Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 04:05:39 -0600
From: "Christopher M. Massey"
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."
Johnny--not sure I get the logic here. Explain to me both why it couldn't
have been co-opted for dominance...and then explain to me what IDEA you're
talking about? Forgive me for being slow...just trying to understand.
Just as a thought, though, isn't the relationship between gender and the
internal vs. external portions of family life (e.g., home/hearth vs. work) a
social evolution stemming from cave vs. hunter/gatherer mentality?
(end 7 dpx.)
Christopher
********************
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 11:17:44 +0100
From: Rowena
Subject: Re: Gender's consciousness
> 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"?
David, David (what a masculine name you've chosen)
why would 'gender' have to be a problem?
Is gender the only box you want to trash or would age, humanity,
locality also be up for trashing next ?
Forgive me for saying this, you sound very male in your response
to some questions (eg Renata's) ? And since I don't know anything
about you but your posts to CM I visualize you as a white, male,
elitist - if you are an old black woman in a rural area without
university-education, don't think this proves the irrelevance of your
off-line background.
Rowena
********************
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 11:17:44 +0100
From: Rowena
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
On 26 Jan 2001, at 20:36, David Presley wrote:
> >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?
David,
I do strongly doubt that they are (how would I explain 'great sex' to
a woman who was raised on the idea that a 'good woman' was sex-
less (not genderfree)).
But,
for daily life it is not at all important whether these assumptions are
universal. It sounds to me like you would want to 'disconnect' 'on-
line-life' from 'daily life'.
Rowena
********************
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 06:41:21 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
>David,
>
>I do strongly doubt that they are (how would I explain 'great sex' to
>a woman who was raised on the idea that a 'good woman' was sex-
>less (not genderfree)).
This is an assumption with sexist roots. I do not think it is good to
assume personality based on gender.
It dehumanizes the exceptions.
>But,
>for daily life it is not at all important whether these assumptions are
>universal. It sounds to me like you would want to 'disconnect' 'on-
>line-life' from 'daily life'.
Online life has different properties than offline life.
********************
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 06:43:56 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism - definitions?
>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.
This is not a desirable outcome but neither is the outcome of personality
being boxed in by gender.
********************
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 14:36:49 +0200
From: Maurizio Mariotti
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism
Christopher M. Massey scripsit:
> 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,"...?
Cross-dressing is nothing, really. It is how you accessorize that is
everything. :)
M
********************
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 07:44:14 -0500
From: Dominic Fox
Subject: A note on facts
Let "fact" = "thing which is true irrespective of whether or not it is
perceived to be true".
If I state that it is a fact that x, and you reply that x is true for some
people and not for others, then either I am mistaken in stating that x is a
fact or you mistaken in stating that the truth of x depends on particular
perceptions. It's also possible that we might both be mistaken: that x is
never true for anybody in any circumstances whatsoever.
It's entirely possible that there are no facts whatsoever, in which case
every time I said "it is a fact that x", I would be plain wrong.
Is it a fact that there are facts? Is it a fact that there are no facts?
It is a fact that I can only be plain wrong in saying that there are facts
if it is a fact that there are no facts.
********************
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 07:55:55 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: A note on facts
>It is a fact that I can only be plain wrong in saying that there are facts
>if it is a fact that there are no facts.
And that IS a fact....
********************
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 14:08:21 +0100
From: Rowena
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
On 28 Jan 2001, at 6:41, David Presley wrote:
> >I do strongly doubt that they are (how would I explain 'great sex' to
> >a woman who was raised on the idea that a 'good woman' was sex- less
> >(not genderfree)).
>
> This is an assumption with sexist roots.
which assumption ? That the assumptions that the differences I
would assume between 'the group of my male friends' and 'my
group of female friends' in their interest in my sex life is not
universal ????
> I do not think it is good
> to assume personality based on gender. It dehumanizes the > >
> exceptions.
I don't have the idea that any of the people who wrote on this issue
to this list are promoting that. But speaking for myself, I don't
advocate that. But 'to assume a personality based on gender' is not
the same as making some assumptions on shared or different
experiences and viewpoints based on your knowledge of peoples
background. I don't think it is possible to excluded peoples gender
from this background.
What these assumptions are does by no means have to be fixed
and they are definately universal. For example; someone who
assumes that a woman does necessarily wants to give birth will
approach the topic of childbirth (and many others) differently than I
(a woman who has not given birth and is not planning/wanting to). I
think it is good to be aware of the influence of theses assumptions
I think it can be a valid point of critique if you see that someones
assumptions are rigid and excluding.
Rowena
********************
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 08:13:53 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: My Niave comments on absent bodies
> 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.
>
But is this true for all men and all women? Is this a product of their
gender or of the social learning environment, or of the individual?
********************
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 08:21:36 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
>On 28 Jan 2001, at 6:41, David Presley wrote:
>> >
>> >I do strongly doubt that they are (how would I explain 'great sex' to
>> >a woman who was raised on the idea that a 'good woman' was sex- less
>> >(not genderfree)).
>>
>> This is an assumption with sexist roots.
>
>which assumption ? That the assumptions that the differences I
>would assume between 'the group of my male friends' and 'my
>group of female friends' in their interest in my sex life is not
>universal ????
>
The assumption that there are inherent personality differences between men
and women. Roles are socially learned from the time of birth.
>> I do not think it is good
>> to assume personality based on gender. It dehumanizes the > >
>> exceptions.
>
> I
>think it is good to be aware of the influence of theses assumptions
>I think it can be a valid point of critique if you see that someones
>assumptions are rigid and excluding.
>
I agree that being aware of the influence of these assumptions is a good
thing. Too often these assumptions
are rigid and excluding. So how do you propose to keep the assumptions
from being ridid and excluding?
********************
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 12:08:20 -0600
From: Elizabeth Barrette
Subject: Re: My Niave comments on absent bodies
On 28 Jan 01, at 8:13, David Presley wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> But is this true for all men and all women? Is this a product of
> their gender or of the social learning environment, or of the
> individual?
