Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

eGirls, eCitizens

 | 
Jane Bailey
, 
Valerie Steeves

Part IV: eGirls, eCitizens

Chapter XIII. Digital Literacy and Digital Citizenship: Approaches to Girls’ Online Experiences

Matthew Johnson

Texte intégral

Towards a Digital Citizenship Approach to Education

  • 1 Lisa M. Jones, Kimberly J. Mitchell & Wendy A. Walsh, Evaluation of Internet Child Safety Material (...)
  • 2 Steven Roberts & Aziz Douai, “Moral Panics and Cybercrime: How Canadian Media Cover Internet Child (...)
  • 3 David Finkelhor, The Internet, Youth Safety and the Problem of “Juvenoia” (Durham, NH: Crimes Agai (...)

1Often efforts to educate young people about digital technology have focused primarily on teaching them to protect themselves online. This focus on “online safety” has been tremendously influential for a number of reasons: first, many educational programs have been provided by or developed in collaboration with law enforcement agencies;1 second, the content of these programs has accorded with a perception, largely a result of media reporting, that digital environments are particularly risky compared to offline spaces;2 third, a cultural tendency towards “juvenoia” – a term coined by David Finkelhor of the Crimes Against Children Research Center to describe “an exaggerated fear about the influence of social change on children and youth”3 – is currently pervasive. This response manifests itself both as fear for children and fear of children, and, as the earlier “predator panic” has been supplemented with alarm over cyberbullying, the two have essentially merged.

  • 4 Valerie Steeves, Young Canadians in a Wired World, Phase III: Talking to Youth and Parents about L (...)
  • 5 Ibid., at 29.
  • 6 Bell cited in Ben Rooney, “Women and Children First: Technology and Moral Panic,” TechEurope (blog (...)
  • 7 Steeves, supra note 4 at 29.

2MediaSmarts’ research project Young Canadians in a Wired World found that adults and youth have absorbed the internet safety message. Parents in our focus groups spoke often of feeling pressured to take any steps they could to keep their children safe, including subjecting them to constant monitoring;4 almost half of the students in our quantitative survey felt that the internet was an unsafe place for them, and almost three-quarters agreed with the statement “I could be hurt if I talk to someone I don’t know online.”5 These figures become even more striking when we look at the gender breakdown: significantly more girls than boys (49 percent compared to 39 percent) felt that the internet was an unsafe space for them, and 82 percent of girls – compared to just 63 percent of boys – feared they could be hurt if they talked to someone they didn’t know online. This may not be surprising: Genevieve Bell, director of Intel Corporation’s Interaction and Experience Research, points out that “moral panic … is always played out in the bodies of children and women,”6 an observation supported by our findings that more girls (52 percent) than boys (44 percent) felt their parents were worried that they can get online.7

  • 8 Sonia Livingstone, “Online Risk, Harm and Vulnerability: Reflections on the Evidence Base for Chil (...)
  • 9 Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), The Safe Use of New Te (...)

3Leaving aside other criticisms of the online safety model (such as the fact that it is based on incorrect assumptions of the actual risks facing youth),8 it is clear from this data that it has a particularly negative impact on girls, who may be deprived of opportunities online due to exaggerated safety concerns. They may also be particularly disadvantaged in their acquisition of digital skills, including (ironically) the ability to manage online risk: research suggests that more restrictive approaches based on the online safety model produce students who are less able to keep themselves safe online and are generally less confident and capable users of digital technology.9 As well, the narrow focus of the online safety approach prevents educators from addressing many issues of key importance to girls, such as the effects of digital media on body image. For this reason, we argue that the online safety model be discarded in public awareness campaigns, classrooms, and curricula and replaced with a focus on digital literacy and digital citizenship.

  • 10 “History,” MediaSmarts, <http://mediasmarts.ca/about-us/history>.

4MediaSmarts has been a pioneer in promoting media literacy, digital literacy, and digital citizenship in a Canadian context.10 With a primary focus on parents and teachers of youth in the K–12 sector, the organization produces resources such as tip sheets, lesson plans, professional development packages, and interactive classroom tutorials that prepare adults in children’s lives to help them to face the challenges they will face in mass media and the digital environment and to take advantage of the opportunities they will encounter. As well as its efforts in education and public awareness, MediaSmarts periodically conducts a research project titled Young Canadians in a Wired World; the latest iteration, Phase III (conducted between 2011 and 2013), gives a snapshot of what Canadian youth are doing online, their opinions about and experiences in the digital realm, and what digital literacy skills they are learning and from whom. The data gathered is an invaluable resource in developing MediaSmarts’ approach to digital literacy and digital citizenship education.

5Both “digital literacy” and “digital citizenship” are terms that lack fully agreed upon definitions, so it will be useful to define them here. MediaSmarts uses a definition of digital literacy organized around three main areas of competency – use, understand, and create:

  • 11 “Digital Literacy Fundamentals,” MediaSmarts, <http://mediasmarts.ca/digital-media-literacy-fundamentals/digital-literacy-fundamentals>.

1. Use represents the technical fluency needed to engage with computers and the internet. Skills and competencies that fall under “use” range from basic technical know-how – using computer programs such as word processors, web browsers, email, and other communication tools – to the more sophisticated abilities for accessing and using knowledge resources, such as search engines and online databases, and emerging technologies such as cloud computing.
2. Understand is that critical piece – it’s the set of skills that help us comprehend, contextualize, and critically evaluate digital media, so that we can make informed decisions about what we do and encounter online. These are the essential skills that we need to start teaching our kids as soon as they go online.
Understand includes recognizing how networked technology affects our behaviour and our perceptions, beliefs and feelings about the world around us.
Understand also prepares us for a knowledge economy as we develop – individually and collectively – information management skills for finding, evaluating, and effectively using information to communicate, collaborate, and solve problems.
3. Create is the ability to produce content and effectively communicate through a variety of digital media tools. Creation with digital media is more than knowing how to use a word processor or write an email: it includes being able to adapt what we produce for various contexts and audiences; to create and communicate using rich media such as images, video, and sound; and to effectively and responsibly engage with Web 2.0 user-generated content such as blogs and discussion forums, video and photo sharing, social gaming, and other forms of social media.
The ability to create using digital media ensures that Canadians are active contributors to digital society. Creation – whether through blogs, tweets, wikis or any of the hundreds of avenues for expression and sharing online – is at the heart of citizenship and innovation.11

  • 12 Anne Collier, “Why Digital Citizenship’s a Hot Topic,” NetFamily-News.org, (blog), 23 September 20 (...)

