Social Media Club reflections
Thursday night, I led a discussion at the January Social Media Club Atlanta meeting. The topic was Online Identity and Buzzword Bingo – and yes, there was a real Bingo game. I was pretty proud of the cards, if I do say so myself; although I realized yesterday I left out a good one: “folksonomy.” Rusty did the design in Photoshop and I just love it. Note the iPhone-style letters at the top, and the Beta violator as the free spot. Here is J’s winning card:
The markers, btw, are magic beans which, if planted, will sprout a series of tubes leading to Robert Scoble’s house. Hardy har har.
The first two people to arrive at the meeting were new to Social Media Club, and one of them asked me if the Buzzword Bingo thing was a joke or for real. I said, “Well, it’s all in good fun, but yes, I really did make Bingo cards.” The point of the Bingo cards was to hopefully give everyone a self-referential laugh while at the same time getting people to stop and think about some of the language we use when we talk about social media. As I explained at the beginning of the meeting, one of the biggest problems I see with these conversations (G-47!) is that people use these words but we don’t have a common understanding of what the definitions are. It’s the same problem my BlogOrlando session addressed. I’ve seen similar problems happen in feminist circles when there isn’t a commonly-accepted lexicon (e.g., words like “objectification” and “degradation” can mean any number of things to different people). If we don’t share a common definition and just assume the other person knows what we mean, we end up talking past each other.
After explaining the Bingo game, I started by reading an excerpt from Sarah Dopp’s totally completely absolutely awesome post, “Why I Write About My Life On the Internet.” Here’s the part I read:
I write about my life on the Internet because it creates a space for these connections. What else could make a complete stranger feel safe emailing me to say, “I’m queer, and I can’t tell anyone, but I wanted to tell you“?
I’ve been writing about my life on the Internet for about nine years now. I’ve learned by trial-and-error what works and what doesn’t, and I manage my presence in a way that nourishes me. Sometimes I make mistakes and have to face negative consequences, but they’ve never come anywhere close to outweighing the benefits.
…
I write about my life on the Internet because it changes the way I connect with my own experiences. In order to write down a story, I have to sort through all of the details and focus on the ones that made it significant for me. I believe our stories shape us – the way we remember something affects who we are and how we relate to the world. Writing things down empowers me to consciously decide how I want to remember something, and to me, that’s an act of personal revolution. Then, when details get echoed back to me in someone else’s words – either through a comment or another blog post – my way of seeing things gets a little bit stronger, and my voice gets a little bit more steady.
Later, in response to something a participant said, I read this part as well:
I’ve worked through some very hard stuff through blogging, and I’ve made some powerful connections in the process. People have thanked me for telling stories that opened doors in their own lives that they didn’t know they were missing out on. Other bloggers have done the same for me.
I believe in telling stories, I believe we’re more powerful when we’re connected, and I believe in telling fear to f*ck off.
I couldn’t read the hyperlinks, of course, which just goes to show part of what is great about social media – the social aspect!
What motivated me to read the second part was a guy who seemed to be having trouble with the idea that forming relationships and deep connections is a valuable thing. I tried my best to hear him out and see where he was coming from, because I really cannot conceive of not seeing that as a valuable thing. I was trying to suss out whether he was confining it to just social media, and I pointed out that this really isn’t something that’s limited to social media – it’s what humans have been doing for millenia. It’s about socializing and connecting. I truly cannot understand how someone would not see that as valuable, but I acknowledged that even though I don’t understand it, I can grant that it’s possible. (It still boggles my mind, though.)
Something I really want to get at in these conversations is that the questions being raised are not new, or unique to social media. They’re the same issues we’ve always grappled with: What, and how much, do we share with whom? How do we make that decision? What if someone finds out something about us that we don’t want to be public information? The difference now is simply that social media is giving more people the tools to speak their truths candidly, to whatever degree they want. At the meeting I mentioned the transgressive potential of social media, how it can enable members of traditionally marginalized groups to speak without a filter. I said that’s something we need to always remember, instead of just falling into the trap of replicating existing power structures online. This was met with a lot of blank stares and I was afraid people were either bored or lost, so I stopped. But I really feel passionately about this.
