Introduction

Language is a vehicle for society’s culture and social structure (George). Language creates attitudes, beliefs, feelings, and human thought. Without language there would not be communication as we know it, nor would there be society as we know it. As language can impact society, society can impact language. Each language reflects the ideas, views, and structure of the society it represents. 

According to many sociolinguists (Penelope; Tannen; Lakoff; Coates; George; Smithson; Barnes) the American language is sexist and there are clear differences between what is perceived as feminine and masculine. Lakoff believes that the women’s language defines women as the subservient and/or as the objects, often the sex objects. She defines the “women’s language” as “language restricted in use to women and language descriptive of women alone” (Lakoff 282).  George believes some of the differences and sexism in the English language include male generics, gendered semantics, and incorrect stereotypes of gendered language. Penelope created a name for this language of differences and sexism, Patriarchal Universe of Discourse (PUD). The name reflects Penelope's views on the language—it is created by the patriarchal system to maintain the patriarchy. She believes this discourse forces women into weaker roles and positions in society. Men control the  language, creating two “dialects,” their powerful patriarchal “men’s” language and the “women’s” language, also referred to as the “powerless” language. George views this slightly differently. She contends that the language differences and sexism are due to the social structure the two sexes employ. Women generally use a structure of interconnectiveness, support, and collaboration, whereas men generally prefer a hierarchical, competitive, individual structure (Tannen; Flynn). Thus, it makes sense that women use language devices such as hedging, questions, and tag questions that are thought to bring people into conversations and are supportive of people and their ideas (Coates). Women’s desire for interconnectiveness, support, and collaboration may even explains the lack of “strong” self-expression. Men’s methods of control, such as interruptions and overlaps, along with their available rough talk and use of limited approbation/admiration adjectives, fit in with their hierarchical, competitive, individualistic structure. 

Feminists have long pointed out that women are essentially second class citizens in the white man’s world that is the Untied States today and in the past. It has been said that cyberspace offers new possibilities for feminist theory because gender awareness is skewed and the media allow for a potential egalitarian and democratic system. Gurak and Bayer, along with many feminist theorists (such as LaDuc), believe that the internet can disintegrate the sexist sociopolitical structure still inherent in American culture. Gurak and Bayer focus on how cyberspace offers new possibilities for feminist theory because gender awareness is skewed and the media allow for a potential egalitarian and democratic system. Cyberspace can collapse boundaries, flatten hierarchy, and make social cues invisible  (Gurak & Bayer). Questions on gender roles and stereotypes are made visible through virtual reality (such as MOOs) because people are experimenting with gender—functioning in a “blind” society where they only know the character’s presented gender—not the gender of the person playing the character. People can experiment with sexes, not only with the “real life” limited options of male and female (and the rare instances when different chromosome groups that create different “sexes” that are not “male” nor “female”), but they have many more options. 

Many feminists, such and Gurak and Bayer, believe that gender blinded experimentation can not help but shine some light on gender on the Internet and in real life. However, if language is still as gendered as George, Tannen, Flynn, and others perceive it to be, it seems reasonable that people will bring their sexist language and perceptions to the internet. 

Curious to see if gendered language (statements that are perceived as “feminine” or “masculine”) and sexist perceptions are, in fact, brought to the internet, I devised two studies to examine the issue. I decided to focus these studies on one small area: gender and language on MOOs. My main research question focuses this area even more: Are MOO statements perceived as gendered? I seek to discover if students perceive language gendered on MOOs and if the sexes view this language differently.