Subject: Genders must not be mixed
Turing on oestrogen as "treatment" for homosexuality: "I'm growing
breasts!". Derek Jacobi in this role in _Breaking the Code_ - very moving.
Turing's biographer, whose name escapes me, connects tech culture and 40s-
50s sexual subculture: "the backroom boys", if you like. Note that this is
all very masculine, public school. Lesbian affairs among female staff at
Bletchley Park remain undocumented, so far as I know, although I haven't
gone looking (and haven't asked / wouldn't dare ask my partner's
grandmother, who was there).
I've quoted Derrida on the hospitability of telematics and "web-culture" to
the spectres of religion; one could say this about gender too - a certain
spectrality, or spectralisation, of gender - body doubles, imagos,
doppelgangers and secret sharers. You could go quite a way with this, I
think.
Gender confusion and foetal disorder (fish affected by oestrogen in water) -
BPM1 pollution - the web as gender catastrophe, filth everywhere. Does
anyone experience it this way? i.e. phobically?
************************
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:31:35 -0500
From: Dominic Fox
Subject: Genders must now be mixed
Hybrid imperatives, imperative hybridity. "Be" in the imperative: "be
brave!", "be sexy!", "be a woman!", "be yourself!" - these can be
hybridised: "be yourself: a woman: brave: sexy!" Be the brave, sexy woman
you really are underneath! A sense in which what is posited as "identity"
is the projected outcome of such imperatives, something like a Freudian ego
ideal; this would be true of gender identity too. "Arthur Putey, be a man!"
Add to this a meta-imperative: "be hybrid!", hybridise the imperatives that
eventuate in your own identity. Mix up the sources of the self, or: do
something or other about the fact that they are always already mixed, crazy
imperatives coming from left right and centre. Something, e.g.: acknowledge
it, make it the condition of a critical discourse, develop a praxis based
on it.
Set gender to work. Write a gender workbook. Read it. Work through it. Work
on gender. At the conference, say: I, too, am working on gender. Issue
fresh orders. The value of hybridity lies in its ability to generate new
imperatives. Don't let anyone tell you what to do! Gender is a trap.
Hybridize the traps: adapt man-traps to serve as nipple-clamps: let
yourself get caught every which way. Just do it! B.e. a.g.g.r.e.s.s.i.v.e.!
************************
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:10:16 -0500
From: Dominic Fox
Subject: Re: Genders must now be mixed
I imagine all these orders lying around waiting to be given by someone; and
it's that someone who will have to answer for the "why". In general, if
someone tells you that "postmodern culture" is a culture of hybridity and
that therefore if you're not hybridized you're some kind of throwback or in
bad faith about the fact that, hey, actually you're always already
hybridized anyway so there, they're stepping into that someone's shoes.
And "why?" is an excellent question to ask them.
I was just interested in the idea of a meta-imperative commanding that
genres and genders be mixed, or not be mixed. It would only be a "meta-"
imperative if genres and genders were already the result of imperatives, if
a gender for instance was something that was (partially) ordered into
being. A meta-imperative would be an order that said "give these kinds of
orders and not these", or "make sure that your orders are/are not muddled
and incoherent".
But anyway.
************************
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:20:03 -0500
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: Re: Genders must now be mixed
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001, Dominic Fox wrote:
> I imagine all these orders lying around waiting to be given by someone; and
> it's that someone who will have to answer for the "why". In general, if
> someone tells you that "postmodern culture" is a culture of hybridity and
> that therefore if you're not hybridized you're some kind of throwback or in
> bad faith about the fact that, hey, actually you're always already
> hybridized anyway so there, they're stepping into that someone's shoes.
> And "why?" is an excellent question to ask them.
I don't understand this at all. First, you're describing a differend, but
no one I know would say that pomocult is _a_ _culture_ of anything, nor
would anyone use it as a set whose members are individuals in the sense
you're describing. What you're talking about here is something else, an
ideological formation which is both determinative and foreclosed, as far
as I can tell.
Alan, confused a bit -
************************
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:55:45 -0500
From: Dominic Fox
Subject: Re: Genders must now be mixed
I think there's a rhetorical move, which involves amongst other things an
abusive reference to "postmodern culture" *as if it were* something
foreclosed and determinative. It goes something like: within context x
("postmodern culture", "the nineties", "the world today"), where we are and
which determines everything about us, we are all y ("subject to a
hybridization of identity", "more than ever concerned with the need to
colour-co-ordinate our clothing"), and must therefore start acting *as if
we were* y. This is journalism I'm talking about - the kind that talks with
an air of knowing authority about intellectual fashions. What's interesting
about this move is that it passes from the denotative to the prescriptive
in a self-contradictory manner: if we are already y, doesn't it follow that
we are already acting as y and will continue to do so without exhortation
or encouragement? "You are an officer, and it would behove you to act like
one", is a normative statement, not an ontological one.
It's rather against the spirit of what I think of as postmodern culture to
go around issuing normative statements; but not at all against the spirit
of academic commentators on the same!
