#amst201

[amst201filesharing-blog]

What Mediums of File Sharing Do You Use

File sharing has an incredibly diverse range of users. They can vary from simply sharing someone’s post on Facebook to entire communities of file sharers compiling movies or music together. Social media sites are however the most commonly used form of file sharing. These most commonly consist of sites like Facebook or Twitter. File sharing on these sites usually revolves around sharing articles or memes. Then there are more artistic forms social media involving file sharing. 

The most commonly used sites of this variety tend to be Tumblr and Pinterest. Here users share things like their personal blogs or art they have made. Once you step outside of the realm of social media file sharing becomes a lot more intricate than just making a post or clicking the share button. It starts simply with payed services for digital media like ITunes for music or Steam for video games. Naturally people don’t like paying money for things so this gave rise to less restricted forms of obtaining these files, like torrents and file lockers. The Cyberlocker 4shared caps out the top of the list with around 55,000,000 unique visitors each month. Perhaps not as widely used, but at least as well known is the torrent index The Pirate Bay. Users of these forms of file sharing are locked in a seemingly never ending battle with the original content creators, constantly having old files removed until the users inevitably find a new torrent of the file they are searching for. 

File sharing has come an incredibly long way, and with it, many industries have been born. While it may provide difficulty to the many big media conglomerates, it has no doubt been to the benefit of many independent creators. Distribution is no longer restricted to the lucky few, which truly shows as thousands of artists share their work for free online every single year.

�����ɐ�

[amst201filesharing-blog]

Do you interact with other file sharers online?

Do you interact with file sharers online? We wanted to ask this question because the lack of social interface is something that sets apart filesharing website users from other website users.

(Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, Vine, etc.)

The overwhelming response we got when the survey was put out was no. Most people said that they did not infact interact with other file sharers online.

Now that we have some real world data to work with, let's try and see why file sharers don't interact with each other. The first and most obvious answer to this question has to do with the illegality of file sharing. Although it's rare to be caught, it is technically illegal to use filesharing websites. This creates an uneasy social community within the file sharers, because no one wants to use real names and information. Therefore, it's impossible to really have friends on a file sharing website. Another reason file sharers could not interact with each other online is because of the lack of social interface. Almost every other group of users from the internet is based around some sort of social network. Whether people are sharing ideas, videos, pictures or artwork they all revolve around real people sharing real things. The only time people can interact on filesharing websites is when they comment on a torrent, which is only allowed on some torrenting websites. Although this is social interaction, the anonymity of the person's online keeps people from truly interacting. The reason people comment is typically for general information like the type, size, or other information about the file.

So it seems pretty clear as to the reason file sharers do not interact with each other, but how does this information set apart the file sharing group of users from all the other groups of users? Almost every other group of users on the internet is either based around something everyone loves (a group of fans) or something everyone uses (social media). File Sharers however are grouped around more of a illegal concept, of everyone pitching in a little bit of data so we can all have free things. Its really a great concept, but the illegality of it as I stated above keeps people from chatting. Its a very vague and quiet group of people, but it might be one of the biggest on the web.

[fans-users-gamers-blog]

Fans Want Equality

Although almost all people are fans on something, whether it’s a music group or a pop culture artist. We, as a society, do not think a person is strange when we see that they are fans of a singer on the American Top 40 or when we see a die-hard fan of the Lakers. Society tends to think a little differently when people are fans of Star Trek or gamers. Grimes and Narnine’s article shines the light on child gamers and titles they are given, which include; “productive leisure, wasted time, the cyberchild, and the child at risk”. Narine and Grimes also bring to our attention that gamers can be classified by gender and ages as to how they are portrayed in the media. The article shares that there is a strong and obvious bias with aiming games to males; females are simply absent in marketing. With almost all fandoms, there can also be a fear of obsession and not being able to be aware of the difference between fiction and realty. Narine and Grimes touch upon the fear that gamer might take the game too seriously. The example provided in text is the connection between the Columbine shooters and videogames. Could the video games influence the players so much, they thought they were still in a game when they took action.

