Yik Yak: Discrimination, Stereotyping and Prejudice Today

Scholars Andra Gumbus and Patricia Meglich (2013) argue "discrimination and harassment that were once committed in real time have now moved to the online environment... and can be more damaging and insidious than the face-to-face forms of abuse" (47). Not only is this true about the only environment as a whole, but it is seen glaringly in anonymous messaging board forums such as Rollins' campus favorite, Yik Yak.
The unfortunate truth is that it isn't just a breading ground for misogynistic discourse but many other issues of discrimination, stereotyping, prejudice, harassment and more.
In just one scroll through Yik Yak, chances are you will see something overtly racist, sexists, homophobic and quite possibly discriminating of various minorities. So the question becomes, why are these discourses of harassment more prevalent online, especially in anonymous forums?
My little sister was once the target of online bullying on a platform called Ask.FM. This site was intended to give users a platform for asking questions but of course turned into a tool for much more, such as calling names, and then was used as a tool to segregate her from the rest of her peers.
Now, Yik Yak has become prevalent on college campus' and while you cannot target individuals in an anonymous fashion on this site, it is possible to discriminate whole groups of people, which is often what it does.

In this case it is seen as a tool in discriminating African Americans and has created a very racists online community.

And one of the worsts parts about the racism that is overtly communicated anonymously is that instead of individuals challenging it, they often play off of one another, again anonymously further perpetuating racism in our society.

And racism isn't the only type of discrimination or terrible ideologies that it advances. Women are slut shamed and misogyny continues, as does patriarchy throughout America. Men are applauded for their sexual encounters with many women while women are scrutinized and stereotyped as sluts, whores and labeled as worthless. In a world where someone is shamed for having to buy a pregnancy test, young girls and women world wide are choosing self-harming methods and resorting to fear, because regardless of what circumstance got you there, can a women really not buy a pregnancy test without her morals and self worth being questioned? And since when do others get to justify what one wears in doing so? Why should it matter?

And aside from sexist and racist comments, stereotyping persists towards other minorities as well. While this Yak about the Asian is indeed racist, it plays to further stereotypes of how Asian dissent is supposedly more academic and much smarter than your average joe. Not to mention homophobic slurs and comments that are very common on this highly controversial platform as well.

So my question is, why aren't people challenging this platform and instead just playing off of it? Do the youth and young adults who are using this platform simply too naive to see what it is cultivating? When is enough enough and how do we shut sites such as this down for good?

Gumbus, Andra and Patricia Meglich. 2013. "Abusive Online Conduct: Discrimination and Harassment in Cyberspace." Journal of Management Policy and Practice 14 (5): 47-56. http://ezproxy.rollins.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1503083505?accountid=13584.

The Carnivalesque Approach: T.V. Episodes Vs. Advertising

South Park's creators don't simply seek to challenge and discredit dominant cultural norms that make us laugh in almost a nervous ignorance at the enlightenment and critique of what we've accepted as fact or normal for such a long time, they also challenge any other opposition. 
You may be asking, why? Isn't opposition to our cultural institutions what they want? Don't they want individuals to think clearly and freely from the ideologies that have bound us? Yes... but where opposition rests, and never turns to action is where media opposition often fails. The South Park episodes don't simply lay the issues out on the table for the viewer to dissect, they tell us why we need to care, they attack those that don't challenge ideologies and those that enforce them. They are purposeful in their method of using this television show as not only a place for laughter, but also a place of knowledge, enlightenment, questioning and potential opposition.
The problem is, not all media sources of oppositional culture are successful at making the audience really think and then take action, especially long term. 

This video, by the FCKH8 [fuck hate] campaign uses a carnivalesque approach to one of our societies deepest social constructions of sexism and the ideological norm of patriarchy, but what it doesn't really do is further questions opposition to these issues thus far. Sure we can laugh at the little girls' cuss words and attitudes, and while the message they promote is true, it just falls a bit short, perhaps partially because of time constraints and the nature of this video as an advertisement (buying t-shirts at the end? not that helpful in the overall fight against harmful ideologies). So the question becomes, is this carnivalesque approach full or bright popping colors, ha-ha moments of satirical and chaotic fast paced discourse a big enough challenge to the dominant ideologies of our culture? 
Probably not. It might be a step in the right direction, but unlike South Park episodes' which provide background, more in depth critiques AND aesthetic visual pleasure, short advertisements like the one above are fleeting and not nearly as developed. 
Where South Park has strength with it's dedicated audience and followers, and thorough plot lines that illuminate, critique, damage and react to social problems, smaller oppositional efforts like these, do not have such a promising outcome. 

