Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:39:43 +0100
From: Rowena
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism - definitions?
On 30 Jan 2001, at 11:41, Jon Marshall wrote:
[[snip]]
>
> 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 :)
Make sure you disregard 'to long quotes'
Rowena
*****************
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 13:43:15 +0200
From: Maurizio Mariotti
Subject: Re: Gender's consciousness
Christopher scripsit:
> 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?
Indeed, but is it not an important aspect of this discussion? I
mean, if "Terri Olaffson" had not contacted me backchannel,
sooner or later I would have interacted with "him" onlist as the
persona that I had assumed him to be, that is a Scandinavian male.
In other words, not only I would have written in a male-to-male
style, but I would have used Scandinavian cultural and historical
references to keep the conversation going and make him
participate.
All that for a person that, in those 'Net-mediated communications,
would have turned out to be a complete figment of my imagination.
The proverbial imaginary friend. Indeed, Gibson's "consensual
hallucination" seems to be validated somehow...
Maurizio
*****************
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:50:16 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: web site update,
in case anyone is interested, more of the previous mails in the
Gender consciousness discussion are now on the web site as data
:)
(ie Part 2 and Part 3)
http://geocities.datacellar.net/jpmarshall.geo/cybermind/gender/relevanc
e.html
http://geocities.datacellar.net/jpmarshall.geo/cybermind/gender/relevanc
e2.html
http://geocities.datacellar.net/jpmarshall.geo/cybermind/gender/relevanc
e3.html
jon
*****************
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 06:28:02 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: Gender's consciousness
--- rak
> News Item - January 31, 2001. Senator Bribery Rodham Clinton
Announces her new Media Guidelines.
Maybe I don't get the humour of this because I'm not American - to
me it sounds so personally vengeful. Maybe we should trash the
"nationality" box too while we're at it. Whaddya think, David? ,-)
renata
*****************
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 09:57:58 -0500
From: David Streever
Subject: Re: Gender's consciousness
I think we should trash all the boxes in a social context (i.e. Government
is separate from religion, and society and "boxes" should also be
separated. No one should be denied a job because of a box) but they can be
useful on a personal level.
Remember, every human action/behaviour originated for a reason. (evolution)
Prejudice is the basis of logic. To logically analyze requires one to take
a subject and look at past performance. Previous data then allows one to
form a conclusion as to the subjects future. This is what I consider prejudice.
You see someone, and even if you don't realize it, on a subconscious level
all your prejudices come to play. The combined "weight" (i.e. the total
amount of prejudices, good and bad) then give you an "intuitive" feeling
about the person. Every time you see anything, their is a lot going on
"beneath the surface". Bigotry and discrimination (I define) as different
from prejudice.
I know I'm really not describing this as I'd like to, but please bear with
me ;-) I have a half a dozen deadlines LOOMING above me and no time at all
to organize my thoughts!
*****************
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:47:22 -0600
From: Elizabeth Barrette
Subject: Re: Gender's consciousness
On 30 Jan 01, at 9:57, David Streever wrote:
> I think we should trash all the boxes in a social context (i.e.
> Government is separate from religion, and society and "boxes" should
> also be separated. No one should be denied a job because of a box) but
> they can be useful on a personal level.
That's a very good idea.
> Remember, every human action/behaviour originated for a reason.
> (evolution)
Well, not *every* but probably most. I did take this general
idea and posit a species in which sexism is fully justified -- or was,
at some points in history. Then I threw in some upheavals and
watched them turn their reasonably ordered society into hash as
they tried to cling to old traditions that didn't work very well in light
of the new circumstances. So I've got notes for several different
stories in sequence that detail the major changes.
> Prejudice is the basis of logic. To logically analyze requires one to
> take a subject and look at past performance. Previous data then allows
> one to form a conclusion as to the subjects future. This is what I
> consider prejudice.
I, on the other hand, define prejudice as the unwise jump from
"This person is X and I have had trouble from Xs before, so I should
be a little wary of him" to "This person is X and I have had trouble
from Xs before, therefore I AM GOING to have trouble with him too."
The first is a reasonable precaution. The second is a self-fulfilling
prophecy.
> You see someone, and even if you don't realize it, on a subconscious
> level all your prejudices come to play. The combined "weight" (i.e.
> the total amount of prejudices, good and bad) then give you an
> "intuitive" feeling about the person. Every time you see anything,
> their is a lot going on "beneath the surface". Bigotry and
> discrimination (I define) as different from prejudice.
Hm. I weigh my previous experiences primarily on an
intellectual level; my intuition is a different function. I may assess
a person via three or four different avenues and actually get different
answers. Usually they match up, though.