************************
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 23:51:29 -0600
From: Elizabeth Barrette
Subject: Re: Genders must now be mixed
On 20 Jan 01, at 19:55, Dominic Fox wrote:
What's interesting about this move is that it passes from
> the denotative to the prescriptive in a self-contradictory manner: if
> we are already y, doesn't it follow that we are already acting as y
> and will continue to do so without exhortation or encouragement? "You
> are an officer, and it would behove you to act like one", is a
> normative statement, not an ontological one.
Oh, I *love* it when people set themselves up for that one!
Usually the version I got when I was little was "Ladies don't act like
that." I just look at them and, depending on my mood, trot out
either of two favorite responses: 1) "Gee, then I guess I must not
be a lady." 2) "I am a lady, and I am acting like this, therefore this
behavior is within the range of how ladies act." Of course, I'm
really *not* a lady, unless I'm working RenFaire. I'm much more
the tomboy sort. But you get all kinds of weird versions on this
construct, so both comebacks have their uses.
Blessings,
Elizabeth
************************
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 11:50:51 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
Why is gender even important??
Aren't we agreeing to social norms of gender when we broadcast our gender
as if it is information....
Why not pick non-gender identities for the online world?
Just call me dp and remember:
Question Authority-----a 60's Slogan
Question Reality------A 90's bumper Sticker
Fight the Nader Buchanan Bush Coalition with information!!!
"Information wants to be free" internet battle cry
"Security isn't"
Anon. nerd
it is claimed that Pablo Picasso once said:
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth -- "
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived
forwards." - Soren Kierkegaard
************************
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 05:48:19 +0000
From: Gothwalker
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 11:50:51AM -0500, David Presley typed like the wind:
> Why is gender even important??
Because gender, in one form or another,
is one of the few things all humans confront.
> Aren't we agreeing to social norms of gender when we broadcast our gender
> as if it is information....
It IS information.
> Why not pick non-gender identities for the online world?
Show me a non-gender identity.
Drew.
--
http://gothwalk.starflung.com/ [ gothwalk @ starflung.com ]
"I've never actually been horribly mutated." -- Oli
************************
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:19:00 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
We may find that the importance of gender may be more invisible
to some than to others. This outcome, may itself be gendered.
Do we only just 'agree' to gender, or is it partially imposed through
the reactions of others and something that we cannot escape from?
Are there people reading this stuff who are 'painfully' aware of their
gender, as opposed to finding it largely invisible?
Given that most people do 'pick', or have attributed to them,
gendered identities online, (or as we know, spend large amounts of
time worrying about ambiguous gender), then what does this
gender do?
It is possible, for example, that in a low cue environment, gender
becomes more important in resolving communicative ambiguities,
than it does offline
jon
On 21 Jan 01, at 11:50, David Presley wrote:
> Why is gender even important??
>
> Aren't we agreeing to social norms of gender when we broadcast our
> gender as if it is information....
>
> Why not pick non-gender identities for the online world?
>
> Just call me dp and remember:
************************
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 18:55:29 -0500
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 jmarshal@ol.com.au wrote:
> We may find that the importance of gender may be more invisible
> to some than to others. This outcome, may itself be gendered.
Just want to point out this is already biased; it may also be that the
unimportance of gender may be more visible to some than to others, and
that this outcome may itself be ungendered.
- Alan
************************
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 21:20:41 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
Caitlin Martin wrote in part: [[see gender consciouness page]]
> Gender on MOOs, MUDs, & MMORPGs is a little different (although pretty
> much the same across all 3). Gender benders in the gaming community tend
> to be guys playing girls & they're typically fairly easy to pick
> out. They don't "feel" right. I was reminded of this last night while
> playing Asheron's Call with a male friend w/a male avatar. He introduced
> me to another friend of his w/a female avatar & w/in 5 minutes or so I
> asked the "female" player if s/he was gender bending. S/he said that yes,
> she was really a guy playing a female character & I wasn't
> surprised. S/he didn't feel right. Hmmm.
and if the person behind the "female" was a better "actor"? what then?
would it still not feel right?? I think some people are skilled enough in the
art of dialog to overcome this...
Women have been good at writing male characters in books and visa versa....I
would think playing a female avatar would be similar.
************************
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 19:20:15 -0800
From: Caitlin Martin
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, dpres murmured:
> and if the person behind the "female" was a better "actor"? what then?
> would it still not feel right?? I think some people are skilled enough in the
> art of dialog to overcome this...
> Women have been good at writing male characters in books and visa versa....I
> would think playing a female avatar would be similar.
>
Maybe. To be honest, I've never met anyone online who gender bended
successfully in this way. In my MOO/MUD days we used to joke about being
able to sniff out the boys -- ask 'em what size panty hose they wear, for
instance. I *have* met several people who pulled off Spivak gender
flawlessly -- people who honestly felt neither male nor female. I'm not
sure really what I'm feeling from people, whether it's type/flavor of
speech or manner or what. Anybody else have any insight here?
c.
--
-----------------------------------
Caitlin Martin
caitlin@well.com
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside a dog, it's too dark to read.
