Research indicates that stereotypical representations of girls as sexualized objects seeking male attention are commonly found in social networking sites. This article presents the results of a qualitative study that examined how young women “read” these stereotypes. Our participants understood Social networking sites (SNS) as a commoditized environment in which stereotypical kinds of self-exposure by girls are markers of social success and popularity. As such, these images are “socially facilitative” for young women. However, the gendered risks of judgment according to familiar stereotypical norms are heightened by the intense surveillance enabled by SNS. While our participants indicated that a mediatized celebrity culture inculcates girls with messages that they must be attractive, have a boyfriend, and be part of the party scene, girls are much more likely than boys to be harshly judged for emphasizing these elements in their online profiles. Girls are also open to harsh criticism for their degree of publicness. The risk of being called a “slut” for having an open profile, too many friends, or posting too much information suggests that continuing discriminatory standards around public participation may effectively police girls’ capacity to fully participate online and complicate their ability to participate in defiant gender performances.
BaileyJ.SteevesV. (2013). Will the real digital girl please stand up? In KoskelaH.WiseM. (Eds.), New visualities, new technologies: The new ecstasy of communication: Ashgate Publishing.
2.
BrysonM. (2004). When Jill jacks in: Queer women and the net. Feminist Media Studies, 4, 239-254.
3.
BucholtzM. (2003). Theories of discourse as theories of gender. In HolmesJ.MeyerhoffM. (Eds)., The handbook of language and gender (pp. 43-68). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
4.
BuckinghamD.BraggS. (2003). Young people, sex and the media: The facts of life. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
5.
CullenF. (2010). “I was kinda paralytic” pleasure, peril and teenage girls’ drinking stories. In JacksonC.PaechterC.RenoldE. (Eds.), Girls and education 3-16: Continuing concerns, new agendas (pp.170-182). New York, NY: McGraw Hill Open University Press.
6.
DurhamM.G. (2008). The Lolita effect: The media sexualization of young girls and five key ways of fixing it. New York, NY: The Overlook Press.
7.
EdwardsL. (2005). Victims, villains and vixens—Teen girls and Internet crime. Girl wide web: Girls, the Internet and the negotiation of identity (pp.179-201). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
8.
FoucaultM. (1977). Discipline and punishment. London, UK: Tavistock.
9.
FredericksonB. L.RobertsT. A.NollS. M.QuinnD. M.TwengeJ. M. (1998). That swimsuit becomes you: Sex differences in self-objectification, restrained eating, and math performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 269-284.
10.
GajjalaR. (2000). Internet constructs of identity and ignorance: ‘Third-world’ contexts and cyberfeminism. Works and Days, 33/34,35/36 (17&18), 117-137.
11.
GoffmanE. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, New York: Doubleday.
12.
HarawayD. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York, NY: Routledge.
13.
HellmanE. (1998). The struggle for self: Power and identity in adolescent girls. Youth & Society, 30, 182-208.
14.
KapidzicS.HerringS. C. (2011). Gender, communication, and self-presentation in teen chatrooms revisited: Have patterns changed?Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(1), 39-59.
15.
KinseyF. (2011). Reading photographic portraits of Australian women cyclists in the 1890s: From costume and cycle choices to constructions of feminine identity. International Journal of the History of Sport, 28, 1121-1137.
16.
KoskelaH. (2004). Webcams, TV shows and mobile phones. Empowering exhibitionism. Surveillance and Society, 2, 199-215.
17.
LenhartA.MaddenM.SmithA.Macgill.A. (2007). Teens and social media (Report from the Pew Internet and American Life Project). Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org
18.
LenhartA.RainieL.LewisO. (2001). Teenage life online: The rise of the instant-messaging generation and the Internet’s impact on friendships and family relationships (Report from the Pew Internet and American Life Project). Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org
19.
MagnusonM. J.DundesL. (2008). Gender differences in “social portraits” reflected in MySpace profiles. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11, 239-241.
20.
ManagoA. M.GrahamM. B.GreenfieldP. M.SalimkhanG. (2008). Self-presentation and gender on MySpace. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, 446-458.
21.
MarshJ. (2010). New literacies, old identities: Young girls’ experiences of digital literacy at home and school. In JacksonC.PaechterC.RenoldE. (Eds.), Girls and education 3-16: Continuing concerns, new agendas (pp.170-182). New York, NY: McGraw Hill Open University Press.
22.
Media Awareness Network. (2005). Young Canadians in a wired world: Phase II student survey. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Author.
PhillipsD. (2009). Ubiquitous computing, spatiality, and the construction of identity: Directions for policy response. In KerrI.SteevesV.LucockC. (Eds.), Lessons from the identity trail: Anonymity, privacy and identity in a networked society (pp. 303-318). New York: Oxford University Press.
25.
PlantS. (2000). On the matrix: Cyberfeminist simulations. In ShieldsR. (Ed.), Cultures of internet: Virtual spaces, real histories, living bodies (pp. 170-183). London: Sage.
RingroseJ. (2010). Sluts, whores, fat slags and Playboy bunnies: Teen girls’ negotiation of “sexy” on social networking sites and at school. In JacksonC.PaechterC.RenoldE. (Eds.), Girls and education 3-16: Continuing concerns, new agendas (pp.170-182). New York, NY: McGraw Hill Open University Press.
28.
RingroseJ.RenoldE. (2012). Teen girls, working-class femininity and resistance: Retheorising fantasy and desire in educational contexts of heterosexualised violence. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16(4), 461–477.
SiibakA. (2009). Constructing the self through photo selection: Visual impression management on social networking websites. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 3(1), 1.
34.
SimpsonC. (2001). Respectable identities: New Zealand nineteenth-century “new women” on bicycles!International Journal on the History of Sport, 18(2), 54-77.
35.
SteevesV. (2009). Reclaiming the social value of privacy. In KerrI.SteevesV.LucockL. (Eds.), Lessons from the identity trail: Anonymity, privacy and identity in a networked society (pp. 191-208). New York: Oxford University Press.
36.
SteevesV. (2004). Young Canadians in a wired world, phase II: Trends and recommendations. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Media Awareness Network.
37.
ThielS. (2005). “IM me”—Identity construction and gender negotiation in the world of adolescent girls and instant messaging. In MazzarellaS. R. (Ed.), Girl wide web: Girls, the Internet and the negotiation of identity (pp.179-201). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
38.
TurkleS. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
39.
van DijkT. A. (1997). Discourse as interaction in society. In van DijkT. A. (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (pp 1-35). London, UK: Sage.
40.
WhittyM. T. (2008). Revealing the “real” me, searching for the “actual” you: Presentations of self on an Internet dating site. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1707-1723.