Bigotry I would define as the idea that some group(s) must
necessarily be better than some other group(s). Discrimination I
would define as acting on the previous premise -- one feels that
other people are inferior so it is okay to take advantage of them.
Blessings,
Elizabeth
*****************
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:50:34 -0500
From: John Andrews
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE:_Gender's_consciousness_=A7?=
David, as good, reasoned and honest as Elizabeth's reply to your post is,
agenda and politics drive the engine of modern power. Solutions rob the
modern critic of issues.
Gender bias dialogues serve to gin up money and power for a professional
class. 21st Century politics of culture in America and Europe has discovered
perpetual talking points as raw capital goods that never need processing and
are never shipped to the end user...
Point being, that society never receives a finished and useful product.
Dividends are never paid!
If it were otherwise, there would be recognition and homage paid to
reformers and the spirit of change. Societal improvement would be touted and
the amelioration of diversity would be honored...Instead, we are told every
day that the gender gap is wider and that things are
worse for women and minorities...Sexism itself is becoming recognition and
declaration that one is a male or female.
I revere honest and intelligent discussions, such as yours and Elizabeth's,
however, I would say that most of the people belonging to this list will
disagree with both of you on key points..... Johnny
[[snip]]
*****************
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:57:24 -0500
From: David Streever
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE:_Gender's_consciousness_=A7?=
The point below is actually my problem with feminism. I'm not into it, or
any movement, to be honest. I'm into judgements based purely on skill and
efficiency. I think the best way to go about this is if we each (as
individuals) begin to ignore gender. You'd be surprised how much power you
actually have over other people's thoughts and feelings. Youngsters look up
to adults for guidance ethiclly and morally, and usually just get merde. I
think if we started to ignore gender when we judged someone (on the
individual level) it would make a difference.
At 02:50 PM 1/30/01 -0500, you wrote:
>If it were otherwise, there would be recognition and homage paid to
>reformers and the spirit of change. Societal improvement would be touted and
>the amelioration of diversity would be honored...Instead, we are told every
>day that the gender gap is wider and that things are
>worse for women and minorities...Sexism itself is becoming recognition and
>declaration that one is a male or female.
*****************
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 16:22:42 -0500
From: John Andrews
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE:_Gender's_consciousness_=A7?=
David...What do you mean by 'merde'? Agree with your response, BTW...j
_____________________________________________________________
> Youngsters look up to adults for guidance ethiclly and morally, and
usually just get merde. I
> think if we started to ignore gender when we judged someone (on the
> individual level) it would make a difference.
*****************
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 16:28:50 -0500
From: David Streever
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE:_Gender's_consciousness_=A7?=
Sorry for Spanish, merde is shit.
At 04:22 PM 1/30/01 -0500, you wrote:
>David...What do you mean by 'merde'? Agree with your response, BTW...j
[[removed discussion on correct spelling and language origin of 'merde', or 'mierda' in as it is in Spanish]]
*****************
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 19:35:56 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: My gender
The question was raised as to why I broadcast my gender when I advocate
that a gender label not be used. I think that gender is no more or less
important than other physical attributes such as hair color. In my
ideal world which will probably never exist Gender would be a passive
thing from which no positive or negative consequence would result.
*****************
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 19:42:52 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: gender knowledge
What knowledge is gained by knowing someone's gender? I don't think any
conclusions can be drawn by knowing someone's gender.
Gender does allow us to stereotype and to place others in roles. Some
people prefer to redefine these roles by redefining and/or creating
their gender. I would prefer if the label was dropped completely.
Label's can be useful in categorizing and developing information but the
gender label does not serve this purpose well. Now if someone defines
themselves in terms of a gender..they are freely using that box.
It is interesting to note that gender online is hard to verify.
*****************
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:25:51 +0100
From: Rowena
Subject: Re: My gender
On 30 Jan 2001, at 19:35, dpres wrote:
> The question was raised as to why I broadcast my gender when I
> advocate that a gender label not be used.
Well, if you are refering to my post(s), it wasn't so much that I was
asking why you do it, just pointing out that as far as I take myself
as the interpreter, you seem to give one of the strongest gendered
images. (not just by using a male name). It is just that I find that
remarkable/ironical.
This could say as much about my own set of references I use to
interpreted as about your posts.
Rowena
*****************
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:17:50 -0500
From: David Streever
Subject: Re: gender knowledge
One thing I learn from gender is if someone is a viable sexual partner or not.
At 07:42 PM 1/30/01 -0500, you wrote:
>What knowledge is gained by knowing someone's gender?
