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: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 09:24:55 +0800
From: Lynne Harding
Subject: Re: a question on gender
Hi
Here are some of my reflections on these thought provoking
questions.
--- 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?
possibly no.. or possibly only less so. Discrimination seems to
be part of the human condition. Maybe if gender were less of
an issue then the discrimination would be (for instance)
against all blondes - of either gender:)
>- what would pornography look like, would it still exist?
violence/violent sex just to start with the gender divide need
not apply when it comes to who is doing what to whom - its the
behaviour that matters, is pornographic.
Sadly I dont think a broader experience of gender will
necessarily make us all better people.
While I suspect that it would let us be open to more ways of loving (a gift many people have anyhow) this would not alter fundamental aspects of our life.
>- would fashion still exist?
ooohh I think so.. identity gets expressed that way after all.
Men's fashion may even get more flamboyant and
appealing - Beau Brummel may be of help here:)
>- would there still be gays and lesbians and transvestites etc ...?
why not? and a lot more options for all of us in between;)
>What would a RL genderfree society look like?
>What would an online genderfree society look like?
hmm still thinking about those last two....
Lynne
*****************
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:01:35 -0800
From: Caitlin Martin
Subject: Re: a question on gender
On Sat, 3 Feb 2001, catcher at times murmured:
> If there were no gender consciousness whatsoever, would there still
> be SM?
Oh, hell yeah. I know any number of people who play in the SM world & do
same-sex scenes regularly although they don't identify as queer. I
imagine most of them would argue that for them it's about the power play,
although since that's not my world I can't speak with any authority there.
c.
*****************
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:41:19 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: a question on gender
On 5 Feb 01, at 9:24, Lynne Harding wrote:
> Hi
> Here are some of my reflections on these thought provoking
> questions.
I was too shy to know what to say, and can't add much to lynne
> --- catcher at times
> > If there were no gender consciousness whatsoever, would there
> still be SM?
yes, because gender consciousness may not have anything to do
with S&M - even though we traditionally associate one role with
one gender and the other with the other.
> 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?
>
> possibly no.. or possibly only less so. Discrimination seems to
> be part of the human condition. Maybe if gender were less of
> an issue then the discrimination would be (for instance)
> against all blondes - of either gender:)
agree with Lynne - people can discriminate on all kinds of grounds.
> - what would pornography look like, would it still exist?
>
> violence/violent sex just to start with the gender divide need
> not apply when it comes to who is doing what to whom - its the
> behaviour that matters, is pornographic.
This really depends on what you mean by pornography. If you
mean portrayl of sex acts of various types, then I can't see that
going. If you mean 'objectification of people' then it is possible they
might decrease. But that means shifting the focus of sex onto
relationship generally, this might be helped if gender was not so
important sexualy. But then sexual symbols seem to be as
important to humans as 'physical features'.
Are bi-sexuals less into objectification?
> - would fashion still exist?
>
> ooohh I think so.. identity gets expressed that way after all.
> Men's fashion may even get more flamboyant and
> appealing - Beau Brummel may be of help here:)
Agree again, fashion as industry is bigger than the arms trade, or
so I read.
Also people are *always* into body decoration, self display etc. It
is unusual to have a society in which men are officially so little
concerned with this (though try getting them to wear something
'unsuitable' :) So I can't see that changing
> - would there still be gays and lesbians and transvestites etc ...?
>
> why not? and a lot more options for all of us in between;)
Agree, though I vaguely think that *wanting* to be the other gender,
implies a degree of compartmentalism of what one's gender is
capeable of.
> What would a RL genderfree society look like?
>
> What would an online genderfree society look like?
>
> hmm still thinking about those last two....
no idea! There has never been such a human society on this planet
that we are aware of, so there is no precident. It would represent a
complete change of state. Interesting though.
>Lynne,
jon
*****************
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 14:29:12 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: random thoughts
I've been reading 'cause Jon's links on gender led me to others and
yet others ... up until now Derrida was just a name Alan (a.o.)
quoted, now I'm beginning to have a notion what he's about. An
article I liked: "Decosntruciton: some assumptions" by John Lye.
And so much to read on gender - interesting, informative ... but I
haven't found anything that felt close to me.
[[snip]]
*****************
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:08:12 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: genderfree = free?
Quoting Lynn Bennett/John Palmer - Experiencing Computer Mediated
Communication on the Internet -
Does Gender Still Equal Difference?
"There is an understandable temptation for women using CMC to avail
themselves of an anonymous (gender free) name when the opportunity
presents itself. Women have reported positive results from
discussions using this technique.
I suggest that this approach, while apparently seeming to be
empowering, is in fact reinforcing the existing social stereotypes
that we have regarding gender roles and speech. If a woman has to
pretend to be other than what she is to be heard, the medium is in
fact acting as a kind of chador, stifling the individuality of the
speaker."
------
I'm agreeing and confused at the same time. If I have to be
genderfree to be heard, I'm not free at all. Still, if I keep my
gender I won't be heard the way I want to - a vicious circle.
So where/how do we start to get out of this perpetuum mobile?
renata
*****************
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 16:06:23 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: thoughts on gender/sex
Let's say that gender and sex are what Jon defined them to be (sex =
what we are by biological definition and gender = what we are/are
supposed to be by societal definition and/or what we experience
ourselves to be).
