gendered-technoculture-blog

[gendered-technoculture-blog]

Reading Response #5

Feminism and gaming is a focus of study encapsulated in the broader study of technoculture in the digital age.  Games are known to sell messages apart from the product itself as well as to offer a uniquely participatory engagement with characters in a virtual world such that internalizations of said messages are then applied in later conceptualization of and behavior towards that and those of meatspace, or the “real world”.  Feminisms as applied to games and gaming work to reveal these more subtler gendered (intersectionally, of course) messages, and so of embodiment, power, and value, implicit in the programming of games.  Additionally, feminisms explore the cyber sexism in the advertising of games, amidst gameplay, and in societal and individual conceptualization of gaming and gamers in cyberspace.  As is the case with technoculture, resulting games and their inclusive images and characters are programmed manifestations of cultural ideologies and epistemologies (that which is taught to be the case, and taken-for-granted as knowledge or fact, about people, other animals, objects, their interaction in and with that of the rest of the world).

Some of the issues feminisms concerned with gaming approach are that of embodiment (especially the sexualization and objectification of women) and constitutional rights or freedoms of people, and not only with the disproportionate impact the misogynistic technoculture of gaming has on women but the way conceptualization about people in the world is fixed and embodied identities performed.  Codes of games, the “Women as Background Decoration” video professes, these “algorithms transmit cultural messages of near constant affirmation of male heterosexual dominance while simultaneously reinforcing the widespread regressive belief that women’s primary role is to satisfy the desires of men” (16:22-16:37).  Most concerning is the relevant problem of the third person effect, as mentioned also in the “Women as Background Decoration”, in which people believe they are individually immune to effects of the media, or other institutions but particularly here with games and gaming, despite the fact that, especially in this case, there is hard evidence in scholarly studies which prove otherwise.  Thus, even the conceptualization of the influence gameplay has on “real life” individuals and their worldviews and experiences is altered by the media’s portrayal of games and the gameplay itself; essentially, public and cyber space are not disparate but dependent on one another in constructing and/or perpetuating cultural notions of gendered embodiment, identity, and the power relations between the genders.  Even the ideas of women’s experiences with personally felt consequences of misogyny in technoscience often go questioned or shut down (Penny 33). 

Also, Kubik’s discussion and analysis, in “Masters of Technology”, of the terms “hardcore” gamer and “casual” gamer are significant to the matter: the fact that “hardcore” gamers are both represented and caused to be conceptualized as white heterosexual males in the media and general Discourse, as well as valued over and above “casual” gamers (mostly women, conveniently), ideas and behaviors concerning women in and out of cyberspace continue to pitfall, resulting recently (or at least recently reported) in hate crimes. Cyber feminist work as pertains to gaming is important to study because the conglomeration of received and internalized messages from the media and game/gameplay (and its place in Discourse), all contribute to an “ignorant epistemology” which sees important and numbered gender differences, warranting differential treatment by and conceptualization of gender in the gaming world in addition to all other spheres of society.

Virtual hate crimes in the form of threats were committed, by a group in the name of GamerGate, against a cyber feminist on the matter, Anita Sarkeesian, which demonstrated the misogynistic power play of male-dominated technoculture.  In this case, Sarkeesian’s scholarly work and talks on the misogynistic culture of gaming concerned or bothered those of the gaming world, claiming that they saw “ethical problems among game journalists and political correctness in their coverage” (Wingfield 2).  In other words, the male-dominated campaign against this feminist work utilized threats against a woman in order to demonstrate the very power she asserted existed in and was encouraged by gameplay.  Their attempt to shut her down by use of their first amendment right (ironic that they censored a woman due to uncomfortable feelings with her so-called censorship) worked in the way that Sarkeesian cancelled one of her speeches at a university and their hate crimes were protected by social media and other sites used in their methodology in addition to the major game industries largely responsible for reproduction of this gaming culture. The lack of reinforcement and aid on behalf of the game developers and other relevant employees in the field exhibited the deeply entrenched socio-political prioritization of the first amendment right as it applies no matter if it removes, systematically or in a unique case, others’ ability to express themselves in the process.  Therefore, the gaming sphere remains a space, in gameplay and corresponding journalism, place for men but not for women.  This ought to be considered when it comes to understanding the high concentration of male “hardcore” gamers and female “casual” gamers (both in their respective counts and how we understand their, otherwise arbitrary, distinction), and the misogynistic treatment of women in public and private spaces by men and at times policing by other women.

Succeeding my thorough examination of this week’s reading assignments, I then looked into FEMTECHNET, an online page providing sources on and working solutions to the problems of online violence.  This network is provided by a great number of individuals who work in and have a passion for feminist science-technology studies as well as wish to bring an end to cyber sexism and other discriminatory and oppressive forces of technoculture.  Neither have I ever before come across a network such as this one nor has one ever been brought to my attention by any other person, scholar, etc.  I will take it upon myself, going forward, to do more exploring in this area and make these networks known to friends and peers of mine, whether or not they have explicitly mentioned such direct or indirect experiences in cyberspace for it is an important virtual space for all to navigate, experience, and better understand the influence of technoculture on worldviews and the world itself, and, finally, their role in potentially perpetuating its consequences.

Sources

Laurie Penny’s “Cybersexism: Sex, Gender and Power on the Internet”

Erica Kubik’s “Masters of Technology: Defining and Theorizing the Hardcore/Casual Dichotomy in Video Game Culture”

Nick Wingfield’s “Feminist Critics of Video Games Facing Threats in ‘GamerGate’ Campaign”

“Women as Background Decoration: Part 1 - Tropes Vs. Women” video

http://femtechnet.org/about/

[gendered-technoculture-blog]

Response to Media Report #2

1. I posted a similar question for one of my media reports for I think the first amendment right to freedom of speech ought to be questioned for its purpose and function (amidst colloquial conversation and remarks by governmental officials, and the digital age’s technoculture), those it systematically benefits, and for the reconsideration of the absolutist approach to the constitutional right as part of the movement for abolishing institutional racism.  My view, aligning with Jessie Daniels’, is that all American institutions, as well as the founding of America as a nation, are infused with culture because they were once manifested by people, with the intent of people for people, in the context of and only existing with meaning to people in the society within which it functions.  Freedom of speech is important as it protects individuality, expression, and the ability to execute movements and perform based on one’s beliefs no matter if they are those upheld by the government or any one certain recognized religion in America, and so on.  As is the case with all laws, regulation is important for understanding where the line is drawn for a violation of a person’s right; notably, to consider whether the protection of certain speech brings harm to others, and especially if said speech is protected while the voices of those harmed for which go unaccounted.  This is a most difficult and controversial matter for it is indeed hard to say to what extent government ought to be involved in what a person can or cannot express.  Altogether, I feel it is important to acknowledge the white racial frame reproduced in America for the way in which speech as a hate crime is protected by law, and in a culture in which there is disproportionately far more hate speech against blacks, for instance, than whites.  While this law is important for allowing citizens to express, believe, and think freely, there ought to be equal consideration for the racial layer of this culture and the way in which expression, belief, and thought are ideologically captured in a white racial frame.  Is this constitutional right a right for all, which treats all equally?  If not, what makes one group more deserving of rights than another?

