Lead by Example

- whats your agency?

In a previous blog I wrote about how identities influence ideologies. Well this works both ways because ideologies influence identities! I think this topic of ideologies is very interesting, so last week I approached this topic using the lens of people who are aware of their identity and so further have ideologies that influence them.

Now I want to explore how ideologies influence identities.

Using the Anita Hill story as an example, Anita Hill used for agency to provide visibility, and therefore forming and identity for her and for other victims of this tragic crime.

Anita Hill stepped forward to the stand to talk about the sexual harassment as she faced when she worked for Sen. Clarence Thomas.

Sexual harassment has been around for generations but there was nothing in policy until 1971. Even though there were policies it still happened in the workplace; because women rights weren’t as prevalent as they are nowadays it was not talked about until Anita Hill testified on behalf of herself.

When she expressed how uncomfortable she felt while working for Clarence Thomas, this gave others an idea of what is not okay, and a voice for similar experiences.

The behavior that Clarence Thomas performed was at that time (1980-1990) was then normalized. When things are normalized that makes issues and people invisible. Anita Hill used her agency to provide a visibility for her self and other women.

Since the Anita Hill incident the effect was an increase of women in the politics and the number of women that reported sexual harassment in their workplace.  Therefore showing how ideologies influence identities.

I would like to share an experience that I had this past week and I would like to grow from it. I realized what right culture is an previously I would never like to use that word because it makes us.

After deep discussions with the classmates I came to my senses that I participate in a culture with some of my ideas and beliefs. I thought it was very interesting that Prof. Justin Eckstein “hit the hammer on the head of a nail” when he said “those that individualize their self out of the rape culture, are the ones that participate in it”.

I thought that this made a lot of sense to me because I was took myself out of that culture and said I don't participate in it at all. When it comes to rape cases of sexual harassment I had the tendency to question and dismiss the trauma that one could possibly be feeling or felt.

I came to realization in this class that I only think this way because of how things are shaped in society and media. Also I have some previous biases that are seen from others in my life growing up.

Rape Culture is an environment in which rape is prevalent and in which sexual violence against women is normalized and excused in the media and popular culture.

This is shaped from media and society associating the woman and object to work for or desire. In some cases this dehumanizes women!

I came to the website rantpolitical.com and they have a story covering the 15 real-life examples of rape culture in our society.

Some of the 15 examples that they listed were:

Objectifying and Sexualizing Women

Movies specifically “romantic comedies” are real good example of how the media justifies as sexualized as when. There is a common trope that two men compete for one woman and the winner gets the prize(woman). This is an disillusionment from how love stories really happen in real life. Although it is possible that it could happen because of the laws of attraction, this could give others an idea that the woman is a prize and you have to compete for her

in this clip from the movie "Sixteen Candles" a bunch of "geeks" are fantasizing over a girls panties. This type of ideology that "pantie sniffing and praising" is not cool. In this scene there are so many of these "geeks trying to get a feel and sniff. I think that it is quite disturbing but to someone who doesn't know might actually try this. Ideologies influence identities!

Media Perpetuating Myths

Mostly I can see this in music, the artist again uses women as object for sexual use

using the song “animals” by Maroon 5

“Baby, I’m preying on you tonight/ Hunt you down eat you alive,

Maybe you think that you can hide/ I can smell your scent for miles,”

For the right woman maybe this could be seductive but you can't just do this to any woman that you be at club or a woman of interest. Ideas as such that you can chase a woman down and hunt for her to eat her alive. To me this is supporting the rape culture because this isn’t always true in relationships. Now that maroon five say this could be an ideology that influences and identity

Victim Blaming

Using the Anita Hill story as an example the media framed her that she was just the liar trying to disrupt Clarence Thomas's nomination to the senate. Also they made it seem like working for him for so many years and not saying anything that she wasn't really affected and it was her fault.

Another example is how there's victim blaming you for being to drunk and getting raped. Someone who doesn't really believe the victim and when they find out that they were drunk is suddenly becomes their fault for being raped. This takes some of the responsibility off of the person who committed the assault, therefore this ideology influences the identity!

