A Bit of a Love Note for Well-Done RPGs

I fall into new games the way I fall into any new activity-- with optimism, curiosity, and willfully dancing a jig on that edge of unhealthy levels of obsession. Inquisition has been out for three days and the sadistic "time played" counter tells me without fanfare that I have logged over thirty hours. I'm tempted to stop writing now to instead dedicate myself to this beautifully rendered and complex virtual world for the rest of my waking hours. Husband is lovely and supportive, feeding my physical body with random offerings of meals and snacks as I traverse the mountains and coasts of Thedas, closing rifts and helping random farmers. I promised him I would come back to this world for a few hours this evening-- have a proper dinner. It's his birthday.

A truly amazing game, like any media, should teach you something about yourself, and Bioware seems to have embraced this by crafting a story about the individual player. Sure, they call me Inquisitor, and though sales numbers haven't been released yet, I'm certain it's safe to say that there are hundreds of thousands of people currently sharing that title. And yes, I'm often restrained to making a choice between two options. I can talk to everyone but only select people to the depth that I'd like to. My experience will likely be similarly played through by hundreds of others, but what Bioware has done is given me the tools and invited me to participate as if it were my story. And I clicked the "Join" button to that event invite, because shit looks amazing. Dragon Age feels like a world that truly exists somewhere, and I have been thrown into it. The rift I walked out of might have been my entry from this world into that one, my hinted-at back story an inconsequential reorganization of the universe to make room for my existence. I'm also playing a clever-yet-totally-confused Inquisitor. I freely admit to having no clue what I'm doing and my companions seem to appreciate that.

And this has become a singular experience in playing games. I have a nasty habit of attempting to game RPGs. Even when all choices are "right" I'll go back to previous saves to make sure I have the "rightest" one. Restart the game for the perfect run through, keep seven tabs open on my phone browser so I can make sure I get every chest, access every dialog tree, get the maximum approval, and maximize my skill points. The first thing I did after meticulously sculpt my character's face was antagonize my first companion. 

Sorry not sorry. I've got my eye on you, Judas.

Sometimes decisions are placed before you and none of the options are good. Sometimes all of them seem equally good. Sometimes all of them seem equally mystifying and you choose one because a decision has to be made. It's a very good analogue of how I experience my own life as a clever-yet-totally-confused human being. But it's let me discover that I do care about politics, and that there are some dialog trees I won't attempt to unlock, that I'm not so much a completionist as a sap that can't say no when someone needs help, and that when the world is repopulating with herbs every few minutes, yes I do absolutely have to get every single one of them.

Thirty hours in and I haven't even approached the midway point of the game. I'm curious to discover all the other bits of me I didn't know about.

All the Academias

I'm wrapping up my academic career, so that involves a bunch of posting reports and analyses that have been lurking in the depths of my hard drive-- unseen except for the mystified professor, or curious classmate. So, behold! I give to you: academic blocks of text. Enjoy the fruits of my labor, I saved you the trouble.

A Game of Their Own - Understanding Creative Processes in Video Games

Masculinity Equals Authenticity - The rock and the hard place for female gamers 

Beauty and the Geek: Gender Harassment and Anti-Social Behavior in Online Spaces (OMG, such topical, much now)

A Game of Their Own - Understanding Creative Processes in Video Games

"A beautifully designed videogame invokes wonder as the fine arts do, only in a uniquely kinetic way. Because the videogame can move, it cannot offer the lapidary balance of composition that we value in painting; on the other hand, because it moves, it is a way to experience architecture, and more than that to create it, in a way which photographs or drawings can never compete. If architecture is frozen music, then a videogame is liquid architecture.” – Poole

Introduction

Hal Barwood once explained to readers of Game Developer magazine, “Art is what people accomplish when they don’t quite know what to do, when the lines on the road map are faint, when the formula is vague, when the product of their labors is new and unique” (as cited by Jenkins, 2005). Over the years, scholars have looked at the qualities art forms that have developed after the industrial age. Media such as radio and film were initially regarded with suspicion because of their commercial motivations and technological origins. However, they were eventually embraced, celebrated, and supported by the populous, due to the democratic nature of the consumption of these arts (Jenkins, 2005). Such is the same with art created after the information revolution. These new arts created with the advent of advanced communication technologies allow for a redefinition and re-examination of the nature and structure of creativity. Video games are an excellent example of this, as they rely on the communication technologies to exist, but also inspire further creativity in others. In this way, games are not only an art of new media, but are a medium itself. When fully triggered, games are both activated by the audience, and become an impetus for further creativity. 

Characteristics of new media

The arts of new media are defined as creations that harness the connective capabilities of computer technologies, specifically the internet, in order to produce creative artifacts. Jenkins defines art by its affect—in this understanding, art is understood by the temporal reactions it elicits in its viewers (Jenkins, 2005). Beryl and Bauwens posit that the unique characteristics of connective technology itself stimulates new types of creations. They discuss these characteristics of new media art further, with specific notice paid to the democratic nature of the medium bestowed by its social aspects. “The participatory and interactive opportunities offered by the Internet touch upon issues about democratization of art both as a practice of consumption and production and about art, artists and aura” (as cited in Beyl, & Bauwens, 2010). This new media art is characterized not only by its content, but who creates it—redefining our common understanding of what we think of as an artist. This is first confounded by what Beyl and Bauwens further explain to be new media art’s “process of social communication”—symbolic content is exchanged between artist and audience by way of the interactive communication that is the Internet. This allows the artist direct contact with their audience and, in return, the audience inspires the artist.

