From “My Manly Husband…” to “… Sitting Down to Take a Pee”: The Construction and Deconstruction of Gender in Amazon Reviews

  • Camilla VásquezEmail author
  • Addie Sayers China


Through a discourse analytic case study of Amazon reviews, this chapter examines how online reviewers use language to orient to gendered identities and to invoke gender in product descriptions. Comparing legitimate product reviews with parody reviews, Vásquez and Sayers illustrate how legitimate product reviewers reify essentialist gender binaries and gender stereotypes, whereas parody reviewers contest hegemonic gender discourses in three ways: by satirizing product-related sexist discourses, by challenging the corporate gendering of products, and by interjecting off-site external political discourses of gender into reviews. Ultimately, the authors assert that Amazon review space accommodates the simultaneous presence of both modernist and postmodernist conceptualizations of gender identities, while functioning as a virtual agora where commercial activities and political discourses coexist.


  1. Balka, E. (1993). Women’s access to on-line discussions about feminism. Electronic Journal of Communication, 3(1). Retrieved from
  2. Benwell, B., & Stokoe, E. (2006). Discourse and identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 585–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Cameron, D. (2000). Styling the worker: Gender and the commodification of language in the globalized service economy. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(3), 323–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chevalier, J., & Mayzlin, D. (2006). The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book reviews. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 345–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coates, J. (1996). Women talk: Conversations between women friends. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. Connelly, S. M. (2015). “Welcome to the FEMINIST CULT”: Building a feminist community of practice on Tumblr. Student Publications, Paper 328. Retrieved from
  10. Cunha, E., Magno, G., Almeida, V., Gonçalves, M. A., & Benevenuto, F. (2012). A gender based study of tagging behavior in Twitter. Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media, 323–324.
  11. Danet, B. (1998). Text as mask: Gender, play, and performance on the internet. In S. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety 2.0: Revisiting computer-mediated communication and community (pp. 129–158). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Doward, J., & Craig, E. (2012, May 5). Amazon spoof reviews bring art of satire to website. The Guardian. Retrieved from
  13. Fullwood, C., Morris, N., & Evans, L. (2011). Linguistic androgyny on MySpace. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 30(1), 114–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gannon, S., & Davies, B. (2012). Postmodern, post-structural, and critical theories. In S. Nagy Hesse-Biber (Ed.), Handbook of feminist research: Theory and praxis (pp. 65–91). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Gee, J. P. (2011). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Ghose, A., & Ipeirotis, P. (2011). Estimating the helpfulness and economic impact of product reviews: Mining text and reviewer characteristics. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 23(10), 1498–1512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday Anchor.Google Scholar
  18. Graddol, D., & Swann, J. (1989). Gender voices. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  19. Hardman, M. J. (1993). Gender through the levels. Women and Language, 16(2), 42–50.Google Scholar
  20. Harris, A. (2008). Young women, late modern politics, and the participatory possibilities of online cultures. Journal of Youth Studies, 11(5), 481–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Herring, S. C. (1993). Gender and democracy in computer-mediated communication. Electronic Journal of Communication, 3(2). Scholar
  22. Herring, S. C. (2004). Computer-mediated communication and woman’s place. In M. Bucholtz (Ed.), Language and a woman’s place: Text and commentaries (pp. 216–222). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Herring, S. C., & Stoerger, S. (2013). Gender and (a) nonymity in computer-mediated communication. In M. Ehrlich, M. Meyerhoff, & J. Holmes (Eds.), Handbook of language, gender, and sexuality (pp. 567–586). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Scholar
  24. Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  25. Hutcheon, L. (2000). A theory of parody: The teachings of twentieth-century art forms (Vol. 874). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  26. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Jurafsky, D., Chahuneau, V., Routledge, B., & Smith, N. (2014). Narrative framing of consumer sentiment in online restaurant reviews. First Monday, 19. Retrieved from
