Subject: message limit poll
Alan suggested that members of the list be polled as to whether the number
of messages sent per day should be increased. I think the limit should be
increased to 15.....Does anyone disagree or agree with this idea?
********************
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 22:11:30 -0500
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: reset
I reset number of posts/person to 15/day and number of total posts 80/day.
I personally couldn't handle more than that. See how it goes. Years ago we
had someone posting over 30 messages/day and the list became his personal
domain as others unsubbed, etc. I see no reason to go back to that. Cyber-
mind's limits are higher than a lot of other lists as is (try posting a
bunch of stuff to Poetics or Nettime! - I've been reprimanded) - Alan
********************
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 14:42:01 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: My Niave comments on absent bodies
On 22 Jan 01, at 18:57, Alan Sondheim wrote:
> Have you read the book? The absenting of body is not at all the
> absenting of passion etc.
To be honest, I read the book (The Absent Body) some while ago
and a bit too quickly so I can not remember much of it - However I
do remember that in places he seemed to emphasise that the body
was not actually absent or absented, but that "it's" presence either
oscillated or was suspended waiting to be resolved one way or
another. It was "indirectly or marginally acessible to experience"
etc.
This to me suggests a far more complex way of relating to the
body than he seems to present (from memory), and I suspect that
he gets distracted by his title (or perhaps I did).
The absenting of passion, while perhaps not in the book (though
again i cannot remember much discussion of passion or emotion
etc) is almost a logical conclusion of customarily identifing the
body with passion and then absenting it.
Obviously the absent body is often used online, as an excuse for
passion of specific types - as when people explain flaming by its
safety.
though I am not at all sure about this, I wonder if those passions
liberated by the supposed absence of the body are not also those
defined as masculine - agression etc - wheras those defined as
feminine - such as compassion etc - tend to looked at with
suspicion.
jon
********************
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 00:40:54 -0500
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: Re: My Niave comments on absent bodies
On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 jmarshal@ol.com.au wrote:
> On 22 Jan 01, at 18:57, Alan Sondheim wrote:
>
> though I am not at all sure about this, I wonder if those passions
> liberated by the supposed absence of the body are not also those
> defined as masculine - agression etc - wheras those defined as
> feminine - such as compassion etc - tend to looked at with
> suspicion.
>
?? compassion seems everywhere online as does love, pathos, etc. I'm not
sure whether these passions (emotions?) are defined as "masculine" today -
I wouldn't want to go down that road. And if they're masculine, then what
are feminine passions? Tenderness etc.? In any case, you'd find that
online as well - just not as many complaints.
Alan
********************
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 15:34:39 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism
On 26 Jan 01, at 20:45, David Presley wrote:
> 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!!!
But how, that is one issue.
If the Western default model of the self is male, and a particular
arena is primarily occupied by males (in terms of history, number
and volume of messages), then perhaps that degendering, or
"trashing the box" is simply degendering the 'female', or trashing
the 'female', or driving away the 'female' - while keeping the male in
charge.
jon
********************
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 15:34:39 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism
On 26 Jan 01, at 15:29, Dominic Fox wrote:
> 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...
I guess also a problem with morality and politics is that we don't
treat them as experimental or dialoguical. We come into the
debate knowing right from wrong, and trying to establish it.
We rarely ever try something out and see whether it works or not,
and abandon it if it fails.
We also tend not to engage in discussion with others - we tend to
try and make those other people wrong - even if we are supposed
to be "liberating" them from us!
jon
********************
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 14:42:01 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism - definitions?
On 26 Jan 01, at 12:13, catcher at times wrote:
> --- 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 ,-)
Actually I agree with you about these confusions, but I understand
some people on the list to be arguing that gender could be
absolished online (or even that it is abolished online), and that this
would be inherently a good thing.
My point is that I'm not sure it would inevitably be so, and that the
assumption that it can be, might in itself be oppressive, and act to
stop people discussing their experiences.
jon
********************
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 01:14:53 -0600
From: Elizabeth Barrette
Subject: Re: My Niave comments on absent bodies
On 27 Jan 01, at 0:40, Alan Sondheim wrote:
> ?? compassion seems everywhere online as does love, pathos, etc. I'm
> not sure whether these passions (emotions?) are defined as "masculine"
> today - I wouldn't want to go down that road. And if they're
> masculine, then what are feminine passions? Tenderness etc.? In any
> case, you'd find that online as well - just not as many complaints.
I would promptly name fridh-weaving as a feminine passion. I
don't think there's a word for it in English. It's a Nordic term for the
cultivation of ties between individuals or groups, more than
networking, it includes everything from friendship to marriage.
Most women seem *very* taken with matters of connection. Plenty
of times a woman will be talking about the details of somebody
else's life and a man will say "Why would anyone *care*?" and you
can just see the gender gap yawn open.