In the Tomi Lahren video, some of her expressions might be considered alongside the above matter.  As you mentioned in your media report, Lahren denotes black criminals as “four thugs” (0:19-0:20), this language of which is not directed at whites, even white criminals typically or anywhere near as often as it is applied to blacks and perceived-as-criminal blacks.  Even in the case of “white trash”, a term utilized derogatorily against whites, socioeconomic status seems to be as equal a proponent as race.  Thus, there does not appear to be a frequently used word or phrase for white (non-intersectionally) criminals and non-criminal whites (though whites are not socially perceived as criminal by nature).  Whites, whether they are criminals or not, are more protected speech-wise than are blacks. Another quote of Lahren’s I felt was relevant to the matter was: “the breakdown of the American family has left young people, especially in the inner cities, with no role models” (1:06-1:15). What has caused this breakdown of the American family?  What counts as an American family?  My guess is, for potentially Lahren and many other Americans, a white (or at least those aligning with white supremacist ideology of mainstream American culture) household of which all members were born in America, Christian, of at least the working class, and heterosexual.  It seems to me this traditional and discriminatory ideal of the American family ought very well to be destabilized for the sake of equality of all American citizens.  I think that, while family is a major institution part of the shaping of ideas, all institutions play significant roles in the development of a person, their worldview and experiences, sense of self, and conceptualization and perception of others.  For Lahren to not speak to all the ways, as scholarly studies and other reliable sources have found in their work, in which young people in inner cities and throughout the U.S. have been made to feel she is offering insight without considering all the facts.  Also, whose fault is it really that these kids do not have role models, or the role models Tomi Lahren would like for them to have? American culture has always and continues to for the most part work in the white racial frame, and for Lahren to not speak to this is to ignore facts of human history and U.S. culture over time, to speak with dishonesty and without integrity, and to mislead and deceive others of the truth, giving way to “substantiated” racist language protected by the first amendment.  For those reasons, freedom of speech is a concern to me, and I as a white middle class individual do not even have to directly experience the way in which the amendment inadvertently oppresses the non-white races.

2. One point of Tomi Lahren’s I agree upon is that a hate crime ought to be considered as such no matter which race it is committed by, for, or against (despite fact that whites systemically have control and power in addition to having access to resources and opportunities at disproportionately high rates).  On the other hand, I do not appreciate that Lahren fails to include the full socio-political context of hate crimes and, not to minimize individual hate crimes over others, to recognize hate crimes performed in the masses due to white supremacist ideological solidarity.  Lahren, as with many officials and news broadcasters in the media, acknowledges race when it suits her talking points and demonizing performance of one race over another but does not attempt to point out the power dynamic between races which is inherent in her, and all American’s, culture.  For, to consider the circumstances of criminals and their crime and to condone them as criminals for deliberately acting out against the law are mutually exclusive.  Consideration of criminals’ circumstances would be a step closer to understanding those people for why they might act out against the law and to then implement a method which would work to best rehabilitate the criminal as well as alter the public sphere by such that criminality would not have (as much, at least) reason to gain momentum.  Lahren’s decision to leave out systemic racism from her monologue could then be considered a hate crime of speech in itself, for her conceptualization of and residual feelings towards the criminals in this video’s bit are with retributive and hateful intent—she evidently is reactively responding to this hate crime with her own anger and white fragility.  Yes, it is a hate crime due to the fact that a certain intersectional individual was targeted, and murdered, but there is more to consider here if one wishes to indeed remain honest: i) whether the criminals expressed to be targeting a certain individual and on behalf of any particular movement, and ii) the function of Lahren’s choice to leave out the circumstances of these criminals’ acts, especially if they are in retaliation to a cultural problem which affects these individuals disproportionately more than it affects her and all whites, systematically.  There have been, in the past couple years even, very many rapes, murders, and other (hate) crimes of all legal tiers white males have (when reported) committed against women, blacks, and other minority groups and who were also protected by law and allowed time to explain themselves and their circumstances.  Occasionally provided a reduced sentence, or not sentence at all, due to the circumstances.  This is evidence of a racially unjust system.

Plus, while I at first admired Tomi Lahren’s choice to point out the way media coverage can be disproportionate, I was left hurt by her lack of follow-up discussion on the very real lack of coverage on hate crimes on blacks.  It is ironic that she would discuss disproportionate media coverage then turn around (as a voice of the media herself!) without mentioning the perpetual disproportionate coverage of black-on-black and black-on-white but not white-on-black crime due to the ideological perception of the latter and protection of and expectation for the former.  White privilege is acting here in the way that Tomi Lahren can live without knowing or having to think about the hate crimes on blacks that are long forgotten without media coverage but blacks are effected by them and are caused to live with the systemic oppression and drowning out of their experiences one voice at a time.  The media’s disproportionate coverage is protected by the white racial frame, no matter the political agenda attempted to be pushed on the viewers, for it is an epistemological cultural default.

Media Report 2

Media Report 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9RE7s774x4

This a video, with Tomi Lahren, a popular reporter who has often been associated with making some interestingly biased comments on societal issues. She is describing a hate crime in Chicago and making a comparison with this instance and the Dylan Roof case. I am always a bit unsure with who she is addressing. She seems to not care about reactions , so I would guess the general public , but she seems to have an agenda when she speaks , which she is usually directing her comments to conservatives. Her messages are highly biased and her vocabulary needs work. When addressing the black suspects she says “thugs”, and tries to ignore or dismiss white privilege in the media.  When she makes comparisons, much similar to the one she made in this video about Dylan Roof and the alleged suspects from  the crime, she puts a huge equivalency on killing 9 people and torturing one person. Neither of the crimes are justified or right, but there should not be a comparison or a reason to put these two instances side by side, as if one outdoes the other. She emphasizes “ Hate Crime” as if these “thugs” as she so graciously identifies them as are the first people to ever commit one. Her tone of voice and her words in general are dangerous, because she has a platform large enough to spread the same attitude. I believe this to be a fitting media for the topic of white supremacy online because she is a blatant example of the occurrence. Her comments can often  be borderline racist and disturbing or outlandish at best. I believe this to coincide with the subject of white supremacy because of how the perspective of Lahren is so widely spread and can encourage racism and stigmas all around. The messages she sends out are mostly negative.

Discussion Questions Can freedom of speech be taken too far? Is there an instance where you may find Tomi Lahren’s points agreeable?

[gendered-technoculture-blog]

Concept Quiz #3: Alternate Assignment Post

Jessie Daniels’ Cyber Racism: White Supremacy Online and the New Attack on Civil Rights eloquently tackles white supremacy, and so systematic racism, in the Information Age by actively writing on the matter of cyber racism and the inherent cultural biasing of technoculture in addition to unlearning “white epistemology” and continuing to navigate cyber spaces with her revolutionary conceptualization and expression of U.S. and global racism.  Throughout this work, Daniels reports on cyber racism as a result of the problematic white racial frame and exhibits the proponents of cyber racism she has discovered in her studies: discrimination offline due to white supremacist ideals and epistemology (and lack of critical thinking and comprehension of the socio-political context of racial inequity), group and individual performances of related hate crimes online, globalization creating the stage for and encouraging white supremacist global discourse, legislative enabling (particularly in the U.S.) of white supremacy and its influence due to prioritization of capitalistic for-profit markets and (interpreted as absolute) first amendment right to freedom of speech, and rampant ‘white fragility’ on the parts of whites and non-whites alike operating under the white racial frame and protected by a still racially corrupt judicial system.  For Daniels, embodied racial identities, inclusive of corresponding power relations, are structured both on- and offline as digital diasporas, and in the globalized digital age are more easily constructed with discrimination and hate crimes resulting on- and offline amidst trans-local whiteness.