For most of us our sex is clear, but consciousness/experience of
gender is changing, partly because the validity of the concept is
being questioned. There's a lot of people who (want to) renounce the
gender definition, which, for obvious reasons, should be even
simpler in online communication.
Still, when I read our discussions on the subject, it is so easy to
detect who is man and who is woman, simply by examining the
language/style used.
Purely theoretically, I would have thought that at least people who
advocate online gender freedom would have "incorporated" their
beliefs enough to have a genderfree use of language.
Also, I'd like it if we would be able to shed our linguistic gender
skin whenever we felt like it.
renata
*****************
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 19:30:20 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: thoughts on gender/sex
catcher at times wrote:
> For most of us our sex is clear, but consciousness/experience of
> gender is changing, partly because the validity of the concept is
> being questioned. There's a lot of people who (want to) renounce the
> gender definition, which, for obvious reasons, should be even
> simpler in online communication.
Gender is a relative concept. One society might consider one behavior
male (such as dominance) while another society might consider the same
behavior to be feminine.
> Still, when I read our discussions on the subject, it is so easy to
> detect who is man and who is woman, simply by examining the
> language/style used.
This is a biased statement. What kind of language do ONLY women use?
or visa versa?
> Purely theoretically, I would have thought that at least people who
> advocate online gender freedom would have "incorporated" their
> beliefs enough to have a genderfree use of language.
Language is a tool which allows each individual to communicate both with
other individuals and society so it has to maintain an agreed upon
standard. This standard sometimes incorporates bias.
> Also, I'd like it if we would be able to shed our linguistic gender
> skin whenever we felt like it.
This would be nice. Or better yet how about no gender skin at all?
*****************
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 19:33:24 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: genderfree = free?
catcher at times wrote:
> Quoting Lynn Bennett/John Palmer - Experiencing Computer Mediated
> Communication on the Internet -
>
> Does Gender Still Equal Difference?
>
> "There is an understandable temptation for women using CMC to avail
> themselves of an anonymous (gender free) name when the opportunity
> presents itself. Women have reported positive results from
> discussions using this technique.
I have seen tfemale identities that ask for technical questions or
advice get more attention than male questions do.
*****************
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 03:38:10 +0100
From: Simon Griggad
Subject: Re: thoughts on gender/sex
catcher at times wrote:
> Still, when I read our discussions on the subject
> it is so easy to detect who is man and who is
> woman, simply by examining the language/style used.
> [...]
> Also, I'd like it if we would be able to shed our
> linguistic gender skin whenever we felt like it.
Here's a link to a recent mail sent to another topica
list (which I'm still not quite sure what topic it is
really about) from someone who claims to be a woman:
http://www.topica.com/lists/genius-l/read/message.html?mid=301076054&sort=d&start=11208
The interesting part starts in the second half, with
the sentence "I make offensive claims as I see fit to
make them.". To me, she sounds like a woman trying to
sound like a man without pretending to be one. I would
be interested to learn if the women on this list find
that she succeeds or whether her femininity shines
through despite her efforts (is she as scary as a
rabbit with plastic vampire fangs?), or perhaps she
isn't a woman at all (she has been writing details
about her life as mother for some time).
Would the mail make a different impression if the
author claimed to be male?
Simon
*****************
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:48:36 +0800
From: Lynne Harding
Subject: Re: genderfree = free?
renata quoted:
>Quoting Lynn Bennett/John Palmer - Experiencing Computer Mediated
>Communication on the Internet -
>Does Gender Still Equal Difference?
>"There is an understandable temptation for women using CMC to avail
>themselves of an anonymous (gender free) name when the opportunity
>presents itself. Women have reported positive results from
>discussions using this technique.
>I suggest that this approach, while apparently seeming to be
>empowering, is in fact reinforcing the existing social stereotypes
>that we have regarding gender roles and speech. If a woman has to
>pretend to be other than what she is to be heard, the medium is in
>fact acting as a kind of chador, stifling the individuality of the
>speaker."
>
>------
>
>I'm agreeing and confused at the same time. If I have to be
>genderfree to be heard, I'm not free at all. Still, if I keep my
>gender I won't be heard the way I want to - a vicious circle.
>So where/how do we start to get out of this perpetuum mobile?
I like your question... and have spent time thinking around this on
and off today. (BTW I was Lynne Bennett in a past life) Yes it is a vicious
circle. I did suggest that while women had reported positive results from this
behavior it presented a kind of false equality as it reinforces current RL
inequalities.
As a long term strategy for women this approach seems doomed to failure
as it simply means that existing social beliefs and actions are brought to the
internet. The potential for the Internet to provide a space for men and women
to learn to (re)communicate is immense.
How to get out of the "perpetuum mobile" noted by renata? ... hmmm
I suspect that its the sort of thing that if people what and are aware of will
happen easily and spontaneously - an idea whose time has come. However
the promulgation of that idea may require the use of deliberate conscious
raising strategies?
Lynne
*****************
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:39:59 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: thoughts on gender/sex
On 6 Feb 01, at 19:30, dpres wrote:
> catcher at times wrote:
>
> > Still, when I read our discussions on the subject, it is so easy to
> > detect who is man and who is woman, simply by examining the
> > language/style used.
>
> This is a biased statement. What kind of language do ONLY women use?
> or visa versa?
It may also be a largely factual statement, about the possibility of
generally recognising gendered types of language style or use -
this has nothing to do with kinds of language *only* used by one
sex.
I'd be interested in reading your opinions on those Herring articles.