************************
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 20:48:30 -0600
From: Elizabeth Barrette
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
On 23 Jan 01, at 16:19, Jon Marshall wrote:
> We may find that the importance of gender may be more invisible
> to some than to others. This outcome, may itself be gendered.
>
> Do we only just 'agree' to gender, or is it partially imposed through
> the reactions of others and something that we cannot escape from?
We cannot necessarily affect the reactions of others, but we
can certainly affect our own. If society says that a woman cannot
do X, and I identify as a woman, and I don't even try to do X, then I
have bought into the definition of womanhood for that society. But
if society says that a woman cannot do X, and I want to challenge
that claim, I can either identify as a woman and do X anyway, or
identify as something else and do X anyway. Other people may
look at me and say, "Why, you're a woman after all, and you can't
possibly do X!" then they are going to have a very hard time holding
their reality tunnel if I set aside my embroidery and commence
XXXing right in front of them.
Can we ever escape *completely* from the bounds of society?
Perhaps not. For many people, definitely not; it takes a certain
amount of teflon soul to make even the attempt at breaking free, let
alone with any success. But some of us can, without a doubt,
knock some honking big holes in the box.
> Are there people reading this stuff who are 'painfully' aware of their
> gender, as opposed to finding it largely invisible?
I have had the experience of being 'painfully' aware of being
stuffing into, or at least towards, a feminine gender. It was about
as uncomfortable and ineffective as trying to stuff my feet into
shoes three sizes too small. This sort of thing doesn't happen to
me very often anymore, but I got it periodically as a child. Some of
the results were ... ah, colorful enough that the adults in question
declined to repeat the attempt. Among the more memorable would
be the time my parents forced me into a pink dress and dragged
me to an uncle's wedding. I am visibly hostile in all the pictures --
and then there's the one of me sulking on the back steps, having
finally finally escaped the tiresome festivities, whereupon the
hireling photographer snuck up and snapped a picture of me. And I
looked up and screamed at him my entire, already impressive
vocabulary of obscenities and insults. He was *so* shocked.
Didn't dare point the camera at me again.
warhorse in a lace blanket, but that won't turn her into a palfrey.
> Given that most people do 'pick', or have attributed to them,
> gendered identities online, (or as we know, spend large amounts of
> time worrying about ambiguous gender), then what does this gender do?
It makes people feel more comfortable.
> It is possible, for example, that in a low cue environment, gender
> becomes more important in resolving communicative ambiguities, than it
> does offline
Makes sense.
Blessings,
Elizabeth
************************
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 20:48:31 -0600
From: Elizabeth Barrette
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
On 22 Jan 01, at 18:55, Alan Sondheim wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 jmarshal@ol.com.au wrote:
>
> > We may find that the importance of gender may be more invisible to
> > some than to others. This outcome, may itself be gendered.
> Just want to point out this is already biased; it may also be that the
> unimportance of gender may be more visible to some than to others, and
> that this outcome may itself be ungendered.
discussion of Laadan? She hit upon the idea that it might be
impossible to truly express women's perceptions and worldview,
because all the languages are generally aimed at expressing
*male* perceptions -- but ironically, the only languages available for
discussing the problem are those same male-oriented languages!
Whereupon she set out to create the womanlanguage Laadan, and
I can tell you that it does indeed capture some fascinating and
extremely useful concepts not encoded into other languages.
Blessings,
Elizabeth
************************
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 21:29:16 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
I think the key is that online we have a choice... We can choose to be
female or male easily....
We can also choose to be ambiguous.
In the offline world there is no choice.
Again though: to the extent that gender defines a role or personality
...doesn't that reflect bias?
if the goal is to reduce gender based bias why not eliminate it from the
online arena completely?
I think gender experimentation online allows to understand real life
gender better.
Jon Marshall wrote:
>
> Given that most people do 'pick', or have attributed to them,
> gendered identities online, (or as we know, spend large amounts of
> time worrying about ambiguous gender), then what does this
> gender do?
>
> It is possible, for example, that in a low cue environment, gender
> becomes more important in resolving communicative ambiguities,
> than it does offline
>
> jon
************************
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 21:31:13 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
Gothwalker wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 11:50:51AM -0500, David Presley typed like the wind:
> > Why is gender even important??
>
> Because gender, in one form or another,
> is one of the few things all humans confront.
Online it can be avoided if desired
> > Aren't we agreeing to social norms of gender when we broadcast our gender
> > as if it is information....
>
> It IS information.
and what do you learn from gender information??? give me a piece of information
based on gender and I will give you sexism....
> > Why not pick non-gender identities for the online world?
>
> Show me a non-gender identity.
Uh gothwalker
************************
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 21:36:49 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
This is a very potent point...
If vlanguage is male dominated then how can the female expression be found?
I recommend that females take "ownership" of the language and redefine it
for themselves.....Experiments with this have been done by radical groups
with such words as "bitch" and "grrl power".
Perhaps the blessed beth would be so kind as to give us a more complete
citation for the book??
