Is video game violence real?

I saw an article today about video game sexualized violence and it argued that any violence that happens in this setting is wrong and should be considered a crime. This debate has been going on for awhile and it also includes whether or not violence in video games can have an effect on children's behavior. I'm kind of still debating this myself. Before this class, I thought that it was the parents' job to teach children to differentiate between the real and the virtual world. It seemed pretty logical. But now, I think that they should still teach their children but not responsible or liable if their children can't make that difference. This argument can also apply to pornography. In Law and Order, Special Victims Unit, (one of my favorite shows) there had been cases where males see rapes, torturing, among other things in video games and porn and try to replicate it in their personal lives. But in these types of cases, who is responsible: the guy who commits these crimes or the industries that create the scenarios? It's a fine line because society first creates these criminals and then punishes them for the same behavior it taught them. This is a question I still can't answer. But, by using this example, I think that sexualized violence in video games is real because it programs the users to think that this is ok, in other words, it normalizes violent behavior. It is the same process that is seen in the military. Weird how all of these things are connected...

But please comment with your ideas.

Lauren: Another Example of the Invisible War

As I was catching up with the Big Bang Theory episodes after a long day of doing nothing, a preview for the second season of LAUREN came on. I saw that it was about a woman in the military. I found out it was a rape case, just the Invisible War. The preview showed a pretty, White female (Lauren) telling another soldier about her rape. After, there is a shot of a male commanding officer telling Lauren's captain that she needs to make this go away. In another take, we see both women talking about the rape and Lauren is emotional because they tell her that she has no right to do anything. I automatically thought of the Invisible War and Jessica Lynch. It showed a stereotypical White woman being controlled by a big, strong man in an environment where she couldn't do anything. I think that this show became an extension of The Invisible War because it shows the story of another rape case in the military in another form of the media. The series is broadcasted on the WIGS and on Youtube, as well as on TV, which are easier ways to access the series than a documentary. The casting of the actress made me think: Is this really positive for exposure of military rape? I mean, it focuses solely on women, it follows the defenseless female, and it's about her fight against the system. In my personal opinion, any exposure is good exposure, even if it is stereotypical. This series, which I just started watching, gives other people an idea about what is happening in the military and it makes women (and men) think about these issues before enlisting. I had the same issue with the Invisible War. But if it wasn't for the documentary, I wouldn't have known about military rape. So, even if the Invisible War and Lauren mainly focus on women's cases, it is a starting point to raise awareness.

Here is the link to WIGS website in case you are interested in watching the series: 

http://www.watchwigs.com/

Wigs also makes other series about women in different situations that deal with "women problems." If you see or are seeing any of the other series, tell me what you think :)

I will be watching the series throughout the summer and I will post some analysis and personal thoughts on the series. I recommend everyone see it and post comments about the episodes as well.

The Future is Just the Start

This reflection is kind of bittersweet because it reminds me of everything I have learned this semester and how much I will miss coming to class and hearing other perspectives on FEMINISM.

One quote that really stood out to me was that, "[the] narratives of security, told from outsiders' standpoints, offer a very different account of security than the dominant state-centered security narrative" (Wibben 2011, p. 100). When it comes to security, it is a very individualist concept. Our American idea of security varies from state to state. Not even that. I think that it varies from person to person.
In Communication, we have qualitative research methods, in which we interview individuals to gain their perspective. Using that as a tool, it's a way to better understand where the research is going and what still needs to be done. There is also the argument that because we are not personally involved in other countries' politics, that we shouldn't give our input because there is no possible way to relate. Our "solutions" might not be the best way to solve the problem but it's a starting point. It's like a self-fulfilling prophesy. Because we can never achieve equality between genders, why should we even try? No! Any progress, as small as it may be, is still progress. We might not see it in our lifetime, but at least we strived for change.
Along with that argument, any perspective is valid. Even if we may not want to accept or agree, we, as students, are extremely privileged and we might not have the same perspective, but that doesn't mean we should not try to understand others. Our personal experiences, whether they be negative or positive, shape us and help us join the feminist conversation. Our negative experiences are the most valuable because those are the ones that makes us want to change. Like Stern said, "[she] [had] lived through a difficult time in [her] life" (Wibben 2011, p. 104) but that's what makes her angry. Like Swati said, that's what we need to make change, for us and for other women. So really, it is because we look to the future that we can start changing our present.

