When I first decided to look at Men's Rights (MR) as my focus for this project, I initially went in with an already negative mindset. Perhaps some of those feelings were confirmed through the submissions I read, and the ensuing discussions inside, but I would be hard pressed to say that the MR's affinity group doesn't provide some sort of service to its community. They have found a way to bring together thousands of people by joining them on one site to discuss what is a very important social issue to them.
One of the biggest implications coming out from online affinity groups and spaces is the ability for a small group of activists empowered through the Internet to further propagate their agenda and interests to a worldwide audience. People are able to reach a much greater audience through sites such as Reddit, and they are able to interest and recruit potential members around the world. Online forums where affinity groups can convene provide a space where like-minded individuals can convene, share their ideologies, beliefs and goals, and receive support from their cohort. Evidence of successful online groups is perhaps the Occupy movement, wherein much support was garnered and effectively communicated through the Internet. This is one of the greatest benefits of online affinity spaces: one's audience is much, much larger and far more accessible. These sorts of affinity groups can wield a considerable amount of power and influence. They need not provide themselves with money to print pamphlets or flyers, nor spend time proselytizing on the streets or at rallies. Using forums is essentially free, and movements can be initiated from someone's bedroom.
One drawback of online spaces is that the personal effect of face-to-face interaction is removed and replaced with avatars and text. One loses the human side of conversation, and by losing that ability to read your opponent, it can imbue a participant with too much confidence in their ideology. They may objectify their opposition, and not see them as equals. It may make them impervious to helpful criticism. Additionally, with the lack of descriptive user profiles, users forego the creation of a detailed online identity, which further helps them disassociate from other users. The less of a human connection, the easier it is to antagonize them.
There is also little room for self-policing. When a group cannot listen or argue objectively and reasonably with outsiders, is this group still an affinity group advocating social change, or do they become something else? If a group's belief system is so rigid, militant and inflexible, it cannot evolve and adapt to new situations. They will remain stagnant, unless incited by an outside force, or an internal disruption. Even that would not guarantee change within the group; it could simply irritate them more, which will lead them to be even more unyielding to outsiders.
MR is one example where an affinity group is reluctant, and at most times resistant, to welcoming outsiders. Already satisfied with their ideology and community mind set, it can be very difficult to engage in constructive debate and discussion. Even participating members of MR could be subjected to posting bans or ridicule from other users, if the member acts inappropriately. There is a definite sense of "othering:" participants either fully align with the mentality and beliefs of MR, or they exist outside the community's parameters, which essentially ostracizes them from any acceptance.
Constant perceived harassment toward MR participants may also lead them to retaliate toward other subreddits that they believe are antagonizing them. This lack of communication and compromise stifles the ability for other communities to cross borders. However, a community with nearly 28,000 subscribers must be doing something right. While it doesn't necessarily imply that 28,000 people are actively participating, there could be a number far greater than that stands for viewers of the subreddit. Their audience could be much, much larger than perceived.
MR is just a small slice of the power of online affinity groups; they represent, on a large scale, a relatively minute minority, but like any great movement that started small, they have the potential to further their ideology through the Internet. While MR may come off as a pretentious or misogynistic community, there will always be an audience that is attracted to their ideologies, and MR speaks true to them. They will never not be relevant, so as long as they stay around, and outsiders continue to challenge them.
The Internet, and social networking sites and forums like Reddit, provide a new stage for ideologies to spread, an easily accessible space for enthusiasts to share ideas, and a way to quickly propagate one person, or one affinity group's thoughts. It is not innately a bad thing; people have much greater access to information that they may not otherwise have known about, and it's just up to them to interpret it as they will. While I may personally disagree with some issues of MR, they are still an incredible wealth of information concerning men's social rights, and probably one of the more active forums addressing this topic. User-generated content websites and forums allow people to connect in ways that would otherwise be impossible, if it weren't for the Internet.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Monday, December 5, 2011
11/9 Redo, part 2/2
There are 27,000-some subscribers to
MR, reflecting the presence an affinity group, and a rather large one
at that. Members tend to adhere to a relatively structured beliefs
system that is reflected in the community's front-page description,
and also in the general behavior of the participants. Based on the
submission titles, participants' comments, and the frequency of
anti-feminist discussions, a viewer can deduce that MR takes on a
very strong anti-feminist and radical-leaning approach to the issues
regarding men's social and legal rights.
