Huffaker & Calvert (2005) and Grasmuck, Martin & Zhao (2009) talks about how racial and gender identities are formed online and transferred offline. Huffaker & Calvert study came to the conclusion that there is not much difference between genders online. They looked at how each gender express themselves as well as how they use emoticons. Grasmuck, Martin & Zhao studies how race is presented in CMC thru Facebook.

Different sites focus on different things within their site. For example, “Black Planet” focuses on race and “Christian Mingle” on religion. Each CMC context allow different context to be shown in the profile. IM, email and text messaging does not allow the profile to be viewed by other people. On the other hand Facebook, blogs and other site do allow the profile to be shown which helps form the person identity.  Due to the openness the internet allows gender and racial identity to be exaggerated or revealed more easily. It also allows people to provide false or too much information which causes people to form a false perception.  As we view different CMC context we interpret and perceive the person in a way that we feel they fit not the way they really are.

I have not thought about the gender or race of the people in this class mainly because I do not feel that it makes a difference. I do not feel race or gender should place a parent in the interaction with a person. Although I do not pay attention to gender now that you have acted the question I can tell the difference in a female and male post but that’s it.

The Huffaker reading addressed how adolescents use weblogs to explore and form their identity. The CMC context allows for more a more flexible and varied presentation of the self. Identity can be constructed through personality traits, interests, beliefs, roles, and involvement with other groups and users. In the corporeal world, these same people might have their identity assigned to them through such physical traits as gender and race. Online, they have more freedom to explore and construct their own identity.  The Huffaker reading mentioned the level of disclosure of personal information on teenagers’ blogs. They revealed the extent of personal information provided on teen’s blogs. If basic gender and race information was not revealed in their profile, it was often expressed in their personal journal entries.  Because every site is different, each type of CMC creates a unique context. Each site creates a different environment and set of expectations and requirements for the users. People change their methods of expression, and can disclose more or less information depending on their audience. If there is a forum for support and embracing cultural identity, they might do so. But they have the right to choose.

In the Facebook platform, it becomes necessary for users to fully present themselves in an honest and transparent way. By providing information, images, interests, and involvement, each user is motivated toward apt expression.  The positive affirmation that surrounds that open expression creates a stronger sense of identity. Previous platforms enhanced anonymity, and encouraged users to create false or homogenous identities. Today, diversity is expected and embraced.

The CMC context of this class blog has not led me to think about physical categorizations. The interaction does not really lend itself to self-expression. Our writing does reveal pieces of ourselves, but we are not creating an individualized presentation. It is secondary to the class assignments. Our comments are more relevant as students than as members of one particular identity. If our attributed names were removed from our posts, I would find it difficult to guess which person wrote what.

Today, if you receive a letter—an uncommon occurrence in the age of online communication—a return-address label in the upper left-hand corner frequently identifies the sender. Similarly, several hundred years ago, a crest imprinted in wax sealing the envelope would tell you whom the letter was from. In those days, these seals were extremely important. They were displayed in architecture, on documents, or even on clothing. They were usually in the form of a coat of arms, featuring a variety of colors, symbols and images indicative of how the individual, family, or rulers saw themselves. A lion might indicate strength, alongside a flower native to the owner’s home. Whatever the heraldry displayed, it was designed to say something about who that individual or group was. Today, in a more abstract sense, we utilize different forms of CMC to perform the same task; we consider the complexities of who we are, identify what we consider to be the most important facets of our “selves,” and display these characteristics on digital platforms. This is what Huffaker and Calvert discovered in their study of how adolescents use blogs to express their identities. They concluded,

…our data suggest a tendency for adolescents to use language to create an anchor and a consistent public face as they engage in the very serious business of constructing a stable cohesive set of representations of who they are.