With the agency of this ideology this shapes and forms an identity that women are to blame for being raped.

Sympathy for the Rapist(because they’re famous or are rich)

Recently in the news there was a Stanford swimmer that was very good at his sport, he came from a great background of money, and he was white!

He was only sentenced to six months in jail and According to the judge the reason for such a short sentence was “A prison sentence would have a severe impact on him. I think he will not be a danger to others.” 

I find this very disturbing because I truly feel that race played a factor to the judge. This situation is interesting because with his new set of ideologies is going to be okay for people to get away with great that easily? I understand that young people make mistakes and this guy is really great at his skill but this rape is unacceptable. This judge did something that has never been done (possibly creating a new culture?) and I hope it does not become normalized to show sympathy for the rapists and gving short sentences.

With understanding how ideologies influence identity this leads me to the question 

What are you going to do with your agency?

A famous quote by Gandhi “be the change you wish to see”, is one of the best forms of agency that an individual can practice on a daily basis. Each and every person has a unique story to tell therefore using their visibility to presume an identity, this could be used as a resource for somebody else,  to provide opportunities too! I like the idea of thinking and it took the unusual story for me to realize what exactly agency is. She used her voice and the media as a resource, to give her visibility. 

This class gave me hope and drive to continue to express my great ideas to the world because my voice can provide visibility for others. Learning about how resource presumptions and opportunities all go together to analyze gender issues has really opened my eyes to understanding things.

Word count 1289

The Discourse Creating Reality in Video Games - Overwatch

Discourse creates reality. Its the idea that the written and verbal communication forms the intricacies of life that we live in. I think this idea can even be expanded beyond that of verbal or written communication, but also to actions and the assumption of communication. These two extra points are important as they do communicate whether or not intended to, and hence help to create reality.  Examining how discourse creates reality is worth the time because it can reveal both why certain ideas emerge greater than others in society, and secondly based on what is there we can learn how to change it.

Now its easier to see how discourse creates reality in the world we all walk around in. As with each idea talked about and each action that individuals take the making of it is observable. Every piece of communication whether intentional or not serves to further the creation of the reality. How does the idea of discourse creating reality tie into video games though?

On one half video games are subject to the same reality that discourse creates for the rest of us. Video games simply acting as a tinted mirror, showing the same ideas and values but in another world. On the other half though video games are in a unique position to create their own discourse for reality. By using their creative potential video games can not only create a new world, but also create their own discourse to create reality within that world.

These contrasting possibilities put video games in a unique spot of both being able to change the discourse of reality directly and show another instead, and also change the current discourse of reality through the communication of the game to its players.

To examine this I'll be looking at the game Overwatch, produced by Blizzard, the same company that made World of Warcraft. Though I will look at the game in general, I will also be examining a specific controversy that happened in Overwatch's closed beta phase before its release. This controversy has been detailed in my previous posts, each concerning a different focus within the controversy. For reference they are as follows, Physical Portrayal Numbing, the Bechdel Test, and Ideology.

In short summary, the controversy concerned a pose for the character Tracer. A forum post was made arguing that the posed ruined her strong female character with a spunky fun attitude by turning her into a sex symbol. The problem for the forum user was that the pose was out of line with the Tracer's personality.

This controversy highlights a change in the video game industry that is becoming more prevalent. That of the players being able to change the reality of a game through their own discourse both prior and after its release to have effects in a relevant time. But wait has that not always been the case?

When a game is releasing, the company of course is making it for consumption and hence design it to be appealing and desirable. Which often means aligning the game and often times the discourse within it to resonate with the target audience. With all games there are bound to be people who complain about the product. It remains unavoidable as people tend to complain about anything that does not come as they want it. This group though is most often a very small minority and their complaints are often nit-picky or over the top extreme to the point of impossibility. So these go unnoticed. However this comes with the downside that most complaints about the game can be ignored. Which leads to nothing changing, or very small changes that do not create the changed desired by the community of players or does not actually fix the problem it was designed for. In this system the players though their discourse can be loud, it is deafening to the point of self harm in that it prevents the community of player's own messages from emerging clearly.