This co-creative process requires the sort of broad and constant connectivity in order to produce the artifacts made by the artist (2010). The second confound to previous notions defining an artist, is technology’s democratization of resources. No longer the sole purview of those with access and capital to procure the materials for art production, the internet, and web-based tools allows a broader participant base to experiment with art creation (Frank, 2006). Both of these aspects result in a shift in the type of art that audiences wish to experience. They seek a more interactive experience—not only do they want to participate in selecting what they want to see, but they also demand to contribute to the work. (Beyl, & Bauwens, 2010) “These features are often conceived of as social and democratic opportunities of the Internet, that, in theory, enable every user to react, to voice one’s opinion, to distribute this opinion on a global scale, to share it and, consequently, to mould societal debates.” And, more specifically, this applies to the viewer’s desire to manipulate content in based on personal attitudes and preferences, even when participation is not implicitly or explicitly encouraged. Though this drive is not unique to this era, digital and interactive technologies more easily facilitate this aspect (Beyl, & Bauwens, 2010). In summary, because of the interactive nature of the new media’s art and the experience of artifacts created through this co-creative collaboration, art is no longer a broadcast from artist to viewer, rather it has become a conversation between both parties where the product created is reliant on that process.

Nature of Games

Games are one of the quintessential artifacts of new media art. Pearce states that the “malleability, discursive quality, and networked infrastructure of the Internet returns us a pre-industrial culture of play, a time when games were… made up, changed, and reconfigured by groups of ordinary people in site-specific, socially and culturally specific contexts” (2006). In this, Pearce refers to the implicit dependence games have upon their audience in order to activate. Play is utilized—both between the gamer and the game, and between the gamer and other gamers—to manifest the intent and message of the work. Games present players with a world populated by objects, however it is only through the manipulation of these objects that the game is “brought to life” (Atkins, 2006). Wood investigates this relationship, and defines it at recursive—based on the feedback loop between game and gamer. “Recursive space proposes a mode of engagement in which the gamer is both embedded within a space defined by the organization of objects, and also creating that space at one and the same time by altering the organization of objects. … A gamer’s involvement with space is understood as interactions that lead to a series of reconfigurations of the objects, which in turn leads to a generation of space. Recursive space is, then, a mode of engagement in which the gamer is both embedded within a space defined by the organization of objects, and also creating that space as they configure the organization of objects” (Wood, 2012). This process is most literally seen in games such as Minecraft and the Sims where the object of the game is to make alterations the world in which the player is placed in. However, this mechanism also occurs in games where it is not so obvious. For example, as a player moves through a game world, they may open a door which will lead to another area. All games involve movement through the space depicted on the screen—as that player moves through the space, they unlock more of the game world. In this way, the player’s movements, activities, and decisions reflect on the game world, which gives the player more options to utilize to continue this process. While this interaction has been shown to directly contribute to the enjoyment experienced by players (Ang, Panayiotis, & Wilson, 2010), this effect is often unintended by designers. Steinkuehler states that though they implement the game objects, and apply the rulesets, the player often takes actions unanticipated by the designers (2006). This aspect, however, is what allows the game to take on its real meaning, as an art form. At its core, a game is an artistic artifact depicting an experience.  In his work on gameplay analysis, Gee focuses on the difference of experiences between players. Because players will encounter the game in different settings, may take different paths, or discover the narrative in a different order, every player will experience the game slightly differently. “This proactive production by players of story elements … and a unique real-virtual story produces a new form of performance art coproduced by players and game designers” (2006). In addition to this, collective play, and social interaction represent a significant part of the game experience (as cited by Ang, Panayiotis, & Wilson, 2010). A study by Ang, Panayiotis, and Wilson found that as computer games push the boundaries of game play or technologies, the nature of play in that form shifts from one of manipulation of gameplay elements to construction of new objects (2010). Because game designers work in a commercially-competitive industry with emergent technologies, these boundaries are continuously being pushed (Jenkins, 2005). In this way, designers are also able to creatively “play” the commercial industry in order to stay ahead of competing companies.

