"Cyberstalking: Gender and computer ethics" by Alison Adam.
Summary: Article justifies why computer ethics could benefit from feminist theory by way of 'cyberstalking'-related examples.
In discussing the various ethical dilemmas emerging from technological development, the author has canvassed the dynamic issues of empowerment, novelty, and gendered dialogues that computer ethics shares with gender theory. Hence, it may be seen that three primary aspects of feminist theory may be of assistance in negotiating moralism on the internet, namely those offering a view to the:
1. applicability of existing discourses to rein in technology's;
2. issues of empowerment and its relation to gender; and
3. an alternative, collective approach to theories of moral relativism.
There is really no doubt about the applicability of gender studies to the various dilemmas we see on the internet - what better way to address the conflict, diversity, contradictions and change of the internet than with post-structural tools of third-wave feminism? Still, this is by no means the only discipline that should inform our cyber-related discourses.
Considering the multi-focality of textual representations, we suddenly see the internet as nothing more than a really really really really really really big book. With audio/movie capabilities. Hence, we suddenly have at our disposal tools of structuralism helping us work out how the structures of blogs and forums and news sites differ, and how freudian readings of most Facebook posts aren't really that hard to make out. At all. Moreover, once we adopt this progressivist functionality we can see that - as discussed in today's lecture - issues of public/private divide have plagued celebrity and newsmedia for quite some time. Also, issues of virtual property are indeed similar to the intangibility of intellectual property. Suddenly, these heuristics we are all so familiar with make sense of it all in a way that doesn't (unnecessarily) compartmentalise a new section of our consciousness for 'the internet'. Of course 'porn' is a different issue. But we'll get to that..
Here I ask: what are the differences, if any that the internet introduces that may perhaps separate it from anything we've ever seen before?
Also, are we making the same mistakes again or are has the technology allowed us to make new ones?
"The Ethics of Porn on the Net" by Kath Albury
Summary: Analyses morality of pornography and its implications in modern society. Kath's own suggested resources on sexual ethics, sexuality/gender authors, and many others, also warrant a mention (as does the succinct Sydney Morning Herald article "Ethics of porn are in the eye of the beholder" Kath Albury penned for the Sydney Morning Herald).
Summary: Analyses morality of pornography and its implications in modern society. Kath's own suggested resources on sexual ethics, sexuality/gender authors, and many others, also warrant a mention (as does the succinct Sydney Morning Herald article "Ethics of porn are in the eye of the beholder" Kath Albury penned for the Sydney Morning Herald).
Everyone knows. The internet is for porn. (Please, click the link! It's not spam, it's not violent, it's not even porn - it's the Sesame Street characters explaining the universality of pornography in song!) Statistics on pornography are considerable - the porn industry reportedly having larger revenues than Microsoft, Google, Amazon, eBay, Yahoo, Apple and Netflix combined, not to mention that in 2006 Worldwide Pornography Revenues totalled more than $97.06 ( see here for these and more porn-related statistics). Furthermore, for a perspective into the diversity of porn, if you're interested, see Wikipedia's list of pornographic sub-genres (Note: this list does contain explicit material though no pictures). Here we further see the analogous nature of cyber-texts as a form of textuality and ways they may be conceptualised via interpretative methods of dynamic discourses.
Personally, I found it hard to conceptualise the porn industry's inclusivity as envisioned by Kath Albury, in the scheme of what was clearly fetishistic behaviour. One one hand, she states that people who were normatively 'too fat, too old, too kinky or just too "ordinary"' could be acknowledged as "unique sexual beings" (pg. 199) - I found this hard to reconcile with what I saw to be merely the patronising, obsessive, limiting fetishes the public have for these particular people. Sure, it's inclusive, but when you're included solely because of a characteristic and predominantly in a way that many people would view as demeaning rather than empowering, is this really meaningful inclusivity?
To this I also add the question: if you're being viewed or included because of your 'red hair' or because of the size of your breasts, etc. is this empowering and/or inclusive or, reversely, are you being reduced to that single characteristic in a way that ultimately denies every other aspect of your being?
Perhaps it is merely this aspect of you that is a commodity that allows you to be included in the cybersphere as a commodity? Moreover, pornography is primarily propogated as a capitalistic venture, in the way that newsmedia is founded on advertising dollars. Hence, is it perhaps for these capitalistic ends that you are included in the first place; i.e. rather than being included on any meaningful basis, your inclusion is merely in recognition of your ability to be sold on the market because of a particular fetish-based market. I definitely believe in inclusivity, but where it genuinely means something and has value. We have to pick our battles and I'm not sure that there are too many human-rights frontiers being fought for because there is a niche market for these varying idiosyncrasies.
What do you think? Do you think that it's good that people are just being included? Does it matter or not what type of inclusion this is? What type of empowerment?
I totally agree with Vandelay’s point, porn is literally one of the highest selling genres out there; I really am not surprised that niche porn is becoming a bigger and bigger thing! With so many consumers out there, many of whom that don’t conform to or enjoy mainstream ideas of porn-stars, niche porn is more than likely to arise as a result of a rebellion against conventional porn. And as strange as it may seem, I am sure there are a LOT of guys and some girls out there who really get a kick out of a girl rounder around the edges or who is on a personal endeavour against razors. So really, this revolution of amateur porn is just an expansion of sub-genres of porn and caters to the masses, which has occurred across many mediums in society, not just film genres. In this sense, I don’t see why it comes as a surprise or why it is being questioned when it was really just bound to happen.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to your first question on this article, I think it is empowering. If one feels as though they are being singled out as one characteristic only, then this is just simply the nature of the beast. This happens across the board in all areas of life, we are often identified by how we look, therefore in any visual medium, we need to be prepared for such identifications. I think it’s great people are being included and good on them for having the courage to be different and especially for females to show themselves at their most vulnerable. I think that when people put themselves online, in a visual medium, they are setting themselves up for any sort of critique, positive or negative. Having said all this, in regards to ethics of the Internet, females need to be aware of the potential negatives of being sexualised and totally available online, because the consequences can be great. Awareness, in my eyes, needs to be increased especially with a focus on the female market, in order to minimise the risk of future cyber stalking and harassment.
I understand what you’re saying about inclusivity that isn't exactly "meaningful." Reading about all these fetishes also made me wonder about whether these distinctive characteristics really are just being packaged to appeal to a really specific market and are ridiculed by everyone else. Putting images of bodies that are not generally perceived as attractive on the internet doesn’t mean that these images are widely accessed or, more broadly, that these bodies then become widely accepted. I don’t necessarily think it’s a step backward, though. The fact that they’re online is an acknowledgment that they can be seen as sexually appealing, albeit unconventionally so. I’m thinking that complete inclusion would mean a situation where there is no normative attractiveness and all bodies are seen as equally valid. I’m not sure that’s really achievable since the norm is never eradicated; it can only be challenged and then possibly replaced. But inclusion means less artificial or prescribed distinctions, and that means as little difference in location as possible. So if people are looking at porn sites as a way to change people’s conceptions about what can be considered attractive, then maybe they should start by providing as much variation in body types and attributes in the SAME website. That might be a way of hinting that all bodies should be part of the same pool rather than some bodies being relegated to “niche” status that must have their own (marginal) sites. But I don't know how realistic that would be since mainstream porn sites are, after all, trying to make money and not trying to change the way people think.
ReplyDelete