> "I am a homosexual, ass-bandit"
> "My best-friend shagged my sister and then strangled her to death"
>
>Will post the original sentences WHEN (not if) I find the book. hmph
>
>Peace,
>
>Monkman >
***************************
Re: Diet, etc. [Please DO NOT read if sensitive]
Jennifer Hicks (jghicks@WORDSWORK.COM)
Thu, 14 Aug 1997 17:51:31 -0400
zoogirl wrote:
>
> I don't find any of these phrases difficult to say but do feel, for some
> reason, that I am supposed to be a _man_ saying them. I don't understand
> what the author is driving at. What was the point he was making?
Zoo,
I agree with you--it is a male conversation. and since the genders
communicate quite differently, the sentences that Monkman gave don't
help us, who are not male, see the author's point. but perhaps if we
look at what is sacred to us or at that which we use to define ourselves
and put it in a similar syntactic structure, we would also find such
sentences difficult to say. of course, naturally, i can think of none
right now....
Jennifer
--
____________________________________________________
Jennifer Hicks mailto:jghicks@wordswork.com
http://www.wordswork.com
____________________________________________________
***************************
"Re: Diet, etc. [Please DO NOT read if sensitive]"
Alan Jen Sondheim: (sondheim@PANIX.COM)
Thu 14 Aug 1997 05:55 PM -0400
I would be really interested in know how you feel about the difference
between male and female speech, and how it manifests itself here. When
Cybermind began, say within 4-6 months, I think there was a large proportion
of women posting to the list. This seems to have changed recently, and the
tenor of the list has changed (much to my dismay).
I'm not certain about any of this, but I'd like to hear your opinions.
Alan
On Thu, 14 Aug 1997, Jennifer Hicks wrote:
>
> zoogirl wrote:
>
[[snip]]
***************************
Male and Female Voices online (From Amy Fletcher) (fwd)
Alan Jen Sondheim (sondheim@PANIX.COM)
Fri, 15 Aug 1997 11:55:52 -0400
A quote I read this week:
"For women, online messages constitute one means of communication among
many, one type of relationship among many. Maybe this is why there are
fewer of us online: We already have company. For the men, their online
messages are their relationships. They seem content in the net's single
channeledness, relations wrapped in the envelope of technology: one man, one
wire.
There is, therefore, a usual gender-role reversal in the way men and women
use the Internet. Men net-surf the way suburban women of the 1950's and
1060's used the telephone: as a way to break out of isolation. For nothing
in today's world so much resembles the original suburbia as the medern
software-engineering campus."
-- From "Come In, CQ: The Body on the Wire", by Ellen Ullman, published in
"Wired Women, Gender and New Realities in Cyberspace"
***************************
Re: Male and Female Voices online -- sorry, couldn't resist
Alan Jen Sondheim (sondheim@PANIX.COM)
Fri, 15 Aug 1997 15:12:05 -0400
What you're doing here is actually of interest otherwise as well, that is,
how small-talk, which has been historically unrecorded (just as speeches
are rewritten, say, in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle), _was._ Catullus and
Aristophanes come close to providing insights, as does Egyptian graffiti,
which can be eerie in its modernity. Still, I wonder exactly what, say,
the Viking attitude towards Odin or Baldur was, with a little too much
mead to boot...
Alan
***************************
gender and communication -- long
Jennifer Hicks (jghicks@WORDSWORK.COM)
Fri, 15 Aug 1997 15:54:46 -0400
Alan asked about how I viewed the difference between male and female
speech and how it manifests itself on this list in particular, since in
the last few months fewer women have posted. So, here goes:
Our way of communicating, regardless of our gender is governed by how we
view the world. This encompasses our values, our concept of humanity,
and how we, as individuals, fit into the world (see Becky Mulvaney,
Gladys We, Larry Samovar, and Richard Porter). And, apparently, as we
know intuitively and experientially, the genders view it rather
differently. Carol Gilligan, arguing from a psychological perspective,
states that "female identity revolves around interconnectedness and
relationship," while the male identity "stresses separation and
independence". Although this seems a bit too simplified, it can work as
a general basis to explain some of the differences.
Look at the work of Susan Herring, another feminist researcher, for
instance. She noticed that a dauntingly large percentage of postings
on lists and newsgroups are from men who make "use of an adversarial
style in which the poster distanced himself from, criticized, and/or
ridiculed other participants, often while promoting his own importance."
She also noted that, in contrast, the few women who participated
"displayed features of attenuation -- hedging, apologizing, asking
questions rather than making assertions -- and a personal orientation,
revealing thoughts and feelings and interacting with and supporting
others." Certainly, this fits in with Gilligan's observation of the
differences in the ways the genders view the world.
And this basic difference can be seen in the postings that followed my
response to Zoogirl who didn't see the point of Monkman's posting about
hard-to-say (for men) sentences. Here's the chronology:
Will Eagle was first and posted
> > Jennifer wrote..
> >of course, naturally, i can think of none right now....
>I can. but then I have a twisted mind !"
So here, we have an example of a need to *publically* display at least a
small element of superiority--while at the same time implying a sense of
sexual perversion. Certainly in keeping with the basic difference in
world view. Or, perhaps, he is just following up with gender
stereotyping, given *my* comment of _naturally_ I can think of none?
Following Will was cubiccomputer (michael) who responded by saying
>Naturally...a woman will say anything!
> (I'm sorry...I don't really believe this but you left yourself wide
open.)
Here is evidence of a male distancing himself from me, female. The
attempt at apology, although indicating an awareness of how his posting
might be received, is discounted though, given that he blames me for
making him say it.