Both the digital divide, of different access demographically to the Internet, and the cyber-hate divide, of different treatment of cyber racism globally, when viewed under a technological deterministic lens realize race to be a problem which will be eradicated with advancements in technology as it pushes along social progression.  Whereas the lens of critical race theory facilitates conceptualization of race as an inextricable layer embedded in all institutions culturally, along with technology, such that cultural change must be enacted in order to eliminate racial inequity spun by technoculture and other institutions.  Unfortunately, the current stance of the U.S. (apart from most other Western democratic nations) is to protect the already existing legislature embedded with racial bias; this is due to the fact that most Americans, particularly government officials and corporate managers, are operating under the white racial frame.  Approaches to the “prosecution of white supremacy online [rely] on racialized notions of whose speech is protected [white supremacists] and whose is not [minority victims and activists]”, thus indirectly protecting constititional rights to performing racism (Daniels 166).  The U.S. looks for racism “out there”, meanwhile it is culturally embedded in all people and the context of all technology’s creation and usage, and the nation’s “[tendency] to ignore or downplay the formative effects of colonialism, slavery, ongoing and systematic racism, and the white racial frame” is to redirect efforts based on a fundamental misinterpretation or misunderstanding of systematic racism historically and in society today (179).  Altogether this makes for subtler problems, like recruitment of individuals online to white supremacist organizations digitally based, and most dark ones, as with the undermining epistemologically, and so as a cultural value, racial equality.

To promote a democratic society, Daniels writes, of racial equality going forward, a critical consciousness must be harnessed such that the critical socio-political racial layer is always thoughtfully considered amidst conceptualization of any facet of social institution.  Additionally, for multiple literacies to be ascertained, concerning one for each of the following: digital media, antiracism, and social justice (190). Thus, giving way to a profound understanding of race’s role globally and locally and that the perspectives relating to cyberactivism as opposed to white supremacist movements will be acknowledged and understood as ways of thinking but not, and this is key, equally valued due to the unjust impact of the former perspective’s ideology.

My social media experience with cyber racism is not necessarily direct in any obvious way, as tends to be the case for white users.  On YouTube and iFunny, an iPhone app, in particular I have come across extremely hateful, obviously under a white racial framework, language directed at blacks, Jews, women, and really any other minority group (so anyone not a heterosexual white male).  Intriguingly, most of the written hate crimes I come across are in the form of jokes.  This adds a dark layer of exclusivity to all harmed and made out to be the “Other” by the message apart from those “in on” the joke and do not experience the detrimental effects of pervasive white supremacist ideology.  Most recently, I have experienced this on social media outlets concerning political discussion of the recent election.

Works Cited

Daniels, Jessie.  Cyber Racism: White Supremacy Online and the New Attack        on Civil Rights.  Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2009.     Print.

[gendered-technoculture-blog]

Media Report #2

Media selections: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XYlJqf4dLI &

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DOoMA6STaE

Introduction

The media I have chosen are two clips from the Fox News Channel broadcasting network in 2013, the first is Megyn Kelly on ‘Santa is What He is, Which is White’, and the second is Tim Wise ‘[Defending] White Santa Remarks’.  Both videos of which (found either on television, youtube.com, or other social networking and video-sharing sites) speak to the controversy of a culturally, and globally, depicted white Santa Claus.  The former speaker, Kelly, addresses Aisha Harris’ “Santa Claus Should Not Be a White Man Anymore” which tells of her personal experience as a female black child with a white male Santa Claus.  Kelly points to Santa Claus’ internationally posed race as a tradition not to be abandoned now just because it makes someone uncomfortable or upset, its celebration exists in part due to the legend of Claus and the same one story reiterated for centuries.  The latter speaker, Wise, suggests to the audience that a white male Santa Claus was and remains one of the works of white supremacy, advertised to the masses for centuries as historical fact (when Saint Nick was originally Greek and not necessarily white) with the political agenda of pushing for another important figure under the white racial frame.  Links to the videos aforementioned are presented at the beginning of this blog post.

The perspectives of these news anchors and featured speakers on this highly-watched channel are relevant to this week’s assigned readings insofar as the topic of discussion is essentially whether Santa Claus’ embodied white identity is a harmless tradition based on historical fact and familial- bonding encouraged storytelling or if the figure painted in this way exists as a result of white supremacy which aids in cultural infusion of racism, paving the way for implicit prejudicing and discrimination.

Fox News Channel, averaging a few million viewers on any given evening of news coverage, filmed a couple bits revisiting the topic of a white Santa Claus as discussion emerged in the past five years. This network, owned by the Fox Entertainment Group, encompasses Fox News, Fox Business, Fox News Go, Fox News Radio, Fox Nation, and Fox News Insider, promoting itself as a (as much as possible) bias-free news source despite the fact that it has been presumed by countless to push Republican party ideas and other biased reporting.

Interpretation

I take the target audience of the news channel, and videos as they are posted on other Internet sites, to be viewers eighteen years of age and older, as well as individuals with access to a television and/or Internet access.  The news’ intent is to disseminate important information on local and global occurrences deemed significant and relevant to them and their target audience.  Of course, the news channel (not disparately from most networks) tends to cover material on disasters and tragedy, violence and threats, etc. though not exclusively.  The message of these particular snippets of news coverage, as per the speakers, is that Santa Claus’ image is produced and reproduced as white across the globe and that this tradition has an impact on those exposed to Santa Claus depictions. The former video, as opposed to the latter, denies vast harm and exclusion and omits any talk of its effects on those of non-white races or societal institutions altogether.  While the other wishes to inform the audience of the depictions’ historical source in white supremacy, and so is a manifestation which does in fact exclude and aligns with white power and privilege.

Keeping in mind that historical accounts of Santa, or Saint Nicholas, are that of a Greek male and so the consideration of his gender is of fact rather than up to interpretation, it is important to consider the ways depictions of Saint Nicholas’ masculine appearance draw upon culturally entrenched conceptualization of gender and its embodiment in identities and appearances.  Also, the significance of yet another figure as male is indeed influential in society, as men remembered as important shapes both the way the man is remembered because he is a man (which is inherently valuable culturally) and the way men are, inherently.  The commercially depicted race of Santa Claus is white, though his Mediterranean background does not require that he was white the interpretation and tradition guarantees a white Santa.  For yet another renown figure and celebrated model around the world to be represented white further colors another part of history as white as well as demonstrates application of the standard white for the identity of a fictional character.

The viewers of the news channel are likely not to notice this feature of Santa Claus unless they are non-white individuals, for the privilege of looking to a model who represents a background whites are familiar with poses nothing out of the ordinary or that affects them and their thinking or feelings of inclusion.  Thus, whites need not think about it and so are less likely to feel inclined to talk about Santa’s race as problematic or a feature which ought to be changed.  This is especially the case for older rather than younger views for they tend to take for granted certain social conventions and traditions as facts and reality when in fact it was a social construction with a purpose and resulting function.  As is exhibited in Kelly’s response to the provocative question of why Santa needs to be white: “this is so ridiculous, yet another person claiming it’s racist to have a white Santa” (0:09-0:13)—[directs at the younger viewers now:] “Santa just is white, but this person is just arguing that maybe we also have a black Santa, but Santa is what he is” (0:16-0:24).  Here is direct evidence of an adult’s desire to attempt to justify the race of Santa to children in a taken-for-granted manner rather than considering the function of erecting a fictitious magical man of any one particular race over another. This is the same for Jesus and the Judeo-Christian God: to not acknowledge the significance of these biblical and highly influential figures as white to some purpose by design, especially when Santa and Jesus are conveyed to be Mediterranean and Middle Eastern, respectively, is to not consider the role of the white racial frame and original constructions to affix white supremacy in legacies to continue its influence generationally.

