Tanja Carstensen’s 2009 article “Gender Trouble in Web 2.0: Gender Relations in Social Networking Sites, Wikis, and Weblogs” explores the relationship between gender norms and Web 2.0, where they intersect and where things get messy. Referencing various studies and research, she outlines the different ways men and women use the internet based on gender roles, specifically from a social media standpoint. While there are still more male internet users than female, the number of female users involved in blogging and social media has grown in recent years. However, the gender-binarity forced upon users of most profile-based social networking leaves something to be desired for those internet users who consider themselves neither male nor female. Facebook, for example, will not let a new user activate an account with specifying which of the two traditional genders one subscribes to, leaving transgenders, transsexuals and the like to either choose an online identity that does not match their real life identity, or to abandon the site altogether. In the age we live in today, where things like homosexuality and non-normative gender choices are becoming more accepted in the mainstream, things like this show that we are still living in a sort of social dark-age in some aspects of our online lives, even with incredible technologies coming to life every day.
She talked about two particularly troubling instances gender based bias online, the deletion of a MySpace profile for a gay-lesbian band Kids On TV, and the deletion of several feminist entires on Wikipedia, a space that is supposed to exist so that all users may disseminate information, not just heteronormative male users (Wikipedia is still heavily dominated by male users and input, and feminist articles and entries are unfortunately often challenged and removed from the site). As to the MySpace debacle, the band’s profile was eventually restored and MySpace apologized for the “mishap,” still admitting no wrong-doing. But an empty apology is too little too late, in my opinion, when such blatant disregard for another human being’s lifestyle has been displayed on such a large and public stage. It is hard to believe that things like that still go on in today’s supposedly more accepting world, so why is gender inequality on the internet still a problem? Why do users need to subscribe to specifically male or female gender roles just to sign up for Facebook? And whose business is it in the first place? We’re closer to the “global village” than ever before, but there is still a ways go to before we get there.
I completely agree with you; the Internet has not been adapting to our evolving cultural norms, especially those concerned with the way others identify themselves. Ideally, all users should be able to enjoy all the different social media platforms that have been developed. However, in order to sustain these social media platforms, companies will often draw funds from advertising. Advertisers understand that certain audiences are more likely to purchase certain goods. In order to learn about these audiences, advertisers require information about these users, such as their age and gender. In order to fund these social media platforms, companies will often require enough information about a new user that allows advertisers to target him or her. However, this only explains 'why' social media sites require this information. The 'how' is where companies are a bit off; they fail to recognize that they should provide options that extend past 'male' and 'female'. However, I feel that the addition of additional gender options, such as transgender', will only provide advertisers with an even greater grasp on niche audiences that they can target. Once advertisers realize this, I feel that many social media sites will provide users with more options in classifying themselves. These social media platforms are often developed by companies, whose beliefs and ideas may not reflect those of our evolving society. However, with the insistence of users, these platforms will eventually adapt our changing cultural norms.
ReplyDeleteCindy’s argument concerning advertisers is intriguing, but I think the focus of the argument is more of the human rights of the matter. I think agree that in our computer age, defined by our ability to form share ideas through virtual representations of ourselves, any individual, regardless of race, creed, gender, or sexual orientation ought to have the right to represent themselves as they so choose. The inability to do so does indeed seem to reflect the idea that our generation’s achievements in terms of progression toward social equality may not be as great as we think. However prevalent such social binaries present themselves, we must not neglect to respect the human rights of those who choose to not associate with either extreme. However, at what point should one draw the line? Is the simple adding of the option ‘transgender’ enough? What about intersex, or hermaphroditism? Should these options be included as viable genders also?
ReplyDelete