But, notice whom I have omitted in this so far. Rose Mulvale had a
comment to make, too, which was made early on and studiously ignored for
a while. She wrote:
> Male studies/creates technology
> Female _uses_ it (sometimes before its birth ;)
I don't agree with her sentiment, didn't see how it could fit into my
attempt to explain the differences in communication styles and so, I
ignored it. However, I bring it up here because Alan then posted, in
response to Rose:
>Uh... I know a _lot_ of females who have studied and created technology...
Thus, by bringing it up now (and saying I disagreed with it initially),
I am claiming my importance, I am separating myself ; in other words, I
am joining the culture that dominates the discussion. For, to be
listened to, and have an attempt to be listened to seriously , the
non-dominant gender will often adapt her posting style in the direction
of the style of the dominant gender.
There are of course, other venues to be heard in. Specifically, I am
referring to the proliferation of sites like geekgirls and Cybergrrl
where a newer, less-based-in-gender discourse seems to be evolving. In
these forums, "features of attentuation" are readily apparent, but so
too, and strikingly, is independence. Perhaps, as that particular
discourse grows each of the genders will be more able to notice the
strengths (and weaknesses) inherent in each separate discourse style and
begin to build more solely on the strengths.
Jennifer
--
____________________________________________________
Jennifer Hicks mailto:jghicks@wordswork.com
http://www.wordswork.com
____________________________________________________
***************************
Re: gender and communication -- long
Enok Kippersund (enkipper@SN.NO)
Fri, 15 Aug 1997 22:13:56 +0200
----------
> From: Jennifer Hicks
> Our way of communicating, regardless of our gender is governed by how we
> view the world. This encompasses our values, our concept of humanity,
> and how we, as individuals, fit into the world (see Becky Mulvaney,
> Gladys We, Larry Samovar, and Richard Porter). And, apparently, as we
> know intuitively and experientially, the genders view it rather
> differently.
"..how we view the world.." - do we then also have to think of how the
genders view each other? How do women view men and vice versa?
Enok (who thinks women and men are not the same samples of the world,
that's why he is viewing them in different ways)
***************************
Re: gender and communication -- long
cubiccomputer (cubiccomputer@EMAIL.MSN.COM)
Fri, 15 Aug 1997 16:40:01 -0400
I find this whole discussion very strange. You don't know that I am a male!
In fact I am male but I have participated in chats as a female and no one
questioned my identity. I am not sure you're female. I am only sure you
seem to wish to be dominant...and that doesn't make you a bad person.
As for my comment about 'saying anything' , your analysis seems to ignore
the fact that posts on a list are supposed to elicit a response. You ARE to
blame...that is you are the cause without which I would not have made any
statement...you are to blame not because of your gender but because of an
inappropriate choice of words that led me to an attempt, be it feeble, at
humor.
Any thought of 'distancing' is in your mind, it was never in mine. In fact,
I was attempting just the opposite; a friendly rejoinder...hence what you
term an 'apology' was really an overture to familiarity. (I wonder what you
thought of my response to G's Goodbye.)
Do you wish me to communicate with you in a manner which gives paramount
importance to your gender or do you wish to be considered just another
Cyberminder? Damned if I know now.
Michael W. Spirito
cubiccomputer@msn.com
----------
> From: Jennifer Hicks
> To: CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
> Subject: gender and communication -- long
> Date: Friday, August 15, 1997 3:54 PM
[[snip]]
***************************
Re: gender and communication -- long
Alan Jen Sondheim (sondheim@PANIX.COM)
Fri, 15 Aug 1997 16:45:51 -0400
On Fri, 15 Aug 1997, cubiccomputer wrote:
> As for my comment about 'saying anything' , your analysis seems to ignore
> the fact that posts on a list are supposed to elicit a response. You ARE to
> blame...that is you are the cause without which I would not have made any
> statement...you are to blame not because of your gender but because of an
> inappropriate choice of words that led me to an attempt, be it feeble, at
> humor.
Maybe part of the issue is the word "blame" here. Everyone is responsible
for their posts, here and elsewhere; it's not pavlovian. In other words, I
think you're operating with a misplaced concept of causality; it's not
one-to-one, not stimulus-and-response, but much more free-form, lateral.
Alan
***************************
Re: gender and communication -- long
Enok Kippersund (enkipper@SN.NO)
Fri, 15 Aug 1997 23:26:25 +0200
----------
cubiccomputer:
> I find this whole discussion very strange. You don't know that I am a
> male!
Oh, yes! I checked it (by the adress reader) and, well, I became a little
disappointed - also hesitating, your name might be a girl's name?
Enok (his name spelt backwards means woman)
***************************
Re: gender and communication -- long
zoogirl (zgirl@GLOBALNET.CO.UK)
Fri, 15 Aug 1997 23:02:02 +0100
Jennifer's excellent analysis of the posts that followed the thread of
gender and communication missed one contribution from Raphael Cohen, who
wrote:
>I think that everything said by a man is specifically
>virile, and that every saying of a woman is gentle and
>feminine.
I found this such an extraordinary statement that I couldn't think how to
respond! Was it meant as some sort of bait for feminists? Was it supposed
to be funny? I'm still at a loss....
The same post also commented on the mention of 'testicles' in Monkman's
original post
>I don't eat testicles, and at my opinion, their use is
>quite different.
Clearly an attempt at humour here, but also an assertion of a male
position, I feel.
