The rhetorical dynamics of gender harassment on-line

Information Society

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 151-167

  Herring, Susan C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Censorship; Free Speech; Gender; Harassment; IRC; Listserv

Indexed keywords

EID: 0033240629     PISSN: 01972243     EISSN: 10876537     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/019722499128466     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Barlow, John Perry. 1996. A declaration of the independence of cyberspace. Electronic document. [http://www/eff/org/pub/Censorship/Intemetjcensorship_bills/barlow-0296.declaration]
2. Baym, Nancy. 1996. Agreements and disagreements in a computer-mediated discussion. Research on Language and Social Interaction 29(4): 315-345.
3. Bell, Vicki, and Denise de La Rue. 1995. Gender harassment on the Internet. Electronic document. [http://www.gsu.edu/~lawppw/lawand.papers/harass.html]
4. Black’s Law Dictionary. 6th ed. 1990. p. 717. West Group.
5. Brail, Stephanie. 1994. Take back the net! On the Issues Winter:40-42.
6. Brail, Stephanie. 1996. The price of admission: Harassment and free speech in the wild, wild West. In L. Cherny and E. R. Weise, eds., Wired-women, pp. 141-157. Seattle, WA: Seal Press.
7. Broadhurst, Judith. 1993. Lurkers and flamers. Online Access 8(3).
8. Brock, Bernard N., Robert L. Scott, and James W. Chesebro, eds. 1990. Methods of rhetorical criticism, 3rd ed. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
9. Bruckman, Amy S. 1993. Gender swapping on the Internet. Proceedings of INET’93. Reston, VA: The Internet Society. Available via anonymous ftp from media.mit.eduinpub/MediaMOO/papers.gender-swapping.
10. Cherny, Lynn. 1994. Gender differences in text-based virtual reality. In M. Bucholtz, A. Liang, L. Sutton, andC. Hines, eds., Cultural performances: Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Women and Language Conference. Berkeley: Berkeley Women and Language Group.
11. Collins-Jarvis, Lori. 1993. Gender representation in an electronic city hall: Female adoption of Santa Monica’s PEN system. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 37:49-66.
12. Collins-Jarvis, Lori. 1997. Discriminatory messages and gendered power relations in on-line discussion groups. Paper presented at the 1997 annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago.
13. Danet, Brenda. 1998. Text as mask: gender, play and performance on the Internet. In S. Jones, ed., Cybersociety 2.0: Revisiting computer-mediated communication and community, pp. 129-158
14. Danet, Brenda, Lucia Ruedenberg-Wright, and Yehudit Rosenbaum-Tamari. 1997. Smoking dope at a virtual party: Writing, play and performance on Internet Relay Chat. In S. Rafaeli, F. Sudweeks, and M. McLaughlin, eds., Network and netplay: Virtual groups on the Internet. Cambridge, MA: AAAI/MIT Press.
15. Dibbell, Julian. 1993. A rape in cyberspace, or how an evil clown, a Haitian trickster spirit, two wizards, and a cast of dozens turned a database into a society Village Voice December 21:36-42. Reprinted in R. Kling, ed. 1996. Computerization and controversy, 2nd ed. New York: Academic Press.
16. Ebben, Maureen M. 1994. Women on the Net: An exploratory study of gender dynamics on the soc.women computer network. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois atUrbana-Champaign.
17. Ess, Charles. 1996. Beyond false dilemmas: Men and women on the net-A plea for democracy and understanding. Computer-Mediated Communication Magazine 3(1), special issue on Philosophical Approaches to Pornography, Free Speech, and CMC, ed. C. Ess.
18. Foss, SonjaK. 1979. Equal rights amendment controversy: Two worlds inconflict. Quarterly Journal of Speech 65(3):275.
19. Frye, Marilyn. 1983. The politics of reality: Essays in feminist theory. Freedom, CA: Crossing Press.
20. Gearhart, Sally M. 1979. The womanizing of rhetoric. Women’s Studies International Quarterly 2:195-201.
21. Graphic, Visualization, and Usability Center’s 4th WWWUser Survey. 1995. Georgia Technological University. [http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/user_surveys/]
22. Graphic, Visualization, and Usability Center’s 7th WWWUser Survey. 1997. Georgia Technological University. [http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/user_surveys/]
23. Graphic, Visualization, and Usability Center’s 9th WWWUser Survey. 1998. Georgia Technological University. [http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/user_surveys/]
24. Hafner, Katie, and Matthew Lyon. 1996. Where wizards stay up late: The origins of the Internet. New York: Simon &Schuster.
25. Herring, Susan C. 1992. Gender and participation in computer-mediated linguistic discourse. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics, document ED345-552.
26. Herring, Susan C. 1993. Gender and democracy in computer-mediated communication. Electronic Journal of Communication 3(2). Reprinted in R. Kling, ed. 1996. Computerization and controversy, 2nd ed. New York: Academic Press.
27. Herring, Susan C. 1995. Men’s language on the Internet. Nordlyd: Tromso University Working Papers on Languages and Linguistics 23:1-20.
28. Herring, Susan C. 1996a. Posting inadifferent voice: Gender and ethics in computer-mediated communication. InC. Ess, ed., Philosophical perspectives on computer-mediated communication, pp. 115-145. Albany: SUNY Press.
29. Herring, Susan C. 1996b. Two variants of an electronic message schema. In S. Herring, ed., Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives, pp. 81-106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
30. Herring, Susan C. 1998a. Ideologies of language use on the Internet: the case of “free speech.” Paper presented at the 6th International Pragmatics Conference, Reims, France, 21 July.
