Message patterns of online gender-based humor discriminatory practices biases stereotyping and disempowering tools through discourse analysis
Abstract
This study explored the message patterns of gender-based humor in social media in different layers of discriminatory practices against certain genders, language biases against women and LGBT including elements of stereotyping and disempowering tools against the personal images of subordinate genders. This research used discourse analysis based on the mapped-out online posts and comments of the fourteen (14) profiles of individuals and extracted their important testimonies based on the collected online gender-based humor to elicit the message patterns. Gender-based humor online enhanced the language use in creating messages that express biases towards women and the LGBT. Humor has both implicit and explicit messages that stereotype women and LGBT as weak and slow. These senses of humor also disempower the women and LGBT’s personal images as groups who are easily dominated or are cowards. As asserted, gender-based humor posed a threat to community as it highlights hierarchy-enhancing social roles. Gender-based humor in social media appeared as a mainstreamed form of social differentiation.
References
Agassi JB (1977). The unequal occupational distribution of women in Israel. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 2(4): 888–894. doi: 10.1086/493418
Agassi JB (1988). The design of working time and the status of women. In: Agassi JB, Heycock S (editors). The Redesign of Working Time: Promise or Threat. Edition Sigma. pp. 249–255.
Agassi JB (1989). Theories of gender equality: Lessons from the Israeli Kibbutz. Gender & Society 3(2): 160–186. doi: 10.1177/089124389003002002
Asemah ES, Nwaoboli EP, Nwoko QT (2022). Textual analysis of select social media hate speech messages against clergymen in Nigeria. GVU Journal of Management and Social Sciences 7(2): 1–14.
Benesch S (2014). Defining and diminishing hate speech. State of the World’s Minorities and Indigenous Peoples. MRG. pp. 18–24.
Beran TN, Li Q (2005). Cyber-harassment: A study of a new method for an old behavior. Journal of Educational Computing Research 32(3): 265–277. doi: 10.2190/8YQM-B04H-PG4D-BLLH
Bergmann BR (1974). Occupational segregation, wages and profits when employers discriminate by race or sex. Eastern Economic Journal 1(2): 103–110.
Bill B, Naus P (1992). The role of humor in the interpretation of sexist incidents. Sex Roles 27: 645–664. doi: 10.1007/BF02651095
Blumberg RL (1976). Kibbutz women: From the fields of revolution to the laundries of discontent. In: Iglitzin LB, Ross R (editors). Women of the World: A Comparative Study. ABC-Clio. pp. 319–444.
Blumberg RL (1984). A general theory of gender stratification. Sociological Theory 2: 23–101.
Brown DE (1991). Human Universals. McGraw-Hill.
Budziszewska M, Hansen K, Bilewicz M (2014). Backlash over gender-fair language: The impact of feminine job titles on men’s and women’s perception of women. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 33(6): 681–691. doi: 10.1177/0261927X14544371
Cameron D (1992). ‘Not gender difference but the difference gender makes’—Explanation in research on sex and language. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 1992(94): 13–26. doi: 10.1515/ijsl.1992.94.13
Cantor JR, Zillman D (1973). Resentment toward victimized protagonists and severity of misfortunes they suffer as factors in humor appreciation. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality 6(4): 321–329.
Crawford M (1995). Talking Difference: On Gender and Language. Sage Publications.
Davey M (2020). Online violence against women ‘flourishing’, and most common on Facebook, survey finds. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/oct/05/online-violence-against-women-flourishing-and-most-common-on-facebook-survey-finds (accessed on 23 November 2022).
Dewi L, Pulungan A, Andayani W (2022). The study of gender humor discourse in ‘Friends’ comedy series. In: Sinaga B, Husein R, Rajagukguk J (editors). Proceedings of the 7th Annual International Seminar on Transformative Education and Educational Leadership; 20 September 2022; Medan, North Sumatera Province, Indonesia. EAI. doi: 10.4108/eai.20-9-2022.2324792
Eagly A, Wood W (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behaviour: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist 54(6): 408–423. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.54.6.408
Eisenhart C, Johnstone B (2008). Discourse analysis in rhetorical studies. In: Johnstone B, Eisenhart C(editors). Rhetoric in Detail: Discourse Analyses of Rhetorical Talk and Text. John Benjamins Publishing Company. pp. 3–21. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.31.02eis
Elias S, Gurbanova N (2018). Relocating gender stereotypes online: Critical analysis of sexist hate speech in selected social media. In: Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, Proceedings of the International Conference on Language Phenomena in Multimodal Communication (KLUA 2018); 17–19 July 2018; Surabaya, Indonesia. Atlantis Press. pp. 272–277. doi: 10.2991/klua-18.2018.40
Esposito E (2021). Introduction: Critical perspectives on gender, politics and violence. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 9(1): 1–20. doi: 10.1075/jlac.00051.int
Ford T, Ferguson M (2004). Social consequences of disparagement humor: A prejudiced norm theory. Personality and Social Psychology Review 8(1): 79–94. doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0801_4
Ford TE, Woodzicka JA, Triplett SR, Kochersberger AO (2013). Sexist humor and beliefs that justify societal sexism. Current Research in Social Psychology 21(7): 64–81.