> > Purely theoretically, I would have thought that at least people who
> > advocate online gender freedom would have "incorporated" their
> > beliefs enough to have a genderfree use of language.
>
> Language is a tool which allows each individual to communicate both
> with other individuals and society so it has to maintain an agreed
> upon standard. This standard sometimes incorporates bias.
And if the standard incorporates gender distinctions, then the
distinctions are not ignored by the standard. So saying that we
should abide by the 'standard' (agreed on by the dominant) while
ignoring gender, might simply mean that the gender bias is
reinforced, while the possibility of criticism is suppressed, and so
the power differential increased, both offline and online.
jon
*****************
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:39:58 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: genderfree = free?
On 6 Feb 01, at 15:08, catcher at times wrote:
>
> I'm agreeing and confused at the same time. If I have to be
> genderfree to be heard, I'm not free at all. Still, if I keep my
> gender I won't be heard the way I want to - a vicious circle.
>
> So where/how do we start to get out of this perpetuum mobile?
I dunno, I think part of the issue is to remember that we are never
heard the way we want to be. The reader, or the listener always
imports stuff.
without wishing to deny the difficulty, one way people might be able
to be heard in some of their complexity, is that if the other person
does not seem to read you correctly, you don't simply repeat
yourself, but you try a different tack. We usually have to adapt to
the listener as well as them to us - and this may add to whatever it
is we are trying to say anyway. Sometimes the listener will not
reciprocate the effort, in which case I guess you carry on with
different approaches until you get response to an approximation of
you, rather than to their idea of you, or you loose patience and give
up.
To me, more worrying is the subliminal stuff, the stuff that silences
people, or leads to them being unable to respond. That may, in
fact, be so invisible that people suggest intensifying the factors that
make it difficult, thinking that will make it easier. Which is where
the Herring stuff on communicative styles is interesting.
After all, in this whole discussion, the number of list members who
have engaged is small. Many of them (especially the males) are
relative newcomers as well (which is both good, and bad), so why
is this?
jon
*****************
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:39:59 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: gender and performance
Just a very uncertain proposal for discussion...
I wonder, if in the modern world, gender identity is not absorbed in
different ways, depending upon your gender.
Re-reading Catilin and Renata's posts on their experience of their
gender, I'm struck in a way (which might be totaly misleading)
about how much their comments on gender depend upon certain
'props' - the use of or celebration of clothes, make up, behaviours
etc. which enable certain kinds of performance.
And I note this does not seem rare among the women of my
aquaintance. yet men, don't seem, in this society, to have this kind
of relationship to gender. It seems much more internalised, part of
their identity to the extent that it is not apparantly part of their
gender identity (except to the extent that they 'must not appear to
be like women', to other men, or to other women for different
reasons perhaps).
This might give men the feeling that they can ignore gender, as
their gender identity is largely invisible to them (as if it was just
being human, not being male). it might also give women the
impression that men are arogant or self contained, because they
seem 'more authentic', simpler or whever (stupid perhaps because
they [men] are so unaware). It might give men the idea that
women's apparant preoccuption with gender, is preoccupation with
triviality (inauthentic, an addition etc), and needs to be overcome.
Is it the usual problem that tools both enable some activities and
restrict others, and people would often like just the enablement.
jon
*****************
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:39:58 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: random thoughts
On 6 Feb 01, at 14:29, catcher at times wrote:
> And so much to read on gender - interesting, informative ... but I
> haven't found anything that felt close to me.
which is precisely why in this book, I want people to write about
their experiences. It is easy to leave these behind in the quest for
theory, or morality, and yet without these experiences, this feeling
of closeness to one's self, then the rest is nothing.
It is easy to pretend we are all the same, and can all subscribe to
the same explanation or politics, when that edge of estrangement,
that variation, is what might lead us to discovery.
jon
*****************
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:44:03 +0100
From: Rowena
Subject: Re: genderfree = free?
On 6 Feb 2001, at 19:33, dpres wrote:
[[snip]]
> I have seen tfemale identities that ask for technical questions or
> advice get more attention than male questions do.
This might be 'cause they can appeal to the image of the helpless
female. It reminds me of the way you can be treated in a
hardwarestore, if I need help and advice I have the most change of
getting that by playing dumb, stressing my ignorance (I am in fact
a novice so there is not much actual pretence, only in the way of
presenting it), smiling, stressing my femaleness. This is not a
consciouss thing - or at least it wasn't, now I've noticed that I am
doing it, it might be different.
Rowena
*****************
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 19:29:15 +0100
From: Rowena
Subject: Re: a question on gender
On 3 Feb 2001, at 2:04, catcher at times wrote:
> What would a RL genderfree society look like? What would an online
> genderfree society look like? renata
At the moment I am listening to a French woman who wrote a book
about "the Dutch Man" - she has lived for years in Holland and for
this book (I haven't read it) she interviewed several foreign women
about their impressions of the Dutch man. The overall impression is
that the dutch man is very reliable but also a bit boring. The french
woman complains that dutch men never seem to notice it if you
dress up, that they never make any compliments and don't notice
you as ' a woman' but only as a 'human being'.
I've heard this complaint before - many times when asked about the
striking difference between Holland and their country I've heard the
remark that here the women are to much like men and men to
much like women.
BTW this is not meant positively.