The unique structure to Reddit as an entity is different than other social networking sites. It is what would be considered a "user-generated content" site (Novelli & Peterson), where discussions and posts are all initiated by registered users, and is rife with these various affinity groups that have "people of like minds, experiences, and concerns can find others to connect with" (Novelli & Peterson). There are thousands of subreddits, covering any and every sort of interest. Each has its own goal and description that signals to potential subscribers what their discussions will entail.
It is also a different sort of "representational form" (Knobel & Lankshear, 250) than sites like MySpace or Facebook. Users are not as easily identifiable; there are no personal profiles to create, and unless a user gives identifying information in previous discussions (detectable if someone looks through the user's posting history), it would be nearly impossible to determine who the user is. This provides a security blanket, where people are more comfortable to converse freely and without as many self-imposed boundaries or acts of self-censuring.
Naturally, this sort of no-holds-barred environment can cultivate a certain type of interaction that wouldn't be as considered as acting within the "universality of the social contract" (Herring, et all, 380). Uslaner offers that the Internet itself "is not a threat" (62), but certainly those who participant within it can use it to their advantage, good intentions or not.
The baseline idea of MR is to provide a place where people can discuss social issues relating to men's rights. However, that is not how it is perceived by outsiders. MR encapsulates a group mentality that aligns within their specific affinity group, and they traditionally are not receptive to any discussion that deviates from their standards. Gallivan had investigated a feminist forum that was besieged with trolls, and one of the webmasters quipped that the Internet "has a dark underbelly. It provides a superhighway for bigots." Indeed, this is how many outsiders to MR see MR's participants. Outsiders find it difficult, if not impossible, to challenge the interests and mindsets of MR. MR, to them, is one of the dark corners of the Internet where bigotry and misogyny is MR's greatest community ideals.
Traditionally, affinity groups were started as small, activist organizations determined to make direct action on social issues, but the Internet has vastly altered this approach. With MR's thousands of subscribers through a website, it allows like-minded individuals around the world to actively participate and learn about men's rights from their computers. The Internet removes the boundary of being constricted to one's local geography, but also takes away the personal effect and grand sense of ambition. People convening "in real life" are more likely to actually initiate movements; posting on an online forum seems to detract from the genuine movement of an affinity group. Instead, subreddits like MR end up with discussions that rarely meet any social action, and turn into an argumentative forum. This acts as the "affinity space" that James Gee addresses, wherein a community comes together to interact in this space (1). The MR subreddit captures Gee's idea that "[m]odern technologies allow the creation of more and more spaces where people can enter and interact with others [...] at a distance" (6).
Typically, the way MR participants will negatively respond to outsiders consist of "downvoting" the comments, and responding to the poster in a condescending fashion, oftentimes attempting to contradict everything said. When retorts aren't as effective, or if the respondent is particularly angry, they tend to resort to strawman arguments or various other techniques that intend to belittle or otherwise discredit the poster. Other MR participants will usually upvote or respond positively to their cohort's retaliation. For the most part, MR seems to be actively engaged in trolling, or being trolled, and turning the subreddit into an antagonistic battlefield. There always is a fight, between MR and outsiders. There is rarely any internal conflict; however, if a subscriber to MR suggests a conversation or idea that is not normative, he (purposeful use of the pronoun here; females are always outsiders) is labeled a feminist sympathizer, or any other terminology MR uses to determine those outside of the affinity group.
Overall, MR participants are very comfortable in their zone, and only engage positively with outsiders if the outsiders corroborate the ideology and agenda of MR. There is a very stringent system at play within MR, and little is accomplished by outsiders trying to undermine their belief system.
References
Gallivan, J. (2001). Now shut up or put up: To fight flames, organization charges for bulletin board use. The New York Post, 64.
Gee, J. P. (2007). Affinity Spaces: From Age of Mythology to Today’s Schools. Retrieved from http://www.jamespaulgee.com/sites/default/files/pub/AffinitySpaces.pdf
Herring, S., Job-Sluder, K., Scheckler, R., & Barab, S. (2002). Searching for safety online: Managing "trolling" in a feminist forum. Information Society, 18(5), 371-384.
The unique structure to Reddit as an entity is different than other social networking sites. It is what would be considered a "user-generated content" site (Novelli & Peterson), where discussions and posts are all initiated by registered users, and is rife with these various affinity groups that have "people of like minds, experiences, and concerns can find others to connect with" (Novelli & Peterson). There are thousands of subreddits, covering any and every sort of interest. Each has its own goal and description that signals to potential subscribers what their discussions will entail.