[[snip]]
*****************
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 15:18:07 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: gender knowledge
So lets admit your argument is a political/moral argument not an
analytic argument, or an effort to explore what actually happens.
so, given that you have admitted that a de-gendered ideal could
easily become a default 'male' ideal, and perhaps a sanctification of
certain types of behaviours associated with males in our societies
(not just a label in other words, but a physically embedded
hierarchy) - what would you do to prevent this from happening?
jon
On 30 Jan 01, at 19:42, dpres wrote:
> What knowledge is gained by knowing someone's gender? I don't think
> any conclusions can be drawn by knowing someone's gender. Gender does
> allow us to stereotype and to place others in roles. Some people
> prefer to redefine these roles by redefining and/or creating their
> gender. I would prefer if the label was dropped completely. Label's
> can be useful in categorizing and developing information but the
> gender label does not serve this purpose well. Now if someone
> defines themselves in terms of a gender..they are freely using that
> box.
>
> It is interesting to note that gender online is hard to verify.
>
*****************
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 07:49:43 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: My gender
--- dpres
> In my ideal world which will probably never exist Gender would be
a passive thing from which no positive or negative consequence would
result.
1. I'd like to know more about your perfect world: except forgender,
how would it be different from the world we have now?
2. What about sex and procreation?
3. When gender is a passive thing, does that imply that everyone has
all traits we now call male and female?
renata
*****************
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 07:53:19 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: gender knowledge
--- dpres
> What knowledge is gained by knowing someone's gender?
I guess it's just knowledge like you gain from knowing what someone
has read, how his/her lifestyle is, what job he/she does - all those
"knowledges" help you to get to know someone.
If I only know someone's ideas/thoughts I don't know the whole
person.
> It is interesting to note that gender online is hard to verify.
If phone conversations and RL meetings are valid verification I
haven't been wrong yet. ,-)
renata
*****************
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:38:53 -0600
From: Elizabeth Barrette
Subject: Re: My gender
On 31 Jan 01, at 7:49, catcher at times wrote:
> 1. I'd like to know more about your perfect world: except forgender,
> how would it be different from the world we have now?
I wouldn't want to live in a perfect world; I'd die of boredom. But
many of my stories and poems -- though by no means all! -- detail
worlds I'd love to visit. It's no accident that genderblending and
alternative sexualities form a running theme in several of these,
from Waterjewel on the fantasy side to the Freedom System in
science fiction. On a different tangent, I'm deeply enamored of a
lot of practical tidbits from Common Ground, the colony based on
common sense as a way of life. In general I would like to see
people take much better care of the Earth and each other, and
apply their energy to challenges that don't involve so much
destruction.
> 2. What about sex and procreation?
Separate, please. When designing a new race, I almost
invariably aim to give them a way of keeping the two apart, so they
can have pleasure without the problems of unwanted pregnancy;
and it's a lot easier to build that in from the beginning than to try
and cobble up the means for it later, as humans must.
> 3. When gender is a passive thing, does that imply that everyone has
> all traits we now call male and female?
Not necessarily all -- but they could have traits from either or
both pools and it would not matter. They might also have traits
that aren't in either of those pools.
Blessings,
Elizabeth
*****************
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:27:43 -0500
From: David Streever
Subject: Re: My gender
I've always enjoyed the stories of Ursula K. LeGuin, primarily the "sci-fi"
pieces that are more of cultural studies of other worlds/systems. I can't
remember the name of one piece right now for the life of me, but you'd
enjoy it. The people "switch" genders. It's narrated by a diplomat from
another world whose studying these people, and the way that the gender
changing affects their culture is fascinating.
worlds I'd love to visit. It's no accident that genderblending and
>alternative sexualities form a running theme in several of these,
>from Waterjewel on the fantasy side to the Freedom System in
>science fiction.
*****************
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:38:53 -0600
From: Elizabeth Barrette
Subject: Re: gender knowledge
On 31 Jan 01, at 10:17, David Streever wrote:
> One thing I learn from gender is if someone is a viable sexual partner
> or not.
Yep, that's why certain of my characters always tack their
gender onto introductions ahead of their name. It tells some stuff
about their sexual tastes -- though if they're male or female, it
*doesn't* tell you whether they are homosexual or heterosexual.
Apparently they don't consider that important enough! Go figure.
But if you're talking to a neuter, you're going to know it, and that's
downright crucial information because it's considered obscene to
make any kind of attempt at engaging an asexual person in
anything sexual. Given how touchy a lot of people are regarding
sex and gender in America today, I can see how the gender
identity would play into sexual relevance a lot.
Blessings,
Elizabeth
*****************
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:07:07 -0600
From: Elizabeth Barrette
Subject: Re: My gender
On 31 Jan 01, at 12:27, David Streever wrote:
> I've always enjoyed the stories of Ursula K. LeGuin, primarily the
> "sci-fi" pieces that are more of cultural studies of other
> worlds/systems. I can't remember the name of one piece right now for
> the life of me, but you'd enjoy it. The people "switch" genders. It's
> narrated by a diplomat from another world whose studying these people,
> and the way that the gender changing affects their culture is
> fascinating.
