I had no idea when I began Eve Shapiro's book Gender Circuits that she would look at Second Life with regard to gender identity.  Anyone who knows me understands how thrilled I am about this sense Second Life is of particular interest to me. 

Shapiro begins "Information Technologies and Gendered Identity Work" by discussing a myriad of topics that have been written about the subject.  It's almost as if she is trying to legitimate the topic, or it could be that she just wants the audience to understand how prevalent this virtual world is in our real world.  I have been a citizen of this virtual environment for over three years now.  I have seen avatars of all shapes and sizes and never blinked an eye at how the real world people chose to represent themselves in this virtual space.  It took Shapiro to point out just how homogenous Second Life really is for me to even consider this.  She brings up some interesting questions as well, asking "Why was gender, racial and body size homogeneity, the outcome of allowing people to construct their own avatars?  Is this homogeneity intentional, purposefully or unconsciously produced by this virtual world's designers or participants?  Or is it a product of those who participate in Second Life?" (89).  (Note: While many choose to italicize Second Life, I do not unless I am discussing the software that must be downloaded to enter the virtual world.  If we do not italicize "world", I see no reason to italicize Second Life.)  Shapiro notes that most people likely just create their "ideal" self when they construct their avatar, but that in so doing "we created a world that reflected social body norms and hegemonically valued existing gender, race, and class scripts" (89).

If this isn't food for thought, I don't know what is.  But I do have a bit of a theory, and I'll pose it here.  While residents of SL are allowed to create their own avatar, the beginning choices are limited in what you can be.  When I researched first-year composition in this world in 2007, my students did not even have the initial choice of choosing African American.  And I had a student who wrote about the disembodied feeling they had walking around as white when in reality they were African American (my use of "they" is intentional to avoid gendering here).  Second Life does allow you to completely remake yourself once you are in-world, but that requires some knowledge and often Linden $$$ to create what you want, and many noobs (new residents) do not make these investments unless they decide to remain a citizen of this society.  So perhaps these citizens appear to reproduce homogeneity simple because they have not made the commitment to the money and time it takes to create the avatar they really want.  At any rate, it is a theory.

I want to take this one step further.  Shapiro notes that different theorists believe "that technology can produce new and reconstructed bodies and identities" (93).  There is ample evidence that this is true.  Perhaps the reason Second Life reproduces homogeneity is because it puts everyone on equal playing ground.  Wagner James Au, in The Making of Second Life and Robbie Cooper, in Alter Ego: Avatars and Their Creators, both discuss an avatar in Second Life known as Wilde Cunningham.  An avatar with nine real world individuals, who suffer from various physical challenges, behind it.  As these people say, Second Life allows them "to fly and walk and run and drive and basically experience everything life has to offer.  It allows us to fulfill some dreams and meet really cool people we would not otherwise have met" ("Wild Cunningham" from Robbie Cooper's Alter Ego: Avatars and Their Creators.  Homogeneity, for some, creates an identity that puts them on an even playing field and affords them things and experiences they would otherwise miss out on.

Obviously the first half of this chapter dealt with a lot more than just the creation of identity in Second Life, but I have written far too much for one blog post and likely bored my readers to tears, so I'll end with a goodnight.

First, just let me say that my simple blog posts here do not do Eve Shapiro's book, Gender Circuits, justice.  But it seems I often find one or two points in these text quite interesting and usually end up focusing there.  On the plus side, perhaps this makes you, the reader, curious enough about the book to read it for yourself.

Tonight I finished Chapter 1, "A Social History of Technology and Gender," which concluded with the case study "Bloomers and Nineteenth-Century Womanhood."  I will conclude with the case study, as I found it very interesting, but first, I'll discuss a little bit about the second half of the chapter.  It focuses primarily on gender non-conformity as well as on how new technologies often make way for new genders.  When it comes to non-conformity, Shapiro points out that "Western societies have not offered third (let alone fourth or fifth) gender options, many other societies have, and some still do" (66).  She goes on to argue that "some cultures not only accommodate these alternate genders but also see them as legitimate ways of being, powerful and important to the society at large" (66).  But of course the Western world has never been able to come to terms with this, and instead, uses these types of differences to try to somehow prove it is better than these other societies. 