Game community

Williams warns us that “Games do not exist in a social vacuum, and the reason to study them has as much to do with what’s happening outside of games as it does with what’s happening in them” (2006). Pearce adds to this notion when she states that the “boundaries between play and production, between work and leisure, and between media consumption and media production are increasingly blurring” (2006). Not only do games use players to activate the artifact, but games are in turn used to by gamers to create new art. These synthesized works both expand the work, and have the unintentional side effect of morphing the game into a product claimed by the gamer. Players create content, collaborative documentation websites, and fan-art based on the games they participate in. They write songs based on lore and legends in the backstory of the game, such those written by YouTube user malufenix. They make costumes, in the form of elaborate cosplay. They also expand the narrative on various fanfiction sites such as on archiveofourown.com. Pearce states that these activities “fly in the face of the status quo of centralized, hegemonic, broadcast, and distribution models of media creation” (2006). This results in the rise of a subculture of artists that utilizes the game as their medium or inspiration, as well as an emphasis on content creation from the wider game community (Ang, Panayiotis, & Wilson, 2010). The artifacts created from these expressions are often motivated from a desire to assist and inform the game community, who then, in recursive fashion, better excel at playing the game. (Ang, Panayiotis, & Wilson, 2010) Players with skills and interests in game creation often take this to the extreme, creating modifications, or “mods” for their chosen games—additional content that other members of the community can download, install, and play through (Postigo, 2007). This is game content created not by the developers, but by the fans themselves, often including new tools, narratives, and gameplay mechanics, and is shared amongst the community, becoming part of the experience of the game (Ang, Panayiotis, & Wilson, 2010). This behavior has become so intrinsic to the game community, that many video games are now released with level and game creation tools as a feature of the game, as well as virtual spaces where players are encouraged to share their fan-made content (Ang, Panayiotis, & Wilson, 2010). Such is the case in Halo where players are allowed to create their own levels and invite others to play them. In this way, the creation of artifacts on the part of the gamers becomes part of the understanding of games as a new media art. Postigo explains that the “life of a game” is based not on sales numbers, but the amount of time a game remains a subject of active involvement with their players (2007). As such, it is truly this interaction between the audience and the work, rather than the initial creator of the game, which is the living creative force of this art form.

Conclusion

Jenkins calls video games “a new lively art” in that it opens up new aesthetic experiences and reveals a world of experimentation that is as innovative as it is accessible (Jenkins, 2005). Through use of the connective technologies, it allows for an ongoing discussion between the artist and the player, and the players amongst each other. This opens up a creative dialogue, whereupon the game designer tells players a story of a world, sets its boundaries, and fills it with its opportunities, and the players respond by activating making the stories in this world. This process is where a game is truly activated. The development and creation of the game is like so much set creation and costume crafting before a theatrical performance. It is when the performers take to the stage that the stage itself comes alive. And this creative process is so potent, so effervescent, that it extends past the boundaries of the game, and takes root in the hearts and minds of those players. Game communities often spring up and extend that world, members making their own crafts based on the truths found in the game. Lastly, games often become a medium itself, lending its technology and systems to new experiences created by members of the game’s community. This allows gamers to themselves become developers, and begin the process again. It is these qualities of new media, the open lines of communication between artist and audience and the audience with itself, the development of a community based on participation and production of creative artifacts, and the ability to experiment with media itself that allows us to stretch our understanding of and embrace this new creativity.

References

Ang, C. S., Panayiotis, Z., & Wilson S. (2010). Computer Games and Sociocultural Play: An Activity Theoretical Perspective. Games and Culture. 5(4), 354-380.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1555412009360411

Atkins, B. (2006). What Are We Really Looking at? The Future-Orientation of Video Game Play. Games and Culture. 1(2), 127-140.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1555412006286687

Beyl, J. & Bauwens, J. (2010). Artist Meets Audience: Understanding the Social Meaning of Art on the Internet. The University of Melbourne Refereed E-Journal. 1(5). Retrieved from: http://web.education.unimelb.edu.au/UNESCO/pdfs/ejournals/beyl-paper.pdf

Frank, Z. (2006, July 14). 07-14-06: Ugly, designers, myspace, ugly song, mushy peas, momma, happy birthday becky. the show with zefrank. [Video file]. Retrieved from: http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/archives/2006/07/071406.html

Gee, J.P. (2006). Why Game Studies Now? Video Games: A New Art Form. Games and Culture. 1(1), 58-61.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1555412005281788

Jenkins, H. (2005). Games, the New Lively Art. In J. Goldstein (Ed.), Handbook for Video Game Studies (175-192). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Pearce, C. (2006). Productive Play: Game Culture from the Bottom Up. Games and Culture. 1(1), 17-24.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1555412005281418

Postigo, H. (2007). Of Mods and Modders: Chasing Down the Value of Fan-Based Digital Game Modifications. Games and Culture. 2(4), 300-313.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1555412007307955

Steinkuehler, C. (2006). The Mangle of Play. Games and Culture. 1(3), 199-213.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1555412006290440

Williams, D. (2006). Why Game Studies Now? Gamers Don't Bowl Alone. Games and Culture. 1(1), 13-16.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1555412005281774

Wood, A. (2012). Recursive Space: Play and Creating Space. Games and Culture. 7(1), 87-105.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1555412012440310

March 31, 2014

Masculinity Equals Authenticity - The rock and the hard place for female gamers

            In June of 2012, Ryan Perez, a contributor to gaming news website, Destructoid, issued the following tweet, “Could you be considered nothing more than a glorified booth babe? You don't seem to add anything creative to the medium.” (Baker, 2012, para. 2) The comment was leveled at Felicia Day, an actress in various mainstream television shows and producer of several game-centered web series. Perez’s comment was issued in the midst of a long-running debate amongst members of the geek fandom on the issue of the “fake geek girl.” The two factions in this debate included those seeking to protect the geek fandom from whom they perceive to be imposters—namely,  women who were only interested in games and geek culture for the attention they could garner—and those who argued this view was misogynistic and exclusionary. Though both sides unilaterally agreed that Perez’s comment was inappropriate and misdirected, the comment was indicative of the very issue being debated. However, the Fake Gamer Girl representation is only possible in its contrast to another stereotype, the Gamer Girl. Through non-adherence to this representation, the concept of the Fake Gamer Girl is created.