Blessings,
Elizabeth
********************
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 01:15:49 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism
--- David Presley
replying to my statement::
> 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.
Sorry to be persisting, but I didn't ask which study said it, I
asked why _you_ stated it as if it were true.
Maybe you prefer to exchange theories and studies but then I'll have
to bow out of theconversation, as I can only talk about how I
perceive myself and the world around me.
Btw, I saw what you meant the first time - no need to treat me as an
illiterate.
renata
********************
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 01:21:46 -0800
From: catcher at times?
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism - definitions?
--- Jon Marshall
> Actually I agree with you about these confusions, but I understand
> some people on the list to be arguing that gender could be
absolished online (or even that it is abolished online), and that
this would be inherently a good thing.
But how can one say that gender is abolished online when everybody
who's in front of a computer has one or more genders? Wouldn't one
have to make a clear cut between cyber and RL to establish that? Is
it possible to make that cut without becoming schizoid? It sounds a
bit like the division between body and soul that's been propagated
by Christian religion for ages - that didn't work either.
I'm probably dragging you guys back into kindergarten stuff but I
want to understand.
renata
********************
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 12:50:02 +0100
From: Enok Kippersund
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism - definitions?
>But how can one say that gender is abolished online when everybody
>who's in front of a computer has one or more genders?
< |||snip||| >
>renata
Could it be that when coming on the net people will start to find out
they have not just one simple massive easytodefine gender? That they did
not even know there could be a mix within them, - both sort of different
female characters and changing male characters, shifting from time tot
time, beeing triggered in different ways, depenadant on whom they got
into contact with.
If a person, for instance starts to wonder, starts to become fascinated
about oneself .......... well, okey
...............
Internet could it be a place to explore oneself, to find out, to have
sparring partners, to unveil, to find/decide what person one is
determined/wants to be?
Not because the net is a secret place, but a safe place which should not
mean a place out of responsibility.
Enok
********************
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 08:21:40 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism
Why have male or female in charge? Why not have a humane system in which
people are judged on the basis of the idea.....Why insist on a label? Isn't
gender a label?
>On 26 Jan 01, at 20:45, David Presley wrote:
>
>> 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!!!
>
>But how, that is one issue.
>
>If the Western default model of the self is male, and a particular
>arena is primarily occupied by males (in terms of history, number
>and volume of messages), then perhaps that degendering, or
>"trashing the box" is simply degendering the 'female', or trashing
>the 'female', or driving away the 'female' - while keeping the male in
>charge.
>
>jon
********************
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 08:26:25 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism
I left a word out of my original statement so i repeat with the added "I".
> This comes from the study of language.....If I state a word any
>word......that a 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.
>
Are you implying that the study of language is invalid? Words have no
purpose if they are not understood.
********************
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 06:33:28 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism
--- David Presley
> Are you implying that the study of language is invalid?
No, I am not. What I'm saying is: I have not studied language, so it
happens that people who have studied language use
statements/definitions/theories that are selfevident to them but not
to me. Then I ask for an explanation. Of course I reserve the right
to disagree with any of them. It's the same with many fields of
science because there are only few I studied. F.e. if my doctor says
I have hepatitis and I should take medicine X, I ask him to explain.
And if, after understanding what he means, I disagree with him, I
tell him so.
Do you think this is wrong/invalid? Do you think I should leave the
"gender consciousness/sexism" topic to people who have more
knowledge than I and therefor use the same "language"? Feel free to
say so if you do.
> Words have no purpose if they are not understood.
I agree, with two exceptions: sometimes I like to reed languages I
don't understand just for the sound, feel and taste of them - and
sometimes I understand what people mean without understanding their
words.
renata
********************
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 09:40:57 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism - definitions?
In the online world truth does not have to interfere with fantasy......
>>But how can one say that gender is abolished online when everybody
>>who's in front of a computer has one or more genders?
>
>< |||snip||| >
>
>>renata
>
>Could it be that when coming on the net people will start to find out
>they have not just one simple massive easytodefine gender? That they did
>not even know there could be a mix within them, - both sort of different
>female characters and changing male characters, shifting from time tot
>time, beeing triggered in different ways, depenadant on whom they got
>into contact with.
>
>If a person, for instance starts to wonder, starts to become fascinated
>about oneself .......... well, okey
>...............
>
>Internet could it be a place to explore oneself, to find out, to have
>sparring partners, to unveil, to find/decide what person one is
>determined/wants to be?
>
>Not because the net is a secret place, but a safe place which should not
>mean a place out of responsibility.
>
>Enok
********************
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 09:54:05 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism
>--- David Presley
>
>> Are you implying that the study of language is invalid?