I don't think *anything* is true of *everyone*. But this is a
definite pattern that holds across many cultures and times. It is
not an absolute, but it is plenty strong enough to be useful. If you
guess that a woman will be interested in connections and personal
details, and a man will be rather less so, then you will be right a lot
more often than you are wrong. It is a *combination* of sex,
socializing, and individuality -- which is the juncture at which
gender also lies, hence the tendency to associate this effect with
women.
Blessings,
Elizabeth
********************
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 11:20:53 -0800
From: catcher at times?
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism - David
--- David Presley
> 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.
But all my ideas are produced by my body - if I don't have a body I
don't have ideas. Your statement again reminds me of the
schizophrenia the catholics propagate: there's a body and there's a
soul - and they should function separately. I don't agree with that
- I like the way I am a whole: I, renata, am my body and the
thoughts, ideas, emotions it produces.
When you say an idea needs to be judged free from the body, do you
mean an idea needs to be judged free from emotions, or free from
physical connotations?
renata
********************
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 11:30:58 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: the purity of thought
Just trying to put the schizophrenia I mentioned in another post
into words:
There's the body, an instrument, the vehicle that carries us through
this life. And there's the mind which, at its best, produces pure
thoughts.
The body is beautiful and should be tended to in the best possible
way because it's the shrine in which resides your beautiful
spirit/brain.
A thought should be conceived and judged by it's own merit, meaning
all physical references should be kept far away from it.
------
I'm probably not saying it right, but I think you all know what I
mean.
I'm sorry to say that I never fell for those theories - they remind
me of American soap operas in which people never fart and people
saying women shouldn't make mayonaise when they're menstruating.
renata, fearing this post is superfluous
********************
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 15:05:14 -0500
From: John Andrews
Subject: Re: the purity of thought
What 'theories' Renata? Never heard the one about mayonnaise, BTW...Johnny
_______________________________________
I'm probably not saying it right, but I think you all know what I
mean.
I'm sorry to say that I never fell for those theories - they remind
me of American soap operas in which people never fart and people
saying women shouldn't make mayonaise when they're menstruating.
renata, fearing this post is superfluous
********************
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 14:19:11 -0600
From: Elizabeth Barrette
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism - David
On 28 Jan 01, at 11:20, catcher at times wrote:
> But all my ideas are produced by my body - if I don't have a body I
> don't have ideas. Your statement again reminds me of the schizophrenia
> the catholics propagate: there's a body and there's a soul - and they
> should function separately. I don't agree with that - I like the way I
> am a whole: I, renata, am my body and the thoughts, ideas, emotions it
> produces.
Ah! A difference of experience causing a difference in theory. I
am *not* my body. I am thought and spirit. I wear my body the
way I wear my clothes. Just as I have many clothes, I have had
many bodies, and quite different kinds of each. The clothes I wear
affect my readiness to do certain things -- for instance, I'm less
inclined to chase frogs while wearing my good suit, although I may
well note the presence of frogs for later pursuit in grubbies. The
body I wear affects my readiness to do certain things -- for
instance, in my current body I can't fly without assistance, have too
little stamina for prolonged dancing, but can easily tell that the milk
it starting to spoil before most other people could. My eclectic
experience in bodies is part of what makes me gender-fluid, and
less likely to be *strongly* influenced by my current body in the
ways that most women are. But sometimes I still get mood
swings based on being in a female body, which is part of the
experience of being in the woman-gender.
> When you say an idea needs to be judged free from the body, do you
> mean an idea needs to be judged free from emotions, or free from
> physical connotations?
Why not both?
Blessings,
Elizabeth
********************
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 12:39:00 -0800
From: Caitlin Martin
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism - David
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Christopher M. Massey murmured:
> Just as a thought, though, isn't the relationship between gender and the
> internal vs. external portions of family life (e.g., home/hearth vs. work) a
> social evolution stemming from cave vs. hunter/gatherer mentality?
Could you elaborate on this?
c.
********************
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 12:46:07 -0800
From: Caitlin Martin
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Maurizio Mariotti murmured:
> Christopher M. Massey scripsit:
>
> > 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,"...?
>
> Cross-dressing is nothing, really. It is how you accessorize that is
> everything. :)
>
True, Maurizio (not to mention how well you pluck your eyebrows -- which I
learned how to do from a tranny friend).
I was glad to see this quoted again because I deleted Christopher's e-mail
before pointing something out. Christopher quotes my quote of my friend
with accuracy, but ascribes something to my friend that I didn't (& that,
having had the conversation, I'm fairly sure he didn't) -- relief. JuJu
(my friend) wasn't expressing relief at being able to revert to his former
gender identity through a change of clothes. He was pointing out that the
fact that he cross-dressed didn't make him a woman.
c.
********************
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 14:50:37 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: the purity of thought
--- John Andrews
> What 'theories' Renata? Never heard the one about mayonnaise,
About the mayonaise:
In Europe most people believe that a menstruating woman should not
make mayonaise (or bearnaise etc ...) because it'll turn. Most chefs
dont even allow menstruating women in their kitchens.
About "theories":
Some say the mind is for thinking and the body shouldn't influence
that ... you know, the whole idea of clean, pure thoughts. Some say
a person is either emotional or rational.
And I don't believe it.
About soaps where nobody farts:
They're a sign of schismatic thinking (is that a word?) of another
quality - to be an ok person you shouldn't have perceivable bodily
functions and/or bodily discomfort - the body should be adapted to
what the mind wants. (ref. women shaving, loosing weight, plastic
surgery ...)
The "being genderfree/bodyfree online" thing reminds me of those
ideas.
------
In our society there roughly are 2 groups: the ones who mostly
strive for a beautiful body and the ones that want a beautiful mind.
Like Frank Zappa said:"What is the ugliest part of your body? Some
say your toes, some say your nose but I think it's your mind."
renata ,-)
********************
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 15:07:26 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism - definitions?
--- Jon Marshall
> Sex is what you are born with (I guess) and Gender is what society
decides is appropriate behaviour for your sex.
More questions:
If, like today, I think/talk differently because my hormones are
acting up - is that gender or sex?
And the stuff Elizabeth talked about, men and women being interested
in different aspect, is that gender or sex?
And when we're talking about being genderfree online, does this only
mean we are free from what society decides is appropriate behavior
for our sex and it doesn't mean we're sexfree?
And finally, in this thread, are we supposed to be discussing only
gender or is sex allowed too?
