In her article, Underwood begins by focusing on the role of women within virtual reality and the cyber realm that was once dominated by men. She analyzes the the equality that can be provided through virtual content: within the virtual world, a man can be a woman, a woman can be a man, and a woman can even be a man pretending to be a woman. It’s empowering when you think about it this way: not only are our identities hidden, but even our gender, which can often serve as a determining factor in how the world views us. However, Underwood makes one argument that I feel is untrue, as well as contradictory to what she has to say. Underwood states, “But as usual the message was mixed: by entering the genderless world of the Internet you can better fulfill your traditional gender roles.” I feel that because of the untraditional genders within virtual reality, traditional gender roles can’t really exist. She attempts to cite the websites visited by women: cooking, fashion-basically their connection to the outside world. Yet, then she immediately contradicts this example, citing a woman giving an executive conference via the internet, where the executives are unable to tell if she is a man or woman. Underwood continues to jump back and forth within this argument, seeming unclear in whether or not she views gender equality on the internet.
Underwood also discusses the issue of embodiment online, addressing the obvious point that cyberbodies are not flesh and blood. Yet, there appear to be physical reactions to online conversations. Underwood uses the example of a virtual hug. Some people may actually be lonely enough that they claim to feel another’s arms around them. The same is said for the phrase LOL (laugh out loud): individuals also said that when they type this expression, they are actually laughing in reality. Underwood suggests that this may simply be a new form of embodiment that cannot be compared to our traditional understanding of the word.