            The term “gamer” is a contested term. Frequently considered a sub-sect of the geek or nerd subculture, originally this group was commonly stereotyped to be social pariahs or outcasts and the group most typically assumed to be oppressed by the more popular jocks. The label geek was initially an insult to those in this group and identified them as being socially inept and as those who did not comply with hegemonic masculinity. With few exceptions, the geek was white and male. (Kendall, 2011, p.506) Today, gaming does not have nearly the social sigma it once had. Rather, with over half of all Americans playing video games (“Essential Facts,” 2013, p. 2), there is a need amongst the community to define membership to the group. This tends to fall along what is commonly referred to as the “hardcore”/“casual” line, dependent on the individual gamer’s dedication in time and involvement with games, and the type of games played. In the hierarchy of games, casual, mobile, or Facebook games rank lower than those that require a console or a dedicated game PC to play, and those who play the latter often take offense to those “casual players” that claim membership to their group. Because the term, “gamer,” is amorphous and vaguely defined, those who feel they have more right to the title are active in guarding entry into the group and identifying those whom they assess to have less claim to membership. According to Dr. Andrea Letamendi, these individuals find it necessary to identify and exclude imposters due to the misinterpreted sense of ownership of this title, and their resentment of the changing culture in their community. (2012, para. 16-17) Since one of the most common stereotypes of geeks is that they are male, those who are not often have their authenticity to the group questioned.

            In this environment, the Gamer Girl category is established. This stereotype paints the image of a woman less concerned with appearance and social graces than she is with games. Like her other gamers, she is often quirky and socially awkward, but she must be considered highly skilled in all genres of gaming and a “hardcore gamer”. She is considered a tomboy nearly by necessity, as gaming is conceptualized as a male hobby and playing in team-based competitive gameplay requires camaraderie and cooperation. As such, she frequently falls into the “one-of-the-guys” category. Due to the requirements to be categorized in this stereotype, the Gamer Girl is, by definition, masculinized. In essence, to be a true gamer girl, you must be good at games and bad at being a girl.

Therefore, women who play games are often subjected to insults revolving around their assumed lacks in their femininity. Fat, Ugly, or Slutty is a website exemplifies this through their collection of insults focused at women while gaming. The website curators explain their experiences as, “Every message is the same. I’m always either fat and ugly, or a slut.” (“About,” n.d.) Women gaming online often hear insults along this vein. Since they fulfill the requirement of being skilled at games, the inference is either that they are unattractive, or that they have honed their skills in order to attract the attention and interest of the males they are sure to be surrounded by in that space.

            By contrast, any woman seen to care about her appearance, or is considered attractive, immediately has her authenticity as a geek questioned and is thus categorized as an imposter type, the Fake Gamer Girl. The inference is that any girl who is pretty enough to garner the attention of men would not need to play games to acquire one. This concept requires acceptance of the idea that women are only interested in games for the express purpose of heterosexual male attention. Joe Peacock, a geek culture writer for CNN, goes into detail about how he perceives this behavior. “They decide to put on a ‘hot’ costume, parade around a group of boys notorious for being outcasts that don't get attention from girls, and feel like a celebrity. They're a ‘6’ in the ‘real world’, but when they put on a Batman shirt and head to the local fandom convention du jour, they instantly become a ‘9’. They're poachers. They're a pox on our culture. As a guy, I find it repugnant that… I am supposed to feel honored that a pretty girl is in my presence.” (2012, para. 10-11)

In both stereotypes, the Gamer Girl and the Fake Gamer Girl, women are compared to and measured up against male gamers. It is not enough for a Gamer Girl to play games, she must excel at them, and frequently win over her male competition. The Fake Gamer Girl is assumed to only be pursuing the hobby for male attention. In both of these situations, male gamers are considered normative or the unmarked type of gamer. The implication in both instances is that women do not play games except in extraordinary conditions. Women who do not exemplify great skill or women who display feminine traits have their authenticity questioned—they are not masculine enough to be considered in-group—and thus are subjected to microaggressions and threats. Dr. Letamendi addresses this issue among the closely- related comics fandom, “... [microaggressions] reinforce the stereotypes, the deluded beliefs that women lack comics knowledge, that women who affiliate with geekdom shouldn’t look feminine/pretty/sexy, and that male members of the community are responsible for our membership” (2012, para. 4).

The issue is complicated by the implication that the Gamer Girl is a heterosexual woman, seeking the attention of a heterosexual male audience. Lesbians accused of being a Fake Gamer Girl likely receive additional, compounded marginalization due to their sexual orientation that is not experienced by their heterosexual counterparts. The Gamer Girl trope and the Fake Gamer Girl accusation completely preclude the possibility of male attention being unimportant or unnecessary. Either the Gamer Girl wants to be one of the guys, or the Fake Gamer Girl wants the attention of the guys. The notion that a female gamer could be indifferent to guys is unexplored and unconsidered.

            Just like with other feminist issues, we can find many instances of patriarchal bargaining (Ryan, 2013). Some female gamers who identify as Gamer Girls will identify other women who claim interest in games and assign them as Fake Gamer Girls. By aligning themselves with the unquestioned in-group men who subscribe to this notion, these women are authenticating and solidifying their own gamer status. These comments have a wider unintentional effect—a female gamer confirming the existence of the Fake Gamer Girl acts as validation of the existence of the type as a reality. A female gamer who “outs” another member of her gender for inauthenticity acts as anecdotal proof that there are women who do engage in this sort of behavior. The more common the accusation, the more real the “threat” to the community becomes, and the perception of frequency of this occurrence increases.