>
>No, I am not. What I'm saying is: I have not studied language, so it
>happens that people who have studied language use
>statements/definitions/theories that are selfevident to them but not
>to me. Then I ask for an explanation. Of course I reserve the right
>to disagree with any of them. It's the same with many fields of
>science because there are only few I studied. F.e. if my doctor says
>I have hepatitis and I should take medicine X, I ask him to explain.
>And if, after understanding what he means, I disagree with him, I
>tell him so.
You might disagree with the diagnosis but if you had hepititis would still
die if untreated. The point is that a fact remains a fact whether you
percieve the fact or not. The idea is to collect facts for the basis of
an opinion. I try to use common definition of words when I form the basis
of my argument. "Words gain their meaning from the society which uses
them". A private defintion of a word does not
communicate.....Communication by common definition requires at least two
parties and those two parties must agree to the definition of the words
being used.
>Do you think this is wrong/invalid? Do you think I should leave the
>"gender consciousness/sexism" topic to people who have more
>knowledge than I and therefor use the same "language"? Feel free to
>say so if you do.
All are welcome to join in the discussion.
>
>> Words have no purpose if they are not understood.
>
>I agree, with two exceptions: sometimes I like to reed languages I
>don't understand just for the sound, feel and taste of them - and
>sometimes I understand what people mean without understanding their
>words.
>
>renata
>
You understand their meaning from their body language and tone used.
These things are not present in the current state of the online world. New
technology will change this dynamic eventually....But i think in the online
world we will still be free to revert back if we want....I.E. E-mail and
text chat will exist along side with real time video chat....and jpg, mpeg,
ram, and wav.
********************
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 08:45:06 -0800
From: catcher at times?
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism
--- David Presley
> The point is that a fact remains a fact whether you percieve the
fact or not.
I'm afraid we disagree on this one too - I'd better no longer
participate, I'm not learning. The whole talk reminds me too much of
the professors at the university talking without
communicating/thinking.
renata
********************
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 14:01:13 -0500
From: John Andrews
Subject: Male Gender Musings On Neutrants
Here's A Concept: Information is a database, some of which is dynamic in its
acquisition. By itself, information means nothing until connections and
precepts are formed. Gradually, a knowledge base establishes itself with
empirical data confirming and validating conclusions. Institutions, then
rise.
Point being here, that a gender-industry is alive and well, but without
validation. Gender differences are a fait accompli and exist regardless of
definitions that attempt to blur distinctions that are as old as rutting.
In a hyper-political culture that uses language to affect psycho-biological
change, consciousness itself, becomes sexist and hungry for chaos. The
recipients of change are lobbyists, associations and foundations.
Political participation and enlightenment for all citizens, is not the goal
of gender wars, today.
This is a neo-medieval spectre rising in America and Europe. It is a
'nomenclature' hungry for power. It is inquisitorial and dark and desires
nothing less than neutering individuality and creating a race of
Neutrants.....Johnny
********************
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 13:52:16 -0600
From: "Christopher M. Massey"
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism
A few thoughts:
The idea of the absent body does not mean 'gender free'. I hope my previous
posts haven't communicated this. Gender is something that is so much a part
of us, that it can't help but being communicated...through our words...our
stances on certain issues.... Yet, if you've ever done any studies (or even
held a conversation with) any member of a marginalized gender--say
transgendered (cross-dressers), transsexuals (sex-changers), certain
gays/lesbians, etc., etc., etc.--you know that the internal gender one feels
and the external gender society expects--based on biological sex--are often
not the same. In the offline world, those of marginalized gender feel a
constant struggle between internal and external--they long to act one way,
but often push down that impulse because they want to 'fit in'. Otherwise,
why would cross-dressers often take comfort in the fact that, "if I want I
can take off my high heels & dress & look male again,"...? If an individual
who is biologically male feels like a woman...like his whole existence is
based upon a mistake that nature made, what then? He can cross-dress,
certainly...perhaps with a great deal of success. "If you didn't know they
were biologically male, you'd assume otherwise." Does that change the fact
that his genitals are uncomfortably taped and tucked? Other people might
not know the difference, but he lives in that body...and knows that
according to the forced dualism of our culture, he is playing a role that
only partially fulfills his desires, and he is therefore living a lie.
To be clear, this is not the case for every cross-dresser. The reasons can
be as varied as the people involved. And this is in part my point. In the
offline world, there is a whole range of genders that are not endorsed by
society. Society gives us Man and Woman, which directly relates to Male and
Female. Certainly, as society gets more accepting, we see other forms
surface...yet these are never accepted as or by the mainstream.
No, the online world is not 'Gender Free'. But there is a much greater
'Freedom of Gender'. Not 'genderless', but 'gender full'. As information
regarding one's biological sex is not necessarily available at a single
glance, the mind behind the keyboard can claim to be whatever he/she wants.
This does not mean that hints won't be there if he is playing a gender that
is not truly his own (or she/her). But the conflict between the socially
imposed two-gender system and the internal continuum of gender types will
not be there. So a man who has always felt like he should have been a
woman, can act that way. There still may be hints, but this is no
indication that he isn't truly gendered Woman.
It just means that She lacks practice.
(end $.02)
Christopher
********************
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 13:53:47 -0600
From: "Christopher M. Massey"
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism
"The point is that a fact remains a fact whether you percieve the fact or
not."
By a strict linguistic definition, a fact does remain a fact whether or not
you perceive it. Kind of like an apple remains an apple whether or not you
eat it. But if you look at what your doctor...or your politician...or your
priest say is a fact...or an apple...and you disagree, that is a difference
of opinion based not on the perception of the fact, but the fact itself. In
other words, a fact _is_ a fact whether or not it's perceived...but if its
position _as_ a fact is what's being questioned? Arguing that something is
true because it is by definition true is worthless reasoning if not
everybody agrees with the definition.
Yet, to say that something is _not_ a fact is just as difficult to prove.
For me to say that the doctor is wrong about potential hepatitis, when he
has studied medical science for years and I am an actor, not a doctor--that
would be somewhat idiotic. So, I seek a second, and a third/fourth/fifth,
opinion, until I am finally satisfied that the proposition at hand more
closely resembles either a fact or a non-fact.
And still, I couldn't with %100 certainty claim it was a fact/non-fact.
What I wouldn't give for omniscience. :)
"I'm afraid we disagree on this one too - I'd better no longer participate,
I'm not learning. The whole talk reminds me too much of the professors at
the university talking without communicating/thinking."
This would be sad...I've enjoyed your contributions, whether or not I agree
with them. And is the point of this to learn? Not if learning means that
the answers are all put forth for you...it is the discussion that seems to
matter. At least to me.
But again, I'm new. Forgive me any mistakes I make.
(end $.02)
Christopher
********************
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 14:13:28 -0600
From: "Christopher M. Massey"
Subject: Re: Male Gender Musings On Neutrants
"This is a neo-medieval spectre rising in America and Europe. It is a
'nomenclature' hungry for power. It is inquisitorial and dark and desires
nothing less than neutering individuality and creating a race of
Neutrants.....Johnny"
I was with you up until this part...perhaps you could explain the
relationships here, esp. 'Neo-medieval'?
And explain how any of this is bad? The hyper-political mechanism is often
the only way that oppression can be catalogued and critiqued. The aim
hardly seems the actual neutering of the population--rather the neutering of
language. That is a necessary thing, because the words we used were created
as an integral part of a self-sustaining mechanism. Is it there any
question why so many conquering forces (overt/covert alike) have slithered
their way into power by supplanting the linguistic ties of the conquered
with their own? The range of possible genders is great...would it even be
possible to come up with names for them all? And would that solve anything,
except to broaden synonyms for the words 'denied', 'oppressed',
'marginalized'? So, neutering language seems the quickest way to
stop--perhaps not the neutering--but the de-gendering of hosts of varying
gender types within the population. That seems a good thing, to me....
(end $.02)
Christopher
********************
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 16:42:12 -0500
From: John Andrews
Subject: Re: Male Gender Musings On Neutrants
Good questions and points you make Christopher...
My concern about language neutering is the inquisitorial hysteria that
animates those in power to vanquish their enemies and protect their
authority. Political correctness is a mean vicious opprobrium that
stultifies and suppresses thought. It does not un-oppress the oppressed.
Medieval protectors of thought and behavior cataloged and critiqued
word-activities of those that fueled the inquisitor's' raison-d'etre, as in
Spanish Inquisition. There are serious similarities today...
Multiple gender types that evolve is a good thing, perhaps. Language will
evolve naturally to express each gender, if I understood your concern
here.....Johnny
___________________________________________________
********************
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 09:47:30 +1100
From: Esther Milne
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism - definitions?
Yep exactly. I agree.
And at the risk of practising a spot of 'fridh-weaving' (female
nuturing etc) please don't bow out of the conversation Renata!
Esther.
At 01:21 27/01/01 -0800, Renata wrote:
>But how can one say that gender is abolished online when everybody
>who's in front of a computer has one or more genders? Wouldn't one
>have to make a clear cut between cyber and RL to establish that? Is
>it possible to make that cut without becoming schizoid? It sounds a
>bit like the division between body and soul that's been propagated
>by Christian religion for ages - that didn't work either.
>
>I'm probably dragging you guys back into kindergarten stuff but I
>want to understand.
