From: catcher at times?
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
--- dpres
> No they do have gender but how does the knowledge of the author's
gender enrich the reader?
Imagine you think of yourself as being very male/female and you need
the concept of gender to feel you're communicating. I know people
online who need gender: they can only communicate as a female
towards a male or a female towards a female - if they don't have
these definitions they're lost and feel threatened.
renata
********************
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 03:27:59 -0500
From: Dominic Fox
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism
I'm not sure that a moral argument necessarily entails compulsion: it
depends on whether one has a police force to back it up, and also on
whether or not one is willing to use a police force in that way and to that
end. There is a gap between saying "x is pernicious" and saying "x should
be prohibited and punished": one might for instance think that prohibition
and punishment are themselves pernicious, or have pernicious side-effects
which would defeat their object in some cases (vide the War on Some Drugs).
Isn't there any way in which moral arguments can escape being either
inconsequential ("that's just my opinion") or instruments of domination?
What about moral argument, or even moral struggle?
There'd also be a difference, wouldn't there, between censoring the words
of those who speak about their experience of gender, and desiring a society
in which gender was no longer real and such speech was no longer necessary?
As with race: it is necessary to speak about racial oppression, but one
might believe that and still believe that it is desirable to abolish both
the concept of race and the social practices that support it...
********************
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:13:16 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
On 24 Jan 01, at 21:01, dpres wrote:
> I see we have shed goth for drew. One wonders for what purpose...
I was also curious why you had shed the "David Presley" and
substituted "dpres" instead?
jon
********************
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:18:30 +0200
From: Maurizio Mariotti
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
Jon Marshall scripsit:
> I was also curious why you had shed the "David Presley" and
> substituted "dpres" instead?
Good question. I have another one: Is "dpres" (Née David Presley),
the cyberentity who wanted to be known as "Gandalf"?
M
********************
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:43:05 +0200
From: Markku Nivalainen
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
> I was also curious why you had shed the "David Presley" and
> substituted "dpres" instead?
Maybe he is dpressed?
mn
********************
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:32:55 +0000
From: Gothwalker
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 09:01:05PM -0500, dpres typed like the wind:
> I see we have shed goth for drew. One wonders for what purpose...
My handle is Gothwalker, my name is Drew.
One is at the top of the mail,
one at the bottom.
It has always been this way.
Drew.
********************
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:49:32 +0000
From: Gothwalker
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 08:59:10PM -0500, dpres typed like the wind:
> No they do have gender but how does the knowledge of the author's gender
> enrich the reader?
All information enriches.
However, use for the knowledge of an online persons gender:
You are having problems with your girlfriend,
and you wish to ask another bloke how he deals with
this kind of situation.
You are female, and moving to an new area,
and you wish to locate a reputable gynaecologist.
You're more likely to get this information
from men than women.
You want to buy second hand dresses.
You want to know, for writing purposes,
how a professional American footballer feels and thinks.
Is that enough?
> > We know the gender.
> > I think I'm missing something -
> > do you expect something else?
>
> What conclusion can we draw from this alleged knowledge?
That they're not of other genders?
Why do you want more?
> Is gender part of the human experience online?
Yes. We're communicating online about gender. QED.
> I think many people can around inaccurate ideas based on gender....In fact I
> question what idea can be based on gender?
See above.
> 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.
You'll find that ideas about childbirth are
far more useful from women than from men.
Drew.
********************
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:51:56 +0000
From: Gothwalker
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 09:01:05PM -0500, dpres typed like the wind:
> I did not deny the state...I am suggesting that online it is unknowable for
> certainty.
In the local goth club, it's unknowable for certain. [1]
This is not unique to an online experience,
just as knowable gender is not unique to an offline existence.
Drew.
[1] Goth culture uses genderbend as a means of
expression of individuality, rebellion,
seperation from the mainstream,
and, oddly, conformance with other goths.
********************
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:06:58 +0000
From: Gothwalker
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 09:05:16PM -0500, dpres typed like the wind:
> So conclusions based on gender are false....
No. They may be unjustified,
they may be biased, but they are not false by definition.`
> Name a conclusion that you can draw based on gender, please if u can.
Certainly.
This person is female, therefore she is not male.
This person is male, therefore he is not female.
This person is neuter, therefore it is neither male nor female.
This person is jix, therefore ji jare not a sexually minded
being, or jare aspiring to that state.
This person is female, therefore she cannot suffer from
Zoon's Balinitis.
This person is male, therefore he cannot give birth.
Enough?
> > Sexism isn't *necessarily* bad [1].
> What is good about sexism?
Knowing to whom you can relate as male,
and to whom you can relate as female.
Remove this information, and personal relationships
become much much more difficult.
> Of course but are you suggesting that one thinks differently? that one
> thinks in a superior way?
No, that's your suggestion, and your conclusion.