  28. Kanai, A. (2015). What should we call me? Self-branding, individuality and belonging in youthful femininities on tumblr. M/C Journal, 18(1). Retrieved from
  29. Kivran-Swaine, F., Brody, S., & Naaman, M. (2013). Effects of gender and tie strength on Twitter interactions. First Monday, 18(9).
  30. Kozinets, R. (2016). Amazonian forests and trees: Multiplicity and objectivity in studies of online consumer-generated ratings and reviews. Journal of Consumer Research, 42, 834–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lutz, C. A. (1990). Engendered emotion: Gender, power and the rhetoric of emotional control in American discourse. In C. A. Lutz & L. Abu-Lughod (Eds.), Language and the politics of emotion (pp. 69–91). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Mackiewicz, J. (2010a). Assertions of expertise in online product reviews. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 24, 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mackiewicz, J. (2010b). The co-construction of credibility in online product reviews. Technical Communication Quarterly, 19, 403–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marwick, A. E. (2014). Gender, sexuality and social media. In J. Hunsinger & T. Senft (Eds.), The social media handbook (pp. 59–75). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Ottoni, R., Pesce, J. P., Las Casas, D. B., Franciscani, G., Jr., Meira, W., Jr., Kumaraguru, P., et al. (2013). Ladies first: Analyzing gender roles and behaviors in Pinterest. ICWSM.Google Scholar
  36. Page, R. (2012). Stories and social media. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Penelope, J. (1990). Speaking freely: Unlearning the lies of the fathers’ tongues. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  38. Pogue, D. (2010, December 16). Amazon provides a dose of humor. The New York Times. Retrieved from
  39. Ray, B. (2016). Stylizing genderlect online for social action: A corpus analysis of ‘Bic Crystal for Her’ reviews. Written Communication, 33(1), 42–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rodino, M. (1997). Breaking out of binaries: Reconceptualizing gender and its relationship to language in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(3). Scholar
  41. Russ, J. (1983). How to suppress women’s writing. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  42. Sen, S., & Lerman, D. (2007). Why are you telling me this? An examination into negative consumer reviews on the web. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21, 76–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shorey, S. (2015). Fragmentary girls: Selective expression on the Tumblr platform (Unpublished MA). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  44. Skalicky, S. (2013). Was this analysis helpful? A genre analysis of the Amazon. com discourse community and its “most helpful” product reviews. Discourse, Context & Media, 2(2), 84–93. Scholar
  45. Skalicky, S., & Crossley, S. (2015). A statistical analysis of satirical product reviews. European Journal of Humor Research, 2, 66–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Taboada, M. (2011). Stages in an online review genre. Text & Talk, 31, 247–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tannen, D. (1991). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation (1st ed.). New York, NY: Ballantine.Google Scholar
  48. Taylor, A., Hardman, M., & Wright, C. (2013). Making the invisible visible: Gender in language. Bloomington, IN: iUniverse.Google Scholar
  49. Tian, Y. (2013). Engagement in online hotel reviews: A comparative study. Discourse, Context & Media, 2, 184–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the internet. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  51. Vásquez, C. (2012). Narrativity and involvement in online consumer reviews: The case of trip advisor. Narrative Inquiry, 22(1), 105–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vásquez, C. (2014). The discourse of online consumer reviews. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  53. Vásquez, C. (2015). “Don’t even get me started…”: Interactive metadiscourse in online consumer reviews. In E. Darics (Ed.), Digital business discourse (pp. 19–39). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  54. Vermeulen, I., & Seegers, D. (2009). Tried and tested: The impact of online hotel reviews and consumer considerations. Tourism Management, 30, 123–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wynn, E., & Katz, J. E. (1997). Hyperbole over cyberspace: Self-presentation and social boundaries in internet home pages and discourse. The Information Society, 13(4), 297–327. Scholar
  56. Zeller, T. (2006, August 9). On Amazon, all of a sudden everyone is a milk critic. The New York Times. Retrieved from

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of World LanguagesUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations