"Game Over"

Since I am going into teaching, the second part of option one is near and dear to my heart so I'm going to tackle that one. 

Although I am not quite sure of how I stand on the issue of gaming and violence, whether it causes more harm than good, I still have my thoughts surrounding gaming in general.  I grew up with Atari (I don't know if I spelled that right) when I was younger and went through the neatendo phase when it was in its prime.  I didn't have any of these in my home, but many of my friends did.  However, I was more into going outside and playing there rather than playing some game on the tv.   

I am not a gamer, yes, I like the occasional game in an arcade and I play spider solitare on my computer (which is addicting) which I guess is my complaint about gaming.  It is soooo addicting!  People can't stop and it seems to completely take over the person' s life.  Plus, to me, it just seems like a waste of time.  I understand having fun and people that do it every once in a while, more power to ya, but for those that do it everyday and have a community online, I think that's a little much.  sorry. 

I do not have children, but I would not allow a gaming device in my home if I did.  Right now I don't have one and I don't want one.  There are better things for a child to do, especially if it was my child, than to play a video game.  I guess though, since the whole rating thing, I would have to think about it a little more.  I do not like that most of the games are so violent.  I don't see the reason or point of having it.  People do not have desires to go around killing other creatures I don't think so why play a game were that is the whole point of it.  The more you kill the more points you get. 

I mentioned the rating system and I think it's a very good thing.  The only thing I am wondering about it is how is it monitored?  Do the retailers card the person buying the game if it's ranked mature?  What happens if the retailer sells a mature game to a student who is not of age?  Are there consequences of this?  Ya, the system is there, but what good is it really doing anyone?  Since I dont' buy games or play them, I really don't know the answers to these questions. 

Sorry to sound so harsh about online gaming, but I do think it's just a complete waste of time.  People didn't always have these games they could play and they turned out just fine!  Are we better off because we have these games people can play when they're bored and can't find anything better to do with their time?

What is Your Identity?

When I was in high school I would put on a different identity depending on my mood.  One day I would be the jock with the leaderman's jacket and tennis shoes, the next day I would wear my baggy pants with my flannel and do my makeup skaterish.  One day I was a hippie, the next a prep, a jock one day and a skater the other.  No one could figure me out and that was why I did it.  I was unpredictable to those that didn't know me.  However, now that I am out of high school I don't change my look as much.  I change the way I do my makeup and hair but my clothing typically stays the same.  I'm no longer a skater or jock or hippie.  I'm just me, plain old me.  What ever I like (which is typically the "in" thing I guess) I wear.  I still wear odd things here and there, but for the most part I present myself as a clean, well-organized, young, student.  Unless, I have an interview, then it's clean, well-organized, young, professional :)

In option one of this week's blog, there are two different questions there.  One talking about identity and how we "construct" ourselves and the other about reality shows on television.  I will be talking about both of them. 

First, what is identity?  Is it how we present ourselves and if so, then can we have a false identity?  Are we "performing" for the world when we step outside of our houses in the morning?  Can you judge a book by it's cover?  Everyone has been told to do judge the book by it's cover that it's what inside that matters and makes the difference.  Yes, I'm talking about actual books here,  but this also works for people.    Why do I instantly think that the girl on the corner must be a prostitute if she's wearing spiked heals, a short skirt, a tight very low-cut shirt, and is wearing "stripper makeup"?   Why is it that my dad doesn't think Ant is funny on the Last Comic Standing becuase he openly acts gay?  Both the woman on the street and Ant act or construct themselves a certain way?  Are they truely representing themselves?  I'm not sure.  I could go up to the girl on the street and ask her if she's really a prostitute and she might think I am rude or she could ask me what I am interested in getting.  Maybe, if she thought I was rude, she might think of the way she represents herself. 

