Grrls and the Web

In our text, the book references a theory by a man named Michel de Certeau. Basically it says that marginalized societal groups resist the oppression and suffocation of the dominant social group(s) by using products of the consumer culture they find themselves in for their own purposes.

It is an unfortunate but true fact that women are often marginalized in our society (yes, even in this "age of equality"). So, check one for de Certau's theory--we have a marginalized group. Are they resisting? I believe the feminist movement is more than enough to answer that question. Check two. Now, what goods are they using for their own purposes?

First off, grrls across the Western world are using the internet, a product of Western society and arguably quite male-dominated, to vocalize their opinions, to promote their goals, and further their agenda. I visited three of such sites myself--planetgrrl.com, disgruntledhousewife.com, and bitchmagazine.com. Such "grrl" sites (as they are called) are the result of what out text calls Third Wave Feminism, which mostly is comprised of young women who want to make feminism their own and take it out of the hands of the academic elite. The world wide web for them is a tool--a way to band young women together to resist and overcome the sexism that still faces them.

Parody and sarcasm are large factors in how grrls on-line deal with the constructs society would like them to fit into--essentially, they use these two elements to deal with a product (a constructed identity) that society gives them (and it is in fact a very commerically manipulated and reinforced identity). The home page of Disgruntled Housewife is very much a parody. The page contains a set of hyperlinked images--like high heels, a toy breed dog and a can of sausage links--that are associated with the stereotypical post-World War II housewife. The very look of the images is reminiscent of that time. It parodies the very social constructs that the creators of the site are resisting (hence the name of the site). On the front page of Planet Grrl, there is a black-and-white photo of a group of poster-child '50s housewives. No doubt that this is photo is meant to be a parody as well.Parody is a way in which these women break down the cosntructs set up for them by the surrounding culture.

A lot of sarcasm can also be found within the articles on these pages. Sarcasm is often used when referencing the culture, things they view as sexist, and men's behavior. Articles that deal with things such as Barbie Dolls, being a woman and striving for a career, or feeding husbands are drenched with sarcasm. Bitch Magazine's articles make use of sarcasm as well. In all these cases, sarcasm is used as a way to break down social constructs, whether it's by pointing out the absurdity of something or affirming the intelligence (or other valued quality) of women (often by taking a jab at the opposite sex).

It is in this manner that much of the content (I'm talking mostly about the textual content, but the visual content as well) is written. There are featured advice columns and articles that are written very much from a female perspective dealing with issues the women find themselves faced with. Instead of throwing out femininity, these grrl authors strive to redefine femininity by attempting to construct what femininty is outside of a male perspective-dominated construct. This femininity is not constructed as weak, nor does it create a dependency in women; but these grrls construct an indentity in which women are strong and independent and can function without defining their lives by men or masculinity.

The identity then put forth by these grrls is one where women are strong, independent, intelligent and aware. There is nothing wrong with being "girly." In fact it is embraced, but being a girl is not seen as a sign of weakness as it is often portrayed in the dominant culture. The grrl is also an angry and frustrated individual who is tired of being marginalized by Western society. So she can laugh at some of the derrogatory words and commercially-driven images thrown at her, because it's not the images but the ideas those images represent that she is resisting against and is desperately trying to destroy.

On a non-assignment note, it's interesting to think about how successful these grrls are in reclaiming femininity. I would argue that on one hand, they are destroying (for themselves at least) the idea that femininity is weak. However, the question remains--are actually totally reclaiming or defining femininity outside of the male-dominated cultural perspective. My answer is no. In many ways many aspects of femininty are still defined in comparison to or as an antithesis to masculinity. For even in the act of rebelling, they are still working within a particular social context. So the next question then is can femininty ever be defined outside of masculinity? More importantly, should it? (And vice versa.) If we continue to stress the differences, do we ever heal the wounds, or do we simply continue to divide the sexes even more?

This is the conumdrum that any resisting marginalized group must face.

On-line Masculinities

I visited three different sites that focus on men and men's issues. The first site I visited was askmen.com. Askmen.com is a site that, imho, sticks to a more traditional mind frame of who men are and what men want--what it means to be a man. The editors of the site say that their mission is to

"To offer men candid advice, that is useful, practical and entertaining. AskMen.com address issues regarding dating, women, fashion, money, fitness, and entertainment. Offering advice that is too complicated or unrealistic does not serve any viable purpose, therefore it deals with topics that can be incorporated into men's daily lives...with new articles that focus on matters that men deem relevant and practical."