Representations of figures, like Santa, as Wise asserts, are not arbitrarily and coincidentally white but determined white, along with many other deemed important figures, for the ones in power to make the choice were white.  Also because they were thinking in the conceptual framework of white racial framing in which white is standard and normal but also that important influential figures are naturally white and so ought to be depicted that way.  Further, this has real influence on people, Christian or not, for the iconography of figures exclusively promotes embodied whiteness of those in the praise-worthy position to influence the world.  Representations, as with other features in technoculture, are not inherently good or bad but cultural and so carry the weight of cultural biases and prejudices (i.e. racial ones).  Historically, presenting important figures as white with no explanation in educational or other institutions for why the race was selected points to the normalization and praise of whiteness and exclusion of non-whites and their influence from mainstream culture; the justification of differential treatment by race resides in the epistemology of the races and this provides “evidence” of powerful important whites but not blacks, say.  Tim professes: there are “millions of human beings whose lives have been snuffed out by people who conquered under the banner of a white God” (0:08-0:14) but no one will die due to changed iconography of Santa, now, from white to black.  Reason for maintaining this tradition is not to protect equality and inclusion and love, but to protect white supremacist ideals of whiteness.

Considering these contrasting perspectives on the matter, I feel that the message Kelly relays is a negative one, especially with: “just because it makes you feel uncomfortable doesn’t mean it has to change” (1:41-1:49).  This statement alone warrants standard white representation and thus the differential treatment which results from it, by race.  On the other hand, Tim’s message is, while rather depressing when considering society’s lack of progression with respect to racial equality, is positive in that it encourages deconstruction of a societal norm in order to consider how others have been harmed by its existence.  Unfortunately, in the short clip he did not reveal methods of correcting this problem but I am confident that this is less so because racial activist work is solely theoretical and not practical but rather that it is the culture itself which would need to largely transform into one which has shaken free from implicit unsubstantiated biases.

Critical Analysis

The implications of white supremacy, which I take alongside Tim to be the case when it comes to the selective representation of a white Santa globally in commercial advertising and that of Christianity’s retelling of the legacy, are racial inequities within the religion and around the world.  With connection to the cyber racism readings, the implications of this are heavy in that globalization in the digital age distributes Santa depictions and therefore helps construct trans-local whiteness.  That is, embodied white identities of power and privilege, often correspondingly with entitlement and bias towards whites, are created which transcend region and focus more on race.  While the malleability of whiteness is negotiated across societies, power and privilege, and so on, inextricably connected to whites culturally remain intact for those people where non-whites will often lack the power and privilege.

As Daniels conveys in her work, Cyber Racism, the white racial frame gives rise to worldviews and world experiences which are racial, but, importantly, racially unequal. The implications are: a society constructed upon ideologies of race, discriminatory systems of society which maintain a hierarchy of power, and racist institutions to be maintained for centuries by those benefiting from the system (11).  Power and control of resources by mostly whites in addition to the unconscious ideas of white superiority place races in relations with one another in which not all benefit equally.  Daniels helps the viewer comprehend the ties cultural white supremacy has to any ‘cultural artifact’ of the digital age: that to understand a Santa depiction online, for instance, one must take into consideration the producer of the picture, the image itself, the social context of the image and the producer, and the audience of the picture (22).  Digital diasporas, the communication virtually by way of globalization to mold identities racially and ethnically, result from the new technoculture and ought to be considered in future analysis of globalization, racism, etc. in the technological age (44).  For race is “like a ghost in the machine [technoculture], operating in unseen ways” (32).  

On-line Discussion

1. What are the ethical implications of a science whose data, advancements, and epistemology have their roots in a culture of entrenched racial biasing and prejudice?  What can be done about this going forward, presuming that science will not be abandoned altogether?

2. Is everyone equally protected by their first amendment right to freedom of speech?  (Think back to Daniels’ articles on Trump and what “real” impact his words have on worldviews and rates of active discrimination and hate crimes.)

3. Conventions of beauty themselves are cultural, and, at least in the U.S. value is placed on aesthetics.  Why might value be placed on beauty, and particularly white or the exotic “other” aesthetic?  How does this play into problems of embodiment intersectionally?  

4. In what manifest and latent ways has white supremacy in the U.S. been systemically reproduced in the educational institution? Other institutions?  How does this give way to Daniels’ coined ‘white fragility’?

5. Do you agree with Daniels that even white activists against white supremacy are still beneficiaries to the system?  If so, in what way?   In either case, explain your case.

Citations

BlackIndependenceDay.  “#WhiteMan: Tim Wise Speaking On Why Jesus and        Santa Claus Are White.”  YouTube.  YouTube, 03 Apr. 2016.  Web. 10 Jan. 2017.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DOoMA6STaE

Daniels, Jessie.  Cyber Racism: White Supremacy Online and the New Attack        on Civil Rights.  Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2009.            Print.

Tpmtv.  “Megyn Kelly: Santa Is What He Is, Which Is White”.  YouTube.                  YouTube, 12 Dec. 2013.  Web. 10 Jan. 2017.                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XYlJqf4dLI

[gendered-technoculture-blog]

Reading Response #4

Jessie Daniels’ Cyber Racism tackles an under-studied and less understood proponent to technoculture, namely racism (prejudice that, and often discrimination of, a racial group’s superiority over another, especially whites over blacks).  Her empirical work focuses on institutional racism in the digital age, and the way in which technology, as with devices with online access, both reproduce and mirror the racism that exists in the culture and manifest racism on a platform which influences culture.  Daniels takes this “organizing principle of life”, of which both groups and individuals take to, to be cyber racism, with its roots in the historically salient embodiment of white supremacy embedded in culture, and results in virtual expressions of whiteness with “real” impacts on people in society (Daniels 10).  Daniels’ definition of white supremacy aligns with Ansley’s, that it is a system political, economic, and cultural, created and justified ideologically, in which self-identified whites prevalently control power and other resources and ideas of white superiority and entitlement are taken-for-granted sentiments, thus the dynamic of superior whites over all other inferior races is institutionally perpetuated (Daniels, Article 1).  White supremacy has oppressed minority races for hundreds of years, originating with slave-based economic systems and consideration by powerful whites the potential advantages to politically-imposed social order of racial divisions still perpetuated today.

For Daniels, white supremacy, as with racism altogether, is a ubiquitous and inescapable feature of society, invisible to the majority whites who are not negatively affected and so forced to attune to its injustices.  While technologies, as Daniels along with other cyber-feminist and cyber-racist scholars assert, are inherently cultural, they are shown to neither be inherently good and liberatory, nor bad and oppressive (4).  Thus, the relationship between technologies and culture is a complex and significant one, and Daniels urges readers to study the relationship as a challenge to the pervasive and often invisible system itself, in addition to better understand the networked interactions online and how they shape and are shaped by cultural biases, particularly racial ones (4 & 5).  Online and offline racially embodied identities construct one another, reproducing the power relations between those of either race.

