Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 11:33:27 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: Gender's consciousness
--- David Streever
> I said this in another e-mail, actually, but I'll reiterate.
Once again: I was talking to another David.
So, we could say D1 and D2 - but that reminds me too much of R2D2
(who I used to be in love with).
renata
******************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:43:50 +0100
From: Rowena
Subject: Re: Gender's consciousness
On 1 Feb 2001, at 8:54, David Streever wrote:
> 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.
Can you be certain there is something left of you without the box?
(the box being all the irrelevant circumstances using classify you)
Rowena
******************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:54:35 +0100
From: Rowena
Subject: Re: Gender's consciousness
On 1 Feb 2001, at 11:31, catcher at times wrote:
> --- 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, why not let them both have a box to smash? If it makes
them happy
Rowena
******************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:28:37 -0600
From: Elizabeth Barrette
Subject: Re: Gender's consciousness
On 1 Feb 01, at 20:54, Rowena wrote:
> On 1 Feb 2001, at 11:31, catcher at times wrote:
>
> > --- 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, why not let them both have a box to smash? If it makes
> them happy
I've got a cluehammer here if anybody wants to borrow it.
Blessings,
Elizabeth
******************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:18:37 -0800
From: Caitlin Martin
Subject: Re: We Know Who You Are
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Sebastian Mendler murmured:
> Actually, I agree with you, but I don't think you meant what you said to
> come out quite the way it did. In the present situation, we are about to
> see the righteous avengers coming from the -- well, *right*, as Ashcroft
> et al. engineer the backlash from the Clinton era to make the world safe
> for Fundamentalist Christianity ... Seems to *me* that we're headed
> straight into "The Handmaid's Tale," tho I hope to be proved wrong.
>
Geez, Skip -- get outta my head. I said that in an offline conversation
just the other day. *shiver* _The Handmaid's Tale_ actually happening
makes my flesh crawl.
c.
******************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:01:52 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: gender knowledge
--- dpres
> The problem is that gender is used to qualify and disqualify
intellectual ideas inappropriately.
Could you give some examples, arguments etc ... to illustrate this
statement?
renata
******************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:18:21 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: My gender
--- "E. Dettmar"
> 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--
A well-known French statement on gender is:"Vive la difference!"
(long live the difference!).
Wanting to get rid of differences tastes too totalitarian for me. To
me, differences aren't positive or negative - it's the way we handle
them.
renata
******************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 19:42:09 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: gender knowledge
catcher at times wrote:
> --- 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?
Gender identification acts as a catalyst for these social problems.
> > 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.
Wouldn't it be nice if our opinion of others was based on the actual
character and characteristics of the other person?
******************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 19:44:16 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: gender knowledge
One good reason not to is that many people online fictionalize their gender.
David Streever wrote:
> 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!
******************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:46:08 -0800
From: Caitlin Martin
Subject: Re: gender knowledge
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, dpres murmured:
> Wouldn't it be nice if our opinion of others was based on the actual
> character and characteristics of the other person?
& isn't gender an actual characteristic of another person?
c.
******************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 19:49:53 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: My gender
Maybe blindness to stereotypes. Is a male always stronger? Is a female
always more social? Many of the characteristics associated with a gender
are not accurate.
"E. Dettmar" wrote:
> 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 16:53:10 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: gender
More thoughts on gender influencing my life:
- I'm easier on men who abandon their kids than I'm on women who do
so.
- I don't understand the attraction of porn - went to some sites but
to me it all just looks gross.
- In cybersex a lot of men use words like "cum" "suck" etc ... that
doesn't excite me but makes me laugh.
- I find it hard to work with women - they're so emotional about
rational stuff. (ok, so shoot me)
- I think I already mentioned that I'm hosting a (very small) mostly
female group - lately it's kinda falling apart. Women unsubbing
because x doesn't like what y says and b doesn't feel comfortable
with c. I wonder if hte same would happen with mostly men.
renata
******************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:54:07 -0800
From: Caitlin Martin
Subject: Re: gender knowledge
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, dpres murmured:
> One good reason not to is that many people online fictionalize their gender.
