Scylla Rhiadra

Ok. You need to stop that now.

It's my cute perky nose, isn't it? /me stands in profile

LOL, yeah, that's me Derek. Cold, distant, and unapproachable . . . Now, shush. We're derailing this nice person's thread.

I'd been wondering why . . . One day, though, I'll find someone who loves me for something other than my huge . . . walls o'text.

Awww. Ta, both! (Not my first time. I may look like a fresh-faced and fetching young noob, ca. 2009, but underneath this flexy hair and prim clothing is an aging, creaky old hag . . . )

Hi Nickylion, First of all, welcome to the forums! The response that you are getting is, I'm afraid, a fairly standard one for researchers and students who come here to do their research. I might note that you'll get something of the same response from a great many people inworld, too, when they discover that you are doing research. I'm sure that you can understand why people might feel this way, but the very fact that they do will tell you something, I think, about the difference(s) between most users of Second Life, and those involved in MMORPGs. For a great many people here, this is not a "game": it truly is an alternate world, and a place to experiment with and play with identity. Many people "live" here, in a very real, if virtual sense, and identity -- including gender, biological sex, sexual identity, and even species -- is a very meaningful thing. A couple of quick points that might help: Treasure's point about IRBs is well-taken, but if you don't have those in Utrecht, a possible alternative is to be as forthcoming as you possibly can about your research, your program, and even about your selves. In general, as you probably know, RL identity is often jealously guarded here (which is, btw, one reason why you might find that many potential interviewees will steer clear of you if you insist upon using Skype), but I've seen researchers here who have been quite open about their real life academic identities, as a method of building trust and establishing bona fides. The more verifiable or detailed information you can provide, the more likely people are to have faith in you. And a really well-explained and interesting research design does get a good response here often. I'm a little puzzled that you can't offer compensation for interviewees: that's actually a pretty standard thing for qualitative and quantitative data collection here in North America. It will improve your odds of attracting participants, although spreading your net wider does, as you intimate, probably increase the chances of your data being contaminated. The suggestion that this is not exactly a new topic of research is, I'm afraid, true. There actually has been a fair amount, both scholarly and more generalist, published on this subject, as even a quick literature or even Google search should reveal. You might also check out the Journal of Virtual Worlds Research. If you have a slightly different angle on this issue that makes it fresh, then you should tell us, as it will likely increase the number of people interested in participating. In response to what "Avery" says above, I think I might somewhat agree that there are not more benefits for women here, but I'd say that there are perhaps some different ones. It is physically "safer" here, obviously, for women, but not necessarily emotionally so, and there is no shortage of harassment, abusive language, misogyny, and so forth. A great difference, of course, is that these are easier to ignore or escape from. One real benefit for some women, particularly those who have felt disempowered by emotional or physical abuse in real life, is that here they have much greater control over such situations in a virtual environment, a fact that means that -- again, for some -- the experience of virtual abuse and misogyny can actually in an odd way be a bit "empowering" and therapeutic. Overall, though, I'd agree that women are not special beneficiaries here. And you might consider, in this context, the rather naive nature of your question: when you say "women," do you mean "real life" biological females? What about those who represent as women here, but may be biologically (and culturally) males? Their experience of Second Life as women is, I would imagine, different from that of RL "women," but only insofar as they come equipped with different experiences from RL. And then there are trans women (in both RL and SL contexts), of which there is actually a sizable and very active community here: again, the "things" that happen to them here may be the same as those experienced by anyone who represents as female here, but these will take on a very different meaning, I think. And because gender identity can be assumed, and cast off, with the click of a mouse button, it is much more obviously a "performance" here (think Judith Butler!) than even in RL. How one experiences SL as a woman also depends a great deal on how one chooses to "perform" that role. For instance, there are many who represent as women here who very consciously assume the identity of hyperfeminized or hypersexualized women, because they can with far fewer consequences. So there is an element of the "feminine" in SL that is sometimes a bit cartoon-like. (The same is true, but maybe to a lesser extent, of representing masculinity here.) What I guess I'm getting at is that you need to elaborate or complicate (or "unpack," as academics are wont to say in English) your notion of "gender," because, as complicated as this idea of socially determined identity is in RL, it is even more so here. Ok. Guess I've said enough? Good luck with your research!

Oh, I sooooo knew it. Long time no see, old man.

Oh? As in, *I* am not?????? Hmmmph. Actually, I suppose I might just have proven your point . . . Yeah yeah. She'll probably drop by at some point. She's a bit of an Attention Wh*re, after all.

In my conception of him, he couldn't actually count that high.

Says Ms. "My-Reputation-Is-Over-2500" McMasters. You need no assistance from me or anyone else to illumine your enormous contributions here and elsewhere, Maddy. And you never have. Snugs, on the other hand . . .

I know, right? Once a tentacled man-eating monstrosity cursed by the gods, always a tentacled man-eating etc. . . .