Bus stories

As some of you know, you see the craziest things on MUNI, and today was no exception. I was heading home when a group of middle school students got on the bus. It was crowded for an evening bus, so we were all smushed inside. A seat was vacated later on and one of the girls sat down. Then one of the boys sat on top of her, and all the other teens started yelling "RAPE!" First of all, the comment was completely inappropriate. It reminded me of the "That's so GAY!" comment. Other passengers stayed quiet and didn't say anything, even though they repeated it several times. The boy sitting on the girl said that it was not rape because she was younger than he was. Throughout this incident, I really wanted to say something about rape and how it isn't something that you can joke around with, but I didn't know how to approach it without it sounding like a lecture. It goes to show that even in San Francisco, people still have uninformed perspectives on rape, as seen in the Steubenville rape case. There is no education on sexual issues, apart from a college setting, even though we live in a sexualized environment. I believe that a movement has to be created to educate the youth about sex and all other issues that relate. Like Swati Parashar said, we have to be uncomfortable and angry at these issues to stimulate change. I wish I would have said something, but the issue is too complicated to explain in a 30-minute bus ride.

Walk against Rape and the Boston Bombings

     I was thinking about what Valeria said in class about the Walk Against Rape and it reminded me of what Cynthia Enloe said in her talk. The Boston bombings were in a demilitarized environment and after, it was completely different, especially since the FBI [and SWAT teams] showed up as a response. But in the Walk Against Rape the police was guarding the route. My "feminist blinkers" were automatically on because of the dynamic of the walk. Rape is about control, regardless of sex and the policemen/policewomen were a symbol of control. It could be intimidating or even a trigger for some of the participants. 

     It could be argued that they are also for protection, but I think that just like the Boston marathon, the walk should be just the participants. It gives them the control and power of walking for their cause, without the help of outside influences. Or maybe I'm completely wrong? Any thoughts?

Davies Forum Workshop - Impressions I

(photos via Prof. Doubiago)

"The Invisible War" and "In Shopian"

          I attended both "The Invisible War" and "In Shopian" which were screened in the Human Rights Film Festival. 

         "In Shopian" was about the Kashmir area that is legally part of India, but there have been attacks against the Kashmir people because they have protested against the Indian government and seek independence. The specific case that the film focused on was a wife and a sister that were raped by the Indian military, killed and left in a nearby river, and the police investigation was covered up to protect the Indian government. The husband and brother of the women has become an advocate of human rights to prevent further incidents. 

         I had heard about the Kashmir conflict in a politics class, but never went into any specifics. The people there basically have no government to protect them and they can't constitute their own. They are in limbo and their efforts have proved futile. They protest by word and by actions. When the conflict gets violent, the people and the police throw rocks at each other. It was notes that the policemen thought of the fights as a game of cricket, a plaything when they have the guns. I can see the perspective from India, where they don’t want to lose territory, but if they wish to keep peace with the Kashmir people, they should treat them as citizens, equal to other Indian counterparts.
         The invisible war related to what Anu had come to talk to us in class. Violence in the military affects everyone. There were many examples where women were raped and their perpetrators were not charged with criminal charges. Most of the things we covered in class, but it really hit me when I connected the faces of these women with their stories and seeing how they reacted to the government. One thing that struck me was the fact that, legally, the military has to do something when cases are presented, but they don’t in order to protect the “divine quality” of the establishment. Nothing is perfect and the military is not even close. Also, the Veterans Department is so inefficient and inconsiderate with women’s cases that they spend unnecessary money on useless medical tests and take more than 14 months in one case. 