It is also a different sort of "representational form" (Knobel & Lankshear, 250) than sites like MySpace or Facebook. Users are not as easily identifiable; there are no personal profiles to create, and unless a user gives identifying information in previous discussions (detectable if someone looks through the user's posting history), it would be nearly impossible to determine who the user is. This provides a security blanket, where people are more comfortable to converse freely and without as many self-imposed boundaries or acts of self-censuring.
Naturally, this sort of no-holds-barred environment can cultivate a certain type of interaction that wouldn't be as considered as acting within the "universality of the social contract" (Herring, et all, 380). Uslaner offers that the Internet itself "is not a threat" (62), but certainly those who participant within it can use it to their advantage, good intentions or not.
The baseline idea of MR is to provide a place where people can discuss social issues relating to men's rights. However, that is not how it is perceived by outsiders. MR encapsulates a group mentality that aligns within their specific affinity group, and they traditionally are not receptive to any discussion that deviates from their standards. Gallivan had investigated a feminist forum that was besieged with trolls, and one of the webmasters quipped that the Internet "has a dark underbelly. It provides a superhighway for bigots." Indeed, this is how many outsiders to MR see MR's participants. Outsiders find it difficult, if not impossible, to challenge the interests and mindsets of MR. MR, to them, is one of the dark corners of the Internet where bigotry and misogyny is MR's greatest community ideals.
Traditionally, affinity groups were started as small, activist organizations determined to make direct action on social issues, but the Internet has vastly altered this approach. With MR's thousands of subscribers through a website, it allows like-minded individuals around the world to actively participate and learn about men's rights from their computers. The Internet removes the boundary of being constricted to one's local geography, but also takes away the personal effect and grand sense of ambition. People convening "in real life" are more likely to actually initiate movements; posting on an online forum seems to detract from the genuine movement of an affinity group. Instead, subreddits like MR end up with discussions that rarely meet any social action, and turn into an argumentative forum. This acts as the "affinity space" that James Gee addresses, wherein a community comes together to interact in this space (1). The MR subreddit captures Gee's idea that "[m]odern technologies allow the creation of more and more spaces where people can enter and interact with others [...] at a distance" (6).
Typically, the way MR participants will negatively respond to outsiders consist of "downvoting" the comments, and responding to the poster in a condescending fashion, oftentimes attempting to contradict everything said. When retorts aren't as effective, or if the respondent is particularly angry, they tend to resort to strawman arguments or various other techniques that intend to belittle or otherwise discredit the poster. Other MR participants will usually upvote or respond positively to their cohort's retaliation. For the most part, MR seems to be actively engaged in trolling, or being trolled, and turning the subreddit into an antagonistic battlefield. There always is a fight, between MR and outsiders. There is rarely any internal conflict; however, if a subscriber to MR suggests a conversation or idea that is not normative, he (purposeful use of the pronoun here; females are always outsiders) is labeled a feminist sympathizer, or any other terminology MR uses to determine those outside of the affinity group.
Overall, MR participants are very comfortable in their zone, and only engage positively with outsiders if the outsiders corroborate the ideology and agenda of MR. There is a very stringent system at play within MR, and little is accomplished by outsiders trying to undermine their belief system.
References
Gallivan, J. (2001). Now shut up or put up: To fight flames, organization charges for bulletin board use. The New York Post, 64.
Gee, J. P. (2007). Affinity Spaces: From Age of Mythology to Today’s Schools. Retrieved from http://www.jamespaulgee.com/sites/default/files/pub/AffinitySpaces.pdf
Herring, S., Job-Sluder, K., Scheckler, R., & Barab, S. (2002). Searching for safety online: Managing "trolling" in a feminist forum. Information Society, 18(5), 371-384.
Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C.
(2008). Digital literacies – concepts policies and practices.
Novelli, P. & Peterson, L. (2008) Business Wire.
Uslaner, E. (2000). Social capital and the net. Communications of the ACM, 43(12), 60-64.
Novelli, P. & Peterson, L. (2008) Business Wire.
Uslaner, E. (2000). Social capital and the net. Communications of the ACM, 43(12), 60-64.
12/7: Additional data analysis
This screencap contains the 15 most "top-voted" discussion threads on MR as of 9:10am AKST on December 5th. As this changes based on participation and votes, this will likely change within a few hours.
Of these threads, 3 are images, 6 are links to mainstream news sources (like CNN), 2 link to alternative news sites, and 4 are local discussions (meaning they don't link off-site, discussions are locally-contained and/or consist of discussion regarding the Reddit community.) I will be highlighting the images, as I feel they contain the essence of the community, their behavior, and major issues they discuss.