> certainly there is a huge variation in appropriate gender
>behaviours between cultures.
A huge variation indeed and often so difficult to understand another
culture - on another list we're discussing "shaving for women" and I
just heard that there's women in America who actually shave their
arms (to please men) - I was flabbergasted, both about women who do
it and men liking it.
renata, apparently been off topic all the time
********************
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 15:25:55 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism - David
--- Elizabeth Barrette
> Just as I have many clothes, I have had many bodies, and quite
>different kinds of each.
Are you referring to reincarnation or to something else? Please
elaborate - I only have one body as far as I know.
I don't perceive my body/myself to be specifically female or male -
I have female reproductive organs, other parts of my body look male
to me, same goes for my emotions/ideas/behavior etc ...
Male/female here meaning what I learnt they mean.
renata
********************
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 17:54:47 -0600
From: Elizabeth Barrette
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism
On 27 Jan 01, at 9:54, David Presley wrote:
> 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.
But if everyone acts as if a certain opinion (say, "the Earth is
flat") is a fact, it can function as a fact in many ways. That is,
people will base their behaviors quite heavily on it, to the extent of
never sailing outside the sight of shore, because they don't want to
fall off the edge of the Earth. Even proving the "fact" wrong can be
extremely hazardous to your health, as history attests.
Sometimes society makes it desirable for people to adhere to fake
facts.
Other times, it's hard to tell what is a fact and what is opinion.
Can people move things with their minds? Does the Sasquatch
exist? Is there life on other planets? Are there measurable
differences in intelligence between different human genetic groups?
For instance, either there is or there is not life on other planets.
We have some evidence for both sides. We look at the evidence
and each of us makes a judgement one way or the other,
depending on what we find most convincing. Me, I'm convinced
there is. (Whether any of it is within *reach* of us, or sentient, etc.
are different questions.) I could be proven right in my lifetime, or
not. It's impossible to prove the negative. So the fact exists -- but
we don't know which is the fact and which is the erroneous opinion,
for sure, yet.
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.
Makes sense. You have a right to your *informed* opinion.
Blessings,
Elizabeth
********************
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 15:55:57 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism
--- Elizabeth Barrette
> Are there measurable differences in intelligence between different
>human genetic groups?
I saw a tv program today in which a man said that it is a
scientifically proven fact that women aren't creative/artistic and
men are because of a difference in their brain functions. Made me
giggle.
renata
********************
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 16:06:16 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism - definitions?
--- David Presley
> I have been referring to abolishing gender in online
>transactions.....In the offlin world gender is self evident but not
>in the online world.
And again I ask: what's your definition of gender?
renata
********************
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:36:43 -0600
From: Elizabeth Barrette
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism
On 28 Jan 01, at 15:55, catcher at times wrote:
> --- Elizabeth Barrette
>
> > Are there measurable differences in intelligence between different
> human genetic groups?
>
> I saw a tv program today in which a man said that it is a
> scientifically proven fact that women aren't creative/artistic and men
> are because of a difference in their brain functions. Made me giggle.
Let's see: today, I did another round of line-by-line critique of a
(female) friend's latest novel, wherein I helped her refine ways of
making her main character come unglued, along with sundry advice
on the magical descriptions. Then I spent half an hour listening to
Doug argue why *my* main character in a story would not use the
word "epiphyte" even though she lives in a jungle, and sundry other
points of revision. I would enjoy dumping your TV man into any of
my writing worlds, or even into my own personal presence, for the
amusement of anyone who has known me for longer than five
minutes. I don't think he'd last very long, though.
Blessings,
Elizabeth
********************
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 16:33:39 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism
--- Elizabeth Barrette
> I would enjoy dumping your TV man into any of my writing worlds,
>or even into my own personal presence, for the amusement of anyone
>who has known me for longer than five minutes.
Please can I watch? ,-)
Btw, he's not a TV man - he's a famous novel/column/essay writer.
The stuff I read from him had "female unfriendly" written all over
it and that's putting it politely - f.e. in a newspaper he wrote a
critique on a female talkshow host - basically it was a (fictitious)
report on how he had sex with her - a quote: "She got down on all
fours and begged me to slide my dick into her mouth ... she fiercely
sucked it as if it were a soother. When I finally came on her face
she offered to leave her husband for me, but I refused." And so on
and so on.
Badly written, of poor taste ... but immensely popular in Belgium,
mostly read by our so-called intellectuals.
Beam me up, Elizabeth!
renata
********************
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 21:34:20 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: gender [Fwd: Rejected posting to CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM]
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------E8E3F176613B00CB7BB1D259
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
--------------E8E3F176613B00CB7BB1D259
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
The distribution of your message dated Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:56:39 -0500 with
subject "Re: Gender consciousness" has been rejected because you have exceeded
the daily per-user message limit for the CYBERMIND list. Other than the list
owner, no one is allowed to post more than 7 messages per day. Please resend
your message at a later time if you still want it to be posted to the list.
------------------------ Rejected message (79 lines) --------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:56:39 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
Exactly!!!!!
"Christopher M. Massey" wrote:
> > 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: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 21:34:54 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: more gender [Fwd: Rejected posting to CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM]
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------205814A2CE926A1FC64A14EA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
--------------205814A2CE926A1FC64A14EA
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:51:45 -0500
From: "L-Soft list server at America Online (1.8d)"
Subject: Rejected posting to CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
To: David Presley
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
The distribution of your message dated Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:51:51 -0500 with
subject "Re: Gender consciousness" has been rejected because you have exceeded
the daily per-user message limit for the CYBERMIND list. Other than the list
owner, no one is allowed to post more than 7 messages per day. Please resend
your message at a later time if you still want it to be posted to the list.
------------------------ Rejected message (47 lines) --------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:51:51 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
It is amazing what comes out of the woodwork when gender is let go....
Elizabeth Barrette wrote:
> 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: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 21:35:21 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: more gender 2[Fwd: Rejected posting to CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM]
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------8F2D5D187D1E424F04F4B7A7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
--------------8F2D5D187D1E424F04F4B7A7
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:36:05 -0500
From: "L-Soft list server at America Online (1.8d)"
Subject: Rejected posting to CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
The distribution of your message dated Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:36:11 -0500 with
subject "Re: Gender consciousness" has been rejected because you have exceeded
the daily per-user message limit for the CYBERMIND list. Other than the list
owner, no one is allowed to post more than 7 messages per day. Please resend
your message at a later time if you still want it to be posted to the list.