Godinez P, Rico S, Sarikakis K (2022). Gender-based hate speech: Contributions to the global policy debate from Latin America. International Journal of Communication 16: 21.
González-Cabrera J, León-Mejía A, Beranuy M, et al. (2018). Relationship between cyberbullying and health-related quality of life in a sample of children and adolescents. Quality of Life Research 27(10): 2609–2618. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-1901-9
Gramsci A (2020). Selections from the prison notebooks. The Applied Theatre Reader. Routledge. pp. 141–142.
Gray JA, Ford TE (2013). The role of social context in the interpretation of sexist humor. Humor 26(2): 277–293. doi: 10.1515/humor-2013-0017
Hassan M (2022). Purposive sampling—Methods, types and examples. Available online: https://researchmethod.net/sampling-methods/ (accessed on 1 December 2022).
Herry E, Mulvey KL (2022). Gender-based cyberbullying: Understanding expected bystander behavior online. Journal of Social Issues. doi: 10.1111/josi.12503
Hernández TK (2011). Hate speech and the language of Racism in Latin America: A lens for reconsidering global hate speech restrictions and legislation models. Pennsylvania Journal of Journal of International Law 32(3): 804–841.
Hodson G, Rush J, MacInnis CC (2010). A joke is just a joke (except when it isn’t): Cavalier humor beliefs facilitate the expression of group dominance motives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99(4): 660–682. doi: 10.1037/a0019627.
Hollis V, Openshaw S, Goble R (2002). Conducting focus groups: Purpose and practicalities. British Journal of Occupational Therapy 65(1): 2–8. doi: 10.1177/0308022602065001
Jamshed N, Stewart AL, Overstreet NM (2022). Social dominance, sexual double standards, and violence against women in tight and loose cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 53(9): 1145–1165. doi: 10.1177/00220221221104950
Jiang T, Li H, Hou Y (2019). Cultural differences in humor perception, usage, and implications. Frontiers in Psychology 10: 123. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00123
Jubany O, Roiha M (2018). Words Are Weapons: Hate Speech on the Web (Spanish). Edicions de la Universitat Barcelona.
Kiger ME, Varpio L (2020). Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No. 131. Medical Teacher 42(8): 846–854. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2020.1755030
Kowalski RM, Limber SP (2013). Psychological, physical, and academic correlates of cyberbullying and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health 53(1): S13–S20. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.09.018
Lakoff R (1973). Language and woman’s place. Language in Society 2(1): 45–79. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500000051
Lakoff RT (2004). Language and Woman’s Place: Text and Commentaries. Oxford University Press.
Lenski GE (1984). Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification. University of North Carolina Press.
Lewis RA, Sussman MB (2014). Men’s Changing Roles in the Family. Routledge.
Liao CC (2007). One aspect of Taiwanese and American sense of humour: Attitudes toward pranks. Journal of Humanities Research 2: 289–324.
Liao CC, Chang TC (2006). Sense of humor: Americans versus Taiwanese. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Society for Humor Studies Conference; 3–7 July 2006; Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lochmiller LR (2021). Conducting a thematic analysis with qualitative data. The Qualitative Report 26(6): 2029–2044. doi: 10.46743/2160-3715/2021.5008
Locke A, Lawthom R, Lyons A (2018). Social media platforms as complex and contradictory spaces for feminisms: Visibility, opportunity, power, resistance and activism. Feminisms and Social Media 28(1): 3–10. doi: 10.1177/0959353517753973
Maussen M, Grillo R (2014). Regulation of speech in multicultural societies: Introduction. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 40(2): 174–193. doi: 10.1080/1369183X.2013.851470
Menegatti M, Rubini M (2017). Gender bias and sexism in language. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.470
Nowell LS, Norris JM, White DE, Moules NJ (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 16(1): 1–13. doi: 10.1177/1609406917733847
Parekh B (2006). Hate speech. Public Policy Research 12(4): 213–223. doi: 10.1111/j.1070- 3535.2005.00405.x
Peters N, Holmgreen L, Oswald D (2015). It’s just a joke: Reactions to and justifications for gender role stereotypes in advertisements. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research 20(3): 160–168. doi: 10.24839/2164-8204.JN20.3.160
Peters RS (2015). Authority, Responsibility and Education. Routledge.