6What is most important about this model is that it is concerned with developing skills rather than with producing an end result such as safety. Because it is focused exclusively on skills, however, some feel that it needs to be supplemented with education in digital citizenship. This is another disputed term,12 but what’s useful about the concept is that it recognizes that youth can act as full citizens of online communities in a way that they often cannot fully act as citizens in their offline lives, and as a result have rights and responsibilities (though digital citizenship programs often emphasize the latter at the expense of the former, and may be used to “rebrand” online safety narratives). Young people’s online citizenship may also serve as a bridge to getting them involved in causes or communities offline. Digital citizenship also recognizes that the main risks to youth are from youth, whether themselves or their peers, but, unlike anti-cyberbullying programs that are based on the online safety model, the emphasis is on encouraging youth to be aware of what they can achieve online and to use that ability responsibly, rather than deterring unwanted behaviour through the threat of punishment. Another reason that digital citizenship is an important supplement to digital literacy is that while it focuses on the online context, the attributes that digital citizenship education seeks to develop originate outside of that context and are applicable to all parts of a person’s life. These attributes can be summarized as empathy, ethics, and activism.

  • 13 Albert Bandura, “Social Cognition Theory of Moral Thought and Action,” in Handbook of Moral Behavi (...)
  • 14 Christina Regenboen, Daniel A. Schneider, Andreas Finkelmeyer, Nils Kohn, Birgit Derntl, Thilo Kel (...)

7Empathy is an essential element of citizenship in its broadest sense as participation in society. We tend to think of empathy as an attribute, something we either have or do not have, but we actually choose, mostly unconsciously, whether or not to feel empathy in a particular context. That choice can be influenced by a number of factors,13 and the online context has a number of features that may inhibit empathy: in particular, some or all of the things that trigger empathy in us – a person’s tone of voice, body language, and facial expression14 – are often absent when we interact with them online.

  • 15 James R. Rest, Moral Development: Advances in Research and Theory (New York: Praeger, 1986).
  • 16 Carrie James with Katie Davis, Andrea Flores, John M. Francis, Lindsay Pettingill, Margaret Rundle (...)
  • 17 Steeves, supra note 4.
  • 18 Ibid.

8Ethics and empathy are closely linked because the first steps in making an ethical decision are to identify the situation as a moral issue (rather than a strictly practical one) and to understand the issue emotionally.15 Unfortunately, youth often don’t view their online actions and experiences in ethical terms,16 but MediaSmarts’ Young Canadians in a Wired World research suggests that teaching young people ethical decision making can play a significant role in their online behaviour: in most cases, for instance, the presence of a household rule has a strong relationship with whether or not youth engage in risky or problematic behaviour.17 More specifically, the presence of a rule about treating people with respect online – which requires youth to exercise both empathy and ethical thinking – had a strong relationship with a lower rate of being mean or cruel to someone online.18

  • 19 Micah L. Sifry, “Children’s Crusade: A Primer on How Britain’s Students Are Organising Using Socia (...)
  • 20 Greg Toppo, “Kids Upload and Unload on School Cafeteria Lunches,” USA Today, 2 December 2013, <http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/02/school-lunch-photos/3784625/>.
  • 21 Steeves, supra note 4.
  • 22 Megan Boldt, “Osseo High-Schooler Battles Taunts with Tweets,” Pioneer-Press, 9 September 2012, <http://www.twincities.com/education/ci_21656149/osseo-high-schooler-battles-taunts-tweets>.
  • 23 Steeves, supra note 4.
  • 24 Soraya Chemaly, Jaclyn Friedman & Laura Bates, “An Open Letter to Facebook,” HuffPost Tech (blog), (...)

9The third element of digital citizenship is activism. Though this term has become politicized, in a context of citizenship it simply means taking an active role in the affairs of one’s state or community. Online activism may involve using digital media to engage with issues in the local community or state politics, and may be as broadly focused as tuition rates19 or as narrow as the quality of school lunches.20 Our research found that 35 percent of Canadian youth had joined or supported an activist group online at least once.21 Activism may also focus specifically on influencing online communities, such as campaigns aimed at improving the climate of social media.22 Because of the corporate nature of nearly all online environments frequented by youth (only one of the top ten websites among Canadian youth, Wikipedia, is not owned by a for-profit corporation),23 it is also important to include consumer activism in our definition of digital citizenship. Consumer activism involves a recognition of the corporate nature of most online “communities” and “public spaces” as well as an understanding of what rights youth possess as consumers and how to exercise them, including using complaint mechanisms and organizing public pressure campaigns (such as the effort to get Facebook to be more responsive to complaints about hate material).24

  • 25 “Media Literacy Fundamentals,” MediaSmarts, <http://mediasmarts.ca/digital-media-literacy-fundamentals/media-literacy-fundamentals>.

10Finally, media literacy is also a key element of both digital literacy and digital citizenship. This is partly because an understanding of the key concepts of media literacy, such as recognizing that both traditional and digital media are largely commercial products and that they have social and political implications,25 is needed to be able to critically engage with online content or understand and exercise one’s rights as a digital citizen.

Media Literacy-Based Approaches to Girls’ Online Issues

11Many of the issues that youth face online affect girls in ways that are different from and sometimes disproportionate to the ways they affect boys. For that reason, it is important that digital literacy and digital citizenship programs consider girls’ particular experiences online. At the same time, it is also important that boys not be left out of discussions of “girls’ issues” in order to shift the narrative away from “girls’ need to protect themselves” to all youth need to be responsible, ethical, and active digital citizens.

  • 26 Steeves, supra note 4.

12Young people constantly face decisions about privacy while online, both how to manage their own privacy and what to do with others’ content. Our research shows that young Canadians do have strong notions of privacy, and many take positive steps to manage it, such as keeping contact information private, disguising their online identities, deleting online content they have created, and using social network blocking tools to determine which audiences see particular content.26

  • 27 Ibid.

13Youth also rely on social norms around online privacy: nine out of ten students expect a friend to ask before posting a bad or embarrassing photo of them, and just over half expect friends to ask before posting a good photo as well. Social strategies are also preferred when it comes to dealing with a loss of control over privacy. The most popular strategies for dealing with unwanted photos being posted online are to ask the person to take the photo down (80 percent of all students said they would do this) and to untag the photo, which 40 percent of students said they would do. (Though untagging is a technical measure, it is also a social one because there’s nothing preventing the photo from being re-tagged with your name; a key part of untagging, therefore, is communicating to the person who posted the photo that you do not want it to be tagged with your name.)27

  • 28 Ibid.

14While social means were overall the most popular responses, they were more popular among girls than boys; responses that involved taking direct action (such as logging into the poster’s account and taking the photo down) or appeals to authority (such as teachers, school principals, or the social media provider itself), which were much less popular overall, were more popular among boys than girls. Girls were more likely to turn to parents, but since parents – unlike school staff or social media providers – are unable to take direct action, appealing to them can be seen as more of a social strategy.28 Perhaps further research could explore whether or not girls are setting the social norms for how to deal with privacy and identity issues online, and whether or not boys prefer approaches that do not involve direct communication and social negotiation.

  • 29 John Dewey, How We Think (Boston: D. C. Heath, 1910).
  • 30 “MyWorld: A Digital Literacy Tutorial for Secondary Students,” MediaSmarts, <http://mediasmarts.ca/game/myworld-digitialliteracy-tutorial-secondary-students>.
  • 31 “Stay on the Path: Teaching Kids to be Safe and Ethical Online Portal Page,” MediaSmarts, <http://mediasmarts.ca/stay-path-teachingkids-be-safe-and-ethical-online-portal-page>.