The three images are as follows:
The first image is a screencap from the poster's Facebook friends list. The expanded discussion for this particular image had over 130 comments, and provide a much-needed male perspective on this topic. The Facebook poster implies that the man had committed something so terrible against the woman to deserve being stabbed, which suggests that the poster may be unaware or uneducated over the possibilities of females being the antagonist. This is summed up succinctly by spagma:
Woman attacks man, must be his fault.
Spagma makes a good point, sarcastically echoing what was implied by the Facebook poster. One of the community's biggest issues is the lack of understanding by the general population regarding female-on-male violence and sexual assault. Understandably, images like this Facebook status can be infuriating. These reactions and thoughts are consistent in the other discussions with the other two images.
With the second image, it shows a dictionary definition for rape that obviously states that men can only be rapists, not the raped. It does not consider a woman can rape. However, instead of advocating for petitioning the dictionary to change the definition, or anything particularly constructive to remove such an offensive summary, the top discussion is presented:
The first line from aethoralloy presents a similar remark like spagma, but then takes the discussion one step further by immediately aligning this as an "accomplishment" for feminism. GamerLioness (which is likely a female, due to the alias) angrily calls out this behavior, which is rampant through the community as it is, which is responded with even more aggression and utilizing a strawman-like argument in retaliation.
However, other posters do offer constructive arguments:
devestatingwoundchan:
I'm curious about the source and context of that definition. It is not consistent with the definition of "rape" in many state criminal statutes. Certainly it reflects a common societal thinking that is inappropriately gender-based, but I think it's useful to specify whether we are talking "rape in a legal context" or "rape as defined by social construct." Which is this intending to be, and should that intent change our discussion?TheRadBaron:
That's just weird. A lot of dictionaries have something along the lines of "normally male" in there (which is fairly reasonable, as the role of dictionaries is to catalogue word usage), but this is just inaccurate.
feratian:
Honestly, I wouldn't call this an unfair definition, but there needs to be a more technical word available that describes a unisex, violent and forceful sexual abuse. I think the main problem with how rape is defined legally is that it can be used on just about anyone and made into "he said, she said," instead of being a violent crime with a definite victim and perpetrator.These, and a surprising amount of other posters, argue unlike the usual, "radical" MR reactionaries.
The last image was initially posted in the /r/TwoXChromosomes subreddit, and it was a graphic designed by one of the female participants of TXC. This is a rare occurrence where a cross-post from that particular subreddit was welcomed by MR. The top voted comment in this thread was by robswims:
I am a guy who was date raped by a girl I had just met that day. If a guy had given a girl drugs and taken advantage of her the way the girl took advantage of me he would have surely been convicted of rape. At the time I thought it was kind of funny/cool (I was 18 and she wasn't bad looking). I actually had consensual sex with her the next day and then never saw her again, but now 6 years later I feel very strange and violated looking back at the situation.What is worse about this situation is that robswims didn't even initially consider it rape, likely due to his society making the act of woman-on-man violence impossible. In retrospect, he identifies that he was raped, and makes a comparison if it was the other way around, surely the man would be punished. But, since his understanding of rape at the time was not accurate, he was unaware of the implications of the girl's assault, and likely did not have resources to turn to.
While many of the top 15 posts incite inflammatory response, misconstrue information, or otherwise mislead the discussion to align with MR community's beliefs, there are some strangely level-headed discussions by some participants. Whether these are MR subscribers or male participants, there's no way to actually determine that (unless they are asked, and respond honestly), but it does reveal another facade of the community that may not be in unison with the majority. The fewer the trolls and angry responses, the more likely that the community could make some effective changes, and also be taken as a more serious subreddit within the Reddit community as a whole.
Redo from 11/9, part 1/2
This is a data/discussion memo post.
While MR (Men's Rights) does not actively pursue trolling (for sake of argument, we'll consider trolling simply as intentionally inciting controversial arguments) other subreddits, nor does it endorse such behaviors, they do display similar behavioral trolling tendencies toward outsiders who post in MR. (One must also consider the possibility that MR subscribers may go into other subreddits to troll, but again, this isn't something that is condoned openly by the community.)
A quick screen capture from the front page of MR indicates some of the specific language that posters use (red underlines are mine; I wanted to highlight some of the purposeful language used):
Additionally, going under the "controversial" tab reveals further inflammatory discussions. ("Controversial" ratings are calculated by the amount of "downvotes" it receives. Discussions that are avidly voted upon, but have a low overall score are filed under "controversial")
Another low-voted discussion entitled "Am I missing the point?" original poster bannister0142 asked the community. The emboldened text points are his own:
So while MR is not purposely engaging in external trolling, there are moments when they troll or condescend outsiders, or posters who post against the accepted community's grain. Their behavior toward non-MR posters has little room for compromise or acceptance of alternative ideas. They are unwilling to be flexible within their discussions; they invoke strawman arguments, they tend to be quite hostile, and they are completely married to their stringent set of community beliefs.
