Spring 2001 VOL. 3 NO.2

Cyberspeak: Gendered Communication Styles Online

by N. J. Brown
University of Akron

The new technology of the Internet provides innovative ways of communicating. Individuals can speak to a stranger in Australia about shared interests in art on a listserv or exchange flirtatious comments in a chatroom with someone who may not even be the gender they are claiming to be. This study focuses on women communicating on the Internet and examines whether some of the existing styles of interpersonal interacting surface on the new communication landscape of the Internet.

Literature Review

Researchers interested in gendered communication styles examine the differences between the way women speak and the way men speak. One explanation of why women and men speak differently is that they experience two different cultures (Tannen, 1990). According to this theory, women and men have trouble understanding each other because they have different experiences and relationships. This theory is based on an assumption of gender duality that results in the acceptance of differences. Duality ignores the similarities and dismisses a need for researchers to understand why there might be differences in the first place.

Other researchers disagree with duality theory. Spender (1980) identifies language as being "man-made" as opposed to a natural gender duality. Http://www.espc.comau/dspender

Duality is unmasked as a cultural construction according to this theory. Language has been created and perpetuated by patriarchal cultures that have traditionally controlled many of the means of communication (such as the mass media) and the production of knowledge (such as schools, textbooks, and standards of truth and knowledge), excluding many different ideas and ways of thinking. Power differences between women and men often result in gendered communication differences. Tavris (1992) asks:

What would happen to your language if you played a subordinate role in society? You would learn to persuade and influence, rather than assert and demand. You would become skilled at anticipating what others wanted or needed (hence "women's intuition"). You would learn to placate the powerful and soothe ruffled feelings. You would cultivate communication, cooperation, and attention to news and feelings about others (what men call gossip). In short, you would develop a "women's language". But the characteristics of such a language develop primarily from a power imbalance, not from an inherent deficiency or superiority of communication skill, emotions, or nurturing. They develop whenever there is status inequity, as can be seen in the languages of working-class Cockneys conversing with employers, black conversing with whites, or prisoners conversing with guards (Tavris, 1992, p. 298).

Power is an important factor in communication. However, language is flexible and the speakers and the context of the situation determine its usage. This study attempts to gauge gendered communication styles on-line. Cyber speak theory addresses the unique communication environment of the Internet.

Method

This research project consisted of a triangulation of feminist qualitative methods used in data collection. This study consisted of four qualitative data collection methods:
1) in-depth interviews, 2) content analysis of the participant's observation on-line, 3) a content analysis of diaries kept by the participant during the study, and 4) focus groups. The different methods used to collect data enhanced the study by providing various angles and approaches of the subject matter. Grounded theory was developed from the data to describe and explain the findings.

Fourteen women participated in this study. Their ages ranged from 18 to 45. They were a diverse group with various educational levels. All of the participants had previous experience using computers and all but two had previous Internet experience. This study took place over a five-month period. The types of Internet forums used were listservs and chatlines. Participants picked two listservs or a chatline on which to interact. The listservs included gardening, vegan, music, academic, self-defense, sports, dieting, exercising, cooking, literature, and pets. User's comments with a female name were marked with a (F) at the end of the interaction, user's with a male name were marked with a (M), and if the gender could not be determined from the user name, a (U) was used.

This study used three styles of communication: connect, contest, and control to analyze interactions on the Internet. The connect style of communication builds a bond with other people using language. People using this style of communication attempt to minimize differences and establish consensus or agreement. There is a give and take in the conversation based on the sharing of personal information. The connect style of communication is often associated with women (Nelson, 1988; Tannen, 1990). People using the contest style of communication attempt to build status and independence by stating information. Participants try to establish one-up positions in the conversation by using techniques such as interruptions, ridicule, and direct challenges. The contest style of communication is often associated with men (Tannen, 1990). The control style of communication is used as a means to regulate and dominate another person's communication. It is a way to attempt to silence others. Several forms of control are common: sexually harassing, ignoring, and interrupting with re-statement. The control style of communication is often associated with men.