>
>renata
>
********************
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 09:58:46 +1100
From: Esther Milne
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism - David
This is a fantasy. I do not mean in the sense that it is untrue [god forbid
I should call a man irrational] but that it is part of a cultural myth or
narrative. And that story is about how 'information wants to be free';
circulating free from time, free from physical constraints.
How ideas exist somewhere separate to the body/mind that thinks them;
outise material embodiment; outside history. That ideas are somehow
neutral, clean and pure. And what contaminates them is this mucky
(more often than not) female body.
So it's not at all surprsing that you should celebrate the online world
as being potentially genderless and therefore a 'liberating' place. Nor
is it suprising that some women on the list would want to insist that
biology matters.
Esther
PS: are you a fan of Michael Douglas by any chance? I just thought
you might subscribe to what I call his 'mind the balls please ladies!'
(ie feminism gone to far!) rhetoric :)
At 08:21 27/01/01 -0500, David wrote:
>Why have male or female in charge? Why not have a humane system in which
>people are judged on the basis of the idea.....Why insist on a label? Isn't
>gender a label?
********************
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 15:26:56 -0800
From: catcher at times?
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism
--- "Christopher M. Massey"
> In other words, a fact _is_ a fact whether or not it's
perceived...but if its position _as_ a fact is what's being
questioned?
I like Wittgenstein's ideas on this. An example: The existence of my
hand is a fact to me as long as I see it. When f.e. I put my hand in
my pocket it is no longer a fact to me, but an assumption.
Ok, this may sound childish, but he made me realize that a lot of
"facts" are only conventions/agreements once I study them closer.
Continuously wondering about "facts" is giving me a sense of great
freedom.
Of course, if I take this too far, conversation is almost impossible
- but still, I like to get my facts right.
> Yet, to say that something is _not_ a fact is just as difficult to
prove.
Non-existence always seems hard to prove.
> And is the point of this to learn?
For me it is - I love learning, 'cause I change when I learn and
only when I change I feel alive.
> But again, I'm new. Forgive me any mistakes I make.
You won't be able to use this one for much longer. ,-)
> (end $.02)
Why do you guys call it 2 cents? We have no equivalent for it in
Flemish - does anyone know where it comes from?
renata
********************
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 15:46:59 -0800
From: catcher at times?=
Subject: being genderfree online - lots of questions
I think we all agree that, for now, we cannot be genderfree in RL.
But I hear some saying that it is possible online. Does being
genderfree online mean that I'm not conscious of my gender, that I
don't feel limited by it?
Or does it mean I consciously try to erase all "gender" thoughts
from my consciousness? Or does it mean something else yet?
To be genderfree, should I refrain from using words like mother,
father, sister ... Should I drop subjects like giving birth, babies,
sex, clothes ...?
Is it possible to have conversations with absolutely no (not even
hidden) referennces to gender? I'd like to try that out.
------
As for being genderfree being a good thing: imagine that gender
doesn't lead to oppression, sexism ... imagine it's just something
like having red or blonde hair. Would you still prefer being
genderfree online?
I guess what I'm saying is: does gender bother you and is that the
reason why you want to be genderfree online?
renata (watch out, I'm thinking) ,-)
********************
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 20:32:57 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: Male Gender Musings On Neutrants
How does online persona and communication relate to this concept?
>Here's A Concept: Information is a database, some of which is dynamic in its
>acquisition. By itself, information means nothing until connections and
>precepts are formed. Gradually, a knowledge base establishes itself with
>empirical data confirming and validating conclusions. Institutions, then
>rise.
[[snip]]
********************
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 20:39:57 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Gender's consciousness
>To be clear, this is not the case for every cross-dresser. The reasons can
>be as varied as the people involved. And this is in part my point. In the
>offline world, there is a whole range of genders that are not endorsed by
>society. Society gives us Man and Woman, which directly relates to Male and
>Female. Certainly, as society gets more accepting, we see other forms
>surface...yet these are never accepted as or by the mainstream.
>
Why does a person feel a need to have a non-traditional gender? Isn't it
because society does not allow them to express themselves properly? What
if society did not have gender expectations? Wouldn't they then be more
free to express themselves.....Isn't gender a label?
>No, the online world is not 'Gender Free'. But there is a much greater
>'Freedom of Gender'. Not 'genderless', but 'gender full'. As information
>regarding one's biological sex is not necessarily available at a single
>glance, the mind behind the keyboard can claim to be whatever he/she wants.
>This does not mean that hints won't be there if he is playing a gender that
>is not truly his own (or she/her). But the conflict between the socially
>imposed two-gender system and the internal continuum of gender types will
>not be there. So a man who has always felt like he should have been a
>woman, can act that way.
Is gender an import of a social problem from the offline world into the
online world?
A continuum of gender types is good in that it allows for more freedom but
isn't even a continuum of gender types still a label? Wouldn't "gender
free" be "gender freedom"?
********************
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 20:48:40 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism
>"The point is that a fact remains a fact whether you percieve the fact or
>not."
>
>By a strict linguistic definition, a fact does remain a fact whether or not
>you perceive it.
can you prove this? Take gravity...Even before scientists learned of the
law of gravity, gravity held objects to this planet....So gravity existed
before science learned of gravity.....
> Kind of like an apple remains an apple whether or not you
>eat it.
Doesn't that prove my point more than yours (just trying to understand).
But if you look at what your doctor...or your politician...or your
>priest say is a fact...or an apple...and you disagree, that is a difference
>of opinion based not on the perception of the fact, but the fact itself. In
>other words, a fact _is_ a fact whether or not it's perceived...but if its
>position _as_ a fact is what's being questioned?
Yes I think you are right on this point. Is gender a fact in the online world?
Arguing that something is
>true because it is by definition true is worthless reasoning if not
>everybody agrees with the definition.
Very true.
>Yet, to say that something is _not_ a fact is just as difficult to prove.
>For me to say that the doctor is wrong about potential hepatitis, when he
>has studied medical science for years and I am an actor, not a doctor--that
>would be somewhat idiotic. So, I seek a second, and a third/fourth/fifth,
>opinion, until I am finally satisfied that the proposition at hand more
>closely resembles either a fact or a non-fact.
Four opinions could all still be wrong.....But doctors have the tools to
percieve health facts so not all of what they have to say about health is
opinion....Sometimes diagnosis is fact and sometimes it is opinion.
********************
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 20:55:29 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: being genderfree online - lots of questions
>I think we all agree that, for now, we cannot be genderfree in RL.
This is true because physical ques indicate gender.
>But I hear some saying that it is possible online. Does being
>genderfree online mean that I'm not conscious of my gender, that I
>don't feel limited by it?
>
Yes. It means your ideas can be judged fairly and not colored by sexism.
>Or does it mean I consciously try to erase all "gender" thoughts
>from my consciousness? Or does it mean something else yet?
No, It means you free to be yourself with out judgement by others.
>To be genderfree, should I refrain from using words like mother,
>father, sister ... Should I drop subjects like giving birth, babies,
>sex, clothes ...?
No not at all....you can have opinions on any topic....and all opinions
should be judged on their validity and not on the gender of the person
speaking them.
>Is it possible to have conversations with absolutely no (not even
>hidden) referennces to gender? I'd like to try that out.
Sure. Does a woman by definition of her gender have a different opinion on
giving birth, babies etc?
>As for being genderfree being a good thing: imagine that gender
>doesn't lead to oppression, sexism ... imagine it's just something
>like having red or blonde hair. Would you still prefer being
>genderfree online?
>
what would it lead to instead?
>I guess what I'm saying is: does gender bother you and is that the
>reason why you want to be genderfree online?
>
No i want communicartion to be free.
********************
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 18:13:44 -0800
From: catcher at times?=
Subject: Re: being genderfree online - lots of questions
--- David Presley
> Yes. It means your ideas can be judged fairly and not colored by
sexism.
> It means you're free to be yourself without judgement by others.
Shouldn't we abolish more than only gender to achieve that (I'm
thinking of other standards)? Is it possible to _not_ judge? When I
meet people online I have opinions/ideas on them that colour the way
I read their messages and reply to them - is that judging? Or do you
define judging differently?
> all opinions should be judged on their validity and not on the
gender of the person speaking them.
I agree.
> Does a woman by definition of her gender have a different opinion
on giving birth, babies etc?
I think so - her ideas on this subject will be coloured by her
knowing that she could experience giving birth if she wished to,
just as a man's ideas would be coloured by the fact that he'll never
experience it.
(imagine gender is just something like having red or blonde hair.
Would you still prefer being genderfree online?)
> what would it lead to instead?
I don't understand this question - could you explain?
renata
********************
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 21:21:49 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: being genderfree online - lots of questions
>--- David Presley
>
>> Yes. It means your ideas can be judged fairly and not colored by
>sexism.
>
>> It means you're free to be yourself without judgement by others.
>Shouldn't we abolish more than only gender to achieve that (I'm
>thinking of other standards)? Is it possible to _not_ judge? When I
>meet people online I have opinions/ideas on them that colour the way
>I read their messages and reply to them - is that judging? Or do you
>define judging differently?
Personally I think we should all try to cultivate our open mindedness and
to try rid ourselves preconceptions and predjudices....But gender based
prejudices some of the hardest ones to overcome because they are deeply
ingrained in our social fabric.
>> all opinions should be judged on their validity and not on the
>gender of the person speaking them.
>
>I agree.
>
>> Does a woman by definition of her gender have a different opinion
>on giving birth, babies etc?
