My favorite

This week has to be one of my favorite topics. Social media. The use of online spaces and feminism, for gender equality.  In the readings for this week, we look into factors for social media which include connections, injustices, equality and everything that goes In and out of that topic. A Feminist Approach to Social Media explains 6 approaches we can actively practice, which include ways to be supportive, create a place that is safe, and builds on a community that builds each other.  I have agreed with most of these approaches however it seemed that the information provided was old news. While thinking about this approach, I think it is easy to think about feminism as a general topic and think about the kind of places we need to create to influence positive vibes. In Baby, We Were Born to Tweet it suggested that, “Early users of Twitter were finding ways to hack the writing space to fit their composing needs and "craft creative, meaty, and to-the-point messages that attract other people's attention" by using Grounded theory they influenced the way we did the thing and soon defined how the thing has been done and will continue to be done. “Grounded theory studies have the potential to continue to transform how scholars, teachers, students, and the general public understand the community-wide importance of composing, even especially in 140-character bursts.” The work seemed to be heavy in weight, however i felt that I got lost in the atmosphere, so much to read and acknowledge, while already understanding how hashtags worked.Springsteen fans, #bruceleeds, and the tweeting of locality tied hand in hand with what we were talking about in the earlier article, no comment really on the information, however I will say that hashtags are more meaningful when understood and related in topic.

On a side note. Social media is life. Social media is the new thing to do, and I will say that I feel that anyone who says that they do not need social media in their life do not understand it. Social media goes beyond Facebook and twitter it is the internet, and websites that build relationships.

Cheers to Social Media!

One thing that I think that I’ve mentioned in almost every single one of my graduate courses is my love for social media. I absolutely love social media for what it has done for my life, what I’ve learned on various sites, and the power that it currently holds to change the world. 

Twitter specifically has changed the way that I view the world and has exposed me to various layers of inequality. There, I learned about womanism and ableism. I also learned more American and world history than I had been previously taught in school. 

It is admittedly painful to be on social media at times, as I have gotten exposure to the most insidious of perspectives. Also, at times, two seemingly “socially progressive” users get into arguments and I have to reevaluate my stance on certain issues. This is something that Alexandra Hidalgo and Katie Grimes point out in their video “A Feminist Approach to Social Media.” They discuss the “varying and contradictory ideologies that sometimes result in feminists arguing with feminists over social media.”

They also discuss the idea that some feminists discredit the work of younger feminists who focus on online activism. This binary, which concerns online activism versus protesting, is one of the topics that I think about often as I try to find my identity as an activist. Is it enough to advocate for rights online? Is it enough to only protest at marches? What do doing both of these things accomplish and can there be any grounds for understanding those who only want to do one or the other? I do like the idea of collaboration that they state as, “Following this feminist tradition, we propose a collaborative approach to social media at various levels, such as having more than one person involved in developing social media strategies and collaborating with organizations and individuals working toward similar goals on Twitter chats and campaigns.”

Dialogue, collaboration, and a willingness to evolve is what, I think, makes movements most effective. 

When I'm all stressed out!

The "YesIKnowFinalsAreComingButYouNeedToRelax" Playlist

Sarah Jarosz- Run Away Sarah Jarosx- Tell Me True Fleetwood Mac- Dreams Dixie Chicks - Landslide Bruno Mars - Talking to the Moon Bruno Mars - If I Knew Taylor Swift & The Civil Wars - Safe & Sound A Great Big World - Say Something Miles Davis - Blue in Green Sir Anthony Hopkins - And The Waltz Goes On

Shuffle and play on repeat 🤗❤🎶🎧 I know I’m forgetting some, but these are a good start! Perfect for drifting off to some much-needed sleep!

Post Humanism or the sheep in wolves’ clothing?

This week’s readings links in to the previous few weeks topics of procedural rhetoric and accessibility - movements around disability, ethnicity and gender rights which challenge the loss of credibility of traditional norms of what it means to be human. For Hayles this means that ‘bodies have lost their boundaries’. This also links in nicely with Haraway’s Cyborg Manifesto which is, although ironic, a feminist project located in a desire to reconstitute identity politics, particularly as it concerns assumptions about gender norms.