In many similar ways Star Trek fans are depicted in the same way. In the documentary Trekkies many Star Trek fans had trouble separating their personal lives apart from their fiction world of fandom. One fan in particular even decorated his dental clinic with Star Trek props. Many fans even had trouble separating their reality from their perception. A less extreme example of the Columbine shooters being influenced by their video game is Star Trek fans driving an automobile inspired from a transportation device from Star Trek.

Trekkies, the movie, and Grimes and Narine’s article both depict the stereotypes of Star Trek fans and gamers as being “strange” or out of the ordinary. Both groups of fans are facing criticism more than most fan groups, although they share the same fandom as everyone else and their media of choice.

[fans-users-gamers-blog]

Quit Playing Games

          In the documentary Trekkies, we are given a glimpse of what it is like to be a give all star trek fan. We learn that star trek fans are nicknamed Trekkies. We follow around an absolute die-hard star trek fan. Throughout the film, we learn of some of the stereotypes that trekkies are given. Additionally, we can take a look at gamers, specifically, gaming among youth. Niel Narine and Sara M. Grimes discuss the stereotypes given to children gamers. Both of these fandoms have relatively similar stereotypes.

          Trekkies are often generalized as people who spend most of their time indoors, nerdy, and strange. They are looked at as people who devote their entire life to star trek. They are usually stereotyped as people who spend time reading online star trek forums, attending star trek conventions, and dressing as their favorite characters. In reality, these stereotypes can be dispelled due to popular shows like Parks and Recreation, where the character Ben Wyatt is a normal, functioning citizen. Although he does love Star Trek, he does not attend Star Trek conventions. Star Trek fans are generalized as people who have no life and are able to afford spending every moment dedicated their life to the series.

          Niel Narine and Sara M. Grimes gives us a look at the stereotypes surround gamers, specifically, children gamers. Children gamers are stereotyped as children who are lazy, unintelligent, and strange. They are looked at as people who spend all day and night with their eyes glued to the TV monitor, not moving a muscle. But, why is it that we are always telling children to play outside or be active? Yes, physical activity is very important for growth and health, however video games can stimulate intelligence. There are so many different video games that help children learn, and not just educational games. There are games that teach strategy. In the 1980’s, parent-teacher societies decided that children who are video game players are experiencing aggressive behavior because of video games. We may be forgetting the fact that aggressive behavior could be in response to divorce, at home violence, and bullying. In the movie Nightmare, a teenaged by is characterized as someone who is obsessed with videogames, and exhibits violent behavior and his focus started to deter from school to video games. But again, I say that this behavior could have been sparked by at home involvements. In addition to these steretypes, children gamers are also looked at as children who would grow into violent adults. People that form these generalizations often forget that children paying these video games are also learning. Grimes and Narine conclude that children are simply being children. Why does kids’ enjoyment has to be focused on their future? Why must they play educational online spelling games? Children must be children who spend their time expanding their imagination.

          Both of these stereotypes are relatively similar. They both get viewed as lazy and strange. They are both people who would supposedly dedicate their life to their fandom. However, in reality, both of these fans are intelligent people who are not lazy and strange. Some people are very big music fans, however one would never think a person being a die-hard music fan is ever weird; it is very different for other fandoms.

[fans-users-gamers-blog]

“Objectification” in Video Games

Objectification in video games tends to be a tricky issue. Objectification is described as the process of turning a person into an object, sometimes for reasons that are sexual. However, this tends to be kind of awkward because video game characters aren’t people in the first place. This means that they cannot be objectified in the same way that people are. In a sense all video game characters are being objectified by the player controlling them in the first place.

There are even more issues with sexual objectification specifically. Assuming that one has nothing against the portrayal of the human body, why should they care about scantily clad women in games when ascribed the proper rating? Since we are referring to video games we’re talking about a fantasy world meant to escape reality, not simulate it. As these characters possesses supernatural abilities or dwell within worlds where technology has far exceeded our own, one would not expect them to have traditional social standards applied to them.