Rowena
*****************
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 20:31:04 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: thoughts on gender/sex
Jon Marshall wrote:
> And if the standard incorporates gender distinctions, then the
> distinctions are not ignored by the standard. So saying that we
> should abide by the 'standard' (agreed on by the dominant) while
> ignoring gender, might simply mean that the gender bias is
> reinforced, while the possibility of criticism is suppressed, and so
> the power differential increased, both offline and online.
The standard is not so much agreed to as much as universally understood.
Developing a new standard might be in order. But the standard has to be
adopted widely to be useful. Criticism can be expressed no matter what
the standard is unless concepts are suppressed.
*****************
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:47:05 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: thoughts on gender/sex
--- dpres
> The standard is not so much agreed to as much as universally understood.
> Developing a new standard might be in order. But the standard has
>to be adopted widely to be useful. Criticism can be expressed no
>matter what the standard is unless concepts are suppressed.
In another post:
> Sometimes experiences contain mitigating factors which serve to
>dilute the original being addressed. Indvidual experiences do not
>have the necessary controls which allow the phenomena to be
>discussed in an unbiased fashion.
I think I'm finding out why I seldomly understand/connect to what
you write: for me reading your posts is a bit like reading Mao's
little red book - I don't feel as if there's one real person behind it.
I guess I'm rather primitive (or is it just gender?) - I need at
least a hint of voice, scent, body, feeling ... to stay focused
online.
renata
*****************
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:50:35 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: gender and performance
--- Jon Marshall
> it might also give women the impression that men are arogant or
>self contained, because they
> seem 'more authentic', simpler or
You made me laugh and frown and ask myself a lot of questions - I
think by tomorrow I'll know what I think on this topic. ,-)
renata
*****************
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 21:27:56 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: thoughts on gender/sex
hmm surely you are not suggesting that I abandon expressing my
ideas/thoughts/and concepts here are you?
Are my ideas inappropriate for this list?
catcher at times wrote:
[[snip]]
>
> I think I'm finding out why I seldomly understand/connect to what
> you write: for me reading your posts is a bit like reading Mao's
> little red book - I don't feel as if there's one real person behind
> it.
>
> I guess I'm rather primitive (or is it just gender?) - I need at
> least a hint of voice, scent, body, feeling ... to stay focused
> online.
>
> renata
*****************
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 12:35:10 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: random thoughts
On 7 Feb 01, at 20:26, dpres wrote:
> Doesn't "theory" help explain and categorize the individual
> experience. Doesn't theory help to distill ideas?
Absolutley, but theory can also seem to blind people to ideas, and
experience, as well. I think, for what it is worth, that theory is a
duality - something again which both enables and restricts. It
helps us to perceive some things and obscures others.
If the theory is prooving unsatisfactory to the experience, then I
think it is time to abandon the theory, or to question it, by relating
it to experience.
In general, I don't expect observation to be theory independent.
Theory, like language, and perhaps like gender, might be
embedded in what we experience to start with - however this does
not mean every theory is as good as every other, or that a person
may not have an implicit theory which is insightful.
> Sometimes experiences contain mitigating factors which serve to dilute
> the original being addressed. Indvidual experiences do not have the
> necessary controls which allow the phenomena to be discussed in an
> unbiased fashion.
I'm not entirely sure i understand what you are getting at here. But
if you are implying that individual experience can be worthless in
investigating social life (and i suspect you are not, but can't see
how else to read it), then I'd disagree.
Also, precisely because theory or interpretation is involved in any
experience, then *unbiased* discussion may well be impossible (or
at least the best you can aim for is to be ready to abandon your
ideas if they do not match up with people's experience). The
possibility of unbiased discussion being impossible does not,
perhaps, excuse flagrent bias, just as the uncertainty of knowledge
does not justify radically uncertain propositions - as in common
defenses of theology.
jon
*****************
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 21:36:58 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: random thoughts
Jon Marshall wrote:
> > Sometimes experiences contain mitigating factors which serve to dilute
> > the original being addressed. Indvidual experiences do not have the
> > necessary controls which allow the phenomena to be discussed in an
> > unbiased fashion.
>
> I'm not entirely sure i understand what you are getting at here. But
> if you are implying that individual experience can be worthless in
> investigating social life (and i suspect you are not, but can't see
> how else to read it), then I'd disagree.
I left out a key word in the above paragraph...I meant to say "sometimes
experiences contain mitigating factors which serve to dilute the Original
idea. being expressed....
I of course value individual experience. Individual experience is what
motivates theory in the first place. Also individual experience can with
the proper controls be used to disprove a theory....("a postive can never be
proved") It is important to recognize the strength and the limitations of
individual experiences. While "feelings" are important to the individual
they are subjective...In other words each individual's experience of the
color purple or gender is different....we can agree on what purple or gender
is but never on what they feel like.
> Also, precisely because theory or interpretation is involved in any
> experience, then *unbiased* discussion may well be impossible (or
> at least the best you can aim for is to be ready to abandon your
> ideas if they do not match up with people's experience). The
> possibility of unbiased discussion being impossible does not,
> perhaps, excuse flagrent bias, just as the uncertainty of knowledge
> does not justify radically uncertain propositions - as in common
> defenses of theology.
This is true but what is your conclusion from this observation....?
*****************
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:00:16 +0100
From: Rowena
Subject: Re: gender and performance
On 8 Feb 2001, at 11:39, Jon Marshall wrote:
> Re-reading Catilin and Renata's posts on their experience of their
> gender, I'm struck in a way (which might be totaly misleading) about
> how much their comments on gender depend upon certain 'props' - the
> use of or celebration of clothes, make up, behaviours etc. which
> enable certain kinds of performance.