I have never offered that even as a possibility,
only referring to them as 'different'.
Difference does not imply superiority.
> How can you deal with them better? In what way can one communicate
> better if you know their gender???
Dude, if you don't know this, you're not human.
You cannot claim that you do not relate differently to males and females.
It is not biologically possible.
However, on the offchance that you are sidhe, a ghost,
machine, or another non-human entity:
A human can deal with another human more comfortably
if they know each others gender
as gender is the baseline of most human interaction.
Comfort leads to better communication.
Social mores and customs dictate how men deal with women,
how women deal with men, how men deal with men,
and how women deal with women.
(Social mores and customs dictating rules concerning
other genders are unusual in humanity.)
I am not claiming that any of the above
is an ideal, agreeable or even desirable state of being.
It just IS.
> But would Oli want to be horribly mutated??
Knowing Oli, he'd probably try it at least once.
Drew.
********************
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:34:11 -0600
From: Elizabeth Barrette
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
On 25 Jan 01, at 0:26, catcher at times wrote:
> --- dpres
>
> > No they do have gender but how does the knowledge of the author's
> gender enrich the reader?
>
> Imagine you think of yourself as being very male/female and you need
> the concept of gender to feel you're communicating. I know people
> online who need gender: they can only communicate as a female towards
> a male or a female towards a female - if they don't have these
> definitions they're lost and feel threatened.
Yep, I've run into those too. I try to back away gently when I
know I'm talking to one, so's I don't accidentally break them. I
simply don't fit into either of the standard "or" boxes when it comes
to gender. Now if they ask *sex* that's a little different; the body
I'm currently wearing is biologically female. But the mind inside is
a whole 'nother kettle of fishies.
Blessings,
Elizabeth
********************
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:51:20 -0600
From: "Christopher M. Massey"
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
"You are having problems with your girlfriend, and you wish to ask another
bloke how he deals with this kind of situation."
Unless of course the male in question happens to be gay or chronically
alone. Not knowing the percentages of these in the world, I'd hazard a
guess that you just disenfranchized at least 10% of the population.
"You want to buy second hand dresses."
Being in the theatre, I actually know more about this then most of my female
friends. I would suggest the DAV, or the Salvation Army, for starters.
Then there are a couple of places downtown that have great stuff, but tend
to be a bit expensive....and so on.
"You want to know, for writing purposes, how a professional American
footballer feels and thinks."
So, those of us who have little interest in American football lose our cards
to The Man Club? I would think that only an American Footballer (a
profession, not a gender) would be able to answer this with complete
accuracy. Next in line would probably be the people (male or female) who
date or are married to an A.F.. For anyone else, it's a guess made on
perception, which merely implies interest and research. And many women I
know are far more interested in American football than I.
"You'll find that ideas about childbirth are far more useful from women than
from men."
Unless that man is an OB/GYN. Actually, I think the breakdown would be
Women who have had a child/children
OB/GYNs
Husbands or male partners of women who have had a child/children
........you get the idea.
Research has shown that women can be just as ignorant of their reproductive
systems as men. In spite of whatever they teach them when they separate the
girls from the boys in school. ;)
"You are female, and moving to an new area, and you wish to locate a
reputable gynaecologist. You're more likely to get this information from
men than women."
Well, you have me here. Yet, this isn't really a gender issue. It is a sex
issue. Men have no need to see a gyn., because they lack the proper
equipment. A woman could dress like a man, act like a man, think of herself
in every way as a man...society could buy into this if s/he is effective
enough and gender her (thus treat her as) a man. But, as long as she still
has a vagina, someone will need to check it out. And the best
cross-dresser/transsexual in the world, even after the surgery, will (in my
limited understanding) never need a gyn., even if the transformation is
undetectable and society genders him a her. There'd be nothing for the gyn.
to do except admire the plastic surgeon's work.
"In the local goth club, it's unknowable for certain...Goth culture uses
genderbend as a means of expression of individuality, rebellion, seperation
from the mainstream, and, oddly, conformance with other goths."
It would seem, then, that the body is _very_ present in this culture...the
process of gender identification is foregrounded as a means of communicating
a deviation from what society expects. This is a far cry from forming your
body from the digital void and just allowing others to assume the a priori
existence of that body.
"This person is female, therefore she is not male.
This person is male, therefore he is not female.
This person is neuter, therefore it is neither male nor female.
This person is jix, therefore ji jare not a sexually minded
being, or jare aspiring to that state.
This person is female, therefore she cannot suffer from
Zoon's Balinitis.
This person is male, therefore he cannot give birth."
Once again, these are sex issues, not gender. But even so, what do these
items really tell you in the online world? What does knowing of an entity
online, "This person is female, therefore she is not male" do for me except
immediately bring to mind the socially imposed standard gender
classifications--which experience has taught me are completely inadequate.