As I said on Joseph’s blog, it frustrated me how much of the conversation focused on business, as these conversations often do. The topic of my BlogOrlando session was directly related to the concept of “professionalism,” but the idea behind the SMC-ATL meeting was more general. Certainly, business plays a huge role; but there are other reasons people self-censor as well. I think some of those deeper reasons need to be examined, because it seems like sometimes people use business as a go-to excuse (“my boss might see!”). I do get the sense, whenever I facilitate a discussion like this, that a lot of people really do feel held back and as if there’s something putting a gag on them. I see people really yearning to break out of all that and speak their truths. I see an internal battle happening because often these same people are defending compartmentalization, using words like “professional,” and bringing up red herrings such as not wanting to hurt someone’s feelings by writing something mean about them. But I can see the struggle in their eyes. I know that sounds really corny, but it’s true.
In a new post entitled “New Brand World: What’s Your Brand?”, AV Flox says:
Image matters. How other people perceive you is as important as what you’re actually doing.
I have to take issue with this. I think there are two very different issues being conflated here. For example, you might think you’re Jesus, but everyone else knows you’re a crazy person; in that sense, I completely agree with her statement. But it’s the other issue that bothers me: that we should measure our success or failure by what other people think. Don’t you remember hearing, back in grade school: “Don’t worry about what others think of you. Be yourself.” That’s sage advice, and again, this is nothing new to social media. When people start basing their identity on external perceptions, it’s a dangerous road to go down. Surely we can all agree that basing your self-worth on something other than external validation is a good thing.
It’s also part of being a grown-up. Children and teenagers seek external validation, and teenagers in particular are in the process of forming their own identities, and as such take a lot of cues from external feedback. Or, in layman’s terms: they’re awkward and self-conscious.
But as you get older, you start to get more self-confident, and you realize other people’s perceptions don’t matter and if you spent all day worrying about them you’d be exhausted. It’s why the 18-year-olds in the locker room hide behind their towels and surreptitiously change inside their clothes while the 50-year-old women walk around stark naked without a second thought.
I have a negative reaction to all this “personal brand” business on a very fundamental level, and I think AV Flox’s statement gets to the crux of it. Saying “how other people perceive you is as important as what you’re actually doing” leaves out the essential question of, which people? I did not spend 10+ years in therapy working through this shit to see high school rehashed on the web among a bunch of adults. And yes, everyone deals with self-consciousness from time to time, or feeling discouraged by what someone said about them; to pretend we live in a vacuum where we’re not at all affected by others’ opinions would be foolish. But that is a far cry from giving precedence to what other people think over what you know. Because, as my favorite therapist once said, “You are the expert on you.”
I also got a bit flustered when, as I was talking about this very thing, Dave mentioned something about how you have to aware of how your actions and words affect other people. Well, YES, of course! I was flustered because to me that’s such an obviously, completely different thing. Yes, self-awareness is a GOOD thing and is part of what it means to have basic social skills. For example, if you identify as gay, you probably won’t explain the detailed mechanics of gay sex to your conservative Christian grandmother. Know your audience. However, that’s a very different thing than being in the closet and being afraid of your sexual orientation being “found out” because someone might be made uncomfortable. (I admit it’s a clumsy analogy but hopefully it gets the point across.)
Finally, one thing I tried to make painfully clear at the meeting was that I would never judge someone negatively for the choices they make in what information to share or not share online. That is each person’s call to make for themselves. I know I probably got repetitive with this at the meeting, but I wanted to make sure there was absolutely no misunderstanding. As I said to Nikki a while back, the point is not to mandate that people must have a certain level of openness online, but rather for all of us to respect each other’s choices and boundaries without prejudging. That means that if I don’t prejudge you because you don’t write about sex, you also don’t prejudge me because I do.
At one point Dave brought up the different (mostly inadequate) methods of restricting online content to only certain people, and he mentioned that I’ve written some password-protected blog posts. After addressing the technical side of things, I talked about how I’ve been dismissed as a hypocrite because of my password-protected posts – and why that dismissal doesn’t parse for me. Yes, I am fairly open with what I write; but that doesn’t mean I don’t have boundaries. The failure of some people to grasp this, and instead their insistence on a black-and-white view, confounds me. I mentioned that a lot of my password-protected posts were about my dad’s death. It’s simply not something that I want to be available for public consumption. That’s my choice to make. Someone else might prefer their writing on their father’s death to be available for all. That’s their choice to make. Both are equally valid.
Thanks to everyone who came out to the meeting and helped make it an interesting discussion. People weren’t talking much at the beginning and I was worried the topic was a flop. But eventually people got warmed up and the discussion really got going. I wish I could’ve stayed all night to talk about it! These are not questions that have easy yes or no answers or problems that can be solved and done away with; we’ll continue to deal with this stuff as social media trends evolve, just like we’ve been dealing with it forever.