Fashion is one of the topics that the site deals with that may not quite fit into the what is consider traditional masculinity. Their focus on uncomplicated, practical advice is quite interesting. It assumes that men want straightforward, uself answers to their questions. FMH.com is much of the same, if not even more narrow. FMH.com has fewer features than askmen.com, but the features they do have are very much set in the ideas of tradition masculintiy. On this site, there is also a focus on women and sex. There is even a poll to rank the one hundred sexiest women. Most everything else on the site has to do with entertainment--jokes, funny but true stories, movies, music and video games. Pretty much this site pictures the mind of man like this: sex and entertainment. Or why not just boil it down to entertainment? And on both sites, the ads are just as telling about how they view masculinity: the ads are generally for sites or services that hook men up with women.

On the other hand, menstuff.org appears to take a broader and more open approach to traditional masculinity. Instead of focusing on sex and entertainment, menstuff.org has several articles that explore masculinity in greater depth: fathering, sexuality (both hetero- and homosexuality), children, relationships, sex, health, current events or issues that affect men, home ec, and spirituality. This site appears to attempt to look at men as whole people, who are capable of a wide range of emotions, feelings, and interests, rather than within the strict constructs that society has traditionally placed men. This site invites and encourages men to explore who they are as human beings and not just the strong, silent protector that many feel they must be.

The author who wrote an article exploring masculinity on-line and featured the aforementioned web sites claims that the expanded masculinities on these cyberspaces lead"naturally, to uncertainty and even anxiety, but eventually to a greater level of self-awareness and personal freedom" (78).

First of all, I would question his claim that these sites or men sites in general have have expanded views of masculinity. The first two sites I looked like had little to no expanded notions of masculinity. If anything, these sites encourage men to embrace the social norms that have been constructed them. In fact it teaches that these norms are natural and to be idealized. Instead of exploring what it means to be human, men are expected to simply grow in their masculinity (which is a part of who men are, but one's sex is just a part of the whole). I would not say that these sites lead to greater personal awareness. Men who feel very strongly about traditional gender roles would find these sites an affirmation of his personal beliefs about masculinity.

Now, for the man who is questioning his masculinity and exploring who he is and how his sex factors into that might be made uncertain and even experience angst by looking at these sites. Especially if a man is uncertain about how "manly" he is, these sites would simply confirm his fears--that he is less of man, because he fails to comfortably fit into these constructions. However, a site such as menstuff.org would encourage such a male to explore what it means to be man. For the man who is very gungho about men fulfilling their manly obligations would most likely scoff at such a site. Those who are looking trying to integrate who they are, or at least reconcile different parts of the person, their gender and some other "side", might find useful information, insight, or thought-provoking ideas on a site like menstuff.com.

Because we are experiencing a shift in societal values, not exclusive to gender roles and identities, many people do feel uncertainty and angst. As the societal view of masculinity fluctuates and changes, many men will feel like they are being pulled in many different directions. There will be the traditional view of men and contemporary ideas that will try to show and explain to him who he is as a man. The traditional role and obligations of men is no longer secure. What direction masculinity will go in only time will tell. Hopefully the future will lead to a more integrated look at who men are as human beings, and not simply replace the current tradition views with other damaging constructs of masculinity.

Personal Identity on the Web

The following are a list of images that I think could represent elements of my life (or my being):

Piano
CDs
Francis Schaeffer’s How Shall We Then Live?
Bible
Personal journal
Microphone
Laptop
Afro pick
The McDaniel arch
Pen

My Reflection:

I would like to include as many elements as possible: my critical enjoyment of music, my musicianship (both performance and creativity), writing, my Christian faith, my philosophical fascination. (I’m not sure whether I would "broadcast" the color of my skin, not that I am embarrassed by it, but I don’t know how necessary it is. However, if I were to put up a picture up of myself, then that would be that.) I suppose I would construct myself as thinking black, young man who has an interest in the arts, both in critically assessing them and creatively participating in "art-making," all of which is informed by my foundation of faith in Christ. Hopefully this would not be a construction of an identity for myself, but a presentation of certain integrated parts of the person that I am.
I think my personal homepage would be very text-based. The images I might choose to use on the site might be a pen or a piano (a picture of me playing the keyboard is on my blog). Maybe these would act as links or "headers" to or of different parts of the site—works and information about my band, respectively. I would be extremely careful that nothing would come off cheesy, however.