Okay, I've talked enough. I'll take a virtual breath here and let other
people have their say. :)
Christopher
********************
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 18:04:32 +0000
From: Gothwalker
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 11:51:20AM -0600, Christopher M. Massey typed like the wind:
Christopher, you're using clear reasoning,
I can't stand up to that kind of assault. :)
> Once again, these are sex issues, not gender. But even so, what do these
> items really tell you in the online world? What does knowing of an entity
> online, "This person is female, therefore she is not male" do for me except
> immediately bring to mind the socially imposed standard gender
> classifications--which experience has taught me are completely inadequate.
I'm not arguing that the perceptions / classifications
are good or bad, useful or not.
What I'm arguing is that they are PRESENT.
And when they are present, there is gender in cyberspace.
Any discussion therefore has to be about dealing with it,
not about the concept of its existence.
Drew.
********************
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:41:00 -0600
From: "Christopher M. Massey"
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
> I'm not arguing that the perceptions / classifications
> are good or bad, useful or not.
>
> What I'm arguing is that they are PRESENT.
>
> And when they are present, there is gender in cyberspace.
>
> Any discussion therefore has to be about dealing with it,
> not about the concept of its existence.
>
> Drew.
Drew,
Very true. Yet, under what conditions is gender present? With the body
absent, it is only by self-revelation that the true (or should I say again,
Society Imposed) gender is known. And, until Intel finally figures out how
to make a chip that will analyze the user's DNA (from skin flakes on the
keyboard, aka Gattaca) and secretly transmit every detail, with no
possibility of fabrication, gender can still be lied about...or not
mentioned at all.
And when an apple can be any fruit at all, or a chair, or a *insert whatever
here*, can a classification made on perception have any validity? And if
you destabilize the framework of classification, the apple becomes an
unidentifiable 'something'...it exists, yes, but can you eat it? Its very
indeterminacy forces you to deal with it on its own terms, rather than the
easier route of the recognizable type.
I guess my point is, if the question is whether or not I am conscious of
others' gender identity online, the answer is No. I may have passing
thoughts about gender identity as a concept, but I can only deal with the
perceived...and be unable to trust my perceptions. When it _is_ present,
you are right...it has to be dealt with...but even then, not nearly as
severly as in the offline world...It's far less difficult to embrace the
person across from you as a mind/persona alone, when he scratches his five
o'clock shadow every few minutes...or when her physical body is crying out
for you to admire its feminine curves....
The online world has this potential. We just all need to pick neuter IDs,
and refuse to answer any questions about gender. Let's start a digital
gender revolution.... ;)
Christopher
********************
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:26:55 -0800
From: Caitlin Martin
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Gothwalker murmured:
> You'll find that ideas about childbirth are
> far more useful from women than from men.
& likewise I'm pretty sure men have a lot more to tell me about prostate
glands ...
c.
********************
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 20:44:53 +0100
From: Enok Kippersund
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
Sometimes I use "pregnancy" and "birth" for metaphors on the processes
of creatitivity. Female friends do smile then, and I have started being
not that close to the point any more but nowadays very reserved on
using that beautiful "word picture", - until I experience a female
teacher use the prostate glands for a mteaphor of something, - the empty
mining cave of an artist, the dried out well of a poet?
Enok (twice every night)
********************
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:49:49 -0800
From: Caitlin Martin
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Gothwalker murmured:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 09:01:05PM -0500, dpres typed like the wind:
>
> > I did not deny the state...I am suggesting that online it is unknowable for
> > certainty.
>
> In the local goth club, it's unknowable for certain. [1]
>
> This is not unique to an online experience,
> just as knowable gender is not unique to an offline existence.
>
Exactly. I have several good friends who are transvestites. If you
didn't know they were biologically male, you'd assume
otherwise. Interestingly (to me) none of them claim to be female,
either. As one of them said to me, "I know SOME things about what it's
like to be female, but the fact remains that if I want I can take off my
high heels & dress & look male again. So what do I really know?"
I also don't agree that acknowledging difference equates with
sexism/racism, etc. Women aren't men. Men aren't women. There are
biological differences between us. We can be different & still be treated
equally.
People want to know other people's gender for all kinds of reasons --
those that Drew pointed out & a zillion other reasons I can think of off
the top of my head. For instance, I speak differently to women about the
rape I experienced than I do to men. Is that sexist?
c.
********************
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:52:27 -0600
From: Elizabeth Barrette
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
On 25 Jan 01, at 14:06, Gothwalker wrote:
> > Name a conclusion that you can draw based on gender, please if u
> > can.
>
> Certainly.
>
> This person is female, therefore she is not male.
> This person is male, therefore he is not female.
> This person is neuter, therefore it is neither male nor female. This
> person is jix, therefore ji jare not a sexually minded
> being, or jare aspiring to that state.
> This person is female, therefore she cannot suffer from
> Zoon's Balinitis.