Which would seem to argue in some instances for a reason to be curious
about gender online, eh?
c.
******************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:55:47 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: gender knowledge
--- dpres
> Gender identification acts as a catalyst for these social problems.
David, please don't just throw statements like these around -
elaborate, tell us more.
> Wouldn't it be nice if our opinion of others was based on the
>actual character and characteristics of the other person?
Gender is one of the characteristics to base our opinion on.
renata
******************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:58:00 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: Experience/prejudice (was: Gender's consciousness)
--- Stan Pope
> Perhaps he also uses one of the other 5 definitions listed on the
>web page you got your definition from.
I didn't get my definition from a web page - I happen to have a
brain that figures out stuff for me.
renata, preferring constructive comments
******************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:07:26 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: gender knowledge
catcher at times wrote:
> --- dpres
> > The problem is that gender is used to qualify and disqualify
> intellectual ideas inappropriately.
>
> Could you give some examples, arguments etc ... to illustrate this
> statement?
> renata
Sure many people seem to think that women let their emotions get in the
way analytical decisionmaking.
Statements made by men about childbirth are many times ignored
Some people seem to think that women are generally poorer in math and
science.
The list is endless.
******************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:12:57 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: gender knowledge
catcher at times wrote:
> Gender is one of the characteristics to base our opinion on.
Really? This means that given the same opinion if the opinion is
expressed by a male it will have a different impact on than if it were
expressed by a female?
******************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:14:29 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: gender knowledge
Caitlin Martin wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, dpres murmured:
>
> > One good reason not to is that many people online fictionalize their gender.
> >
>
> Which would seem to argue in some instances for a reason to be curious
> about gender online, eh?
For me gender becomes non-information.....since (A) it can not be verified and (B)
it doesn't change the nature of the opinion expressed.
******************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:19:01 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: gender knowledge
Caitlin Martin wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, dpres murmured:
>
> >
> > Wouldn't it be nice if our opinion of others was based on the actual
> > character and characteristics of the other person?
>
> & isn't gender an actual characteristic of another person?
>
> c.
That depends. Online it is not. Offline it is..... But even when it is
a true characteristic it is used tojudge the person. I think one of the
confusions of this discussion has been the difference that gender plays
offline and online.
******************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:28:25 -0800
From: Caitlin Martin
Subject: Re: gender knowledge
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, dpres murmured:
> > >
> > > Wouldn't it be nice if our opinion of others was based on the actual
> > > character and characteristics of the other person?
> > >
> >
> > & isn't gender an actual characteristic of another person?
> >
> > c.
>
> That depends. Online it is not. Offline it is..... But even when it is
> a true characteristic it is used tojudge the person. I think one of the
> confusions of this discussion has been the difference that gender plays
> offline and online.
>
No, I think core to this discussion is a disagreement about whether or not
gender plays a role online or not.
I notice one point in your argumentation that I'd like some further
elaboration on -- you keep talking about whether or not gender knowledge
(for lack of a better term) is "true" & further seem to posit this lack of
verifiable truth as a reason that gender is unimportant online. Am I
reading you correctly?
c.
******************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:32:23 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: gender knowledge
Caitlin Martin wrote:
[[snip]]
> I notice one point in your argumentation that I'd like some further
> elaboration on -- you keep talking about whether or not gender knowledge
> (for lack of a better term) is "true" & further seem to posit this lack of
> verifiable truth as a reason that gender is unimportant online. Am I
> reading you correctly?
>
> c
Yes this is one point. Another point that I am trying to express is that
judgement of intellectual expression of ideas should not be colored by gender.
I regret that knowledge of gender about a person puts that person in a box and
forces roles on that person that the person may not desire.
******************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 23:34:51 -0500
From: David Streever
Subject: Re: Gender's consciousness
I'm not sure what "you" is.
I know what "you" ("i") is not:
flesh, mind, ego, personality, religion, politics, relationships,
occupation, habits, ideas, acts, experiences
and anything else you can name.