Zoogirl
***************************
Re: gender and communication -- long
cubiccomputer (cubiccomputer@EMAIL.MSN.COM)
Fri, 15 Aug 1997 20:25:41 -0400
You are absolutely right about the word 'blame'. It is too emotionally
charged and I thought about not repeating it but it was so provocative I
JUST COULDN'T HELP IT.
Which says a great deal about any sense of responsibility you may attribute
to those that post. Which, in turn, brings us nicely back to philosophy and
psychology.
Yesterday or last night or early this AM I was thinking about why it is so
hard to sell things on the internet and it crossed my mind that my PC is
very much like a Skinner box and my reactions to it are quite Pavlovian. I
anticipate immediate satisfaction with a simple click of the mouse (didn't
Skinner use mice in those boxes). It makes no difference what in actuality
I anticipate; be it a web page, email, a response from a program, anything.
The point is the immediate gratification.
If my mind and body are indeed becoming conditioned to this type of
response in return for almost no effort then I fail to see where
responsibility enters into the equation at all. To what or to whom should I
feel responsible. I'm simply playing with a machine, no?
No! I suppose its more than just that. It's just that responsibility is
also a very emotionally charged word. I certainly do not feel that I am the
master of my fate. Therefore how can I feel responsible? If I am not the
master of my fate then that implies that I must react automatically to
certain stimuli, also known as causes.
I really have no way of anticipating when something ( a cause, a stimulus)
will provoke an action on my part that is uncharacteristic of my 'normal'
response patterns. Responsibility requires predetermined response to
predetermined stimuli.
This PC and, in particular, list servers are new to me. I have only
subscribed to lists maybe a little more than a month. I frequently feel
that my reactions to postings are quite uncharacteristic responses of mind
and body. I write and think about things that never would have occurred to
me if I had not subscribed to this list. That is what I like best about
CYBERMIND; my responses are unanticipated. Therefore I absolve myself of
any and all responsibility much the way microsoft does in its contractual
disclaimers.
Not guilty!
----------
> From: Alan Jen Sondheim
> To: CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
> Subject: Re: gender and communication -- long
> Date: Friday, August 15, 1997 4:45 PM
[[snip]]
***************************
Re: gender and communication --
Alan Jen Sondheim (sondheim@PANIX.COM)
Fri, 15 Aug 1997 21:33:34 -0400
I don't think you're guilty either, nor do I think guilt plays into this.
Without trying to sound sappy (which I feel at the moment), I think it's
worthwhile remembering that there are people reading these words, that the
machines are a conveyance.
In my own world, I think it's important also to remember that everyone is
hurting in their own way, that we are born into a reality we are ill pre-
pared for, that violates us in ways that are difficult to comprehend.
And I think it's important to care for one another here as well. And as
well, in the real world. And to elevate care, caring and empathy.
love, Alan
***************************
Re: gender and communication -- long part 2
Jennifer Hicks (jghicks@WORDSWORK.COM)
Sat, 16 Aug 1997 01:12:33 -0400
To those who read, and better yet responded, to my post about gender
differences in communication, I thank you. Now, I've a few responses
analyzing the types of responses.
>Enok (who thinks women and men are not the same samples of the world,
that's why he is viewing them in different ways) wrote:
>- do we then also have to think of how the genders view each other?
> How do women view men and vice versa?
Well, as a person I think this helps. When I am in a strange land, I
try to recognize that I don't know very much and adjust myself
accordingly. So, yes, if we try to remember that each of us may view
the opposite gender a bit differently, and plan our responses/postings
accordingly, there may be less miscommunication. Also, I think your
parenthetical phrase is exactly what I'm talking about--which indicates
attentuation--a willingness to ask questions and look at other
viewpoints.
Then cubicomputer wrote:
>I find this whole discussion very strange. You don't know that I am a male!
Well, in fact (or more specifically the reality I make from this
particular point in cyberspace), I do. You occasionally sign your posts
as "michael" or "Michael" -- not michelle.
>In fact I am male but I have participated in chats as a female and no one
>questioned my identity.
Isn't this a wonderful capability of cyberspace? We do not need to be
what we are. I have done the same, posing as a man.
>I am not sure you're female.
Does it matter? My posting was not a personal attack on you.
However, your response does help to illustrate a "typical" male's need
to be the center of the conversation. You have apparently ignored the
theory upon which I based my post, and have instead focused only on that
which applied directly (read publicly) to you.
>I am only sure you seem to wish to be dominant...and that doesn't make
>you a bad person.
You're quite right; it doesn't make me bad. But, I'm not sure that
you actually understand what my real wish is. I do not *necessarily*
wish to be dominant. However, I do wish to participate in a
conversation that is dominated by people who are not of my gender. To
do so, going back to the theory cited in my post, I need to adapt my
postings to the dominant culture.
>As for my comment about 'saying anything' , your analysis seems to ignore
>the fact that posts on a list are supposed to elicit a response.
You are correct, to a point. Posts, by definition, are written for a
response. However, the way the response is phrased *can* be quite
illustrative of a particular theory being presented--particularly if it
is a theory of communication. Beyond that, each post, in essence
presents a theory of sorts--look at the love thread. It is *how* one
responds that helps the poster, and others, determine how/where to fit
that person and thus include her/him as a part of the explicit audience
in the next post.
>...you are to blame not because of your gender but because of an
>inappropriate choice of words that led me to an attempt, be it feeble, at
>humor.
No--it was not feeble humor. And, yes, it worked because I *did* take
it as humor. However, the choice of your words in the humorous posting
you made served as a terrific illustration of my point about the
difference between male and female communication styles.
