Hi everyone!
Great post on the ICERED convention. I think the law really struggles to deal with racism under the Racial Discrimination Act, which only covers racism ( overt) in the workplace. I liked your summary of the problem the law encounters with defining boundaries. I remember studying a case in law, where an employee had received offensive emails which he found to be racist. He was unsuccessful in arguing workplace racism under the racial discrimination act because the law did not recognise cyberspace as a space for racism.
This week, I have been attending interviews for full time work next year. I came across an interesting article on Patriarchy and capitalism by Anne Witz. I will post the citation ASAP. She suggests that both concepts of patriarchy and capitalism are connected and that the introduction of technology in the workplace has further marginalised women and has resulted in creating gender segregation in the workplace. Thoughts anyone?
Also- This morning (11/9/08) I missed a snip on sunrise on a woman ( top CEO) who blamed female employees for increasing the gap between male and female pay in the workplace. Did anyone catch this?
Enjoy the weekend,
Rohini :)
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
(Week 7)Presentation--Hong Kong Cyberculture: A case study
The article can also be found online from the website: http://www.hku.hk/hkcsp/ccex/ehkcss01/issue3_ar_amy_lai.htm
The article gave the basic sense of conflict between freedom and privacy in cyberspace from the introduction, but Lai’s was not going to argue about the freedom vs. privacy, instead, she was using the online forum, “ICERED”, as the example to explore Hong Kong cyberculture and drew onto discussion about “cyberdemocracy”.
(Also, there are some details about the “E-Silkroad Holdings” and how the privacy of Iceredders became explored legally in this website below, particular in the section of “Legal News From Around the World”:
http://www.hk-lawyer.com/2001-7/July01-news.htm#Legal News )
Lai’s first argument was about the domination in cyberspace, and she suggested that there was a boundary between people who had college education and who had not for the access on the internet. In the case of “ICERED”, at the beginning, it was obviously dominated by those top universities in the U.S., like Oxford University. There was also a rating for all posted articles, according to the English level based on the degrees of, such as, grammatical and expressional concerns, and comment, like “Your English sucks” was very common. This was seen as a discrimination issue, and as the disaffection from people associated with other universities, like Hong Kong University, increased, the website opened wider for more scholars.
I suppose the domination in cyberspace was not good, as it had marginal on people from other groups which might probably be the majority as well. I am glad to know it became more openedly for more people, so that more different comments could be shared.
Also, Lai pointed out that the Internet was a “racialized” space, emphasized the existence of “whiteness”. Whenever there was a topic related to racial identity, the Iceredders would use the ideal physical feature of the particular race, like skin color, to classify other racial groups as well as their own, in both assailing and defending situations. As the connection between racial identity and the physical body was so strong, and even the Iceredders were all invisible, race did not disappear online.
This is so true, and it gave me some more ideas about the relationship between our bodies and online.
Then, Lai led to the cyber related sexuality and gender concerns. She believed that within this dis-embodied space, the gender identity was being re-embodied with greater homogeneity rather than a new form of identity. Therefore, men and women both were stereotyped, for example, the idea of men being as the “sex-hunters" and they paid and used women for sex. She also mentioned about the dating relationship from the online chatting. The issues of sexual harassment and abuse were also considered. Moreover, the gay and lesbian was a controversial topic, for moral concern was involved, though the internet gave a way for people to discuss about it. However, many differences existed between the West and most Asia countries, so the national (or more accurately, the regional) boundaries for the culture were quite clear. Also, Lyotard suggested that the technologies could reinforce traditional hierarchical structures and sometimes it could even subvert it.
I really agree with Lai's argument on the cyber related sexuality and gender issues. Especially for the topic of gay and lesbian, personally I don't have a problem with it, even though I am not one. But as an Asian, I understand why it is controvisal, as it againsts the traditional cultural structure in most Asian countries, i.e., the patrilineage system. It then becomes sensitive and many people in Asia think that the internet can actually "advertise" it to teenagers, I do think this is a problem. When I was younger I knew less and I used to feel lost and unsure about things arounded me. However, again, the internet is part of the media and so ethic and morality issues included in it will be on-going subjects to discuss.
Lai, then, talked about Multi-user Object Oriented (MOO) identity, which related to people’s lives online and spending less time in their “real” life with families and friends. Many people were trying to hold on to their online identities and refused to believe what they did not want to see offline. In some extreme case, it caused to the loss of contact with the real world.