Rhetorical techniques are often employed in order to elevate the poster to a supposed standard of authority and correctness, which will allow them to speak down to outsiders. This behavior creates an illusion that they are "fighting" fairly, and when they are opposed, it is acceptable for them to downvote, condescend, and otherwise humiliate their perceived opponent. Those tactics are thinly-veiled attempts to justify their posts, and this is exemplified particularly with the user white_cloud. Surely, it begs the question if that method is truly the only means possible of debate, and what it might suggest about the argumentative skills of the author.
The major issue with trolling is that neither side truly benefits or wins. These are processes with no fruitful goal in sight; the antagonizers simply want to piss off the targeted audience, and the victims, no matter how effective they will be, may not win the war of words, but can win in at least banning or reporting trolls. When it all boils down to it, it just ends up that a lot of people wasted a lot of time arguing in a digital environment, with no intention of acquiescing to the (unconvincing) opposition.
In the case of MR, since they vastly outnumber any outsider, they will always "win" in their eyes -- such is the mentality of the "hive mind" (a popular way, on online message boards, to refer to the same-mindedness that many participants share). And whether the win is important or not, it hardly matters to many, since each participant occupies a virtual space and likely does not met any of these members in real life. Using the Internet as a platform to propagate an agenda or ideology is easier than in real-life; one is offered almost total anonymity (if they are careful constructing their online identity), and can reach a great number of people whether they consent to it or not. Naive Internet users seem to forget that normal social behavior in "real life" is inapplicable to many online spaces. That is one of the successes of MR: they are a widely-subscribed-to subreddit, they encapsulate a controversial view point, and are extremely vocal about it.
While MR (Men's Rights) does not actively pursue trolling (for sake of argument, we'll consider trolling simply as intentionally inciting controversial arguments) other subreddits, nor does it endorse such behaviors, they do display similar behavioral trolling tendencies toward outsiders who post in MR. (One must also consider the possibility that MR subscribers may go into other subreddits to troll, but again, this isn't something that is condoned openly by the community.)
A quick screen capture from the front page of MR indicates some of the specific language that posters use (red underlines are mine; I wanted to highlight some of the purposeful language used):
Additionally, going under the "controversial" tab reveals further inflammatory discussions. ("Controversial" ratings are calculated by the amount of "downvotes" it receives. Discussions that are avidly voted upon, but have a low overall score are filed under "controversial")
"A quick question for you /mensrights/" begins with a post from the original poster, KaseyKasem
Why is it that in a situation where two drunk people sex, the man is always the aggressor? I understand rape is very serious, but it seems like it's a weapon that only women can use against men. If they wake up in the morning and realize that they DIDN'T want to have sex with that guy, he "raped" them. This completely negates the fact that this so-called "aggressor" could have been equally as drunk and consenting. Women are the de jure victims. I don't think I've seen a case like this where the woman was held responsible for taking advantage of a drunk man.A selection of responses are as follows:
girlwriteswhat: Because society (and feminism) sees women as objects that are acted upon, and women's sexuality as something sacred, while they see men as agents who act upon others and who are always up for getting laid.
Also, society (and feminism) prioritizes the protection of women, therefore when women are harmed (even by their own idiot decisions), it is obvious that they were not protected properly by the man.
T3ST1CL3: Women want to monopolize sympathy. Yet all the evidence is that men deserve more sympathy.
ghbert001: Women don't want to be held accountable for their bad decision making. Women want have the privilege of being a total fuck-nut while under the influence of alcohol and then be able to say "Oops, sorry I was drunk, not my fault, tee-hee!". In some cases you'd be considered lucky if you even get an "I'm sorry".
Another low-voted discussion entitled "Am I missing the point?" original poster bannister0142 asked the community. The emboldened text points are his own:
Hey Mens Rights? I joined a few weeks ago and I'm kind of confused by what I see here. Let me preface by saying I'm putting down anyone's point of view, I'm just trying to get an idea of what they are so I can decide if this is a place I'm interested in spending time and energy.What I see in this subreddit is mostly anti-feminist sentiment and people who feel threatened by the feminist movement. They don't support the changes to our society. There also appears to be a lot of attention paid to examples of women doing horrible things to men, and a lot of accusations or examples of women "crying rape" What I don't see Conversations and debates about masculinity, society and what it means to be a man. Discussions about real problems men face and the pressures our culture puts on them. Questions about how we can improve these problems Am I way off base here I honestly want to know. Like I said, I have no judgements either way. But I don't want to waste my time here if there aren't the conversations I'm looking to have.
Some of the selected responses:
smartsenior: Your post looks like concern trolling to me.
white_cloud: If I may be so blunt, I have seen your kind before. You are the kind who is quite frankly ignorant of men's rights issues, as you have not spent the time and effort that some of us have to educate ourselves about these issues. You come in here with some vague notion, probably derived from a feminist-inspired source, about how men have problems due to "masculinity, society, what it means to be a man, and the pressures that our culture puts on men" (your words). I've seen it before. In your shallow understanding of the problems faced by men, you cannot yet see beyond these mere buzzwords into the deeper, much deeper problems that males face (the things I mentioned before).
PierceHarlan: You've obviously never been falsely accused of rape.
thingsarebad: This sub-reddit is mostly just a place for people to vent, whine, complain, and post frivolous, sensational stories.
There are a few real MRAs here, and a few people who actually get the whole picture, and occasionally a few people here will help someone in need, but mostly this sub-reddit is full of people who don't actually want to solve the problems our society has but only wish to complain about them. [Note: This post was downvoted so much, it reached a negative score]
moscova89: THANK YOU! [Note: Also downvoted into the negatives]
So while MR is not purposely engaging in external trolling, there are moments when they troll or condescend outsiders, or posters who post against the accepted community's grain. Their behavior toward non-MR posters has little room for compromise or acceptance of alternative ideas. They are unwilling to be flexible within their discussions; they invoke strawman arguments, they tend to be quite hostile, and they are completely married to their stringent set of community beliefs.
Rhetorical techniques are often employed in order to elevate the poster to a supposed standard of authority and correctness, which will allow them to speak down to outsiders. This behavior creates an illusion that they are "fighting" fairly, and when they are opposed, it is acceptable for them to downvote, condescend, and otherwise humiliate their perceived opponent. Those tactics are thinly-veiled attempts to justify their posts, and this is exemplified particularly with the user white_cloud. Surely, it begs the question if that method is truly the only means possible of debate, and what it might suggest about the argumentative skills of the author.
The major issue with trolling is that neither side truly benefits or wins. These are processes with no fruitful goal in sight; the antagonizers simply want to piss off the targeted audience, and the victims, no matter how effective they will be, may not win the war of words, but can win in at least banning or reporting trolls. When it all boils down to it, it just ends up that a lot of people wasted a lot of time arguing in a digital environment, with no intention of acquiescing to the (unconvincing) opposition.
In the case of MR, since they vastly outnumber any outsider, they will always "win" in their eyes -- such is the mentality of the "hive mind" (a popular way, on online message boards, to refer to the same-mindedness that many participants share). And whether the win is important or not, it hardly matters to many, since each participant occupies a virtual space and likely does not met any of these members in real life. Using the Internet as a platform to propagate an agenda or ideology is easier than in real-life; one is offered almost total anonymity (if they are careful constructing their online identity), and can reach a great number of people whether they consent to it or not. Naive Internet users seem to forget that normal social behavior in "real life" is inapplicable to many online spaces. That is one of the successes of MR: they are a widely-subscribed-to subreddit, they encapsulate a controversial view point, and are extremely vocal about it.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Revision: Data memo for October 26
The following are screen captures of some parts of MR, and a key explaining them.
A. The current logo for MR. By default, all subreddits' logo is the Reddit logo (a white and orange smiling alien), but this can be changed (and often is) by moderators. Currently, this one calls for acceptance of gay males' rights. These will routinely change, due to the decision of a moderator, inspiration from a heated conversation, or the community simply being bored of what has been stuck in the corner.
B. All subreddits default to the first tab, what's hot, which are based on user votes and popularity. The other tabs indicate other ways to filter the submissions. For example, controversial will lead to discussions that have been severely "downvoted," likely due to a controversial topic or stance that the submitter took.
C. This sidebar is customizable, in terms of what texts and links can be placed there. Whenever a user goes directly to a subreddit, this is the information pane they will generally seek out first, so that they learn the rules of the community. Usually moderators will include a link to the FAQ, external links of interest related to the subreddit, and any other information they might find beneficial to the reader.
D. The arrows allow a registered user to "upvote" or "downvote" a submission. Their vote counts only once. The number between the arrows reflects the total number of upvotes.