So it begs the question ‘What does it mean to be human?’ or equally ‘Should we define humans by what we are not?’ Since Darwin showed that humans were not exceptional the barriers between humans and animals have been disappearing so maybe we should apply this same argument to advanced technology? Haraway and Hayles both emphasise the ‘disintegration of the liberal humanist subject as the core characteristic of posthumanism’. Moreover, they both suggest that this change in subjectivity leads humanity towards a situation where it treats seriously claims about the moral status of artificial life.

 I remember reading an article years ago on animal rights by Springer where he discussed speciesism and all 3 texts resonate with the same arguments. Why do we separate human and animal rights? Humanists argue that humans are exceptional and distinct from other life forms because we possess reason - but does a baby human have more reasoning ability than a dog or a robot? Haraway considers our relationships with animals and is critical of these sort of assumptions by humanists. Hayles’ also takes to task Humanists on the separation of mind and body and alludes that ‘disembodiment through cybernetics reveals a lack of fixity to humanness that also diminishes the value of stable biological distinctions, such as species categories’.

 I understand posthumanist rhetoric creates new ethical dilemmas such as ‘Is the era of mankind approaching some form of end?’ Or are we now moving towards a post-gender world where being a cyborg is preferable to being a goddess? I don’t think that Haraway is expressing a utopian break with evolution - but is expressing the existentialist need for socio-cultural reform by attacking uniform ideas of what it means to be human. All is going OK but…just when you think it is safe, back comes Derrida and McLuhan and suddenly I feel like a clown running across a minefield in ever decreasing circles. I realise that Derrida’s focus on the undecidability over crossing boundaries is very relevant again and so is McLuhan’s claims about technology changing subjectivity that is a theme throughout Hayles’ Writing Machines. God (dess) help us all!

Sisterhood--and Twitter--Is Powerful

In the 16-minute video essay I viewed last night, I saw the numerous websites--and the numerous ways--that women are using to come together.  They are also using them to create a community, be there for each other, and most importantly, push for change.  Right now, I'm wondering if this online community and togetherness can begin to alleviate the sexism that, say, women in the gaming world have experienced.  With the large numbers of people who are liking these tweets, it would seem that it could.  For instance, according to the video, one of the characteristics of this community/togetherness is collaboration.  This collaboration consisting of thousands--if not millions--of voices creates a diversity of voices that not only enable people to bring something unique to the table but also bring solutions to combat any problem and bring about change.  Not being a part of many communities--well, I am a part of the Daily Kos community--I don’t know exactly what the techno-feminist community is doing for gamer women who have had their dignity torn to shreds by men-children, but I’m sure that it has given them tremendous support.

That said, I’d like to pose a question: if techno-feminism can be powerful, then what about the traditional feminism?  What I mean here is the “take to the streets” feminist movements of the late sixties, early 70s, and today.  Even now, with the proliferation of online communities and activism, we still have the women’s movements with literally thousands of women lining/filling the streets--just like what we saw a few months ago.  And it was freakin’ awesome.  So then, which type of movement is the most powerful--the one taking place on our computers, our laptops, our smart phones, or our iPads?  Or the one that goes on in the streets?  

Oops.  You know what?  I just remembered something.  As a graduate student who is now in the prospectus stage of her Master’s thesis on Chinese rhetoric, I have realized that the women’s movement can’t be reduced to a dichotomy.  It can’t be either/or--in other words, we can’t say that we either agitate for change in the streets or on our screens.  The two types of movements can converge to create a movement in which women support each other, create solutions, AND bring about the change we all want.  So then, the two movements--online and physical--together can create a truly powerful sisterhood.

As We Remix our Thoughts about the Machine

As soon as my computer is booted, and as soon as I am ready to begin locking into homework mode, it prompts me that a Java Update is available. I have seen this update notification at least five times within the last week, and I have finally decided to click install – partially out of concern for the maintenance of my machine, but more for the desire to rid the prompting of the message that protrudes upon my screen, my labor, my joy. As the installation completes, another message – with font that covers nearly a third of my screen – exclaims that “3 Billion Devices Run Java”. It makes me wonder, if so many machines, equal to almost half of all the people in existence at this moment run this program, how many machines are in operation? How many operational machines are running me?