>Any thought of 'distancing' is in your mind, it was never in mine. In
>fact, I was attempting just the opposite; a friendly rejoinder...hence
>what you term an 'apology' was really an overture to familiarity.
I really like this explanation because it sounds as if a person is
talking to me as a person. However, to once again go back to theory,
your attempt at familiarity with *someone you do not know* is
illustrative of non-attentuation (a female characteristic) and can
therefore be misinterpreted quite easily. The fact that you never
thought of distancing yourself again serves to point out basic
differences in communication style. Please do not misunderstand (this
is me being female communicator) I am not criticizing the way in which
you make your thoughts known. I am *merely* pointing out that your
style (and the style of much of your gender) is different than my and my
gender's style. Neither is better. Each have suitable venues and
purposes.
>Do you wish me to communicate with you in a manner which gives paramount
>importance to your gender or do you wish to be considered just another
>Cyberminder?
It's your choice. Why does it have to be either or? I am part and
parcel of each, not easily separated.
Alan wrote (in response to cubic computer)
>Maybe part of the issue is the word "blame" here. Everyone is responsible
>for their posts, here and elsewhere; it's not pavlovian. In other words, I
>think you're operating with a misplaced concept of causality; it's not
>one-to-one, not stimulus-and-response, but much more free-form, lateral.
I think this lateralness is part of the joys of cyberspace. It allows
each of us to respond, as we see fit, to an idea (or piece thereof) and
let our own ideas be known. But lateral communication does not really
fit the theoretical frameworks of the typical discourse patterns of
either gender. Might this be a reason I find discussion lists so
fascinating?
This response seems to be gender neutral. It's putting the conversation
back on track to the topic at hand and uses I--not you--something that
is often difficult to do.
Zoogirl reminded me that I "missed one contribution from Raphael Cohen,
who wrote:"
>>I think that everything said by a man is specifically virile, and that
>>every saying of a woman is gentle and feminine.
>I found this such an extraordinary statement that I couldn't think how to
>respond! Was it meant as some sort of bait for feminists?
Could be. But not if women don't take it as such. Virility is what
we, as women, are taught to admire in males, just as they are taught to
admire the gentle feminine (read nurturing) side of women. The fact
that it was phrased as a gross generalization can be seen, if one is
really into theory, as a typical male response or, if one is into
listening to people as people, as a response that attempts to look at
some of the reasons behind this difference we see. Almost all such
attempts are valid in that they are worthy. But email (at least the
ones I prefer to read as opposed to the kinds I write) often mimic the
broadcast medium sound byte and become only the result of what we have
thought about rather than the explanation of how we got there.
And cubicomputer responded to Alan:
>You are absolutely right about the word 'blame'. It is too emotionally
>charged and I thought about not repeating it but it was so provocative I
>JUST COULDN'T HELP IT.
Notice the need to shout and draw attention.
>If my mind and body are indeed becoming conditioned to this type of
>{Pavlovian) response in return for almost no effort then I fail to see
>where responsibility enters into the equation at all. To what or to whom
>should I feel responsible. I'm simply playing with a machine, no?
NO, NO, NO. People are attached to the other end of your
machine--that's where the responses come from. But beyond that, men and
women are attached to the other end, and we don't know which they are.
If we really want our ideas to be understood, we need to remember that,
as Enok said, we are not part of the same sample. Thus, audience
awareness comes into play. Do we therefore have to preface everything
with "I think" or "I feel"? Of course not. That becomes self evident as
we read a post. But, does it give us the right to discount something
someone says? Not if we base it solely on gender.
Again, thanks for the great discussion. I think being aware of these
differences can help each of us make ourselves better understood to our
conversational partners--of whatever gender.
Jennifer
--
____________________________________________________
Jennifer Hicks mailto:jghicks@wordswork.com
http://www.wordswork.com
____________________________________________________
***************************
Re: gender and communication -- long part 2
fanny (fanny@CLEO.MURDOCH.EDU.AU)
Sat, 16 Aug 1997 13:53:25 +0800
In a great post
On Sat, 16 Aug 1997, Jennifer Hicks wrote:
snip
>I find this whole discussion very strange. You don't know that I am a male!
> Well, in fact (or more specifically the reality I make from this
> particular point in cyberspace), I do. You occasionally sign your posts
> as "michael" or "Michael" -- not michelle.
I agree that Michael's posts are gendered - but I have often enjoyed your
posts Michael, and was touched by your story of rejection from the
corporate structure
> >In fact I am male but I have participated in chats as a female and no one
> >questioned my identity.
> Isn't this a wonderful capability of cyberspace? We do not need to be
> what we are. I have done the same, posing as a man.
I have often had my gender questioned in cyberspace - I mean I've been
"accused" of being a man posing as a woman. In real life also my gender
has been a cause of public comment and wonder ... which I always find
very surprising
snip
> You are correct, to a point. Posts, by definition, are written for a
> response.
I find this interesting. The difference between response and reply - I
hve tho not lately spewed at the lists my attempts to frame my
experiences in language... hoping for response not really expecting any
snip
> Alan wrote (in response to cubic computer) > >Maybe part of the issue is
>causality; it's not one-to-one, not stimulus-and-response, but much more
>free-form, lateral.
> I think thislateralness is part of the joys of cyberspace. It allows
> each of us to respond, as we see fit, to an idea (or piece thereof) and
> let our own ideas be known. But lateral communication does not really
> fit the theoretical frameworks of the typical discourse patterns of
> either gender.