------------------------ Rejected message (127 lines) -------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:36:11 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
Gothwalker wrote:
> 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.
>
so a woman's advice would not be good in this situation? Are we saying that women can
not understand men and visa versa?
what does this say about our society?
>
> 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.
Are we saying men would not have access to this information?
> You want to buy second hand dresses.
Men have no sense of style or color....and can't possibly learn?
> You want to know, for writing purposes,
> how a professional American footballer feels and thinks.
Women will never be able to play football? What if a woman could run faster and be
more agile on the field?
> 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?
My point is that the gender information does not communicate or enrich the
conversation.
> > 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.
So far no intellectual / political/ or even personal dialog has been shown to be
enriched online by direct knowledge of that person's gender. and what if the person
says he is of one gender or another and you are fooled....is the said conversation
still enriched? and if so why? and if not why not?
> > 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.
>
Not necessarily....
********************
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 21:35:46 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: more gender 3 [Fwd: Rejected posting to
CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM]
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------BB82A69891F0F5CFF9B892E6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
--------------BB82A69891F0F5CFF9B892E6
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:29:25 -0500
From: "L-Soft list server at America Online (1.8d)"
Subject: Rejected posting to CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
The distribution of your message dated Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:29:29 -0500 with
subject "Re: Gender consciousness" has been rejected because you have exceeded
the daily per-user message limit for the CYBERMIND list. Other than the list
owner, no one is allowed to post more than 7 messages per day. Please resend
your message at a later time if you still want it to be posted to the list.
------------------------ Rejected message (48 lines) --------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:29:29 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
and so what is gothwalker??
Gothwalker wrote:
> 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: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 21:36:41 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: more gender 6 or 7 [Fwd: Rejected posting to
CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM]
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------89C6866CB30FC9D2B1AF423D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
--------------89C6866CB30FC9D2B1AF423D
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:25:21 -0500
From: "L-Soft list server at America Online (1.8d)"
Subject: Rejected posting to CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
The distribution of your message dated Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:25:22 -0500 with
subject "Re: Gender consciousness" has been rejected because you have exceeded
the daily per-user message limit for the CYBERMIND list. Other than the list
owner, no one is allowed to post more than 7 messages per day. Please resend
your message at a later time if you still want it to be posted to the list.
------------------------ Rejected message (36 lines) --------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:25:22 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
Lol
My settings are different on my lap top.....
Jon Marshall wrote:
> 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: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 21:36:05 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: more gender 5 [Fwd: Rejected posting to
CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM]
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------7A4CAC329F917F6F3431192C
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
--------------7A4CAC329F917F6F3431192C
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:27:54 -0500
From: "L-Soft list server at America Online (1.8d)"
Subject: Rejected posting to CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
The distribution of your message dated Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:27:44 -0500 with
subject "Re: Gender consciousness" has been rejected because you have exceeded
the daily per-user message limit for the CYBERMIND list. Other than the list
owner, no one is allowed to post more than 7 messages per day. Please resend
your message at a later time if you still want it to be posted to the list.
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:27:44 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
References: <20010125082632.84474.qmail@web12107.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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.
Any why are they Lost?? Why are they threatened? What are the
assumptions they are making about the society we live in? Why is truth
painful for some? Why would female-female communication be easier?
What are we saying about our social structure??
********************
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 21:37:00 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: last gender [Fwd: Rejected posting to
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------68166F3264FD570274B23B80
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
--------------68166F3264FD570274B23B80
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:18:33 -0500
From: "L-Soft list server at America Online (1.8d)"
Subject: Rejected posting to CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
The distribution of your message dated Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:18:18 -0500 with
subject "Re: Gender consciousness" has been rejected because you have exceeded
the daily per-user message limit for the CYBERMIND list. Other than the list
owner, no one is allowed to post more than 7 messages per day. Please resend
your message at a later time if you still want it to be posted to the list.
------------------------ Rejected message (52 lines) --------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:18:18 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness
Enok Kippersund wrote:
> >On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Gothwalker murmured:
> >
> >
> >
> >> You'll find that ideas about childbirth are
> >> far more useful from women than from men.
So are you saying a male discussing childbirth because he is male is invalid
prima facie and visa versa?
Are these discussions fact based? Can men/women boys/girls be empathetic?
********************
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 21:43:52 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: My Niave comments on absent bodies
Are you suggesting that sterotypes are useful in understanding the human
condition? Isn't better to understand the human condition from the basis
of scientific evidence than from inaccurate stereotypes? How do we measure
"plenty strong enough to be useful"?
Elizabeth Barrette wrote:
> I don't think *anything* is true of *everyone*. But this is a
> definite pattern that holds across many cultures and times. It is
> not an absolute, but it is plenty strong enough to be useful.
********************
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 21:47:56 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism - David
>
> When you say an idea needs to be judged free from the body, do you
> mean an idea needs to be judged free from emotions, or free from
> physical connotations?
>
Free from the assumptions that many people make about the body. The
body is not deterministic of the idea.
********************
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 22:04:23 -0600
From: Elizabeth Barrette
Subject: Re: My Niave comments on absent bodies
On 28 Jan 01, at 21:43, dpres wrote:
> Are you suggesting that sterotypes are useful in understanding the
> human condition?
Stereotypes, no. Patterns, yes. A stereotype is a reasonable
pattern taken to an unreasonable extreme. The urge to seek and
apply patterns to our advantage is a hardwired human trait. When
we see that many member of group A exhibit feature B then we
tend to assume that any A we meet will be B -- or worse yet, that
all As are B. Yet it is highly useful to know that many or most As
are in fact B, so that if we're building a shop in an area frequented
by As we will make sure to stock it with plenty of B supplies. The
idea, for a fully sentient and enlightened individual, is to strike a
balance between predicting what will happen based on your
previous experience, and taking the current example on its own
terms. Too much of the former, and you become rigid; too much of
the latter, and you're doomed to repeating the same mistakes.