I'll bet you mean _The Left Hand of Darkness_ and yes,
sociological science fiction is a favorite of mine too.
written sociological fantasy, which is the style of the story I'm
currently putting the last polish on before it goes to market.
Blessings,
Elizabeth
*****************
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 13:22:42 -0600
From: Elizabeth Barrette
Subject: (Fwd) Re: Gender consciousness/sexism - David
------- Forwarded message follows -------
Date sent: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 21:47:48 -0500
From: dpres
To: ysabet@worthlink.net
Subject: Re: Gender consciousness/sexism - David
would you mind forwarding this exchange to cybermind?
ysabet@worthlink.net wrote:
> On 29 Jan 01, at 21:21, dpres wrote:
>
> > What do you make of the fury that I have raised by using a highly
> > gendered name to advocate gender freedom?
>
> That's normal. People frequently rant about this topic,
> regardless of who raises it.
>
> Do you find it offensive
> > that people have tried to summarize an argument by saying that my
> > argument makes me a "white male".
>
> Of course. It's right up there with doing the same by calling me
> a man-hating dyke. (Which I am not. I typically describe myself as
> omnisexual. I like men just fine. They're just not *all* I like.
> This makes many people nervous.)
>
> Do you find it interesting that is
> > easier to focus on object (me) than the idea (gender freedom)?
>
> People customarily do this to avoid having to answer the
> actual
> argument, especially when it is stronger than anything they can
> think of in support of their own position.
>
> Do you see the irony?
>
> Sure. God is an iron. At this rate, we are keeping God so
> thoroughly entertained that none of us will ever die.
>
> Blessings,
> Elizabeth
*****************
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 21:24:24 +0200
From: Markku Nivalainen
Subject: Re: My gender
I haven't been following this discussion, but am still going to stick my
nose into it...
> I wouldn't want to live in a perfect world; I'd die of boredom.
Would it be perfect then?
> > 3. When gender is a passive thing, does that imply that everyone has
> > all traits we now call male and female?
>
> Not necessarily all -- but they could have traits from either or
> both pools and it would not matter. They might also have traits
> that aren't in either of those pools.
What traits do we have now depending on our sex?
mn
****************
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 14:25:53 -0500
From: John Andrews
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE:_gender_knowledge=AC?=
Gender is not an object, it is the subject...It speaks of and from itself;
it is its own animator. An individual possessed with one of several genders,
chooses only a degree of 'he' or 'she'.
Before I really puff myself up with Jungian hubris, or some such, I demure.
To others I defer the skinny on this!
As much as any of us would like to change the templates, it ain't gonna
happen in our stardate...
As far as labels-public go, yeah they are being pushed aside, today. Private
labels remain, though. Should labels apply: personally, I think they can be
useful, flattering, loving, mean, discriminating and/or chauvinistic. I can
think of a hundred ways gender labels hurt. I'm not for hurting! Johnny
______________________________________________________
________________
> One thing I learn from gender is if someone is a viable sexual
> partner or not.
[[snip]]
*****************
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 14:32:21 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: Fwd: (Fwd) Re: Gender consciousness/sexism - David
I'm puzzled - what's the purpose of this forward? Do you want us to
reply to it or just to read it and weep?
renata
--- David Streever
> >would you mind forwarding this exchange to cybermind?
[[note this is the same forward as was forwarded by Elizabeth above]]
*****************
[[Some of the following letters have been put on the Consciousness of Gender file]]
*****************
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 20:46:20 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: gender consciousness
catcher at times wrote:
> Online we don't have to live up to an image of beauty.
Online we don't have to live up to a gender image either.
*****************
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 20:57:09 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: gender knowledge
You are going to search for sexual partners online??
David Streever wrote:
> One thing I learn from gender is if someone is a viable sexual partner or not.
>
*****************
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 18:00:22 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: gender
Gender, like any other defining notion, is relevant only when it
interferes with interaction. Many topics can be discussed without
gender being relevant. Same goes for all other defining factors.
I think prejudice/oppression/sexism/racism starts when irrelevant
defining factors are used.
F.e. You can't discuss x or y because you're a man/woman.
Talking about a perfect world: it would be great if, in this thread,
I could share how gender (if I want it or not) influences my
everyday life - cyber as well as real.
renata
*****************
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 18:05:13 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: gender knowledge
--- dpres
> You are going to search for sexual partners online??