At 08:43 PM 2/1/01 +0100, you wrote:
>Can you be certain there is something left of you without the box?
>(the box being all the irrelevant circumstances using classify you)
******************
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 23:40:38 -0500
From: David Streever
Subject: Re: gender
Me too.
>- I'm easier on men who abandon their kids than I'm on women who do
>so.
Me neither, but my current (perhaps ex? I don't think I care anymore) lady
friend used to watch it with her ex-husband and sometimes one of his
friends. I think she watched it with her first husband too. She liked it.
>- I don't understand the attraction of porn - went to some sites but
>to me it all just looks gross.
Cum's always been an okay word to me, but I can see how it could appear
humourous. I definetly see the humour in "suck". "Come" always seemed even
more humourous, to be honest, as it means so many things.
>- In cybersex a lot of men use words like "cum" "suck" etc ... that
>doesn't excite me but makes me laugh.
Too too true. I work in an office surrounded by women. (And one gay man) I
not only have to fend two of them off, but him too. I notice none of them
are accepting of the fact I don't want to fuck them. None of the three are
very rational about anything, especially this. Oh, did I mention he's a
respected member of the community (in his 50s) who leads small theatre
troups, teaches voice, and runs the local historic district? And that his
"life partner" wants me to? Sounds rational? Men can be just as emotional
and irrational as women.
>- I find it hard to work with women - they're so emotional about
>rational stuff. (ok, so shoot me)
The men just beat each other up.
>- I think I already mentioned that I'm hosting a (very small) mostly
>female group - lately it's kinda falling apart. Women unsubbing
>because x doesn't like what y says and b doesn't feel comfortable
>with c. I wonder if hte same would happen with mostly men.
>
>renata
>
******************
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 02:54:09 -0500
From: Dominic Fox
Subject: Re: We Know Who You Are
Well, y'know, some people just find a deep erotic satisfaction in being
handmaids, and what's wrong with that? We should celebrate our potential
for subjugation, not saddle our libidos with outmoded concepts of "human
dignity" - bourgeois norms whose sole purpose is to make life less exciting.
I predict an upsurge in books telling women how to get their rocks off by
practising total obedience and submission to their husbands - this being
the thrilling erotic secret that a generation of joyless feminists sought
to keep from their fellow women in order to prosecute a grudge against
men...
******************
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 08:36:28 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: gender
On 31 Jan 01, at 18:00, 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.
Despite my heavy handedness and everything, I would love it if you
could too.
And now you have, thanks,
jon
******************
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 08:51:40 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: gender knowledge
On 31 Jan 01, at 21:07, dpres wrote:
> 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
Hmmm, maybe its just me, but you seem to ignore almost
everybody's arguments, especially when they try and present data
about what actually happens, or what might happen. At the least
you seem to assume that the Net can be isolated from 'everyday
life' and that this is not even vaguely problematic, or might produce
problems if pursued. When you admit there might be problems you
seem to think they can easily be solved, and you don't have to
worry about them - though you present no solution .
Also you don't seem to have read any of the research on gender
interaction on the internet - which is reasonably important for the
practicability of your arguments.
You could try reading some Susan Herring, for example, and
seeing how that meshes or not with your idea.
Two easy starting points:
http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/gender/herring.txt
http://dc.smu.edu/dc/classroom/Gender.txt
Or you could look at the Aug97 Cybermind discussion on the Web
site
jon
******************
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 08:51:41 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: Gender's consciousness
On 1 Feb 01, at 8:53, David Streever wrote:
> 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.
Again there is a confusion of davids here :)
jon
******************
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 09:03:25 EST
From: Ht Mcgrath
Subject: Re: We Know Who You Are
In a message dated 01-02-01 18:18:43 EST, you write:
>Seems to *me* that we're headed
>> straight into "The Handmaid's Tale," tho I hope to be proved wrong.
>>
>
>Geez, Skip -- get outta my head. I said that in an offline conversation
>just the other day. *shiver* _The Handmaid's Tale_ actually happening
>makes my flesh crawl.
>
>c.
