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.
No comments:
Post a Comment