> This person is male, therefore he cannot give birth.
Note that some such conclusions may be true in one time or
culture, but not another. "This person is male, therefore he cannot
give birth" may be true now but not in a hundred years. And a
hundred years ago in America, "This person is female, therefore
she wears a dress" would have been true, whereas it is often
untrue today.
> Difference does not imply superiority.
Hear, hear. Men and women do tend to think differently. Some
of the tendencies are disguised or enhanced by cultural training. If
you don't believe that men and women think differently, and act
differently with members of each gender, just wait until you've seen
either try to deal with a person who does *not* fit squarely into
either box. Even a plain ol' faggot will throw the more conservative
ones, because without the gender rules *they don't know how to
relate*. If it's a real genderblender like me, well then, life gets
interesting awful quick.
> > How can you deal with them better? In what way can one communicate
> > better if you know their gender???
>
> Dude, if you don't know this, you're not human.
>
> You cannot claim that you do not relate differently to males and
> females. It is not biologically possible.
>
> However, on the offchance that you are sidhe, a ghost,
> machine, or another non-human entity:
that often throws *me* in trying to deal with "regular" folks. I'm just
not very good at figuring out what other people can't do, don't like,
or won't understand. Sometimes if I treat men and women the
same, they like it; other times, it drives them bonkers. I've sort of
got the hang of it after almost three decades of practice, but they
still confuse the hell out of me sometimes.
But I will toss out one other fascinating tidbit from my
genderflex story -- the Waterjewel tribe has five genders and the
social roles for those are in some ways a lot more fluid than you
might expect. They don't stipulate manner of dress or allowable
employment, for instance, along gender lines. They *do* have
different dances for each gender, though ... and when making
introductions, a statement of gender is part of each adult's name.
They consider the information valuable enough to make *sure* it's
transmitted accurately.
> (Social mores and customs dictating rules concerning
> other genders are unusual in humanity.)
Yep, but not unheard of, which I think is really fun.
Blessings,
Elizabeth
********************
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 09:00:56 +1100
From: Esther Milne
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
At 20:53 24/01/01 -0500, dpres wrote:
>Do ideas contain gender? if so in what way does an idea have gender?
>also just trying to understand...
>
Well gender certainly contains ideas. And these
'ideas' often translate into inequity (generally - although
not always - for women).
Another problem with 'ideas' of gender is that they are
not fixed. Neither in offline life nor online (wherever these
two 'places' are). As lots of people have already said (Caitlin
& Elizabeth in particular) gender is not a pre-given, ahistorical
category.
The difficulty as i see it is this fantasy of a genderless life
on line. That's been the rhetoric for years now - that you can
bend/slip/avoid/play with gender. And one reason you can
do this is that cyberland is disembodied. I'm not sure that
this is the case. I can't remember who it was (Drew?) who
said that he is very aware of his body while at the keyboard.
ditto. The dream is that we can get rid of prejudice blah blah
on line becasue there are no identifiers. I guess this is where
'Jon's' book comes in. And i would jsut add that it's interesting
that in the main it is men who are saying gender doesn't matter
on line. *covers ears in expectation of loud shouts of disagreement
from other females or 'undecideds'*
Esther.
********************
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 18:49:04 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
Yes but how does your body condition affect the information you present to the
reader? How does the reader verify the veracity of your body condition? Online
body condition is a concept and not a fact. There is no physical presence unlike
the offline physical world.
Of course there are shades of extremes: Voice for example has a physical
embodiment....at least to the extent that the voice is not computer altered or
generated and the same goes for images.
Gothwalker wrote:
> 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: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 18:55:36 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
If someone actively chooses gender identity online what are they actually
saying? Does gender validate or add to ideas?
If others give that person a gender identity online what are they saying?
Do concepts require gender identity?
Why do some languages create gender for all nouns? , German for example.
and others such as english have little use for gender with nouns the the
noted exceptions of some nouns such as a ship.....
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?
>
> 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
********************
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:05:12 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism
>
> > 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.
>
I am not trying to be moralistic. I think many times people take on gender
identity because they think that the gender might help communicate an idea.
I suggest that the "urge" to use gender to make communication "easier" has
sexist assumptions. Is sexism "bad"? To the extent that it discriminates
it is....
> 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.
People"who use gender" what does that mean? I do not think it is morally
wrong to use gender....But I think the fact that gender "changes" an
argument due to social environment that we live in is wrong....This change
is not under the control of the person who uses 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.
I am not being critical of people who use gender...I am critical of the
meaning that gender may have. Meaning is socially and not individually
determined. It is not my intention to inhibit people or ideas. In fact my
intention is the opposite.
> - 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.
SO is the cliam of sexism invalid???
> 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.
I do not advocate the silencing of an idea. There is a difference between
retelling of an experience of gender....and being a gender online though.