So how is this case of Overwatch different? Well the biggest change is that Blizzard, and specifically Jeff Kaplan the Game Director and Vice President of Blizzard, payed attention to the concerns of the community. This was in part made easier for them and the community as the community of players were more focused on certain points of concern. The voice of the community became more united. Blizzard showed its consumers and audience that it truly did listen to their concerns and more than that it showed that Blizzard would respond to it and make changes based on their concerns. This went to the extent where Blizzard made videos specifically to address concerns of the community. Even to the length of addressing coding mechanics of Netcode within the game and how it currently was effecting players and how they were changing it to be better. Though netcode is crucial for a online first person shooter game, it is not something that is openly talked about, particularly from the developer. This was but one of Blizzards strides to demonstrate their dedication to listening and responding to the community.

Blizzard creates a unique reality through their discourse on such concerns, both for their community and their game. Overwatch is a first person team shooter, meaning it pits teams of players against each other in a competitive style match. Within the game the discourse provided through both visual and audio cues is a sense of teamwork and cooperation within a team. Blizzard goes the extra yard here, continuing to show and build this emphasis beyond the confines of the game itself. Blizzard builds this idea of cooperation and teamwork into their community around Overwatch and into how Blizzard itself works with that community. This shows not only how a video game can be designed with a different discourse to create reality than that of our lives, but also how it can be used to affect the very reality we live within, creating new discourse within it.

The sexual depiction of the character Tracer emerged as a topic for the community, and one that got quite heated. It stirred up the dust and Blizzard was quick to respond. In fact they had another pose for Tracer already made as they felt the one in concern was one of her weaker poses. So they changed it in the next patch, to some mixed reactions of the community perhaps. As the community itself was split on the issue. The pose was changed from a over sexualized over the shoulder pose that emphasized her slim physic and rear to that of a pin-up girl pose. Aimed to serve both sides of the community along with maintaining Blizzard's design and depiction of the character.

Why is the discourse creating reality in terms of video games important? Do these games really portray different realities through their discourse or are they simply reflections of our own reality with some sprinkles thrown in?

It is unlikely that any game will not mimic or mirror our own reality and hence it's discourse in some way, after all these games are made from the experiences within that reality. I think it important to examine how the discourse within a video game changes both in itself, in order to create something new but also how that inner discourse goes to or can be extended to that of our own reality. Overwatch itself does not make any drastic changes to the same discourse of our own reality. It does however emphasize parts, communicate, and build itself differently. From there it even goes as an example of changing our own reality through both its in-game discourse and it's interaction with the external discourse of our own reality. 

Video games serve as both tools and discourse to create our current reality but also as miniature examples of other realities. I think it important to learn as much as possible from such examples so as to become better able to shape our own reality with tailored and controlled discourse. Video games can serve as tools, examples, and experiments to change our reality towards something new. 

Word Count: 1348

Intent verss Impact

This tweet is appalling. I took the liberty of taking the “c-word” out from the photo because I find it absolutely vile to refer to a girl, who was only ten years old at the time, in such a manner. Here’s the deal: I don’t care if the intent was satire because the impact was degrading her and that is not okay.

 

Merriam-Webster defines intent as: the thing that you plan to do or achieve : an aim or purpose

and it defines impact as : to have a strong and often bad effect on (something or someone)

or to hit (something) with great force

 

     What I want to explore is: how do we soften the inevitable impact of our words or actions when our original intentions are good but someone else is hurt in the process?

 

I have noticed many people in our country are quick to exclaim that we have “freedom of speech” but the truth is while you can feel free to offend others with your freedom of speech, you cannot use these three words as a crutch to degrade others.  For example, saying something like “you’re not cute without makeup” is offensive but it does not degrade a person because they can still be recognized as an intelligent being. Contrarily, words that have a history of oppression and reduce someone from being a human being to an object, like I would argue the “c-word” does, are degrading and therefore unacceptable.

 

Jennifer Harvey wrote an article on this tweet, which you can check out here, which describes the difference of intent and impact. She states that unfortunately, those who are privileged usually confuse the two or are unable to separate the different meanings.

 

The three steps of intent versus impact (as according to Harvey):

1. incident happens;
2. people of color cry foul and describe in painful, often eloquent, detail the effects of incident;
3. white people respond, often defensive, insisting that motives were pure (or at least can’t be proven malicious).

 

I find the author of The Onion calling her this word a travesty because it plays on the stereotypes that women are only as useful as their reproductive organs, and therefore should be subservient to men, and the hypersexualization of black women, even though I should mention again, SHE’S 10. And god forbid she become upset with such words being said about her because then all of sudden she’d be accused of the angry black women stereotype. The person who loses no matter what in this situation is Wallis and that is why this kind of hate speech is unacceptable.

 

It was eye opening for me when Harvey states “Now imagine what it would be like to have a severe burn and be yelling that you need to get to the hospital, only to be met with the numb response, “But it was an accident, so surely you can’t be burned as badly as you think.”

 

So often we are in situations where we do not understand the impact we have made on someone else, due to their past experiences, so we defend our character as if that should right our wrongful words and actions. The truth is you can have the bestintentions in the world and still hurt someone. In fact, as George Bernard Shaw said,

“The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.”

This is why we need to take what Tony Robbins said in account, which was, “To effectively communicate, we must realize that we are all different in the way we perceive the world and use this understanding as a guide to our communication with others.”

 

I have learned the single most important communication skill is listening. It is impossible to understand the impact of what others have gone through in their lives if you refuse to listen because you believe all realities are the same or at least very similar.

 

For example, I have been notorious for dating people of color, which even though it’s 2016 people still seemed to be surprised at, but I have seen how people who don’t know we are together try to protect me from my partner as if just their presence is imminent to harming me. I have learned from these experiences that our realities are very different. This is why I don’t agree when people say we should treat everyone equal because this denies that these varying realities exist. The illustration below is my favorite visualization of what I am trying to explain.

 

 

So what is the solution? We need to make an effort to stop making the conversation about ourselves by stating things like “well I didn’t mean it that way” and rather put the spotlight on the one who is hurting by clarifying what was it that they found so offensive and why so that this can be avoided in the future.

 

I found this YouTube video in an article I was reading and found it very helpful in deciphering the “what they did” and “who they are” conversations, especially when treading water like this video deals with which is “How To Tell Someone They Sound Racist.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc

 

Following this theme, I enjoyed Richard Magid’s article concerning intent versus impact because he breaks intent versus impact down to just a few main points:

“Good Communication”: INTENT = IMPACT!

·         When the communication is “good”, the intent of the person who delivers the message is the same as the impact it has on the listener. Mutual understanding of the message is confirmed; the listener summarizes back what they have heard and the speaker confirms the accuracy or provides further clarification.

There are however challenges because:

·         Challenge One: Every message must first pass through the filter of the speaker’s clarity of expression and then through the listener’s ability to hear what is said.
(Opportunity #1 for Intent not to equal Impact)

·         Challenge Two: We don’t actually know the intentions of the people we communicate with; often times we assume/judge their intentions based on their actions which may cause their words to impact us unfavorably.
(Opportunity #2 for Intent not to equal Impact)

·         Challenge Three: Good intentions do not sanitize bad impact.
(“Good Communication” - INTENT must = IMPACT)

 

I think a main challenge in our society is being too proud to apologize. A lack of humbleness leads to misconceptions about the advantages and disadvantages that any group may face. The truth is, a good apology would actually solve a lot of problems we face. By “good” I mean sincerely apologizing, not just sounding like you’re apologizing when you’re really just getting another jab in at the one who you have hurt (emotionally or otherwise). For example, saying, “Well I’m sorry you stepped on my skateboard and fell” is not a real apology. However, “I am very sorry you fell, I take full responsibility for leaving my skateboard in a place that caught you off guard” is. In this example your intent was not to hurt the person who fell and yet your actions cause them pain and you should take responsibility for that. And in the case of The Onion, they need to not come up with excuses but rather offer up a real apology for stepping, or rather leaping, over the line.