Cyber racism in the digital era of easy and efficient communication worldwide has facilitated the development of a strong trans-local whiteness, in which white identity is not merely experienced individually and shared with few but now transcends region to understood and experienced whiteness of the global network (7).  Individuals express their whiteness online as well as groups like Alternative Right white supremacist groups grow ever-powerful by virtually recruitment. While these sites are not necessarily easy to fall prey to and are not always a simple click away, studies of cyber racism demonstrate that there is a virtual and “real life” threat to the newfound virtual existence of these groups.  Active discrimination and other forms of oppression and harm are brought to those of minority races due in part to these groups and individuals, and the way their sites act as a platform for those characterized by ‘white fragility’ (people emotionally distraught and threatened by the potential racial stress and identity problems) to voice their fear via expressions of defense (Article 1).  A most dangerous result of white supremacy is the white racial frame’s (whites’ reconsideration of cultural values due to their previous questioning of what is the case and what they know to be true) warping of peoples’ epistemology, and so their values and priorities.  In other words, what counts as a fact and knowledge to a person, and how it is they have come to know it, is significant to their conceptualization of what is the case, and what is ethical; racial inequality is only a concern once realized to be the case and under the umbrella view of white supremacists, there often lies assertions undermining racism (8).  Because these epistemological breakdowns are occurring online, covertly in cyberspaces, the distinction of what is unbiased fact and skewed remark with a political agenda becomes more difficult to discern.  One useful framework, offered by Collins, suggests an epistemology in which “ideas cannot be divorced from the individuals who create and share them”, rendering subjective interpretations of knowledge and the truth to derive from an individual immersed in their culture (20).  Finally, the basis of white supremacist claims of racial equality may be evaluated in the context of this framework in which a truth is objective with regard to the facts of the world and its history but with correspondence to peoples culturally lived experience rather than abstraction.

Important to take away from the Daniels readings is that readers and viewers ought not to be surprised by results of systemic racism, and the election of Donald Trump, but realize this to be an output of the white supremacy which has existed since the constitution of America as a nation (Article 2).  White supremacy is not new but often invisibly working to determine ways of thinking, science, and epistemology, until bearing its head as a threat to those who benefit from the social construction of the social order as it exists today.

[gendered-technoculture-blog]

Response to Media Report #1

1. Virtual Reality alike the one mentioned in the article, along with all other technologies new and old are (as has been discussed in cyberfeminist literature) inextricably tied with culture and its ideological bases.  Thus “progressive” technologies of the digital age’s conceptualization, design, manifestation, distribution, accessibility, and impact are all infused with culture (recall the Benjamin’s “From Park Bench to Lab Bench” Ted Talk).  Thus, the implicit bias and systemic inequities of culture, which give rise to seeing difference in people and offering differential treatment in a discriminatory and oppressive framework, are infused into education and all other social institutions thus affecting all people of society in visible and invisible ways.  I take the outwardly and genuinely conveyed intended purpose of new technologies to be for all people—to benefit the human race—but that implicit in the systems of belief which ground and spark as well as contribute to new ideas taint this purpose; progressive (following the definition of positive advancement for humans, and ideally all living beings) technologies are only as progressive as their creators and users, in this case not progressive or only so for certain groups prioritized, protected, and privileged by the system (i.e. heterosexual white men).  This Virtual Reality technology in particular is no different, built into the machine is i) implicit sexism and strict abiding to the gender binary—while the focus of the equipment’s use works on pain management for women, as the writer has acknowledged, not only women give birth, and gendered or post-gendered self-identification ought to be included in related technoscientific discourse and considered in the process of technological advancement; ii) gendered technoculture in which women and their health is aided by a machine the female gender has been historically and systemically redirected from and driven to be incompetent with and so generally for which they are dependent on males; and iii) discrimination by gender, race, class, and so on when it comes to accessibility and affordability of the product which is advertised and journaled about as though it is for women when in fact the majority of women, especially those who cannot afford accompanying treatments, etc. to drain some of the pain from their experience with child labor, will not have the opportunity to utilize the product; to name a few.  

Putting aside these unfair consequences of technoculture for certain groups, this Virtual Reality does seem very useful for women with access to it and a refreshing new piece for potential revolutionization, in thought and in practice, for the sector of women’s health regarding pain management. Also, for consideration of the consequences of the stereotypical women’s role as changeable by people rather than fixed and justified by the labor pains of which are established by “nature”.  Futurism’s article declares that, then, “in a typical delivery room all the mother has to focus on is the pain” but that the new VR (virtual reality) technology alters women’s “natural” burden such that a requisite of childbirth need not be great pain any longer (Sanders 2016).  It is indeed progressive in one sense that women’s child-bearing is provided with technology to benefit, exclusively, the mother while she is in labor to better her experience in this public sphere when the study of and related actions in this sort of consideration for women was not present until very recently.  Altogether, I take this technology to be another tool, another reproduction, of inequity in society for some groups over others (in this case more socioeconomically, and so racially and ethnically rather than by gender, discriminatory and oppressive), thus arguably a step backward or idle complacency for cyberfeminists.

2. I predict that, in the distant future, child-bearing will become less tied to one gender.  This could be due in part to any of the following explanations: i) a post-gendered culture has arisen and is perpetuated, ii) gender categories remain but are more fluid and spectrum-based, such that a child-bearer is not necessarily a “mother” or any one identity by necessity, and iii) child-bearing-related technologies no longer require a man and woman, a certain combination of genders of people, or even people at all.  While gender roles and expectations are slowly dissipating culturally with each passing generation, I view technoscientific advancement as continuing to push forward to mechanize as much as possible such that human labor (in many jobs, and in actual child labor) is made obsolete as a result, all in the race against other nations, in addition to the U.S.’s own resources, to achieve artificial intelligence.

3. I did not take the article to be stigmatize (with all stigmatization being negative, in my opinion) women for their (in)ability to manage pain but just to draw the assumption from women’s historical behaviors and expressions leading up to and during child birth that it is very painful on average for a child-bearer. In this case, it seems pain management does remain in the agency of the woman (of course depending on their intersectional socioeconomic status) for it is up to the woman’s choice whether VR will be a method of practice to accompany their child-bearing.  One of the related problems here, as is present in the second part of your prompt, is that womanhood and femininity are associated with general intolerance, dependency, and lack of management capabilities (for example, with pain) but I did not take the article to especially pin women or those “feminine” to need pain management assistance simply because they identify as such.  I do believe that those associations are implicit in the writer and reader as they have been supplied by cultural ideologies from a young age.

Media Report #1

https://futurism.com/not-just-for-gaming-virtual-reality-meditation-helps-women-through-labor-pains/

Introduction of the Text

The article that I choose for Media Report #1 is found on the website futurism.com. The site provides material covering technological breakthroughs that “empower our readers and drive the development of transformative technologies towards maximizing human potential.” They appear to be an independent news corporation that functions solely online that has contributors of various technological backgrounds who are highly esteemed in their respective fields. The contributors and “experts” for the site are predominantly male with a few female contributors, although gender doesn’t appear to affect many articles. They seem to be more geared towards reporting on the advancement of humanity as stated in their mission statement. The text titled “Not Just For Gaming: Virtual Reality Meditation Helps Women Through Labor Pains” talks about a relatively new technology that has recently been made accessible to the common public through mass production. Virtual Reality was at first thought to just be a gaming device that had minimal applications other than entertainment. It brought with it a deeper level of immersion than any of it predecessors had been able to provide and thus garnered a copious amount of appeal. This article discusses how the applications of VR can be much more versatile then ever imagined through using a VR headset to transport someone about to give birth to a tropical beach. This relieves the patient of some stress and distracts them from the pain of childbirth. It provides an all-natural and side-effect free method of  deterring pain during one of the most excruciating natural processes for the human race.

2) Interpretation of the Text

The media text is conveying the message that the field of technoscience is changing, and in a good way. Early cyberfeminists such as those that worked on VNS Matrix and carrier (Barnett) fought to have their voices heard as well as the common messages of feminists everywhere. The article brings to fruition Donna Haraway’s resounding message of hope that one day technoscience would cater to the needs of women, and not just the needs of the men in its long history of being a patriarchal field. It is no secret that the process of child birth brings with it heaping amounts of pain that goes unrivaled to other natural human processes. The idea of developing software in order to assist individuals going through such an intense and stressful experience is very well intentioned. It also provides a glimpse into the future of the development of technology and how much it can positively contribute to the advancement of our race.