Theall, Donald F. 1999. “The Carnivalesque, the Internet and Control of Content: Satirizing Knowledge, Power and Control.” Continuum 13 (2): 153-164. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10304319909365789#.VSLoD5TF9xt

The Book of Mormon: Contradictory Blasphemy on Broadway

It's interesting to consider how certain discourse, created by the same individuals, is sometimes challenged and ultimately censored, and sometimes it is not. But what's even more interesting to think about is the question: Why? 
When speaking about Trey Parker and Matt Stone's success in the creation of both South Park and The Book of Mormon the Musical, the two tackle topics that most are too afraid to take about. They have a knack for making people uncomfortable with their use of satire, irony and often blasphemous scripts, but at the same time, it always makes people laugh. 
Previously, Muslims were rioting over the portrayal of Muhammed in cartoons and the pair decided to use this conflict as a plot line for one of their South Park episodes, but comedy central told them not to do so and claimed "religious tolerance" as their reasoning. 

As you can see, they did it anyway- gaining much criticism along the way. Yet truthfully, it seems everyone is just a little bit scared about what happens if religion, or any other sensitive social construction, ideology or topic is satirized for what it really is. But not Parker and Stone. 
So this is what they do; they challenge the norm and in the process are trying to see what they can get away with, which is exactly what they did with The Book of Mormon. 
The difference this time is no one told them they're musical was too radical or needed to be censored, it was praised and applauded nation wide.
SO, what's the difference?
Poking fun at one of our own national religions is acceptable and laughable, but those elsewhere is too much of a threat and sensitivity?  
Is it possible that the state is enforcing it's censorship power as a response to fear, and primarily as a reaction to the context of how the Other responds to our media; our media as it pertains to the United States in which it is a culture of its own. Could it be related to Zizek's theory that the "terror is there, not here," so we are not nearly as concerned with what our own citizens think?
Do we censor media in fear or how those outside of the United States will feel about our media more highly than those on our own turf? Or are the state's contradictions simply a power play based on convenience that whatever is done based on a case by case situation when it best fits them? Food for thought...

Puddington, Arch and Christopher Walker. 2010. "SAYING THE UNSAYABLE: Revisiting International Censorship." World Affairs173 (4): 75-83. http://ezproxy.rollins.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/822629074?accountid=13584.

The Power of the "American Dream"

I was reminded of an article I read last week when reading this week's reading, "As Canadian As Possible" when considering how the fantasized "American Dream" has come to affect cultures around the world. For hundreds of years, individuals have migrated to the United States in search of a better life, for the popularized ideology of the American Dream and the belief that it does indeed exist. 

In this video, Alexis Gonzalez speaks of how he trekked from Honduras, across Guatemala and Mexico in hopes of reaching the United States, however, he never made it to his destination.

As the article title suggests, in this young boys tragic case, the American Dream he has seen in media and movies and heard about for years actually cost him more pain and loss than anything hopeful and promising that supposedly the American Dream could give him. 

So I have to wonder, how does this presentation and depiction of the American Dream across all mediated facets we broadcast worldwide impact the billions of people who wish they could have it? Especially when, I have to wonder, if the American Dream they dream about even exists in our culture today.

Like this popular track, American Dream, says in it's lyrics, "The world is spinning too fast for you and me. So tell me whatever happened to the American Dream;" the world is ever changing and cultures around the world are changing with it.
In considering all of this I wonder, when migrants do make it to the United States, and they find that the American Dream isn't what they believed it to be, how is that even far? Like the scholarly article "Dreams of America, American Dreams" explains, children like Gonzalez have a terribly hard time becoming accustomed to life in America. The problem is, no one ever told any of the migrants this. They have so much hope for a better life and risk their lives in search of it, but unfortunately may never find it.

Roxas, Kevin. 2008. "WHO DARES TO DREAM THE AMERICAN DREAM?" Multicultural Education 16 (2): 2-9. http://ezproxy.rollins.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/216525245?accountid=13584.

Homeless Complexity: Understanding and Challenging Previous Acceptance

The truth is, the homeless problem is not seen as a social problem, nor as a complex problem, or as a problem that needs to be challenged. Quite conversely, homelessness has become a social problem most Americans have come to accept as normal, as a part of today's society that cannot be fixed.
 