This is a real problem in Hong Kong, and couple years before there was actually a teenage boy killed himself because of the loss of weapons from an online computer game. By this case, we can see how "addicted" online can affect people and make them become confused in the virtual cyberspace. However, I think getting online is certainly having some benefits on our lives, for instant, it is convinent for passing and receiving information, it is just that we have to be careful when getting information from it.
In the conclusion, Lai did a comparison on the “ICERED” from Singapore section to Hong Kong.
The article gave the basic sense of conflict between freedom and privacy in cyberspace from the introduction, but Lai’s was not going to argue about the freedom vs. privacy, instead, she was using the online forum, “ICERED”, as the example to explore Hong Kong cyberculture and drew onto discussion about “cyberdemocracy”.
(Also, there are some details about the “E-Silkroad Holdings” and how the privacy of Iceredders became explored legally in this website below, particular in the section of “Legal News From Around the World”:
http://www.hk-lawyer.com/2001-7/July01-news.htm#Legal News )
Lai’s first argument was about the domination in cyberspace, and she suggested that there was a boundary between people who had college education and who had not for the access on the internet. In the case of “ICERED”, at the beginning, it was obviously dominated by those top universities in the U.S., like Oxford University. There was also a rating for all posted articles, according to the English level based on the degrees of, such as, grammatical and expressional concerns, and comment, like “Your English sucks” was very common. This was seen as a discrimination issue, and as the disaffection from people associated with other universities, like Hong Kong University, increased, the website opened wider for more scholars.
I suppose the domination in cyberspace was not good, as it had marginal on people from other groups which might probably be the majority as well. I am glad to know it became more openedly for more people, so that more different comments could be shared.
Also, Lai pointed out that the Internet was a “racialized” space, emphasized the existence of “whiteness”. Whenever there was a topic related to racial identity, the Iceredders would use the ideal physical feature of the particular race, like skin color, to classify other racial groups as well as their own, in both assailing and defending situations. As the connection between racial identity and the physical body was so strong, and even the Iceredders were all invisible, race did not disappear online.
This is so true, and it gave me some more ideas about the relationship between our bodies and online.
Then, Lai led to the cyber related sexuality and gender concerns. She believed that within this dis-embodied space, the gender identity was being re-embodied with greater homogeneity rather than a new form of identity. Therefore, men and women both were stereotyped, for example, the idea of men being as the “sex-hunters" and they paid and used women for sex. She also mentioned about the dating relationship from the online chatting. The issues of sexual harassment and abuse were also considered. Moreover, the gay and lesbian was a controversial topic, for moral concern was involved, though the internet gave a way for people to discuss about it. However, many differences existed between the West and most Asia countries, so the national (or more accurately, the regional) boundaries for the culture were quite clear. Also, Lyotard suggested that the technologies could reinforce traditional hierarchical structures and sometimes it could even subvert it.
I really agree with Lai's argument on the cyber related sexuality and gender issues. Especially for the topic of gay and lesbian, personally I don't have a problem with it, even though I am not one. But as an Asian, I understand why it is controvisal, as it againsts the traditional cultural structure in most Asian countries, i.e., the patrilineage system. It then becomes sensitive and many people in Asia think that the internet can actually "advertise" it to teenagers, I do think this is a problem. When I was younger I knew less and I used to feel lost and unsure about things arounded me. However, again, the internet is part of the media and so ethic and morality issues included in it will be on-going subjects to discuss.
Lai, then, talked about Multi-user Object Oriented (MOO) identity, which related to people’s lives online and spending less time in their “real” life with families and friends. Many people were trying to hold on to their online identities and refused to believe what they did not want to see offline. In some extreme case, it caused to the loss of contact with the real world.
This is a real problem in Hong Kong, and couple years before there was actually a teenage boy killed himself because of the loss of weapons from an online computer game. By this case, we can see how "addicted" online can affect people and make them become confused in the virtual cyberspace. However, I think getting online is certainly having some benefits on our lives, for instant, it is convinent for passing and receiving information, it is just that we have to be careful when getting information from it.
In the conclusion, Lai did a comparison on the “ICERED” from Singapore section to Hong Kong.
General Sharing--Weird Dreams
I had been dreaming of cyborgs these few nights, and one of them really scared me as the cyborg in my dream was called Yanbi--the same name of my younger sister!! So the first thing I did after I woke up was saying to myself that "Yanbi, my sister, is not a cyborg!"Personally I am so frightened to see myself as a cyborg, and so do people who are important in my life. I would try as best as I can just to prove that I am not a cyborg, and I really think that there are many differences from a "cyborg" to a human.