********************
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:06:28 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism
Dominic Fox wrote:
>
> There'd also be a difference, wouldn't there, between censoring the words
> of those who speak about their experience of gender, and desiring a society
> in which gender was no longer real and such speech was no longer necessary?
> As with race: it is necessary to speak about racial oppression, but one
> might believe that and still believe that it is desirable to abolish both
> the concept of race and the social practices that support it...
Exactly. This is well put.
********************
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:10:41 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
Esther Milne wrote:
> At 20:53 24/01/01 -0500, dpres wrote:
> >Do ideas contain gender? if so in what way does an idea have gender?
> >also just trying to understand...
> >
>
> Well gender certainly contains ideas. And these
> 'ideas' often translate into inequity (generally - although
> not always - for women).
>
Very true....which is one of my points about the consequences of gender
consciousness. I would like to try to eliminate this consequence. If
this consequence was eliminated I think the urge to pronounce gender
would also be lessened.
> Another problem with 'ideas' of gender is that they are
> not fixed. Neither in offline life nor online (wherever these
> two 'places' are). As lots of people have already said (Caitlin
> & Elizabeth in particular) gender is not a pre-given, ahistorical
> category.
This notion needs to be expanded.
> The difficulty as i see it is this fantasy of a genderless life
> on line. That's been the rhetoric for years now - that you can
> bend/slip/avoid/play with gender. And one reason you can
> do this is that cyberland is disembodied. I'm not sure that
> this is the case. I can't remember who it was (Drew?) who
> said that he is very aware of his body while at the keyboard.
> ditto. The dream is that we can get rid of prejudice blah blah
> on line becasue there are no identifiers. I guess this is where
> 'Jon's' book comes in. And i would jsut add that it's interesting
> that in the main it is men who are saying gender doesn't matter
> on line. *covers ears in expectation of loud shouts of disagreement
> from other females or 'undecideds'*
I agree with this concept completely.
Peace.
********************
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:14:53 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
Caitlin Martin wrote:
>
> I also don't agree that acknowledging difference equates with
> sexism/racism, etc. Women aren't men. Men aren't women. There are
> biological differences between us. We can be different & still be treated
> equally.
>
But what do these differences have to do with communicating ideas online?
> People want to know other people's gender for all kinds of reasons --
> those that Drew pointed out & a zillion other reasons I can think of off
> the top of my head. For instance, I speak differently to women about the
> rape I experienced than I do to men. Is that sexist?
Why is there a need to talk differently to each group about your experience....Are
you afraid of being misinterpretated?
To the extent that you expect and/or are treated differently that difference
reflects sexism in society....Is sexism something we want to promote in our
society?
********************
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 17:09:35 -0800
From: Caitlin Martin
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, dpres murmured:
> Caitlin Martin wrote:
> >
> > I also don't agree that acknowledging difference equates with
> > sexism/racism, etc. Women aren't men. Men aren't women. There are
> > biological differences between us. We can be different & still be treated
> > equally.
> >
>
> But what do these differences have to do with communicating ideas online?
I'd assert that these differences are a part of who we are in the same way
our history, today's mood, whether or not it's raining, the books
we've read, our life experience, etc. are a part of who we are. All of
these parts of who we are influence what & how we communicate. That's not
deterministic or fatalistic or sexist or anything else. It simply
acknowledges that human beings are made up of lots of bits & pieces &
parts & the more of those you understand or are aware of the better you
are able to communicate.
& I think the argument we're having here goes back, really, to an older
online argument about whether or not the body is present online.
> > People want to know other people's gender for all kinds of reasons --
> > those that Drew pointed out & a zillion other reasons I can think of off
> > the top of my head. For instance, I speak differently to women about the
> > rape I experienced than I do to men. Is that sexist?
>
> Why is there a need to talk differently to each group about your experience....Are
> you afraid of being misinterpretated?
In this instance, I talk differently about the experience to different
people because I am more comfortable talking about certain aspects of that
experience to women than to men & vice versa & my comfort level matters to
me, particularly wrt that issue in my life. I'm entitled to that.
> To the extent that you expect and/or are treated differently that difference
> reflects sexism in society....Is sexism something we want to promote in our
> society?
Tell me something: Do you honestly talk to everyone in your life in the
same way? Do you talk to your 2 year old the same way that you talk to
your spouse/partner? Do you have the same conversations with the guy you
got on the elevator with & your best friend of 15 years? Are there things
you tell your Mother that you haven't told your Father?
c.
