Matt’s Musings

As I was reading through this week’s articles, I was finding it difficult to relate. I really know nothing about gaming and find the fascination a little confusing. I happen to be married to a 30 year old man that would still be thrilled at the prospect of a Saturday morning with the PS3. I may find this a little strange, but I’ve gotten used to it. OK, I finally get it… gaming isn’t just for kids anymore! Mainly, I just think it is a serious waste of time, but I can’t say much there since so is all the crappy TV I watch. Maybe after tonight’s class I’ll have more to say about the issue.

One thing that did catch my attention was Jakobsson and Taylor’s article and their discussion on the social bonding that occurred while playing the game Everquest. Now, I have no idea what this game is, but I do know about the ways boys can bond over a good video game. Whenever my friends and I really want to get together, we send all our husbands down to the basement and even though they have next to nothing in common, they’ll enjoy each other’s company for hours. I’ve also witnessed my husband not only playing games against, but actually talking to strangers across the continent on this headset thingy he bought. As I was thinking about it, I actually thought this phenomenon was closely related to the research I’ve been doing on on-line fantasy sports leagues for the paper. In these settings, men act out their gender by creating and maintaining fantasy sports teams. While doing so, their seemingly virtual interactions have real consequences for their lives and relationships. According to Thomas theorem, these “unreal” interactions become real in their consequences. With this in mind, I think the virtual interactions of both gaming and on-line leagues result in real relationships and interactions. I guess I’ll have to look past the strange format and gain a little respect for he value of the interactions and bonding that are occuring.

Last night, Paul mentioned that we’d be talking about pornography next week as it has become a prevalent, mainstream media. As I was flipping through the channels this morning, I found a somewhat disturbing example of this. As I was channel flipping, I realized that Ron Jeremy was a guest on MTVLive. Now, the fact that I know who Ron Jeremy is proves Paul’s point that porn is mainstream. I don’t think porn stars were household names 20 years ago. Anyway, it isn’t Ron Jeremy himself that disturbed me (although that may have been enough… YUCK!) but the fact that he was on this show that is clearly geared to teens. We all know that kids even younger than the targeted audience make up the majority of the viewers. It is aired right after school for srying out loud. My grade 6 and 7 students all watch this show and see the discussions as a cultural reference. They learn what is acceptable and unacceptable from shows like this (God help them!). I just have to say I was shockd that he was on the show openly discussing his career and the 4000 women he has slept with, all of which was greeted with cheers by the very young audience. The segment concluded with a contest called Swappy Seconds where two couples from the audience swapped partners and then made out with this person they’d never met for a full minute while Jeremy judged their performance. The entire thing was so disturbing! It was like some kind of training ground for porn stars. I was struck by the casual nature of the discussion and the comfort level with the subject matter so I’m wondering…

Am I an old-fashioned prude or is this disturbing to anyone else? Is the suject of porn just hunkydory and open to anyone or has porn gone a little too mainstream?

 Maybe some more light will be shed on the subject this week in class, but at this point, I’m certainly not comfortable with the messages of shows such as the one I just witnessed.

I feel like I have become acutely aware of the true messages ingrained in advertisements, especially towards women. As I was reading Abby’s article on advertising and women, I was thinking about a segment I saw on Rachael Ray.. I know… annoyingly perky, but I find her somewhat entertaining. She was showing a study done with kindergarten girls where they were shown two graphics. Each portrayed a woman, but one was fat and the other was thin. Other than that, they were exactly the same. The interviewer asked questions such as who would be more fun, who would be smarter, who would be cooler, who they would rather be friends with, etc. Each and every time, the little girls chose the skinny girl. I know that doesn’t all come from advertising, but I think a lot of it does. Is selling a product really worth this? I was most shocked when the interviewer asked each girl if she would rather be fat or dumb. Each girl thought about it carefully and then settled on being dumb. Even at 5 years old, they knew that society values beauty over brains in women. The problem is that advertisers would not employ these methods if they didn’t work. At some level, we’re buying into it and reinforcing it… scary thought!

The article also made me think of the Dove ad campaign on “real beauty”. I really enjoy those ads and the company has some really great educational material on their website that I’ve used with middle school aged girls. I have wondered a couple time, however, if this is really as altruistic as it sounds. Am I being fooled? Is this just as shallow and meaningless as other advertising? Are they simply giving us what they think we want, just like all the other advertisers out there? What do you think…

For a while now I have been aware that the people around me seem to be aware of music acts and albums that I have never heard of. They talk excitedly about these bands and it seems like everyone but me can relate. When did this happen? It used to be that we all listened to the radio and if you knew the bands on the radio, then you knew popular music. This is certainly no longer the case and I’ve wondered where everyone gets their information from. The Pitchfork article shed some light on it for me. I find it fascinating that a small, single website can generate so much interest and success for a band. I like music, but I’m not a fanatic. I’m too lazy to download music onto an iPod when I can just turn on a radio without any effort (I know… that’s blasphemous to any real music fan). Obviously then, I can’t really imagine seeking out independent music reviewers online, which then explains why I’m way out of the cool-new-music-loop! I thought it was interesting that the article refers to the website as taste-makers. When we discussed taste in class, I picked up on the idea that taste is a differentiating mechanism, separating those who have and those who don’t, like a sort of cultural capital. You have to have been raised and trained in a certain taste to appreciate it. Websites such as this, and the internet in general, seem to be taking this power back. A new class of people are defining good taste. As the article states, you no longer have to have a degree to have credibility when reviewing music. You don’t have to have the high class connections and the high class education to get the high class magazine or radio job. Instead, you can start up your own small website and prove your taste through your work alone. Despite this power shift, I think there is still a unique group with a unique monopoly on the definition of good taste. I have a hard time relating to websites such as the one in the article because I have not been exposed to that type of culture. Although the power has shifted, it seems to me that there is still a small group with the power, knowledge and experience to define good taste, leaving the rest of us outside the bubble.

Just another comment on the article, I’m wondering what Noam Chomsky would say about this movement online. The video we watched was too old to really talk about the internet, but this idea that the public is taking control of defining taste would have interesting implications for his theory. If big corporations and government are not in control of websites such as this, are they still able to manufacture consent on-line? Is there more questioning and critical thinking with the opportunity to freely discuses on-line? Are corporations and government increasingly moving into the online domain to take back their power? I’d love to see an updated version of the video with his thoughts on the internet.