15Given that the most popular strategies rely on social negotiation, it makes sense for educators to, as John Dewey put it, “meet the child where he or she is … and encourage that child to take the next step” by teaching privacy management in terms of respecting and acting within social norms on privacy.29 Our interactive resource “MyWorld,” for instance, presents students with privacy dilemmas within a social context, such as the correct response to having an embarrassing photo of you posted and what to do when you receive.30 Our findings also show the importance of promoting positive social norms about respect for others’ privacy among youth, which is a key element of our resource and professional development series “Stay on the Path: Teaching Kids to Be Safe and Ethical Online.” This resource helps parents, teachers, and other adults who care for young people understand how children’s moral and emotional development influences the decisions they make and informs the best ways to help them see the digital environment through an ethical framework and to develop their personal morality. It explores the question of privacy by examining the reasons why youth may share their and others’ personal material and provides guidance for helping youth deal with accidental or intentional “oversharing.”31

  • 32 Jessica Ringrose, Rosalind Gill, Sonia Livingstone & Laura Harvey, Qualitative Study of Children, (...)
  • 33 Tara Culp-Ressler, “Study Finds That Sexting Doesn’t Actually Ruin Young Adults’ Lives,” ThinkProg (...)
  • 34 Steeves, supra note 4.

16Social expectations may also influence decisions on sharing sensitive content. Some youth may have difficulty in opting out of the “sexual banter, gossip, discussion” that happens online, and while this pressure may lead both girls and boys to send sexts, the same pressure can also push boys in particular to share sexts they receive with their peers to win social approval – or to avoid the social risks that can come from refusing to do so.32 There is little evidence that sending sexts is by itself a risky act. For example, in one study, American university students reported positive experiences.33 Where harm is most likely to occur is when sexts are shared or forwarded. While a sext that is only ever seen by the original recipient is unlikely to cause any harm, the risks caused by sexts that are seen by other recipients are obvious. Contrary to widespread perceptions that sharing of sexts is rampant, our research found that it is far from common behaviour: of the 24 percent of students in grades 7 to 11 with cellphone access who have received a sext directly from the sender, just 15 percent (or 4 percent of all students in grades 7 to 11 with cell phone access) have forwarded one to someone else. Our research suggests that those sexts that are forwarded, however, may reach a fairly wide audience: one in five students say that they have received a sext that was forwarded to them by a third party.34

  • 35 Ibid.
  • 36 Culp-Ressler, supra note 33.

17There has been little research into identifying which youth are more likely to forward sexts that they receive, but our research on the effect of household rules on students’ behaviour provides an interesting insight. While we found a strong connection between household rules and student behaviour in general – and, in particular, that the presence of a household rule on treating others with respect online has a strong association with not being mean or cruel online35 – there is no relationship between the presence of such a rule and whether or not students forward sexts.36

  • 37 Ibid.
  • 38 Jessica Ringrose, Laura Harvey, Rosalind Gill & Sonia Livingstone, “Teen Girls, Sexual Double Stan (...)
  • 39 Steeves, supra note 4.
  • 40 Ringrose et al, supra note 38.
  • 41 Ibid.
  • 42 Elizabeth Englander, Low Risk Associated with Most Teenage Sexting: A Study of 617 18-Year-Olds, M (...)
  • 43 Think before You Share, MediaSmarts, <http://mediasmarts.ca/sites/default/files/pdfs/tipsheet/TipSheet_Think_Before_You_Share.pdf>.

18Having a sext of oneself forwarded, of course, has particular consequences for girls: though sexts sent by boys are actually more likely to be forwarded,37 girls who send sexts are often subject to greater social disapproval than boys.38 Our qualitative research suggests that girls who send sexts are seen as having transgressed appropriate gender roles and, therefore, given up the right to expect that their images will not be shared or forwarded.39 Gender roles may also contribute to sharing sexts being seen as a positive act, both as a sanction on inappropriate behaviour by girls and as something that is rewarded by status among boys (some studies have shown that boys gain status by sharing and forwarding sexts that were sent to them.)40 While the public understanding of cyberbullying has become somewhat more nuanced, advice to parents and youth on sexting still draws heavily on the online safety model.41 As a result, the advice focuses on how potential senders of sexts can protect themselves from negative consequences rather than on the ethical responsibility of those who receive them. A digital literacy approach, on the other hand, goes beyond simply telling girls not to send sexts to helping all youth to recognize and deal with unhealthy relationships. One study suggests that youth who are coerced or pressured into sending sexts are three times more likely to experience negative consequences than those who send them willingly.42 This approach encourages young people to think through the ethical ramifications of forwarding sexts they receive – both of which are major components of our youth tip sheet Think before You Share.43

  • 44 Ringrose et al, supra note 38.
  • 45 Ibid.
  • 46 “Girls and Boys on Television,” MediaSmarts, <http://mediasmarts.ca/lessonplan/girls-and-boys-television>; “Gender Messages in Alcohol Advertising,” MediaSmar</http> (...)
  • 47 Talking to Kids about Gender Stereotypes, MediaSmarts, <http://mediasmarts.ca/sites/default/files/pdfs/tipsheet/TipSheet_Talking_Kids_Gender_Stereotypes.pdf>; (...)

19Much of the harm that comes from sexting seems to be related to gender-related double standards that portray girls both as innocent guardians of their sexual innocence and, if they should stray from that role, as being responsible for any consequences they might suffer as a result of their actions.44 Research has found that these stereotypes are found even in educational anti-sexting campaigns, another way in which poorly considered interventions may cause more harm than good.45 Because these gender norms are often communicated and reinforced by mass media, media literacy must be a part of any program that aims to mitigate the possible risks of sexting. MediaSmarts’ many lessons on media and gender – from “Girls and Boys on Television” for grades 3 to 6 to “Gender Messages in Alcohol Advertising” for grades 7 to 1046 – provide teachers with tools for deconstructing gender norms, while parent tip sheets like Talking to Kids about Gender Stereotypes and Little Princesses and Fairy Tale Stereotypes help parents talk about the issues with their children.47

  • 48 Steeves, supra note 4.

20While youth are most concerned about controlling their personal information, particularly photos, there are other dimensions to privacy. To be active and engaged digital citizens – especially when participating in online communities that exist to make a profit for corporations – youth need to have an understanding of data privacy as well. Unfortunately, our research shows that Canadian youth have received very little information on this aspect of privacy from either parents or teachers. While 82 percent of students reported that they had learned about using privacy settings from some source (including being self-taught from online sources), just 66 percent have learned anything about how corporations collect and use personal information online. Moreover, 65 percent of students have never had anyone explain a privacy policy or terms of service to them, which may explain why 68 percent of them mistakenly believe that all privacy policies guarantee that the site will not share their personal information. Girls are somewhat more likely to say that they have never learned about data privacy, though boys and girls are equally likely to overestimate the protection afforded by privacy policies.48

  • 49 Ibid.
  • 50 Privacy Pirates: An Interactive Unit on Online Privacy (Ages 7–9), MediaSmarts, <http://mediasmarts.ca/game/privacy-pirates-interactiveunit-online-privacy-ages-7-9>.
  • 51 “Online Marketing to Kids: Protecting Your Privacy — Lesson,” MediaSmarts, <http://mediasmarts.ca/lessonplan/online-marketing-kidsprotecting-your-privacy-lesson>; “The Privacy Dilemma:</http> (...)