I had wondered earlier if I would write the following:
One of the things that make me feel the least female is browsing
trough the lingerie collestion in a warehouse. All this flimsy stuff, I
tough it and I do feel I would be some sort of transvestite if I would
put them on.
And I never do.
I find this quite strange myself, I do consider myself female, I
certainly don't feel male.
I remember being about 14 years old and reading this book about a
girl who wanted to be a boy, who was in fact convinced she would
starting to grow a penis any moment now because she felt that
would be the normal course of things. I remeber lying in trying to
imagine what it would feel like to have a penis, and when I couldn't
imagine something that felt right I imagined what it would feel like
to 'know that you are a boy/man' even though you have a
girls/womans body. I must say I haven't got a clue - I couldn't
imagine then and I can't imagine now (maybe I just have a very
poor imagination?). But I still find it intriguing.
I guess I do feel female but not feminine, many of the 'props'
representing femininity for me.
I do also remember being about 14 and wondering what it would be
like to be in love. I also wondered whether I would be heterosexual,
homosexual or bisexual. All things considering I thought bisexual
would be best, but I wouldn't be surprised if I would turn out to be a
lesbian. (at that moment considering my own distaste for make-up
and girlish things). The first person I fell in love with turned out to be
a boy and all the people I've fell in love with or have felt sexually
atracted to were also boys/men so I guess I might consider myself
heterosexual.
Rowena
*****************
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 03:39:25 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: thoughts on gender/sex
--- dpres
> hmm surely you are not suggesting that I abandon expressing my
ideas/thoughts/and concepts here are you?
I'm afraid you misread me: I was talking about how _I_ feel when
reading your posts - I didn't say anything about you. But feel free
to ask my opinion.
> Are my ideas inappropriate for this list?
I have no idea what's appropriatefor CM - someone else should answer
this.
renata
*****************
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 12:42:17 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: thoughts on gender/sex
This is enough from me today
On 7 Feb 01, at 20:31, dpres wrote:
> Jon Marshall wrote:
> >
> > And if the standard incorporates gender distinctions, then the
> > distinctions are not ignored by the standard. So saying that we
> > should abide by the 'standard' (agreed on by the dominant) while
> > ignoring gender, might simply mean that the gender bias is
> > reinforced, while the possibility of criticism is suppressed, and so
> > the power differential increased, both offline and online.
> >
>
> The standard is not so much agreed to as much as universally
> understood. Developing a new standard might be in order. But the
> standard has to be adopted widely to be useful. Criticism can be
> expressed no matter what the standard is unless concepts are
> suppressed.
I'm not sure anything is ever *universally* understood - unless we
have innate ideas (and we might not *understand* them, just use
them). So saying it is universally understood might be disqualifying
those who don't understand it in the same way - "they just don't
understand".
Criticism can also be supressed by supressing the behaviour which
allows people to express their objections.
Concepts are not necessarily the basis of thought. Action, feeling,
disposition, ways of linkage, aesthetics, etc., might be equally
important.
If you make legitimate thought souly conceptual, (lets assume we
both mean the same think by concept :), then you might supress
other kinds of thoughts
jon
*****************
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:51:40 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: a question on gender
--- Jon Marshall
(would there still be SM?)
> yes, because gender consciousness may not have anything to do with
>S&M - even though we traditionally associate one role with one
>gender and the other with the other.
Let's say SM is about power, and gender is about power too -
wouldn't the abolition of gender lead to the abolition of SM?
renata
*****************
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:58:06 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: thoughts on gender/sex
> catcher at times wrote:
> it is so easy to detect who is man and who is woman, simply by
>examining the language/style used.
--- dpres
> This is a biased statement. What kind of language do ONLY women
>use? or visa versa?
Vice versa? As in: what kind of women does only language use?
(couldn't resist)
Back on topic now:
I stated what I experience and you call me byased. That's like
calling me byased when I say:"Once I was mugged by a white male".
That's not byased - it's just a statement of fact.
Furthermore I didn't say there was language that ONLY women or ONLY
men use.
I think our communication would benefit if you'd read my posts
before replying.
renata
*****************
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:05:43 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: thoughts on gender/sex
--- Simon Griggad
> Here's a link to a recent mail from someone who claims to be a
>woman:
>http://www.topica.com/lists/genius-l/read/message.html?mid=301076054&sort=d&start=11208
> I would be interested to learn if the women on this list find
> that she succeeds or whether her femininity shines through despite
>her efforts.
> Would the mail make a different impression if the author claimed
>to be male?
To me, the author is (very clearly) a woman - if she's trying to
impersonate a man, she no good at it.
If the author would claim to be male I'd be very surprised.
There's too much defense in it and not enough offense to make it
male.
renata
*****************
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:08:27 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: genderfree = free?
--- Lynne Harding
> However the promulgation of that idea may require the use of
>deliberate conscious raising strategies?
Have you got ideas on strategies? Wouldn't it be interesting to try
them out right here? We could all sub with new/anonymous addies and
see what happens.
renata, who likes learning by experience
*****************
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 19:19:12 -0500
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: sutra
-
sutra
nikuko wants to know, what does it mean that 'man is the measure of all
things'? nikuko wants to know, what does it mean to 'know thyself'?