E.M Forster presents a future in which technology has completely blended into modern life in his short story, “The Machine Stops”.  Within this dystopian future, the majority of mankind has begun to practically worship the machine that runs their lives. Inspiration from nature is considered worthless; the very acknowledgement of the skies above and the dirt below is antiquated. The Machine is all and all has been given because of the Machine. It becomes like a deity as, “The Machine is the friend of ideas and the enemy of superstition: the Machine is omnipotent, eternal; blessed is the Machine.” It provides shelter, assigns parental duties, relays communication, and shares a constant reminder of its presence through a humming noise. How different is this from technology of 2017? We are surrounded by the glows of machines we carry in our pockets as if they were attached limbs. Education is transmitted through this glow, as is friendship, love, and intimacy. I see the glow as I type; you see the glow as you read. While not a constant hum, the glow is a portal of creativity, communication, and creation, one that rivals the Machine.

We are truly not too far from the visions of Vannevar Bush shown in his work, “As We May Think”. Bush describes the process of evolving technology as so rapid and efficient that enormous amounts of data can be compressed into tiny sources of containment with ease of access. His ultimate vision is described as the memex, “a device in which an individual stores all his books, records, and communications, and which is mechanized so that it may be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility.” Have we not nearly matched this vision with the advent of the internet? Ideas are accessed through this portal with our gaps in knowledge but one Google search away from being digitally transported to being fulfilled in reality. Our collection of knowledge and ability through our machines is so easy, so vast.

However, our machine has taken on a new form that preys for control upon the human condition, business. Bret Gaylor’s “Rip: A Remix Manifesto” examines the ability to use technology to build on ideas to develop new art. A central topic of this documentary is the work of remix artist Girl Talk, who remixes old songs together in order to create a new entity. Girl Talk compares this process to taking a familiar note from a Beatles’ song and using it as the basis for a new guitar rift that is featured in your own original song. The issue with this is the concept of ownership. While technology has made the access to ideas and the ability to modify or create new ideas relatively easy, it has also placed harsh penalties on the ability to do so. Gaylor claims that, “The law made 52 million people copyright criminals,” for downloading music without paying for it.

At 13 minutes into the film, Gaylor states that process of building on previous ideas is practically in human nature. However, businesses have taken control of technology in order to monetize ideas. Gaylor cites an interview of musician Muddy Waters who claims that blues was influenced by songs on the cotton field. His own music was directly influenced by Robert Johnson and a tune he learned from Son House. At 14 minutes, he shows how similar the rifts from Led Zeppelins’ “A Lot of Love” are similar to Muddy Waters “You need Love”. These ideas built upon each other with the help of evolving technology to create new art, just like Girl Talk. Gaylor continues by demonstrating how similar “This May be the Last Time”, recorded by the Staple Singers in 1959, is to The Rolling Stones’ “The Last Time” recorded in 1965. The beat is further evolved into “Bittersweet Symphony” by the Verve in 1997. At 15:11, Gaylor shows a graphic that states The Rolling Stones sued the Verve for 100 percent royalties, which they won and subsequently sold the song to Nike for use in a commercial. Artists build on the work before them, but the ability to monetize the work of the future allows for new policy, control, to be enacted. The same policy that protected The Rolling Stones, but not the Staple Sings, is the same policy that protects Disney, but not the fables and fairy tales Disney movies are built on. In fact, in 1998 copyright law was rewritten to give Disney copyright indefinitely where terms of ownership were extended for life of the author plus 70 years with corporation terms set at 95 years, according to Gaylor. Disney and The Rolling Stones changed policy to protect their ideas, their technology, their revenue.

It would appear that there is an even more menacing entity that controls the machines that seek control of man, one that Forster did not foresee. The controller does not glow from a screen; it glows green. Mankind has qualified technology’s existence and value, but money has quantified its policy. While that Java notification does maintain a portion of my computer, the policy fueled by money is responsible for even allowing it to pop onto my screen. Gaylor states, “Our future is becoming less free” because of the monetized control.

