'Fraping', 'Trolling'

‘Fraping’, ‘Trolling’ and ‘Rinsing’: Social Networking, Feminist Thought and the Construction of Young Women as Victims or Villains Dr Karen Lumsden and Dr Heather M. Morgan1 Abstract This paper explores the contradictory framing of young women’s social networking use in public and media discourses and situates it within current debates regarding the future of feminism for young women. While social networking activities began as relatively trivial, recently public and media concern has grown, especially in light of a so-called rise in ‘problematic’ gendered/sexualized behaviours on social networking sites. Examples include ‘fraping’, ‘sexting’, ‘trolling’ and ‘rinsing’; behaviours that push the boundaries of acceptability in terms of normative gendered/sexualized and embodied practices. Paradoxically, young women are presented as both victims of more predatory, deviant and/or criminal behaviours on social networking sites, such as cyber-stalking and cyber-bullying and their consequences, and villains in terms of their engagement in the aforementioned gendered/sexualized interactions. Keywords Facebook, feminism, gender, media, social networking, trolling Introduction In the last decade, social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter have become essential interactional tools for negotiating both public (professional) and private (personal) lives. Via these sites, online spaces are created for individuals to parody and play with a multitude of identities by presenting themselves in one or several virtual profiles, thus allowing for the constant contesting and re-moulding of their electronic personas depending on the specific purpose or context. Hence, through information and communications technologies such as the internet, ‘individuals increasingly exist beyond their private bodies’ (Sheller and Urry 2003, 116). While social networking activities began as relatively trivial, even peripheral, recently, public and media concern has grown, especially in light of a so-called rise in ‘problematic’ gendered/sexualized behaviours on social networking sites, which involve young women in particular. Examples of these behaviours include ‘fraping’, 1 ‘sexting’, ‘trolling’ and ‘rinsing’; behaviours which push the boundaries of acceptability in terms of normative gendered/sexualized and embodied practices, but which have become central to women’s everyday interactions. Hence, paradoxically, young women are presented as both victims of more predatory, deviant and/or criminal behaviours on social networking sites, such as ‘cyber-stalking’ and ‘cyber- bullying’ and their consequences (wider deviant/criminal acts such as paedophilia and pornography), and villains in terms of their engagement in the aforementioned gendered/sexualized online interactions. In terms of feminist thought, the latter behaviours have been said to indicate a shift from second-wave feminism, which promoted women’s opportunity for independence from, rather than acquiescence to, heteronormative sexualization, to a third-wave in which a new generation of young women ‘outwardly embrace sexual imagery’ (Karaian 2012, 69). Hence, this paper explores the contradictory and paradoxical framing of young women’s social networking use in public and media discourses and situates it within current debates regarding the future of feminism for young women. Feminism(s) and Youth Culture: Past, Present and Future ‘Post-feminism’, ‘third wave feminism’ and ‘new femininities’ are terms frequently used to explain the changes in young women’s engagement and experiences in the social world of late modernity (Nayak and Kehily 2008, 59). ‘Like feminist subjectivities, this “active girlhood” places an emphasis on the rights of the individual to be an active sexual subject without recourse to moral judgement from patriarchal or feminist discourse’ (Nayak and Kehily 2008, 59). As Natasha Walter (2012, 3) points out in Living Dolls, however, ‘in this generation a certain view of female sexuality has become celebrated throughout advertisements, music, television programmes, films and magazines. This image of female sexuality has become more than ever defined by the terms of the sex industry’. This ‘hypersexual culture’ is commonly viewed as evidence of women’s growing freedom and power (Walter 2012, 5). Nevertheless, Walter (2012) argues that the rise of this ‘hypersexual culture’ is not proof that we have reached full equality. Instead, it has reflected and exaggerated the imbalances of power in society, replicating them as they are represented in the sex industry. Hence, it has become acceptable (and perhaps expected) for young women and girls to actively engage in the cultural formations, practices and discourses 2 described above. This can be sexual and should not be judged by