Shapiro also discusses how new technologies, such as advances in medicine, help to bring about new genders and new gender scripts.  And this leads me to the case study and to the answer of who slaughtered the "angel in the house" (a phrase popularized by Coventry Patmore's Poem by that title in 1854). Before I point a direct finger at that notorious murderer, let me just first explain that Shapiro sheds light on this crime by pointing out many changes were taking place in the Victorian era.  We had the industrial revolution, and with it came the sewing machine, and with that came the ability to make clothes quicker.  Eventually came the ability to mass produce clothing, which lead to being able to offer them to a much wider populace than ever before.  Also during this time women were beginning to demand more rights, including the right to work, vote, and even have leadership abilities right along side of men.  There was also the fact that period clothing hinders women from most physical activities, including that of riding a bicycle (something that had become quite popular). 

Therefore, women were demanding the right to wear pants, or as they were called, bloomers.This was outlandish and Shapiro points out that "many suggested that bloomers (and the bicycle riding that they were affiliated with) 'destroys the health of women, and unfits them for the important and sacred duties of motherhood'" (84).  Of course, the corset that women were required to wear did WONDERS for her health, but I digress.  The person ultimately (apparently) responsible for the death of the "angel in the house" is Elizabeth Smith Miller, the woman responsible for designing the first pair of women's pants in 1851 (85).  There you have it.  That first pair of pants was the downfall of the angel from her throne (Thank God).

It is late, so I bid you goodnight.

Tonight I began the first chapter, the one after the "Preview", of Eve Shapiro's book (Gender Circuits) entitled "A Social History of Technology and Gender."  Before I go there though and to be fair to anyone who might pick this book up to read it based on something said in these blogs, I just want to mention that the organization, for me at least, is a bit haphazard, jumping from one place to another and then back again.  However, I think this might simply be the nature of the topic, and I only notice it from time to time.

Ok, that being said, this chapter continued to discuss how society and technology have affected gender throughout history.  I think I have always, to a degree, understood that societal norms change--sometimes slowly, sometimes more quickly--with the passage of time.  I guess I never really considered, though, technologies influences on these changes.  I think it is important to understand what Shapiro means by technology.  As Shapiro points out, "technology is often defined in terms of machines, its linguistic origins, meaning 'the expression of a craft,' suggest its scholarly use to refer to anything people develop to manipulate the natural environment" (46).  I had never thought about technology like that.  So one example Shapiro uses is the vitamin supplements men use to enhance their masculine appearance (54).  The supplements are a technology used to change a persons natural appearance.

Which leads us to the corsets, which are also a technology used to change a woman's natural figure.  Corsets were advertised as helping women maintain a healthy existence, and an ad for a girl's corset implies that "girl's and women's bodies need corseting to develop both physically and morally" (64)  Apparently, had I been corseted as a young girl, my life would be sooooo much healthier both physically and morally.  I'm simply relieved to finally know where I went wrong!! 

At any rate, Shapiro's text has been an eye opener thus far.  She discusses how technologies have been used, as above with the corset, to control gender and set the norms that society holds for those genders.  While some see technology as always progressive and innovative, the fact of the matter is that it is often used to keep the status quo and control social norms and gender scripts.  As Shapiro states, "there has not been a single new contraceptive developed for men in the last 100 years" (51).  Uh-huh!!

Ok, so the section I read tonight was not totally about tattoos, but the case study at the end of the "Preview" chapter of Eve Shapiro's Gender Circuits was, and it is really what I found the most interesting about this section.

To be fair though, I should have read another page last night because Shapiro discusses the impact of challenging gender norms by discussing drag communities and how many begin to play with gender once they have been a part of that community of a while.  Interesting stuff, to be sure.  And Shapiro also talks about how technologies such as Second Life (yes she did discuss SL) allow people to bend gender rules and play with identity.