Results

This study investigated gendered communication styles (connect, contest, and control) by women on the Internet, are they the same as face-to-face interactions or are there new patterns emerging? The connect style of communication that is primarily associated with women in face-to-face interactions emerged on the Internet. However, during on-line interactions, men were as likely to use this style as women were. The connect style of communication prevailed during mixed group conversations as well as instances that were predominately a group of women (although women only groups were rare in this study). Contest and control styles were primarily used in all-male cyber environments.

Several patterns of the connect style of communication emerged from the data:
1) discussing and exchanging information, 2) sharing personal information, 3) offering help, 4) encouraging and giving compliments, and 5) managing conflict. These connect styles of communication patterns were used by both women and men. In addition, two patterns of the connect style of communication appeared to be unique to women: 1)qualifying answers, and 2) private responses only.

The first pattern, discussion or information exchange, occurred during interactions on both the listservs and chatlines. Members of a listserv exchanged information and tried to establish a conversation on a topic. For example, one member of a pet listserv offered information as well as her personal opinion about veterinarian schools to one of the participants who asked about the topic:

Typically, the 27 vet schools in the U.S. try not to compete with each other because they are so hard to compare to each other. They each have areas they are strong in. (F)

A member of another listserv contributed this information, not only sharing his knowledge on the subject, but also introducing a new topic to the discussion on cooking:

And an interesting tip for you fans of Cajan cooking. Roux is a common ingredient in lots of Cajan dishes and it's nothing more than flour browned in butter or oil. Roux adds a burnt/nutty taste to the dish, especially soups and gumbo. (M)

Chatlines also included discussion and exchange of information using a connect style of communication. Chatlines most often do not have specific topics. On most chatlines, there was more flirting and sexual exchanges than there was an exchange of information or discussion of specific topics.

The second pattern of the connect style of communication that emerged on the Internet was sharing personal information as well as sharing general topic information. Below is one example of interactants on-line sharing personal information about sexual orientation:

I've only been gay for 4 years and I'm 27 now. I've had a lot of Male relationships before. People think that lesbians are in it for the sex alone but there are a lot of mental things. (F)

This posting serves two purposes. First, she is stating her sexual orientation, which could be a way to discover if there is anyone else on the chatline is gay. Second, she is providing explanation of what that means to her in an attempt to promote understanding and to connect with others regardless of their sexual orientation.

Some people incorporated humor as part of their self-disclosures as seen in the example below. Both the self-disclosure and the humor serve as ways to connect with others on the chatlines:

I don't have any idea what I want to do with my life either. It scares me to think about it. I just want to listen to music and play in the mountains...is there a career for that? (U)

Both women and men on-line used the sharing of information, both general and personal. There did not seem to be division of gender in this form of cyber communication. Both women and men on-line used sharing of information. There did not seem to be a gender division in this form of cyber communication.

The third pattern of the connect style of communication that emerged was offering help. This occurred on both listservs and chatlines. One woman offered help concerning self-defense as a way to connect to the participant who commented about the lack of interest in self-defense on college campuses:

I'm a self-defense instructor with a program in California. There are similar chapters in other pasts of the country. Let me know exactly where you are and I'll see if there is a chapter close to you. Also, if you're interested in starting a chapter, let me know. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. (F)

A man on another listserv offered the participant assistance:

I am interested in your research proposal. I might be of some help if you could explain your variables more clearly and simply. Expectancy theory has long been one of my favorite theories of motivation. (M)

There was not gender difference in the offer help connect style. People on-line also attempted to connect with each other using encouragement and compliments, the fourth connect pattern:

Hi Mark, welcome to the list. I hope you enjoy what you hear and stick around. It has been quiet lately, so feel free to bring up any ideas or views you have. (M)

A woman also complimented others on the listserv and gave encouragement:

The tones of the messages I've read have all been wonderful -- adult and informal. It's a good feeling to have a concern validated by other people's responses. (F)

There was not a gender difference found in the data between women and men in complimenting and giving encouragement.

The fifth pattern of connection was conflict management. People would sometimes apologize and try to smooth problem over when misunderstanding occurred. Women were more likely than men to use this form of connecting communication while men tended to flame when a conflict began to escalate. One woman wrote on a listserv "This is my first posting to this listserv so please forgive any mistakes in etiquette, etc.". This woman tried to deflect the impact of what she was about to post by beginning with an apology and explanation, a technique of conflict management and a way to establish connection even though the topic may be considered controversial. Some men, though, did use the conflict management style as well, especially when flaming broke out.