An unknown graffiti artist, calling himself Skid Robot has begun painting similar scenes as the one above all throughout skid row in Los Angeles in recent months. Whether the murals are detailed like the one above, or simple such as the one below,  they are intended to challenge public acceptance of the homeless, and more vastly, address homelessness as a social problem. Research done in 2013 by Peter Sommerville suggests that homelessness is an issue that is not easily classified or categorized, instead Sommerville explains, it is a "multidimensional" problem. Sommerville explains through his research that homelessness has come to be distorted, ignored, and what he refers to as "social fact". Homelessness has become accepted in our culture as something we cannot change, and furthermore, as a stigmatized and dehumanized generalization for an entire group of individuals. Artists such as Skid Robot challenge this, however Sommerville's research suggest that there are not enough people challenging public consensus of the homeless population. And finally, Sommerville suggests, that were we, as a culture, able to understand the stories and realities of those experiencing homelessness, we may better understand it for what it truly is: a social problem that needs support and advocacy. This theory echoes that of my own participants' ideas throughout my focus group interviews. "We need to direct contact with homelessness" one of my participants explained, "if never directly interacting with homeless people, [we] would just understand it as we see it portrayed in media or hearsay." In order to understand homelessness and finally challenge it's existence throughout our communities we must all overcome previous social stigma's, accepted stereotypes and ideologies associated with the problem and begin to listen to the voice of those truly living in homelessness. 

Sommerville, Peter. "Understanding Homelessness" Housing, Theory, and Society 30, no.4 (2013) 384. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14036096.2012.756096#abstract

Stigmatization: Homelessness as a Social Problem

In John Belcher and Bruce DeForge's 2012 study on Social Stigma and homelessness, the association between stigmatization and capitalism has brought to light overwhelming research that best describes homelessness as one of America's biggest social problems. While it is true that many homeless advocacy groups and nonprofit organizations press forward in the fight to end homelessness, the unfortunate truth is that American media has painted homelessness in a predominately negative light, leaving the primary view of homeless individuals stigmatized by American's nationwide. 
Following my two focus group interviews, in which I showed the video below, Human, by Rethink Homelessness, my research exposed the disheartening truth that Social Stigma against the homeless has indeed tainted the views and understanding of homelessness by most.

In closing conversation following my participant's viewing of this YouTube video, almost all of my participants said something along the lines of 'the video is touching, but does not come close to explaining the complexity, cyclical problem that homelessness is'. A direct statement made was that unfortunately, because of the stigmatized idea previously engrained in American's minds, while in the moment, a video such as these may impact an individual, pull on the heart strings and make one reconsider the severity and complexity of homelessness, "five minutes later, you will forget". In such a fast paced society, we as capitalistic Americans, separated distinctly by economic factors and class, may, in a way not want to solve homelessness. For in a society in which there must always be winners and losers to maintain the status quo, who would ever want to give the "losers" a hand up, if that meant an equal playing field, or what's worse? Maybe you lose your status as a winner and sink to the bottom; the unequal distribution of wealth in America perpetuates social stigma against the homeless because the American Dream never said anything about helping anybody else out, it's either get rich or die trying in today's society. We have to have some excuse for such inhumane actions that prove our capitalist behavior to be so greedy and selfish. That excuse has been stigmatizing an entire group of people because instead of challenging homelessness, we as a culture have decided to accept it (Belcher and DeForge 2012, 930). In accepting it, if we can see the homeless as evil, as bums, drunks, and oh so dangerous individuals, well what choice do we have but to stigmatize them? And on lives a social construction of ideology based on discrimination, and stigmatization; one of America's greatest social problems, Homeless misrepresentation. 

Belcher, John R. and Bruce R. DeForge. "Social Stigma and Homelessness: The Limits of Social Change." Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment 22, no. 8 (2012): 929. http://ezproxy.rollins.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1197624992?accountid=13584.

Rethink YouTube with Rethink Homelessness

According to YouTube's statistics page there are more than one billion users watching and uploading videos every month. On top of that, 6 billion hours of youtube are watched monthly. If these numbers aren't alarming, they should be. While it has been evident for years that social media prevalence and usage is on the rise, as YouTube so cleverly points out, these current statistics average out to "almost an hour for every person on Earth" monthly. 

If nonprofit organizations such as Rethink Homelessness, located right here in Central Florida could capitalize on the potential presented by these statistics, it is quite possible that support for serious social problems would be the result. 

As you can see in the screenshot above, 4,990,042 individuals have watched this video. That's close to 5 million viewers! What Rethink Homelessness has done through the assistance of YouTube is create a strong image, or brand for their organization and campaign. According to Richard Waters and Paul Jones, in their essay titled, Using Video to Build an Organization's Identity and Brand: A Content Analysis of Nonprofit Organizations' YouTube Videos, this is one of the most important things that nonprofit organizations can do when trying to ignite social change. However, it is noted in this study that nonprofit's aren't currently capitalizing on their full potential. Check out the full youtube video from Rethink Homelessness below!

What do you think about their message and strategy? Would you remember Rethink Homelessness because of this video? I know I do!