'we do not speak of the gender of 'man' above; we want to say: 'one is the
measure of all things.' surely for one that is true. theory absolves pers-
onal history and taste: i do such and such, believe such and such, within
the realm of digital explanation; mute, abject, analog description has no
place in the world of discourse. it is description that thickens at every
turn of the mind or body, always already resisting measure and measure-
ment. knowledge, too, is imminent, implicit in the intended gaze; nothing
is foresaken, forlorn; something is defined by virtue of the gaze itself.
so we would say, not state; talk, not speak; thus to the unfathomability
of knowledge.'
---
*****************
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 19:24:23 -0500
From: dpres
Subject: Re: thoughts on gender/sex
How "is it so easy to detect who is man and who is woman simply by
examining the language/style used"? These are your words. What language
is the determining factor?
catcher at times wrote:
[[snip]]
> I stated what I experience and you call me byased. That's like
> calling me byased when I say:"Once I was mugged by a white male".
> That's not byased - it's just a statement of fact.
>
> Furthermore I didn't say there was language that ONLY women or ONLY
> men use.
>
> I think our communication would benefit if you'd read my posts
> before replying.
>
> renata
*****************
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 17:53:04 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Male/female language (was: thoughts on gender/sex)
--- dpres
> How "is it so easy to detect who is man and who is woman simply by
>examining the language/style used"? These are your words. What
>language is the determining factor?
It's a lot of things put together - I can't say someone is
male/female by just one word or turn of phrase - let try to name
some of the "hints":
- being supportive is female (f.e. "I appreciated/enjoyed ...")
- statements are male (f.e. "it is a fact that ...")
- subjective talk is female (f.e. "I have the impression that ...")
- justifying that one takes up space is female (f.e. "I have the
right to express the opinion that ...)
- assuming it is only natural that one takes up space is male (f.e.
"this is my opinioon - period")
- asking for confirmation is female (f.e. "is there anyone else who
...?")
- "knowing" that others will confirm is male (f.e. "of course it is
...")
Of course this list isn't limitative ...
Reading posts and taking into account all the above it's rather easy
to find out the writer's gender.
renata
*****************
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 21:09:11 -0500
From: Tom Ellis
Subject: Re: a question on gender
Not necessarily, but that is a clever trap that you set. That is like
saying that snow and ice are both about cold, so the abolition of snow would
lead to the abolition of ice...
Tom, half asleep and free associating...
-----Original Message-----
From: Philosophy and Psychology of Cyberspace
Subject: Re: a question on gender
--- Jon Marshall
(would there still be SM?)
> yes, because gender consciousness may not have anything to do with
>S&M - even though we traditionally associate one role with one
>gender and the other with the other.
Let's say SM is about power, and gender is about power too -
wouldn't the abolition of gender lead to the abolition of SM?
renata
*****************
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:49:45 +0800
From: Lynne Harding
Subject: Re: thoughts on gender/sex
dweiss replied,
>hmm surely you are not suggesting that I abandon expressing my
>ideas/thoughts/and concepts here are you?
>Are my ideas inappropriate for this list?
I had two responses at the same time when I read this reply. One was a
recognition of miscommunication in action... and the other (all my own,
*not* a criticism to/of anybody) was to think... "thats *just* like a man" :)
And if that is not a gendered set of responses then I dont know what isnt.
Lynne ;)
*****************
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 12:27:13 +0800
From: Lynne Harding
Subject: Re: genderfree = free?
renata - that sounds like an excellent idea...
Wonder how the others feel about it?
BTW, sorry I didn't reply yesterday I haven't been able to go online for almost two days.
Lynne
> >However the promulgation of that idea may require the use of
>>deliberate conscious raising strategies?
>Have you got ideas on strategies? Wouldn't it be interesting to try
>them out right here? We could all sub with new/anonymous addies and
>see what happens.
renata, who likes learning by experience
*****************
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 01:42:18 -0500
From: Daniel Hill
Subject: Re: genderisms
Hey guess wot. Down at the supermarket the other day I saw a woman dressed
as Elvis. And Santas little helpers were all muscle mens. Talk about
equality of the genders. Wot is this place comin to?
*****************
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 03:32:10 -0500
From: Dominic Fox
Subject: Re: Male/female language (was: thoughts on gender/sex)
Hi renata,
I enjoyed this list of gender hints; I have the impression that you've been
watching the way people communicate very closely. If you don't mind my
saying so, I would just like to ask whether anyone else feels that some of
these indicators of gender might be a little unreliable in certain
circumstances?
- Dom
*****************
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 03:34:03 -0500
From: Dominic Fox
Subject: Re: Male/female language (was: thoughts on gender/sex)
Man, that felt weird.
*****************
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 03:54:47 -0500
From: Dominic Fox
Subject: Re: Male/female language (was: thoughts on gender/sex)
To a certain extent the distinction made here is a distinction between
language as social lubricant and language as social instrument.
Austin's "How to do things with words" has little to say about such
deferential niceties as "I just feel that" and "if you don't mind", which
obviously do *something* but don't appear to make anything *happen*.
Perhaps he regarded them as beneath consideration - more like "speech
suffering" than "speech acting"...
I would also distinguish between diffidence/defensiveness, and
complaisance/appeasement. A lot of so-called "female" language is designed
to appease; indirectly, it attests to a fear of violence (be
it "linguistic"); implicit is the speaker's helplessness. Diffidence also
attests to fear, but it armours the speaker and issues a challenge of
sorts - it can be readily taken for contrariness. Extreme diffidence is a
kind of open rebellion, specifically against the demand that one be
appeasing. Teenagers know the difference.