>Might this be a reason I find discussion lists so fascinating?
> > This response seems to be gender neutral.
I semi jokingly posited that women find lateral discourse easier to
assimilate than men do. Have there been studies conducted around this
issue? Any references?
snip snip
>a post. But, does it give us the right to discount something someone
>says? Not if we base it solely on gender.
> Again, thanks for the great
>discussion. I think being aware of these differences can help each of
>us make ourselves better understood to our conversational partners--of
>whatever gender. > > Jennifer > -- >
me too
fanny
***************************
Re: gender and communication -- long part 2
cubiccomputer (cubiccomputer@EMAIL.MSN.COM)
Sat, 16 Aug 1997 04:11:52 -0400
Jennifer -
I honestly don't have any idea of what it is you are talking about. You
keep talking about theory. What theory?
You seem to want to create an atmosphere of gender equality, or gender
neutrality at least, but everything you say emphasizes differences between
genders.
Why don't you take anything at face value. What's with all the analyses?
What are the rules of these analyses? OK...so you're a woman. You suggest
that I take that into account when planning my reposts. How? (And
spontaneity is destroyed by planning, making repost more like work than
fun).
What do you mean when you say this conversation is dominated by people not
of your gender. Dominated in what way? We're not sitting here talking
football, golf, business or war games. What is it you want? I would really
like to know.
You say "I really like this explanation because it sounds as if a person is
talking to me as a person. However, to once again go back to theory,
your attempt at familiarity with *someone you do not know* is
illustrative of non-attentuation (a female characteristic) and can
therefore be misinterpreted quite easily." How can this be misinterpreted?
I WAS talking to you as a person (I'm not sure of that now!). You seem to
think of words as variable symbols that may be assigned any value you wish.
Without a certain constancy, words become gibberish and incapable of
transmitting any meaningful dialogue.
Furthermore I think Raphael's post was as indicative of a Spanish heritage
as a male syndrome. If I were to write to Raphael (about prophets and
priests) should I 'plan' my post around my attitudes towards Spanish
culture?, Hebrew culture, European culture, maleness, or gender neutrality.
How can I speak if I have to think about all of this? (In actuality, I
would simply express my views on prophets and priests with little or no
thought given to the psyche of Sr. Raphael Cohen.) Consideration of the
psyche usually occurs after there is some common ground discovered...at
least in this listserv format...with me anyway...or maybe its a male
'bonding' thing, saying what you mean, no underlying motives, no hidden
meanings.
Finally it would seem that you are asking for some kind of special
consideration because you are a woman in a "male dominated" forum. Isn't
this exactly the opposite of what modern feminism is trying to accomplish?
Shouldn't you be considering yourself the superior (dominant) being forcing
the males to ask for special treatment?
Why do you refuse to take at face value what I say? And I'm not going to
say anymore on this subject.
Michelle W. Spirito
cubiccomputer@msn.com
***************************
Re: gender and communication -- (another track)
Antonio Rossin (rossin@TIN.IT)
Sat, 16 Aug 1997 12:12:23 +0000
Jennifer
you wrote, among other interesting things:
(snip)
> Youıre quite right; it doesnıt make me bad. But, Iım not sure that
> you actually understand what my real wish is. I do not *necessarily*
> wish to be dominant. However, I do wish to participate in a
> conversation that is dominated by people who are not of my gender. To
> do so, going back to the theory cited in my post, I need to adapt my
> postings to the dominant culture.
> If we really want our ideas to be understood, we need to remember that,
> as Enok said, we are not part of the same sample. Thus, audience
> awareness comes into play. Do we therefore have to preface everything
> with ³I think² or ³I feel²? Of course not. That becomes self evident as
> we read a post. But, does it give us the right to discount something
> someone says? Not if we base it solely on gender.
> Again, thanks for the great discussion. I think being aware of these
> differences can help each of us make ourselves better understood to our
> conversational partners--of whatever gender.
>>Jennifer
Let me offer another track.
A Conversation issue must be dominated - I suspect - by the speaker, so
as to allow the listener to perform the acceptance of the message.
This is a request by all the gregarious psychodependent people: they
look they want to accept exclusively the messages coming from their
leaderships, that is, from the cultural or social authorithy which
"dominates" them.
("They accept": with this term, I want to mean that they happily move
their believing procedures agreeingly ;-))
Therefore, for one who wants to communicate a topic *to* others
successfully, it seems to be a good first step providing the
communication context with the signals identifying this one to be the
"dominant" speaker, that is, the wellknown authority for the topic at
issue there.
At this point, for "communication" to be effective, the paths are two:
1 - One empowers the speaker's dominance signals at the utmost, so as to
be "accepted" by the largest amount of the (gregarious) audience;
2 - One empowers the audience's *aware* authonomy, Critical Thinking,
Flexibility, so as to get them accepting one's messages even if they are
given with no forecasted dominance.
The first sounds a matter for the mass-media ownership and the
advertisers. Eventually, of the Mailing List owners-moderators - as well
as the more untiring mailers in a List.
The second looks a matter for (family) formative education.
Well now, coming back to your question (if I understood it well):
Do you want the weaker gender to be more "dominant" - until the gender
parity which should finally overcome the "gender" problem there - within
communication?
1 - you could seek for empowering the weaker voices, (or beg the
dominant ones for kindly obtaining a larger place for the weaker ;-))
2 - you could seek for fostering the autonomy, openmindedness, Critical
Thinking, Flexibility in the audience.
I would like to keep this subject with you - but I must stop here,
waiting for knowing whether you are a fond of the (1) or the (2) of the
above paths.