In itself this breakthrough is a win for the feminist movement. One would think that if the early cyberfeminists or technofeminists of decades past were able to witness how far their movement has progressed the equality of not only women in technoscience but society as a whole, they would be impressed. Although not nearly as equal as it should be, the gender wage gap has closed considerably in that time period and many more women have been able to pursue careers in technoscience and shape the industry in ways that wouldn’t have been possible without their contributions. The dichotomy that has been present for so long between technology and women has been drastically reduced. The author addresses the issue of child birth towards women and does not intentionally inferioriate them. However, as subjective as this may be, it seems as though he takes the tone that women cannot tolerate pain and therefore require such technologies or treatments.

3) Critical Analysis

From first glance, everything about this article appears to demonstrate concern for women’s needs and an overall interest in progressing technology, not for the needs of just white men but for the needs of the human race as a whole. There does not seem to be any hidden or underlying messages that the author consciously put into his work. However, there is the, most likely, subconscious repeated mention of child-bearers being only females. In this day and age, gender is recognized as a diverse social construct that it had not been thought of in years past. Gender does not determine if one has the ability to give birth, as it is socially constructed. Yet not everyone thinks similar to this. Growing up as a straight white male in a gender binary society, I never saw an issue with how males were always thought to be masculine and females were always thought to be feminine. I was taught that this socially manufactured preconception of gender was the sole normal division. Anything that strayed from this model was wrong or strange, and in turn breaking social norms. From even 10 years ago, the definition of gender and what is acceptable when it pertains to gender has changed dramatically. Transgender individuals are more well received, genderless bathrooms have sprung up all around the country at various establishments, and people for the most part are widely against the criticism of other non-binary genders. Just as diseases affect our race so will things like racism and homophobia among other topics. It is naive to think that it is possible to eradicate these detrimental viruses (both biological and socially created) in their entirety. They will always linger and new challenges will prevent themselves. All we can do is adapt and manage the situations to the best of our ability. Racism, gender binaries, and homophobia will always be present to some extent just as diseases will always be present. But we can minimize them to the best of our  abilities and we have seen a great reduction of these hateful mindsets in recent history.  

Another thing that I pondered was if the purpose of the technologies used to aid these individuals in labor were completely in the best interest of the patient. In the past, technologies had been used as ways to exploit certain demographics in attempts to profit monetarily. The article is worded in a way that makes the technology’s purpose seem as if it were exclusively for the benefit of the patients using it. Although the method is non-intrusive and does not have any immediate side effects, it could be marketed and used by the patriarchy that is the technoscience industry. Further down the road more invasive technologies could come about and neglect the comforts and needs of women if it comes in the way of making more money. This technology seems phenomenal and should be a model for all future technologies of the sort. However, I could see how these technologies could become malignant for women and anyone that isn’t straight white male in their exploits to profit through commercialization.

4) Questions

Do these new technologies/applications genuinely seek to improve the lives of women or do they appear to be used as a method to exploit a woman’s natural processes for monetary gains?

The author denotes that the child-bearing patients all have a single gender. Will there be a time when pregnancy, and the technologies that supplement it, is independent from distinct gender binaries?

The article seems to paint women as inclined to be unable to deal with pain and therefore need additional methods in order to manage it. Is the author negatively stigmatizing females as always being extremely feminine in nature or is it simply because the process of child birth is known to be painful?  

[gendered-technoculture-blog]

Media Report #1

Media selection: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/08/08/american-apparel-skirt-photos_n_5660594.html

Introduction

The media I have chosen are commercial advertisements and corresponding images produced by American Apparel, of which could be uncovered in/on magazines, billboards and posters, electronically via email and social media, and television.  The article on the matter addresses specific “up-skirt” photographs in a back-to-school advertising scheme by American Apparel (see link above for the article).  This selection coordinates with this week’s reading assignments by provoking discussion of misogyny, sexism, and women’s liberation in addition to what influence these advertisements have on viewers and members of society.  Particularly, coinciding of the marketing of sex with the ways actual people arguably are negatively affected by this gendered portrayal of school girls and the way they are to be perceived and treated.

These advertisements and images alike were produced by advertising agencies under American Apparel CEO Dov Charney, CEO of the company then a consultant of their board in 2014.  American Apparel brands itself as materially U.S.-based and sweatshop-free while advertises its clothes with, often, images rampant with sexualization and objectification of its male and female models.  To provide context for the deployment of the advertisements in the U.S. and U.K., this CEO was fired twice from positions in the company for “misconduct [involving] sexual harassment” around that time (Alesci).  This past owner of the company, when ousted from his position, promised his return to the business (or a similar venture), not acknowledging the controversy of his socially deemed wrongdoings in and outside of his business.

Interpretation

The target audience of the clothing appears to range from preteens and teenagers to late thirty-year-old individuals, with special emphasis (due to the typical age-appearance of the models in the advertisements and employees on the floor of the stores) on teenagers and early twenty-year-olds.  I think the advertisements themselves are conveying to their audience messages of freedom of expression and sexuality, and a free fun youth to its audience, but above all catching the viewer’s eye and selling products with sex.  The Huffington Post article, on the other hand, communicates the potential negative effects (particularly for women) of advertising with these “up-skirt” images of seemingly school girls (putting aside the unknown actual age of the female models) and the backlash on social media immediately following the deployment of these advertisements in mainstream media.  The highly sexualizing and objectifying content, and its implications, are controversial in even Western cultures for the potential ramifications on (young) women and their safety, fair and equal treatment and judgment by the self and others, and general quality of life.  Also, that the nature of these school girl depictions, typically considered unethical, are here normalizing of material openly pedophilic or pornogrpahic.

Specific messages of gender identities communicated here is not that of gender fluidity and the breakdown of related boundaries and categories, but of the dependence on the gender dichotomy for one’s place, role, and expectations.  Of course, inclusive of how people ought to feel and appear physically.  Here, women are sexual and promiscuous beings, naturally it seems in the way that women, not men, are presented this way across all the advertisements.  Men, even when promiscuously garbed, are often standing up rather than sitting, leaning, or crouching beside another figure in addition to acting in control or dominating in sexual images (here the theme of women as objects and men as subjects appears).  Portrayal of women in the media like this conveys aspirations and ways of being for women and men with undertones of misogyny and sexism in the way that social acceptance and praise (at least in some spheres) of men and women seem to differ to an extent, “[reproducing] norms of power and violence” (Devoss 842). Ageism and classism also come into play here as the clothing advertised to these young women as acceptable and desirable is exclusively for those who appear young as well as exclusively accessible by those of the middle to upper class.

Critical Analysis

On whether these images may be viewed as feminist or liberatory: there are many perspectives.  For some, “instead of being used to enhance, resculpt, or rethink women’s bodies, [the images] are used to further control and regulate women’s bodies”, while others take the advertisements to be encouragement to sexually express and explore in ways that women were not once permitted or encouraged to do so (Devoss 837).  Most likely the former would align with radical cyberfeminism while the latter would with liberal cyberfeminism for the images of gendered bodies and identities do not display gender fluidity or post-genderedness (Hall 148).  In either case, feminists would agree that what it is to be a man or woman, and human, is culturally entrenched as tied to gender and so the images, while perceived as womanhood implicitly is in fact a cultural tool for imposing ideas of what it is to be, categorically of course (Sundén 217).  Thus the body itself is inherently cultural as any other social institution or tool is for society.

