Herring's Findings

Herring's analysis of discursive practices and the rhetorical strategies of participants in online discussion groups reveals that not only do men and women have different posting styles, they also adhere to different value systems in regard to online communication. Male values are taken as the discursive norm in most cases, with the exception of some female-centered lists. In addition, the over-riding principles of computer-mediated communication, as outlined in netiquette guidelines, hold male communication strategies and ethical values as the norm. Each of these areas, however, will now be observed in fuller form.

Finding One - Different Posting Styles:

Herring maintains that the posting styles of subscribers to the discussion groups she studied have recognizably gendered rhetorical styles. While women prefer "an ethic of politeness and consideration for the wants of others," men evoke "an ethic of agonistic debate and freedom from rules or imposition."(Herring, 117.) While Herring admits that many of the posts she analyzed fell somewhere in the middle in regard to gender markers, she maintains that two distinct cultural extremes exist.

Male discursive practices tend to be characterized by challenging and/or adversarial posts coupled with frequent, lengthy messages. Posts by male individuals were more likely to contain profanity, put-downs, strong assertions, and name-calling.(Herring, 118-119.) Flaming, Herring argues, is a predominantly male phenomenon. All men do not behave in this fashion. Rather, a minority of men are responsible for the majority of flaming in computer-mediated discussion and debate on most listservs.

Womenís communications style, on the other hand, tends toward the "supportive-attenuated style."(Herring, 119.) Women tend to be more supportive, appreciative of others, and more communal than men. Women also show more concern about being liked and ratified by others. The supportive-attenuated style is most evident, and it is often the discursive norm on women-centered lists. This discursive style tends to include appeals to the group, expressions of thankfulness and appreciation, messages of agreement, and offers of assistance. Once again, however, it cannot be said that all women behave in this manner.

Herring admittedly focuses on the extremes of gendered behavior as it is expressed in online forums of asynchronous communication. Herring writes: "The existence of gendered styles must be explicitly demonstrated in order to put to rest the myth that gender is invisible on computer networks."(Herring, 121.) While these cultural distinctions are not universal, and despite common ground between men and women, "behaviors at the extremes are not randomly distributed between males and females, but are virtually male exclusive (for extreme forms of adversariality) and female exclusive (for extreme forms of appreciation and support.)"(Herring, 120-121.) Moreover, such styles are widely recognized by other online participants. The gender of participants is regularly inferred through the awareness and recognition of rhetorical cues.

Such "gendered prototypes,"(Herring, 122.) Herring writes, are particularly evident when the gender of the subscriber is in question or when individuals do not fit the patterns of pre-conceived norms. Indeed, such

Probabilistic inferences (based on the empirical tendency for men to be more adversarial than women online) can take on symbolic and even political signification: In order not to be suspected of being male, women must express themselves…in an appropriately ‘female’ style.(Herring, 122.)

Herring’s research outlines recognizably distinct gendered styles of CMC in asynchronous online forums. Refusing to conform to these normative standards can lead to a lack of acceptance and can even lead to one being ostracized from the group.

Finding Two - Different Value Systems