Isn't better to understand the human condition from
> the basis of scientific evidence than from inaccurate stereotypes?
Scientific evidence isn't always very helpful in studying the
human condition. Science can't do everything. It's just really good
at doing a lot of things. In linguistics, you can look for patterns --
but you can't take the concept of "noun" and put it on a bench and
cut it up to see what it's made of. You have to work a lot from
inference and extrapolation. Linguistics is a science, but it's not
the same kind as, say, biology or physics. You could say the
same about politics. Stereotypes exist because they have some
truth in them, usually exaggerated from useful to useless degree.
If you resist the urge to take the damn things too far, those
patterns can make your life a lot easier.
> How do we measure "plenty strong enough to be useful"?
If you use pattern X and doing so improves your chances of
survival, then it is accurate enough to be useful. If it doesn't, you
might as well throw it out; and if it actively makes your life rougher,
then you had *better* throw it out -- although for some reason,
most people will refuse even if you can prove that it's screwing
them up in a major way. Here's an example. If you live in a city
where people A and people B tend to squabble with each other,
then it makes sense to approach people of the of the opposite
shade with a bit of wariness, in case they decide to whack you
with a stick. This way, you're less likely to be taken by surprise if
the other person attacks you. It does *not* make sense to haul off
and insult them for no good reason, because then you've increased
the chance of hostility. What you do is open the discussion
amicably (unless they approach you with a stick in hand) in the
hopes that this particular person will be reasonable -- but you're
alert in case they're not, and you know to be alert because they
belong to a group that has demonstrated a pattern of hostility. And
you have to keep an eye on the situation, because if you notice
that B+q people never seem to show up with a stick, whereas B+s
people will immediately whack you if you ask about the weather,
that's *really* valuable information. The situation could even
change. Patterns are great. They allow you to take some
shortcuts that can save your life or sanity. But if you overdo it, or if
you refuse to change them as circumstances change, then they're
worse than useless.
Blessings,
Elizabeth
********************
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:39:38 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism - definitions?
On 27 Jan 01, at 22:12, David Presley wrote:
> >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.
Pity you left out the modifiers and qualifications....
but the 'decision' here is metaphoric - no person, or group of
people, actually sit down and decide anything - so no people can
actaully sit down and simply undecide something either.
It should, perhaps be stated that your sense of freedom, of
individuality, of potentials, of ideal behviour etc is also a social
'decision' in the same sense - and so is perhaps only as relaible as
gender as a guide to reality.
all these decisions, made by nobody in particular, and as reacted
to by the person, are probably constitutive of their self.
Besides these decisions are not simply conscious ideas but
learned behaviours, skills, habits and so on - which may not be
accessible to consciousness that easily.
If you read the Aug 97 discussion on the web site, then it has been
argued that males and females may have culturally different
communication styles, and this appears on the net now. It is,
perhaps a 'fact' of gender...
Males might *tend* to dominate the list in terms of numbers of
posts, might appear to be patronising, might not engage in
discussion but merely repeat points of dogma etc.
These styles might tend to shut women out, even if the males are
not trying to do that.
It seems we have mainly males writing now.
jon
********************
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:41:54 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism - definitions?
On 29 Jan 01, at 14:39, Jon Marshall wrote:
> It seems we have mainly males writing now.
thankfully, since this was written yesterday (I write offline), this is
not so accurate
jon
********************
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:55:29 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: A note on facts
I dunno, sometimes I think not all statements are either true or not
true. Most statements might often be true to some extent and
untrue to some extent. Every statement to some extent hides, or
distorts, as well as 'opens' or elucidates - and I don't know if that
is a 'fact'.
i dunno if a 'thing' as opposed to a statement about a thing can
ever be 'true' or not. (The statement itself can become a thing, so
that complicates it further)
Often it seems people slip from saying something like,
"The statements we make about the part of the cosmic process we
have called gravity seem to have a large degree of accuracy", to
saying "Gravity is a fact", or "Gravity is real" neither of which is
remotely the same statement as the first.
jon
On 28 Jan 01, at 7:44, Dominic Fox wrote:
> Let "fact" = "thing which is true irrespective of whether or not it is
> perceived to be true".
>
> If I state that it is a fact that x, and you reply that x is true for
> some people and not for others, then either I am mistaken in stating
> that x is a fact or you mistaken in stating that the truth of x
> depends on particular perceptions. It's also possible that we might
> both be mistaken: that x is never true for anybody in any
> circumstances whatsoever.
>
> It's entirely possible that there are no facts whatsoever, in which
> case every time I said "it is a fact that x", I would be plain wrong.
>
> Is it a fact that there are facts? Is it a fact that there are no
> facts?
>
> It is a fact that I can only be plain wrong in saying that there are
> facts if it is a fact that there are no facts.
********************
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:55:30 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: A note on facts
As John Searle points out (though I disagree with him on almost
everything else), there is a whole class of 'facts' which exist only
because of humans - things like money, weddings, law etc. Yet try
acting as if these things are not facts (like 'gravity') which we have
to deal with, and see what happens.
We might not even be able to make accurate statements about
these human facts, despite the fact that we apparantly 'created
them'.
And there we return to gender :)
jon
********************
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 00:40:31 -0500
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: Re: A note on facts
You can always re: Quine construct facts & salvage theories through
natural language. The history of Ptolemaic epicycles is a case in point.
Once conventions are described in mathematical language, you can create
T/F tables within limited domains; "truth" however re: Skolem is defined
not exactly outside the system, but external to its axioms. "Facts" in
the real world aren't dependent on formal definitions of truth or theory
or theory-salvage, but are drawn from the world always in dialectic with
culture and language; even to say "ten bodies were found yesterday in
East Timor" is dependent to some extent on agreement as to what consti-
tutes a body. In most cases, evidence is of course overwhelming; none-
theless one might say that all truth is circumstantial at the limit. On
an ethical level, this is approached asymptotically. - Alan
********************
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:15:54 +1100
From: Esther Milne
Subject: Re: being genderfree online - lots of questions
At 20:55 27/01/01 -0500, David Presley
(AKA Gradgrind) wrote:
>This is true because physical ques indicate gender.
Absolutely. Women are sick to death with waiting in line
for their rights. Oh sorry, maybe you meant 'cues'? Just
trying to get at the facts.