Elizabeth Barrette wrote:
>
>
> discussion of Laadan? She hit upon the idea that it might be
> impossible to truly express women's perceptions and worldview,
> because all the languages are generally aimed at expressing
> *male* perceptions -- but ironically, the only languages available for
> discussing the problem are those same male-oriented languages!
> Whereupon she set out to create the womanlanguage Laadan, and
> I can tell you that it does indeed capture some fascinating and
> extremely useful concepts not encoded into other languages.
>
> Blessings,
> Elizabeth
************************
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 21:39:12 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
This is application of gender in the offline world....
I am questioning the importance of gender in the online world....
Elizabeth Barrette wrote:
[[snip]]
>
> We cannot necessarily affect the reactions of others, but we
> can certainly affect our own. If society says that a woman cannot
> do X, and I identify as a woman, and I don't even try to do X, then I
> have bought into the definition of womanhood for that society. [[snip]]
************************
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:23:50 +1100
From: Esther Milne
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
At 21:39 22/01/01 -0500, dpres wrote:
>This is application of gender in the offline world....
>I am questioning the importance of gender in the online world....
But what's the difference? I mean I just don't understand
the 'online world' theory at all. It doesn't really make sense
to talk of an 'offline' world as a singular experience does it?
There's 'work life', 'social life', 'family life' blah blah blah.
One of the defining features of modernity after all is
this idea of multiple identity and individualities. That with
modernity you start to see people in different roles (private
v public etc)
Well, for me it's the same with so called 'online life'. There's
web stuff, emailing, paying bills, battling with one's ISP,
etc etc.
Like when TV was invented did they talk of a 'online'
or 'broadcast world'? I know when the telegraph was invented
(1837ish) people were certainly surprised, scared, overcome,
worried, etc but they didn't talk about it as a technology that
split existence in quite the same way that we do.
And just to get back to the subject at hand: I experience
my gender in all of the above worlds.
Esther.
PS: sorry, not meant to be attacking you dpres - it's something
taht I have been thinking a lot about recently.
************************
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 10:34:52 -0800
From: Caitlin Martin
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Esther Milne murmured:
> At 21:39 22/01/01 -0500, dpres wrote:
>
> >This is application of gender in the offline world....
> >I am questioning the importance of gender in the online world....
>
> But what's the difference? I mean I just don't understand
I think the difference is that in the offline world typically you have
physical cues which guide your gender assumptions. These cues may or may
not be "right", but they seem more verifiable in a more concrete
way. Online gender identity is less concrete, less verifiable. Gender
bending (or dropping gender altogether) seems easier -- pick a name
(Pat, for instance) & people make a gender decision or wonder or just
don't care. Tell the online world you're female when in the offline world
you're male & unless someone from the online world tracks you down & grabs
your cock -- well, it's hard to tell. Gender is slippery even in the
offline world, it just seems more slippery in this one.
c.
--
-----------------------------------
Caitlin Martin
caitlin@well.com
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside a dog, it's too dark to read.
************************
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:31:33 +0000
From: Gothwalker
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 09:31:13PM -0500, dpres typed like the wind:
> > Because gender, in one form or another,
> > is one of the few things all humans confront.
>
> Online it can be avoided if desired
Yes. But offline, you'll have to confront it sometime.
And as yet, there are no entirely online persons.
> > It IS information.
> and what do you learn from gender information??? give me a piece of information
> based on gender and I will give you sexism....
That's use of the information.
If I say, "I am male", then that's information.
Ditto if I say "I am female", or "I am neuter".
What you choose to make of that is up to you,
but it does not change the information.
"I am 16 stone weight", is also information,
and you can call me a overweight geeks if you like,
but again, that's use of the information.
> > > Why not pick non-gender identities for the online world?
> > Show me a non-gender identity.
> Uh gothwalker
I can assure you that Gothwalker is a VERY male identity. :)
Do you mean "ungendered", or "genderless" ?
Where "ungendered" is indeterminate, which may be leveled
at a handle like "Gothwalker",
and "genderless" is genuinely possessed of no gender,
which I postulate is impossible for humans.
Drew.
************************
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:37:12 +0000
From: Gothwalker
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 07:20:15PM -0800, Caitlin Martin typed like the wind:
> Maybe. To be honest, I've never met anyone online who gender bended
> successfully in this way. In my MOO/MUD days we used to joke about being
> able to sniff out the boys -- ask 'em what size panty hose they wear, for
> instance. I *have* met several people who pulled off Spivak gender
> flawlessly -- people who honestly felt neither male nor female. I'm not
> sure really what I'm feeling from people, whether it's type/flavor of
> speech or manner or what. Anybody else have any insight here?
Not to be awkward, but how do you know
that you've never met anyone who was genderbending successfully?
Almost by definition, you wouldn't know.
Personally, I can do a fair imitation of female,
although I've never tried hard to fool anyone online -
it's not something I have much interest in.
What IS a wrong answer to the above question, though?
If I were asked, and were trying to come across as female,
I'd say something like:
"14, but I wear 12 sometimes. Why do you want to know?"
Would that be a giveaway?