Also, technology is processed by human and machines are created by peopleI remember my classmate in college used to ask the question: Does computer cleverer than our brains? And many of us answered "Yes!" immediately as we had the concern of the capacities that computer can achieve to our daily lives. However, the person who used to ask the question kept saying "No! That's wrong. Who invented computer then?" Yeah, I agreed with him finally, it has got to be someone to invent it, so that should be true.Indeed, I would say my life and experience in it are always affected by technology either in good or bad ways, or in both. But something that inside me are still uniquely existing, like emotion and feeling. I believe that they can never be taken place by technology.Techology has also got its limitation, and so there are still nothing can be the alternative of some important organs and blood in human body.
Back to my dreams, I guess the reason why I am so frightened is that cyborg can mean to me as a less human being in the world, and it can really mix up my sense of identity as being a human.
Also, technology is processed by human and machines are created by peopleI remember my classmate in college used to ask the question: Does computer cleverer than our brains? And many of us answered "Yes!" immediately as we had the concern of the capacities that computer can achieve to our daily lives. However, the person who used to ask the question kept saying "No! That's wrong. Who invented computer then?" Yeah, I agreed with him finally, it has got to be someone to invent it, so that should be true.Indeed, I would say my life and experience in it are always affected by technology either in good or bad ways, or in both. But something that inside me are still uniquely existing, like emotion and feeling. I believe that they can never be taken place by technology.Techology has also got its limitation, and so there are still nothing can be the alternative of some important organs and blood in human body.
Back to my dreams, I guess the reason why I am so frightened is that cyborg can mean to me as a less human being in the world, and it can really mix up my sense of identity as being a human.
Monday, September 8, 2008
workshop 4 comments - Serena
hi,
after methodically clicking through all the sites and observing default browsers, gendered identity avenues, race and the like i just feel kind of amped up to say something that may not be very academic, wise or, correct but somehow i have suddenly developed an opinion on this topic and here it is...
are we not either male or female? what is the issue with stating which one you are online? i mean... we're online.. if we were face to face it would be blatantly obvious which sex the person opposite you was so why not make it blatantly obvious online where we do not have eyes to see and instead fingertips to gather information..... i don't know, i just feel a little frustrated that everything gets such analysis! is anyone with me here? i mean i totally understand that this is what the unit is about about and i appreciate that but something makes me uneasy at the same time.
after methodically clicking through all the sites and observing default browsers, gendered identity avenues, race and the like i just feel kind of amped up to say something that may not be very academic, wise or, correct but somehow i have suddenly developed an opinion on this topic and here it is...
are we not either male or female? what is the issue with stating which one you are online? i mean... we're online.. if we were face to face it would be blatantly obvious which sex the person opposite you was so why not make it blatantly obvious online where we do not have eyes to see and instead fingertips to gather information..... i don't know, i just feel a little frustrated that everything gets such analysis! is anyone with me here? i mean i totally understand that this is what the unit is about about and i appreciate that but something makes me uneasy at the same time.
Presentation - Ruminations on Cyber-Race
Jerry Kang's article Ruminations On Cyber-Race is largely anecdotal, with Kang drawing much on his own experiences as a Korean-American law professor. His interest lies mostly in the construction of race on-line and the manner in which this may disrupt racial mechanisms, as he states “race is a social construction…I began wondering what happens when race is constructed through code, in cyberspace” (p. 58) Following the introduction to his article Kang then proceeds to establish some of the ways in which ethnicity may work in the cyber medium, these fall under the main categories of abolition (removal or invisibility of ethnicity on-line), integration (considering ways in which ethnicity may be celebrated or facilitated peaceably on-line) and transmutation (the act of performing a different racial identity on-line).
Kang acknowledges the high probability that there will be a reduced number of minority groups with access to the on-line world as compared to the "white" population, a point which is also raised in the Menu-Driven Identities article by Lisa Nakamura. However despite this somewhat major drawback Kang sees cyberspace as an unmediated space through which we would be able to "engage in more direct experiences with other races - experiences with actual people, not mediated by third parties" (p. 61) He thus sees it as a space where the media and other external sources have not been able to filter information, whereby they place stereotypes and generalisations (often inadvertently) on ethnic groups for their readership. He also considers 'shared goals' to be a way around racial segregation on-line. Forums that facilitate discussion about a particular topic such as sexuality, illness or favorite animals removes the focus from one's ethnic identity and places it on a common feature that each person within the forum shares with the others.