            As gaming becomes more prevalent, the number of those who consider themselves Gamers increases. This is considered a threat to the communities by those who self-identify as gatekeepers to the culture. A group that was traditionally overwhelmingly male, the increase in female gamers is treated with suspicion. Those who are considered authentic gamers are awarded with in-group membership and categorized as Gamer Girls, whereas those who are not are scorned as Fake Gamer Girls. The application of one title over another is based on to the degree of which masculine gamer traits are embraced. True Gamer Girls shun commonly associated feminine traits such as social competence and physical beauty. Additionally, she must display skill and game knowledge equal to or better than the most skilled of her male counterparts. Failure to live up to both of these expectations results in assignation to the Fake Gamer Girl category, an imposter who only plays games for male attention. Unlike her male counterparts, she cannot be considered a gamer for simply liking a game, and preferring to spend her free time doing so. The binary this implies is striking: either a woman acts as paragon for all gamers, or she is a fraud. Her choice is between authenticity or beauty, obsession or exclusion. And it’s largely no choice at all.

Works Cited

Baker, K. (2013, Jul 3). The Fight Against Misogyny in Gaming Enlists Some Big Names. Jezebel. Retrieved from: http://jezebel.com/5922961/the-fight-against-misogynism-in-gaming-enlists-some-big-names

Kendall, L. (2011). “White and Nerdy”: Computers, Race, and the Nerd Stereotype. The Journal of Popular Culture, 44. Retrieved from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/doi/10.1111/j.1540-5931.2011.00846.x/abstract

Letamendi, A. (2012, Dec 21). The Psychology of the Fake Geek Girl: Why We’re Threatened By Falsified Fandom. The Mary Sue. Retrieved from: http://www.themarysue.com/psychology-of-the-fake-geek-girl/

Peacock, J. (2012, Jul 24). Booth babes need not apply. CNN. Retrieved from: http://geekout.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/24/booth-babes-need-not-apply/

Ryan, T. (2013, Jun 17). Theories of Violence in Pop Culture. Lecture.

Entertainment Software Association. (2013). Essential Facts About the Computer and Video Game Industry. Retrieved from: http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2013.pdf

Fat, Ugly or Slutty. (n.d.). About. Retrieved from: http://fatuglyorslutty.com/about/

June 21, 2013

Beauty and the Geek: Gender Harassment and Anti-Social Behavior in Online Spaces

 Abstract

This paper is an analysis of gender harassment as expressed through computer-mediated communication as found in a recent incident wherein an internet celebrity received vast social censure for non-adherence to normative gender behaviors. First, a summary of the incident is provided, before continuing on to discuss the culture of online communications, with specific focus given to the historical audience of the medium, as well as perceived normative behaviors and attitudes in this space. Then, the unique features of the medium that contributed to this public outcry, anonymity and lack of social cues, are defined and considered. The Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE) is applied to this incident as a possible explanation for the behavior of the individuals involved in the mass movement to criticize the target. Lastly, suggestions on how to prevent antisocial online behavior are presented and analyzed. This is a second-source research paper with the primary sources of information originating from the conclusions of experimental and theoretical research.

Beauty and the Geek: Gender Harassment and Anti-Social Behavior in Online Spaces

In late 2013, a woman cut her hair, and various internet community sites lit up with grief, disapproval, and condemnations. Felicia Day, the woman who adopted the shorter locks, was shocked by the response. The creator and producer of popular YouTube channel and geek culture community site, Geek & Sundry, and an actress who has appeared widely in numerous science fiction television shows, Day is no stranger to being in the public eye. However, the tenor of the criticism for her choice alarmed her. “The ones that confuse and hurt me the most are like this one I got last week: ‘Love your videos, will be back when you grow your hair out.’” (Romano, 2014) An image was created and circulated by anonymous users with the intent to show the grievousness of choice she had made and distributed it through various websites with captions like, “Felicia Day before and after. Which is better?” And “What boyfriend allowed this kind of self-harm?” (Kurp, 2014) Day is not the first to experience gender harassment through the internet. The New York Times reported on several other cases where women were harassed online for defying gender norms on the internet (O’Leary, 2012). In all cases, messages of condemnation were exclusively conveyed through geek and gamer internet bulletin boards, forums, and YouTube comments. In this paper, I will attempt to explain the proliferation of gender harassment online as a result of the Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE), as well as the anonymity and lack of social context afforded by computer-mediated mediums.

Before analyzing and applying explanations to this behavior, it is important to look at the cultural and historical context of gender harassment online. The internet has traditionally been an environment that assumes traits of maleness. This includes admiration of aggressive communications and the reverence of anti-female attitudes and behaviors (Barak, 2005). Additionally, studies have shown that computer-mediated environments reproduce and reinforce existing social boundaries found in the real world (Postmes, Spears, Lea, 1998). This results in an environment that is potentially hostile toward a female presence, especially ones that violate traditional gender norms, and may engage in gender harassment in response. Ritter defines gender harassment as “misogynist behaviors that are insulting, hostile, or degrading towards women” (2013, p. 198) and is characterized by verbal or visual abusive assertions due to perceived gender (Barak, 2005). Research has corroborated these expectations—women experience extensive harassment on the internet, including gender harassment, conveyed through blogs, comments, videos, and images distributed through various websites. (Barak, 2005). In such a climate, an internet personality such as Day can expect to encounter significant persecution for non-adherence to predefined gender norms. That said, the reaction is only facilitated and made salient by the nature of the medium itself.