Indeed the fact is, Jennifer, if you were fond of the (1) :-( , then,
unfortunately, I would not be able to communicate you any good advice,
as I am not dominant for that matter.
cheers,
antonio
________________________
Dr.Antonio Rossin
"The LFS Project"
***************************
Re: gender and communication -- long part 2
Deirdre (dlea@COMP.UARK.EDU)
Sat, 16 Aug 1997 05:35:21 -0500
This looks to me like a case of stating and restating the obvious so many
times that it is made to look like a problem, when in reality there is no
problem. We might just as well be discussing how to write to blue-eyed
people as opposed to writing to brown-eyed people. Intercommunication
between these 2 gene-pools has been happening all along, and excessive
analysis stifles communication.
Deirdre
***************************
Speakers vs. Listeners (Was: gender and communication )
Jennifer Hicks (jghicks@WORDSWORK.COM)
Sat, 16 Aug 1997 07:49:51 -0400
Antonio Rossin wrote:
> A Conversation issue must be dominated - I suspect - by the speaker, so
> as to allow the listener to perform the acceptance of the message.
This is a great twist to the conversation at hand and one that I
think is far more essential to understand. The goals of a
speaker/writer may be many, but an understanding of *how* the audience
will listen/read is essential if any of the goals are to be met.
> 2 - One empowers the audience's *aware* authonomy, Critical Thinking,
> Flexibility, so as to get them accepting one's messages even if they are
> given with no forecasted dominance.
Empowering awareness is a difficult task, and moves far beyond
gender roles. As you say on your LFS website, people "should keep in
mind that the effectiveness of communication depends on the listener's
flexibility, more than on the speaker's power."
This is wonderful. It puts the responsibility of creating meaning
from the discourse back onto the shoulders of the speaker and suggests
that if the message is worth conveying, it is worth the speaker's
efforts to do even more with the audience. I often find myself drawn
into a conversation whose main point goes totally agains what I believe,
but I am drawn in because the speaker has let me know that I am
autonomous and able to use critical thinking skills to analyze the
argument. The speaker makes it known that s/he *assumes* that of course
I will do this. When approached in that manner, I will almost always
listen to anything anyone has to say because domination is no longer an
issue.
Thanks--for responding to the post, for joining the discussion, and for
widening it to include very important roles.
Jennifer
--
____________________________________________________
Jennifer Hicks mailto:jghicks@wordswork.com
http://www.wordswork.com
____________________________________________________
***************************
Gender in Discussion
Andy Blum (ablum@EMS.TDH.STATE.TX.US)
Mon, 18 Aug 1997 16:28:37 -0600
I must agree with previous statements, the sum of which is:
It is nearly impossible to interact on the internet without gender
effecting how you write, how what you write is interpreted by others, and
how you interpret what you gleen from the internet.
Then again (and again I steal material from others), we blue-eyed folks
might write and interpret differently than you brown-eyes. And those with
green eyes might be the most different of all, or not.
The differences can not be completely irradicated on the net. On the
other hand, maybe these differences are important to a well-rounded
conversation. Maybe a listserver of all males or all females could not
explore nearly the possibilities that a mixed group could explore. I
don't agree with gender bias, but I *do* think that a definate difference
in genders should be maintained for the variety that spawns great
thinking.
Gosh, I gotta go see Spawn some time this week.
Andy Blum
Texas Department of Health
Bureau of Emergency Management
(512) 834-6700 ext. 2315
ablum@ems.tdh.state.tx.us
"May the force be with you"
***************************
Sex on the Net
Andy Blum (ablum@EMS.TDH.STATE.TX.US)
Mon, 18 Aug 1997 17:14:18 -0600
I saw an interesting news report today on the CBS affiliate here in
Austin, Texas. A bunch of psychologists gathered in Chicago and one of
their topics was "Sex on the Net". One of the psychs claimed that three
reasons why people went on the net for sex (virtual, cyber, etc.) were:
1) information
2) love
3) lust
They also discussed the likelihood that there is a greater number of
minors and evil-bad-guy-predators doing the sex on the net thing than the
general public realizes. They then showed how easy it is for an underage
teen to get his hands on any kind of erotica he likes from graphics to sex-
chat to anything else, even if there's a warning label saying "18 and over
only."
I found two things very interesting. First, everyone that they showed
working on a computer (5, maybe 6 people) were all male. Even the
reporter giving the news report was male. I cannot verify the genders of
the psychs they talked to.
Second interesting thing was that the psychs believed *lust* to be the
most prevalent reason for sex on the net. They almost shoved the other
two reasons aside.
I can't believe that they they did not inlcude entertainment as a reason
for sex on the net. Sheer boredom is as good a reason as any to try
something new.
Andy Blum
***************************
Gender in Discussion
Lynne Bennett (bennettl@CBS.CURTIN.EDU.AU)
Tue, 19 Aug 1997 09:47:40 +0800
Andy wrote:
>The differences can not be completely irradicated on the net. On the
>other hand, maybe these differences are important to a well-rounded
>conversation. Maybe a listserver of all males or all females could not
>explore nearly the possibilities that a mixed group could explore. I
>don't agree with gender bias, but I *do* think that a definate difference
>in genders should be maintained for the variety that spawns great
>thinking.