Does race, gender, or sexuality change the way we represent ourselves?  I think it might.  I choose to dress a certain way when I go to school, a different way when I go to work, and another different way when I go out on Saturday night.   Why is this?  Well, I want to look cute and presentable at school; I want to look presentable and nice at work; and I want to look good and fun when I go out.  When I go to school, I might wear a t-shirt and capries; when I go to work because I have to wear a uniform, I will do my makeup a little differently, and when I go out, I might wear something a little more provocative then I would to school.  I do this because I am a female and heterosexual.  To me, if I was a different race, I feel I would dress the same and construct myself in the same manner as I do normally.  I show more cleavage because I can and I wear more eye makeup becuase I'm going out.  But I also do these things becuase I am a woman and I like boys. 

However, when I go to a high school to observe a classroom I do not wear a low-cut shirt showing a lot of cleavage.  I tend to dress more professionally or at least a little more conservative.  I do not want to give the wrong impression to the little ones you know.   I want the students to respect me and think of me as an authority figure rather than one of their buddies or fellow students.  I do this becuase I want the students to think of me as a certain person, a teacher rather than a student. 

Second, the reality shows.  The option given in class said that if you're stuck to think about the reality shows and how those characters or people portray themselves on camera.  Are they portraying the "real" person?  Well, I thought this was interesting and the reason I think this has nothing to do with a person showing their identity is because it's all up to the producers and editors rather than the actual person or character.  On the "Real Life" on MTV, each character is filmed the whole duration of the time period they are living with the seven strangers picked to live in the house.  The editors go in a take out bits and pieces of what they want shown on camera and what will not be used.  If a character is acting like a bitch one day, then they will take all of her "bitch" moments and use them in the actual show so the viewer thinks they are a bitch in real life. 

In the confessionals, there is actually someone asking the person questions like, "yesterday, Jason said you looked like a slut in your outfit.  How do you feel about that?"  the person may not even know about the comment but now will get upset at Jason which causes drama in the house which is what the producers are looking for. 

So, when asked if in reality shows the person portrays their "real" self, I'd have to say no, they don't and it's not even up to them in the first place.     What the viewer sees is an exaggeration of the person and sometimes it's completely out of context.  The producers are trying to show "reality" tv by using real people instead of actors or actresses but they are still trying to entertain the public.  That's why there are certain things or situations the characters are put in.  If there were a tv camera following me around and it was a tv show, people wouldn't watch it because it's an everyday normal life. 

Cyberfeminism? Come on now!

From the sites recommended for viewing in class I'm trying to understand this "cyberfeminism" term and I have to be honest, what the hell is the difference between cyberfeminism and just plain old '70's feminism!?!

"We are reminded that the Internet is the child of the U.S. military; that it has been central to expanding and globalizing exploitative industries such as pornography, prostitution, and the trafficking of women; that this medium accelerates the process of global cultural homogenization; and on a more personal note, that extended interaction with these technologies can have negative consequences on our bodies and our social interactions" (http://home.gwu.edu/~marcial/cyberfem.html). This sounds quite familiar to the thoughts that drove the feminist views in the 70's and thereafter. The explotation of women in the world around in strip clubs, on the streets, on video ect. It just seems like the term "cyber" meaning on the computer or "in" the computer or web has been added onto "feminism" but means the same thing as feminism does.

There are those that define cyberfeminism and then those that refuse to give it a definition like Cornelia Sollfrank on her website who is faced with the question of what cyberfeminism is all the time, "But even after years of dealing with this question, I refuse to give a definite answer. And even if I had one, I would not give it. This is part of my artistic strategy to deal with Cyberfeminism, which is based on the idea of creating a new comprehensive label for an interdisciplinary gender-related discourse on the net." What the hell is that? And most importantly, how does this help anyone if there is no definition. Yes, as one person said it depends on the person speaking it and how they interpret it, but it's that way with everything! Look at the Bible for instance, there are different churches for different beliefs and interpretations. Just give us a definition already so that we can adjust it to our own lives and interpret it the way we want to!!