One of the primary attributes of computer-mediated communications is actual or perceived anonymity. Users have the option of removing part of all identifying information about themselves from messages or content they post on websites. Initially, it was presumed that this would have a democratizing effect on the web—with no cues or ties to a person’s identity, communities would be formed of previously unassociated groups and equality would be promoted (Kiesler, Siegel, McGuire, 1984). Ironically, however, the opposite was found to be true, and, in fact, is theorized to be associated with an increase in discrimination (Postmes, Spears, Lea, 1998). Research shows that people using computer-mediated communication engage in more insulting and harmful behavior, including name calling and hostile comments (Kiesler, Siegel, McGuire, 1984). Inability to be identified can instead remove threat of penalty or retaliation for acting aggressively against others (Hardaker, 2010). This is certainly true in the case of Day—the sense of anonymity allowed criticizers to comment freely about their feelings about her haircut, and non-adherence to gender stereotypes. Those with the intent to insult or harm were not concerned that they would be caught or punished for such behavior, as there would be no way to identify offenders. Thus their declarations were unhindered from becoming more malicious.

Lack of social cues are a second important facet to consider when analyzing the computer-mediated communication of outrage levied at Day. Behaviors found in face-to-face communication such as eye-contact, facial expressions, and physical distance, help interlocutors understand each other and mediate misunderstandings (Kiesler, Siegel, McGuire, 1984). Online communication has no direct corollary for these cues, and thus results in a decrease of awareness of social norms of appropriateness (Postmes, Spears, Lea, 1998). Individuals who engage in criticisms of others online may be unaware of or underestimate the effect their comments have on their targets, and therefore may not moderate their communication to preserve the feelings of the target. In addition, negative comments are often perceived as more harmful by receivers of the communication. A study by Biber et al. in 2002 (as cited in Ritter, 2013) found that gender harassing behaviors such as insulting comments about style choices were perceived as more offensive when issued through online communications than when conveyed in-person. This aspect of computer-mediated communication can be helpful in understanding the reaction to Day. Some of those who wished to express an opinion of the stylistic change may have been unaware to how such comments would be perceived. Additionally, as social cues are reduced in online communication, individuals may not have been aware of the inappropriateness of their commentary. Whereas in the real-world, there can be no mistake about the suitability of unsolicited criticisms of stylistic choice, the unclear nature of the internet does not readily lend itself to such distinctions. People often see fit to gossip about the fashion choices of celebrities, especially women, and it follows that the same would occur in online spaces. However, the manner in which this occurred in reaction to Day exceeded the bounds of propriety and ventured into the realm of unadulterated vitriol.

Lastly, the Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE) can be used to explain why criticism of Day’s hair became so prevalent on so many sites. SIDE builds on the concept of anonymity and the effect of it on identity when in in a crowd setting. When a person is an anonymous member of a larger group, SIDE predicts a loss of cognizance of individual identity. When this occurs, awareness of social norms, and consequences are unintentionally set aside in favor of the perceived goals and norms of the group and the individual identity is replaced with a social identity. (Postmes, Spears, Lea, 1998). Reicher (as cited in Barak, 2005) applies this theory to online interactions, “People in cyberspace may incline under certain circumstances to follow group standards of behavior, rather than using their own standards; in other words, a social or group identity (and expressed norms of behavior) may replace an individual identity.” When this occurs in a space typically characterized by anti-women attitudes and promotion of aggressive communication, those affected by the SIDE processes may follow typical male-dominating behavior (Barak, 2005, p. 82). This can be used to describe what occurs when there a group, in this case male consumers of geek media, perceives a threat to their expected norms of female behavior. The goals and norms of the group usurp those of the individual, and declarations are made in support of these norms.

There have been various theories and suggestions on how to mitigate the effects of anonymity, reduced social cues, and SIDE effects. Some encourage an elimination on online anonymity entirely (Ritter, 2014). By requiring all online identities to correspond with the real-world counterpart, consequences become salient, and people will find it necessary to moderate their actions to avoid punishment for offensive behavior. That said, anonymity also affords protection to whistleblowers and users with fringe opinions who wish to express their opinions without possible danger to their person. To eliminate anonymity also destroys the ability to express these views which need to be protected. A second option is an educational one. By publishing guides, reports, recommendations, and codes of conduct in prominent locations on community sites, users may be made aware of the possible negative results of antisocial online behavior. However, those who are inclined toward gender harassment generally do so only because the online environment affords them the opportunity to do so, not because they are unaware of the possible harm that such insistences could have on others. (Barak, 2005). It is not the lack of information, so much as the attitudes that are the major problem of online gender harassment. In fact, such attitudes are just as prevalent in the real-world as well, but are frequently mitigated by apparent social cues or the absence of membership of anonymous group. Since anonymous computer-mediated communication is already socially conservative, in cases where clear norms of a group identity are available it is easy to reinforce group membership though the acting upon these norms (Postmes, Spears, Lea, 1998). Therefore, I propose a cultural solution. Through the promotion of different norms, such as a positive view of all genders, it is possible to change the attitudes that are the root of these issues. This is already being pursued by various geek and gamer institutions who are changing policies to punish misogynistic behaviors, and officially promoting ideas of tolerance (O’Leary, 2012). However, such an ideology shift can also be applied to the medium of computer-mediated communication. Cultivating and advocating new internet norms, such as that of responsible online discourse and constructive exchange of opinions, could foster a more conscientious community.