Yikes, I thought that recently too. I don't think we'll quite get there, but
I sure do think they're going to try.
******************
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 01:18:34 -0800
From: Sebastian Mendler
Subject: Re: We Know Who You Are
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Caitlin Martin laid it out as follows:
>>my original comment snipped<<
>
> Geez, Skip -- get outta my head. I said that in an offline conversation
> just the other day. *shiver* _The Handmaid's Tale_ actually happening
> makes my flesh crawl.
Don't worry, the Underground Railroad is in place.
/ / skip, with no intention of ending up on a meathook in front of Harvard
Yard anytime soon....
******************
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 01:27:54 -0800
From: Sebastian Mendler
Subject: Re: We Know Who You Are
The novel presupposes a violent revolution on the part of Fundamentalist
Christians. One of the characters is rather transparently based on Tammy
Faye Bakker. The lead character "Offred" (= "of Fred," Fred being her
master, tho I must admit I didn't see the obvious pun on
"offered") discovers an underground, and discovers that the piety of the
new rulers isn't very deep...
I was shocked when I read the book to realize that it takes place in
Cambridge -- it's never stated, but there are enough references that it
couldn't be anywhere else. My comment about meathooks comes from the
display of Quaker heretics (hey! that's me!!) on same, around what
could only be Harvard Yard...
/ / skip
******************
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:58:13 +0100
From: Rowena
Subject: Re: Experience/prejudice (was: Gender's consciousness)
On 1 Feb 2001, at 20:49, Stan Pope wrote:
> Then your brain did pretty good, got it almost word for word. But
> perhaps your brain should have figured out that when used as a synonym
> for "bias", past experience is one ingredient that does produce
> prejudice.
>
> Sorry, but implying that people use incorrect definitions of words
> didn't seem to constructive to me.
Whereas your posts are prime examples of constructiveness.
There is a big diference in asking what definitions someone uses if
you have the idea that a difference in 'word-use' might be a cause
of misunderstanding (possibly very constructive) and just telling
someone of for the wrong use of words (admittedly not
constructive).
Rowena
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:58:13 +0100
From: Rowena
Subject: Re: Gender's consciousness
On 1 Feb 2001, at 23:34, David Streever wrote:
> I'm not sure what "you" is.
>
> I know what "you" ("i") is not:
>
> flesh, mind, ego, personality, religion, politics, relationships,
> occupation, habits, ideas, acts, experiences
>
> and anything else you can name.
> At 08:43 PM 2/1/01 +0100, you wrote:
> >Can you be certain there is something left of you without the box?
> >(the box being all the irrelevant circumstances using classify you)
>
I am not sure what "you" is either. That is why I asked. I am very
doubtfull about the possibillity of making a distinction between all
kinds of 'irrelevant circumstances' and the 'real person'. Maybe
there is something like that (lets call it 'soul' for the duration of this
post), maybe not, if we can get to know that I very much doubt it is
possible by stripping away all the other stuff.
This is one of the reasons I am very doubtfull of a project of
stripping away 1 of these 'irrelevant circumstances', namely
gender. I can't say which part of me is
formed/determined/influenced by my gender (and/or sex, both
female) but for me personally it doesn't feel anymore irrelevant
than all the other circumstances that form me.
Rowena
******************
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:22:20 -0600
From: Elizabeth Barrette
Subject: Re: We Know Who You Are
On 2 Feb 01, at 2:54, Dominic Fox wrote:
> Well, y'know, some people just find a deep erotic satisfaction in
> being handmaids, and what's wrong with that? We should celebrate our
> potential for subjugation, not saddle our libidos with outmoded
> concepts of "human dignity" - bourgeois norms whose sole purpose is to
> make life less exciting.
Exactly. Submissive women and dominant men, while far from
rare, often get picked on for liking what they like, which frankly is
about as silly as bugging someone for liking pistacio ice cream. If
you don't like it, you can't have any!