E. A submitted link. The blue URL is the title that the submitter gave. The text in the grey is the referring site, and clicking directly on the submission will lead the viewer off Reddit, and to an external site.
A screen capture of an expanded conversation. Clicking on "comments" under any submitted link on the main page will take one to the discussion section of the link.
Here, the top-voted commentator is also the original poster (OP) of the submission. You can easily see who is the OP of a topic by the blue highlighting around their username, which provides easy identification when a viewer is scrolling through a long discussion thread. At the end of his author line, one can see that he received 25 upvotes, and 2 downvotes for this comment. This adds to a person's "comment karma," an arbitrary system of measuring one's contributions (and assuming their popularity/wittiness/etc) to the site. The OP also quotes parts of the articles (indicated by the blue stripes alongside segments of text), then immediately follows the quotes with his own comments.
By analyzing the language used by OPs, sites they link to, and ensuing discussions, this provides insight into how the community functions, and what appears to be the community's core beliefs.
OPs tend to use specific rhetoric to speak to their known audience (which consists of supporters in the community, and outsiders that they know are watching), which underscores their apparent ethos as an advocate for men's rights (through the filter of the MR subreddit). They regularly appeal to other participants through logos by invoking very particular vocabulary and argumentative methods that are somewhat unique to this subreddit. (Generally, their usage of logos speaks to perpetuate stereotypes throughout the community, and simultaneously purposely inciting opponents to MR.)
Subscribers will generally align to some sort of group mentality, reflecting their affinity group that orbits the main topic of men's social rights. There is an almost total unanimity toward loathing sites such as Jezebel.com (feminist-leaning popular blog) or the Huffington Post, whereas they gladly support any anti-feminist blogs or news articles that tangentially substantiate a MR ideology. While outsiders generally harass or otherwise instigate what appear to be harmless arguments with MR subscribers, some others genuinely find MR to be the best place to discuss MR.
Affinity groups can undoubtedly be beneficial for those who seek it, but what role do they play with outsiders to their inner circle? Is it fair to take strong stances against another group, without inviting constructive arguments or criticism? Should affinity groups, such as MR, be welcomed without question to their actual motives and tenants? And what makes an affinity group a legitimate source for information? Oooh, only time and screencaps shall tell!
Friday, November 25, 2011
11/23 Free choice. Making mountains out of mole hills.
I was browsing around, reading some comments about various articles, when one remark on CremasterGuy's own submission about a Jezebel article caught my eye:
What I feel is an underlying (but major) issue with MR is their ability to misconstrue and misrepresent any sort of feminist literature, female empowerment, or otherwise female-concerned issue, and to wring it out until they can tweeze out some vague misandric references. When I looked at Jezebel, my initial thought was this advertising campaign was aimed at people in countries where they commit female infanticide, or otherwise harm and mistreat females due to their unworthiness compared to sons. Even if the ads weren't, it still relates heavily to the discussion of females in China, for example, and this was not at all discussed in MR. The discussion on this article segued into another hateful venting about feminism, which nevadawildfires posted his endearing thoughts about:
Jezebel's article was not about degrading men, but it instead, it wanted to highlight an important issue about rearing children, and the value (or lack thereof) that daughters have around the world. The advertising campaign almost seemed like a tongue-in-cheek approach -- unless you have the money to blow for a lab and a scientist to craft your specifically-chosen gendered baby, you can't just "decide" to have a girl or not. It wanted to underline the importance of accepting female children, and not throwing them away/abandoning them/whatever other horrible things in favor of having a hopeful son. Obviously, this just flew right over the heads of the MR participants, which makes me a little more angry, and a lot more saddened that there is such a vile, hateful discussion constantly going on in this subreddit.
Well, pal, we're fucked if we do and fucked if we don't. One of the services provided by this haven is to actually show the misandry. If your order were the rule, this subreddit would be a pretty lonely place.I was pretty surprised about MR being a place primarily to showcase misandry. On the surface, MR seems to be more focused on expanding men's rights (reproductive rights, custody, stuff like that), but to purposefully hunt down and extrapolate misandry from feminist blogs or women-centered websites.. that was a bit surprising, but shouldn't be been, considering the conversations that go on in this subreddit. I guess I was being too hopeful that they would be concentrating their efforts on things that advance the MR movement, instead of regressing what women have done for their own gender issues.
