[논문] 정보통신커뮤니케이션에서 젠더 이슈

Women
In Action covers a broad range of issues affecting women globally, but
focusing on the particular needs and concerns of women in the Global
South, and forwarding a progressive perspective tempered by the experiences
of the thirld world women’s movements.

No. 2, 2002

Gender Issues in
Information Technology Communication

by Esther Kuntjara

One of the mailing
lists I have been part of for over a year now is a women뭩 list-group
called perempuan [woman]. While the group was discussing a certain issue,
one member (tagged CP) jumped in and suggested that one of the discussants
(tagged DH) had to be a male despite the obviously female name used.
According to CP, who acknowledged herself as female, because DH was
always critical in her/his messages regarding the issues discussed and
was aggressive in asserting his/her ideas, DH had to be a man. CP also
attributed her suspicion that DH was a man to the language DH used.
While the sexual identity of a member of a list-group may be concealed,
apparently, some can still detect this through the language the person
uses.

Many researches
in gender and communication studies contend that women and men do differ
in their language. In many situations, women뭩 language is considered
more cooperative, submissive or sensitive to others?feelings, lacking
in self confidence, passive, unaggresive, and more polite than men뭩.
Men뭩 language is characterised as aggressive, assertive, full of confidence,
matter-of-fact, and critical; in addition, men interrupt more frequently
(Tannen, 1990). These findings suggest that women뭩 language is powerless,
a reflection of women뭩 subordinate status in the society (Lakoff, 1975).

Women thus end up
using polite language to raise their status and gain respect from others.
Men, on the other hand, with their usually higher social status, have
more freedom to choose the language style they want. They are not compelled
to show ex-cessive politeness or 밽ood?language style in their speech
(Tannen, 1990). Although these findings cannot be considered universal
in that they apply to all men and women, regardless of disparate socio-cultural
backgrounds, these perceived differences reinforce gendered stereotypes
of men and women. No wonder CP, in the example above, suspected DH,
who was often critical and voluble, to be male.

In computer-mediated
communication, especially in the widely accessible multi-participant
discourses, participants may contribute simultaneously and are liberated
from the need to secure the next speaking turn or to forestall interruption
by other participants. This causes the proliferation and overlapping
of messages more than other written media. Such relative freedom increases
the chances of hostile and abusive messages, known in Net jargon as
flaming. While flaming is often considered masculine because of the
widely held notion that males more easily get angry and tend to use
abusive language than women, the women, whose identity are comfortably
concealed in IT communication, might also yield to the liberty of flaming
without the risk of being branded a(stereo)typical. Hence, when users?
names are obscured, both men and women might be persuaded to use a language
without thought to its gender-based appropriateness (Herring, 1994).

Indeed there is
Netiquette to observe for anyone who joins a list discussion group.
Some personal information may also be requested before one is granted
access to the discussion group. However, the nature of this futuristic
technology is that it seems to free users from the limitation of the
physical world, including the stereotyping of gender characteristics.
It suggests a more democratic society that would subsume racial and
gender boundaries.

Several studies,
however, show that even when a user뭩 name does not clearly show the
owner뭩 gender (atypical names), other users are usually able to sense
this from the messages he/she posts. Recent linguistic studies of computer-mediated
discourse have illustrated that statistically and qualitatively, women
and men have different ways of conducting themselves electronically.
Male users are known to dominate mixed-sex electronic conversations.
They have also been found to be the more frequent instigators of online
sexual harassment. Another study found that the men, even in Cyberspaces
overtly formed for discussions on feminism, pre-empt the women discussants
by employing the same techniques they use in face-to-face interaction.
It has even been found that the masculine discursive style in electronic
conversations is seldom found between strangers conversing in the real,
real-time world. Meanwhile, the women who deliberately use harsh words
do so apologetically (Hall, 1994). For instance, CP, who 밶ccused?DH
of being a man, she further said: 밿f I am wrong, please forgive me.
. . Again I apologise for my impudence or even my stupidity. For other
users, if I am wrong, please don뭪 regard this, ok.?CP뭩 message shows
her apprehension lest by her suspicion, she is hurting somebody. Her
civility is rare in another mailing list I am a member of where the
men are blasé about their cynical comments. The contrast is illustrated
in a university-based discussion group (the names are abbreviated):

PP (male): 밡YONYA
MENEER-MARKETING ROAD SHOW TO CAMPUS?GRATIS

The first generation gave birth,

The second generation built,

The third generation destroyed!

BL (male): An interesting
seminar. I wonder in what generation are we now?

TT (male): Why wonder,
BL?we are in the fifth generation?-)))

FI (male) : BL뭩
question could have been a good topic for a seminar or like TT뭩 answer,
we뭨e already the tenth generation of 밒 know what I want?

BC (male): . . .
밒 know what I want?is the slogan of the present generation or next
generation? Cause I know the present young generation뭩 slogan is 밣u
tauw [a kind of drug] is what I want? He?he?he?

TT (male): 멿ieur?
[confused, and ignorant] generation?/font>

OY (female): Wow,
Mr. TT, only Mr. A [a colleague who happened to be someone who comes
from the same ethnic group as OY and uses the same language as TT and
OY have used.] and I understand, what about the others?

LK (male): As an
introduction we뭗 better read the book 밫he history of Nyonya Meneer
herbs company?published by PT Grasindo. I happened to get the book
from Mr. Charles Saerang himself when he attended the opening exhibition
of TA PPKAI last night. It뭩 quite interesting since it contains a lot
of family intrigues in order to gain power over the company.