> I predict an upsurge in books telling women how to get their rocks off
> by practising total obedience and submission to their husbands - this
> being the thrilling erotic secret that a generation of joyless
> feminists sought to keep from their fellow women in order to prosecute
> a grudge against men...
though it's not the kind of feminist I am personally or would
encourage people to become. One of my writer-friends actually
worked this into one of her books, wherein one of the characters is
a French Maid slave -- and there's a delicious description of how
naughty she felt because of it, when the first time she encountered
the concept was on a no-no poster at a protest! (It's in _The
Marketplace_ by Sara Adamson, if anyone is curious.)
Blessings,
Elizabeth
******************
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:16:14 -0500
From: Dominic Fox
Subject: Re: We Know Who You Are
See, *I* was being sarcastic. My point is that this particular model of
erotic fulfilment was invented by the right wing, is promulgated by the
right wing, and serves the purposes of the right wing - that you'll find no
more lively, ingenious, playful and above all highly perverted sexual
politics anywhere than in the writings of yer average
fundamentalist "Family Values" proselytiser. And that this is not a
coincidence.
******************
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:43:35 -0500
From: Dominic Fox
Subject: Re: We Know Who You Are
"[Marabel] Morgan's achievement in _The Total Woman_ was to isolate the
basic sexual scenarios of male dominance and female submission and to
formulate a simple set of lessons, a pedagogy, that teaches women how to
act out these scenarios within the context of a Christian value system: in
other words, how to cater to male pornographic fantasies in the name of
Jesus Christ. As Morgan explains in her own extraordinary prose
style: 'That great source book, the Bible, states, 'Marriage is honourable
in all, and the bed undefiled...' In other words, sex is for the marriage
relationship only, but within those bounds, anything goes. Sex is as clean
and pure as eating cottage cheese.' Morgan's detailed instructions on how
to eat cottage cheese, the most famous of which involves Saran Wrap, make
clear that female submission is a delicately balanced commingling of
resourcefulness and lack of self-respect. Too little resourcefulness or too
much self-respect will doom a woman to failure as a Total Woman. A
submissive nature is the miracle for which religious women pray..."
******************
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 16:22:50 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: gender knowledge
--- Jon Marshall
> http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/gender/herring.txt
> http://dc.smu.edu/dc/classroom/Gender.txt
This was fascinating! Do you have more stuff I can read?
renata
******************
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 16:43:46 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: gender consciousness (online)
After reading the stuff on the urls Jon posted, I'm wondering ...
the question I should ask myself is not only if I'm conscious of
gender when online, but also if I'm conscious of the fact that I
give my gender away by just (verbally) being me.
Now that I _am_ conscious of this, it somehow bothers me because
it's something I can't control. My writing/idea/emotions are
influenced by my gender, my education, etc ... and there's not much
I can do about that.
What am I saying here? Just that I'm struck by the fact that I seem
to have so little influence on who I am and how I appear to others.
renata
******************
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 10:08:40 +0100
From: Enok Kippersund
Subject: Re: Experience/prejudice (was: Gender's consciousness)
>You're welcome & I agree. I pointed out that not all cyberminders are
>native English speakers because I think it's very easy to forget that &
>it can play a role in discussion. It's something to bear in mind when
>talking to people. Kinda like gender. ;> (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
>
>c.
Yes, some of us are the Cybrish people, hue nao.
Enok (cybgenderishly genned up)
******************
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 01:52:25 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: a question on gender
If there were no gender consciousness whatsoever, would there still
be SM?
renata
******************
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 01:55:59 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: gender knowledge/'impersonation'
--- Jon Marshall
> When someone uses spivak
I don't really understand what spivak is.
renata
******************
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 02:04:57 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: a question on gender
--- catcher at times
> If there were no gender consciousness whatsoever, would there
still be SM?
I was too quick in sending this, I have more questions.
Once again, if there were no gender consciousness whatsoever, or
even, if there were less explicit gender consciousness:
- would sexual preferences lead to discrimination?
- what would pornography look like, would it still exist?
- would fashion still exist?
- would there still be gays and lesbians and transvestites etc ...?
What would a RL genderfree society look like?