"In the creation and publication of their manifesto, as well as their electronic art projects, the VNS Matrix works at breaking down the patriarchal structuring of technology as a masculine space alienating to women. One overarching element behind both positions is that feminists must reject the negative structuring of technology for women, or fall into the trap of perpetuating this patriarchal model and definition" (Jennifer Brayton http://www.unb.ca/web/PAR-L/win/cyberfem.htm). I fall to see how technology is a "masculine space alienating" women. Yes, the web was created by a male or groups of males, but how is is masculine anymore than it is feminine? Is there a space on the internet for male pornography, exploiting men? And what are the negative structures of technology? I am not seeing this either.

It seems these women would fall into the thinking of trying to rule the world and making it a feminine run and dominated society, why don't we just not give the web a gender? It could be unsexed! Then there wouldn't be any arguments, right? I don't know, I'm not seeing the internet sexed now and people are arguing over it already. I just wish it wasn't so wishy-washy and just say what you want to say! Be blunt, it's okay, we can take it!

Not all dragons are bad 

Welcome to my Blog 

Mid-Term Paper

My thesis of my paper is: "sites such as the two with practically the same name, 'World Church of the Creator' and 'Church of the Creator' are hoping the seeker will come across the 'right' site and become an active member donating money and the like. In my research, even though these sites sites have practically the same name, I have found them both to be drastically different in that one advocates Christianity and the other rejects it."

My argument is: 1) The Church of the Creator formed a lawsuit against the World Church of the Creator and Matt Hale because they both had practically the same name but drastically different views and beliefs on religion.
2) The TE-TA-MA foundation won the lawsuit which forced Hale to change his web address
3) It is not easy to find a "hate" website on the interent unless you are specifically looking for one. In "Google," just searching for religious sites, one will not find a hate site such as Hale's or Don Black's
4) This is the reason Brasher does not offer much rhetoric on the topic of hate websites and sees online religion as a good thing
5) Online religion is generally a "good" thing for society

My evidence is: my research strategies and the difficulty of finding online religious hate sites

My external sources I uses are: 1) the two web sites, 2) Brasher's book "Give Me That Online Religion"

Possible refutations of my argument are: 1) it is not hard to find hate sites on the internet and I just didn't know what I was doing or how to find them, 2) Brasher does not offer much rhetoric on the topic of hate websites because she is naive, 3) online relgion is not a "good" thing for society and poses many dangers to the world

My conclusion is: Throughout my research I found that I tend to agree with Brasher that online religion is generally a "good" thing for society only because the hate sites are not readily or easily accessible to soceity on the internet. Doing a simple search of religious sites will not result in sites such as Hale's "Creativity Movement" or Don Black's "Stormfront" unless the seeker is specifically looking for those sites and searches under different words or terms. Brasher does not need to mention or give much rhetoric to these hate sites because they do not pose that much of a threat to soceity. What does pose a threat to society is the media coverage of these sites giving them more acknowledgement in society and allowing new people to visit the sites and become involved.

Brasher and "Hate.com"

Brasher has a much more positive outlook on the internet and online religion than I do that's for sure. She seems to think that online religion will change religion as we know it today. Online religion will become "religion" for all people. In her book, she comes off as saying this is a good thing and people have nothing to worry about. I believe Brasher is a naive person and does not realize the dangers this puts forth into society. The "Hate.com" movie really hit these potential dangers into perspective.

In Brasher's book, she states, "online religion is crucial to and positive for the future of society" (11). I completely disagree with this statement. Throughout her book she gives real-life stories of people and thier experiences online with religion. Religion, at least how I see it, is something that is "suppossed" to be followed and used as a guide to one's life. Part of classifing one's self as part of a certain religion means that one is part of a "community," not a cyperspace of hypothetical people. For example, Brasher talks about one woman who was researching Judiasm online and using a fake name, she participated in a Cyber-Seder. Brasher says names online are, "adornments, Christo-like fragments of textual landscaping attached to one's prose as an intentionally constructed part of the communicative exchange" and they are "descriptive, playful, expressive, perplexing," however, "not expected to be 'real'" (75). Ashley is part of a cyber community, not a "real" community.