What will happen to ideas if the machine stops? Can we stop the machine in order to regain control of our ideas, and if so, should we? It would seem with the example of the machine known as the Disney Media Empire that the machine has already set its boundaries on what choices we have. We must be do what Gaylor implores in creating a future that is freer by limiting the control of the past. However, finding those who wish to relinquish control to policies under the money machine will be as difficult as is seeing the machine collapse all together.  

rAz+8sV��

The reality

Cyborgs and posthumanism

Yes, Haraway, it is blasphemy! We cannot possibly be cyborgs or hybrids part human part machine. We are created in God’s image. And Hayles, we do not embody technology beings. We are human. These two really ticked me off, primarily because of my religious views that I do not intend on imposing on anyone, but if I may speak freely, -religious alert- I feel that this contradicts everything that I stand for. Sure we have come a long way in technological advances but we are by no means cyborgs nor have we abandoned our humanity not even when it comes to social-feminism. We are not a myth nor a cyborg of a monster. According to the bible, we are formed in God’s image and are a product of his very hands and Haraway rightfully calls this a blasphemy because that is exactly what it is. And Hayles, no we are not beings waiting to be “seemingly articulated with intelligent machines” we are intelligent individuals ourselves without the need for technology. Sure we may need to readjust and discover ourselves as beings, but we are not made incomplete waiting to be merged with technology. We are still human. What really upset me was Hayles definition that “[T]he posthuman view thinks of the body as the original prosthesis we all learn to manipulate, so that extending or replacing the body with other prostheses becomes a continuation of a process that began before we were born. Fourth, and most important, by these and other means, the posthuman view configures human being so that it can be seamlessly articulated with intelligent machines. In the posthuman, there are no essential differences or absolute demarcations between bodily existence and computer simulation, cybernetic mechanism and biological organism, robot teleology and human goals.” How can there be no difference? Robots are not beings, they are just machines that can be disconnected, abandoned destroy and they would not suffer emotional or physical distress. Machines are machines, but humans have the essence of life. We can think for ourselves, make decisions-good ones and bad ones, heck we are the creators of the machines. Now, if Haraway means that we are cyborgs when it comes to politics, this metaphor is quite precise. She says, “By the late twentieth century, our time, a mythic time, we are all chimeras, theorized and fabricated hybrids of machine and organism. In short, we are cyborgs. The cyborg is our ontology; it gives us our politics.” This I agree with, metaphorically speaking. She is saying that our politics come from virtual spaces, from endless social interaction that happens in cyberspaces that it seems like it is an organism all on its own. In this sense, Hayles also adds to that saying our ideals come that come from virtual spaces are “seamlessly articulated with intelligent machines” However, the machines are not the intelligent beings but rather the humans who manipulate such machines. Our dependency on such machines is dangerously evident that we cripple our humanity, but it is not enough to make us cyborgs.

The Medium Again!

In the Hayley text, “How We May Think,” she states, “The Age of Print is passing and the assumptions, presuppositions, and practices associated with it are now becoming viable as media-specific practices rather than the largely invisible status quo.” Again, I thought that this sounded eerily similar to what Marshall McLuhan expressed in “The Medium is the Massage.” If I have learned nothing else in this course, I have learned that it is critical that we pay attention to the medium through which information is relayed. This, in effect, influences how we see the text, interact with the text, and the type information that we gain from the text. 

I am still grappling with the idea or learning to think critically about how mediums affect how we read but I think that Hayley does a good job of pointing out exactly how this works. She states,“Learning to read has been shown to result in significant changes in brain functioning; so has learning to read differently, for example by performing Google searches.” 

What if we had a generation of readers who only learned how to read from the internet. As Hayley points out, we have a breadth of information at our disposal on the internet. Would educators show students how to google words that they don’t understand? Would teachers use dictionary.com to hear the right pronunciation of words? Would this generation learn to read more quickly or would it take them a bit longer, as they would have to learn a variety of skills at once?

Perhaps we are moving towards a world in which this becomes the new status quo. I am eager to witness these changes as the humanities become more inclusive of digital technologies. However, as I have mentioned in the past, it is important to reflect on what is lost. 