One might consider this “set of representations” as a virtual coat of arms. The subjects used language and quasi-linguistic tools, such as emoticons, to express who they are. As exemplified by the teenagers using blogs to express their gender identities, individuals can come to see their blogs as representations of themselves to the word. This was also evidenced in the study we examined by Grasmuck, Martin, and Zhao, during which they found that, generally, members of “distinct ethno-racial groups” are likely to identify strongly with their heritage through the way they express themselves online. However, just as a coat of arms might be displayed larger on a flag than on a letter, it is likely that some might choose to emphasize one aspect of their identity on their blog more than on Facebook. Perhaps this is because blogs often have specific audiences, or because some views and lifestyles are still not broadly accepted socially. Whatever the case may be, it seems clear that the overwhelming majority see CMC as a way of displaying who they are to the world. In my virtual coat of arms, I might display my cultural heritage in the “Blog” box on the shield, with my political ideas in the “Social media” box beside it. However we choose represent the most important aspects of who we are, there’s no doubt that, whether or not we give it a lot of though, we express these things in our online interaction.

This weeks reading focuses on how racial and gender identities are formed online and how CMC shape how people present themselves. I like this reading in particular because of the build up specifically. A lot of our reading has been so intellectually deep that I’ll find myself reading without actually reading and often have to go back and reread pages that I know I have already “read”. Huffaker and Calvart walk us through the traditional sense of self identification. Normally, up until adolescence identity is built up of “one’s interpersonal characteristics, such as self-definition or personality traits, the roles and relationships one takes on in various interactions, and one’s personal values or moral beliefs”. Once a person hits adolescence, their physical characteristics and social abilities (i.e. being able to vote, drink, entry into 18+ club) began to affect the previous idea of identity.

I love that the author then draws a line of relevance to the way the online user, blogger, texter, etc, develops their social identity. “For the social interactionist language is a key means through which these roles are explored.” That’s to say that just like you finally being able to vote, or growing breast or a mustache affects the way you see yourself and thus define yourself; the accessibility to language and a forum to use it then becomes the way that the social interactionist CHOOSES to define his or herself. I think the word “chooses” is an important word. We cannot control when we enter these adolescent ages, how our mind, body, social status will change. I watched an episode of Catfish and one common sentiment held by catfishers was that it often turned into something they could not control, an addiction. So this reading made me wonder, we often say that online communication and perception of ones self is a choice and I agree that it is, but are the outcomes (i.e. creating a meaningful relationship will misrepresenting yourself) also a choice or is a snowball effect of collateral damage coming from something you can no longer control. Is there ever a point where you can no longer control the identity that you created. I don’t know if I am explaining this efficiently, if it doesn’t make sense forgive me. I am really curious about the psychological factors behind it all.

Huffaker & Calvert (2005) view that physical constraints become more flexible. Allowing gender and racial identities can be exaggerated or revealed easier online than in person. Grasmuck, Martin & Zhao (2009) focus a lot more on race presence in CMC. When the internet started there was a notion that people would not be racially profiled creating a “raceless” cyberspace. However, with elements such as activist groups, photos, and web-sites asking for race as a demographic tore down the idea of a “raceless” cyberspace.

Huffaker & Calvert(2005) note that the use of emoticons can determine the attitude of a person online. There are certain emoticons that would indicate more male than female persona in CMC contexts. Males are less likely to use emoticons versus females, primarily because females are more open about their feelings. Another finding was that if a male uses emoticons they tend to use them when in conversation with females versus other males.

Grasmuck, Martin, & Zhao(2009) used Facebook to conduct their studies because it does not focus on race. Facebook provides a number of avenues for an individual to disclose who they are: photos; emoticons; check in feature; map locator, etc. I think that these avenues provided by Facebook support the multi faced pallet that the internet gives users to present their self and disclose what they wish on different sites to fit in accordingly in a diverse way.

I think sites focused on race such as “Black Planet” or religious “Christian Mingle” are ridiculous and only contribute to racial and religious profiling.

Yes, I have thought of race more than gender primarily because they have unique names that indicate different races/cultures. My main assumptions are age. The comments from my class mates appear to be views from younger individuals just getting out into the world, and that we have a diverse class that is not from Memphis, TN, a place in our country that is not known for high diversity in races.