********************
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:17:47 -0500
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: digital and analog
The following might be of interest to you - I tend to see, as Anthony
Wilden does in System and Structure, "digital" and "analog" as
representative of two orders of the real, built into the very fabric
of the world. I'm using the chart below, drawn somewhat from S&S, to
discuss these in class tomorrow. - Alan
SYSTEM AND STRCUTURE: ESSAYS IN COMMUNICATION AND EXCHANGE,
ANTHONY WILDEN, SECOND EDITION, TAVISTOCK 1980
ANALOG DIGITAL
DESCRIPTION, HEURISTICS EXPLANATIONS, NATURAL LAWS
SENSITIVITY RASTER
INTEGRATION DIFFERENTIATION
LIFEWORLD DRAWING A DISTINCTION
CONCRETE ABSTRACT
TERRITORY MAP
MEANING SIGNIFICATION
CONTINUOUS DISCONTINUOUS
IDIOTIC REAL INTELLIGENT
WHOLE, RELATIONS ELEMENTS, ENTITIES, FORECLOSING
NOISY POTENTIAL WELLS, CLEAN
OPEN SYSTEMS (EX: MUSIC SYNTH) CLOSED SYSTEMS (MUSIC SYNTH)
REFUSAL NEGATION (INTENTIONAL RASTER)
EVOCATION INFORMATION
CONNOTATION DENOTATION
POETRY PROSE
INFINITELY THICK INFINITELY THIN
"FEMININE" ABJECT "MASCULINE" PURE (BOTH STEREOTYPES)
CLUTTER, WEAR, HISTORY CENSORSHIP, COMMODITY
IMMINENCY ETERNITY
IMMANCENCY OF TRUTH CONSTITUTED TRUTH
DETERIORATIONS LINEAGE
ORIGINATIONS CULTURE OF THE COPY
DIGITAL CULTURES OF THE EPHEMERAL AND ETERNAL
(CASTELLS, THE RISE OF THE NETWORK SOCIETY)
MAPPING ANALOG ONTO DIGITAL: CHOICES
MAPPING DIGITAL ONTO ANALOG: LEAKY TRANSFORMATIONS
********************
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 01:35:30 -0500
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: Re: digital and analog
But the lack of flow is also apparent on the atomic level; the inter-
relationships of the two orders is fascinating. On the other hand, we
might think of them as convenient metaphors; an infinitely-fine raster
transforms digital into analog for example, and fractal curves are both
and/or neither - Alan
********************
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:15:02 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism
On 25 Jan 01, at 3:27, Dominic Fox wrote:
> Isn't there any way in which moral arguments can escape
> being either inconsequential ("that's just my opinion") or instruments
> of domination? What about moral argument, or even moral struggle?
Yes, I agree this is an important issue. I think it is probably difficult
to avoid the moral arguments as a mode of domination issue. One
only has to listen to the right, to hear that what seems like
liberation to the left can be construed as a mode of domination
elsewhere. this is perhaps inevitable, as a moral argument always
demands a change in life, some people are going to be
discomforted by this change, and hence feel they are being
oppressed. And indeed they may be being so.
>
> There'd also be a difference, wouldn't there, between censoring the
> words of those who speak about their experience of gender, and
> desiring a society in which gender was no longer real and such speech
> was no longer necessary? As with race: it is necessary to speak about
> racial oppression, but one might believe that and still believe that
> it is desirable to abolish both the concept of race and the social
> practices that support it...
I guess, that I'm asking people to listen to each other, before they
say that someone's experience is *wrong*. In the case of race, if
you said that race is wrong, therefore 'you blacks' (or whatever) just
shut up talking about it because its not important anymore. then I
don't think you are likely to have a productive dialogue which will
lead to the "abolition of race and the social practices that support
it". Indeed you may even reinforce those practices.
jon
********************
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:19:57 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism
Just to be devil's advocate here. Why do we (and that usually
includes me), assume that the 'abolition' of gender will necessarily
be a 'good thing' and lead to increased 'freedom', or whatever?
To take an analogy. The abolition of the aristocratic class system,
did not in fact lead to an end of repressions or discrimination. The
aristocratic system was replaced by new form of dsicrimination,
based on new principles. And in the early days (at least), it is moot
as to whether these new forms of oppression were better or easier.
It is easily possible to argue that the new system extended forms
of control into parts of life that the aristocratic system had left
almost completely unregulated - even though they also released
regulation in other parts of life. Again, the benefits of the abolition of
aristocratic class were not equally distributed - they tended to
favour those who were already wealthy and in positions of power, in
the newer system.
Attempts to abolish gender, also may run the risk of simply setting
up new discriminations, and they may also, given our history,
simply reinforce the 'male hegemony'. For example, as argued
elsewhere, if the default Western version of the 'human self' over
the last 4-500 years has been male ('mankind' etc.) - then there is
a high probability that the default ungendered human self will
actually have qualities which render it closer to that which is
assumed to be 'male'. It will by being ungendered delete and render
unspeakable many aspects of the experience of those classed as
female. In effect one gender is still being diminished by the other.
Non of this supposes that there are inherent categorical differences
or statistical differences between the sexes, simply that culturally
the experience of males and females can, in some circumstances,
often be different.