>
>I think so - her ideas on this subject will be coloured by her
>knowing that she could experience giving birth if she wished to,
>just as a man's ideas would be coloured by the fact that he'll never
>experience it.
>
I think this may be misconception. I am willing to bet that any "female"
opinion on this or any topic will be held at least one male.....and of
course visa versa.
>(imagine gender is just something like having red or blonde hair.
>Would you still prefer being genderfree online?)
>
>> what would it lead to instead?
>
>I don't understand this question - could you explain?
If gender had consequence why would it matter then? If it did not matter
why would we care to mention it....
how often do we talk about hair color on this list?
********************
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 21:37:12 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism - David
X-PMFLAGS: 34078848 0 1 P421A0.CNM
>This is a fantasy. I do not mean in the sense that it is untrue [god forbid
>I should call a man irrational] but that it is part of a cultural myth or
>narrative. And that story is about how 'information wants to be free';
>circulating free from time, free from physical constraints.
>
Myth implies falsehood.....facts can not be myths....So if you believe that
facts are embodied aren't you then contradicting me....?
In any case ideas can be encoded by people on to a computer and these ideas
can exist free from the person who created them by virtue of the fact that
the author is completely unknown.
>How ideas exist somewhere separate to the body/mind that thinks them;
>outise material embodiment; outside history. That ideas are somehow
>neutral, clean and pure. And what contaminates them is this mucky
>(more often than not) female body.
I did not say this....I do not believe ideas are contaminated by the body I
believe people contaminate the idea when they combine them with the
body.....meaning that they distort the idea. The body whether male or
female is not mucky.....The body is proud and wonderful but the idea needs
to be judged free from the body if one is to understand the idea for what
it is.
>So it's not at all surprsing that you should celebrate the online world
>as being potentially genderless and therefore a 'liberating' place. Nor
>is it suprising that some women on the list would want to insist that
>biology matters.
>
But I a bet some women would find my idea liberating as well....
My question stilll is:
>>Why have male or female in charge? Why not have a humane system in which
>>people are judged on the basis of the idea.....Why insist on a label? Isn't
>>gender a label?
********************
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:29:27 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism
On 26 Jan 01, at 15:29, Dominic Fox wrote:
> 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.
To be honest, much of this debate reminds me of an employer
standing before his employees and saying.
"In the new Information Economy, there is no longer a distinction
between employee and employer. We are now all enterpreneurs.
We all work together, and if you work hard you can all become
succesful and free. Class conflict is a thing of the past. Unions are
a thing of the past, you must not fight against the firm, we must all
pull together as mutually cooperative enterpreneurs. Our
corporation depends on this cooperation. I can free you from the
box of considering yourself workers. I can smash the tyranny of
unions and workers cooperatives. Saying you are a worker is
simply an outmoded social convention, that says nothing true
about you. It is simply a false idea which must be abolished. It is
simply a form of discrimination, a form of 'classism'. We are now in
a a New Kind of Economy where such concepts are no longer
relevant - we are all individuals. Therefore abandon this false idea of
class and choose to become enterpreneurs like me - in fact you
have no other option".
********************
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:29:22 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism
I guess this is just reinteration:
1) We live in a society permeated by gender difference, gender
identity, gender discrimination, and gender misunderstanding.
There is no reason to assume that these issues can be abolished
by the flick of a switch.
2) That our conceptions of gender may not reflect an innate reality,
is no reason to assume that the abolition of gender concepts by
fiat, particularly by fiat of a member of the dominant gender, will not
simply reinforce the dominance of that gender.
3) If you really wish to achieve sexual equality, then the most
useful first step is probably not to simply 'abolish' gender, but to
investigate how it functions. Otherwise you simply risk, yet again,
reinforcing the dominant gender's usual, and taken for granted,
positions.
4) The Internet is 'virtual', not because it is disembodied or a
consensual hallucination, but because of a constant tendency to
talk about the Internet in terms of 'what can be', 'what should be', or
'what will be' rather than in terms of 'what actually happens now'.
jon
********************
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 21:49:52 -0500
From: John Andrews
Subject: Re: being genderfree online - lots of questions
David...I don't get it; you think being gender free advances
un-judgementalism...Who would want it that way, anyway...Renata has got it
right, I think...Johnny
********************
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 22:11:07 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism
>I guess this is just reinteration:
>
>1) We live in a society permeated by gender difference, gender
>identity, gender discrimination, and gender misunderstanding.
>There is no reason to assume that these issues can be abolished
>by the flick of a switch.
>
It is possible to not know the gender of a person online. So gender
discrimination can be eliminated in the online world.
>2) That our conceptions of gender may not reflect an innate reality,
>is no reason to assume that the abolition of gender concepts by
>fiat, particularly by fiat of a member of the dominant gender, will not
>simply reinforce the dominance of that gender.