I would say that statements and declarations are often made in the
expectation that they will be challenged, and that rather than expressing
absolute certainty and self-confidence they may simply be an economical way
of moving a discussion ahead: for "S is P" read "S is P - true?"
*****************
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 01:48:15 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: Male/female language (was: thoughts on gender/sex)
--- Dominic Fox
> I enjoyed this list of gender hints;
Thanks. ,-)
> I would just like to ask whether anyone else feels that some of
>these indicators of gender might be a little unreliable in certain
>circumstances?
They're generalizations so they're bound to be unreliable, I think.
I mean, diabetics generally drink a lot, but not everyone who drinks
a lot is a diabetic ...
Also I always very careful when I work with those indicators because
I am myself subjective and therefore unreliable.
renata
*****************
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 01:49:55 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: Male/female language (was: thoughts on gender/sex)
Btw, I forgot one indication - I got it from the urls Jon sent and
it seems surprisingly correct:
Men send long mails - women don't (if they do, they apologize for
it).
renata, planning on sending an extremely long mail one of these days
to break the pattern ,-)
*****************
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:47:18 +0200
From: Maurizio Mariotti
Subject: Re: Male/female language (was: thoughts on gender/sex)
Renata scripsit:
> Men send long mails - women don't
A research conducted by Novotel indicates that, during intercourse,
women scream louder than men. (Novotel is a French chain of
hotels, with establishments in Europe, Middle East, Africa,
Australia and the Far East.)
Just thought of bringing some meaningful scientific facts to the
conversation. The next report: Who steals more towels? :)
M
*****************
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 20:21:53 +0100
From: Simon Griggad
Subject: Re: Male/female language (was: thoughts on gender/sex)
Renata wrote:
> - "knowing" that others will confirm is male (f.e.
> "of course it is ...")
>
> Of course this list isn't limitative ...
^^ ^^^^^^
So, according to your criteria, your mail was written
in a male style? :-)
Simon
*****************
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 20:41:21 +0100
From: Simon Griggad
Subject: Re: Male/female language
Dominic Fox wrote:
> A lot of so-called "female" language is designed
> to appease; indirectly, it attests to a fear of
> violence [...]
I'd put it another way: men and women have different
ways of communicating, either based on competition or
on cooperation. Due to cultural male dominance, the
default meaning of linguistic expressions is colored
male, so women need to "tag" them with caveats like "I
think". If there were no men, women would probably not
use these tags for economic reasons, but the meaning
would stay the same. On planet Amazonia "X is true"
means "I think X is true". :-)
Simon
*****************
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:22:55 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: Male/female language (was: thoughts on gender/sex)
--- David Presley
> wouldn't it be a good idea to be "reliable"?
I don't understand what you're asking here ... could you elaborate?
renata
*****************
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:26:05 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: Male/female language (was: thoughts on gender/sex)
--- David Presley
> Does that mean that men are unsupportive?
> Does this mean that females do not make strong statements?
> Don't men have the ability to be subjective?
> This seems to imply that women would not make good aggressive
> lawyers but that is not true.
> Many men are meek
> These behaviors and genetic make up are not related. Is an
aggressive woman any less feminine?
> Is a supportive male any less masculine?
I'm not answering your questions because they have nothing to do
with what I was talking about. I'm sure other people will be
interested in the topic you brought up.
renata
*****************
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:55:09 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: a question on gender
--- Tom Ellis
> Not necessarily, but that is a clever trap that you set. That is like
> saying that snow and ice are both about cold, so the abolition of
>snow would lead to the abolition of ice...
Wouldn't it?
No, seriously, I knew my logic sucked but somehow it sounded good.
,-)
renata
*****************
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:59:56 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: thoughts on gender/sex
--- Lynne Harding
> I had two responses at the same time when I read this reply. One
>was a recognition of miscommunication in action...
Thanks for this response - it set my brain in motion (yes, it hurt).
Conclusion: there's a thing I'm gonna call "voluntary
miscommunication" - it's what you do when you know the other person
doesn't understand you and you just keep using your own language
because you're convinced it's the only right one and anyone in their
right mind should just learn how to talk like you. It works the
other way round too: you actually understand the other person but
you keep asking what h/she means to express your disagreement - know
what I mean?
Btw, I'm just observing, I'm not saying "voluntary miscommunication"
is good/bad - wrong/right.
renata
*****************
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 19:00:51 -0500
From: David Streever
Subject: Re: Male/female language (was: thoughts on gender/sex)
Objectivity is the only way ;-)
(For me that is. You can be anyway you want, and I won't question you!)
At 06:25 PM 1/1/01 -0500, you wrote:
>You said you weren't reliable because you are subjective. I am
>suggesiting that reliable observations are important..and therefore
>objectivity might be useful....for greater reliablity.
*****************
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 17:49:12 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: Male/female language (was: thoughts on gender/sex)
>Renata scripsit:
>
>> Men send long mails - women don't
>
Some women send long emails and some men send short e-mails.....Is there a
genetic connection to email length?
>A research conducted by Novotel indicates that, during intercourse,
>women scream louder than men. (Novotel is a French chain of
>hotels, with establishments in Europe, Middle East, Africa,
>Australia and the Far East.)