Drew, who's never been asked. :)
************************
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 10:38:15 -0800
From: Caitlin Martin
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Gothwalker murmured:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 07:20:15PM -0800, Caitlin Martin typed like the wind:
>
> > Maybe. To be honest, I've never met anyone online who gender bended
> > successfully in this way. In my MOO/MUD days we used to joke about being
> > able to sniff out the boys -- ask 'em what size panty hose they wear, for
> > instance. I *have* met several people who pulled off Spivak gender
> > flawlessly -- people who honestly felt neither male nor female. I'm not
> > sure really what I'm feeling from people, whether it's type/flavor of
> > speech or manner or what. Anybody else have any insight here?
>
> Not to be awkward, but how do you know
> that you've never met anyone who was genderbending successfully?
Heh. True. However, by met I meant met as in met their meat.
> Almost by definition, you wouldn't know.
>
> Personally, I can do a fair imitation of female,
> although I've never tried hard to fool anyone online -
> it's not something I have much interest in.
>
> What IS a wrong answer to the above question, though?
> If I were asked, and were trying to come across as female,
> I'd say something like:
> "14, but I wear 12 sometimes. Why do you want to know?"
>
> Would that be a giveaway?
Yep. Dead giveaway. Peruse the back of a package of panty hose & you'll
learn why. ;>
c.
************************
[[This leads to a discussion of panty hose sizes, in which it turns out that they are sized in different ways in different parts of the world]]
************************
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:26:33 -0600
From: Elizabeth Barrette
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
On 22 Jan 01, at 19:20, Caitlin Martin wrote:
> Maybe. To be honest, I've never met anyone online who gender bended
> successfully in this way. In my MOO/MUD days we used to joke about
> being able to sniff out the boys -- ask 'em what size panty hose they
> wear, for instance.
I *have* met several people who pulled off Spivak
> gender flawlessly -- people who honestly felt neither male nor female.
> I'm not sure really what I'm feeling from people, whether it's
> type/flavor of speech or manner or what. Anybody else have any
> insight here?
I too have met people who genuinely seemed neuter, or an
equal blend of male and female. Gender cues are quite diverse;
you get some from manner of speech, experiential references,
social points, etc. but others I think are subtler stuff, some ineffable
sense of identity that comes across when you rub souls online.
Blessings,
Elizabeth
************************
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: My Niave comments on absent bodies
I'm not sure I agree with the Absent Body hypothesis.
Partly because it seems to me
inaccurate,
historic
gendered.
but my arguments are hardly developed
Innacurate in my experience - partly because my body constantly
reminds me of its presence, through pains, malfunctions and joys
etc, and partly because - at best - my body (who owns it?) is
'asent' ie it oscillates from presence to absence. Then there's the
whole issue of the 'body image' or 'body schema' theorists who
claim that we need some kind of model or sense of our body to
function at all, and the claim that some malfunctions correspond to
a disordered body schema - we might think (for what it is worth) of
Lacan's mirror stage. Also there are many things that appear
invisible, which have enormous import on everything I do - gravity,
cell-function, language, society etc - and I'm not sure that body is
not one of these things. So we cannot just say it is absent - and
I'm sure that is not what is happening anyway - but it is probably
as well to be sure. Although if this is granted I'm not sure what
enlightenment the idea of absent bodies actually produces. Also,
few bodies are unsexed, or ungendered.
historic: my feeling, which may be wrong, is that this is a modern
western phenomenon - I suspect that it originated somewhere in
the 16-17th century. Before that time bodies seem to be messy, a
preoccupation that cannot be denied. Other cultures, other kinds of
embodiment, but perhaps little absence. I have a vauge sympathy
for the idea of body armouring, and how this points out that the
self/body is involved in its own suppression or distortion of types of
sensation.
Ivan Illich, for what that is worth as well, claims that the idea of the
'human self' originated in the 17th Century and that this eventually
made 'gender' a property possessed by a human not an 'intrinsic
nature' and that this supressed some kind of recognition and
respect for 'human' differences and, more controversially, that this
can lead to new kinds of oppression. Such a process could also
increase the apparant diminishing importance of body to the self.
Even if he is right he does not draw attention to the fact that this
'self' defaulted to male rather than to 'human' untill probably quite
recently (last 10-20 years). I have vague suspicions that cyborgs
still default to male, despite harraway.
Gendered: This is the difficult one, but it seems to me that
absence of the body is primarily a male-gender thing - probably a
male-gender intellectual thing at that. There was heaps of work
(who by I cannot remember) which seemed to imply that British
working class boys had an extreme body consciousness - their
identity was tied up with their bodies and its fitness and strength.
The argument was that this disenfranchised them from our
methods of education. Education became a 'girls thing'
incompatible with this male identity and body use patterns.
Again there seems to be large amounts of research into the ways
that a 'perfect body' schema distorts the relationship of western
women to their bodies - the body is again asent rather than absent -
a continual dialogue with a whole set of identity, acceptance and
social placement issues which are expressed or located 'in' the
body. Also the body might be the primary way a woman is
recognised as not default male - so that puts further stress on body
presence.