What would an online genderfree society look like?
renata
******************
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 05:04:41 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: genderfree?
Has there ever existed a society, tribe, group that was genderfree?
Have there been experiments to try the concept out?
renata
******************
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 05:10:50 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: spivak
Looked it up on the net and this is what I found - I hope nobody
starts using spivak on me. ,-)
renata
ëèàÇÄä ëÖåÖç àáêÄàãÖÇàó
[[snip]]
* Spivak S. Inverse problems of chemical kinetics and thermodynamics
// Systems Analysis. Modeling Simulation. -1995. -V. 18-19. -P.
107-137.
àÌÓÒÚ•ýÌÌšÈ —ÎÂÌ ÌÂÏ–ÍÓ“Ó Ó·˜ÂÒÚ’ý ÔÓ Ô•ËÍÎý”ÌÓÈ ÏýÚÂÏýÚËÍ Ë
ÏžýÌËÍ (1995).
******************
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 05:52:42 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: gender knowledge
--- David Streever
The other David said: many people online fictionalize their gender.
> This is SUCH a myth
Well, even if it weren't, maybe I could have great cybersex with a
woman pretending to be a man. ,-)
renata
******************
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 08:58:00 -0500
From: David Streever
Subject: Re: The meaning of "you"( Was Gender's consciousness)
"You" is, to me, anything unnameable.
This is where I go off topic.
Ultimately, ego, personality, characteristics, morality, ethics, actions,
experiences, and everything you have ever known are gone. What is left? I
call what is left "God" for lack of a better term. Sometimes I'll call it
Tao, but only if I'm pretty sure no one I'm talking to knows what Tao is. I
will also use the term "One." This is because I feel ultimately we are all
one being, and are part of/while the totality of this one greater whole,
which encompasses everything. Good, evil, life, death, animate and inanimate.
"Maya" is my name for the gods of religions. Maya means illusion.
Ultimately I believe this whole experience (life, death, etc) is Maya.
What is real?
Anything you do not/can not know.
******************
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 15:17:50 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: gender knowledge
On 2 Feb 01, at 16:22, catcher at times wrote:
> --- Jon Marshall
>
> > http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/gender/herring.txt
>> http://dc.smu.edu/dc/classroom/Gender.txt
>
> This was fascinating! Do you have more stuff I can read?
Give me a few days, and I' ll have upgraded the bibliography on the
web site, and that should have more URLs on the subject. I'll let
the group know when it is done.
jon
******************
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 11:50:04 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: We Know Who You Are
I'm not absolutely sure of the value of implying that rightism is
driven, or served, by sado-masochism - in any normal sense.
Normally, at least as I understand it, the dom caters to the sub,
the sub in a way drives the situation demanding their own
submission and the scenario of that submission.
Now I believe in Total Woman, Morgan argues that the sub gets
stuff from her husband that she wants, like love, affection, presents
etc, through her acts.
In normal rightist politics, though unchallengable authority is an
issue, as is support for whatever is the dominant power - there is
very little concern for what the sub gets from it, there is little sense
that the sub has any power or control over the results of their
submission. "Rip me off, Rip me off" is a rarely heard cry.
Current rightist politics might involve trying to get people to identify
with the dominant forces in society - "they are just better than we
are" - more than it involves giving people a power arising from their
submission.
Also this might confuse what we could call conservative politics
from rightist politics, as frequently in my experience, conservatives
are as hostile to the unrestrained corporate dominance favoured by
rightists, as the 'far' left is.
But for true cruelty in politics look at the exceprts from Christian
rightist child rearing books in Lakoffs *Moral Politics* and cease to
wonder why documented ritual abuse of children always seems
involve Monothesists, not satanists.
jon
On 2 Feb 01, at 17:16, Dominic Fox wrote:
> See, *I* was being sarcastic. My point is that this particular model
> of erotic fulfilment was invented by the right wing, is promulgated by
> the right wing, and serves the purposes of the right wing - that
> you'll find no more lively, ingenious, playful and above all highly
> perverted sexual politics anywhere than in the writings of yer average
> fundamentalist "Family Values" proselytiser. And that this is not a
> coincidence.