In the study conducted by  Huffaker and Calvert they examined the issues of online identity and language of male and female teens  through online publishing such as personal blogs. The case study seems to prove that the  authors of the online blogs remains almost evenly split between male and females.  Huffaker and Calvert came up with a few  Hypotheses a couple are 1) males provide  id info online more than females 2)females use emoticons to express feelings more than males   3) males uses more agressive language and females more openly discuss intamate topics.

Sherri Grasmuck, Jason Martin, Shanyang Zhao conducted a study of ethno-racial identity through surveying peoples Facebook page. They pointed out a interesting issue of colorblindness and how its exist due to anonymous users. The colorblindness is not a ture blindness as the study points out that minorities are more likely to stray away from issues or race.

I have never really thought about race or gender to much in this class. However one thing I do find interesting is that you can seem to tell a females blog post apart from a males by the length,detail, and organization.

In the Huffaker and Calvert study, the researchers observed a group of teenagers to see if there were on-line language differences among genders related to the disclosure of real-world personal information, emotive features used for expression, expressions of sexual identity, and the tone of the blogs. On the other hand, Grassmuck, Martin & Zhao looked at online communication differences related to race and ethnicity. The former concentrated on WWW blogs while the latter reviewed Facebook communication. Huffaker and Calvert found very little differences among male and females in the way they expressed themselves online. The Huffaker and Calvert article states, “Interestingly, the blogs created by young males and females are more alike than different”. Grassmuck, Martin, & Zhao did find significant differences in the way different ethnic groups communicate on Facebook. The Grasmuck, Martin, and Zhao article states that “We also found that in a nonymous environment like Facebook, identity claims regarding the extensiveness of social networks appear to be grounded in offline realities”.

Different CMC contexts, however, shape how people present and interpret race and gender. The Grasmuck, Martin and Zhao article states “The intensive investments of minorities in presenting highly social, culturally explicit, and elaborated narratives of self in the Facebook profiles are consistent with preoccupations about and heightened awareness of racial identities”. When studying different CMC contexts, it has been shown that in online communications where identity is less overt there is a tendency to recreate personalities.

I have not thought about the gender and race of the people I am interacting with in class because more important than gender and race is the content of the communication. If they have an interesting post, I am not concerned with their race and gender. I have not made any assumptions about the people I interact with in class.

These two readings dealt with how people present their genders and racial identities in an online context. I found Huffaker and Calvert’s research on gender differences in online communication extremely interesting. They found that women tended to talk about themselves more openly and they were generally more polite than men. I actually find this to be true, especially in regards to the online classes I am taking this semester. Although names, and in some cases pictures, are associated with the discussion boards and blogs I participate in, I think I would still be able to correctly identify the gender of the poster, even without any external information. Women tend to use real life experiences, such as events with friends or families, more freely than men, while male posts seem to be more focused on examples solely from the text. Also, in one class in particular, I have noticed that men are quicker to post something aggressive or impolite. My professor actually had to step in to break up a “fight” between three male classmates on one extremely sensitive topic. Interestingly enough, even though the majority of the class is female, no woman responded to the discussion once it started to break societal norms. I found Huffaker and Calvert’s findings on gender to be very true.
I will say that I do not ever question the racial identities of my online classmates. However, I found Grasmuck, Martin and Zhao’s findings on “colorblindness” to be intriguing. They describe colorblindness as the issue that “race continues to affect social inequality, but cannot be acknowledged in interactions.” That is an interesting thought, because it makes me wonder if the lack of racial indicators in online communication is a good thing or a symptom of something awful. I think we would like to believe that the internet really is a utopian environment in which race and gender do not matter, but obviously it does. Grasmuck, Martin and Zhao found that minorities are “less inclined to highly invest in performances of their racial identities” in online settings, which means that offline racism is permeating online environments. I would like to read more on this particular issue.