When Felicia Day cut her hair, she did not expect the outpouring of hostility at this seemingly innocuous act. However, the online environment contains many features which would indicate this outcome. As a socially conservative and culturally male space, users will generally have an expectation and dedication to traditional gender normative behavior. As a computer-mediated communication method, features of the medium such as anonymity and lack of social cues will facilitate antisocial behavior through the increase in hostile language without recourse. Lastly, SIDE can be used to explain the mass social condemnation of her act, as members of the geek and gamer community sites replaced their individual identities with those of the socially conservative group found in the online space. Several solutions to this antisocial behavior have been suggested, such as removal of anonymous posting capability and education of appropriate behavior. However, I contend that the best course of action is to change the online practice and to encourage a culture of responsible online behavior. To encourage users to maintain individual identity rather than getting caught up in the mob-mentality of the public censure. To promote traits like objective analysis, civilized discourse, and mindful deliberation. Perhaps then, we will have more constructive responses to incidents like experienced by Day, like those expressed Kotaku commenter Jens Wessling in regards to news of the mass denunciation, “I've gone back and looked at pictures of you with short hair and pictures of you with long hair, and after considerable consideration, I think you are funny and talented” (Hernandez, 2014).

References

Barak, A. (2005) Sexual Harassment on the Internet. Social Science Computer Review. 23(1), 77-92. doi: 10.1177/0894439304271540

Hardaker, C. (2010). Trolling in asynchronous computer-mediated communication: from user discussions to academic definitions. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture. 6(2), 215-242. doi: 10.1515/jplr.2010.011

Hernandez, P. (2014, Feb 4). Critics Of Felicia Day's Hairdo Don't Even Know What She Looks Like. Kotaku. Retrieved from http://kotaku.com/critics-of-felicia-days-hairdo-dont-even-know-what-sh-1516188224

Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist. 39(10), 1123-1134. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.39.10.1123

Kurp, J. (2014, Feb 6). Felicia Day Pities The ‘YouTube Guys’ Who Think She Was Hotter Before Her Haircut. Uproxx. Retrieved from http://www.uproxx.com/up/2014/02/felicia-day-pities-the-youtube-guys-who-think-she-was-hotter-before-her-haircut/

O’Leary, A. (2012, Aug 1). In Virtual Play, Sex Harassment Is All Too Real. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/us/sexual-harassment-in-online-gaming-stirs-anger.html?_r=3&hp&

Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea M. (1998). Breaching or Building Social Boundaries? SIDE-Effects of Computer-Mediated Communication. Communication Research. 25(6), 689-715. doi: 10.1177/009365098025006006

Ritter, B. (2013). Deviant Behavior in Computer-Mediated Communication: Development and Validation of a Measure of Cybersexual Harassment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 19(2), 197–214. doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12039

Romano, A. (2014, Feb 5). Felicia Day's haircut just became headline news, thanks to sexism. The Daily Dot. Retrieved from http://www.dailydot.com/fandom/felicia-day-pixie-haircut-sexist-comments/

February 27, 2014

Thor Losers

People had opinions after Marvel announced the new Thor. #Thor was trending on Twitter for two full days. Nothing trends on Twitter for multiple days. The Twitter collective has a maximum attention span of 27 hours. But the Thor announcement cultivated such a response, that it spawned a feedback loop of nerd-rage and counter-rage-at-rage. I stopped eating for the duration, instead absorbing the opinion-fueled-energy directly through my eyes and converting it to calories. I also seemed to develop additional calf definition. I'm just saying that your nerd-rage sustains me.

And while I firmly fall into the New-Thor-Direction-Is-Awesome camp, I'm always curious about the makeup of my nutrition. Yes, nerd-rage is delightful, but what flavor am I consuming? Before getting into specific nerd-things, it'll probably be helpful to look at more general norm-things to give some context. 

Human beings have a serious commitment to patterns. We prefer them, we seek them, whole parts of our brains are devoted to identifying them. In the grand scheme of the universe, we are tiny, meat-based pattern recognizers-- we're not even that picky about the quality of our collections. We have systems in place to help us identify true patterns (SCIENCE!) while simultaneously engaging in making up whatever patterns suit us (constellations!). Theories of cognition posit that we have a representation of objects in our heads (a cat, for example), and that we identify things by seeing how closely they resemble that representation (Do they have triangle ears, fuzzy belly, and incorrect grammar? Object identified: CAT). This process then both informs and reinforces our internal pattern of the object/concept/thing. We tend to have a distaste for things that don't conform to our expected patterns-- it's why many people hate jazz (less repetition of musical themes within the song), and moving to a new OS often first inspires a level of frustration generally seen only in bureaucratic offices and when operating the Mako in Mass Effect 1.

I hate everything about you. Your very shape inspires exponential rage.