I also worry that the absent body simply reinforces the 'absenting'
of passion, especially as gender seems to be an issue that people
are entwined with passion in. As is nearly everything else of course.
jon
************************
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
This seems to be an issue which is best decided by research,
which is why it would be nice if more people could give their
responses to the original gender consciousness questions - which
in hope I append at the bottom of this email.
jon
On 22 Jan 01, at 18:55, Alan Sondheim wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 jmarshal@ol.com.au wrote:
>
> > We may find that the importance of gender may be more invisible to
> > some than to others. This outcome, may itself be gendered.
> >
>
> Just want to point out this is already biased; it may also be that the
> unimportance of gender may be more visible to some than to others, and
> that this outcome may itself be ungendered.
>
> - Alan
>
[snip]
************************
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:03:26 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
now that we know this [[ie pantyhose sizes]] can we all pass for women???
************************
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:04:40 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
the body is absent online and not offline.
Nick Penpa wrote:
> So the body is not absent after all, at least when it comes to buying
> pantyhose.
[[snip]]
************************
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:08:23 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
what is the importance of knowing gender online???
Caitlin Martin wrote:
[[snipp]]
> I think the difference is that in the offline world typically you have
> physical cues which guide your gender assumptions. These cues may or may
> not be "right", but they seem more verifiable in a more concrete
> way. Online gender identity is less concrete, less verifiable. Gender
> bending (or dropping gender altogether) seems easier -- pick a name
> (Pat, for instance) & people make a gender decision or wonder or just
> don't care. Tell the online world you're female when in the offline world
> you're male & unless someone from the online world tracks you down & grabs
> your cock -- well, it's hard to tell. Gender is slippery even in the
> offline world, it just seems more slippery in this one.
************************
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:14:09 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
Gothwalker wrote:
[[snip]]
> And as yet, there are no entirely online persons.
many people communicate solely via e-mail or text chat.
[[snip]]
Information implies meaning....So what conclusion can be drawn from on-line
gender....?
What exactly do we know???
> That's use of the information.
>
> If I say, "I am male", then that's information.
> Ditto if I say "I am female", or "I am neuter".
>
> What you choose to make of that is up to you,
> but it does not change the information.
No that does not change the fact...Information is what gives the fact relevance.
The sky is blue. What does that fact have to do with the online world? I suggest
that gender in the online world has the same role as the sky is blue.
************************
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:17:05 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
> Do you mean "ungendered", or "genderless" ?
>
> Where "ungendered" is indeterminate, which may be leveled
> at a handle like "Gothwalker",
> and "genderless" is genuinely possessed of no gender,
> which I postulate is impossible for humans.
>
> Drew.
>
I mean indeterminate gender so Ungendered.
************************
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:23:23 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
Unlike broadcast media the online world provides one to one, many to
one and one to many real time as well as time shifted communication.
This means that we can communicate as individuals at will and on demand
in the online world. I am questioning the uselfulness of gender in this
world. As audio and video become more of a componenet of the online
world I suspect the sexist attitudes that coincide with gender will
appear as the visual and auditory ques of gender engender the
environment for that sexism to take place.
In an e-mail list such as this what usefulness does the your sex provide
the list?
Esther Milne wrote:
> At 21:39 22/01/01 -0500, dpres wrote:
>
> >This is application of gender in the offline world....
> >I am questioning the importance of gender in the online world....
>
> But what's the difference? I mean I just don't understand
[[snip]]
************************
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 22:22:01 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
> . If people write that it is important
> to them, or part of their experience, then it is. And this cannot be
> ignored.
If it is important it is because there are expectations which occur with
gender with respect to personality.
I suggest these expectations are sexist in nature.
> I suspect that gender will continue to be important online. But that
> is simply because I think that things like gender, politics etc
> become far more important online than offline - partly because
> people use these offline to resolve communicative ambiguities (so
> that they know 'what kind of person they are talking to'), and given
> that communicative ambiguities are greater online than off, their
> importantance increases.
to the extent that "what kind of person they are talking to" is defined by
their sex.....is the extent in the online world that this definition of the
person is sexist.
> As I have had pointed out to me, most flame wars on CM tend to
> be about politics or gender.
>
> But I could easily be wrong about all of this, hence the reasearch
>
> jon
Gender and politics have always been a large source of debate.
************************
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 18:54:45 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
On 23 Jan 01, at 20:23, dpres wrote:
> I am questioning the uselfulness of gender in this world.
>[snip]
>In an e-mail list such as this what usefulness does the your sex
>provide the list?
i don't know david (? :), this seems to me to be pre-empting the
question.
We are trying to find out if in fact gender *is* important, in the ways
that people have organised themselves online - and how this is
importance is brought into play. If people write that it is important
to them, or part of their experience, then it is. And this cannot be
ignored. It might not be so for others, though so far it seems most
(but not all) of the people who find it of less import, are male - but it
is a small sample.....
I suspect that gender will continue to be important online. But that
is simply because I think that things like gender, politics etc
become far more important online than offline - partly because
people use these offline to resolve communicative ambiguities (so
that they know 'what kind of person they are talking to'), and given
that communicative ambiguities are greater online than off, their
importantance increases.