21However, these findings should not be interpreted as evidence of a lack of young people’s interest in the subject: 75 percent of students said they would like more control over what companies do with the content they post online, and 36 percent of students would like to learn more about how companies collect and use personal information. Considering the popularity of social networks among Canadian girls,49 a clear understanding of how corporations use their personal information – as well as what contractual rights they have and how they can influence corporations through collective action – are essential. MediaSmarts resources on this topic start with the educational game Privacy Pirates, which teaches children aged 7 to 9 that their personal information has commercial value.50 The lesson “Online Marketing to Kids: Protecting Your Privacy” (grades 6 to 9) introduces students to the ways in which commercial websites collect personal information and to the issues surrounding children and privacy on the internet, while high school students are invited to consider the trade-offs we all make on a daily basis between maintaining our privacy and gaining access to information services in the lesson “The Privacy Dilemma.”51

  • 52 Steeves, supra note 4.
  • 53 danah boyd, It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens (New Haven: Yale University Pres (...)
  • 54 Alice Marwick & danah boyd, “The Drama! Teen Conflict, Gossip, and Bullying in Networked Publics.” (...)
  • 55 Steeves, supra note 4.

22One of the most heavily gendered digital issues, from young people’s point of view, is cyberbullying. This term, as has been noted elsewhere, is not one that youth see as relevant to their experience: teens, in particular, are more likely to define it as being anything other than what they do themselves, referring to their own behaviour with less loaded terms like “pranking” 52 or “drama.”53 What is interesting about these alternate terms is that they are very specifically gendered: pranking is defined as what boys do and drama is what girls do,54 even if they refer to the same behaviour. Although the term “drama” implies spreading and responding to rumours, our research found that boys and girls were equally likely to have spread rumours about someone online. However, other forms of cyberbullying are more gendered: girls are more likely to post or share an embarrassing photo or video, while boys are more likely to make fun of someone’s race, religion, or ethnicity, or to harass someone in an online game.55

  • 56 Ibid.
  • 57 David Bornstein, “Fighting Bullying with Babies,” Opinionator (blog), New York Times, 28 November (...)
  • 58 Elizabeth Kandel Englander, Bullying and Cyberbullying: What Every Educator Needs to Know (Cambrid (...)
  • 59 Silvia Diazgranados Ferráns, Robert L. Selman & Luba Falk Feigenberg, “Rules of the Culture and Pe (...)
  • 60 MediaSmarts, supra note 31.

23The reasons given by students for cyberbullying are gendered as well, in ways that suggest that interventions may need to be better differentiated: while boys were most likely to say that they had been mean or cruel online because they were “just joking” (64 percent of boys compared to 45 percent of girls, and at 55 percent the top reason overall), they were also more than twice as likely as girls (20 percent compared to 8 percent of girls) to say that they had done it because they were bored. Girls, on the other hand, were more likely than boys to say they had been mean to get back at someone for what they had said or done to them (52 percent of girls, 45 percent of boys) or to a friend (34 percent of girls, 29 percent of boys). They also were more likely to have been mean or cruel because they were angry (29 percent of girls, 21 percent of boys) and because they simply “did not like” the other person.56 While there are several anti-bullying programs that focus on developing empathy,57 the empathy-building approach may be most effective in making youth less likely to bully others as a way of entertaining themselves, perform for peers, or alleviate boredom, all of which are more common motivations among boys. For interventions to be more effective for girls, however, they may need to focus more heavily on emotional self-regulation than empathy. Elizabeth Englander has noted that repeated exposure to materials that trigger an emotional reaction can “prime” people to feel negative emotions more strongly, so that a back-and-forth of texts or Facebook comments between two or more people could quickly intensify feelings of anger. According to Englander, “girls seem to be more likely than boys to experience this phenomenon.”58 Advice for witnesses to bullying (both online and offline) has to become more nuanced as well, since evidence suggests that unless youth are encouraged to feel an ethical and moral duty toward all other people, they interpret “stand up to bullying” as meaning “stand up for your friends”59 – which, as noted above, is the third most common reason given for being mean or cruel online. Accordingly, teaching youth how to manage their emotions and how to make wise choices about what to do when they witness cyberbullying are key elements of MediaSmarts’ resource package “Stay on the Path: Teaching Kids to Be Safe and Ethical Online”60 and our upcoming interactive classroom tutorial for elementary students.

  • 61 Steeves, supra note 4.
  • 62 Janine M. Zweig, Meredith Dank, Pamela Lachman & Jennifer Yahner, Technology, Teen Dating Violence (...)

24Girls are also somewhat more likely to experience online meanness and cruelty than boys, and more likely to say that it was a serious problem for them.61 Online relationship violence is similarly gendered. This may include behaviours such as using digital technology to make threats; accessing a partner’s online accounts without permission; harassing a partner’s online contacts; expecting a partner to “check in” routinely via texts or GPS; pressuring a partner for sexual photos or using digital technology to pressure them for sex; or embarrassing a partner publicly using digital media. Girls are twice as likely as boys to have experienced online relationship abuse that is sexual in nature; they are also more likely to have engaged in nonsexual online relationship abuse.62 As with sexting, these numbers underline the need to teach youth about healthy relationships, and also serve as a reminder that we have to consider both sexes as possible targets and perpetrators of online relationship abuse.

  • 63 Steeves, supra note 4.
  • 64 Antonia Zerbisias, “Internet Trolls an Online Nightmare for Young Women,” Toronto Star, 18 January (...)
  • 65 Steeves, supra note 4.

25Girls do not only face harassment online from partners, of course, and in this area the numbers are much less equivocal. As noted above, girls are less likely to see the internet as a safe space than boys (though they are just as likely to feel they can keep themselves safe,)63 and one reason for this may be the frequent and often public attacks on women online. Some attacks may be high profile, such as those experienced by feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian after she launched an online campaign to fund a series of videos looking at sexism in video games,64 but women who aren’t public figures attract online hostility as well: over a third of Canadian students in grades 7 to 11 encounter sexist or racist content online at least once a week.65 Girls are much more likely than boys to feel hurt when a racist or sexist joke is made at their expense (57 percent of girls compared to 34 percent of boys) while boys, in keeping with their attitudes towards cyberbullying, are much more likely to say they and their friends “don’t mean anything by it” when they say racist or sexist things online and to not speak up against such content because “most of the time, people are just joking around.”