I take the implications of the sexual and promiscuous images tied with women to be a conveyance that this is the way, and who, women are and ought to be treated and expected to behave as such.  For the way women, and their male counterparts, are depicted in casual apparel like this must be the way they naturally are and an exhibition of their true roles.  Female and males of the audience are caught in traps: for women, there is the pressure to be like a woman (in the traditional sense) and not be one (so, more liberatory), and for men the pressure to expect and praise one or the other type of woman and treat them as though this important distinction is to be followed (Sundén 229-230). In both cases, women and men are encouraged to disapprove and police into ostracization those who do not follow these ‘gender rules’.  This internal prejudice regarding those who are or are not obedient to cultural rules, as written and rewritten in the media, leads to active and unconscious discriminatory behavior, different treatments intersectionally, and different (likely unequal) experiences and worldviews.  I take the message overall, as a more liberal feminist, to be a negative one in the way that gendered notions are salient through the images in the media and so aid in the entrenchment of discriminatory cultural ideologies, though at the surface level I do not take issue with the sexual content and freeness of women in this respect. 

As for the school girl images in particular, I neither find it troubling that women would choose to bend over nor promiscuously dress but that the images illicit a vibe of non-consensuality, as though the photographs were taken as women bent over on school property but not when they were attentive and accepting of the images being taken in the first place.  Also, to show the schoolgirl bending over in a revealing way but not the person who is filming the incident is to facilitate a victim-blaming and rape culture in which the woman’s promiscuity is why the viewer is disturbed and uncomfortable with the image rather than due to the (invisible) photographer who distributed something typically deemed kept to the private sphere.  This is of course not to say that a school girl could not possibly offer consent for the photographing or that this is culturally age-appropriate behavior by any means, but that this provides for confused feelings as regard women’s behavior in the public sphere rather than the perception, exploitation, and scape-goating of it by others.

The culture inherent in the media, and in bodies, presently disables feminism from enacting uncontroversial change because derailments from patriarchal misogyny are derailments from social norms.  Images of content that implicate women’s freedom of expression and sexuality are unfortunately intertwined with all other taken-for-granted cultural understandings and so cannot be taken merely at face value.  The destruction of cultural categories in technoculture is therefore a requisite in the rise of liberated sexual bodies and potential for new meanings of women’s liberation to be manifested (Sundén 219).  Bodies are “inscribed, marked, engraved, by social pressures external [but are at the same time] direct effects, of the very social constitution of nature” and so bodies (228).  What is womanhood and femininity, deviant and praise-worthy, feminist and patriarchal, and so on are determined by a culture, technology and bodies of which are not excluded from this.  For one to spark the reinvention of the woman, body, human, and so on, one would first have to initiate change in the culture which ascribes meaning to people, which makes people significant entities or anything at all (Hall 147).

Discussion

1. Could masculinity and femininity have any part in liberatory depictions?

2. Could a focus on bodies have any part in liberatory depictions?

3. What do you see as the future of media portrayals of gender, or of people in general, assuming technology continues to progress in this way, and alongside capitalistic ventures?  Does your ‘future world’ hold promise for individuals who are not luddites?  That is, provide a space free of culturally entrenched biases and other categorically-based ideologies which systematically harm certain  individuals over others?  (Think back to “Deep Lab”).

4. In the same way that some are caused to feel uncomfortable with or threatened by images and the conceptualization of cyborgs, some are made to feel that way by liberated, sexually expressive and free, etc. women (whether in images, in person, conceptualized)?  What do you think is responsible for this similarity?

Sources

Devoss’ “Rereading the Cyborg(?) Women:The Visual Rhetoric of Images of Cyborg Bodies on the World Wide Web”

Sundén’s “What Happened to Difference in Cyberspace?: The (Re)turn of the She-Cyborg”

Hall’s “Cyberfeminism”

http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/24/news/companies/dov-charney-american-apparel/

[gendered-technoculture-blog]

Reading Response #3

In “Monstrous Agents: CyberFeminist Media and Activism”, Barnett approaches the historical and contemporary application and influence of “cyberFeminism”, as a coined term and thus the movement fighting cybersexism. CyberFeminism, for Barnett, has been, apart from typically optimistic, “characterized by ideas for changing society, its structures, and perhaps even the human itself [as regard] prospects for women’s equality, relationships to new technologies”. More particularly, the movement once showed great promise for a world in which boundaries, categorical labels, and general binaries are virtually eradicated as well as a changed societal discourse in which feminism has infiltrated the mainstream culture (Barnett 1).  CyberFeminists have effectively disseminated their ideas via scholarly literature and digital images exhibited on the Internet and on physical posters and billboards.  The embodiment of the ‘feminist agenda’ has often been instilled in images of stereotypical women’s bodies, she-borg bodies, and virtual inscriptions onto a graphic background.  In each case, a ‘body’ imparts the viewer with the message, whether physical or virtual—this distinction of course is part of the problem for cyberFeminists, that the real and virtual are conceptualized as disparate when in fact they have morphed due to modern technologies and new understandings of bodies and identities in the digital world.  Therefor Barnett professes “the body as a key site for negotiating new media theories, practices, and behaviors”.  Haraway, author of “A Cyborg Manifesto”, and Devoss, of “Rereading Cyborg(?) Women: The Visual Rhetoric of Images of Cyborg (and Cyber) Bodies on the World Wide Web”, also communicate their concern on the matter of the depiction of bodies of women and she-cyborgs and the way that portrayals have perpetuated ideas of femininity and masculinity, undercutting the goal of the cyberFeminist movement’s proposal of the cyborg solution.

As mentioned above, the optimism, enthusiasm and aggression, present in the initial decades of the cyberFeminist movement offered different potential futures and worlds for feminists than for activists aligned with and participating in the movement today.  Barnett believes this to be due to the change in technoculture over time as well as scholarly and community-wide consideration of the term and movement “cyberFeminism”.  Across time, culture, and nation, what is cyberFeminism, a cyberFeminist, and a tool of cyberFeminism changes and so does the movement’s power and influence, application, and existence in discourse or activism.  While in the late nineties, cyberFeminism proclaimed to be “the virus of the new world disorder rupturing the symbolic from within” (a line from VNS Matrix’s “A Cyborg Manifesto for the 21st Century”), today it does not necessarily promise one future and pursues its altered aspirations regarding gender equality in the context of what is presently defined as gender equality for people and how it may be achieved; retrospectively, Barnett declares that “cyberFeminism was never one single thing”.  Another historical characteristic of the cyberFeminist movement was its monstrosity, evident by its combative and viral nature, the way it “takes over” and forces individuals out of complacency.  Some features of the term’s usage and understanding of the movement which have remained salient are as follows: gender as a significant dimension of technocluture,  reproduction of past gender problems in present supposed digital activist work, patriarchal “[corruption of] discourse”, and that cyberFeminist works in each era function as “markers for the tidal shifts in thinking about women and technological spaces” (5, 10, & 15).  Even terminology itself, as with all language, carries with it the ability to systematically impact the conceptualization of cyberFeminism and cultural institutions it permeates (16).

