![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beccaelizabethBeen reading more sociology textbook, ready for lesson that will start in 7 hours and I have to get up for in 4 hours. I'd quite like to be sleeping instead, but that never works.
Read the section on portrayals of disability. Its a very small section, even compared to the section on age, which wasn't but a page or two in total itself. I want to dig out a textbook that gives it more time, but I don't know which one would, and anyway I'm not in a library. So, leave it for later.
Apparently, 0.7% of speaking roles seen on television in a particular study were disabled people. 0.7% ! Assuming that is a whole number of people, wonder how many characters were in that study at all. Is that only one character? Two?
What I wondered was, how many of those portrayals were actually played by Jim Byrnes?
Because if we're talking only one or two characters ever, then he could be all of them.
I also want to know what they're figuring as disabled. In a wheelchair? With a stick? Missing a hand? Down syndrome? I've seen all those on TV. I particularly wonder about the stick, for I have read fic that failed to notice a character has no legs, like the stick is invisible and/or insignificant, the guy just walks slow. Which, one way up, yaay, for he is being portrayed as just a guy. But it makes me wonder about counting. Blind characters kind of show up, unless they're talking on a phone, but deaf characters might be wandering around invisibly. I know actors who I've found out have hearing stuff going on but I'd never have known it from who they play. Is that portrayals of disability, or portrayals by disabled people? Does it not count? Does it not show up?
And then there's all the mental stuff that goes on. Wonder which box they classify assorted people in.
There wasn't a section in the book on portrayals of people with mental illness. Maybe its in the 'health' section somewhere...
There's whole websites about portrayals of people with scars or albinos or something. Does that count as disability or just difference?
I want to poke the book until it defines its terms, but I don't think I'll find that. I might be able to hunt down the studies they are quoting. I'll try from the college library, for librarians are smart and can help me with it.
in seperate issue
the portrayals of violence thing.
studies were saying that children are more likely to become aggressive after watching portrayals of violence that are presented as justified.
That is, the Batman leads to vigilante action theory.
Studies were presenting this as a bad/scary thing.
But someone somewhere around here (here being the computer) was saying the other day about talking to their kid about Nazis, and the kid being thoughtful and "So that's what armies are for."
So, would that count as an aggressive response?
Because what we start getting into there is if aggression and violence are ever appropriate, and if so, when.
What the moral panics don't get into, when they worry about computer games teaching kids how to kill, is whether or not they are also teaching them why.
I have to hope that soldiers are taught why. I don't know if they get ethics lessons or patriotic brainwashing - just follow orders - though I guess it would depend on country.
It might be that important distinctions can be drawn between games that teach you to kill indiscriminately for rewards that basically amount to kudos (high score tables), and games that teach you to kill bad guys doing bad things. Like police targets where some of them are hostages.
If violence is sometimes justified, then the issue isn't 'are games making kids violent', its 'are they making them aware of when they should be'.
So, yeah, a kid could decide to be like Batman - and then train to catch killers and stop bank robberies and suchlike. OR, they could decide the important thing was the hitting people part, and go around hitting other kids in the playground. But the solution to that isn't just "don't hit", it would be "don't hit good guys". Pointing out that by using force to amuse one is acting more like Joker. Or that while Batman does indeed use fear and force as methods of control, all he's really trying to do is get people to stop killing and hurting each other, not get them to bow down to him.
Appropriate limits may not be as simple as aggression = bad.
Teach said about another thing that finding the textbook sort of thin is a sign I'm ready to go study at a higher level.
Okay, roll on next year.
Read the section on portrayals of disability. Its a very small section, even compared to the section on age, which wasn't but a page or two in total itself. I want to dig out a textbook that gives it more time, but I don't know which one would, and anyway I'm not in a library. So, leave it for later.
Apparently, 0.7% of speaking roles seen on television in a particular study were disabled people. 0.7% ! Assuming that is a whole number of people, wonder how many characters were in that study at all. Is that only one character? Two?
What I wondered was, how many of those portrayals were actually played by Jim Byrnes?
Because if we're talking only one or two characters ever, then he could be all of them.
I also want to know what they're figuring as disabled. In a wheelchair? With a stick? Missing a hand? Down syndrome? I've seen all those on TV. I particularly wonder about the stick, for I have read fic that failed to notice a character has no legs, like the stick is invisible and/or insignificant, the guy just walks slow. Which, one way up, yaay, for he is being portrayed as just a guy. But it makes me wonder about counting. Blind characters kind of show up, unless they're talking on a phone, but deaf characters might be wandering around invisibly. I know actors who I've found out have hearing stuff going on but I'd never have known it from who they play. Is that portrayals of disability, or portrayals by disabled people? Does it not count? Does it not show up?
And then there's all the mental stuff that goes on. Wonder which box they classify assorted people in.
There wasn't a section in the book on portrayals of people with mental illness. Maybe its in the 'health' section somewhere...
There's whole websites about portrayals of people with scars or albinos or something. Does that count as disability or just difference?
I want to poke the book until it defines its terms, but I don't think I'll find that. I might be able to hunt down the studies they are quoting. I'll try from the college library, for librarians are smart and can help me with it.
in seperate issue
the portrayals of violence thing.
studies were saying that children are more likely to become aggressive after watching portrayals of violence that are presented as justified.
That is, the Batman leads to vigilante action theory.
Studies were presenting this as a bad/scary thing.
But someone somewhere around here (here being the computer) was saying the other day about talking to their kid about Nazis, and the kid being thoughtful and "So that's what armies are for."
So, would that count as an aggressive response?
Because what we start getting into there is if aggression and violence are ever appropriate, and if so, when.
What the moral panics don't get into, when they worry about computer games teaching kids how to kill, is whether or not they are also teaching them why.
I have to hope that soldiers are taught why. I don't know if they get ethics lessons or patriotic brainwashing - just follow orders - though I guess it would depend on country.
It might be that important distinctions can be drawn between games that teach you to kill indiscriminately for rewards that basically amount to kudos (high score tables), and games that teach you to kill bad guys doing bad things. Like police targets where some of them are hostages.
If violence is sometimes justified, then the issue isn't 'are games making kids violent', its 'are they making them aware of when they should be'.
So, yeah, a kid could decide to be like Batman - and then train to catch killers and stop bank robberies and suchlike. OR, they could decide the important thing was the hitting people part, and go around hitting other kids in the playground. But the solution to that isn't just "don't hit", it would be "don't hit good guys". Pointing out that by using force to amuse one is acting more like Joker. Or that while Batman does indeed use fear and force as methods of control, all he's really trying to do is get people to stop killing and hurting each other, not get them to bow down to him.
Appropriate limits may not be as simple as aggression = bad.
Teach said about another thing that finding the textbook sort of thin is a sign I'm ready to go study at a higher level.
Okay, roll on next year.