He sums up his short article by assessing the value of those processes of abolition, integration and transmutation. He suggests that integration is something that must worked and built on in social spaces (such as web page designers and on-line gaming technicians) which will facilitate interaction in cyberspace between members of different ethnic groups. He also believes that understanding and utilising the positive aspects of cyberspace will help to avoid future disappointment at missed chances for integration.
I have some questions which I hope you may answer...
Q. It would seem that race, or as I prefer and what I think is more politically correct, ethnicity is so integral to an individual's identity that any attempt to 'erase' or remove it from their online self is far more damaging than it is liberating - what do you think?
Q. While Kang suggests that cyberspace lifts geographical boundaries, with the possibility of opening communication pathways between different ethnic groups; do you think that this may or does now have the opposite effect and instead allows for racism to have a larger audience where people with similar prejudices may group together and fuel their ideas in larger think tanks?
Q. Kang discusses the idea of "transmutation" whereby your on-line self (usually one represented by a digital avatar in an on-line gaming world) chooses to be of a different ethnicity to that of their "real world" self. While he suggests the pros and cons of this idea I was wondering what others thought? Is this an inherently racist act - masquerading under false pretences or like Kang points out, does it make a user question the actual constrictions that their ethnicity places on their real world identity (p. 62)?
Q. And finally, do you think that having to restrict inter-racial interactions to cyberspace is a very sad state of affairs? Or is that what we have brought ourselves to given our racial prejudices and stereotypes that we have gleaned from the media?
Kang acknowledges the high probability that there will be a reduced number of minority groups with access to the on-line world as compared to the "white" population, a point which is also raised in the Menu-Driven Identities article by Lisa Nakamura. However despite this somewhat major drawback Kang sees cyberspace as an unmediated space through which we would be able to "engage in more direct experiences with other races - experiences with actual people, not mediated by third parties" (p. 61) He thus sees it as a space where the media and other external sources have not been able to filter information, whereby they place stereotypes and generalisations (often inadvertently) on ethnic groups for their readership. He also considers 'shared goals' to be a way around racial segregation on-line. Forums that facilitate discussion about a particular topic such as sexuality, illness or favorite animals removes the focus from one's ethnic identity and places it on a common feature that each person within the forum shares with the others.
He sums up his short article by assessing the value of those processes of abolition, integration and transmutation. He suggests that integration is something that must worked and built on in social spaces (such as web page designers and on-line gaming technicians) which will facilitate interaction in cyberspace between members of different ethnic groups. He also believes that understanding and utilising the positive aspects of cyberspace will help to avoid future disappointment at missed chances for integration.
I have some questions which I hope you may answer...
Q. It would seem that race, or as I prefer and what I think is more politically correct, ethnicity is so integral to an individual's identity that any attempt to 'erase' or remove it from their online self is far more damaging than it is liberating - what do you think?
Q. While Kang suggests that cyberspace lifts geographical boundaries, with the possibility of opening communication pathways between different ethnic groups; do you think that this may or does now have the opposite effect and instead allows for racism to have a larger audience where people with similar prejudices may group together and fuel their ideas in larger think tanks?
Q. Kang discusses the idea of "transmutation" whereby your on-line self (usually one represented by a digital avatar in an on-line gaming world) chooses to be of a different ethnicity to that of their "real world" self. While he suggests the pros and cons of this idea I was wondering what others thought? Is this an inherently racist act - masquerading under false pretences or like Kang points out, does it make a user question the actual constrictions that their ethnicity places on their real world identity (p. 62)?
Q. And finally, do you think that having to restrict inter-racial interactions to cyberspace is a very sad state of affairs? Or is that what we have brought ourselves to given our racial prejudices and stereotypes that we have gleaned from the media?
Re: Week 7 Discussion
I realize that this comes a bit late seeing as it's already Monday, and I really can't tell for certain if this has been discussed, but I thought I'll just put it out there since one of the questions in the Unit Outline for this week apparently piqued my curiosity.
Anyway, are online interactions inherently gendered? Do gender relations operate differently online compared with face to face interactions?
What does everyone think?