Lets focus on the idea and not the gender of the person expressing the idea.
I am not abolishing gender by declaration....I am simply proposing the idea
as a good one for online interaction. One does not know gender for a fact
online...If I say I am male does that make me male?
>3) If you really wish to achieve sexual equality, then the most
>useful first step is probably not to simply 'abolish' gender, but to
>investigate how it functions. Otherwise you simply risk, yet again,
>reinforcing the dominant gender's usual, and taken for granted,
>positions.
>
This is true.
>4) The Internet is 'virtual', not because it is disembodied or a
>consensual hallucination, but because of a constant tendency to
>talk about the Internet in terms of 'what can be', 'what should be', or
>'what will be' rather than in terms of 'what actually happens now'.
It is disembodied because the reader has not facts about the body of the
author....and in fact the author can be completely invisible to the reader
if desired.
>jon
********************
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:29:27 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism - definitions?
I'm sorry Renata, but I agree with you :) so I can't explain these
issues.
And that's kinda what I'm trying to argue
however there is often a distinction made between sex and gender.
Sex is what you are born with (I guess) and Gender is what society
decides is appropriate behaviour for your sex. One is usually said
to be inherent and one is usually said to be arbitrary, but there is
dispute about this - certainly there is a huge variation in appropriate
gender behviours between cultures.
jon
On 27 Jan 01, at 1:21, catcher at times wrote:
> --- Jon Marshall
>
> > Actually I agree with you about these confusions, but I understand
>
> > some people on the list to be arguing that gender could be
> absolished online (or even that it is abolished online), and that this
> would be inherently a good thing.
>
> But how can one say that gender is abolished online when everybody
> who's in front of a computer has one or more genders? Wouldn't one
> have to make a clear cut between cyber and RL to establish that? Is it
> possible to make that cut without becoming schizoid? It sounds a bit
> like the division between body and soul that's been propagated by
> Christian religion for ages - that didn't work either.
>
> I'm probably dragging you guys back into kindergarten stuff but I want
> to understand.
>
********************
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 22:12:46 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism - definitions?
>Gender is what society
>decides is appropriate behaviour for your sex.
That is the problem in a nutshell. Online we can be free from this decision.
********************
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 22:21:08 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism
The internet is a wonderful thing....On it no one knows that you are a dog.
We can import all the problems from the offline world if we want...But why
should we want to? We should use the internet to its fullest potential in
my opinion. It should be used as an instrument of increasing freedom.
The internet by its very nature communicates ideas...But the two people are
unlikely to face each other...This is both the limit and the great
advantage of the internet. It is unfortunate that society colors its
expectations based on gender...These expectations are erased in the online
world if we want them to be erased.
>On 26 Jan 01, at 15:29, Dominic Fox wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>To be honest, much of this debate reminds me of an employer
>standing before his employees and saying.
>
>"In the new Information Economy, there is no longer a distinction
>between employee and employer. We are now all enterpreneurs.
>We all work together, and if you work hard you can all become
>succesful and free. Class conflict is a thing of the past. Unions are
>a thing of the past, you must not fight against the firm, we must all
>pull together as mutually cooperative enterpreneurs. Our
>corporation depends on this cooperation. I can free you from the
>box of considering yourself workers. I can smash the tyranny of
>unions and workers cooperatives. Saying you are a worker is
>simply an outmoded social convention, that says nothing true
>about you. It is simply a false idea which must be abolished. It is
>simply a form of discrimination, a form of 'classism'. We are now in
>a a New Kind of Economy where such concepts are no longer
>relevant - we are all individuals. Therefore abandon this false idea of
>class and choose to become enterpreneurs like me - in fact you
>have no other option".
********************
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 22:35:32 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism - definitions?
I have been referring to abolishing gender in online transactions.....In
the offlin world gender is self evident but not in the online world.
>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: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 22:45:50 -0500
From: John Andrews
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism - David
Why are chefs, in charge of eateries around the world, mostly men...Surely,
it's not because women 's domain for centuries, was co-opted by men for
dominance...If so, then the hearth and home would have been conspicuously
run by men, as well. No - the answer is that men and women ARE drawn to the
IDEA, not the label, as you put it
David. Moreover, 'people are judged on the basis of the idea', anyway with
gender as an interesting sidebar.
Think you are laboring under a self-imposed label, unnamed at this time,
however, if talking points represent a
personal agenda, then you have succeeded.....Johnny
_____________________________
David said: "My question still is Why have male or female in charge? Why
not have a humane system in which people are judged on the basis of the
idea.....Why insist on a label? Isn't gender a label?
On to Part 4
This page
http://geocities.datacellar.net/jpmarshall.geo/cybermind/gender/relevance3.html >p.>
This page hosted by
Get your own Free Home Page