BINGO!
I have an idea: let’s make a BINGO card for media representation of sex workers!
A BINGO card has 25 squares (including on “free square” in the center that can be adapted creatively as necessary), so help me out with your suggestions. Here’s what I’ve got so far off the top of my head.
Terminology:
- The world’s oldest profession
- High-end / high-class
- Working girls
- Virtual street corner
- Ply their trade
- Sell their bodies
Other characteristics:
- Dismissive/snarky quotation marks (e.g., “work”)
- Photo of scantily-clad woman leaning into car window
Hell, we might have to make more than one card!
Note: this post was inspired by Monica at $pread Blog.
Oh, anonymous commenters!
Ren has yet another anonymous commenter (a.k.a. troll) on her blog. He exhibits many of the characteristics on the Anti-Feminist BINGO card, as well as the follow-up version 2 of said card.
I don’t bother to engage w/ such people, and I recommend against anyone else doing so. But if you want a synopsis, here’s shorter (longer?) Anony:
“Yeah, I mean it sucks that a woman’s sexual history will be put on trial in a rape case and could determine whether or not the rapist is convicted, and if she has ever dared to admit to liking sex that must mean she likes it all the time, with anyone, anywhere, under any circumstances, so how could she be raped; and never mind if she’s a sex worker, and yeah it sucks that sex workers are often abused by law enforcement. I mean sure it sucks that men are congratulated for sexual ‘conquests’ while women are called sluts and their emotional wellbeing, physical health, mental health, competence as parents, competence in their jobs, etc. are called into question all because they dare to have sex on their terms; yeah it’s pretty crappy that women have had their children taken away from them and deemed to be unfit parents, or lost their jobs over sexual activity between consenting adults; yeah I guess it’s a pain in the butt that a woman’s entire self-worth is judged based on the state of her hymen; and it must be kinda annoying dealing with sexual harassment and having it written off as ‘just a joke’ or her being ‘too sensitive,’ and anyway didn’t she ask for it if she’s dressed that way, why doesn’t she want a little attention? Yeah it could suck not being able to walk around by yourself without people yelling comments, not to mention groped and having your physical space disrespected and having no recourse, that must be a minor inconvenience sometimes. ….
But men get made fun of if they can’t find sexual partners! So stop being sexist and talk about THAT! Why can’t you be rational and logical, just like ME!”
B-I-N-G-O
Last night, Jen and Tony were kind enough to give me the dubious gift of a copy of the latest issue of The Sunday Paper. The cover story is (in huge pink letters), “ATLANTA’S HOOKER SCHOOL.” Then in smaller letters, the subhead: “New Program Aims To Make Prostitution A Risky Business For Johns.” (Okay, so it’s not really a hooker school at all, is it, dumbasses? It’s a johns school. But that won’t grab readers by the throat the way “HOOKER SCHOOL” will.)
Now, for those of you who aren’t in Atlanta, The Sunday Paper is a pretty worthless rag. It always has sensationalistic, overblown headlines, especially in the cover stories (I remember one with a big explosion on the cover, and something like “Countdown to Armageddon” – and they were totally serious) and generally includes some of the worst writing I’ve seen in a print publication. They try to publish “controversial” stories with the most watered-down, trite mockery of point/counterpoint you can imagine. And here’s how I think they go about writing features: they have a template, and they drag and drop various talking points from a database, maybe some clip art as well (e.g., in this case: photo of fishnet-clad legs and high heels, standing in a dark alleyway; Julia Roberts 20 years ago), and click “Generate story.” Voila! Your next issue is complete.
I said that at the table last night, and Kim brought up a good point, that if she were still working at a newspaper and getting paid $8.00 an hour, she wouldn’t exactly pour her heart and soul into researching every story in-depth and writing a thought-provoking, well-rounded piece. Can’t say I blame her. And The Sunday Paper is a free weekly, so who knows what those writers are getting paid. This is a topic that isn’t discussed much in all the various rants about the mainstream media and why they suck so badly. So maybe new media and independent media (often the same thing, but not always) can fill the void? But that’s a tangent for another time.
I’m always torn on stories like this. One the one hand, they’re such pathetic, rehashed tripe, that it feels like a waste of time and energy to address them at all. But then I think, that kind of rationale might make sense in some other situations, but when it comes to sex workers’ rights advocacy, we are dealing with an issue that is literally (yes, literally!) life and death for many people, mostly women; and it’s an issue fraught with layers and layers of bullshit, where all of a sudden everybody thinks they’re a damn expert, and everybody loves to hear themselves talk except they can’t be bothered to listen to the people who are actually affected by all the laws and stigma and such; and the silence is rather deafening when it comes to calling bullshit.