31. Herring, Susan C. 1998b. Virtual gender performances. Paper presented to the Discourse Studies Program, Texas A&M University, 25 September
32. Herring, Susan C. In press-a. Who’s got the floor in computer-mediated conversation? Edelsky’s gender patterns revisited. In S. Herring, ed., Computer-mediated conversation.
33. Herring, Susan C. In press-b. Computer-mediated discourse. In D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin, and H. Hamilton, eds., Handbookof discourse analysis. London: Blackwell.
34. Herring, Susan, Deborah Johnson, and Tamra DiBenedetto. 1992. Participation in electronic discourse in a “feminist” field. In K. Hall, M. Bucholtz, and B. Moonwomon, eds., Locating power: The proceedings of the second Berkeley Women and Language Conference, pp. 250-262. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group.
35. Herring, Susan, Deborah Johnson, and Tamra DiBenedetto. 1995. “This discussion is going too far!” Male resistance to female participation on the Internet. In M. Bucholtz and K. Hall, eds., Gender articulated: Language and the socially constructed self, pp. 67-96. New York: Routledge.
36. Hert, Philippe. 1997. Social dynamics of an on-line scholarly debate. The Information Society 13:329-360.
37. Hodsdon, Connie Beth. In press. Conversations within conversations: intertextuality in racially antagonistic dialogue on Usenet. In S. Herring, ed., Computer-mediated conversation.
38. Hoffman, Donna L., William D. Kalsbeek, and Thomas P. Novak. 1996. Internet and web use in the U.S. Communications 39(12):36-46.
39. Holmes, Janet. 1992. Women’s talk in public contexts. Discourse and Society 3(2): 131-150.
40. Johnson, Fern, and Elizabeth Aries. 1998. The talk of women friends. In J. Coates, ed., Language and gender: A reader, pp. 215-225. Oxford: Blackwell.
41. Kendall, Lori. 1996. MUDder? I hardly know’er! Adventures of a feminist MUDder. In L. Cherny and E. Weise, eds., Wired-women, pp. 207-223. Seattle, WA: Seal Press.
42. Kiesler, Sara, Jane Siegel, and Timothy W. McGuire. 1984. Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist 39:1123-1134.
43. Kim, Min-Sun, and Narayan S. Raja. 1991. Verbal aggression and selfdisclosure on computer bulletin boards. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Chicago. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics, document ED334620.
44. Kramarae, Cheris. 1995. A backstage critique of virtual reality. In S. Jones, ed., Cybersociety: Computer-mediated communication and community, pp. 36-56. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45. Kramarae, Cheris, and H. Jeanie Taylor. 1993. Women and men on electronic networks: A conversation or a monologue? In H. J. Taylor, C. Kramarae, and M. Ebben, eds., Women, information technology, and scholarship, pp. 52-61. Urbana, IL: Center for Advanced Study.
46. Labov, William. 1972. Rules for ritual insults. In Language in the inner city. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
47. Lakoff, Robin Tolmach. 1975. Language and woman’s place. New York: Basic Books.
48. Longacre, Robert E. 1992. The discourse strategy of an appeals letter. In William Mann and S. A. Thompson, eds., Discourse description: Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text, pp. 109-130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
49. McRae, Shannon. 1996. Coming apart at the seams: Sex, text and the virtual body. In L. Cherny and E. R. Weise, eds., Wired_women, pp. 242-263. Seattle, WA: Seal Press.
50. Paolillo, John C. 1999. The virtual speech community: Social network and language variation on IRC. Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE.
51. Paolillo, John C. In press. Conversational codeswitching on Usenet and Internet Relay Chat. In S. Herring, ed., Computer-mediated conversation.
52. Pfaffenberger, B. 1996. “If I want it it’s OK”: Usenet and the (outer) limits of free speech. The Information Society 12:365-386.
53. Propp, Vladimir. 1928. Morphology of the folktale. Leningrad.
54. Reid, Elizabeth M. 1991. Electropolis: Communication and community on Internet Relay Chat. Senior honours thesis, University of Melbourne, Australia. [http://www.ee.mu.oz.au/papers/emr/index.html]
55. Reid, Elizabeth M. 1994. Cultural formations in text-based virtual realities. Master’s thesis, University of Melbourne, Australia. [http://www.ee.mu.oz.au/papers/emr/index.html]
56. Rodino, Michelle. 1997. Breaking out of binaries: Reconceptualizing gender and its relationship to language in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 3(3).
57. Selfe, Cynthia L., and Paul R. Meyer. 1991. Testing claims for on-line conferences. Written Communication 8(2): 163-192.
58. Severinson Eklundh, Kerstin In press. To quote or not to quote: setting the context for computer-mediated dialogues. In S. Herring, ed., Computer-mediated conversation.
59. Spender, Dale. 1980. Man made language. London: Pandora Press.
60. Spitzack, Carole, and Kathryn Carter. 1987. Women in communication studies: A typology for revision. Quarterly Journal of Speech 73:401-423.
61. Sutton, Laurel. 1994. Using Usenet: Gender, power, and silence in electronic discourse. Proceedings of the 20th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 506-520. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society, Inc.
62. Turkle, Sherry. 1984. The second self: Computers and the human spirit. New York: Simon &Schuster.
63. Yates, Simeon J. 1996. English in cyberspace. In S. Goodman and D. Graddol, eds., Redesigning English: New texts, new identities, pp. 106-140. London: Routledge.
64. Zimmerman, DonH., and Candace West. 1975. Sex roles, interruptions, and silences in conversations. In B. Thorne and N. Henley, eds., Language and sex: Difference anddominance, pp. 105-129. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.