Not directed at me, but still an answer:
Seach: no - but if it happens, why resist? Online sex is a lot of
fun when your imagination responds to words - even more fun if you
throw in pics, snail mail etc ... Once a cyberlover sent me a
T-shirt he'd worn for a day and it was very eroticizing (is that a
word?) - we'd be mailing about it for days.
renata
*****************
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 21:07:32 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: gender knowledge
Jon Marshall wrote:
> So lets admit your argument is a political/moral argument not an
> analytic argument, or an effort to explore what actually happens.
In what way do I ignore what actually happens? What facts do I ignore? I
will admit that there is a political element to my perspective though.
G
*****************
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 21:13:22 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: gender knowledge
Jon Marshall wrote:
> So lets admit your argument is a political/moral argument not an
> analytic argument, or an effort to explore what actually happens.
What facts do I ignore? In what way have I not been analytical? Society
is dyanamic and so is in constant change. Gender as a social phenomena has
to take this dynamic into accout. Individuals collectively and singularly
effect this change.
> so, given that you have admitted that a de-gendered ideal could
> easily become a default 'male' ideal, and perhaps a sanctification of
> certain types of behaviours associated with males in our societies
> (not just a label in other words, but a physically embedded
> hierarchy) - what would you do to prevent this from happening?
I do not know. I am open to suggestion. I do know that artificially
manipulating gender for social purpose further entrenches gender into our
social fabric.
*****************
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 18:13:54 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: Gender's consciousness
--- Jon Marshall
> that sounds simply like learning from experience - which is perhaps
> not the same as what people usually call prejudice
I've tried to figure out prejudice/learning:
You experience something with a person and learn that you might
experience the same thing with the same person again - f.e. I am
learning that whatever I talk about, David is determined to get back
to the subject:"Let's trash boxes". I think it's good that I'm
learning here.
If I would extrapolate my experience with David to all Davids, I'd
be acquiring a prejudice - which in my opinion is not good.
renata, wondering if she still makes sense
*****************
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 21:19:49 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: gender
catcher at times wrote:
>> Talking about a perfect world: it would be great if, in this thread,
> I could share how gender (if I want it or not) influences my
> everyday life - cyber as well as real.
Feel free. Go right ahead.
*****************
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 21:22:39 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: gender knowledge
catcher at times wrote:
> --- dpres
>
> > You are going to search for sexual partners online??
>
> Not directed at me, but still an answer:
>
> Seach: no - but if it happens, why resist? Online sex is a lot of
> fun when your imagination responds to words - even more fun if you
> throw in pics, snail mail etc ... Once a cyberlover sent me a
> T-shirt he'd worn for a day and it was very eroticizing (is that a
> word?) - we'd be mailing about it for days.
>
Gender for this purpose is obviously appropriate. The problem is that
gender is used to qualify and disqualify intellectual ideas inappropriately.
In fact gender tends to color our opinions of others as has been
illustrated in this list.
*****************
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 21:26:01 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: Gender's consciousness
catcher at times wrote:
> You experience something with a person and learn that you might
> experience the same thing with the same person again - f.e. I am
> learning that whatever I talk about, David is determined to get back
> to the subject:"Let's trash boxes". I think it's good that I'm
> learning here.
>
> If I would extrapolate my experience with David to all Davids, I'd
> be acquiring a prejudice - which in my opinion is not good.
It is even prejudice to assume that Even one david will always bring up
the subject of boxes with you. You might even say that would be
putting a single David in a box.
*****************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 00:00:22 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: gender knowledge
Does the lack of veracity online bother you?
David Streever wrote:
> One thing I learn from gender is if someone is a viable sexual partner or not.
>
*****************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 11:48:31 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: Gender's consciousness
On 30 Jan 01, at 9:57, David Streever wrote:
> I think we should trash all the boxes in a social context (i.e.
> Government is separate from religion, and society and "boxes" should
> also be separated. No one should be denied a job because of a box) but
> they can be useful on a personal level.
Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying. Are you implying we
should trash the distinction between government and religion and
embrace a theocratic state?
> Prejudice is the basis of logic. To logically analyze requires one to
> take a subject and look at past performance. Previous data then allows
> one to form a conclusion as to the subjects future. This is what I
> consider prejudice.
that sounds simply like learning from experience - which is perhaps
not the same as what people usually call prejeudice - calling it
prejudice will probably just help people *not* to hear what you are
saying.
jon
*****************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 11:51:04 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: disgendering politics?
Online space is not colonised primarily by ungendered people, and
it is not, even remotely, separate from the daily lifes of users (as
the paradigm of a possibly ungendered world suggests) - at least
not in my experience. People seem to integrate the net into their
daily lives, or escape form those lives onto the net, they take their
skills, interests, work, politics, national identities, insecurities,
joys, desires, genders, language styles and dialects, and so on,
with them.