And it's why we get so threatened when gender norms are violated. Humans have created expectations of modes of behavior based on cultural ideologies that are tied to a perceived gender. While some behavioral trends have been informed by biology, there is nothing explicitly "natural" about most gendered behaviors. Take a turn down a different cultural-development street, and females being the smaller of the species could have resulted in an increase in violent action to defend their place in a social hierarchy, rather than taking the roundabout make-friends-to-secure-social-safety route.* No, there is no niceness gene in the female brain, and research has shown that testosterone is not responsible for violent men. We train children on how men and women act, and society reinforces it-- the same patterns get reinforced for generations and the behaviors become so entrenched that it's called "natural".  There's a ton of research about this, people devote their entire lives to studying this, and its mind-blowingly fascinating so if you have any interest, there's a ton of resources to delve into.

So we have a bunch of made up patterns and a species that gets flustered when patterns aren't adhered to. We expect Thor to be a man, and we expect women to act a certain way. Certainly not swinging weapons around, and especially not ones that require strength to wield-- that would be weird and doesn't adhere to what we know about Thors and Wimmins. So we have a giant outburst of OMG LADY-THOR MAKES BAD FEELS and this is all exacerbated by nerds' tendency to want to protect the fandom. Some members of the culture are particularly protective of who has access to the culture, or what changes are implemented in our fictions. Nominating themselves to fulfill the role of gatekeeper, these individuals champion the authorization of potential persons, media, or changes to either, and are not at all hesitant to make their opinions known on the internet. (Behold: A nerd making her opinions known on the internet. The irony is not lost on me.) Gatekeeper behavior in nerd culture is particularly consumed with authenticity and leads to many of the issues being discussed on the internet about our culture today. (See: fake-geek girls, character representation, and rage at those who became fans only after the movie came out.)

Combine these general-human factors with geek culture's tendency to view itself as Official and Benevolent Gatekeeper of the Fandom and you have a recipe for a sexist nerd-rage backed with all the righteous indignation of the most devout rules lawyers. It's a layer cake of various flavors of misconceptions-- deliciously complex. I've mentioned a lot of things and cited a bunch of science, so the tendency may be to think that this behavior is normal for humans and there is nothing to be done about it. This is a wrongness-- don't think this thing. My intent, rather, is to highlight that these are not simple issues. They are complex problems, intertwined with a bunch of behavioral norms, so just blaming sexism is to simplify the variety of issues that need to be addressed. The good news: culture is alterable! By being aware of and deliberate about what culture we are reproducing, we create new norms of behavior and expectation in the rest of the fandom. Which is precisely what Marvel is doing with this change. That said, raging-nerds, I'd appreciate it if you'd jump on board as soon as you can. You're harshing my fem-Thor buzz.

* Someone will likely argue that statistical differences in strength among sexes results in a preference of one course of action over the other, and thus I will refer back to how biology can (and often does) inform behaviors, but, again, this is not a required course of action.

 

Pattern recognition: Scientific American | Turn Me On, Dead Man

Creating gender: TED | Colin Strokes: How movies teach manhood

Testosterone findings: Scientific American | Strange but True: Testosterone Alone Does Not Cause Violence

My Wildstar Obsession: Community and Marketing

Today was the first day in… some quantifiable amount of time I can’t be bothered to math at the moment… that I haven’t been able to log into Wildstar for random play fix. This is a sad world I’m living in— I had gotten quite accustomed to not having any barrier between me and super-fun-stabbin'-times, and now I have to wait for head start to continue said stabbin'.

It has given me the time, however, to review the unending mass of dev videos, blogs, and various other community interactions that Carbine puts out/updates regularly. It’s a vicarious fix, but it soothes the savage beast in the interim. And they provide plenty of salve. This is an aspect of Wildstar that doesn’t get quite as much vocal appreciation from the community, but truly is an unsung hero of development.

So games are one of those quirky art forms that requires an audience. Images/music/choreography/etc. can be created in the home of the artist and never see the light of day again, but can still be widely considered to be an art. Games, on the other hand, can’t be a game until they are played. The very definition of game-ness means that someone has to interact with it in order to unleash it’s game-y nature. In this sense, the anticipated audience makes up a good portion of the game. But game companies are still kinda fuzzy on how to develop this part. Developing communities usually gets regulated to marketing or advertising, which always (unintentionally) has a air of skeeze to it. And this often makes it feel fabricated, heavily constructed, and just fake as fuck.

Carbine has decided instead to operate not as an salesman, but as a community member, and I’ve deemed it (in my infallible wisdom) to be rather successful. They post blogs, they make videos, the troll fandoms and repost their favorites. They get visibly excited about updates, geek out unabashedly about mechanics, and get personally invested in the game. They admit when things go wrong and make fun of themselves for it. They admit when things are awesome, and make fun of themselves for it. They have an awesome sense of humor that mirrors the one their fanbase has (The Nexus Report 5/13 included a Walken Off— a competition members of my social circle has spent years battling each other for superiority). They play with us— while some make a distinction between them, I truly believe that games are (at their core) toys— and using this understanding, it’s the only game community development that makes any kind of sense.

So hats off, Carbine. You not only made a game so good that I am openly, embarrassingly, OBSESSED, about it, but you've come to my house to geek out about it with me. Bold move-- I dig it.