If, let us suppose for the sake of argument, *in general* males and
females do have differing requirements for the 'good life' (this is in
itself not an inherently unfeminist position - at least it has been
proposed by femininsts who I know of - and it says nothing about
people's requirments as particular individuals), then deletion of
gender is even more serious, as it may render a good life
impossible for large sections of the human population, as no one
will plan for it etc. Again, as it is probable that one gender is more
likely to be deleted than the other, this deletion will affect one
group more than the other.
At the very least, it is possible to suggest that the deletion of
exploration of gender differences will help intensify the deletion of
all differences - that it will help fulfill the paradigm of universal and
uniform globalism - that we all need coca-cola and McDonalds, that
we are all simply consumers, that our only function is to work, that
the only legitimate difference is that of wealth, and the only value
that of money. We try to obliterate cultural variation in favour of one
model (usually that of the US), and we cannot even really say this
model is that healthy.
It is possible that exploration of difference, and recognition of
difference, are not necessarily oppressive - they may even be
beneficial. If all relationships become the same kind of relationship,
then the chance of behaving differently to others as they might
require, or even hearing this difference, may decrease.
I think George Bernard Shaw, said something like "Do not do unto
others as *you* would be done by, do unto them as *they* would
be done by".
jon
********************
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:36:50 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism
On 25 Jan 01, at 19:05, dpres wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
>
> I am not trying to be moralistic. I think many times people take on
> gender identity because they think that the gender might help
> communicate an idea. I suggest that the "urge" to use gender to make
> communication "easier" has sexist assumptions. Is sexism "bad"? To
> the extent that it discriminates it is....
But perhaps, it does help communicate an idea? (this is something
to be investigated)
Perhaps also people have gender thrust upon them?
If you can argue that the 'body is absent' in cyberspace, then
perhaps you can argue that gender is an idea, and therfore gender
is present.
And : because it is an idea it has far more presence than the sex
of the person, and thus becomes more important!
(I'm not actually in favour of the absent body hypothesis, nor the
distinction between idea and body, but....)
> > 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.
>
> People"who use gender" what does that mean? I do not think it is
> morally wrong to use gender....But I think the fact that gender
> "changes" an argument due to social environment that we live in is
> wrong....This change is not under the control of the person who uses
> gender.
I wrote not people "who use gender", but "how people use gender"
I'm sorry, but I don't understand this point. could you please
elaborate. (It is one of those remarks which lead me to think that
there is not one argument occuring, but that the arguers are
actually having different arguments)
> > . 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.
>
> I am not being critical of people who use gender...I am critical of
> the meaning that gender may have. Meaning is socially and not
> individually determined. It is not my intention to inhibit people or
> ideas. In fact my intention is the opposite.
I really don't want to attribute bad motives to you at all, so I'm sorry
if it comes across that way. In fact I'm quite sure that you don't
want to inhibit people, for what that is worth.
However I think the effect of your position, as I read it, might be to
silence people's discussion of the way sex or gender affects their
online experience - because it implies that they shouldn't have that
gendered experience
> > - 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.
>
> SO is the cliam of sexism invalid???
I have heard people say that it is sexism for women to complain
about their difficulties with men, and 'the system'.....
> > 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.
>
> I do not advocate the silencing of an idea. There is a difference
> between retelling of an experience of gender....and being a gender
> online though.
but is there? the experience of gender might indeed flow from the
responses of others to your gender.
jon
********************
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:13:03 -0800
From catcher at times
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism - definitions?
--- Jon Marshall
> Just to be devil's advocate here. Why do we (and that usually
includes me), assume that the 'abolition' of gender will necessarily
be a 'good thing' and lead to increased 'freedom', or whatever?
I don't get this - how can you abolish something that's there? I
mean, we have laws against racism here in Belgium, but there's still
racists around. So if we would abolish gender there'd probably come
up an underground society of "genderish/gendered" people.
And what would be abolished? The word gender, the notion gender,
physical gender?
Maybe I don't fully understand how you interpret the word "gender" -
could you define?
renata, wanting to know what she's talking about ,-)
********************
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:28:42 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
A definition of sexism is below. (Merriam-Webster)
--- dpres
> Why is there a need to talk differently to each group about your
experience....
Another example: when I just had terrific sex I tell this
differently to my female friends than to the male ones. Do I feel
the need to do so? Yes. Why? Partially because both groups are
interested in different details/points of view, partially because I
myself have those conversations for different goals - that would
make me sexist as in #2.
> To the extent that you expect and/or are treated differently that
difference reflects sexism in society....Is sexism something we want
to promote in our society?
Sexism as in #1: no.
Sexism as in #2: I don't want to promote it, meaning I want everyone
to think like me. But I do think it wise to acknowledge the reality
of it and learn from it.