Your idea that we need a mixed gender group to produce a rich variety of
thinking sounds perfetely reasonable. However, at the moment I'm not so sure
that "we" (thats a social use of the word) have got our gender discourse
sorted out. In passing let me refer to the work of Dale Spender. She found
that when a group of thirty people, five of whom were male, were asked to
discuss gender bias the discussion was *significantly* dominated by the
males. Morover when the women began to move to talking about their own
experiences of discrimnation the males in the group said they were getting
"off the point" and these women were silenced. The males in the group kept
the discussion at a thoretical/phiolsophical level, seeing this as a more
legitmate terms of expression than that of lived experience. So I guess I
have to wonder who benifits most and what variety of thinking is currently
being lost.
Just a thought.
Lynne
***************************
Re: Gender in Discussion
Robert Kezelis (rak@INTERACCESS.COM)
Tue, 19 Aug 1997 07:50:28 -0500
[[quotes lynne above]]
>Lynne
Bravo Lynne!
A perfect example of missed opportunities. Who was correct in that
setting? The men seeking to concentrate on theory? or the women seeking to
personalize the conversation? How about both. . . or neither? The gender
differences create tension, sometimes creative, sometimes destructive. It
is precisely those differences from which we can learn.
Now, if the instructions to the group were to personalize the topic, wanna
bet that the minority present in the group would be very, very quiet?
***************************
Re: Gender in Discussion [2]
Andy Blum (ablum@EMS.TDH.STATE.TX.US)
Tue, 19 Aug 1997 08:14:52 -0600
Lynne Bennett wrote:
> In passing let me refer to the work of Dale Spender. She found
> that when a group of thirty people, five of whom were male, were asked to
> discuss gender bias the discussion was *significantly* dominated by the
> males.
Consider what kind of people Dale Spender got for the experiment, though.
If she requested participants, then of course she is going to get a group
of outgoing, outspoken males. If she randomly sampled, her chances would
be smaller of getting such a large group of aggressive type males. What
would happen if she gathered up a bunch of shy, quiet males (you know
type). Would that change the experiment? And how about the opposite
for women? What if she deliberately chose brave, outspoken types. I know
some woman that would beat a man over the head if he disqualified her
experience as insignificant, and then she would keep right on talking
while holding his nose to the ground with her foot.
> Morover when the women began to move to talking about their own
> experiences of discrimnation the males in the group said they were getting
> "off the point" and these women were silenced.
This is not merely a lack of communication. This is an example of close-
mindedness. It is also a set of males trying to look impressive to a
group of women, to a researcher, and to everyone that they know will be
reading about the results of their discussion. I think the males were not
even *trying* to communicate with the females. I think they were trying
to show off.
I'll bet the same experiment, performed with Cyberminders, would look
somewhat different. Here we have males who don't discount female
experience and females who squish big-headed males like gross little bugs.
On a personal note, I've noticed the same type of thing between my
girlfriend and I. She usually relates to the world using relationships
and experience. She doesn't like role-playing games because she doesn't
think they relate to her or her experiences in any way. I do not
recognize strong relational links to other people. I could just as easily
imagine a scenario and call it experience as I could actually experience
it. I am open-minded enough to try to understand what my SO is saying,
though. Communication is at the front of our efforts, right now.
Andy Blum
***************************
Re: Gender in Discussion
Andy Blum (ablum@EMS.TDH.STATE.TX.US)
Tue, 19 Aug 1997 08:19:19 -0600
> 'I'm just a sweet transvestite from transexual Transilvaniaaaaaa...!'
> -Rocky Horror Picture Show
My girlfriend started watching that movie last night because she rented it
without me there. She hated it. Thought it was rediculous. She kept
grimacing and making funny faces at Tim Curry in drag. She stopped and
rewound when the blonde-monster first awoke. I tried convincing her that
it was completely different in a theater with actors and a reactive
audience. I think she is traumatized, though. :)
Andy Blum
***************************
Re: Gender in Discussion
Alan Jen Sondheim (sondheim@PANIX.COM)
Tue, 19 Aug 1997 09:21:48 -0400
On Tue, 19 Aug 1997, Robert Kezelis wrote:
> Bravo Lynne!
> A perfect example of missed opportunities. Who was correct in that
> setting? The men seeking to concentrate on theory? or the women seeking to
> personalize the conversation? How about both. . . or neither? The gender
> differences create tension, sometimes creative, sometimes destructive. It
> is precisely those differences from which we can learn.
> Now, if the instructions to the group were to personalize the topic, wanna
> bet that the minority present in the group would be very, very quiet?
The problem is, this is very common; I've heard this reported from a
number of different situations. There shouldn't need to be instructions;
there should be more lateral give and take - and there isn't...
Alan
***************************
Re: Gender in Discussion
Jerry/ Sharon (jle601@anu.edu.au)
Wed, 20 Aug 1997 08:32:52 +1000
[[quotes lynne above]]
I agree wholeheartedly that we have not [yet] got our gender discourse
right... I wonder if things might have been different if the group of
thirty was evenly mixed - 15x15 whther the males might not have felt so
pressured to make contributions to 'defend' the masculine?
I take too, Andy's point about teh distinction between random sampling and
calling for volunteers - ie that men self-selected for their willingness to
vocalise their views.
I wonder too, if there were aspects of reception in this? were *all* of the
men telling the women they were getting 'off the point' or just one or two
loud and aggressive types, moreover, was this actually what they said or
was it how the women perceived/expected the men to behave - hence
interpreted that to be the case?
I can certainly imagine some males being defensive around Dale Spender,
whose politics are well publicised. I think we would need to know more
about the discursive situation.
