Date: Wed, Apr 12 93 19:59:35 PST
From: Jim Thomas <cudigest@mindvox.phantom.com>
Subject: File 2--LTES article and Gender on the Nets--Response to
Larry

When CuD ran a special issue on gender and cyberspace in 1991
(#3.00),
it generated the most feedback of any issue to date (see #3.01).
The
responses were passionate, sometimes well-reasoned but more often
highly emotional, and few were middle-ground.  Supporters of the
issue
commented on CuD's "irresponsibility" in not addressing gender
issues
more often and more strongly, expressed frustration at the
unwillingness of (especially males) to not take gender issues more
seriously, and wanted more posts on the politics of on-line gender
issues. Critics accused us of being taken over by lesbian
"femi-nazis"
and "selling out" to the PC ("politically correct") crowd. Some
even
cancelled their subscriptions with comments like "CuD has outlived
its
usefulness," or "this type of discussion has no place in CuD!"

The CuD editors strongly believe that such issues are directly
relevant to cyberspace. Men and women exist. They exist in a state
of
inequality. Discussing whether, and how much, the gender issues
that
exist in the physical world are imported into cyperspace falls
explicitly under the CuD mission of presenting a *diversity* of
views
surrounding computer culture.  So, we welcome Larry Lanwehr's post
(above) for the opportunity to again raise a few questions. 
Although
we are in substantial disagreement with Larry, we appreciate his
willingness to articulate a position probably shared by most Cud
readers. We also recognize that his concerns are not intended as
inflammatory, but are sincere fears about the possibility of
over-control of the nets resulting from self-imposed or
institutionally-imposed constraints.

In his post, Larry comments on an article originally published in
the
London Times Educational Supplement (See CuD #5.18, file 4).  The
author of that piece, Mike Holderness,  presented a summary of the
Internet as a backdrop to suggesting that the net typifies an
"invisible college" (as developed by Diana Crane).  The LTES
article,
as I read it, makes several interesting points.  Three of these are
relevant for cybernauts.  First, electronic networking poses the
potential for circumventing the conventional publishing mechanisms
in
the scientific community, creating an INVISIBLE UNIVERSITY (or in
U.S.
terms, an "invisible college").  Second, the "old boy" networks
that
create barriers in conventional science and technology may also
create
similar barriers in the technoculture.  Third, there may be gender
differences that make the nets a more valuable resource and a more
comfortable community for men than for women.

The value of Larry's post is that, while displaying considerable
suspicion for these conclusions, his comments suggest (and his
private
mail affirms) that he is in essence saying, "Perhaps, but show me
the
data." He has a point: Little hard research exists to substantiate
the
claims, and that which does exist is heavily anecdotal and
inferential. Nonetheless, even though we lack hard data, we can
begin
looking at some of these issues in a way that suggests some fuzzy
potential hypotheses. Perhaps they will provide insight for groups
such as PROJECT-H (a Bitnet research group examining on-line
interaction), and researchers of computer-mediated-communication
(CMC)
or cyber-culture in examining the issues.  Let's take a few of the
LTES's points.

1. DOES THE NET POTENTIALLY CIRCUMVENT CONVENTIONAL PUBLISHING TO
THE
   DETRIMENT OF WOMEN?

This question is probably of least relevance to most CuD readers.
It
does, however, bear on the growing importance of electronic
communication for scholars.  The list of electronic journals is
rapidly expanding, and most disciplines are represented in the
collection. There is even a Bitnet group for discussion of
electronic
publishing (ARACHNET).  It's not clear that this expansion, of
itself,
operates to the detriment of women. There is abundant research
indicating that although women are under-represented in
academically-oriented journals, this under-representation appears
to
be the result of factors in academia rather than the consequence of
significant gender bias in editorial gate-keeping procedures.
Further, most college and university peer review committees and
procedures do not recognize electronic publishing as particularly
valuable for men or women. Although this will undoubtedly change in
time as peer review procedures become established, as professional
associations sponsor electronic periodicals, and as a new
generation
of cyber-committed scholars come on-line, there is currently little
reward for electronic publication. At best, it is likely to
supplement, not replace, conventional hard-print journals.
Therefore,
the current impact of any circumvention, if it exists, would seem
to
have little discriminatory impact on women.

2. Does the Net simply recreate an "old boys' network" in
cyberspace?

Perhaps. But I've seen no significant evidence of it. If anything,
electronic communication seems to have the opposite effect.  The
democratization of the Net, albeit imperfect, helps reduce many of
the
gender-based characteristics of face-to-face communication that put
women at a disadvantage in communication.  The "old boys" no longer
control the terrain. There are a number of groups and topics,
especially on Bitnet, in which women rather than men set the
topics,
mood, style, and discussion flow.  In the aggregate, men still
dominate, but electronic communication dramatically challenges the
power of the "old boys." Women who were formally isolated can more
easily network with others with similar interests, share
experiences
and ideas, and support each other while more easily (but by no
means
without some difficulties) interacting with and challenging men.