But the case study on tattooing is where I want to take this.  Again, brings it home for me in a big kind of way.  Shapiro does an excellent job of discussing, briefly, the history of tattooing.  But more interesting is the meaning or meanings behind tattoos and what they say about us.  Probably the most obvious thing is that tattoos have never been and still are not looked kindly upon for women.  Shapiro argues that "tattoos on men and women are interpreted in vastly different ways boosting masculinity while threatening femininity" (40).  This got me thinking about my own tattoos, those of my partner, and those of my niece.  If you look at my partner's tattoos, they pretty much tell a story on their own.  There is a pooh and tigger, which needs some explanation, and two Indian themed tattoos which pretty much stand on their own.  A fourth needs explanation.  People see it and do not understand what it means at all.  My niece's are probably what I would call the epitome of a woman's tattoos.  She sports a lady buy, maybe a butterfly, and one associated with her two girls.  These are the types of tattoos that I can see being appropriate gender scripts for a woman.  My two tattoos are unique.  They did not come from the wall of a tattoo parlor, and as such, if you don't ask, you won't know what they mean.  One of them matches my partners and thus the tattoo she has that needs explanation.  The other one people mistake all the time, but people rarely enter into a discussion with me about it. 

So what do my tattoos say about my gender?  I hope nothing.  They are very personal to me and not meant to scream femininity nor masculinity; they are meant to say something about my inner being.  While I am thoroughly enjoying Shapiro's text, I hate to think of all of this gender scripting and what it says about me.

It's late, I'm tired, I'm outta here.

Ok, so tonight I decided to start a book I have been looking forward to for quite some time.  The book is Eve Shapiro's Gender Circuits: Bodies and Identities in a Technological Age.  There are basically five chapters, and each one approximately 40+ pages.  So I have decided to break each chapter up into two sections to make this a little easier to absorb.  I'm a one of those people who reads slowly and needs time to digest what I read.  So tonight, I started with the "Series Foreword," "Preface," and the first 20 or so pages of "Preview: Gendered Bodies and Identities in a Technological Age." 

Blogging becomes difficult for me tonight.  I could just chat away about how well Shapiro presents the basics of gender, describing how we now know it is socially constructed and giving detailed explanations of terms in boxes that are set off in gray, allowing you to skip these if you already know the meanings.  I could also discuss my excitement when Shapiro writes "I have endeavored to write in a jargon free manner" (xv).

But what I wouldn't be blogging about is what I learned about myself, both past and present, as I read Shapiro's text.  She introduced me to a term tonight I had either never heard before, or it had never been explained in a way that resonated with me.  The term is gender scripts.  The things that we learn as we grow up that cue people into our gender identity.  The way we walk, the way we talk, the way we dress, our every action is read by the people with which we come in contact.  This is where the light bulb went off in my head, and I'm not talking no 25 watter here.  I'm talking full halogen strength.  Every since I was a kid, I've been referred to as a boy, or later in life, sir.  It use too, and I guess still does, piss me off every time it happens.  But it finally dawned on me as I was reading about gender scripts that the reason people always call me sir is because I do not act out the correct scripts for a woman.  I always thought the people were just idiots, but the reality is that they were and are reading the scripts correctly, just not looking closely.  I don't like labels.  I don't like "acting" out one way or another.  But society has set the norms for these scripts and there is nothing I can do about that.  I can't conform because I only know how to be who I am.

So while I know I will enjoy Shapiro's text, I just wonder how many more surprises are in store for me about myself.  I never imagined this blogging thing would get so personal!!!

I know that last night I said I wanted to move away from the techie stuff and pick up on something different, but I just wanted to read Stuart Selber's introduction to his edited collection entitled Rhetorics and Technologies: New Directions in Writing and Communication.  I wanted to read this for a couple of reasons.  First, I read Carolyn R. Miller's "Foreword" a couple of weeks ago about the Pushmi-Pullyu and did not really get a good sense of what the book had to offer.  I understood her stance, but wasn't clear on where this particular text was headed, so I wanted to read Selber's "Introduction" to see if that helped.  And believe me, it did.

This was one of those pieces that I wrote all over the margins.  The margins are full of "YEP"s, "Amen"s, and "How true"s.  For me, that means I am connecting with the text and enjoying it.  This is, however, just an introduction to the rest of the chapters written by various authors, so whether or not my enthusiasm will hold true for the entirety is another matter completely.  I do want to point out a couple of quotes that I feel are noteworthy and which I wholeheartedly agree with.  I welcome anyone else's opinion on this quotes. 

