According to her, users (and hence online culture in general) are predominantly male and espouse stereotypically male values: conflict, adversarial communication, domination of discourse. She finds evidence of this in posting styles within Usenet. Women, says Herring, "preferentially evoke an ethics of politeness and consideration for the wants of others, especially their desire to be ratified and liked…"(p.117) as well as exhibit supportiveness and attenuation. Men, on the other hand, "evoke an ethic of agonistic debate and freedom from rules or imposition"(p.117), in addition to an authoritative, self-confident stance whereby men are more likely than women to claim expertise. Thus since the majority of users are men, "[t]he male ethic predominates in official netiquette guidelines and in discourse about the Internet in general."(p.117) Male-identified discourse, according to Herring, allots greater value to freedom from censorship, forthright and open expression, and agonistic debate as a means to advance the pursuit of knowledge.

A secondary result of this kind of interaction, says Herring, is that communication styles "are recognizably---even stereotypically---gendered". As a result, "women with a politeness ethic must create and defend women-centred spaces online in order to carry out the kind of discourse they value"(p.118), since women who communicate in such a fashion tend to get "ignored, trivialized, or criticized by men for their tone or the inappropriateness of their topic.

But what of the women who defy the patterns of predicted female behaviour, who might be greater in number than Herring’s bell curve suggests? Are adversarial women "male-identified"? Possessed of "false consciousness"? I could make the argument that women’s frequent aversion to and wariness of cyberspace may be due more to their degree of familiarity with the medium, as well as their situation in terms of computer comfort, rather than a vulnerability due to gender; it is noticeable that the ones who champion so-called "male values" also identify as hackers or experienced users. However, such an argument, while important, obscures the fundamental problem of "gendered incivility" online.

I am critical of Herring’s stance for a number of reasons. Although her analysis merits significant attention, particularly for its deconstruction of the claim of gender-blindness of CMC, as well as its raising of the age-old tension between women’s very real claims of harassment and hostility and those who feel that to curtail such exchange is to limit free speech, yet I am concerned that Herring does not provide an adequate strategy for interacting in mixed-gender groups, or for women becoming a palpable online presence. It seems that in Herring’s analysis women must choose to segregate themselves in order to enjoy being online and avoid hostile interactions. Herring’s proposed solutions centre around women getting involved in regulation of cyberspace and forming moderated women-only groups. Much of her discourse centres around the concept of harm caused by "gendered incivility."

Furthermore, there are methodological problems in denoting just who is male and who is female online. Many women assume ambiguous pseudonyms or male names. For many women, the most important factor online for women is control of their discourse and identities. Herring’s analysis does not take into account the effect which identity play and control might have on the way that women communicate and relate online.