Esther
********************
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 02:48:26 -0500
From: Dominic Fox
Subject: Re: A note on facts
I think I agree, in fact - "facts" as such would be constituted within a
very, you could even say abnormally, stable and general set of conditions.
I don't think it's true to say that truth is always local and unstable,
because there are truths that are a lot less locally specific and a lot
more stable than that implies and anyway I just dislike the "always". I'd
say: facts are a special case, but not *that* special: they don't stand
apart from general questions and problems of knowing, perceiving etc., but
they are established in certain sorts of ways, there are procedures and
protocols, a putative fact for instance can be disproved in ways that an
opinion can't (I can be wrong about the facts in ways I can't be about my
own "feelings", although that's not to say I can't be wrong about them
too). I think there's a type of argument - "everything possible to be
believed is an image of truth" - that wants to disallow the possibility of
anyone's being wrong about anything, and I can't work with that - I have to
be able to be in error in order to think constructively.
When I say "there are procedures and protocols" etc., I'm not referencing
anything other than a language game - I don't mean there are divinely
revealed methods for establishing the divinely authored truth - but there
are "truth-effects", also "falsity-effects". And "I have to be able to be
in error" means I have to be able to participate in such language games
both as an utterer of putatively veridical statements and as the subject of
an enquiry into their truthfulness - "can you defend your thesis?". I don't
know what I'd say if I thought everyone else was obliged to take my word
for it; the first thing I'd want to do would be remove that obligation,
encourage skepticism, contradiction.
********************
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 02:14:56 -0600
From: "Christopher M. Massey"
Subject: Re: Gender's consciousness
"Forgive me for saying this, you [David Presley] sound very male in your
response to some questions (eg Renata's) ? And since I don't know anything
about you but your posts to CM I visualize you as a white, male,
elitist...."
Oddly enough, the place where I am made most aware of my gender is in
discussions such as these--when people nod to each other and wink..."He
couldn't possibly know what he's talking about, he's a guy...." For a
while, when these sorts of topics would come up, I felt (and was often
treated) as though I had no right to speak.... I mean, look at me...I am
possibly the least oppressed being in all of Western History...a white
heterosexual male. What could I know? Then, I started realizing that I was
a sensitive and intelligent person, and my opinion counted.
Hmm. Where else have I heard that logic...? ;)
This is not to say that Rowena is suggesting that David (or I) have no right
to speak. Yet, it has to be stated that I have no control over the
patriarchal hegemony of millennia past which has established my place in
culture. I did not collude with 'enemies of olde' (aka the men _and_
women--mostly unwilling victims of generations of Culture themselves--who
enforced and contributed to a marginalizing power structure) in foot
bindings or clitoral oppression or witch hunts or.... (Nor was I a willing
participant in my own circumcision.) I have read Cixous and Scarry and
Forte and Spivak and Dolan (though not to the extent I would like). I have
attempted to open myself up to diverse structures of writing and art beyond
the inclusive Canon of Western Literature. I am very aware that the
masculine gender invades itself into every word I say, every thought I
think. Will there ever come a time when people stop pointing it out to me?
One thing that repeatedly jumps out at me re: this discussion is the return
to interchangeable use of 'sex' and 'gender'. Has there been something
within recent gender studies that denies a continuum of possible gender
types outside of Man and Woman? If so, please forgive my ignorance (sorry,
Renata, but I'll keep referencing my ignorance and relative inexperience
until such time as I stop being so--in other words, probably never
*wink/grin*). My gay/lesbian, transvestite/transgender, and transsexual
friends will be so disappointed. They seemed to be hoping that someday they
could escape from this dichotomy and achieve freedom to express their true
genders.
(end 7 drachmas)
Christopher
********************
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 03:53:51 -0500
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: Re: A note on facts
Just want to say I agree with you except that I think truth is never local
and always unstable; I mean this in the sense of foundations; that any
claim to truth, even within say a particular universe of set theory,
participates with all other truths and truth-tables and adjudications; but
that equally all truth is contested, contestable; that untruths, however
defined, may be salvaged one way or another - the simplest example being
that of religions' claims to ultimate truths, absolute, and so forth.
Of course a false fact may still be a fact; otherwise one could not have
true and false facts. Given this, again, there is an odd and illimitable
relationship between facticity and truth.
Alan
********************
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 01:01:37 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: About rejected posts
I'd apprecate it if people would clean up posts that were rejected
before sending them again - I find it annoying and confusing to have
to go through the irrelevant info before coming to the real message.
renata
********************
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:16:00 +0000
From: Gothwalker
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 08:45:06AM -0800, catcher at times typed like the wind:
> 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.
Thanks for pinning it down, I've been finding the same thing
(as I often do in 'academic discussions').
David is coming into a discussion about gender online
with an argument that summarises as 'gender is sexism; let's abolish it',
without considering whther the abolition of gender is
a) useful or
b) possible.
Unless I'm picking up your intention incorrectly, David?
So not only are you being stubborn,
you're subtly off topic. ;)
Drew.
********************
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:35:31 +0000
From: Gothwalker
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 08:48:40PM -0500, David Presley typed like the wind:
> 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.
No, hang on a gosh-darned minute.
This is just WRONG.
The doctor is not stating the fact.
The doctor is stating what she considers to be fact -
her opinion.
Another doctor may also state what she thinks to be fact,
but that is ALSO opinion.
Facts are a sort of out-there concept,
we can't reach them, only aim for them.
Anything we can communicate is opinion.
Drew.
********************
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 12:53:51 +0100
From: Rowena
Subject: Re: Gender's consciousness
On 29 Jan 2001, at 2:14, Christopher M. Massey wrote:
quoting me:
> "Forgive me for saying this, you [David Presley] sound very male in
> your response to some questions (eg Renata's) ? And since I don't know
> anything about you but your posts to CM I visualize you as a white,
> male, elitist...."
>
> Oddly enough, the place where I am made most aware of my gender is in
> discussions such as these--when people nod to each other and
> wink..."He couldn't possibly know what he's talking about, he's a
> guy...." For a while, when these sorts of topics would come up, I
> felt (and was often treated) as though I had no right to speak.... I
> mean, look at me...I am possibly the least oppressed being in all of
> Western History...a white heterosexual male. What could I know?