Qualified answers and private responses were two patterns of connecting speech that were used mostly be women. Women would sometimes state their opinions by softening them with qualifiers such as "I'm not sure but..." . One woman posted, "I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that dairy cows are not used for human consumption." Another woman wrote, "I'm not forming opinions, I'm asking a question". And finally, a woman posted: "You will probably get more appropriate responses to your request concerning this issue, but in case you don't...". Women seemed to qualify their answers as a means of justifying their postings or avoiding misunderstandings by creating a non-hostile tone at the beginning of their responses. Not all women did this, however.

Private responses were replies made to private e-mail rather than to the listserv. For example, one woman posted: "I am sending this to you outside of the list because I usually do not mix with the mailings." Another woman wrote: "This e-mail is directed to you and not to the list because this a a religious follow-up."

Evard (1996) estimated that women write only 10% of the public posts. But it may be that women tend to respond privately rather than in a public forum, thus giving the impression that there are fewer women on-line and they do not contribute as much as they actually do. It appears they do contribute, but often privately, perhaps to avoid controversy or flaming.

Connect as a style of communication could not be associated with one gender or the other on the Internet with the exception of qualified answers or private responses. Males were as likely to use it as females except in all-male environments. The chatrooms and listservs were primarily a connect style of communication, however, sometimes the conversation would be in a contest style or control style then revert back to connect.

The contest style of communication is using language to establish a hierarchical status in which the speaker attempts to maintain the one-up position in the conversation. Several patterns emerged from the data as part of the contest style of communication: stating opinion, disagreeing, and flaming.

The first pattern of the contest style of communication on-line was stating opinion. Stating opinion was very common on the listservs and the sports chatlines. Stating opinion is different from discussion in that it often seems more like a lecture than sharing of information. For example, one male interactant states his opinion about the automotive and petroleum industries:

My experience points strongly in this direction as well. One could hardly expect top executives for automotive and petroleum industries to be candid when it came to the environment controversies afflicting them in the 1920s and 30s, but one is greatly shocked at the obvious tampering with public and private archives in the interests of these corporations. The more research I did, the more it became clear that the oil and automotive industries have bought and paid for their own history. (M)

The second pattern of the contest style of communication on-line was agreeing/disagreeing and taking sides. It often consisted of a "them against us" posting. temporary, fleeting teams were formed based on opinions and people engaged in verbal disagreements with the other "team". The example below both agrees and disagrees with other posters on different points of the debate.

I agree that we ought to ensure that the classroom is not "a marginal space" as Michael phrased it. But I'm not absolutely persuaded that an attendance policy is the only way to reach the goal. (M)

The most common form of contest was attacking or flaming by sending aggressive or offensive messages. Profanity was often used and personal insults were directed to a single person or a group of people. Sometimes the flames were very lengthy with tirades of insults. At other times, they were short attacks between people who sent insults back and forth. A flame competition would escalate into who can be more insulting. This was common in male-only cyber environments (like the sports chatline). However, it sometimes occurred in mixed gendered chatlines as well as some listservs. Below is an example of several males flaming each other:

Fuck off, burger. You blind little lamb, you keep following me. One day I'm going to lead you right into the slaughter and you're going to kick yourself for trusting even the evilist of evil just so you could belong to a certain little worthless group. (M)

lolo, I'll kick your ass!!! (M)

Oh, no! He's going to KICK MY ASS OVER THE COMPUTER (M)

Oh no....he's gonna kick ass over the computer :) (M)

shamu are you scared (M)

Scared of what?(M)

me no (M)

WE'RE ON A COMPUTER, YOU RHINO COCK, YOU CAN'T KICK MY ASS OVER A COMPUTER (M)

Not all the attacks were meant to be vicious or harmful. Humor was used in the contest style of communication as well as the connect style of communication. Some interactions seemed more like a joking contest:

Well, Harley, your IQ isn't any higher than you shoe size (M)