  • 66 Ibid.
  • 67 K. L. Gray, “Deviant Bodies, Stigmatized Identities, and Racist Acts: Examining the Experiences of (...)
  • 68 Jeffrey H. Kuznekoff & Lindsey M. Rose, “Communication in Multiplayer Gaming: Examining Player Res (...)
  • 69 Southern Poverty Law Center, “Misogyny: The Sites,” Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Repor (...)
  • 70 Phyllis B. Gerstenfeld, Diana R. Grant & Chau-Pu Chiang, “Hate Online: A Content Analysis of Extre (...)
  • 71 Robert C. Rowland & Kirsten Theye, “The Symbolic DNA of Terrorism,” Communication Monographs 75 (2 (...)
  • 72 Randy Blazak, “From White Boys to Terrorist Men: Target Recruitment of Nazi Skinheads,” American B (...)
  • 73 Priscilla Marie Meddaugh & Jack Kay, “Hate Speech or ‘Reasonable Racism?’ The Other in Stormfront, (...)
  • 74 Lacy G. McNamee, Brittany L. Peterson & Jorge Peña, “A Call to Educate, Participate, Invoke and In (...)
  • 75 Rowland & Theye, supra note 71.
  • 76 “Facing Online Hate: Portal Page,” MediaSmarts, <http://mediasmarts.ca/facing-online-hate-portal-page>.

26While girls may be most affected by encountering this content, it seems likely that interventions will have to focus on boys, who are much more likely than girls to sexually harass someone online or to make fun of their religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.66 Many of the online spaces frequented by boys – particularly multiplayer games – are characterized by highly aggressive and frequently racist, misogynist, and homophobic discourse.67 One study found that playing Halo 3 with a female voice and a female-identifying name led to three times more negative comments than playing with a male voice and male-identifying name or no voice and a gender-neutral name.68 There has also been a rise of online hate material specifically targeting women,69 and, like other forms of hate, this rhetoric can influence the culture of more mainstream spaces.70 While most online misogyny is not connected to what may often be thought of as “traditional” hate groups (for example, white extremist groups), it relies on the same “ideologies” of hate such as othering and dehumanizing the target group and casting the hate group as a victim,71 and appeals in a similar way to youth – particularly boys and young men – who feel alienated from society.72 Young people need to be equipped with the media and digital literacy skills to recognize hate content when they encounter it – for example, an understanding of the markers of an argument based on hate – and to recognize and decode the various persuasive techniques hate groups use to build group solidarity and recruit new believers, such as employing misinformation, 73denialism and revisionism,74 and pseudo-science.75 Youth also need to be empowered to speak out against hate, especially when they encounter it in mainstream spaces such as online games or social networks. MediaSmarts’ “Media Diversity Toolbox” includes a resource package called ”Facing Online Hate,” a suite of professional development material, lesson plans, and interactive tutorials that show the ways in which online hate material does harm and provide teachers and students with the media literacy skills and digital activism tools needed to recognize, decode, and confront it.76

  • 77 Moss E. Norman, “Embodying the Double-Bind of Masculinity: Young Men And Discourses of Normalcy, H (...)
  • 78 See Bailey, Chapter I: Steeves, Chapter VI.

27Another issue where there is a significant overlap between digital and media literacy is body image. While this is a concern for an increasing number of boys as well,77 girls are most affected by body image concerns influenced by media and, in particular, by digital media. These concerns fall into three main areas: the distorted body ideals created by digital photo manipulation; the sense of constantly being judged and the need to be always “camera-ready” caused by social media as evidenced in the eGirls Project findings;78 and the risks from online communities that promote eating disorders.

  • 79 Cheryl, “May Vogue Visits the Future and the Future Is Missing a Clavicle,” Jezebel, 6 May 2008, <http://jezebel.com/387701/may-voguevisits-the-future-and-the-future-is-missing-a-clavicle>.
  • 80 Marika Tiggemann, Amy Slater & Veronica Smyth, “‘Retouch Free’: The Effect of Labelling Media Imag (...)
  • 81 Dr. Barbara McAneny cited in “AMA Adopts New Policies at Annual Meeting,” American Medical Associa (...)
  • 82 Erin Anderssen, “In an Airbrushed World, How Do You Define What’s Truly Hot?” Globe and Mail, 1 Ma (...)
  • 83 Deidre Stalnaker, “On the Cover, in the Mirror,” Research Magazine, 21 January 2010, <http://research.ua.edu/2010/01/on-the-coverin-the-mirror/>.

28Retouching photos in this way raises a number of concerns. One is that the already unrealistic bodies youth are exposed to, are presented in ways that make them literally impossible: models frequently have collarbones, ribs, and even hips erased to make them look thinner.79 Exposure to digitally altered images of women’s bodies has been shown to increase body dissatisfaction in young women.80 In 2011 the American Medical Association urged governments and industry bodies to stop retouching models, warning “we must stop exposing impressionable children and teenagers to advertisements portraying models with body types only attainable with the help of photo editing software.”81 A 2011 study found that 84 percent of British young women knew what photo manipulation was and how it was used, and the same number agreed that using it to change models’ bodies should be unacceptable.82 Unfortunately, just knowing that images are manipulated doesn’t defuse their effects. As Dr. Kim Bissell, founder of the Child Media Lab at the University of Alabama, puts it, “We know they’re Photoshopped, but we still want to look like that.”83

  • 84 Connie Morrison, Who Do They Think They Are? Teenage Girls & Their Avatars in Spaces of Social Onl (...)
  • 85 Ibid.
  • 86 Randye Hoder, “For Teenage Girls, Facebook Means Always Being Camera-Ready,” Motherlode: Living in (...)
  • 87 Marika Tiggemann & Amy Slater, “NetGirls: The Internet, Facebook, and Body Image Concern in Adoles (...)

29Girls and young women often use photo manipulation software to retouch their own photos. Connie Morrison, in her book Who Do They Think They Are? Teenage Girls & Their Avatars in Spaces of Social Online Communication, says, “Girls understand that the images on television and in magazines are manipulated, and for some this understanding seems to lead to an expectation that they can (or should) be doing the same.”84 As one of the girls she interviews puts it, “It makes me more comfortable ... when my profile picture is something that looks flawless and ‘pretty’ even though I know it’s fake.”85 Even when images are not altered, however, many girls have expressed a need to always be “camera-ready” to avoid having an unflattering photo taken.86 Use of social networks such as Facebook has been connected to higher levels of body image concerns among girls, an issue that has only grown as social networks devoted specifically to photo sharing such as Instagram, as well as photo-sharing apps like Snapchat, have become popular.87

  • 88 Alex Cohen, “Countering the Online World of ‘Pro-Anorexia,’” 27 February 2009, <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101210192>.
  • 89 Stephanie Tom Tong, Daria Heinemann-LaFave, Jehoon Jeon, Renata Kolodziej-Smith & Nathaniel Warsha (...)