Those investigating these issues ultimately must carve out the
issues
with considerable clarity. For example, if the nets circumvent
conventional publishing, how should we measure the gender impact?
What
counts as an "old boys'" network on the nets?  We're not talking
here
simply about male dominance, but about a form of bonding that
enhances
the careers of some while putting others at a disadvantage. My
guess
is that even when clarified, the evidence won't support the claims.

This stills ignores the central question, which is the third point
that Larry raises.

3. DO THE NETS RECREATE MALE DOMINANCE IN ELECTRONIC FORM?

The fact that we might answer the first two questions negatively
does
not mean that male dominance does not exist on the Nets.  Nor does
the
absence of significant impact in some areas mean that there is no
significant impact in others that ultimately makes the Net less
hospitable for women than men.

The Bay Area Women In Telecommunications (BAWIT) group produced an
interesting paper called "Gender Issues in Online Communications"
(Available on the CuD ftp site in pub/cud/papers/gender-issues). 
It's
available in the CuD ftp sites or can be obtained by dropping the
moderators a line. The authors write:

      The experiences of women online are both personal and
      political.  To a certain extent, their causes are rooted in
      the physical world --economics and social conditioning
      contribute to the limited numbers of women online.
      Additionally, online environments are largely determined by
      the viewpoints of their users and programmers, still
      predominately white men (p. 1).

While recognizing the on-line influences that may mitigate against
women's full participation in cyberspace, the BAWIT collective
relocates the focus of the problem to off-line factors.  A few
examples drawn from their paper and elsewhere illustrate how gender
influences might operate.

a. Access to the Nets

In principle, electronic media are available to everybody. In
practice, however, the reality may subvert open access.  The BAWIT
collective argues that, because women are generally lower paid than
men, economics may restrict access. Women may simply be less able
to
afford access than men.  Economics may be a special factor for
single
or uncoupled women without a university or occupational net-link.
Women
are also underrepresented in the technical and related fields in
which
electronic communication is valued. The social division of labor
may
also be a restriction: Women who assume primary responsibilities
for
domestic responsibilities have less leisure time than those who do
not
for participating in on-line interaction. And, as Arlie Hochschild
argues in "Inside the Clockwork of a Male Career" (which is
actually
about women's careers), women's career paths tend to be delayed,
which
contributes to deferring participation in activities, such as
learning
computer skills, that would facilitate net access.

None of this would necessarily prevent women's access to on-line
communication, nor is anybody (to my knowledge) claiming it does. 
The
value of the BAWIT paper is that it reminds us that access cannot
be
automatically assumed to be equal for everybody, and that the
barriers
to access may be subtle and complex.

b. Access to discussions

Once on-line, are women as able to break into a thread and
contribute
as men? Are women taken as seriously by men as other men? Are there
differences in male responses to posters with a female logon or
handle
that are uncommon when addressing posts with a male handle? It
depends
to some extent on the forum. There are considerable differences in
gender-based interaction between Usenet, The Well, Bitnet, or
Compuserve. And, not all differences are necessarily bad.  The
question, an empirical one, is simply this: Do men communicate
on-line
in a way that puts women at a disadvantage in gaining access to a
topic? Many women have anecdotal experiences that would suggest the
answer is "yes." But, the power advantage normally associated with
a
"male style" of communication may be mediated by a
"democratization"
effect.  For example, Marsha Woodbury (U. of
Illinois/Urbana-Champaign) conducted a small study on
African-American
educators for use in training adults to communicate over networks.
Contrary to her initial expectations, she found that women may feel
more "equal" in communicating electronically.  She concluded:

    .....Clearly, for many women, face-to-face communication
    could find them at a disadvantage, if they feel less
    powerful or verbally skilled or even feel physically  weaker
    and smaller.  In fact, they may embrace e-mail even more
    enthusiastically than the men, because it is such an
    "equalizer."