As I have had pointed out to me, most flame wars on CM tend to
be about politics or gender.
But I could easily be wrong about all of this, hence the reasearch
jon
************************
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:57:21 +0000
From: Gothwalker
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 08:04:40PM -0500, dpres typed like the wind:
> the body is absent online and not offline.
I don't think so. My body is right here,
reminding me that I haven't had enough coffee yet,
that my left boot has developed a hole in the heel to match the right,
that I'm not altogether comfortable with this laptop yet,
and that there's a cold draught down the back of my neck,
so I should adjust the aircon vent above me.
Sounds pretty present to me.
Drew.
************************
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:02:05 +0000
From: Gothwalker
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 08:14:09PM -0500, dpres typed like the wind:
> > Yes. But offline, you'll have to confront it sometime.
> > And as yet, there are no entirely online persons.
>
> many people communicate solely via e-mail or text chat.
Yes, and I know many of them.
That doesn't mean that they are genderless people.
> Information implies meaning....So what conclusion can be drawn from on-line
> gender....? What exactly do we know???
We know the gender.
I think I'm missing something -
do you expect something else?
> I suggest
> that gender in the online world has the same role as the sky is blue.
But I talk about meteorology online all the time.
So does everyone.
It's part of the human experience, it's relevant.
(If it's not relevant, and gender isn't relevant,
why are you taking part in this discussion? :) )
Drew.
************************
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:05:40 +0000
From: Gothwalker
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 08:17:05PM -0500, dpres typed like the wind:
> I mean indeterminate gender so Ungendered.
No, this doesn't work.
In maths, this is
[Unknown] = 0
which is plainly false.
Just because you do not know the state
does not mean that there is no state.
Drew.
************************
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:17:02 +0000
From: Gothwalker
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 10:22:01PM -0500, dpres typed like the wind:
> If it is important it is because there are expectations which occur with
> gender with respect to personality.
> I suggest these expectations are sexist in nature.
Of COURSE they're sexist in nature.
A conclusion based on someone's gender HAS to be sexist.
The next line is: so?
Sexism isn't *necessarily* bad [1].
Males and females are different,
have different hormones, react differently [2].
We can deal better with someone if we know which they are -
or which they wish to be thought of as.
Ditto if they want to be thought of as neuter, plural, etc.
Drew.
[1] Other -isms may or may not be. YMMV.
[2] Some 'modern' movements won't acknowledge this,
which is rankest idiocy in my mind.
************************
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:37:07 -0600
From: Elizabeth Barrette
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
On 24 Jan 01, at 10:05, Gothwalker wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 08:17:05PM -0500, dpres typed like the wind:
>
> > I mean indeterminate gender so Ungendered.
>
> No, this doesn't work.
>
> In maths, this is
>
> [Unknown] = 0
>
> which is plainly false.
>
> Just because you do not know the state
> does not mean that there is no state.
my Waterjewel language. The five genders of Waterjewel include
four determinate and one indeterminate (actually, two indeterminate
if you want to put children in that category, but the tribe *insists*
that children cannot be gendered because they are not sexual
beings, despite the fact that they use a sixth pronoun for kids):
male, female, both, neither, and "I'm not telling." The gender issue
forms a dominant theme in my short story "Did You Get Your
Answers Questioned?" in the _Genderflex_ anthology if anyone is
curious enough to pursue this further.
Blessings,
Elizabeth
************************
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:16:39 -0600
From: Elizabeth Barrette
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
On 24 Jan 01, at 16:12, Gothwalker wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 10:37:07AM -0600, Elizabeth Barrette typed
> like the wind: > The five genders of Waterjewel include > four
> determinate and one indeterminate (actually, two indeterminate > if
> you want to put children in that category, but the tribe *insists* >
> that children cannot be gendered because they are not sexual > beings,
> despite the fact that they use a sixth pronoun for kids): > male,
> female, both, neither, and "I'm not telling."
>
> But there's still no non-gendered state, right?
Nongendered is neuter, an adult who is not in any way a sexual
being, socially or physically. One could argue that *all* sentients
must be gendered, even if their gender is "non." The linguistic
constructions for the nongendered are closely related to those for
the gendered, which is evidence for that argument. But I find it odd
to consider as a gender a role which excludes all the gender-
behaviors and interests. This is a matter of taste, and can be
debated either way.
Blessings,
Elizabeth
************************
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:12:20 +1100
From: Esther Milne
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
At 20:23 23/01/01 -0500, dpres wrote:
snip
>In an e-mail list such as this what usefulness does the your sex provide
>the list?
>
Good question mate. Wondered about that a lot myself. What
about a quick 'dance of the pantyhose'? The cotton gusset strip?
Esther.
But all joking aside 'sex' and 'gender' are two different
categories. How the dynamic between them operates is, i
think, one of the subjects of the proposed book.
************************
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:12:57 +0000
From: Gothwalker
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 10:37:07AM -0600, Elizabeth Barrette typed like the wind:
> The five genders of Waterjewel include
> four determinate and one indeterminate (actually, two indeterminate
> if you want to put children in that category, but the tribe *insists*
> that children cannot be gendered because they are not sexual
> beings, despite the fact that they use a sixth pronoun for kids):
> male, female, both, neither, and "I'm not telling."