Fan Sites

"fans are not fringe extremists with an unhealthy and urealistic interest in a particular media text, but savy consumers who are able to use popular culture to fulfil their desires and needs, often explicitly rearticulating that culture in unique and empowering ways" (82)

I would agree that fans are not fringe extremists--crazy yahoos who have nothing better to do with their time. Well, some of them are. But "fans" (the concept of what a fan is) has been around for awhile, and the internet simply gives fans the ability to express and share their delight and enthusiasm for particular things publicly and with other fellow fans. (Fans who use the internet to show their excitement probably seem more on the fringe--although arguably this stereotype is rapidly eroding away as it becomes more commonplace--because they have even more tools to publicly display their devotion.)

Media is a part of culture and is meant to be shared and enjoyed. Fans who participate in fan sites and forums use popular culture as a bridge, a connection, to other people. (By definition, popular culture is implanted in the consciousness of the masses.) These "savy consumers," and consumers they are, using the internet, are able to 1) express themselves, 2) partaking in the particular text of their fancy and thus participate in culture, and 3) and share their enjoyment with other people, and as a result, building relationship and becoming part of a community. These three things are not necessarily consciously done, however, humans are socio-cultural beings and will naturally find ways to do these three things in many different media. It's no surprise, then, that the internet fosters such activities.

Now, although I pretty much agree with the quote, I'm not so sure about the "explicitly rearticulating that culture in unique and empowering ways" part. Certainly, fan site contributors, especially those who write fan fiction and the like, are in concept doing something unique. On the other hand, a lot of fan fiction is really crappy and of course very derivative. Great artistic achievements would be hard to come by in the depths of on-line fan fiction. And exactly how is this empowering? Perhaps there are cases where fans actually bond together to keep a show on the air. This is empowering. But this probably is the exception not the rule. I don't think we should look down upon the online fan or fan internet fan communities. At the same time, I don't think we need to idolize them either. On-line fan communities are a cultural phenomenon where individuals can increase and deepen their cultural interaction beyond what was possible in the pre-World Wide Web days because of the internet's instantaneous, mass-public, and unrestrictive nature.

Interactive Sites

Interactive sites are really flourishing on the net and interestingly enough communities are growing out of these places on the web.

Many of the sites were rating sites. Sites like http://www.hotornot.com and http://www.facethejury.com involve rating people based on their attractiveness. At http://www.ageguess.com, one can guess at other people's ages from the submitted pictures (one's can also check one's accuracy which is automatically calculated). Other sites like http://www.cardomain.com and http://www.ratemyink.com/ allow users to rate other users' cars and body art, respectively. Some sites let users rate and review products, such as http://www.download.com and http://www.cnet.com. One can rate movies at http://www.imdb.com and post information about them as well. If you are a nerd and are interested in posting news, you can do so at http://www.slashdot.org, but remember that other users have the ability to post comments about your submitted articles. Sorry about the outcome of the election? Go to http://www.sorryeverybody.com and submit a photo of you and an apology letter written to the world. And http://www.secondlife.com allows you to become a part of a virtual world!

For many of the rating sites, a community focused on rating people, cars, or ageguessing arise. Communities of nerds, computer geeks, and technology enthusiast can buy, download, rate and discuss products and programs and news. Movie critics can come together to discuss movies. Non-Bush supporters can band together and show the world that they too are grieved by the election results. Second Life is perhaps the strangest of all the sites--an actual virtual community that exists on this site.

Depending on the site and community, you take on a certain identity by association. You begin to become a member of that community. Contribution also would seem to suggest to other users that you have a desire to be in a community with them. And the more you contribute, the more you assume the goals, rules, and aspirations of the whole. In more complex communities, one would begin to have a role or a specific place in the community, and one's identity in that community would take shape.

Although people often rate things or people, and discuss products, before the internet, such communities that were dedicated to these activities did not exist in a such a widespread and easy-to-access manner. Magazines have existed in which a small group of people, the contributors, write their opinions about thing 'x'. However, with the advent of the web, everyday people, not simply hired writers, can "publish" their opinions and have instant responses. This is also fosters discussion that probably only occurred at conventions or within a group of enthusiasts. And even then, usually only specific kinds of people attend conventions. The instantaneous and anonymous nature of the internet, coupled with its increasing ubiquity, allows for many different kinds of people with a common interest to come together and share that interest together. And as this becomes more commonplace, the stereotypes associated with these interest groups will also break down.

And finally, there's Second Life. This is essentially a virtual replication of a real-life community. Obviously such communities have existed since the beginning of humankind. The difference then comes with the anonymity of the internet. With that comes the ability to take on any identity you want. (Arguably, this is harder to do in real life.) And with the instantaneous nature of the web, changes can occur very quickly at Second Life. These two things greatly alter the "reality" one experiences on the screen from the reality lying outside one's bedroom door.