Brasher, continues in her positive light saying, "online religion is both a product and a sign of change. It brings with it a tidal wave of new spitituality that may sweep us all up in its path. We are seeing massive waves of new religious practice" (22). In this comment, I don't think Brasher was talking about websites like stormfront.org or the World Church of the Creator website or one's like these. This is why I believe that Brasher is such a naive person. She acts like online religion is this new, exciting, and positve thing when in reality is puts forth dangers like these websites.

In the movie, "Hate.com" Don Black the founder of stormfront.org said that they are now able to spread their message to a wider berth of people. People that believe in "white power" and the like were never able to reach as many people by handing out fliers in their towns or state as they are today with the internet. Matt Hale the 29yr old founder of the World Church of the Creator said that with the internet they (meaning the participators of the religion) can basically hide their identity and hold no resposibility as to what others do when reading the website.

The fact is that since people are allowed to put anything on the internet they please, we (society) are going to be seeing it, if we choose to or not. The sad thing is that one person will see a glimpse of it and want more and become involved in hate sites like the one's already mentioned. I don't know if Brasher just doesn't consider sites like these to be religious sites or not, but I think it is wrong of her to not even mention them or to even nudge to the reader that they're out there but it's a choice to look at them and they're (the sites) are not a threat to society.

There are examples of people out there who have put forth a huge threat to society (Timothy McFay) from sites like this. I have to say though, the one guy who followed Matt Hale, who went around killing minorities and committed suicide before the cops caught him...what a coward!!! Obviously, he couldn't face society and his peers around him with the damage he did to society. Brasher mentions nothing of this. As a reader, she has let me down and as a writer I think that it was and is her responsibility to inform "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" not a little slice of it! I hope that all her readers out there do not take her for face value and look into what she's saying a little more.

What is digital diversity?

To tell you the truth, I don't know what that exactly means. I thought this class was going to be cultural politics and I wasn't looking forward to that at all, to be honest. But, now being through the first class and talking about what we're going to be doing, I'm looking forward to it.

Since I want to teach, I feel this will have a lot to do with my classroom and the students I will have in class. I am interested in controversial topics and young adults. Looking at the topics we will be covering in this class, we will be talking about just what I'm interested in.

I'm assumming "digital diversity" means diversity amoung the digital medium. I'm hoping that we will be looking at the differences between the web or cyperspace and the real world. I am looking forward to our discussions in class on these difficult and diverse topics.

Cultural Analysis of Religion

Religion, is ...

Well, in this country (being the USA) culture seems to be based off of it. At least the government. If anything, religion tells people what is inheritly right and wrong, how to govern oneself, as well as, how to act in society and what not. Religion gives people a sense of belonging in the world around them. Whatever religion one practices there is a sense of that person somewhere in it.

It, being religion, answers the questions of why people are here and what their purpose is in life, whether they are to pray to their God for guidance or meditate to find peace within themselves, there is a purpose that is found. Religion connects people together as well as divides people, it creates war and makes peace, it gives life "life", and death "death". Most people would like to believe that their is someone or something in control of this world and in control of each person or thing on the planet. Religion gives this to people and cultures.

If everyone believed in the same thing, this world would be boring. There would be no news. People strive to be unique and in some way find others like them. Everyone is different, every religion is different in some way or another, one specific religion is different in itself. There are how many different factions of Christianity? How many million? (I'll find it in a book I have at home)

When I here the term "religion," I instantly think of organized religion (which I am not a fan of) and I'm not sure if this is the "right" thing to think of right away. Religion, can also be in one person, more like spirituality rather than religion. I'm getting off track so I'll head back now.

Religion is...

It creates cultures; It makes a society of people; It makes the rules that run that society; It creates rules for people to live by in thier own lives.

With such a random question and not having a lot of time to really think about this question, I think I have said about as much as I can say. Religion is a tricky thing for me to think about and track down and make concrete so doing this involves a lot of thinking. In this class right now, I don't have a lot of time to think.