Philippine Commission on Women, Republic of the Philippine (2020). 2020 national women’s month. Available online: https://pcw.gov.ph/2020-national-womens-month/ (accessed on 23 January 2023).
Pratto F, Sidanius J, Levin S (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology 17(1): 271–320. doi: 10.1080/10463280601055772
Pratto F, Stewart AL (2011). Social dominance theory. In: Van Lange PAM, Higgins ET, Kruglanski AW (editors). Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology: Volume Two. Sage Publications. pp. 418–438.
Riessman CK (2011). What’s different about narrative inquiry? Cases, categories and contexts. In: Silverman D (editor). Qualitative Research. Sage Publications. pp. 310–330.
Saunders M, Lewis P, Thornhill A (2012). Research Methods for Business Students, 6th ed. Pearson Education Limited.
Schmitt MT, Branscombe NR, Kappen D (2003). Attitudes toward group-based inequality: Social dominance or social identity? British Journal of Social Psychology 42(2): 161–186. doi: 10.1348/014466603322127166
Selkie EM, Fales JL, Moreno MA (2016). Cyberbullying prevalence among US middle and high school–aged adolescents: A systematic review and quality assessment. Journal of Adolescent Health 58(2): 125–133. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.09.026
Sidanius J, Pratto F, Van Laar C, Levin S (2004). Social dominance theory: Its agenda and method. Political Psychology 25(6): 845–880. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00401.x
Singh K (2007). Quantitative Social Research Methods. Sage Publications.
Stahlberg D, Braun F, Irmen L, Sczesny S (2007). Representation of the sexes in language. In: Fiedler K (editor). Social Communication. Psychology Press. pp. 163–187.
Stewart AL (2015). Social Change in Social Dominance Theory: Ideological Norms and Violence Prevention in Gender Relations [PhD thesis]. University of Connecticut.
Tajfel H (1978). Differentiation between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Academic Press.
Tilly C (1998). Durable Inequality. University of California Press.
Townsend E (2014). Hate speech or genocidal discourse? An examination of anti-Roma sentiment in contemporary Europe. Journal of Multidisciplinary International Studies 11(1): 1–23. doi: 10.5130/portal.v11i1.3287
Traum A (2014). Contextualising the hate speech debate: The United States and South Africa. Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa 47(1): 64–88.
Turner JC, Reynolds KJ (2003). Why social dominance theory has been falsified. British Journal of Social Psychology 42(2): 199–206. doi: 10.1348/014466603322127184
United Nations (2002). Office of the special adviser on gender issues and advancement of women. Available online: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osaginew/index.html (accessed on 15 November 2022).
Valledor-Lukey VV (2012). Femininity and Masculinity: Developing A Filipino Gender Trait Inventory and Predicting Self-esteem and Sexism (Filipino) [PhD thesis]. Syracuse University.
Walker CM, Sockman BR, Koehn S (2011). An exploratory study of cyberbullying with undergraduate university students. TechTrends 55: 31–38. doi: 10.1007/s11528-011-0481-0
Woodford-Berger P (2007). Gender mainstreaming: What is it (about) and should we continue doing it? IDS Bulletin 35(4): 65–72. doi: 10.1111/j.1759-5436.2004.tb00157.x
Yadav D (2022). Criteria for good qualitative research: A comprehensive review. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 31(6): 679–689. doi: 10.1007/s40299-021-00619-0
Zhang Y, Wildemuth BM (2009). Unstructured interviews. In: Wildemuth BM (editor). Applications of Social Research Methods to Questions in Information and Library Science. ABC-Clio. pp. 222–231.
Copyright (c) 2023 author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The author(s) warrant that permission to publish the article has not been previously assigned elsewhere.
Author(s) shall retain the copyright of their work and grant the Journal/Publisher right for the first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under:
OA - Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0). This license allows for the copying, distribution and transmission of the work, provided the correct attribution of the original creator is stated. Adaptation and remixing are also permitted.
This broad license intends to facilitate free access to, as well as the unrestricted reuse of, original works of all types.
_%E5%89%AF%E6%9C%AC1.png){kind=logo}
