Gender differencesincmc
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Gender differencesincmc

on

  • 1,027 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,027
Views on SlideShare
847
Embed Views
180

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0

17 Embeds 180

http://historiayculturab2010.blogspot.com 88
http://historiayculturab2010.blogspot.mx 28
http://historiayculturab2010.blogspot.ca 12
http://historiayculturab2010.blogspot.com.es 8
http://historiayculturab2010.blogspot.com.ar 6
http://historiayculturab2010.blogspot.gr 6
http://www.historiayculturab2010.blogspot.com 6
http://historiayculturab2010.blogspot.ro 6
http://historiayculturab2010.blogspot.tw 3
http://historiayculturab2010.blogspot.be 3
http://historiayculturab2010-xelo.blogspot.com 3
http://www.slideshare.net 3
http://historiayculturab2010.blogspot.no 2
http://historiayculturab2010.blogspot.pt 2
http://www.historiayculturab2010.blogspot.com.es 2
http://historiayculturab2010.blogspot.co.at 1
http://historiayculturab2010.blogspot.co.uk 1
More...

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Gender differencesincmc Gender differencesincmc Presentation Transcript

    • GENDER DIFFERENCES IN CMC: FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS SUSAN C. HERRING SUBJECT: Culture TEACHER: Patricia Bou STUDENT: Consuelo Hernández
    • BACKGROUND
      • In the mid-1990’s, with the early population of the Internet, gender has been claimed to be invisible in text-based computer-mediated communication (CMC)- the absence of physical cues as to a message sender’s identity was thought to remove all trace of information as to gender, race, social class, etc. from the message, making the medium inherently democratic and egalitarian.
      • The first published research on gender and CMC appeared in the late 1980’s, a period characterized by general optimism regarding the potential of the Internet to provide increased opportunities for traditionally subordinate groups.
      • The findings of some studies, like Smith and Balka’s report (1988) or Graddol and Swann’s studies (1989), in contrast with the optimism of the 80’s, tended to problematize claims of gender-free equality in cyberspace. Selfe and Meyer (1991) found that some individual women reported felt freer to participate when their messages were anonymous.
      • Herring (1993) found that women were more likely than men to react aversively to aggression in online interaction, including falling silent and dropping out of listsery groups.
      • These findings raise an apparent paradox: how can gender disparity persist in an anonymous medium which allegedly renders gender invisible?
      • ASYNCHRONOUS CMC
      • “ Anonymity” : The asynchronous CMC on the Internet offers the theoretical possibility of anonymity, however, in practice true anonimity is somewhat difficult to achieve. In fact, users are not necessarily interested in exploiting the potential for anonymous interaction,but most participants interact in their real-life identities, without attempting to disguise their gender. Text-only CMC is less revealing of personal information than face-to-face communication, and some user names are neutral as to gender.
      • On the other hand, gender is often visible on the Internet on the basis of features of a participant’s discourse style. Users “give off” information about their gender unconsciously in interaction. Text alone is sufficient to influence.
      • The linguistic features , as well as in face-to-face interaction, include verbosity, assertiveness, use of profanity, politeness, typed representations of smiling and laughter, and degree of interactive engagement. There is a tendency for some of these behaviors to correlate more with female CMC users, and for others to correlate more with males.
      • In asynchronous CMC, males are more likely to post longer messages, begin and close discussions in mixed-sex groups, assert opinions strongly as “facts”, use crude language, and in general, manifest an adversarial orientation towards their interlocutors, even in cooperative exchanges. In contrast, females tend to post relatively short messages, and are more likely to qualify and justify their assertions, apologize, and in general manifest an “aligned” orientation towards their interlocutors, even when they disagree with one another. Also, women tend to be more aggressive in male-dominated groups than among other women, and men tend to be less aggressive in female-dominated groups than in groups controlled by men.
      • According to the politeness , women are more likely to thank, appreciate and apologize, and to be upset by violations of politeness. They more often challenge offenders who violate online rules of conduct. In contrast, men criticize and insult, and tend to violate rules of conduct. In a number of documentated cases, repeated aggression from disruptive males has forced women-centered online communities to disband, and/or reconfigure themselves with stric rules and regulations regarding acceptable participant conduct.
      • It’s suggested that women participate more actively and enjoy more in enviorenments with norms of interaction controlled by an individual or individuals entrusted with maintaining order and focus in the group. It makes sense if the leader’s role is seen as one of ensuring a civil enviorenment, free from threats of disruption and harassment. This need for such insurance points to the fundamental failure of “self-regulation” democracy on the Internet to produce anything like equitable participation. Males cite it “censorship” as the greatest threa to the Internet, while females cite “privacy” as their greatest concern.
    • SYNCHRONOUS CMC
      • (synchronous= “real-time”)
      • Gender disparity operates in asynchronous computer-mediated communication, despite the potential of the medium to neutralize gender differences. Grossman (1997) especulates that the real world power hierarchies in professional groups cause the observed gender disparities. This kind of power dynamics, and hence gender difference, should be irrelevant in causal chat in which users have no real-world connections. Danet (1998) points out that recreational chat environments encourage users to take on pseudonyms.
      • Both synchronous and asynchronous CMC differs and resembles each other. Other studies show that males and females tend to participate more equally in chat environments, both in terms of number of messages and average message length, although females tend to receive more responses to their messages than males. But it doesn’t indicate that binary gender is invisible or irrelevant in recreational chat.
      • There is also differences in discourse style . Cherny (1994) found that female -presenting characters used mostly neutral and affectionate verbs, while males characters used more violent verbs, especially in actions directed towards other males. Similarly, Herring (1998) found that females on IRC (recreational chat) typed three times as many representations of smiling and laughter as did males.
      • According to the message length , there is little variation.
      • On the other hand, recreational chat modes are typically populated by more males than females, but those females who do participate receive a disproportionate amount of attention, much of it sexual in natura. Females tend to assume gender-neutral pseudonyms in order to avoid sexual attention, while males assume female-sounding names in order to attract it. However, pseudonyms alone are insufficient to mask online gender.
      • Pavel Curtis (1992) concluded that most participants interact as themselves, regardless of the name or character description they choose. The longer someone participates, the more likely it is that they will reveal their actual gender.
      • Thus gender differences persist, despite the greater anonymity and lack of an externally-imposed power hierarchy in synchronous CMC.
    • DISCUSSION
      • Several tendencies emerge:
      • -tendency for Internet users to display features of culturally-learned styles in their typed messages.
      • -tendency for gender differences to work to the disavantage of women.
      • But, why binary gender persist in CMC?
      • It seems to be that computer networks do not guarantee gender-free or equal-opportunity interaction because people generally do not disguise their gender when they engage in interaction with other people online, even when their gender works to their disavantage.
    • IMPLICATIONS, PRESENT AND FUTURE
      • Conventional gender styles interact with the broader Internet context to create a public online climate that is generally less hospitable to women than to men.
      • There are practical implications for women’s participation in CMC:
      • When women do log on to the Internet, they self-report exchanging more private e-mail than participating in public discussion groups and chat rooms, whereas for men the order of participation is reversed.
      • Also, more and more women are getting online and using the Internet for their own purposes like interact in limited access, women-friendly groups.
      • The growing rise in popularity of semi-private, commercial online domains suggests that controled access communication enviorenments may be the way of the future.
      • As a conclusion, it can be said that the great civil libertarian experiment that was the Internet of the 1980’s and 1990’s stands to have implications for the territory that men and women will occupy and dispute-on the Internet of the 21st century.