Art+Gender+Culture

I attended the Art, Gender, and Conflict session on March 4^th. Patricia Ariza is one of the founders of Festival de las Mujeres, or Festival of Women. She is a political activist, actress, dramaturg and performance artist in Colombia that deals with social conflict, inequality, poverty, and patriarchy, through the perspective of women. Some of her work relates to the military confrontation between the government and the population for 50 years. More that 4 million people have been displaced from their homes. Most of them are women. In 1966, Patricia created the cultural house, Teatro Candelaria, as an alternative outlet in activism. They perform at least once a month as a group. One of the videos that we saw was a performance about “los desaparecidos,” or the disappeared. They placed pictures of loved ones all over the city to remind others of the military’s brutal actions in search for power.

One thing that I found interesting is that she caters to each of the locations by having local women tell their stories in the “Paz Hare la,” a play-on-words that literally means runway, but has the meaning of “Making Peace”. She doesn’t have a static troupe that travels to different parts of Columbia. That way no show is the same and she empowers women wherever she goes.

This session relates to the power of women and their ability to take power back from oppressive parties. In Columbia, she usually holds meetings and performances in plazas. She explained that she believes that these places, made of cement, represent power and masculinity, and she takes back power by performing in the spaces. This is specifically targeted at the military, which, in itself, is a very masculine environment.

Revision of Ann Jones' Chapter on Burmese Refugees

Ann Jones' chapter on the Burmese refugees in Thailand  focuses on the processes and struggles of her project the "Global Crescendo Project" which used photography as a means of documenting the daily lives of displaced Burmese minorities in Thailand. Mainly focusing on the Karenni women, who were thought to be shy and self-contained, the GCP brought a voice to many of them, as well as bridged the "gap between women and action" that exists as a result of impunity and patriarchy. Beyond the common difficulties in the camps, such as disease that passes quickly throughout camp refugees, domestic violence is in high frequency but seldom acknowledged, as "women endure violence because they saw no other choice,". As Jones' points out, such violence is incredibly ironic because it was a similar form of GBV, or torture, that the refugees were escaping from in the first place. Most importantly, the GCP began a path to educating and teaching men "how the problem starts and how they can solve it by themselves", learning, and using their knowledge of their history of suffering to promote rights and security writhing the community and the private sphere.

Ann, Jones. "Burmese Refugees in Thailand: Someplace Else." War Is Not Over When It's Over. New York: Metropolitan, 2010. 168-203. 

Kronsell Case Study

Annica Kronsell's "Methods for Studying Silences: Gender Analysis In Institutions

of Hegemonic Masculinity" focuses on studying the "silent” oppression which

helps her to problematize masculinity and highlight instances of male hegemony

that may not be explicitly promoted. Kronsell's case study centers upon the

Swedish Armed Forces, in which she first looks to the "universal conscription"

(2006, p.113). Kronsell comments that the so-called "information problem," in

which the male proportion of the draft dropped, was never a problem when the

female proportion was not presented. She concludes that this reinforces male

hegemony - that men are therefore given a superior status to women as the

appropriate defenders of the nation and the only citizens capable of being

entrusted with knowledge concerning security and defense matters (p.113,

p.115). A second issue Kronsell highlights, is the use of language that maintains

"masculinities and the hegemony of men" (p.110) in the Swedish Armed Forces.

For example, military documents used terms like "officer" or "conscript without

explicit gender associations, but it was known socially that those roles belonged

to men exclusively (p.113). Other documents also never mentioned women,

which indicates that only men were considered "real" citizens (p.115). Another

group excluded fro the army is the "male" LGBT community (p.116).. Overall,

Kronsell found that women’s presence had a positive influence on the Armed

Forces. Among them, in line with Kronsell’s concern about silences, there was a

"shaping up" of language (p. 120): e.g., sexualized language was reduced as

pornographic images were taken down from bunks (p.120).

Kronsell, A. (2006) Methods for Studying Silences: Gender analysis in institutions

of hegemonic masculinity” In B. Ackerly, M. Stern and J. True (Eds.) Feminist

Methodologies for International Relations (pp. 108-128). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Maria, Kortney, Ienna