To add to this, there remains the idea that women are the sole victims of unrealistic representation in video games. Male characters tend to be just as prone to unrealistic physical proportions as their female counterparts. Whether it’s a hulking Duke Nukem sporting a tank top that is practically painted onto his obscenely muscular body, or a stark naked Solid Snake slithering about it is safe to say that the objectification isn’t restricted to one gender. One may say that the artist didn’t make that character like this with the intention of objectification, but the end result is the same. This means that even though many female characters are objectified under the vague definitions ascribed to the word, you don’t have to look far to find a male character that falls under the same definition.

But does it really even matter? Not in my opinion. Just as there is no evidence of games causing violence, there is no evidence of games causing sexism or self esteem issues in its consumers. Characters in video games dwell within a fantasy reality that does not and should not simulate our own. After all, as far as most people are concerned there is nothing wrong with the human body, and if a game developer wants to make a game exclusively featuring naked people then that is their artistic choice. If you do not agree with how something is portrayed in a game, just don’t buy it instead of trying to force developers to conform to your wants. The human body is not a bad thing and never has been, even if it does have enhanced features. Next time you decide to enter the world of video games, don’t bring reality with you.

[fans-users-gamers-blog]

Where are these clichés from?

           So what came first, the chicken or the egg? The answer to this question may vary as different opinions are held about the topic. This is quite like the issue of gender divides within various issues such as gaming, toys, as well as sports fandoms. Did our preconceptions about women on these issues pre-exist or did these issues stem from something else? Through the articles written by Shawnee Barton and Tracy Lien, I aim to address the two views on gender stereotyping towards women in sports and gaming and its’ origin.

           Shawnee Barton writes her view upon how society holds preconceptions about women in sports. In her article she refers to society as always have been having a patronizing attitude towards the way women have been portrayed, giving no context to this problem and rather saying that it has always been that way. Barton blames marketing for why the female sports experience may be lesser than that of the male counterpart. She states “I love a form-fitting, logo-emblazoned throwback blazer as much as the next gal. And it’s understandable that the NFL tries to boil female interest down to clichés—marketing, after all, is marketing.” (Barton 2013) In this her argument holds that these clichés have always been around, and that companies merchandising products for women have been merely going along with these clichés. Barton’s opinion doesn’t only apply to the way women are thought of in just sports, but rather her opinion is often also a viewpoint for women in gaming.

           Tracey Lien explicates the second commonly held view point on how things such as toys and video games have gender labels and preconceptions about. In the article Lien writes, she poses a lot of points about how these preconceptions may have come about, and how society and marketing may be at fault. In this she argues that there have never been born preconceptions about gendering toys or video games. Lien gives us an example when she states “Carol Shaw was the first female developer Atari hired. She is best known for designing and programming River Raid for the Atari 2600 at Activision. She says she never got the sense that the games she made were for one gender or another, and there was never a mandate from higher-ups to target a certain audience.” (Lien 2013) The developers for things such as video games never put gender labels on their products, thus giving society no specific origin or basis to simply slap a gender label on. Instead Lien argues that society has created gender labels through marketing and has decided to stick with it ever since. Lien states that because the male population of gamers happened to demographically outweigh that of their female gamer counterparts, marketing teams started to direct products towards the male population and stick with the labels for women men might find most pleasing. (Lien 2013) In short, Lien believes that society has nurtured the gendering of toys and video games which has not always existed, as they have posed a marketing advantage.

           These two opinions argue against the origin of gender labeling, however come to agreement upon the idea that marketing is primarily the cause of such. Both articles state that putting a preconceived label of women on products may have held to posing marketing advantages. At the same time, using these labels boil down to using clichés widely held by men towards women as according to Barton. (Barton 2013) Both authors seem to generally agree to the issue, however, they disagree upon the origins of the issue. Lien would explicitly state that Barton’s viewpoint that these issues have just come about as society has always adopted female clichés by men, is outright wrong. Her backing being that, society has harbored these issues and has continued to flow with it. Gender labeling has come about by either Barton’s pre-existing concept, or Lien’s societal nurturing concept. The viewpoints are similar but at the end of the day, one has to be chosen just like the chicken or the egg.