Well, I guess I DO have a "reputation" after all! What a very odd thing to remember about me, though. And yes, I did finish it. But it was actually a PhD on literature that employed feminist approaches. And thank you for asking.

I have sought in vain for a facepalm emoji, so this will have to suffice.

Does an alt who's a Gorean Master count?

Thank you Rhonda. It's kinda nice not having a reputation, though. It's like being on stealth! No one even suspects yet how really obnoxious I can be.

Aww. Treasure! I've missed you, girl. (Why isn't there a heart??? <3 Grrr! )

Fake news. With no avatar pic, I could be anyone. (Hi Maddy. ) ETA: With a reputation of 4, am I someone whose acquaintance you really want to acknowledge?

Wow. I look away for a couple of years and THIS is what you kids get up to? Clearly I'm going to need to ask the neighbours to look in more often.

heraldprophet wrote: Hark! It was foretold that you would arrive on Friday to cast your pearls before us. Lamentably, it was not to be. Nonetheless, the valiant and intrepid Derek, hereto banish'ed, wandering hither and yon, will be sad of heart to know that he missed your appearance this day. Fear not! For he shall return in a fortnight to take up his righteous sword that he may once more bring Light to the ignorant darkness. PS To answer the OQ; Even in His imperfections is perfection found. To thine own Self be true and have faith His will be done. My. You aren't really a very good prophet, are you? I mean, you've got all of the "Woe is me!" and "Behold! A sign unto us!" stuff down just fine, but it seems to me that the essence of propheteering (so to speak), the real meat of it, is to successfully, well, prophecy stuff. It's bad enough, surely, to arrive announcing after the fact that you had successfully prophesied something when no one else was listening. But to show up and reveal, in (you must admit) rather purple prose that you were wrong about something that no one even knew you'd predicted seems . . . um, unnecessary. And maybe bad form. Is there a Prophet Union? Some sort of professional organization that sets standards? For your sake, I hope not. I hope Derek is ok. I rather imagine him wandering around somewhere in mildly disembodied form, with hollow eyes and gaping mouth, and a visage that speaks of unnameable horror, pointing with shrivelled hand for all who pass at the SL Answers section. You know, sort of: And all who heard should see them there, And all should cry, Beware! Beware! His flashing eyes, his floating hair! But with a screenshot tucked under one arm. Anyway, I'm not "Fearing" too much, but thanks for asking. :-)

Treasure Ballinger wrote: Good grief dude, another alias, this one slipped past..... You still messing with Scylla, leave her alone! I don't get out much anymore, never paid attention to 'this' author. Do carry on, with your particular brand of whateva whateva.... (was that grammatically correct?) I stay in my lane. And while you're at it, have a blessed and beautiful day! :matte-motes-big-grin: Yeah!!! What she said!!! You leave me alone! Brute. (Thanks Treasure, I've got this one covered . . . :smileywink: )

ZoeTick wrote: Innula Zenovka wrote: For some reason, Zoe makes me think of this cartoon: Is that because I am also too much of a gentleman to exact physical retribution upon a trivially vindictive person of the weaker sex who shamelessly takes advantage? lolwut?

Treasure Ballinger wrote: Oh; I hadn't realized that, because, I don't know him. He's not on my friends list. So, if what you said is true, then, I amend my answer to........ "I don't care'? :matte-motes-bored: If what you say is not true, then.....I still don't care? LOL By his works you shall know him, Treasure. If you don't know already. And not caring is probably exactly the right response. :-)

ZoeTick wrote: Scylla Rhiadra wrote: What is probably most amusing about this thread is the way that nearly everyone, with the possible exception of Perrie, but myself included, has treated it as a serious question requiring an answer. Rather than as the satiric and rather nasty insult addressed to pretty much all of us that it actually is. We have been measured by the fastidious, the all-powerful Zoe, and found wanting, people. There's nothing else to see here . . . move along! It was Friday when I started the thread . . . . . . and there was no sign of a thread about a Canadian female reporter who got annoyed about sexist sports fans and got them fired. Is there one now? Have I missed it? In fact, your comment is a characteristic distortion of the facts. She did nothing to get the one (1) fan fired. The company employing him, unhappy to discover that their employee was actually a crass, drunken, misogynist moron, did that. I've not seen anything anywhere to suggest that Hunt even lodged a complaint about him. All she did was accommodate the evident desire of said moron for a national audience by airing the segment. Rather obliging of her, I'd have said, wouldn't you?

What is probably most amusing about this thread is the way that nearly everyone, with the possible exception of Perrie, but myself included, has treated it as a serious question requiring an answer. Rather than as the satiric and rather nasty insult addressed to pretty much all of us that it actually is. We have been measured by the fastidious, the all-powerful Zoe, and found wanting, people. There's nothing else to see here . . . move along!

Innula Zenovka wrote: Perrie Juran wrote: Oh no, I've done gone and went and ruint Zoe's thread with a cat picture! Maybe Zoe prefers intellectual cat pictures? Actually, he prefers dead ones, if memory serves.