Of course I've said that before (M)

I'm glad I wear a whooping 176 shoe size (M)

In American culture, men are traditional permitted to use more aggressive speech and actions than women are. Girls are taught to value relationships more than boys usually are. Girls are told aggressive behavior may harm relationships. Boys, on the other hand, are encouraged to promote independence from others and should value individuality over relationships. Often times, fathers and other men encourage men to be aggressive (Wood, 1997). Women and girls are more likely to be ostracized because of aggressive speech and behavior while boys and men are praised and honored for aggression, as in sports, the military, and the mass media. Media depictions usually have not represented women as being verbally or physically aggressive although new images have emerged in recent years such as Xenia and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The data from this study indicates that there were some examples of women who used the contest style of communication, as shown in the example that follows:

Hey Grim -- 3 words "go fuck yourself" (F)

Grim is a wimp...he hides behind a screen because he knows he has some power from there (F)

Actually...you're lower than an asshole you parasitic piece of pond shit (F)

Contest was not necessarily negative, although it could be. In addition, different receivers of messages may have interpreted the same message in various ways. Meaning is always dependent on the receivers as well as the senders. Receivers of messages bring their own interpretations to a conversation and they may differ from what a sender intended.

The final style of communication was control which is primarily associated with men in face-to-face interactions. The control style of communication is interacting as a means of regulating and dominating another person's communication. Control can also emerge on-line in two patterns: condescension and desertion. Interruption and ignoring, both verbal control devises in face-to-face interactions, were not effective on-line. Below is an example of condescension:

Because David is a youngster and needs guidance, I am going to do this gently rather than holler at him. You say you have 3 or 4 hundred CD s. I have a hundred or so. I doubt anyone cares, unless you can make that fact a part of an entertaining story, like say, maybe, the collective weight of all your CD s has made your treehouse lean. (M)

Ignoring is possible on-line in the form of desertion or signing off line abruptly as a means to end the conversation, as the following participant discovered. However, it entailed a cost to the other interactants on-line:

Ann: I just can't warm up to any of their guys. Some look great but they're all too bland. (F)

Ann: where the wwf guys are never bland but are sometimes unappealing. (F) Ann: Jericho is an exception. (F)

Signoff: TooBad

Signoff: TBOWWF

Signoff: Raptor Signoff: Couch

Signoff: David3L

Signoff: Harley

Signoff: Gitz

No one was left on the list but the participant so she signed off. But the only way they could make an impact was to leave the channel. The majority of people who used the conversation style of contest and control usually had male names on-line. A difference between face-to-face interactions and cyber interactions was the intensity of the conversation, often to the point of hostility and attacks. Turkle (1995) suggests that the Internet as a medium can promote aggressive verbal behavior. According to Garrett:

An aspect, I think, is the fact that it takes a certain degree of courage to risk really annoying someone. But that's not necessarily true on an electronic medium because they can't get you. It's sort of like hiding behind a wall and throwing stones. You can keep throwing them as long as you want and you're safe (as cited in Turkle, 1995).

The Internet may be a safe environment for verbal attacks without physical consequences.

Conclusion

Advances in technology as well as the development of new cyber environments reshape the Internet on a continuous basis. However, some patterns of communication from face-to-face interactions are being used on the Internet, including connect, contest, and control. Connect, while usually associated with women, is used as often by men on the Internet. However, women were more likely to qualify answers and respond privately using e-mail then post on listservs. The Internet may also provide a safe harbor for more aggressive verbal attacks than normally occur in face-to-face interactions because there is no real physical threat in cyber space. The communication styles of contest and control were used much more frequently by males than by females, as in the case of face-to-face interactions.

This study is only a first step towards the formation of an explanation and understanding of the impact of this new technology that has developed into complex structures of information and cultures. Future research may investigate communication styles in various cyber environments as well new trends in communication patterns.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arianrhod, R. (1992). Physics and mathematics, reality and language: Dilemmas for feminist. In C. Kramarae & D. Spender (Eds.), The knowledge explosion: Generations of feminist scholarship (pp. 41-46). New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

Balsamo, A. (1996). Technologies of the gendered body: Reading the cyborg woman. London: Duke University Press.