Old Soul

hahhaha

Social Media - Barriers

As Yancey said (in Wolff’s article) we need to know how and why people are writing outside of the classroom - because nobody is making them do it, nobody is making them tweet. So what is it about social media that has the world hooked? If I have learned anything this term, it is that Identification is intrinsic to understanding rhetoric and we were made mindful of this in regards to feminism and cross-border students. Both communities make use of social media to circumvent and challenge the temporal and physical restrictions that are placed in front of them in their daily lives. Monty’s article connected clearly with post-humanism and the concept that mobile media have become an extension of people’s bodies in the way we connect and identify with communities of people.

 Hidalgo and Grimes touched on 2 concepts that resonated with me - the false premise that there is a separation between the physical and the virtual (the shallow premise that struggle through digital forms is not really struggle) and the development of social and digital fluidity - especially in the content of media such as Facebook and Twitter. Both tie in with our previous readings on accessibility and post-humanism. After our class discussion, I also kept thinking of the concept of barriers - the ones we put up in social media to prevent unwanted attention and the very same barriers that those who may wish us harm (trolls, advertisers, viruses, etc.) try to smash through on a daily basis. This thought helped me link to the methods both barrier builders and smashers try to use and Wolff’s intensive research around semiotics helped me to do this. Wolff illustrated what Bowker and Star (1999) describe as the extent to which classification systems are representations of the cultures from which they emerge. The use of Hashtags showed to me the lengths that those who wish to follow us and analyse our intentions will go to - the amount of effort and ingenuity expounded to understand our behaviour is phenomenal - and as we know, it can be used for benevolent or malevolent purposes.

 The digital world didn’t land from outer space - it is not external to us but comes from us - a tool created by humans just like a pen or a watch. The problem is we have also taken our discriminatory practices and views with us and infested much of our digital media with the darker side of humanity. But, the brighter more progressive side of humanity is there to. It can be used as a tool for struggle and resistance - take for example the use of social media in combatting the oppressive regimes in the world. But social media is not just a tool as Monty’s article states. Social Media and communication augments the user’s cognitive ability. History tells us that humanity always and everywhere struggles and resists injustice and inequality and Monty’s and Hidalgo and Grimes’ article are evidence that this will continue through digital media. The struggle to break down the barriers to social progress, be they feminist struggle or class struggle or any other form of discrimination, will also be followed by those who mean to destroy these struggles. We do not escape our social relationships online.

Post Humanism and the Cyborg??

Haraway explains the cyborg as "a creature in a post-gender world; it has no truck with bisexuality, pre-oedipal symbiosis, unalienated labour, or other seductions to organic wholeness through a final appropriation of all the powers of the parts into a higher unity". This topic expresses culture and technology In a way that was new to me, when we read topics like this I tend to relocate my ideas and focus on the new factors. Cyborg manifesto practices gender as its central example in explaining the power of the “cyborg”. Haraway describes the cyborg in four different ways in her essay. The first is as a "cybernetic organism", the second is as "a hybrid of machine and organism", the third as "a creature of lived social reality", and the fourth is as a "creature of fiction." This article was new to me, I mean really I think going in I thought I was reading about a type of robot and I guess in some ways it is that. Later on after I did some research aside from Haraway, I realized that Cyborgs did exist. According to statistics about  10% of the U.S. population today are estimated to be cyborgs in the technical sense, including people with “electronic pacemakers, artificial joints, drug implant systems, implanted corneal lenses, and artificial skin.” A much higher percentage contributes in occupations that make them into metaphoric cyborgs, including the “computer keyboarder joined in a cybernetic circuit with the screen, the neurosurgeon guided by fiber optic microscopy during an operation, and the teen gameplayer in the local videogame arcarde.”

Jumping over to Hayles there was a part of the article that stuck out to me, here it is, “If your failure to distinguish correctly between human and machine proves that machines can think, what does it prove if you fail to distinguish woman from man? Why does gender appear in this primal scene of humans meeting their evolutionary successors, intelligent machines? What do gendered bodies have to do with the erasure of embodiment and the subsequent merging of machine and human intelligence in the figure of the cyborg?” Hayles moves towards the posthumanist views, this idea in which people see this information as necessarily embodied in the “substrate that carries it and that people use this idea to develop new technology that can improve others' lives.”  This article was insightful yet kind of freaked me out, machine and humans is one thing but this new evolutionary viewpoint is tricky and questionable. But thatst just me.