In relation to the discipline of Rhetoric, Selber notes that "technology does not really function as a separate category or subcategory of consequences.  It tends to infuse each and every area of the discipline . . " (2).  Can I get an amen on that one.  Technology is not simply a necessary evil that we, as rhetoricians, must put up with.  In fact, as Selber points out, it is "difficult to imagine a rhetorical activity untouched by ongoing developments in writing and communication technologies" (2).

Another "amen" point is when Selber explains that "rhetorical education on arrangement no longer assumes a linear organizational pattern--or a patient reader, for that matter" (2).  Bingo.  In today's society, many people have become extremely inpatient readers.  If you do not hook them within the first few seconds, you have likely lost your audience.  It this a bad thing?  I don't think so.  I read tons of stuff daily, including emails, and if I don't find out the point or my attention isn't grabbed in those first couple of lines, I'm outta there.  I get into more trouble for reading my email this way.  But dammit, I have a lot of email to get through in a days time and I don't have time to be messing around.  On the other hand, I am a huge fan of Charles Dickens.  One of that man's sentences can go on for two pages.  But he hooks me from the beginning.  We cannot expect our readers to just bare with us, or follow our linear way of thinking.  We have to be aware of these things.

Another issue that Selber notes is the fact that the "Internet itself has become a robust storehouse for both individual and collective memory" (2).  It that not amazing?  A truly collective memory.... anyone feel like a cyborg here?  And I always thought Cyborgs were bad things.  Well, in the true sense of being a Cybory, they are.  But the fact that we now have this collective memory is fascinating to me.  I almost feel as if the internet has brought back a sense of oral tradition to our world.  Yes, yes, I know it's written, but not all of it.  There are podcast and videocast, and a wealth of other types of information as well.  Learning it knit is a very oral tradition type thing.  You need someone to explain and show you how it is done.  But what if that someone is miles away, or maybe you don't know anyone who knits.  The internet has it all.  The oral and the visual.  A collective memory.... I like that.

Ok, one more point and then I'll let this one go, I promise.  This is a particular pet peeve with me actually, so I'm glad Selber addresses it briefly.  When someone talks about teaching online, or hybridly (yea maybe that's not a word, but it is tonight), I get all excited.  I want to know what they are doing in class and how they are doing it.  More often than not, I am completely disappointed.  Why?  Because they are the teachers who "transfer[red] to the screen their pedagogical approaches from the brick-and-mortar classroom" (3).  IT WON'T WORK PEOPLE!!!  They are two completely different animals!!!  If you are a rhetorician, and you have simply uploaded all of your class material to Blackboard, Angel, WebCT, D2L, or some other fancy course management system, hang it up, or to put it as Selber does "this assumption was useful to new teachers, but a non-dialogic perspective failed to emphasize the interanimations of rhetorics and technologies" (3).  (I like my version better, just hang it up.)

Ok, it's late, I'm tired, and I've bored all of you to death, so thanks for listening to my rant, and good night.

That's right, my first book is complete.  I have finished Jason Whittaker's Producing for Web 2.0: A Student Guide.  The last chapter, chapter 9, is all about post-production, or how to test, maintain, and optimize your site in the search engines.  And again, I have written in the margins "amazing, mentions grammatical before factual errors."  Whittaker argues that "there is the very simple (but often neglected) fact that inaccurate writing that is full of errors in spelling, grammar, and punctuation will affect how visitors view the value of your content.  In addition, factual errors will undermine your credibility . . ." (208).  I guess grammar is the end all be all and deserves to come before factual issues.  Again, are the readers that shallow?  Obviously if the spelling and grammar in your site is so bad that it hinders the readers ability to garner any meaning from what you have written, then yes, it's a major problem.  But I don't think that is what Whittaker is talking about.  I think he is referring to the simple mistakes we tend to make from time to time.  Those kinds of mistakes are in just about any text I pick up anymore.  Ok, I'm done ranting.

I was really excited about this chapter because I wanted to learn the secrets behind optimizing my site for search engines.  Well, I am a bit disappointed where this is concerned.  I did, however, learn that "spelling" is important.  What is it with this guy and spelling?  Really though, the stuff he mentions is very common sense, like the spelling, and he even says so. 

So, what is the most exciting for me is that I have finished my first book.  I am now ready to move on to either another book, or maybe some articles.  There is a book I am interested in though, so maybe I'll go there.  First chapter is about 40 pages though, so that's quite a bit for a one day read.  I'll look into it and see what I decide.  I could do another technology book, but that is a bit boring.  I think it's time to move onto something different.  So, look tomorrow for a whole new read!!!  I'm excited.