patriarchal or feminist discourses (in terms of the latter – or so the argument goes). And, still, there is a lens through which they are interpreted and it is that of the sex industry. As Laura Mulvey (2004[1975], 62) notes in her work on the ‘male gaze’: In a world ordered by sexual imbalance, pleasure in looking has been split between active/male and passive/female. The determining male gaze projects its phantasy on to the female figure which is styled accordingly. In their traditional exhibitionist role women are simultaneously looked at and displayed, with their appearance coded for strong visual and erotic impact so that they can be said to connote to-be-looked-at-ness. Women displayed as sexual object is the leit-motif of erotic spectacle… The ways in which young women (and girls) are presented in online spaces such as Facebook, and the ways in which they display and position themselves (in terms of the camera lens, angle, and parts of body which are displayed), indicate the way in which the ‘male gaze’ is potentially internalized by young women who have been exposed to a culture which is highly sexualized. The display of self and body via Facebook thus demonstrates the ‘to-be-looked-at-ness’ connotation highlighted by Mulvey (2004[1975]). (Anti-)Social Networking: Gender, Sexuality and Deviance Examples of particular behaviours which have recently come under the scrutiny of the media, authorities, charities, government and so on include: ‘fraping’, ‘trolling, ‘rinsing’ and ‘sexting’. ‘Sexting’ is the ‘practice of sending or posting sexually suggestive text messages and images, including nude or semi-nude photographs, via cellular telephones or over the Internet’ (Miller v. Mitchell 4-5 cited in Karaian 2012, 57-58). However, we are not going to discuss ‘sexting’ in the context of this paper. Instead, we will focus on three behaviours directly related to social networking sites which have become ubiquitous in recent years but have not yet received systematic feminist and social scientific attention. These (deviant or even criminal) behaviours highlight the fluid or tenuous boundary between sexualized behaviours engaged in by young women online and the external threat women face from for instance, ‘trolling’ (a form of cyber-bullying). This paper examines social networking trends in this 3 context and through the lens of gender. These particular behaviours have been initially selected as they highlight the ambiguous and contradictory ways in which sex/gender are understood, conceived of, and reflected in online spaces. ‘Fraping’: Manipulation and Symbolic (Sexual) Violence ‘Fraping’ is the act of ‘raping someone’s Facebook profile when they leave it logged in’ (Urban Dictionary 2007) and involves changing account or privacy details or updating their profile with a phoney status message or picture whilst they are temporarily unaware (away from the computer/phone or when their account has been compromised). More simply, it is defined as ‘a portmanteau of Facebook and rape; to manipulate someone else’s profile’ (Graham and Mathis 2012). The sexual connotation, and symbolic violation, is linguistically interesting and characterises the normalized sexual/violent online interactions that are now ubiquitous. As Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992, 167) argue symbolic violence is the ‘violence which is exercised upon a social agent with his or her complicity’. Graham and Mathis (2012) claim that terms such as ‘fraping’, and their definitions, exclude and even attack homosexuals and women and ‘betray power structures external to the online world’. As Ryan (2011) writes: According to Facebook, talking about raping your friend's girlfriend to see ‘if she can put up a fight’ is neither violent nor hateful, and advocating such a scenario is a ‘belief’. Not for the first time, we are told rape is something to be trivialised – the special crime that can be actively promoted with the confidence that few will bat an eye. ‘Fraping’ reinforces heteronormative relations and can also reinforce hetero-social solidarity, particularly amongst young male friendship groups.2 It also normalises the language used – people discuss ‘fraping’ with no sensitivity. Why is the use of this term and the behaviour deemed acceptable on Facebook? Given that some individuals would consider that they do not exist unless they are on Facebook, as it is a virtual manifestation of themselves but has become an essential means of mediated interaction, particularly for younger generations (who, unlike most of us here today, have no knowledge or memory of the pre- social networking, mobile phone and internet days). Hence, is the ‘fraping’ practice actually really dangerous? Also – the 4 victim is public, but the perpetrator remains (or could potentially remain)

Load more