One question about "smashing social boxes", is where do you
stop?
jon
*****************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 11:55:00 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: disgendering politics 2?
Then there are several other issues.
Firstly, I cannot see what is so bad about a politics or discourse
which recognises that people are different - these differences may
arise for people in the interaction between themselves and other
people and the world (what we usually call in their social
experience), but they are still present - either symbollically or
really. I find it good that, say, Alan, Dom, Renata, Robert and
Elizabeth are all different with different points of view and different
life experiences (which arise from all kinds of social category
factors) - why the hell should I try and make these experiential
differences homogenous?
Trying to ignore differences can then lead to problems. For
example whatever your intention, I read David P's position as
preventing some experiences or opinions from being broadcast.
This is because if anyone says their experience of their gender
online is
"wouldn't it be better if we just ignored gender", "isn't focusing in
gender merely a form of sexism", etc.
The idea that 'truth' or accuracy is *always* independent of the
gender of the speaker, automatically cuts out the truth or accuracy
of statements which are generated through gendered experience.
There are obviously a whole class of statements that are truth
gendered in that way - the most obvious being of the form "I am
male", "I am female", "I am transgendered" etc. These may seem
trivial, but all gendered expereince starts with a statement with that
kind of form.
Likewise, if a woman tells me that Cybermind, say, is riddled with
sexism and gender bias, I am more likely to believe that she has
the relevant experience (particularly if she can elaborate it without
getting into arguments as to whether her gender is irrelvant and
should be abandoned), than a man who tells me that it is not.
Compulsorarily pretending something is not affecting people, does
not solve the issue.
jon
*****************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 12:00:43 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: disgendering politics 3?
There is a further problem, in that anthropologists are familiar with a
whole series of human events/processes, which take the form of
setting a place or time aside, and in that ritually special place
changing, or inverting the social rules which act elsewhere. It has
been argued for a long time, (whatever the accuracy) that these
special events reinforce the general patterns of dominance, and the
usual patterns of social functioning. For what it is worth Foucault
argues something similar in his consideration of what he calls
'heterotopias'.
So we are faced with the possibility that the abolition of gender
online would merely reinforce the discrimination based on gender
offline. For example, we could argue that it 'teaches' people that
women can only be taken seriously when their gender is not
visible. Therefore if that gender becomes visible, they are no longer
worth listening to, or can be harrassed, or rendered into objects of
sexual focus alone etc (something which a large body of people
have experienced when there gender slipped from neutral to female
online itself). And who eventually does not let their gender slip? and
why should we be frightened of this?
It might also teach us that the body (as irrelevant) is to be devalued
even more than it currently is, and that may also then help people
to suicidaly exploit or destroy their environment. Given that 'nature',
in Western thought is often considered to be female, this
abolishing of gender symbollically reinforces the irrelevance of
maintaining the world ecology even further.
If, however, you had a policy that people could speak irrespective of
their gender, that their gender could be recognised but they could
speak anyway, then surely that would at the same time, be more
likely to result in people being able to take what they have learned
online, in to their offline life. It might even help make the sexes and
their symbols equally important, or help people to expand their
gender images (if they felt that that was needed).
jon
*****************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 04:16:50 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: gender knowledge
--- dpres
> The problem is that gender is used to qualify and disqualify
intellectual ideas inappropriately.
That is not "the" problem, it is "a" problem. Why confine ourselves
to only discuss that part of gender. You seem unwilling to discuss
gender topics that don't pose problems - why?
> In fact gender tends to color our opinions of others as has been
illustrated in this list.
Of course gender colours our opinions - that's what we've been
talking about all the time.
renata
*****************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 04:21:48 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: Gender's consciousness
--- dpres
> It is even prejudice to assume that Even one david will always
bring up the subject of boxes with you.
I don't assume a David will _always_ bring up the subject - I have
learnt that he _might_, that he often seems to do it.
> You might even say that would be putting a single David in a box.
You might say that, yes.
------
I'm having a hard time trying to communicate with you, David and I
don't believe gender is the cause - it isn't for me anyway. I have
the impression you don't really read what I (or others) say, as if
you're just waiting to jump in, no matter what is said. There
obviously is something you want to defend/propagate, no matter what.
renata
*****************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 12:36:56 +0000
From: Gothwalker
Subject: Re: gender knowledge
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 08:57:09PM -0500, dpres typed like the wind:
> You are going to search for sexual partners online??
Well, why not?
I know a few people who did, and met them, and are now married.
I certainly got to know my fiancee online,
even though I didn't meet her there.
Drew.