Finally, I wonder if the discussion were carried out 'blind' via
cyberspace, as to whether it might have yielded different responses. One of
the things I personally like about email lists like this is that all
responses are presented - no-one can cut off someone else, unlike in f2f
conversation.
Cheers
Jerry
***************************
Short response (was Re: gender and communication -- long
Rose Mulvale (rmulvale@FOX.NSTN.CA)
Wed, 20 Aug 1997 02:03:48 -0300
Was written:
>Enok (his name spelt backwards means woman)
And in English "woman" is "man" preceded by "wo(e)"..... (Make of this what
thee wouldst - I smell supper cookin', gotta go!)
-Rose, who knows perfectly well that corned-beef hash fried to a crisp and
generously slathered with ketchup izzin' all thet good fer her - but
and who also needs to learn that the smell of an electric kettle sitting on
a hot electric element on her stove *should not* smell like hash a-frying!
Later!
***************************
Re: gender in discourse
Lynne Bennett (bennettl@CBS.CURTIN.EDU.AU)
Wed, 20 Aug 1997 13:06:18 +0800
Jerry wrote:
>I agree wholeheartedly that we have not [yet] got our gender discourse
>right...
well, in general;)
>I can certainly imagine some males being defensive around Dale Spender,
>whose politics are well publicised. I think we would need to know more
>about the discursive situation.
all i can add, at the moment (ie away from my filing cabinet) is that the
discussion was allowed go on for as long as required (four hours i seem to
remember) and taht aside from being given the topic to discuss there were no
restrictions. The dicussion was recorded and analysied later.
>Finally, I wonder if the discussion were carried out 'blind' via
>cyberspace, as to whether it might have yielded different responses. One of
>the things I personally like about email lists like this is that all
>responses are presented - no-one can cut off someone else, unlike in f2f
>conversation.
Susan Herring and others have done this kind of work and it seems to be that
cspace is not as levelling as one would suppose or hope (well this one
anyhow). CM seems to be a little atypical here, but does that really
surprise;)
>>I personally like about email lists like this is that all
>>responses are presented - no-one can cut off someone else, unlike in f2f
>>conversation.
true one can't cut someone off, but its possible to ignore, and that has a
similar silencing effect (not being gender specific here, more pointing a
dynamic).
cheers
Lynne
***************************
Re: gender in discourse
Amy Fletcher (amyf@HELIOS.WHRO.ORG)
Wed, 20 Aug 1997 10:34:41 -0400
>Susan Herring and others have done this kind of work and it seems to be that
>cspace is not as levelling as one would suppose or hope (well this one
>anyhow). CM seems to be a little atypical here, but does that really surprise;)
"Susan Herring, a linguist at the University of Texas, Austin, is one of the
pioneers in data-driven research on gender and CMC, and her findings
consistently support the notion that online communication is male-dominated
and male-oriented. Generally, men tend to use strong
assertions,self-promotion, authoritative orientation, challenge and sarcasm,
while women use apologies, questions, personal orientation and explicit
justification in their discourse -- in other words, men dominate the
discussion and expect everyone else to participate on their terms."
-Laurel A. Sutton, "Cocktails and Thumbtacks" published in "Wired Women,
Gender and New Realities in Cyberspace"
My comment: Cybermind is a little different. Since we're here discussing
cyberspace, we're more in tune with the way things typically are, and the
way things are supposed to be -- we're more likely to have better gender
equality because we're aware of its role.
Amy
________________________
Pieces of Me: http://geocities.datacellar.net/Paris/Metro/1022 (updated August 19!)
***************************
Gender/women/community - don't make me fucking laugh
Morrigan (morrigan@MISTRAL.CO.UK)
Wed, 20 Aug 1997 16:40:37 +0100
Do you know what I hate most about intellectuals? They don't seem to be living
in the real fucking world? I said, nearly a week ago now, that it was going to
be practically impossible for me to attend the flesh meet in London for the
following reasons:-
1. Personal safety. Not everyone lives in London or the 'home counties'.
Myself, I will not relish travelling (unaccompanied) 50 miles on a train route
which is renowned for violent attacks at night. Yes, the gender ratio is
skewed, and the time and placing of the event combined, in my opinion, make it
less 'woman friendly' than it could be. OK so maybe men don't like being
beaten up either, but it's pretty difficult to defend yourself when you are 5ft
3" and seven and a half stone. The last two times I have been violently
attacked have both been in London and at night. Maybe you could start it a
little earlier for scardy cats like me.
2. Is there a creche? Even on a shoe string these can be organised, and it
may be worth considering for future events if these meets are going to be made
more accessible to women (I know, I know, not all women have children, some men
have almost total child care responsibility, but as a general point I think
it's still worth mentioning).
Do you know that these points have not even been acknowledged. For fuck's
sake. People grinding on in academic jargon about the position of women in
society, their disposession, dislocation, lack of voice, displacement. Is
it all just a fucking theory?
Community??? Hello???
Message in a bottle - yeah ...
Morrigan - 'Imaginary evils are incurable".
***************************
Re: gender in discourse
Daniel Atkinson (lunavista@BIGFOOT.COM)
Wed, 20 Aug 1997 15:59:42 +0100
>true one can't cut someone off, but its possible to ignore, and that has a
>similar silencing effect (not being gender specific here, more pointing a
>dynamic).
But who loses out when you ignore an E-Mail you received, esp from a
discussion list such as this?
Dan.
--
Daniel Atkinson
E-Mail: danatk@globalnet.co.uk
E-Mail: lunavista@bigfoot.com
WWW: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~danatk/
ICQ: 1526984
This page hosted by
Get your own Free Home Page