>
just after I pressed the 'sent' button I thought to myself, 'well isn't
that a catty remark' and I started waiting if I would get that as a
respons. I thought that at least David wouldn't be likely to respond
that way (in such words) 'cause it is a very sexist way of phrasing.
But it is not only catty but also quite relevant. This whole thread
started with Jon Marshalls questions about the way we are (or are
not) aware of gender when writing to lists like this. I guess this
doesn't mean only our own gender but also that of the other
participants. In connection to this it seems interesting if (and how)
posts of others are interpretated as 'male' or 'female', if the recipient
forms him/herself an image of the other persons gender (and rest of
background) on the (not explicit) information in the posts. Taking
myself as recipient, I found it striking that one of the posters that
gave strongest 'gendered image' was the one arguing for the
abolishment of gender.
This does by no way means I would disregard posts on the basis of
my gendered image of the poster. Even if this would be a
discussion of oppressor versus oppressed, both voices are usefull -
as long as we are aware that the patterns of oppression could be
acted out in the discussion itself. (NB I am not sugesting they are
now).
Rowena
********************
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 15:01:00 +0200
From: Maurizio Mariotti
Subject: Re: Gender's consciousness
Christopher M. Massey scripsit:
> And since I don't know anything about you but your posts to CM I
> visualize you as a white, male, elitist...."
Well, well, now that you mentioned it, let me go gossipy and
anecdotal: Last month I joined a list (general population about 400)
recommended by an e-mail buddy of mine, and after introducing
myself I settle down to lurk, to understand the list "culture" and the
people. I mean, you need to know whose asses to kiss, before you
start posting. :)
Now, one of the regular contributors had a first name that I thought
was genderless ("Terri"), but felt male to me, and a family name
that was definitely Scandinavian.
So, Terri Olaffson (I just made it up) posts and posts and I read and
read, and picture him as a Scandinavian male, tall and blond who
writes intelligently in very good English (Hi, Enok!)
Then I write a couple of posts, and people took them up and asked
me about South Africa, and I reply and make my usual bleeding-
heart liberal comments and eventually I receive a backchannel post
from Terri who asks for more information on a couple of topics and
adds that - get this! - as a Black American (that's the terms she
used, Black American) woman married to a Dane, she is very
interested in some of the aspects of South African society, bla,
bla, bla...
Now, what do I make of gender on the Internet? "Terri Olaffson" to
me was a Scandinavian male, whereas she is in fact (I'm totally
persuaded, BTW) an African-American woman married to a
Scandinavian. Did I pick up the gender-vibes from her ASCII? Not at
all, actually. I guess that the picture of the Scandinavian male
overrode everything.
Maurizio
PS She likes me.
********************
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 06:59:30 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism - definitions?
--- Jon Marshall
> It seems we have mainly males writing now.
I'm female - should I write some more? ,-)
renata, couldn't resist
********************
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:48:32 -0600
From: "Christopher M. Massey"
Subject: Re: Gender's consciousness
"Taking myself as recipient, I found it striking that one of the posters
that gave strongest 'gendered image' was the one arguing for the abolishment
of gender." (Rowena)
I'm not one hundred percent certain this is directed at me, but if so it is
inaccurate. Not to say that this interpretation isn't possible, but
certainly not one I intended. What I have been trying to communicate is not
that gender should be abolished, but that the lack of an immediate and
physically identifiable body in the online world makes it possible for a
fuller range of gender expression--beyond the two gender system (the
bipartisanship of gender).
I'm sure my gender is fairly apparent online, especially since I have no
qualms about admitting what that gender is--even knowing that any response I
make will now be silently qualified by this new (for some, for others not)
information. Yet, my true gender (etc.) would have come through my words,
my stances on certain issues, etc..
And in these cases, you all would have made an interpretation based on
processing what I write. Which has a greater chance of being accurate,
rather than a set of assumptions based on an immediate gender classification
of Man and Woman. In other words, the absence of an immediately recognized
body in the online world is like not knowing whether a candidate is a
Democrat or Republican. You're forced to listen to his/her stance on the
_issues_. And recognize that some people just don't fit as either.... It
seems to me that the online world allows for Third Party Genders. If I
don't tell you I'm a man, and you assess by my words that I am a man...but I
am really "an old black woman in a rural area without university-education"
who has, all her life, identified most strongly with a man's gender...? The
online world has suddenly made available to me a whole range of expressive
possibilities not possible when my body is an immediate and physically
identifiable 'thing', and my gender is judged by certain protrusions or
lacks thereof.
That is all I'm saying. I am absolutely not saying that gender should (or
even can) be abolished in the online world; it is too ingrained. The way
culture shapes us is insidious and often undetectable. And I see this as
being a positive thing not for those of us who are Man or Woman, but for the
majority of people out there who fall in the grey area somewhere outside
those two. The online world will not allow for the abolishment of gender,
but for the explosion outward...there will be so many labels, so many
classifications that those classifications will cease to be useful.
Forgive me if I've miscommunicated.... :)
Christopher
PS It seems that I am subtly off topic as well (thank you, Drew). For the
question at hand isn't what gender is capable of online, but rather what are
the current trends? Hrmmph. Someday I'll get this whole discussion thing
right. ;)
********************
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 12:04:39 -0600
From: "Christopher M. Massey"
Subject: Re: Gender's consciousness
Oh, and just to clarify again, by saying "If I don't tell you I'm a man, and
you assess by my words that I am a man...but I am really 'an old black woman
in a rural area without university-education' who has, all her life,
identified most strongly with a man's gender...?"...I am not saying this is
a conscious thing. Much like Maurizio's story, really, these qualities are
transmitted and received, then processed into a set of assumptions that may
or may not be correct. But if Maurizio had known the truth (as she now
believes it) from the start...if they were in a room together offline
discussing, with the physical body readily apparent?
BTW, thanks Maurizio...fun story. :)
C.
********************
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:45:28 +0330
From: Rowena Alberga
Subject: Re: Gender's consiousness
On 29 Jan 2001, at 11:48, Christopher M. Massey wrote:
> "Taking myself as recipient, I found it striking that one of the
> posters that gave strongest 'gendered image' was the one arguing for
> the abolishment of gender." (Rowena)
>
> I'm not one hundred percent certain this is directed at me, but if so
> it is inaccurate.