What I feel is an underlying (but major) issue with MR is their ability to misconstrue and misrepresent any sort of feminist literature, female empowerment, or otherwise female-concerned issue, and to wring it out until they can tweeze out some vague misandric references. When I looked at Jezebel, my initial thought was this advertising campaign was aimed at people in countries where they commit female infanticide, or otherwise harm and mistreat females due to their unworthiness compared to sons. Even if the ads weren't, it still relates heavily to the discussion of females in China, for example, and this was not at all discussed in MR. The discussion on this article segued into another hateful venting about feminism, which nevadawildfires posted his endearing thoughts about:
Feminists are like locusts and feminism is the plague they spread. Jezebel is heavily infested. Skimming that all I can say is that we need to bring out the flamethrowers and torch them all until only smoking cinders remain.(I will note that while his submission was downvoted, this attitude is not always very far from the general mindset of the community.)
Jezebel's article was not about degrading men, but it instead, it wanted to highlight an important issue about rearing children, and the value (or lack thereof) that daughters have around the world. The advertising campaign almost seemed like a tongue-in-cheek approach -- unless you have the money to blow for a lab and a scientist to craft your specifically-chosen gendered baby, you can't just "decide" to have a girl or not. It wanted to underline the importance of accepting female children, and not throwing them away/abandoning them/whatever other horrible things in favor of having a hopeful son. Obviously, this just flew right over the heads of the MR participants, which makes me a little more angry, and a lot more saddened that there is such a vile, hateful discussion constantly going on in this subreddit.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
November 16 - Methodology
1) Site--Where did you conduct your research? Why?
All research was conducted by investigating the subreddit MensRights (MR), and finding specific users to look at their post history in participation of any other subreddit. Since users can post wherever they want, and it being a site where users rarely keep to just on subreddit, other posts would further the understanding of the user's nature and behavior on the site as a whole.
2) Participants--Who did you study in your project? Why?
I kept my eye partially fixated on the moderators, like kloo2yoo (who is also the creator of MR), AnnArchist, and ignatiousloyola. However, because of the nature of posting (as well as the system of up/downvoting), I would simply pick posters who were more involved or vehement in their opinions. This is something that changes daily, if not hourly, based on the popularity of certain discussion threads. Typically, as is the fashion with the design of Reddit, the more popular a topic is, the more likely it is controversial/a hot topic/otherwise engaging.
3) Self--What role did you play in your site?
I initially wanted to participate under a pseudonym so as to not link my real account to the discussion, but I realized that I might, purposely or not, affect the conversation to gain results that would corroborate my assumptions of the participants. Instead, I lurked and just read conversations (and restrained myself from responding, which took a considerable amount of willpower at times).
4) Data--What kinds of data did you collect? How did you collect it?
The best types of data collection would be screen captures of conversations, which allow for unadulterated chunks of discussion to be shared.
5) Analysis--How did you analyze your data?
One of the major issues I was looking for (again, based on my understanding of how Reddit works) was how outsiders were treated and voted. Not surprisingly, participants who did not align with the great majority of MR were downvoted into oblivion, talked down to, or a combination of both. I analyzed the interaction between MR members and those not indoctrinated within the MR movement (at least in the context of Reddit).
6) Tradition(s)--What major research tradition(s) did you draw upon to conduct your study?
All research was conducted by investigating the subreddit MensRights (MR), and finding specific users to look at their post history in participation of any other subreddit. Since users can post wherever they want, and it being a site where users rarely keep to just on subreddit, other posts would further the understanding of the user's nature and behavior on the site as a whole.
I kept my eye partially fixated on the moderators, like kloo2yoo (who is also the creator of MR), AnnArchist, and ignatiousloyola. However, because of the nature of posting (as well as the system of up/downvoting), I would simply pick posters who were more involved or vehement in their opinions. This is something that changes daily, if not hourly, based on the popularity of certain discussion threads. Typically, as is the fashion with the design of Reddit, the more popular a topic is, the more likely it is controversial/a hot topic/otherwise engaging.
3) Self--What role did you play in your site?
I initially wanted to participate under a pseudonym so as to not link my real account to the discussion, but I realized that I might, purposely or not, affect the conversation to gain results that would corroborate my assumptions of the participants. Instead, I lurked and just read conversations (and restrained myself from responding, which took a considerable amount of willpower at times).
The best types of data collection would be screen captures of conversations, which allow for unadulterated chunks of discussion to be shared.
One of the major issues I was looking for (again, based on my understanding of how Reddit works) was how outsiders were treated and voted. Not surprisingly, participants who did not align with the great majority of MR were downvoted into oblivion, talked down to, or a combination of both. I analyzed the interaction between MR members and those not indoctrinated within the MR movement (at least in the context of Reddit).
6) Tradition(s)--What major research tradition(s) did you draw upon to conduct your study?
I'm leaving this open for future editing..
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)