Lien, Tracy. "No Girls Allowed." Polygon. Polygon, 02 Dec. 2013. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. http://www.polygon.com/features/2013/12/2/5143856/no-girls-allowed

Barton, Shawnee. 2013. “As a Female NFL Fan, I Want a Better Stadium Experience—Not a Pink Jersey.” The Atlantic, September 25. http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/09/as-a-female-nfl-fan-i-want-a-better-stadium-experience-not-a-pink-jersey/279915/.

[fans-users-gamers-blog]

You’re a girl, you must love pink.

     Since who knows when, it has been an everyday occurrence for specific activities, objects, or actions to be considered gender specific. Through education systems, girls like me learned that a lot of the things that we liked, were not made for us. I started to hide certain interests, or turned my back from them altogether. My videogames would be hidden in a folder labeled “PPT”, and I made a Xanga account, even though I, the tomboy middle schooler, had no idea what to use it for. I even had to hide the books I read when girlfriends came over to play. I never watched sports games because that wasn’t what other girls did. As I grew older, I learned to disregard the gender specific rules placed on society – but I couldn’t disregard that the problem still exists.

     The origin of games and sports being for boys mentioned in both Lien and Rosenberg’s articles was traced back to the marketers. Through all sorts of data accumulated through analytics and extensive consumer research, marketers have learned that if “it appeals to a certain gender or category of the population, [then] it makes sense from a marketing perspective to go after it” (Lien). Marketing firms aren’t on the lookout for opportunities to take risks. In fact, they want the opposite - the route with the minimal risk and maximal profit. Lien then points out that “most marketers will explain that trying to target a general audience in one campaign is a bad idea”. This argument could generally be received as logical, and push the idea that marketers aren’t purposefully trying to cause a gender divide. But the truth of the matter is, even if the intentions were different from the outcome, gender specific marketing has aided in creating a deep and unequal divide within society when it came to video games and sports.

     In her article, Lien mentions that originally, games were fairly simple and gender neutral. Female developers and game content were rarely challenged regarding the topic of gender. However, after the video game recession in 1983, marketers figured out that more boys played games than girls, and turned the gaming world upside down. Everything that came out of the companies was targeted towards young males or males in general. Hundreds of war, fighting, or shooting games like Call of Duty and Counter Strike were pumped out for the boys, while a tiny and limited amount of simulation games were produced for girls. Even toy sections had separate aisles for boys and girls, the prior having Star Wars, superheroes, nerf guns and action figures, while the latter consisted of pink, dolls, and did I mention pink? Suddenly, girls that game became something to be ashamed of, and girls would be put down and accused of wanting attention. Gamer girls weren’t considered “real gamers” because statistics back in 1983 stated that more boys played games than girls. The reasoning is perfect!

     Things were no better in the sports department. In shoe stores, female basketball shoes had two styles, most likely in – you guessed it – pink, while male styles that had a multitude of color and designs, took up the rest of the wall. Girls that are hardcore sports fans are accused of “being dilettantes, pursuing a game to please our boyfriends or throw ourselves into athlete’s paths” or are harassed by male fans to take off their shirts at sports games (Rosenberg). Sports reporters profit off the sexual humiliation of women and many girls have to carry pepper spray – because their safety isn’t ensured (Rosenberg). Similarly, women are commonly harassed at video game conventions, and female characters in games are overtly sexualized. After all, women can’t possibly be real fans, so what other worth do they have but to be another source of entertainment for men?

     Although things have started to shift in favor of women recent years, the wound has not yet fully healed, and things such as games and sports remain territories predominantly claimed by men. The good news is – marketers can change their target demographic as well as their techniques. If marketing helped create the deep divide in video games and sports, it can also help end it.