But there's still no non-gendered state, right?
Drew.
************************
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:53:04 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
Do ideas contain gender? if so in what way does an idea have gender?
also just trying to understand...
Esther Milne wrote:
[[snip]]
>
> But all joking aside 'sex' and 'gender' are two different
> categories. How the dynamic between them operates is, i
> think, one of the subjects of the proposed book.
************************
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:59:10 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
Gothwalker wrote:
> >
> > many people communicate solely via e-mail or text chat.
>
> Yes, and I know many of them.
> That doesn't mean that they are genderless people.
No they do have gender but how does the knowledge of the author's gender enrich
the reader?
> We know the gender.
> I think I'm missing something -
> do you expect something else?
What conclusion can we draw from this alleged knowledge?
> It's part of the human experience, it's relevant.
Is gender part of the human experience online?
> (If it's not relevant, and gender isn't relevant,
> why are you taking part in this discussion? :)
I think many people can around inaccurate ideas based on gender....In fact I
question what idea can be based on gender?
Online people can shed this gender shackle by hiding and / or altering it for the
purpose of communicating an idea...It would be better if people could just accept
personality and ideas for what they are without trying to attach a gender to
them.
************************
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:01:05 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
Gothwalker wrote:
[[snip]]
>
> Just because you do not know the state
> does not mean that there is no state.
I did not deny the state...I am suggesting that online it is unknowable for
certainty.
I see we have shed goth for drew. One wonders for what purpose...
************************
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:05:16 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
Now we get somewhere.....
Gothwalker wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 10:22:01PM -0500, dpres typed like the wind:
>
> > If it is important it is because there are expectations which occur with
> > gender with respect to personality.
> > I suggest these expectations are sexist in nature.
>
> Of COURSE they're sexist in nature.
>
> A conclusion based on someone's gender HAS to be sexist.
Exactly
> The next line is: so?
So conclusions based on gender are false....
Name a conclusion that you can draw based on gender, please if u can.
> Sexism isn't *necessarily* bad [1].
What is good about sexism?
>
> Males and females are different,
> have different hormones, react differently [2].
Of course but are you suggesting that one thinks differently? that one thinks in
a superior way?
> We can deal better with someone if we know which they are -
> or which they wish to be thought of as.
How can you deal with them better? In what way can one communicate better if you
know their gender???
> Ditto if they want to be thought of as neuter, plural, etc.
************************
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:06:53 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
where is this genderflex anthology??
Elizabeth Barrette wrote:
>[[snip]]
>The gender issue
> forms a dominant theme in my short story "Did You Get Your
> Answers Questioned?" in the _Genderflex_ anthology if anyone is
> curious enough to pursue this further.
>
> Blessings,
> Elizabeth
************************
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:36:21 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
I think truer have not been spoken regarding this topic.....
I thank you for your input.
"Christopher M. Massey" wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Hello. I only recently joined this mailing list, and am still catching up
> on the various topoi indigenous to your bit-per population. I find this
> discussion of online gender interesting. Is there a specific background
> resource I should read? Now, on to my $.02...please excuse me if my
> ignorance shouts out like it has Tourette Syndrome.
************************
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:51:12 -0600
From: Elizabeth Barrette
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
On 24 Jan 01, at 21:06, dpres wrote:
> where is this genderflex anthology??
It was published by Circlet Press, edited by Cecelia Tan, and
as far as I know you can still buy it through the publisher. Here is
the relevant URL:
http://www.circlet.com/circlet_books.html
And hey, thanks for your interest!
Blessings,
Elizabeth
************************
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:02:01 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Gender consciousness/sexism
On 23 Jan 01, at 22:22, dpres wrote:
> > . If people write that it is important
> > to them, or part of their experience, then it is. And this cannot be
> > ignored.
>
> If it is important it is because there are expectations which occur
> with gender with respect to personality. I suggest these expectations
> are sexist in nature.
Perhaps.
But, though it is an argument of interest, and certainly of relevance -
and I'm glad it was brought up - it seems to me a moral argument.
And at the moment i'm trying to find out how people use gender
online - to say 'they shouldnt', because it is morally wrong, is not
really answering the same question.
it could for example, be suggested that the effect of this moral
argument (and this is not about your personal aim, so forgive me
for making use of your words) is to compulsorarily delete people's
experience of gender. Now if this experience actually occurs, then
by saying it is morally wrong, not only does whoever makes this
claim *to some extent* make the people wrong, but they also claim
the right to define the situation and indeed the right to dominate
others so that they conform to the moralist's requirements. - after
all who on CM is going to claim Sexism is good - even though they
might believe that people do utilise the gender of others online.
However it would seem to me to be dubious to claim that, say, a
woman's retelling of her experience of gender is in itself sexist. In
fact, it might be the silencing of this retelling that counts as sexist.
jon
On to part 2
This page hosted by
Get your own Free Home Page