Based of Huffaker and Calvert (2005) study about the online identity and language use among male and females, they found out that there were no gender differences for the following:

–          In most of the categories of the personal information (first name, age, birth date, full name…etc). But females make a link to personal web site available more often than males.

–          In how often emotions were used, and that males use more sad emotions than females.

–          In the aggression or passive language patterns.

–          And in communality language patterns.

Huffaker and Calvert (2005) concluded that the blogs created by both genders are more alike than different. Also, the freedom and flexibility that online interactions offer led both genders to present and express themselves, their ideas, experiences, and feelings by using adapted language that is unique and more creative.

However, in Grasmuck and Martin (2009) study they investigated self–presentation in anonymous setting and explore differences in self-presentation by distinct ethno-racial groups Facebook profiles of African Americans, Latino, Indian and Vietnamese ancestry students. To do this, they use different identity modes (photos and pictures uploaded by users themselves, or the pictures along with the “wall posts….” They found out that “the identity construction on the internet is influenced by the characteristics of the online environment, users‘social positions including race and ethnicity.”The authors concluded that the presence of minority groups is alive and extremely well articulated in the Facebook community of this study and that different groups use different strategies in identity constructions on face book.

Since I belong to a micro-minority group who lives in the U.S., I am supposed to be more sensitive to racism. Honestly speaking, I never cared about race or gender issues, especially, when it comes to my classmates whether they are offline or online. I have a lot of friends who have the same country of origin changed their names because they are afraid of discrimination. I did not change my name and I will never change my identity because I believe that people like me the way I am .  When somebody asks ” where your accent from?”This does not hurt my feelings instead it is what makes me feel Unique. It is true that most of people have some sort of racism deep inside them even if they were not aware of it, but I never had any problem or felt that somebody hates me or discriminated me because of my race or gender. I believe that people will treat you the way you treat them. I treat everybody with full respect that’s why everybody treats me with full respect. When someone asks  about my home country I do not take it personally or in a sensitive way, instead, I take it as advantage to tell them about my home country and how beautiful it is.  Therefore, I think it is very wrong to treat people differently just because of their gender or race, but instead we should respect each other and learn about the other part of the world and new cultures.

Sexual identity is such a big part of who we are as human beings, so it does not surprise me that it is such a big deal online as well. Especially now that many people seem to live on the internet. In the study done by Huffaker & Calvert (2005) , they found that the majority of blogging is done by adolescents. It is a way to express their thoughts and find who they are, but unlike real life, online gives teens more room to explore and discover their sexual identity.  “Within the social interactionist perspective, adolescents take on the roles of others through playful stances where they assume different perspectives, thereby allowing them to try on different facets of who they will become” Huffaker & Calvert (2005). One of the points that Huffaker & Calvert (2005) also brought up regarding gender was the use of emotions. More females used emotions when writing than males. Yet, males were more likely to use emotions when talking to females than talking to males. Now that I think of it, it seems that it is pretty much the same case offline. Males are more likely to open up to females than to another male. In the  Grasmuck, Martin & Zhao (2009) study regarding racial identiy on facebook,  research suggested that self-presentations varied according to the nature of the settings: People tend to “play-act” at being someone else in anonymous settings and be more “realistic and honest” in nonymous environments. It was very interesting to see that “African Americans, Latinos, and Indian ancestry students project a visual self that is dramatically more social, they invest more frequently and intensively in displaying a cultural self marked by specific consumer and popular cultural preferences, and they invest more in the direct “about me” narrations than do Vietnamese or white students” Grasmuck, Martin & Zhao (2009). This was because it gave them empowerment and freedom to express who they really were. I do notice that in my facebook my Latino and African American friends, and even some Asian friends do express more cultural aspects about themselves than my white facebook friends. When it comes to race and gender, I do not think it is something we think about regularly, but once in a while we do think about. For this class, for example emotions, I have seen and thought that mostly I see females use a smiley in the chat sessions. However, I also noticed that there are more females and males so that could be the culprit.  =(