users out there, but being male and Asian made me a dead ringer for tech help. I also feel strongly that there is a segment of society that falls into roles society expects of them. For example, I do like going to the electronics store or hardware store but my wife prefers clothing stores which both play up to gender stereotypes. Fortunately, there are those breaking stereotypes and expanding opportunities.
Wow. Great discussion on this guys!
My comments range from the epistemological to the practical. First, I am all for being kind to our fellow man and making caring a priority. But lets face it -- our culture does not promote those values. The only way for someone to implement a value that cuts across the grain of culture is to believe that something else trumps that cultural epistemology. All that to say that we can all say "peace and love", but without some sort of authority to back up your thoughts, its just not gonna happen.
On the practical side, I have two very young children, and am concerned about the impact of violence in the media on their little hearts and minds. I'm not opposed to them watching TV or playing a video game, but usually do it with them. I spend most of my time hitting the pause button ("Awww, Dad...) and asking questions like, "why do you think that child yelled at his Mommy? Was that a nice response? How could he/she have said that in a more gentle, respectful way?" With the video games, its usually questions like, "Does Dora (or other video character) ever need to ask Mommy and Daddy for help? Why not? Do you think it is important to ask your parents for help when you need it?"
So do I think that violent TV and videos contribute to violent behavior? Not necessarily. I would however say that passive reception of violence portrayed in a positive light by media without being led to interact with it critically will more likely lead to replication of that behavior in real life.
And that's MY two-cents.
Thanks for all the responses. This has really been an issue with me as of late (I'm sure you can tell). I too have a young child, who does play video games with me and his dad. We also spend much time, like DEnnis, asking for other options to the violence my child sees. I think the frist reality check for me came when we rented Night at the Museum to watch as a family. The violence was limited, but that Dino SKeleton chasing people scared the mess out of my child. The influence was enough for me to take stock and wonder exactly what we were allowing our child to see. I think too, it's about age appropriateness. My son is afriad of Beauty and Beast because the Beast behaves meanly. Yet, he loves the singing teapot, so what do you do? When he wants to watch it, we do so together, and we talk about why Beast is misbehaving, and maybe ways the Belle can get him to be more understanding. This type of conversation paid off when ym son was bitten, hard, at daycare. He told me who did it, and explained why (over a toy he had that the other child wanted). We talked about the child and Jonathan told me that sometimes that child doesn't speak well. So we talked about being frustrated and ways to deal with frustration. He and that child have become very good friends in the last month and even the child's mom has told me she is amazed that Jonathan will patiently wait for her son to get the words out, or will ask him to say it again if it wasn't clear. That is the type of child I want to raise. My husband has always been an avid gamer. He would play games for hours a day if he didn't have a family to support. He too is very gentle and considerate of others. He is the type of man that if the car radio was on loud with cursing, and he saw a child nearby, he'd immediately turn it down.
To Arturo, I should ahve included the exact quotes, but I'll be honest that I simply didn't want to dig back through the book for it. AS for the contridictions, yes, they are as stated in the book. He insisted that gender must be exagerrated to be believable. I dissagree with him, as I honestly beleive that the strongest gender traits can be very subtle. I do see "cross dressing" individuals as exagerrating the sterotyped gender traits because I feel that that is part of the fun of thier choice and perhaps part of the reason they have made thier choice. Bell seems to miss that aspect. He focuses quite a bit on homosexulaity as if the two are connected in some way.
On another note, I was complaining to my husband about the book last night, and we actually fought about it. He pointed out (I hate when he does his own research) that at the major gaming compettitions each year, it is always the same male team that comes in first, with the same female teams comming in second. He said that it has been this way each year and had the gall to wonder if perhaps women's differences in information processing had an effect. I explained to him that processing information occurs on a continuum and is not "male" or "female" perse, though we do tend to have differences in how we process information based on evolutionary traits. Women tend to be better at scattering thier focus, men tend to be better at focusing on one thing to the exclusion of others. His point was that perhaps this man who did not have a perfect grasp of technology may have been looking at things such as the compettitions and leaping to the most obvious conclusion, that females are not as good as males at gaming. It was the most striking difference between the two groups.
So, where do I stand now on the issue. I'm still thinking the Bell needs to update his thinking and that video games are serving as a scape goat for a society that is not taking responsibility for its actions (ie, birthing children). Lack of responsibility has been a major theme as of late - it's not my fault the coffee burned me, it's your fault because you didn't tell me that hot coffee is hot. It's not my fault that this horrible thing happened, it's the fault of media. I saw an interview with the young man's girlfriend today. They lived together and she said the only thing about him that was different was his stress level. He was out of work and school was becoming too much for him. She did know he had guns, and she knew he'd stopped taking his medication (prozac) because he felt like a zombie. He was under the care of a counselor at the time. She mentioned that the way he said gopdbye to her on Wed. night was odd and it made her worry, but that she didn't attempt to talk to him about it further, she assumed he'd be there the next day and then they could speak.
Anyway, thanks again for listening to my rant for the week. I promise next wekk will be much less dramatic. Maybe I'm just being a sterotypical female avatar so that gender will not be questioned?
"So do I think that violent TV and videos contribute to violent behavior? Not necessarily. I would however say that passive reception of violence portrayed in a positive light by media without being led to interact with it critically will more likely lead to replication of that behavior in real life."
Well said Dennis. I feel that temporary fascination with violence does not necessarily translate into acting in a violent manner.
Effective parenting, promotion of discussion, and implication that such behavior is unacceptable will usually have a much greater influence than an over-masculated virtual gang banger.
It scares me a bit when this subject is brought up, only because censorship of any media form terrifies me.
Post a Comment