------
sexism
Date: 1968
1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex
2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of
social roles based on sex
renata
********************
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:29:10 -0500
From: Dominic Fox
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism
It sounds, Jon, as if you would hear the expression "a genderless society"
the way I hear the expression "a classless society" - with a certain amount
of foreboding. One might prefer to hear people talking about gender more -
and about more genders, perhaps many more - since this might indicate a
greater degree of freedom to explore a greater variety of selves and social
roles. But even this would mean talking about gender the way we now talk
about gender *less* - *something*'s got to give...
Dom
********************
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:30:59 -0800
From: catcher at times?=
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
--- dpres
> Very true....which is one of my points about the consequences of
> gender consciousness. I would like to try to eliminate this
consequence.
> If this consequence was eliminated I think the urge to pronounce
gender would also be lessened.
I don't understand this - could you explain?
renata
********************
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:36:37 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism
--- dpres
> But I think the fact that gender "changes" an argument due to
social environment that we live in is
> wrong....This change is not under the control of the person who
uses gender.
Isn't it inevitable to be influenced by social environment (be it
from the listener or the speaker) when communicating? We're having a
discussion on racism in another group and the Europeans keep
misunderstanding the Murricans and vice versa because words and
their meanings change when crossing an ocean. I cannot see what's
"wrong" about that.
> Meaning is socially and not individually determined.
I find it hard to believe that, I tend to think that meaning is
_both_ socially and individually determined - could you explain how
you came to this statement?
renata
********************
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:38:49 -0500
From: John Andrews
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
Real good question Renata...
Yeah, what it the consequence of gender pronunciation, anyway? Johnny
______________________________________
> Very true....which is one of my points about the consequences of
> gender consciousness. I would like to try to eliminate this
consequence.
> If this consequence was eliminated I think the urge to pronounce
gender would also be lessened.
I don't understand this - could you explain?
renata
********************
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 20:36:13 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
>A definition of sexism is below. (Merriam-Webster)
>
>--- dpres <
>
>> Why is there a need to talk differently to each group about your
>experience....
>
>Another example: when I just had terrific sex I tell this
>differently to my female friends than to the male ones. Do I feel
>the need to do so? Yes. Why? Partially because both groups are
>interested in different details/points of view, partially because I
>myself have those conversations for different goals - that would
>make me sexist as in #2.
Why do you assume that "both groups are interested in different
details/points of view"?
Are these assumptions universal?
>
>> To the extent that you expect and/or are treated differently that
>difference reflects sexism in society....Is sexism something we want
>to promote in our society?
>
>Sexism as in #1: no.
>
>Sexism as in #2: I don't want to promote it, meaning I want everyone
>to think like me. But I do think it wise to acknowledge the reality
>of it and learn from it.
But is the way you think based on gender? Is gender a controlling
factor?
>------
>
>sexism
>Date: 1968
>
>1
>
>2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster
stereotypes
>social roles based on sex
Is Prejudice and stereotyping a thing that can not be controlled and
just a reflection of reality?
Is Prejudice, and Stereotyping something we want to practice/promote in
society? Is this something to be passive about?
>
>renata
********************
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 20:38:46 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
If people did not feel as though attitiudes were shaped by gender then
there would be no result from pronouncing gender and so therefore there
would be no motivation to state gender as a means of validating a viewpoint.
>______________________________________
>
>> Very true....which is one of my points about the consequences of
>
>> gender consciousness. I would like to try to eliminate this
>consequence.
>
>> If this consequence was eliminated I think the urge to pronounce
>gender would also be lessened.
>
>I don't understand this - could you explain?
>
>renata
********************
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 20:45:38 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism
>--- dpres
>
>> But I think the fact that gender "changes" an argument due to
>social environment that we live in is
>
>> wrong....This change is not under the control of the person who
>uses gender.
>
>Isn't it inevitable to be influenced by social environment (be it
>from the listener or the speaker) when communicating? We're having a
>discussion on racism in another group and the Europeans keep
>misunderstanding the Murricans and vice versa because words and
>their meanings change when crossing an ocean. I cannot see what's
>"wrong" about that.
>
Gender in the physical world is biological fact....In the online world it
is at best a code for masking assumptions about a concept....I would prefer
that people were evaluated based on their ideas and concepts and not based
on their chromosomal makeup. The bending of gender.....and the
experiementation with gender is nothing more than souls attempting to
escape from a social box......My proposal is to trash the box!!!
>> Meaning is socially and not individually determined.
>
>I find it hard to believe that, I tend to think that meaning is
>_both_ socially and individually determined - could you explain how
>you came to this statement?
This comes from the study of language.....If state a word any
word......that word's meaning is based on the common "understanding" of the
word. Daffaklgrt sdkpofg. I am sure you can see what I mean from the
last phrase.
********************
On to Part 3
This page
http://geocities.datacellar.net/jpmarshall.geo/cybermind/gender/relevance2.html
This page hosted by
Get your own Free Home Page