Bardini, T., & Horvath, A.T. (1995). The social construction of the personal computer user. Journal of Communication, 45 (3), 40-65.

Beauvior, S. de. (1972). The second sex. New York: Knop.

Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. London: Yale University Press.

Benjamin, M. (1993). A Question of identity: Women, science, and literature. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Bindocci, C. G. (1993). Women and technology: An annotated bibliography. New York: Anchor Books.

Borque, S. C., & Warren K. B. (1987). Techology, gender, and development. In J. K. Conway (Ed.), Learning about women: Gender, politics, and power (pp. 173-197). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Brail, S. (1996). The price of admission: Harassment and free speech in the wild, wild west. In L. Cherny & E. R. Weise (Eds.), Wired women: Gender and new realities in cyberspace (pp. 141-157). Seattle, WA: Seal Press.

Broadhurst, J. A. (1995). The women's guide to online services. New York: McGraw Hill.

Burke, P. (1996). Gender shock: Exploding the myths of male and female. New York: Doubleday.

Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. NewYork: Routledge.

Camp, L. J. (1996). We are geeks, and we are not guys: The systers mailing list. In L. Cherny & E. R. Weise (Eds.), Wired women: Gender and new realities in cyberspace (pp. 114-125). Seattle, WA: Seal Press.

Carli, L. L. (1990). Gender, language, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 941-951.

Collins-Jarvis, L. A. (1993). Gender representation in an electronic city hall: Female adoption of Santa Monica's PEN system. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 37(4), 49-63.

Coyle, K. (1996). How hard can it be? in L. Cherny & E. R. Weise (Eds.), Wired women: Gender and new realities in cyberspace (pp. 42-55). Seattle, WA: Seal Press.

Daly, S., & Wice, N. (1995). alt.culture: an a-to-z guide to the '90s - underground, online, and over-the-counter. New York: HarperPerennial.

Damarin. S. K. (1992). Where is women's knowledge in the age of information? In C. Kramarae & D. Spender (Eds.), The knowledge explosion: Generations of feminist scholarship (pp. 362-370). New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

Davis, D. M. (1995). Illusions and ambiguities in the telemedia environment: An exploration of the transformation of social roles. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 39(4), 517-554.

Diamond, E., & Bates, S. (1995, October). The ancient history of the internet. American Heritage, 36, 34-45.

Evard, M. (1996). "So please stop, thank you": Girls online. In L. Cherny & E. R. Weise (Eds.), Wired women: Gender and new realities in cyberspace (pp. 188-204). Seattle, WA: Seal Press.

Fortner, R. S. (1995). Excommunication in the information society. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 12,(2),133-154.

French, M. (1985). Beyond power: On women, men, and morals. New York: Ballantine Books.

Gates, B. (1995). The road ahead. New York: Viking.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gray, J. (1992). Men are from Mars, women are from Venus. New York: HarperCollins.

Greenberg, J. (1996, April). Sex, lies and avatars: Sherry Turkle knows what roleplaying in cyberspace really is. Wired, 4(4), 106-111, 158, 160-162, 164-165.

Grint, K., & Gill, R. (Eds.). (1995). The gender-technology relation: Contemporary theory and research. London: Taylor & Francis.

Hacker, S. L. (1989). Pleasure, power & technology: Some tales of gender, engineering, and the cooperative workplace. New York: Routledge.

Haraway, D. J. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.

Humm, M. (1995). The dictionary of feminist theory (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH Ohio State University Press.

Jackson, D. (1996, May). Man for a day. New Woman, 25(5), 76-79, 145.

Kendell, L. (1996). MUDder? I hardly know'er!: Adventures of a feminist MUDder. In L. Cherny & E. R. Weise (Eds.), Wired women: Gender and new realities in cyberspace (pp. 207-223). Seattle, WA: Seal Press.

Lakoff, R. T. (1990). Talking power: The politics of language. New York: Basic Books.

Lott, B. (1981). A feminist critique of androgyny: Toward the elimination of gender attributions for learned behavior. In C. Mayo, & N. M. Henley (Eds.) Gender and nonverbal behavior (pp. 172-180). NY: Springer-Verlag.