So, I feel compelled to call bullshit, yet again. And I just hope that if people keep on calling it out whenever they see it, whether on 20/20 or in some piddly little hometown rag, maybe progress can slowly be made.
Kim actually read the article before me (I didn’t read it last night when we were at Manuel’s), and afterward, she said, “Yeah, you’re going to need your meds after reading this.”
The article starts off talking about how “hookers” are portrayed on film (because that’s so relevant), and how it’s in stark contrast to “the truth.” (Yeah, the truth which includes sex workers being talked about but not talked with, and called “hookers.”) From there it’s just a matter of marking off the various Bingo squares. It includes the phrase “selling their bodies” and refers to them being “victims of abuse.” (No sources are cited, of course, but why bother? I mean we all just know this is true.) And oh of course there’s that whole thing about how “john’s schools” don’t work, but why get sidetracked with that annoying little piece of information?
They do include a quote or two from Carol Leigh (a.k.a. Scarlot Harlot) representing SWOP, which is more than most articles of this type do. But I’m not giving them a cookie. No, they don’t get a gold star for doing what should be the bare minimum in anything purporting to call itself a journalistic endeavor.
One thing that I really hate about bullshit articles like this is that they reinforce the idea in so many people’s minds that “sex worker” == “street prostitute.” Hell, that’s what I thought until I was 18 or 19. In fact, street workers account for only 10%-20% of all prostitutes/escorts/courtesans (not using the term “sex workers” here since that term encompasses many other types of work).
And once again, they don’t give a shit about actually helping sex workers, or any of it. (I know The Sunday Paper certainly didn’t come right out and say, “We care about sex workers!” but with all the victim language and talk about the “johns,” that’s what the superficial message clearly is – even if it falls miserably flat with its condescending, pearl-clutching tone.) They make bank on perpetuating the very stereotypes and stigma they dramatically wring their hands about in articles such as these. It’s so transparent it’s pathetic. Sex workers aren’t people after all… they’re just an easy way to move some papers!
Another comment fail
Talk about your Bingo card of arguments! Seriously, if I see “selling their bodies” one more time – and from a feminist, at that! – I am going to lose my damn mind.
Other Bingo-worthy words and phrases in this comment:
- empowering
- collection of holes and body parts Ed. note: ick! Bonus point for use of unnecessarily porny language.
- cash in on it
- post-feminist
- sex-as-a-commodity
- Sorry, but…
- early sexualization
As I said on the Feministe thread from whence this comment came:
And I guess I’m one of those old-fashioned feminists that doesn’t think a woman’s entire self-worth is wrapped up in what she does sexually. The phrase “selling her body” is *extremely* patriarchal and reduces sex workers to one aspect of their being: their sexual behavior. Sex workers are *not* selling their bodies – they are offering a service. Sorry but I thought that feminism didn’t subscribe to the belief that a woman engaging in sex with a man constitutes a transfer of ownership.
I do, however, need a “Stamp of Approval” or “OK!” stamp, because the last three sentences of that comment do not fail. I have no Photoshop skills to speak of, though (aside from putting one layer on top of another to make the above image, and the like) so that’ll have to wait until Rusty feels motivated to create more graphics for my amusement.
Ta-da!
Courtesy of Ren, here it is, the sex work debate bingo card! Click to enlarge.
Based on my latest, um, encounters at Blog For Democracy* and Creative Loafing (a.k.a., further attempts at not taking a claw hammer to my eyes), I’ve already got ideas for a Version 2.
Oh and for everyone who likes to run off at the mouth about “privileged” sex workers, allow Ren to remind you of a small point…
you know what so many of them forget…with the privilege and all?
ALL THIS CAN BE USED IN A US COURT OF LAW AGAINST ME.
All of it.
Not like I HAVEN”T been BLACKMAILED.
I get raped? You think I stand a fucking chance in HELL? Even if I am beat to shit?
No.
I don’t. Cause I;m a whore who likes rough sex.
It takes SToNES to do this.
Most sex workers DON’T want to take that chance.
Which, hello, this blatant injustice is exactly what so many of you are reinforcing with your words, actions, and stubbornly closed ears. Yeah, I’m pointing fingers. DEAL. Start listening.
* I’m referring to certain heads-up-their-asses commenters, not the post itself.