Week umm..? Fudge I’ve lost track and my grades have probably gone off the rails or The Week where upon we are reminded to not be total d*cks on the interwebs (or in life).

I have to say that watching A Feminist Approach to Social Media by Alexandra Hidalgo and Katie Grimes had me nodding along and saying “Well yeeah!...but...” I felt that the points they used to outline a system of interaction and expression should really be just the way people act in general. Hidalgo and Grimes were specifically addressing feminist spaces in social media, and I feel like these ideals should be applied to everything we do. It had me mentally checking off my behavior at work to see if I was following these guidelines and I’m sorry to say that I kinda failed and it made me feel like a sh*tty human. 

1. Collaboration: Hidalgo and Grimes state that this comes in levels: 1. involve more than one person to bounce ideas around, 2. connect to others you know that share your goals, and 3. Connect to people you don’t know but that share your vision.  

My Grade= eh 80. I tend to come up with ideas and then take too much ownership if someone else steps in. It’s hard for me to let go and let others modify what I’ve already seen as a near perfect idea. I’ll do it, but I might grumble a little.

2. Reciprocity: Tit for Tat? Develop relationships by supporting others as they support you. I felt that this point was a little disingenuous at first. Like OOH you followed me let me follow you back! I feel like unless I’ve scrolled through their posts and such, it sort of rings false. I tend to only follow someone who I feel echoes my interests or brings a new perspective to what I’m doing. But when thinking about feminist spaces and creating a community of like-minded people, it would benefit from a network that helps build awareness of their work. But if everyone is just following each other, how do you avoid becoming an echoing chamber?

My Grade=100. I tend to share everything I come across that I find interesting. Whether others use is or not, read it or not, buy-in or not, is only a distant thought or concern. My sharing is never affected by what I have gotten in return. I might mutter about your laziness or lack of initiative, but I will never withhold.

3. Non-Competitiveness: We’re all in this together! (feel free to sing along)

My Grade= Yeah, Fail. Big fat goose egg. Zero. I am super competitive. I want to be the best. Not in a #Murica sort of way, but in an I put in the work and bobdammit it’s gonna show! kinda way. I seriously need to let sh*t go and not be so competitive. I need to care less about how my work stacks up to that which others are doing.

4. Respect: Talk to each other, not AT each other. Hidalgo and Grimes underscore the need to really listen to one another, urging us to be constructive and inclusive. Which I agree with 100% You can’t work together if you don’t respect each other.

My Grade= This was a toss up because on one hand, there is a tiny amount of people that have my utmost respect but on the other hand I’m like FAIL. Miserably. THIS IS WHY I AVOID SOME TEACHERS. I can’t with some of these people. I just. Can’t Even. Like why are you teachers? You hate kids and you hate your subject. Like who do you know that got you this job and please leave because you’re causing more harm that good. 

5. Community Building: Hidalgo and Grimes stress that you need to surround yourself with other experts to enrich the content you’re creating, to promote professional relationships that feed our intellectual needs. I wholeheartedly agree, especially when #4 in your list is shot to hell because the people around you don’t meet this need. Hidalgo and Grimes state that this support systems helps to “create an ethos of unity” that supports their goal.

My Grade= 100! I’m constantly reaching out to people on social media because coworkers eh. I love finding others that share my passions and headaches and this need to better ourselves curriculum-wise. We all need people that share our craziness to keep us motivated.

6. Patience: Hidalgo and Grimes bring up an interesting point, one I had never really considered. TIME. Good things take time. We need to keep in mind that change of the lasting kind doesn’t happen overnight. We gotta be in it for the long haul if we want to see the fruits of our labor.

My Grade= 90 I want to say I’m pretty patient. If at first you don’t succeed, try , try again. Lesson tanked? Find another way! Kid didn’t understand a concept? Find another way!

So in conclusion, dear readers, if you have in fact made it all the way down here... I am a work in progress as are feminist spaces in social media 

tl;dr: these are things we should’ve learned in kindergarten but sadly still need to work on