30While youth primarily use social networks to keep in touch with their offline friends, digital technology also makes it easier to contact people around the world who share the same interests. Although connections of this kind can often be very positive, particularly for those who live in small or isolated communities, these online communities can also reinforce negative attitudes toward body image. Most notorious are the “pro-anorexia” or “pro-ana” communities, which consist of websites, blogs, blogrings (blogs linked by a particular topic), and even discussion groups on virtual worlds such as Stardoll, that provide photos, tips, testimonials, and sometimes videos encouraging eating disorders.88 Content analysis of these communities has shown that while they do provide social support for girls suffering from eating disorders, they nevertheless reinforce the behaviours associated with anorexia or bulimia as part of the social norms of the online community.89

  • 90 Zali Yager & Jennifer A. O’Dea, “Prevention Programs for Body Image and Eating Disorders on Univer (...)
  • 91 Niva Piran, Michael P. Levine & Lori M. Irving, “GO GIRLS! Media Literacy, Activism and Advocacy P (...)
  • 92 MediaSmarts, supra note 47.

31Media literacy education has been shown to be one of the most successful interventions for eating disorders and body image issues.90 Effective literacy programs are long-term; focus on critical thinking, questioning, and discussion; invite active involvement through activities, rather than direct instruction; and teach key concepts of media literacy.91 These are elements of many of MediaSmarts’ resources on body image, such as our parent tip sheet Talking to Kids about Body Image, which encourages adults to start the conversation about how women’s bodies are represented in digital and traditional media – and how girls represent themselves – as early as possible.92

The State of Digital Literacy and Digital Citizenship Education in Canada

  • 93 Steeves, supra note 4.

32Considering the importance of digital literacy and digital citizenship in addressing the issues that girls face online, it is important to know just what education they are receiving in these areas and from whom. While our research found that nearly all girls have access to the internet outside of school, not all are receiving the same education in using digital devices. The digital literacy skill that students most often reported having learned was how to find information online. Roughly the same number of girls (7 percent) as boys (8 percent) said they had learned this from any source, and similar numbers had learned from their parents (46 percent of boys, 49 percent of girls) and friends (28 percent of both boys and girls). Girls, however, were much more likely to have learned about the topic from teachers (53 percent compared to 38 percent of boys) and less likely to be self-taught from online sources (16 percent compared to 26 percent of boys). Though somewhat fewer students overall have learned about authenticating online information (80 percent overall; 82 percent of boys, 78 percent of girls), the same pattern recurs when we look at where they learned it: friends and parents are roughly equally common as sources, while girls are more likely to learn from teachers (52 percent compared to 38 percent of boys) and boys are half again as likely to have learned from online sources (21 percent compared to 14 percent of girls).93

  • 94 Ibid.

33There are two reasons to be concerned about this pattern. The first is that since girls rely heavily on parents and (compared to boys) teachers as sources of digital literacy education, they are less likely than boys to learn some key skills: just 62 percent of girls have learned anything about how corporations collect and use personal information online, compared to 70 percent of boys, and the difference seems to be almost entirely due to boys’ use of online sources. While the number of boys and girls who learned from parents, teachers, and friends is almost the same, almost twice as many boys as girls learned about this topic from online sources (25 percent compared to 15 percent). However, boys’ greater likelihood of learning about this topic did not translate into a greater practical understanding, as they were just as likely to overestimate how much privacy policies limited sites’ use of their data.94

  • 95 Angrove, Chapter XII.

34Perhaps more significant than the fact that boys are more likely than girls to get their digital literacy education from online sources is that they’re less likely to get it from teachers. Each province and territory has an official curriculum that all of the teachers in that jurisdiction are expected to follow. Thus, while we might expect the number of students who have learned about various topics from teachers to vary by province (depending on the content of that province’s curriculum), it should not vary by gender. The fact that it does suggests that digital literacy has not yet been integrated into the curricula of most provinces or territories in Canada and, in the cases where it has been, that curriculum is not being implemented in all schools and classrooms. Instead, digital skills are only available to students whose teachers have a special interest in the subject or to students who have the interest and agency to ask for them. In keeping with Angrove’s recommendation for educational reform that incorporates respect for diversity and equality,95 it is also clear that what is needed to ensure that girls are able to engage with both the challenges and opportunities facing them online is a comprehensive digital literacy and digital citizenship program that will not just make sure that these topics are included in provincial and territorial curricula but provide teachers with the resources and professional development they need to bring them into their classrooms. A comprehensive curriculum is also required to ensure that the broad range of skills that make up digital literacy – from media literacy skills to emotion regulation, online ethics, and active citizenship – are all included, and that teachers receive the training they need to be able to teach them effectively. Standardizing curriculum will also make it possible to formally evaluate digital literacy programs and materials to ensure that schools are using those that are most effective.

Notes

1 Lisa M. Jones, Kimberly J. Mitchell & Wendy A. Walsh, Evaluation of Internet Child Safety Materials Used by ICAC Task Forces in School and Community Settings, Final Report (Durham, NH: Crimes Against Children Research Center, 2012), <https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/242016.pdf>.

2 Steven Roberts & Aziz Douai, “Moral Panics and Cybercrime: How Canadian Media Cover Internet Child Luring,” Journal of Canadian Media Studies 10 (2012), <http://cjms.fims.uwo.ca/issues/10-01/DouaiRoberts.pdf>.

3 David Finkelhor, The Internet, Youth Safety and the Problem of “Juvenoia” (Durham, NH: Crimes Against Children Research Center, January 2011), last modified January 2011, <http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/Juvenoia%20paper.pdf>.

4 Valerie Steeves, Young Canadians in a Wired World, Phase III: Talking to Youth and Parents about Life Online (Ottawa: MediaSmarts, 2012), <http://mediasmarts.ca/sites/default/files/pdfs/publication-report/full/YCWWIII-youth-parents.pdf>.

5 Ibid., at 29.

6 Bell cited in Ben Rooney, “Women and Children First: Technology and Moral Panic,” TechEurope (blog), Wall Street Journal, 11 July 2011, <http://blogs.wsj.com/tech-europe/2011/07/11/women-and-childrenfirst-technology-and-moral-panic/>.

7 Steeves, supra note 4 at 29.

8 Sonia Livingstone, “Online Risk, Harm and Vulnerability: Reflections on the Evidence Base for Child Internet Safety Policy,” Zer 18:35 (2013): 13–28, <http://www.ehu.es/zer/hemeroteca/pdfs/zer35-01-livingstone.pdf>.

9 Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), The Safe Use of New Technologies (Manchester, UK: 2010), <http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20141124154759/http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/safe-use-of-new-technologies>.

10 “History,” MediaSmarts, <http://mediasmarts.ca/about-us/history>.

11 “Digital Literacy Fundamentals,” MediaSmarts, <http://mediasmarts.ca/digital-media-literacy-fundamentals/digital-literacy-fundamentals>.

12 Anne Collier, “Why Digital Citizenship’s a Hot Topic,” NetFamily-News.org, (blog), 23 September 2010, <http://www.netfamilynews.org/why-digital-citizenships-a-hot-topic-globally>.

13 Albert Bandura, “Social Cognition Theory of Moral Thought and Action,” in Handbook of Moral Behavior and Development: Volume 1: Theory, eds. William M. Kurtines & Jacob L. Gewirtz (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1991), 45–103.