PP (male): Sorry,
this announcement is an invitation. I didn뭪 expect it to be a discussion
about us. This is a seminar on family business, so it isn뭪 proper to
be referred to us. We don뭪 do business?or perhaps I am wrong?are
we really doing some family business??/font>

In this instance,
the discussion began with PP뭩 announcement of a seminar, which he meant
to be an invitation to all university members. But the response elicited
from the other male members was mostly snide comments. The only female
member (OY) who joined in chose to respond to TT뭩 disparaging use of
a foreign word뾩ieur [confused and ignorant]뾲o refer to the young generation뭩
fascination with pu tauw [a kind of drug]. OY concluded that only two
of the discussion participants, herself and Mr. A besides TT understood
the context of TT뭩 comment. She then suggested this was not fair to
the others. No one responded to OY뭩 comment. The next message came
from a man who tried to bring the discussion back to the invitation
being disseminated.

Not only are women
more cautious in their postings, they also tend to act more like a moral
advocate in joining a discussion. OY in the above assertion might have
wanted to join in posting snide comments like the other male discussants
by referring to the word lieur to comment on, since the word is often
used in the figurative meaning referring to drug users or abnormal people.
However, OY did not really relate her comment on the meaning of the
word itself. Instead she used her comment about the use of the word
for a different purpose, i.e. to remind the list group that it was not
fair to use a language that was not understood by most of the list members.
Other members might have felt uncomfortable with OY뭩 remark but were
reluctant to admit that the use of the word is indeed unfair. Perhaps
they might have been reluctant to comment on a more serious posting
in the midst of their snide comments. Or, they could have felt useless
to prolong OY뭩 posting which did not seem to follow their mood. Hence,
even when a woman has posted her comment, the replies are often not
responded similarly as when the men respond to other men뭩 postings.

Besides the frequent
apologies, the women also tend to write shorter messages and gently
reproach those that wrote long messages. They contribute more overt
expressions of agreement, appreciation and support. They also hedge
and present their assertions indirectly as suggestions. Another research
found that a small male minority dominates the discussion in terms of
amount of talk (Herring, 1993). When women do attempt to participate
on a more equal basis, they risk being ignored by the men. Because of
social conditioning that makes women uncomfortable with direct conflict,
they are intimidated by these delegitimisation practices and instead
avoid participating.

The gender differences
observed in online conversation suggest that women prefer a 뱑apport?
style, which is cooperative and intimate, while the men generally speak
in the tone of a 뱑eport,?that is, their postings sound as if they
are simply providing information (Tannen, 1990). The postings in another
cross-gender mailing list of a Christian group I joined a few years
ago confirm these discrepancies in speaking style of men and women.
The men뭩 postings were mostly on political debate and discussions of
Christianity (in one month, the men generated a total 546 postings on
politics and questions on Christianity, and the women, a combined eight
postings). Many of the women뭩 postings, moreover, dealt with health
problem or information about certain events. Hence, men seem to be more
confident in making arguments or debates about more thought provoking
issues, women are more confident in narrating experiences of domestic
concerns which show more solidarity spirit than making arguments like
men do.

Discussion groups
of international scope open up more opportunities for cross-gender online
communication, and this can be seen even in student-based groups that
link members to their peers in other countries (Michel, 1992). In such
spaces, the differences in social status and gender are less marked,
and the boundaries of a student community are indeed broken. A participant
does not need to break into any particular clique or take social risks
in order to hold a conversation with someone she/he would normally not
talk to.

A study of young
women in virtual communities found that these women fully realised that
by their participation in discussion groups, they were breaking away
from gendered roles (Kaplan and Farrell, 1994). With the men, a common
reason for their participation in online discussions was to avoid face-to-face
personal communication. But for the women, they joined online discussions
precisely to supplement and enhance their communication with others.
The study stresses that as more and more women grow up with new information
technologies forming part of their everyday reality, the stereotyping
of technology as a masculine domain and practice will necessarily fall
apart. The premised breakdown of gender boundaries offers a radical
shift in our ways of understanding the complex intersection of gender,
technology and culture. Women뭩 representation on the Internet could
help increase their involvement in social development (Ekelin, 1999).

Various researches
suggest that when women뭩 representation is no longer biologically based,
as it sometimes happens on cyber space, the Internet can be empowering
to women. It allows women to be active and constructive. It allows their
voices to be heard, and serves as a mechanism for the consideration
of their ideas and insights. The Internet could contribute to the construction
of knowledge by both men and women.

However, the Internet
can also be seen as a place where the same stereotypes of gender identity
are recreated. It could end up yet another medium reflecting the constraints
imposed by a society dominated by capitalism and patriarchy, and therefore,
still another problematic site for women.

Esther
Kuntjara got her Ph.D. from Indiana University of Pennsylvania, USA.
Her main interest is in the study of gender and language. She is currently
a lecturer at the Faculty of Letters, Petra Christian University, Surabaya,
Indonesia.

References:

Ekelin, A. Writing: A Way to Knowledge and Empowerment,
1999. Retrieved 22 June 2002,

Also
in this Issue:

Get
in and Get in Early:Ensuring women뭩 access to and participation in
ICT projects

Moulding
ICT to Their Needs:Kerala뭩 Women Overcome Their Misgivings

Women Connect! Case study of an alternative
communication model

ICT Applications in Latin America: From Information
to Knowledge Building

Internet Cafes: Connectivity for the Masses?

Girls with Digital Diaries: Empowerment Issues

Telecentres for Universal Access: Engendered
Policy Options

Gender Issues in Information Technology Communication

The Right to Communicate: New Challenges for
the Women뭩 Movement

The World Summit on the Information Society and the
Women’s Agenda

---

we’d
like to hear from you

write to the Editors: communications@isiswomen.org

or the Webteam: webteam@isiswomen.org

Not all the titles in the print form
of Women In Action are available in this site though. For the full print
version, you may subscribe or, if you are also publishing women-focused
reading materials, arrange for an exchange of publications.