Mansell, R. (1993). The new telecommunications: A political economy of network evolution. London: Sage.

McRae, S. (1996). Coming apart at the seams: Sex, text and the virtual body. In L. Cherny & E. R. Weise (Eds.) Wired women: Gender and new realities in cyberspace. (pp.242-263). Seattle, WA: Seal Press.

Morrisett, L. N. (1995). Habits of mind and new technology of freedom. In The John & Mary R. Markle Foundation: Annual Report. New York.

Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York: Vintage Books.

Nelson, M. (1988). Women's ways: Interactive patterns in predominately female research teams. In B. Bates & A. Taylor (Eds.), Women communicating: Studies of women's talk (pp. 199-232). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Orcutt, J. D., & Mennella, D. L. (1995). Gender and perceptions of interruption as intrusive talk: An experimental analysis and reply to criticism. Symbolic Interactionism. 18(l), 59-72.

Penelope, J. (1990). Speaking freely. Athene, NY: Teachers College Press.

Rakow, L. F. (1986). Rethinking gender research in communication. Journal of Communication, 36(4), 11-26.

Robin, K., & Webster, K. (1988). Cybernetic capitalism: Information, technology, and everyday life. In V. Mosco & J. Wasko (Eds.), The political economy of information. (pp. 44-75). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Roof, J., & Wiegman, R. (Eds.). (1995). Who can speak? Authority and critical identity. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Rosenbloom, S. R. (1994). Women online: Electronic link or the kitchen sink? Thesis No. 6434. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University.

Senjen, R., & Guthrey, J. (1996). The internet for women. North Melbourne, Australia: Spinifex Press.

Sinclair, C. (1996). Net chick: A smart-girl guide to the wired world. New York: Henry Holt & Co.

Smith, J., & Blaka, E. (1988). Chatting on a feminist computer network. In C. Kramarae (Ed.), Technology and women's voices: Keep in touch. (pp. 82-97). New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Spender, D. (1980). Man made language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Spender, D. (1995). Nattering on the net: Women, power, and cyberspace. North Melbourne, Australia: Spinifex Press.

Springer, C. (1991). The pleasure of the interface. Screen, 32, 303-320.

Stanley, A. (1993). Mothers and daughters of invention: Notes for a revised history of technology . Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.

Stoll, C. (1995). Silicon snake oil: Second thoughts on the information highway . New York: Doubleday.

Stone, A. R. (1995). The war of desire and technology at the close of the mechanical age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Stryker, S. (1996, May). Sex and death among the cyborgs: Sandy Stone knows. Wired, 4,134-136.

Suler, J. (1997. May). Do boy just want to have fun? Male gender-switching in cyberspace (and how to detect it). Available World Wide Web: http://wwwl. rider. edu/~suler/psycber/genderswap.html

Sutton, L. A. (1996). Cocktails and thumbtacks in the old west: What would Emily Post say? In L. Cherny & E. R. Weise (Eds.), Wired women: Gender and new realities in cyberspace (pp. 169-187). Seattle, WA: Seal Press.

Tavris, C. (1992). Mismeasure of women. New York: Touchstone Books.

Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: Ballantine Books.

Tannen, D. (1996). Gender and discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.

Torres, L. (1992). Women and language: From sex differences to power dynamics. In C. Kramarae & D. Spender (Eds.), The knowledge explosion: Generations of feminist scholarship . (pp. 281-290). New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

Turkle, S. (1984). The second self: Computers and the human spirit . New York: Simon and Schuster.

Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the internet. New York: Simon & Schuster.

West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1, 125-151.

Women's Action Coalition. (19933). WAC stats: The facts about women. New York: The New Press.

Women's Studies Program Center Publication. (1993). Cheney, WA: Eastern Washington University.

Wood, J. (1991). Enlarging conceptual boundaries: A critique of small group communication. In S. P. Bowen & N. Wyatt (Eds.), Transforming visions: Feminist critiques in communication studies.(p. 1949). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Wood, J. (1997). Gendered lives: Communication, gender, and culture (2nd ed.). London: Wadsworth. Ê

Back to top