Citation:

Lien, Tracey. 2013. “No Girls Allowed”. Polygon.http://www.polygon.com/features/2013/12/2/5143856/no-girls-allowed

Rosenberg, Alyssa. 2011. “The Plight Of The Female Sports Fan”. The Atlantic.http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/02/the-plight-of-the-female-sports-fan/70592/.

[fans-users-gamers-blog]

One of the Boys

          Growing up, it seems to be that boys are girls are prone to certain types of toys/games. My brothers and I played baseball, wrestling, and videogames. My sisters typically played with Barbie’s, stuffed animals, and American girl dolls. Marketers for these specific toys or games are appealing directly to the gender that uses the product. Because boys are prone to video game playing, video game ad’s seem to target only boys. They don’t typically show women playing videogames. Moving towards sports, specifically the NFL, men seem to be specifically targeted by the marketing team. The question here is why are marketers seemingly always-targeting men? Growing up with 6 sisters and 4 brothers, my sisters and I always seemed to play violent videogames in our free time. Every one of my siblings played some type of sport too. How can marketers only be targeting men when women clearly partake in the same activities? Well the answer is that marketers are targeting men because, statistically, men enjoy these activities more than women.

           In the article titled “As a Female NFL Fan, I Want a Better Stadium Experience-Not a Pink Jersey”, Shawnee Barton argues that the NFL is mainly targeting men, and when they do target women, it’s almost condescending. I think we can all agree that commercials that feature anything with football in them have mostly men in them. In a recent episode of “Saturday Night Live”, a fake ad for pizza rolls was being spoofed. The woman was providing the husband and friends with snacks while they watch the super bowl. This may be why women think they are being patronized when it comes to sports. It almost seems that marketers are just trying to appease women by giving them pink jerseys and bedazzled sports gear. If you think about it, the sports gear for men is not specifically “masculine” colors (blue, green, red), their sports gear is really just the team’s colors. Why don’t they do the same for women? Why do they need to make it pink and add jewels to it? The NFL’s director of consumer products actually said that they do not want to patronize women by doing this kind of stuff, but it turns out that they are being patronized. In class, some students said that girls are really only attending sporting events so they can wear a revealing jersey, or so they can support their boyfriend’s favorite team. They also shared that female fans who actually wish to observe the game get overlooked and not taken seriously. Let’s not forget that victoria’s secret, a lingerie store, occasionally carries sports gear. This would only further prove Barton’s point that women are being patronized when it comes to sports. They don’t need to be given football themed lingerie; it is also again making it look like marketers are just trying to appease women.

           The article “No Girls Allowed”, written by Tracey Lien, discusses sexism in marketing strategies in video games. It may seem to some that marketers are only targeting a specific gender, and that may actually be the case. President of the marketing firm A Squared Group, Amy Cotteleer says that sometimes marketing a specific gender is the best thing to do. She thinks who is the biggest population that a product can sell to, and that is who needs to be targeted. It used to be that video games were somewhat gender-neutral. With new games, there always seems to be some kind of damsel in distress. We see this in Mario, Donkey Kong, and Zelda. Marketers are focusing on boys here. Although I mentioned earlier that marketing trends never seemed to bother my siblings or I, you wouldn’t catch my 16 year old sister willingly play Mario now. I remember watching a commercial where a Dad came home from work, sat down on the couch, rolled up his sleeves, and played Nintendo wii for hours on end. Although many of us could do the exact same thing, you wouldn’t see a commercial where a woman come home from work and played video games for a few hours. In class we discussed that girls still play video games, in fact, it seems that more girls play Sims than guys play Sims. Some students also said that, regardless of gender, they played video games, even if it was geared toward men (Call of duty, etc.).

           These two articles may not seem like they have so much in common, however they are both discussing the marketing trends towards “men’s games”. The NFL seems to put men as their priority, and in the process discriminating women. Video games target men as well, we are able to see this in Nintendo wii commercials. These two authors would agree that men are prioritized and women are practically ignored. These two articles tell us that women get trampled in the process of trying to focus on men. The NFL seems to only market towards women in an attempt to pacify them. Video games seem to completely ignore women as a whole.