>
******************
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 11:50:04 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: Experience/prejudice (was: Gender's consciousness)
On 1 Feb 01, at 23:30, David Streever wrote:
> Perhaps Webster would have us believe such, but incorrect when
> examined logically. Imagine you know nothing of either. Tell me now
> how prejudice, as described below, can rationally exist? I do not
> believe any judgement or opinion can exist with out knowledge.
>At 04:13 PM 2/1/01 -0800, you wrote:
>Experience: knowledge derived from one's own action, perception,
>examination.
>
>Prejudice: a judgement/opinion formed beforehand or without due
>examination.
Experience can be indirect as well. Let me tell a story.
I used to live in the same block of flats as a guy who claimed to be
part Cherokee. He said that wherever he went in the States it was
"Damn Injun", so eventually he left and came to Australia, where it
was, immediately he opened his mouth, "Damn Yank". However as
soon as he told people he was Cherokee, their attitude changed
and they became friendly and helpful.
Now, in my opinion, most Australians will not have met enough
Cherokees to know that they are more reasonable and worthwhile
than the Average American :), so I guess this is a prejudice formed
beforehand withour due examination.
jon
******************
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 11:50:04 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: gender consciousness (online)
I'm getting a bit repetative here....
This uncontrollable 'broadcasting of gender' is to be expected, I
think - most communication implies the partial uncontrollability of
meaning.
Gender, like race or work, is a major way this society has of
classifying people and a major way in which people gain and
construct their identity. It is not like hair or eye colour which have
little effect in general.
It is the nature of people that being cultural animals, they use the
culture around them to construct, create or interpret themselves
and others. There is no evidence to suggst that this stops when
they go online
Because of these factors, supression of gender, or of 'race', might
lead to supression of self expression, or suppression of a person's
experience. It would certainly lead to a suppression of 'feminism' or
racial activism, because how can you discuss possible online
discriminations or influences in action, if you say these factors are
by fiat irrelevant to the 'truth'? It would mean that you could not
discuss unconscious discrimination, or even gendered patterns of
behaviour, and the dominant gender or race would simply
reproduce its own patterns and exclude everyone else who did not
conform.
Ignoring gender is not equivalent to supression of discrimination.
jon
On 2 Feb 01, at 16:43, catcher at times wrote:
> After reading the stuff on the urls Jon posted, I'm wondering ... the
> question I should ask myself is not only if I'm conscious of gender
> when online, but also if I'm conscious of the fact that I give my
> gender away by just (verbally) being me.
>
> Now that I _am_ conscious of this, it somehow bothers me because
> it's something I can't control. My writing/idea/emotions are
> influenced by my gender, my education, etc ... and there's not much I
> can do about that.
>
> What am I saying here? Just that I'm struck by the fact that I seem to
> have so little influence on who I am and how I appear to others.
>
> renata
******************
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 12:04:30 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: spivak
On 3 Feb 01, at 5:10, catcher at times wrote:
> Looked it up on the net and this is what I found - I hope nobody
> starts using spivak on me. ,-)
>
> renata
>
> ëèàÇÄä ëÖåÖç àáêÄàãÖÇàó
Ok, at the risk of telling you what you already know, the following
is a list of pronouns which can automatically be used to refer to
your character on MOOs/MUDs etc..
{list comes from http://www.du.org/places/du/chelsea/gender.htm}
Neuter: it, it, its, its, itself
Female: she, her, her, hers, herself
Male: he, him, his, his, himself
Either: s/he, him/her, his/her, his/hers, (him/her)self
Spivak: e, em, eir, eirs, eirself
Splat: *e, h*, h*, h*s, h*self
Plural: they, them, their, theirs, themselves
Egotistical: I, me, my, mine, myself
Royal: we, us, our, ours, ourselves
2nd: you, you, your, yours, yourself
jon
******************
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 20:06:31 -0600
From: "E. Dettmar"
Subject: Re: gender knowledge
I've always wanted to play at manliness--in much the same way that I should
like to be thought wise or formidable. Not that these are in any way linked
to gender--they are simply a few things that I am not. Somehow, though, I
can never quite make myself do it; discovery seems inevitable. I have an
underdeveloped theory of mind.