14 Christina Regenboen, Daniel A. Schneider, Andreas Finkelmeyer, Nils Kohn, Birgit Derntl, Thilo Kellerman, Raquel E. Gur, Frank Schneider & Ute Habel, “The Differential Contribution of Facial Expressions, Prosody, and Speech Content to Empathy,” Cognition & Emotion 26 (2012): 995–1014, doi:10.1080/02699931.2011.631296.

15 James R. Rest, Moral Development: Advances in Research and Theory (New York: Praeger, 1986).

16 Carrie James with Katie Davis, Andrea Flores, John M. Francis, Lindsay Pettingill, Margaret Rundle & Howard Gardner, “Young People, Ethics, and the New Digital Media: A Synthesis from the Good Play Project,” GoodWork Project Report Series, No. 54. Project Zero (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education, 2008.)

17 Steeves, supra note 4.

18 Ibid.

19 Micah L. Sifry, “Children’s Crusade: A Primer on How Britain’s Students Are Organising Using Social Media,” TechPresident (blog), 29 November 2010, <http://techpresident.com/blog-entry/childrens-crusadeprimer-how-britains-students-are-organising-using-social-media>.

20 Greg Toppo, “Kids Upload and Unload on School Cafeteria Lunches,” USA Today, 2 December 2013, <http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/02/school-lunch-photos/3784625/>.

21 Steeves, supra note 4.

22 Megan Boldt, “Osseo High-Schooler Battles Taunts with Tweets,” Pioneer-Press, 9 September 2012, <http://www.twincities.com/education/ci_21656149/osseo-high-schooler-battles-taunts-tweets>.

23 Steeves, supra note 4.

24 Soraya Chemaly, Jaclyn Friedman & Laura Bates, “An Open Letter to Facebook,” HuffPost Tech (blog), 21 May 2013, <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/an-open-letter-to-faceboo_1_b_3307394.html>.

25 “Media Literacy Fundamentals,” MediaSmarts, <http://mediasmarts.ca/digital-media-literacy-fundamentals/media-literacy-fundamentals>.

26 Steeves, supra note 4.

27 Ibid.

28 Ibid.

29 John Dewey, How We Think (Boston: D. C. Heath, 1910).

30 “MyWorld: A Digital Literacy Tutorial for Secondary Students,” MediaSmarts, <http://mediasmarts.ca/game/myworld-digitialliteracy-tutorial-secondary-students>.

31 “Stay on the Path: Teaching Kids to be Safe and Ethical Online Portal Page,” MediaSmarts, <http://mediasmarts.ca/stay-path-teachingkids-be-safe-and-ethical-online-portal-page>.

32 Jessica Ringrose, Rosalind Gill, Sonia Livingstone & Laura Harvey, Qualitative Study of Children, Young People and “Sexting”: A Report Prepared for the NSPCC (London: NSPCC, 2012), <http://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/research-and-resources/qualitative-study-sexting/>.

33 Tara Culp-Ressler, “Study Finds That Sexting Doesn’t Actually Ruin Young Adults’ Lives,” ThinkProgress (blog), 10 September 2013, <http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/09/10/2599811/study-sexting-college/>.

34 Steeves, supra note 4.

35 Ibid.

36 Culp-Ressler, supra note 33.

37 Ibid.

38 Jessica Ringrose, Laura Harvey, Rosalind Gill & Sonia Livingstone, “Teen Girls, Sexual Double Standards and ‘Sexting’: Gendered Value in Digital Image Exchange,” Feminist Theory 14 (2013): 305–23, <http://www.academia.edu/3581896/Ringrose_J_Harvey_L_Gill_R._and_Livingstone_S._2013_Teen_girls_sexual_double_standards_and_sexting_Gendered_value_in_digital_image_exchange_Feminist_Theory>.

39 Steeves, supra note 4.

40 Ringrose et al, supra note 38.

41 Ibid.

42 Elizabeth Englander, Low Risk Associated with Most Teenage Sexting: A Study of 617 18-Year-Olds, MARC Research Reports Paper 6 (Bridgewater, MA: Massachusetts Aggression Reduction Center, 2012), <http://webhost.bridgew.edu/marc/SEXTING%20AND%20COERCION%20report.pdf>.

43 Think before You Share, MediaSmarts, <http://mediasmarts.ca/sites/default/files/pdfs/tipsheet/TipSheet_Think_Before_You_Share.pdf>.

44 Ringrose et al, supra note 38.

45 Ibid.

46 “Girls and Boys on Television,” MediaSmarts, <http://mediasmarts.ca/lessonplan/girls-and-boys-television>; “Gender Messages in Alcohol Advertising,” MediaSmarts, <http://mediasmarts.ca/sites/mediasmarts/files/pdfs/lesson-plan/Lesson_Gender_Messages_Alcohol_Advertising.pdf>.

47 Talking to Kids about Gender Stereotypes, MediaSmarts, <http://mediasmarts.ca/sites/default/files/pdfs/tipsheet/TipSheet_Talking_Kids_Gender_Stereotypes.pdf>; Little Princesses and Fairy Tale Stereotypes, MediaSmarts, <http://mediasmarts.ca/backgrounder/little-princesses-and-fairy-tale-stereotypes>.

48 Steeves, supra note 4.

49 Ibid.

50 Privacy Pirates: An Interactive Unit on Online Privacy (Ages 7–9), MediaSmarts, <http://mediasmarts.ca/game/privacy-pirates-interactiveunit-online-privacy-ages-7-9>.

51 “Online Marketing to Kids: Protecting Your Privacy — Lesson,” MediaSmarts, <http://mediasmarts.ca/lessonplan/online-marketing-kidsprotecting-your-privacy-lesson>; “The Privacy Dilemma: Lesson Plan for Senior Classrooms,” MediaSmarts, <http://mediasmarts.ca/lessonplan/privacy-dilemma-lesson-plan-senior-classrooms>.

52 Steeves, supra note 4.

53 danah boyd, It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014).

54 Alice Marwick & danah boyd, “The Drama! Teen Conflict, Gossip, and Bullying in Networked Publics.” Paper presented at A Decade in Internet Time: Symposium on the Dynamics of the Internet and Society, Oxford, UK, 21 to 23 September 2011.

55 Steeves, supra note 4.

56 Ibid.

57 David Bornstein, “Fighting Bullying with Babies,” Opinionator (blog), New York Times, 28 November 2010, <http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/08/fighting-bullying-with-babies/>.

58 Elizabeth Kandel Englander, Bullying and Cyberbullying: What Every Educator Needs to Know (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2013), 76.

59 Silvia Diazgranados Ferráns, Robert L. Selman & Luba Falk Feigenberg, “Rules of the Culture and Personal Needs: Witnesses’ Decision-Making Processes to Deal with Situations of Bullying in Middle School,” Harvard Educational Review 82 (2012): 445–470, <http://her.hepg.org/content/4u5v1n8q67332v03/fulltext.pdf>.