It was directed at you all but the poster I meant was David
Presley,
he wrote (fri 26 JN 2001 20:45 -0500):
> 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!!!
Rowena
********************
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 15:20:01 -0500
From: David Streever
Subject: Re: Gender's consiousness
I'm just entering this conversation, so forgive me if I'm repeating past
ideas or going off of topic.
I think what's interesting is the turn-about of feminism. I see it in many
ways as little more than a "me too" movement.
I believe in full equality when possible, and reciprocal relations when
equality is not a viable physical reality. However, I don't believe we need
a movement called "feminism" which, essentially, postulates that women are
better than men. I know, I know, I'm really not proving this in any way,
nor am I saying anything new. However, I know few feminists who do anything
more than bash men. There are african american women and puerto rican women
who are truly being discriminated against, and the caucasian feminist
movement couldn't care less. Not true? Try reading anything other than Ms.
magazine on the subject of feminism; Newsweek, Time, anything at all. The
sheer volume of complaints from african-american women and other ethnic
minorities about the lack of help they receive from the feminist movement
is what convinced me.
I can't think of even a single "poor" woman I know who has any involvement
in feminism. I think the only thing the modern feminist movement does is
continue to point out that men and women are different (as if I didn't know
that) and function as a rich white woman's club. It's a "me too" movement.
"Our husbands are arrogant caucasian bastards who don't like anyone else.
Let's be like them!" If you can name poor women and ethnic women who are
actually benefited, in a real and immediate way, by feminism I will gladly
withdraw this opinion. Until that time however, I am going to side with my
friends and what I've read in the news.
Oh, and by the bye, before Gloria Steinmen accuses Valentine's day of
being (quote) "A subversive male dominated attempt to repress the women of
the world" she should actually investigate the real, physical, scientific
history of Valentine's Day, and see where and why it originated. Maybe then
she'd realize she's shooting at shadows. If she doesn't like the idea of
getting a present, she can start buying her boyfriends present's on
valentines day. That or she can stop celebrating Christmas and her Birthday.
Just a suggestion...
-------------------------------------------------------
David Streever
Hometown Journal
Print Shop & Art Gallery
Voice: (860) 873.1708 - Fax: (860) 873.3533
P.O. Box 328, Moodus, CT 06469
www.htnp.com
David.Streever@htnp.com - Print@htnp.com
-------------------------------------------------------
********************
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 15:44:29 -0500
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: Re: Gender's consiousness
One of the criticisms that was leveled at the older feminist movement was
that it was basically white and middle-class. But it hasn't been that way
for a long time, and if it weren't for feminism we wouldn't have, say, the
Haitian women's center in our neighborhood. Years ago I taught at the
Atlanta College of Art, and saw the very positive effect feminism had
there. And I know from fairly wide-spread teaching experience that it has
gone a long way - but not nearly far enough - in creating move balanced
university departments of all sorts.
The question re: this list in that of gender and gender consciousness - is
one conscious of one's gender online, and conscious of the other's gender?
And in what circumstances is one conscious, in what circumstances not con-
scious, in what circumstances not conscious of the body at all.
I'd ask Jon Marshall to repost his original query about this - it might
help focus attention...
Alan
********************
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:02:11 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: more gender [Fwd: Rejected posting to
CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM]
--- dpres
> It is amazing what comes out of the woodwork when gender is let
go....
I don't understand this - could you explain?
renata
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 15:26:26 -0600
From: "Robert A. Kezelis"
Subject: Re: Gender's consiousness
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, David Streever wrote:
> Oh, and by the bye, before Gloria Steinmen accuses Valentine's day of
> being (quote) "A subversive male dominated attempt to repress the women of
> the world" she should actually investigate the real, physical, scientific
> history of Valentine's Day, and see where and why it originated. Maybe then
> she'd realize she's shooting at shadows. If she doesn't like the idea of
> getting a present, she can start buying her boyfriends present's on
> valentines day. That or she can stop celebrating Christmas and her Birthday.
Well, here in Chicago, we celebrate Valentine's Day in a unique,
rewarding manner. We line up people of Italian, Jewish and Irish descent,
shoot them repeatedly with machine guns, and take over their business
interests in prostitution, drugs and alcohol. It also helps to have some
interesting movie playing at the nearby Biograph Theatre, so the IRS can
arrest the culprit on tax evasion charges.
Just think. Had Clinton been around, I'd bet that Al Capone would have
been a major donor for Hillary's senatorial campaign. And pardoned for all
the murders, fraud, tax evasion,etc. I can just hear Billy saying, "Well,
you know, he's brought a lot of public service to our country and I think
that all Italian Americans applaud his business sense. We need donors,
erh, strong business people in this country to keep the economy strong.
And, by the way, I'm STILL here."
********************
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:39:17 -0500
From: Dominic Fox
Subject: Re: A note on facts
Certain kinds of acts of observation change certain kinds of realities -
insert examples from quantum microphysics here - but it's also true that
there are realities that are not altered in the slightest by my presence or
absence as an observer; these latter would be the "facts" I'm thinking of.
Try renaming an avalanche and see if you get any less buried under any less
snow.
********************
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:41:09 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism - definitions?
On 29 Jan 01, at 6:59, catcher at times wrote:
> --- Jon Marshall
>
> > It seems we have mainly males writing now.
> I'm female - should I write some more? ,-)
>
> renata, couldn't resist
you should always write more :)
When this is all over, I'll count up all the posts on the subject and
see what the result is by sex - maybe, if I get ambitious i'll do a
word count :)
********************
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:50:15 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: Gender's consiousness
On 29 Jan 01, at 15:44, Alan Sondheim wrote:
> The question re: this list in that of gender and gender consciousness
> - is one conscious of one's gender online, and conscious of the
> other's gender? And in what circumstances is one conscious, in what
> circumstances not con- scious, in what circumstances not conscious of
> the body at all.
>
> I'd ask Jon Marshall to repost his original query about this - it
> might help focus attention...
ok here it is again:
[[repost]]
On to Part 5
This page hosted by
Get your own Free Home Page