*****************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 08:49:54 -0500
From: David Streever
Subject: Re: gender knowledge
Well, I never did actually say that, my comment was more in general, and
actually more relevant to real life. However, while I have not searched for
a sexual partner online, I see no reason not to!
At 08:57 PM 1/31/01 -0500, you wrote:
>You are going to search for sexual partners online??
>
>David Streever wrote:
>
> > One thing I learn from gender is if someone is a viable sexual partner
> or not.
*****************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 08:51:45 -0500
From: David Streever
Subject: Re: gender knowledge
>T-shirt he'd worn for a day and it was very eroticizing (is that a
>word?)
If it is, it's not proper in that context. Erotic would have been a better
choice.
*****************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 08:53:56 -0500
From: David Streever
Subject: Re: Gender's consciousness
ha! Sorry if I seemed one-minded Renata, I've just been thinking out loud,
and actually contradicting myself if you read from the start to the end of
my e-mails, which is why I think Jon's series "Disgendered Politics" is
off-base. I started out with one thought, and then I state in the e-mail
that I've realized something about my thought... i.e. I change my mind. He
is replying to the first part.
*****************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 08:54:56 -0500
From: David Streever
Subject: Re: Gender's consciousness
Smash the box I'm in Renata!!! (with a cheerful grin)
At 09:26 PM 1/31/01 -0500, you wrote:
>It is even prejudice to assume that Even one david will always bring up
>the subject of boxes with you. You might even say that would be
>putting a single David in a box.
*****************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 09:01:31 -0500
From: David Streever
Subject: Re: Gender's consciousness
I said this in another e-mail, actually, but I'll reiterate.
I just joined this list, and really have had no idea what was being talked
about except a vague outline by Alan. I was really just thinking out loud
with my posts so far, and maybe I haven't quite understood anyone elses due
to a lack of fore knowledge. I'll be relatively quiet until I really know
what's going on (and I have more time. I've been working some massive
overtime, and it's taking a real toll on my reasoning ability and probably
impacting my ability to communicate)
I do have to disagree with you on one point, which is the last. There
really isn't any one thing I strongly feel for or against in any of this,
to be honest. I just think that there are differences between the genders
and it's important to remember that in a personal level, but that on the
professional level it shouldn't be a consideration. I.E. you shouldn't get
a job because you are a woman.
>I'm having a hard time trying to communicate with you, David and I
>don't believe gender is the cause - it isn't for me anyway. I have
>the impression you don't really read what I (or others) say, as if
>you're just waiting to jump in, no matter what is said. There
>obviously is something you want to defend/propagate, no matter what.
>
>renata
*****************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:04:05 +0000
From: Gothwalker
Subject: Re: Gender's consciousness
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 09:01:31AM -0500, David Streever typed like the wind:
> I do have to disagree with you on one point, which is the last. There
> really isn't any one thing I strongly feel for or against in any of this,
> to be honest. I just think that there are differences between the genders
> and it's important to remember that in a personal level, but that on the
> professional level it shouldn't be a consideration. I.E. you shouldn't get
> a job because you are a woman.
I think Renata was referring to David Presley / dpres
Drew.
*****************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 09:04:05 -0500
From: David Streever
Subject: Re: Gender's consciousness
What I am saying right there is that experience IS a prejudice. A prejudice
is a "bias", and what is experience but the most telling bias of all?
If people do not hear me, then they will listen to others.
>that sounds simply like learning from experience - which is perhaps
>not the same as what people usually call prejeudice - calling it
>prejudice will probably just help people *not* to hear what you are
>saying.
No, I am saying government and religion are separate, and all boxes should
be as well. We shouldn't give people jobs because they are not Caucasian,
just as we should not give people jobs because they are Caucasian. I think
"boxes" get in the way in the professional world, and should be ignored.
Your race and gender should not be hiring considerations. Your race and
gender should not be political considerations.
>Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying. Are you implying we
>should trash the distinction between government and religion and
>embrace a theocratic state?
*****************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 09:13:16 -0600
From: "E. Dettmar"
Subject: Re: My gender
Would this mean blindness to differences? I'm not sure that I agree that
this would be ideal--differences are, and sometimes they do make a
difference--the tall are better at fetching things from high shelves.
Emily
*****************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 09:46:05 -0600
From: "E. Dettmar"
Subject: Re: disgendering politics 3?
X-PMFLAGS: 34078848 0 1 P5CEF0.CNM
Ah . . . this'll teach me to reply to anything before reading everything.
You said it, and I humbly agree--speak on, noble sir!
Emily
>From: Jon Marshall
>Subject: Re: disgendering politics 3?
>Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 12:00:43 +0000
>
>There is a further problem, in that anthropologists are familiar with a
>whole series of human events/processes, which take the form of
[[snip]]
*****************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 08:41:22 -0800
From: Caitlin Martin
Subject: Re: gender consciousness
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, dpres murmured:
> catcher at times wrote:
>
> > Online we don't have to live up to an image of beauty.
>
> Online we don't have to live up to a gender image either.
>
Living up to a gender image & having/expressing a gender are about as
related as living up to an image of beauty & having/expressing beauty. I
guess my question at this point is -- so what?
c.
*****************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 08:49:41 -0800
From: Caitlin Martin
Subject: Re: gender knowledge
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, dpres murmured:
> You are going to search for sexual partners online??
As shocking as it may seem that IS something people do online, sometimes
intentionally, sometimes unintentionally. People net.fuck, but they also
meet each other's meat & fuck in the messy physical world. People fall in
love & marry in virtual worlds (check out the number of marriages in
Ultima Online & Asheron's Call & Everquest if you don't believe me) & they
fall in love & marry people they've met in virtual worlds. Personally,
I've had several relationships with men I met first online. I didn't go
online to search for sexual partners, but several sexual relationships
grew out of my experience online in part, I think, because of time spent
in close association. It's not hugely different from the way I met my
current lover -- we sat next to each other at work for a year which gave
us lots of time to get to know each other. Neither of us work at the
place where we met anymore, but we live together so I guess we don't need
to sit next to each other anymore.
I'm wondering what it is that you do online, David/dpres, & what it is
that you think others do or should do online?
thanks,
c.
*****************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 08:54:16 -0800
From: Caitlin Martin
Subject: Re: gender
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, catcher at times murmured:
> Gender, like any other defining notion, is relevant only when it
> interferes with interaction. Many topics can be discussed without
> gender being relevant. Same goes for all other defining factors.
Why only when it interferes? Why not when it enriches? Why must we
apologize for being gendered (however we choose to express that)?
> I think prejudice/oppression/sexism/racism starts when irrelevant
> defining factors are used.
>
> F.e. You can't discuss x or y because you're a man/woman.
>
& yet, gender isn't necessarily irrelevant. On the one hand, it is sexist
to say that someone can't discuss x or y because they're male/female. On
the other hand, there are topics of conversation that have more meaning
dependent upon your gender.
> Talking about a perfect world: it would be great if, in this thread,
> I could share how gender (if I want it or not) influences my
> everyday life - cyber as well as real.
>
Please do! I'll share, too.
c.
*****************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 11:16:51 -0600
From: Elizabeth Barrette
Subject: Re: Gender's consciousness
On 1 Feb 01, at 9:04, David Streever wrote:
> What I am saying right there is that experience IS a prejudice. A
> prejudice is a "bias", and what is experience but the most telling
> bias of all? If people do not hear me, then they will listen to
> others.
I disagree vehemently. You can't have experience without
having encountered the object of same. You *can* have -- and
people frequently do -- a prejudice without ever having encountered
the object of same. There are plenty of racists who have never met
a dark-skinned person, or who have met so few of them it doesn't
constitute a meaningful example. Furthermore, pure experience
relates to actual events. Prejudice need not -- a person may hate
dark-skinned folks even if all three examples involved the dark-
skinned person in a polite service role. Basing your reactions on
experience is reasonably justified. Basing your reactions prejudice
isn't.
> No, I am saying government and religion are separate, and all boxes
> should be as well. We shouldn't give people jobs because they are not
> Caucasian, just as we should not give people jobs because they are
> Caucasian. I think "boxes" get in the way in the professional world,
> and should be ignored. Your race and gender should not be hiring
> considerations. Your race and gender should not be political
> considerations.
That would certainly be nice.
Blessings,
Elizabeth
*****************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:50:28 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: gender
--- Caitlin Martin
> Why only when it interferes? Why not when it enriches?
Sorry Caitlin, my English isn't as good as I wish it to be - I used
"interfere" in the sense of "doing something", I didn't mean it to
have a negative connotation.
renata
*****************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:55:05 -0800
From: Caitlin Martin
Subject: Re: gender
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, catcher at times murmured:
> --- Caitlin Martin
>
> > Why only when it interferes? Why not when it enriches?
>
> Sorry Caitlin, my English isn't as good as I wish it to be - I used
> "interfere" in the sense of "doing something", I didn't mean it to
> have a negative connotation.
No problem, renata. Thanks for the clarification.
c.
*****************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 11:31:31 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: Gender's consciousness
--- David Streever
> Smash the box I'm in Renata!!! (with a cheerful grin)
You're not the "David-in-a-box"! It's the other one.
renata, thinking maybe we should give the Davids a number - or would
that be prejudiced/sexist/something?
Onto Part 6
This page hosted by
Get your own Free Home Page