Personally, I feel that online interactions are gendered mostly through personal choice. Sure, there are ways to distinguish the gender behind someone blogging/talking/chatting online but to claim that it is the inherent ability of each individual to conform to gender norms online is, perhaps, an over-generalization. What I mean is, if a person so decided to, it is relatively simple to disguise his/her gender in cyberspace. In fact, I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of people out there that pretends to be of the opposite gender (no judgement here, just stating a point). I believe that to a certain extent, yes, online interactions can be inherently gendered. But more importantly, the level and amount of freedom and manipulation on cyberspace means that such inherent norms are easily rendered void.
As far as whether gender relations operate differently online when compared to face to face interactions, I'm inclined to agree with the statement. Come to think of it, how many of you remember when you said something to someone from the opposite sex online, that you would never have done face to face? I know I have. But of course, that is a simplistic view of things. Still, gender relations has definately undergone a transformation in cyberspace. Be it the empowerment of women or the reinforcement of patriarch values, I think the relative anonymity and freedom of cyberspace has certainly affected gender relationships.
So yep, just my two cents worth. I appologize if I ramble on and on at times..
On a complete side note, I actually know someone that broke up with his girlfriend via the internet. I just thought it was a perfect summation of how gender relations worked differently online. Well, because apparently, he mentioned that online, he could tell her the real reasons why he was leaving her, and it was something he couldn't do if she was standing in front of him. (Disclaimer: I do not agree with his actions.)
Again, I hope I didn't bore anyone too much. Hope to see some discussion going on in here!
Cheers!
Anyway, are online interactions inherently gendered? Do gender relations operate differently online compared with face to face interactions?
What does everyone think?
Personally, I feel that online interactions are gendered mostly through personal choice. Sure, there are ways to distinguish the gender behind someone blogging/talking/chatting online but to claim that it is the inherent ability of each individual to conform to gender norms online is, perhaps, an over-generalization. What I mean is, if a person so decided to, it is relatively simple to disguise his/her gender in cyberspace. In fact, I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of people out there that pretends to be of the opposite gender (no judgement here, just stating a point). I believe that to a certain extent, yes, online interactions can be inherently gendered. But more importantly, the level and amount of freedom and manipulation on cyberspace means that such inherent norms are easily rendered void.
As far as whether gender relations operate differently online when compared to face to face interactions, I'm inclined to agree with the statement. Come to think of it, how many of you remember when you said something to someone from the opposite sex online, that you would never have done face to face? I know I have. But of course, that is a simplistic view of things. Still, gender relations has definately undergone a transformation in cyberspace. Be it the empowerment of women or the reinforcement of patriarch values, I think the relative anonymity and freedom of cyberspace has certainly affected gender relationships.
So yep, just my two cents worth. I appologize if I ramble on and on at times..
On a complete side note, I actually know someone that broke up with his girlfriend via the internet. I just thought it was a perfect summation of how gender relations worked differently online. Well, because apparently, he mentioned that online, he could tell her the real reasons why he was leaving her, and it was something he couldn't do if she was standing in front of him. (Disclaimer: I do not agree with his actions.)
Again, I hope I didn't bore anyone too much. Hope to see some discussion going on in here!
Cheers!
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Re: the readings and discussions thus far~ [Cyberstalking]
“You look for someone who is full of it, a real blowhard. Then you exploit their insecurities to get an insane amount of drama, laughs and lulz. Rules would be simple: 1. Do whatever it takes to get lulz. 2. Make sure the lulz is widely distributed. This will allow for more lulz to be made. 3. The game is never over until all the lulz have been had.”
Excerpt from article on trolling @ NY Times
I found this VERY interesting article.
It gives a glimpse into the world of 'trolling', where online cyberstalking and harrassment is done, for the most part, fun and games.
It got me thinking, really.
The Internet is a place with, seemingly no boundaries, but it is really the most monitored place in the world. Every word you type, every page you view (even this one right now), is being kept track of in some register somewhere. ISPs for example. Most of this information is skimmed over, lost in obscurity, but with the intent and the know-how, you could make someone's life hell.
What drives the trolls? ..Or what drives us? I can empathise with their curiosity I guess, but not the actions. Certainly to a much lesser extent we do the same thing on Facebook, checking how other peoples' lives are going, who's dating who and where they've been etc etc?
Whereas this keeping up-to-date is certainly not meant to be malicious like trolling, it can nevertheless feel intrusive. I once had a disgruntled ...'associate 'keeping tabs on my every movement via my blog/Facebook, eventually culminating in some rather unpleasant messages sent via MSN about how they knew what I was doing in my life, probably to see my response.