Emily
Henffych well, Mair,
llawn o ras;
yr Arglwydd sydd gyd â thi;
bendigedig wyt ti ym mhlith merched,
a bendigedig yw Ffrwyth dy groth di Iesu.
Sanctaidd Fair, Mam Duw,
gweddïa drosom ni pechaduriaid yr awr hon,
ac yn awr ein hangeu.
Amen.
>From: Alan Sondheim
>Reply-To: Philosophy and Psychology of Cyberspace
>
>To: CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
>Subject: Re: gender knowledge
>Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:31:30 -0500
>
>I agree; it does depend where one is, however. On IRC probably 90% of the
>women are male. But somehow through Sandy Stone & chatroom stories people
>get the idea that masquerading is everywhere.
>
>I've met dozens of people (maybe well over 100) from Cybermind in real
>life and almost always they seem as if I've known them for a long time.
>I've never met anyone masquerading re: gender - Alan
******************
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 01:36:31 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: spivak
--- Jon Marshall
> Ok, at the risk of telling you what you already know
I guess I didn't know 'cause I've never been into MOO/MUD. Thanks
for telling me.
renata
******************
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 03:16:29 -0800
From: Sebastian Mendler
Subject: Re: spivak
Two observations:
1. "Splat Spivak" would make a fine name for a singer, rather along the
lines of "Slim Shady"; he might also be a hard-boiled action hero.
2. I am contemplating the implications of the phrase "gender
utilities"...
/ / skip
On Sun, 4 Feb 2001, Jon Marshall wrote:
>
> Ok, at the risk of telling you what you already know, the following
******************
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 13:03:12 -0500
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: Re: We Know Who You Are
For the best discussion of the roots of rightest politics that I've seen
from a theoretical perspective, look at Theweleit's Male Fantasies; it's
also a good read - Alan
******************
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 14:37:00 -0500
From: Dominic Fox
Subject: Re: We Know Who You Are
>I'm not absolutely sure of the value of implying that rightism is
>driven, or served, by sado-masochism - in any normal sense.
It has a rhetorical value..but beyond that, you could look at Reich's _The
Mass Psychology of Fascism_ for instance.
>Normally, at least as I understand it, the dom caters to the sub,
>the sub in a way drives the situation demanding their own
>submission and the scenario of that submission.
I'm reminded of the woman who says, "I have power over men, because I can
get them to fuck me". This seems a bit like me saying, "I have power over
men, because I can get them to beat me up; all I have to do is wear the
right sorts of clothes, go into the right sorts of bars and act in the
right sort of way"...
>Now I believe in Total Woman, Morgan argues that the sub gets
>stuff from her husband that she wants, like love, affection, presents
>etc, through her acts.
It's a classical masochism, I think: the masochist as manipulator, secretly
controlling everything that happens to him/her. But I think this is a false
consciousness, compensating abjectly subordinated persons for their abject
subordination. By "false" consciousness, I mean that its truth value plays
second fiddle to its therapeutic value. It's believed in the teeth of
contrary evidence because it's too painful not to believe it.
>In normal rightist politics, though unchallengable authority is an
>issue, as is support for whatever is the dominant power - there is
>very little concern for what the sub gets from it, there is little sense
>that the sub has any power or control over the results of their
>submission.
I'm not sure about this: I think that the whole thing only works if those
who submit are encouraged to take pleasure in their submission, and to
think that this pleasure is in fact the purpose of the exercise. "I have a
good master; no reason to complain; I am given all that I require; he is
firm with me when I am estranged from my good, obedient self; he recalls me
to my duty; punishes me fairly and rewards me from time to time even though
he knows that the satisfaction of serving him well is all the reward I
need". This is the consciousness of the functionary enamoured of his
master...
******************
Onto Part 7
This page hosted by
Get your own Free Home Page