Clearly, there are no simple answers to questions of gender
differences in net communication.  The PROJECT-H group will be
examining these and related questions. The results of their study
will
be a helpful contribution to the answer.

c. Gender games and harassment

When I first began using an electronic network about 1981, I had a
gender-neutral logon ID. Before I learned how to set "no-break," I
was
habitually plagued late at night by young testosterone-laden males
who
broke in wanting to know if I were an "M or F?" When I flashed "M,"
the sender departed, only to be replaced by another flasher with
the
same question. Only once was the sender a female, as she later
revealed in person.  On those occasions when I was feeling
malicious,
I would send back an "F." I was amazed at the simplicity and
coarseness of the pickup lines.  In discussing this with female
students, I learned that such interruptions were common for them,
and
"no-break" was the second on-line command they learned ("logoff
intact" was the first).  Is sexual harassment common on the nets? 
It
seems probably less common than in the face-to-face world, and
certainly there are more built-in safety features in net
harassment.
In the face of unwanted behavior, one can more easily send "leave
me
alone" cues or log-off.  Further ASCII leaves a paper trail that
facilitates remedial action if harassment persists.

Nonetheless, harassment can be a problem for women. Some women
report
using gender-neutral or male-oriented logons, and some of my female
colleagues report hesitance to engage in online public discussions
out
of concern for their privacy and peace of mind.  Perhaps their
fears
are justified, perhaps not. But, these women remind us
that--whether
their concerns are legitimate or not--the concerns are something
that
men rarely, if ever, need give a second thought.

The gender games and fears of harassment seem of sufficient concern
that some universities cover it in their computer and other
policies
(see for example the voluminous discussions over the past year on
academic-freedom-talk and the variety of papers and other
documents,
such as the UBC report available through:  anonymous ftp from
ftp.ucs.ubc.ca in /pub/info/ubc/report).  Women can confirm or
reject
the pervasiveness of harassment and gender games, but the point is
that there is strong anecdotal evidence suggesting a barrier to
women's on-line communications.

d. Participation in discussions

If, as Carol Gilligan argues, women speak in a "different voice,"
and
if, as Pamela Fishman claims, women do most of the "work" in
mixed-sex
interaction, then we would expect some evidence of different
on-line
communication styles.  From my own experience, women seem less
likely
to engage in mortal argumentative combat, less prone to slip into
white-hot flame mode, and more likely to attempt to negotiate and
compromise in on-line debates than males. Perhaps my experiences
are
a-typical.  The fact remains that gender differences in
communication
seem likely to place women at a disadvantage in discussions
dominated
by men sufficiently often to raise questions about the nature and
impact of these differences.

What are some of these differences?  As preliminary rough
hypotheses,
we could suggest that men tend to be more confrontational and more
inclined to focus on the ostensible issues at hand rather than on
issues they see as tangential.  Men tend to argue more
"logically"--which is not to say that they in fact *are* more
logical,
but rather that they employ a style of talk that appears logical.
There are compelling arguments from a range of feminist-oriented
writers (such as Julia Kristeva, Sandra Harding, or Dorothy Smith)
whose critiques of the relationship between gender power and
knowledge--both in the "talk" and in the topics of talk--illustrate
the silencing power of symbols.  Such works, despite an occasional
extreme position, *DO NOT* mean that men are the enemy, that men
should be silenced, or that men's "voice" is not legitimate. They
simply remind us that there are differences in how we communicate,
and
that by recognizing and appreciating these differences, we can
communicate and interpret more effectively.

                              CONCLUSION

This brings is back to Larry's comments. He suggests that
over-reaction to gender differences risks the imposition of
policies
or self-censorship that have the ironic outcome of suppressing that
which they are intended to protect. This is a legitimate concern.
Few
of us want to have others impose on us "Politically Correct" ways
of
thinking or speaking.  Imposition and silencing are neither
desirable
nor required.  But, the evidence on the extent of gender variables
in
suppressing communication remains scanty, the consequences unclear,
and there is evidence that if electronic communications recreate
some
forms of gender power, they also subvert others.

If there are in fact gender barriers that work to the detriment of
women, the first step is to recognize that they exist and then to
identify the ways in which they operate.  This is nothing that
should
threaten males.  Hard evidence one way or the other would define
the
nature and extent of the problem.  If, as many of us believe, there
is
a problem, what then should we do? The next step is simply
recognizing
that differences in style of talking are often reinforced by
differences in styles of interpreting. We speak as if "talk" were
simply the speech we use.  But, talk implies an audience, and an
audience implies some interpretative framework that makes sense.
When
different styles of speaking and hearing collide, as they may if
they
are gender-shaped, then communication problems can occur.  As often
as
not, the dominant style "wins" and the subordinate style loses--not
on
the bases of content of ideas, but by the overpowering style of one
way of talking that silences the other.

So, to Larry I would say: I accept your fears, but I'm not
convinced
that denying the problem is the best solution.  Let's take a step
back
and ask women how *they* feel in engaging in online interaction.
Perhaps we can learn from each other. I don't think that
appreciation
of difference is a bad thing.

Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253