Life in the Network

Reading Gurak's ideas on gender were interesting. She described the roots of the internet and how gender roles present themselves even though some claimed that on the internet "There is no race", and "There is no gender" (Gurak 66). Having worked in an engineering department that's 99% male, I can readily imagine that male engineers and programmers were responsible for the design of the Internet. The internet may very well have been designed based on a masculine style of communication.

I was concerned with a few of Gurak's assertions. She implied that commands like "abort" have some sort of feminine connotation (Gurak 71). I think that her reasoning was really strained on that one. After that claim she states "...no wonder women are still having trouble gaining access to cyberspace" (Gurak 71). Even if the term was taken from the concept of a woman having an abortion, I don't see how that could prevent a woman from accessing cyberspace.

Gurak then goes on to discuss the concept of "flaming", which basically is challenging or assaulting someone online (Gurak 73). Her description of the conversation on page 72 seems a little biased. Yes the "flamer" was assertive and rude, but I think that the wording of the woman's statement seemed a bit combative as well. This seems to be a good example of how people need to be careful how they phrase there communications in email and messenger style chat sessions.

I also took exception to Gurak's implication on page 75 that the flame stickers on the "Hot Wheels" style of children's computer had any relation to the concept of flaming in an email message. That flame logo happens to have been on Hot Wheel cars for well over 25 years. I don't see how she could justify that assertion.

I don’t think that Gurak was taking care to be objective when she wrote this chapter. Her claims that the roots of the virtual world are male biased seems a little strange. From her perspective, there can never be any balance because the core of the programming and the equipment has a male slant. I don't see how software, which at its core is a collection of ones and zeros, can have a male bias. She implies on page 72 that the hardware of the computers have a male bias. That is absolutely ridiculous. This makes it sound as if the issue can never be resolved because the equipment and the programming's roots are tainted.

What we really need to consider is the different communications styles that masculine and feminine genders utilize. In that sense, the virtual world was most likely designed from the standpoint of a masculine communicator. This is where Deborah Tannen's Genderlects theory comes into play. Tannen states that male and female conversation is cross-cultural communication (A First Look at Communication, Em Griffin). This vantage seems fairer and doesn't assign blame as Gurak's ideas seem to. If we consider Tannen's point of view, the whole thing isn't tainted, maybe we just need to work on creating sites that suit both gender's communication style.

I found Turkle's ideas to be a bit more interesting and well thought out. It's interesting that people have frequently portrayed themselves as the opposite sex. The internet seems to be a safe place for a person to create a whole new persona or walk in another person's shoes.

It's an amusing coincidence that people (of either sex) who portrayed themselves as the opposite sex had similar experiences. Both Zoe on page 221 and Case on page 220 shared that they felt as if they could be more assertive when they were claiming to be the opposite sex. Both felt this way because they didn't have to worry about the negative stereotypes that either sex suffered in regards to being assertive in conversation.

I've never tried it but think that this could be valuable if used in other realms. People could take a sort of virtual trip to see what it's like to be a different race or religion. This could really help people better understand one another. It sounds like people find it rewarding when they portray other people.

I guess as long as you accept the possibility that the person you are talking to might be the opposite of who they claim to be, you can walk away from it with something positive. I usually only discuss technical issues with other people online. I don't really care who they are as long as their nice to me. Then again, I might get faster replies from people at the Jeep Forum if I say I'm a 25 year old super model. There are just a few female Jeep owners that frequent the site.

I definitely think that kids need to be careful when they venture online. The thought of online predators makes my skin crawl. On the other hand, the virtual world sounds like it could help kids that, like me, were really shy. It's a new way for them to be able to talk with other people. Escape and communication can be a good thing when you are a teenager.

Meez is funny. I can see it really taking off. It's another way for people to portray themselves in a different way. I set one up for myself. I don't know if I'll use it much. In the past, I've used a favorite landscape photo or a picture of my cat sitting next to a little statue of Buddha. I like doing that better than using Meez. It feels like I'm expressing myself when I use a pic that I shot myself.