The ever-changing movement of cyberFeminism is significant, as per Barnett’s analysis, for its repression of the patriarchal representations of women’s bodies and identities which take up cyberspace with which women could utilize as a stage for their voice of subjective experience.  Additionally, repression of this patriarchal force could do away with the fixed ‘natural’ gender binary (and other dichotomies) which, when presented as inherent gender difference, gives way to different and so unequal treatment of women.  The significance of this movement, this undercutting of the patriarchal element of technoculture, would be for a digital age in which women have the space to express and communicate their voice, women may be represented in technological fields and as competent with new technologies (affecting perceptions of women and women’s self-perception, -confidence, etc.), and, notably, a breakdown of boundaries, labels, and power structures may ensue.  For without intent to benefit--make powerful and superior--one group (i.e. straight white men), justification and reason for the gender binary and its corresponding labels, would be deemed unnecessary.  This way, individuals could exist uniquely with value and agency equal to that of all others, ideally in global networks.

err��t�y�

[gendered-technoculture-blog]

Reading Response #2

From Wajcman’s TechnoFeminism, specifically “Introduction: Feminist Utopia or Dystopia?”, technoscience is broadly considered the technological and social context of science and all scientific knowledge (the author, alike Gay, recognizes that there are many potential technosciences based on what an individual might take to be its context and influence) (Wajcman 2).  The induction of which arose from the idealization of the rational, rather than emotional, and the drive to come to greater understandings of the universe (at first purely for the love of wisdom, later for profitable purposes) and the human mind’s ability and sense of self.  Unfortunately, the scientific process of creating technological devices has historically consisted of exploitation of certain demographics (i.e. that which the ecofeminist framework details) with the same goal in mind, that is driven by better understandings for human but now at the expense of some humans and their parts, sense of self or belonging, and so on.  The (conceptualization and cultural construction of) gender, in particular, ties in with technoscience, its induction, advancements, and both personal and global influence.  Historically, males have been associated with mathematics and the sciences, and eventually competence with machines, and this was praised in and raised in men while not in women, in fact it was often unencouraged.  This, of course, facilitated the gender gap in professions and wages in the work force, for those positions which are valued (the sciences and technology) are assigned by gender rather than the intersectional individual and their skillset (3).  There is this illusion, a taken-for-granted idea, of the way technologies function (of technoscience) and that is that it is under no one individual or group’s control and that the technology exists separate from people, culture, and so gender (3).  Many authors in the assigned readings present why this is not the case.

Wajcman, in “Chapter 1: Male Designs of Tenchonology” of TechnoFeminism, asserts that technology is power in the way that globalization’s technical installment was power—power of the future—and that this power of agency was systematically taken away from women (8).  This resulted from the aforementioned processing of technological tendencies and skills out of women such that they depended on men for this sort of competence. Some of the association of men with technology is due to lack of exhibition of women in the sciences as inventors and applicators of the machinery, and the relevant logic and mathematics (9).  Another illusion of technology, via technological determinism, is that technology is what drives social change over time when in fact social change and technology itself is manifested by people, so a culture’s influence over time is always due to people, whether it be directly or indirectly imparted.  Further, the culturally entrenched ideology that the technological field and its produce were gender-neutral justified its differential treatment by gender, owing discrimination to biology, when in fact technoscience makes it the case that all technology was and oftentimes is created by men with men in mind towards a purpose which benefits men, even if at the expense of other groups (i.e. women) (11).  Kimmel diagnoses the problem of gender inequity to result from the perception of many and significant differences between the genders—these differences in the mind of the creators, embedded in the culture within which the technology is created, provide for technology which is inherently gendered.  In other words, the use and impact of the technology is no more or less gendered than the culture which encompasses it—that which enables the technological device to have a purpose, a function, and meaning at all (Terry and Calvert 2).  The gender hierarchies that exist outside the technological device are the same ones instilled inside of it and that it was constructed upon.

Thus, it concerns feminists that progress in a nation is often defined in terms of its technological advancement (2).  Technology, due to its technoscience, could perpetuate the discrimination, oppression, and domination of women (and of course any other minority group).  Considering the potential benefits and disadvantages of technology (and the ongoing technological movement) on women brings about the realization that the feminist movement will indeed be impacted by the technological one, and vice versa.  Whether the feminist movement will be impacted positively or negatively by technological advancements, while an important question, need not be answered just yet—“recognition that gender and technoscience are mutually constitutive” imparts profound insight for all future research and scientific inquisition: “discriminatory design” by the creator, instilled culturally, will manifest itself in the impacts of the technology’s application. “What you have is the veneer of scientific legitimacy layered onto already existing prejudices”, placing weight on the question of whether scientific and technological progress is indeed progress as it stands, not for any one gender or other intersectional demographic, but for humanity (“Benches” Tedx Talk).

[gendered-technoculture-blog]

Post #1

Introduction

Greetings!  My name is Jody and I am a senior at The College of New Jersey, studying philosophy.  The reasons for my enrollment in this course are threefold: fulfillment of a requirement for my interdisciplinary concentration in cognitive science, alignment with my interest in and passion for gender studies, and enlightenment on gender topics which will benefit me in my academic pursuits as well as provide me with a deeper understanding of myself and others in social context.  My background in the subject matter comes from taking relevant courses in women’s and gender studies, biology, anthropology, and sociology as well as volunteering in the women’s department of a behavioral health outpatient facility.  My hobbies include reading and writing, listening to music, watching Rick and Morty, spending quality time with my cats, arguing with my brothers, jigsaw puzzling, drawing, hiking, and skiing.  Thank you for reading, and I look forward to taking to the course material this winter.

Reading Response

Adichie, throughout her Ted Talk, “We Should All Be Feminists”, explores the introduction and evolution of the words “feminism” and “feminist” by academics into cultures around the world.  The terms were once, and on occasion at present, utilized in a derogatory fashion.  Notably, that it was/is not merely the negative connotation of the terms in discourse that imparts an oppressive force upon women but the way in which repeated usage manifests a culture of systematic oppression and discrimination due to entrenched gender biases and related ideologies.  One intriguing problem Adichie raised on the issue is the way in which males may be removed from the impact of this language (and other modes of culturally embedding ideologies) for it is not directed at them and that which one is not forced to attend to and consider in relation to themselves may go unnoticed.  Unfortunately, implicit gender biasing negatively affects all in a culture, as strict roles and other characteristics are confined in the gender dichotomy.  For instance, in American culture, this facilitates expectations (along with disapproval of deviations) of men to uphold a masculine ego and women to to shrink to cater to those delicate egos.  These expectations assigned by gender apply in all facets of society, collectively framing a culture in which the value of and respect for a person is largely determined by their gender assignment (at birth, or assumed at the time of judgment).  An important conversation at this point, Adichie considers, is to what extent gender roles coordinates with and so is warranted by the biological distinction between the genders.  While there is more research to be done in this area, modern analysis points to biology’s exploitation to justify preexisting structures rather than provide strong evidence for their inherent cultural necessity.  The inequity experienced by the disparate genders must be addressed in discourse such that collective attention can be drawn the problem for a resolution to be erected: if gender is part of society in a culture and the latter is changing then why is the former staying constant?  Especially when “culture does not make people, people make culture”.

Feminism, to Adichie and Smith, is equality for the genders across all micro- and macro- institutions of society.  In particular, for Gay, any perspective of this equality and how to approach it (in the context of a certain culture at one point in time) is a kind of feminism, with Essential Feminism existing as a broader but limiting framework of equality which is pre-established and not to be questioned or adjusted.  These writers each encouraged the consideration of intersectionality of individuals culturally when it comes to conceptualizing feminism (i.e. feminism ought to be all-inclusive, prioritizing equality while acknowledging the privileges and disadvantages from their socioeconomic status, race and ethnicity, etc.).  The importance of feminism, as per each of the writers’ perspectives, is that worth and respect ought to come along with being a living being rather than one’s gender assignment.  Eloquently, from Smith, the independence offered via equal treatment of women would also provide individuals (particularly women--the historically oppressed) with a sense of belonging (Smith 7).  Thus the oppression and discrimination of women prevents, either to an extent or completely, them from achieving a high quality of life and happiness overall.  Additionally, gender equality in nations has been correlated with general progression and a higher quality of life for those citizens.