60 MediaSmarts, supra note 31.

61 Steeves, supra note 4.

62 Janine M. Zweig, Meredith Dank, Pamela Lachman & Jennifer Yahner, Technology, Teen Dating Violence and Abuse, and Bullying (Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2013), <https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/243296.pdf>.

63 Steeves, supra note 4.

64 Antonia Zerbisias, “Internet Trolls an Online Nightmare for Young Women,” Toronto Star, 18 January 2013, <http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2013/01/18/internet_trolls_an_online_nightmare_for_young_women.htm>.

65 Steeves, supra note 4.

66 Ibid.

67 K. L. Gray, “Deviant Bodies, Stigmatized Identities, and Racist Acts: Examining the Experiences of African-American Gamers in Xbox Live,” New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia 18:4 (2012): 261–276, doi:10.1080/13614568.2012.746740.

68 Jeffrey H. Kuznekoff & Lindsey M. Rose, “Communication in Multiplayer Gaming: Examining Player Responses to Gender Cues,” New Media & Society 15:4 (2013): 541–556, doi:10.1177/1461444812458271.

69 Southern Poverty Law Center, “Misogyny: The Sites,” Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report 145 (Spring 2012), <http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/misogyny-the-sites>.

70 Phyllis B. Gerstenfeld, Diana R. Grant & Chau-Pu Chiang, “Hate Online: A Content Analysis of Extremist Internet Sites,” Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 3:1 (2003): 29–44, <http://floodhelp.uno.edu/uploads/Content%20Analysis/Gertstenfeld.pdf>.

71 Robert C. Rowland & Kirsten Theye, “The Symbolic DNA of Terrorism,” Communication Monographs 75 (2008): 52–85, doi:10.1080/03637750701885423.

72 Randy Blazak, “From White Boys to Terrorist Men: Target Recruitment of Nazi Skinheads,” American Behavioral Scientist 44 (2001): 982–1000, <http://www.sagepub.com/martin3study/articles/Blazak.pdf>.

73 Priscilla Marie Meddaugh & Jack Kay, “Hate Speech or ‘Reasonable Racism?’ The Other in Stormfront,” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 24 (2009): 251–268, <http://journalismethics.info/JMME%20-%20Hate%20Speech%20or%20Reasonable%20Racism.pdf>.

74 Lacy G. McNamee, Brittany L. Peterson & Jorge Peña, “A Call to Educate, Participate, Invoke and Indict: Understanding the Communication of Online Hate Groups,” Communication Monographs 77 (2010): 257–280, doi:10.1080/03637751003758227.

75 Rowland & Theye, supra note 71.

76 “Facing Online Hate: Portal Page,” MediaSmarts, <http://mediasmarts.ca/facing-online-hate-portal-page>.

77 Moss E. Norman, “Embodying the Double-Bind of Masculinity: Young Men And Discourses of Normalcy, Health, Heterosexuality, and Individualism,” Men and Masculinities 14 (2011): 430–449, doi:10.1177/1097184X11409360.

78 See Bailey, Chapter I: Steeves, Chapter VI.

79 Cheryl, “May Vogue Visits the Future and the Future Is Missing a Clavicle,” Jezebel, 6 May 2008, <http://jezebel.com/387701/may-voguevisits-the-future-and-the-future-is-missing-a-clavicle>.

80 Marika Tiggemann, Amy Slater & Veronica Smyth, “‘Retouch Free’: The Effect of Labelling Media Images as Not Digitally Altered on Women’s Body Dissatisfaction,” Body Image 11 (2014): 85–88, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1740144513001083.

81 Dr. Barbara McAneny cited in “AMA Adopts New Policies at Annual Meeting,” American Medical Association, last modified 21 June 2011, <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/a11-new-policies.page>.

82 Erin Anderssen, “In an Airbrushed World, How Do You Define What’s Truly Hot?” Globe and Mail, 1 March 2012, last updated 6 September 2012, <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/parenting/inan-airbrushed-world-how-do-you-define-whats-truly-hot/article550540/?page=all>.

83 Deidre Stalnaker, “On the Cover, in the Mirror,” Research Magazine, 21 January 2010, <http://research.ua.edu/2010/01/on-the-coverin-the-mirror/>.

84 Connie Morrison, Who Do They Think They Are? Teenage Girls & Their Avatars in Spaces of Social Online Communication (New York: Peter Lang, 2010).

85 Ibid.

86 Randye Hoder, “For Teenage Girls, Facebook Means Always Being Camera-Ready,” Motherlode: Living in the Family Dynamic (blog), New York Times, 7 March 2012, <http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/for-teenage-girls-facebook-means-always-being-camera-ready/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0>.

87 Marika Tiggemann & Amy Slater, “NetGirls: The Internet, Facebook, and Body Image Concern in Adolescent Girls,” International Journal of Eating Disorders 46:6 (2013): 630–633, <http://www.adelaide.edu.au/hda/news/T1_Slater.pdf>; Steeves, supra note 4 at 29; Mark Hoelzel, “New Study Shows Instagram and Snapchat Beating Twitter among Teens and Young Adults,” Business Insider, 13 March 2014, <http://www.businessinsider.com/instagram-and-snapchat-are-more-popular-than-twitter-amongteens-and-young-adults-sai-2014-3>.

88 Alex Cohen, “Countering the Online World of ‘Pro-Anorexia,’” 27 February 2009, <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101210192>.

89 Stephanie Tom Tong, Daria Heinemann-LaFave, Jehoon Jeon, Renata Kolodziej-Smith & Nathaniel Warshay, “The Use of Pro-Ana Blogs for Online Social Support,” Eating Disorders: The Journal of Treatment and Prevention 21 (2013): 408–422, <ttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24044597>.

90 Zali Yager & Jennifer A. O’Dea, “Prevention Programs for Body Image and Eating Disorders on University Campuses: A Review of Large, Controlled Interventions,” Health Promotion International 23:2 (2008): 173–189, <http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/2/173.abstract>.

91 Niva Piran, Michael P. Levine & Lori M. Irving, “GO GIRLS! Media Literacy, Activism and Advocacy Project,” Healthy Weight Journal 14 (2000): 89–90, <http://www.moreofmetolove.com/resources/article/go-girls-media-literacy-activism-and-advocacy-project/>.

92 MediaSmarts, supra note 47.

93 Steeves, supra note 4.

94 Ibid.

95 Angrove, Chapter XII.

Auteur

Director of Education for MediaSmarts, Canada’s centre for digital and media literacy. He is the designer of the comprehensive digital literacy tutorials “Passport to the Internet” (grades 4 to 8) and “MyWorld” (grades 9 to 12). He has contributed blogs and articles to websites and magazines around the world; has been interviewed hundreds of times in print, radio, and television;and has also presented MediaSmarts’ materials on topics such as copyright, cyberbullying, body image, and online hate to governments, academic conferences, and organizations around the world, frequently as a keynote speaker. Matthew is an acclaimed writer of science fiction whose collection of short stories, Irregular Verbs and Other Stories, was published in June 2014 to considerable acclaim; he also serves on the board of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America

Acheter

Volume papier

amazon.fr