----
I think identity is something, whilst we like to think of it as fluid, is fundamentally locked into us. Who we are bleeds out of everything we do, each action further reinforcing the pre-existing notions we hold dear.
Power then, on the internet, is knowledge of what makes someone else tick (and yourself, as well), and the defense is to be as opaque as possible.
That ..would of course, be incredibly lonely. >__>
---
Also, off-topic, the layout for this blog is getting kind of messy. It's getting a little hard to keep track of a coherent flow / narrative. (Which again, might be a symptom of a digital culture perhaps?)
Excerpt from article on trolling @ NY Times
I found this VERY interesting article.
It gives a glimpse into the world of 'trolling', where online cyberstalking and harrassment is done, for the most part, fun and games.
It got me thinking, really.
The Internet is a place with, seemingly no boundaries, but it is really the most monitored place in the world. Every word you type, every page you view (even this one right now), is being kept track of in some register somewhere. ISPs for example. Most of this information is skimmed over, lost in obscurity, but with the intent and the know-how, you could make someone's life hell.
What drives the trolls? ..Or what drives us? I can empathise with their curiosity I guess, but not the actions. Certainly to a much lesser extent we do the same thing on Facebook, checking how other peoples' lives are going, who's dating who and where they've been etc etc?
Whereas this keeping up-to-date is certainly not meant to be malicious like trolling, it can nevertheless feel intrusive. I once had a disgruntled ...'associate 'keeping tabs on my every movement via my blog/Facebook, eventually culminating in some rather unpleasant messages sent via MSN about how they knew what I was doing in my life, probably to see my response.
----
I think identity is something, whilst we like to think of it as fluid, is fundamentally locked into us. Who we are bleeds out of everything we do, each action further reinforcing the pre-existing notions we hold dear.
Power then, on the internet, is knowledge of what makes someone else tick (and yourself, as well), and the defense is to be as opaque as possible.
That ..would of course, be incredibly lonely. >__>
---
Also, off-topic, the layout for this blog is getting kind of messy. It's getting a little hard to keep track of a coherent flow / narrative. (Which again, might be a symptom of a digital culture perhaps?)
Menu Driven Identities - Racism and the Perpetration Of
Question 2.
Are any of the websites inhererently racist? Why or why not?
(and contained within, some elements of question 2: What sort of identities are visible in the profiles on lavalife? How are they displayed? What presumptions does this display make about both the people reading these profiles and those users who made them?)
Lavalife - “Where Australia's Sexiest Singles Meet!”
The site features tonnes of pictures of attractive, white people in their 20s. Does this then imply that the featured people (incidentally, all white) are the most attractive? From the looks of it, and the lack of a 'ethnicity' option, it is a site catering for white people looking to date other white people. Admittedly, perhaps there is some market value in catering to a specific audience or subset. The company exists to make money, and not to promote an egalitarian world view afterall.
In contrast to this very overt and specific racial targeting, both Yahoo and Hotmail have clean, white layouts, occasionally punctuated with different adverts with pictures of various racial groups.
Second Life is further cross-racial, with its site layout depicting various character models of different races. The game itself allows you to reconstruct your identity, creating a virtual representation where you can select your race and gender.
The question as to which of these are racist and why would lie in their aims and purposes. The different site serve different audiences and needs afterall.
To sum it up: (My view only. Heh. Feel free to debate)
LavaLife: Racist. And why, you ask? Mostly because it would be easier for them to serve a subsection of the community (in this case, young white people) looking for hookups or romance due to a tribal mindset where people are generally more comfortable with others who are similar to them. Race, and culture, are easy links (and dividers) to relationships in general.
Yahoo & Hotmail: Not racist. Again, because doing so would not fit their business model, which is to serve as large a portion of the community as possible. Catering to a specific race would be detrimental to their business model.
Second Life: Not (inherently) racist. Yes, you can play around with your identity, but what exactly do you do with it? It is a liberating process, and personally, in games, I tend to play as someone very different from who I physically am, but some friends base their characters on stereotypes (black gangsta, Asian kungfu master etc).
I see Second Life as a tool, but one that, if not used wisely, would in certain circumstances serve to further drive existing stereotypes. The anonymity frees one to act differently, but it also acts as a shield for those who choose to wallow in bigotry.
Whew.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)