So the 8th chapter of Whittaker's Producing for Web 2.0: A Student Guide is entitled "Writing, ethics, and regulation."  Even though Whittaker states that "the fact remains that the vast majority of content online consists of text" (196), he spends very little time actually discussing the writing aspects of it.  He does, however, briefly mention style, audience, crafting a story, and storytelling techniques.  Maybe I'm being over critical, but when I read "demonstrating programming skills and multimedia proficiency may count for very little if public perception of your pages is based on an inability to spell" (196), it makes me question why he didn't instead say something about how how public perception of your pages is based on incorrect information, or too confusing to understanding.

We preach that content and organization, or higher order concerns, are the things that are really important, yet we worriy that misspelled words will turn our audience against us.  Is that perception true?  If my website offers the solution to world peace, will my audience care if I've misspelled a couple of words or placed a comma where it shouldn't be?  Are our readers that shallow?  Maybe they are, but I would rather think not.

Ok, here is something I have never heard of before.  Whittaker says that "the Sapmhaus Project estimates that up to 80 per cent of spam generated in the US and Europe is generated by around 200 professional spam gangs, mostly based in the Russian Federation . . . (204).  Really, the Russians?  Has anyone else ever heard of such a thing?

Ok, I'm tired, sleepy, and just plain worn out, so I'm done for tonight.

Well, it has been a few days since I last blogged, but life does happen and it certainly has happened in a big way for the past few days.  But I am here blogging tonight, and I think I'll manage to get another chapter read tomorrow, so I'm trying to get back on track.

Today's chapter in Jason Whittaker's Producing for Web 2.0: A Student Guide is entitled "Content Management Systems" (CMS).  This is a valuable chapter for me because the Writing Center at Michigan State University uses a CMS for the website.  Our web developer had a hard time trying decide between using Drupal or Wordpress, but he finally decided on Drupal.  From what I've read today, it is a good choice.  Whittaker does a good job of discussing what it is a CMS is suppose to do for an organization that chooses to go with one.  What I DON'T like about the chapter is Whittaker's insistence on limiting his detailed discussion of a CMS to Joomla! simply because it is what he has the most experience with.  He does mention that most CMSs have a lot of the same features and that all include modules, bots, and other plug-ins that can be added to the basic installation of the core CMS to increase it's functionality, but since we use Drupal and not Joomla! I felt as though all the detailed walkthroughs were pretty pointless.  While it is true that I could do a lot with Joomla! if I chose to, it doesn't help me know or understand how to do the same things with Drupal.

All that being said, I will be the first to admit that I learned a LOT about CMSs.  Whittaker also listed a website that offers even more background information on content management systems (click "more" below if you are interested in learning the history behind CMSs).  My recommendation is that if you want to have an interactive site that allows users and is more interactive, then learning about content management systems is a must, and Whittaker does a good job in this chapter of giving the basics.  This is a chapter I'll refer to often.

I didn't think I was going to make the deadline tonight, but after 40 pages of Web 2.0 tools, I am finally here to post.

It is probably obvious that I read Whittaker's Producing for Web 2.0: A Student's Guide tonight and completed the chapter entitled "Web 2.0 Tools."  This chapter read quickly, and I enjoyed all of the information it has to offer.  This chapter discusses tools such as RSS and syndication, blogging, mashups, and wikis.  Lots of information about how to incorporate them into your own site and lots of links to sites to download free apps and helpful tools.

So, what I have not had the time yet to experiment with are what Whittaker calls "Walkthrough"s.  These are breakout sections in the chapters that walk you through step-by-step how to do something like "create a mashup in Popfly" or Adding a mashup to Facebook" or even "Adding a Google map to your site."  I really believe that these breakout sections are what many might call the meat and potatoes of this text.  These are the things that will help anyone reading the book understand exactly how to perform some of the technical things Whittaker talks about.  I have skimmed many of these Walkthroughs, and I believe they will be not only educational, but fun to play with. 

This is a text I am sure I will be referring to often as I implement some of these things into my own website and even as I begin to teach Web Authoring to college students.  It might even be a text I consider requiring for the students.