>
Is this a learned cultural response or a genetic engineered response?
>Just thought of bringing some meaningful scientific facts to the
>conversation. The next report: Who steals more towels? :)
*****************
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 17:50:49 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: Male/female language (was: thoughts on gender/sex)
wouldn't it be a good idea to be "reliable"?
>Also I always very careful when I work with those indicators because
>I am myself subjective and therefore unreliable.
>
>renata
>
*****************
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 17:59:34 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: Male/female language (was: thoughts on gender/sex)
>
>It's a lot of things put together - I can't say someone is
>male/female by just one word or turn of phrase - let try to name
>some of the "hints":
>
>- being supportive is female (f.e. "I appreciated/enjoyed ...")
Does that mean that men are unsupportive?
>- statements are male (f.e. "it is a fact that ...")
Does this mean that females do not make strong statements?
>- subjective talk is female (f.e. "I have the impression that ...")
Don't men have the ability to be subjective?
>- justifying that one takes up space is female (f.e. "I have the
>right to express the opinion that ...)
>- assuming it is only natural that one takes up space is male (f.e.
>"this is my opinioon - period")
This seems to imply that women would not make good aggressive lawyers but
that is not true.
>- asking for confirmation is female (f.e. "is there anyone else who
>...?")
Many men are meek
These behaviors and genetic make up are not related. Is an aggressive
woman any less feminine?
Is a supportive male any less masculine?
*****************
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 18:23:01 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: Male/female language (was: thoughts on gender/sex)
My questions come from the implications of your observations of language.
>I'm not answering your questions because they have nothing to do
>with what I was talking about. I'm sure other people will be
>interested in the topic you brought up.
*****************
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 18:25:15 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: Male/female language (was: thoughts on gender/sex)
You said you weren't reliable because you are subjective. I am
suggesiting that reliable observations are important..and therefore
objectivity might be useful....for greater reliablity.
>--- David Presley
>
>> wouldn't it be a good idea to be "reliable"
>
>I don't understand what you're asking here ... could you elaborate?
>
>renata
*****************
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 20:02:28 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: Male/female language (was: thoughts on gender/sex)
No I try to objectively recognize my subjectivity. Then I can analyze
my subjectivity appropriately.
>--- David Streever
>
> > Objectivity is the only way ;-)
>
>This is interesting - please tell me more ... when you say
>objectivity is the only way I'm assuming you don't mean this only in
>a theoretical sense but in everyday practicality too - how do you go
>about being objective in everyday life? Do you ban subjective stuff
>like preferenes, tastes, feelings ... ?
>
>renata
*****************
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 16:06:08 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: An experimental gender group? (was: genderfree = free?)
--- Lynne Harding
(about my suggestion to experiment on gender)
> that sounds like an excellent idea...Wonder how the others feel about it?
Maybe we should set up a temporary list (on Egroups or something)
just for the experiment - anyone (except Lynne and me) feel like
trying this out?
Just imagine: a list where the main purpose is to cross/change
gender barriers - one could choose to be male/female/other or be
everything at the same time with different addies - like a gender
playground. Maybe we'd even come up with interesting conclusions.
,-)
Jon, you could use it in your book.
> BTW, sorry I didn't reply yesterday
No prob. ,-) (I typo'd "no probe"
renata
*****************
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 16:28:26 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: Male/female language (was: thoughts on gender/sex)
--- Simon Griggad
> So, according to your criteria, your mail was written in a male
style? :-)
Yes! Cool of you to notice - I intentionally tried to write it
male-ly (male-ish?).
renata
*****************
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 16:34:04 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: Male/female language (was: thoughts on gender/sex)
--- David Streever
> Objectivity is the only way ;-)
This is interesting - please tell me more ... when you say
objectivity is the only way I'm assuming you don't mean this only in
a theoretical sense but in everyday practicality too - how do you go
about being objective in everyday life? Do you ban subjective stuff
like preferenes, tastes, feelings ... ?
renata
*****************
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 20:12:16 -0500
From: David Streever
Subject: Re: An experimental gender group? (was: genderfree = free?)
Sounds excellent Renata. I'll join if you'll have me.
[[snip]]
*****************
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 17:51:14 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: Male/female language (was: thoughts on gender/sex)
--- David Presley
> No I try to objectively recognize my subjectivity. Then I can
>analyze my subjectivity appropriately.
Sorry - to me the above is just a lot of words in a row - could you
give an example?
renata
*****************
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 12:15:07 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: random thoughts
On 7 Feb 01, at 21:36, dpres wrote:
> Jon Marshall wrote:
>
> >
> > > Sometimes experiences contain mitigating factors which serve to
> > > dilute the original being addressed. Indvidual experiences do
> > > not have the necessary controls which allow the phenomena to be
> > > discussed in an unbiased fashion.
> >
> > I'm not entirely sure i understand what you are getting at here. But
> > if you are implying that individual experience can be worthless in
> > investigating social life (and i suspect you are not, but can't see
> > how else to read it), then I'd disagree.
> >
>
> I left out a key word in the above paragraph...I meant to say
> "sometimes experiences contain mitigating factors which serve to
> dilute the Original idea. being expressed....
Sorry! I'm still not sure what you are getting at :(
> I of course value individual experience. Individual experience is
> what motivates theory in the first place.
I'm glad that I recognised I must be misreading you
>Also individual experience
> can with the proper controls be used to disprove a theory....("a
> postive can never be proved") It is important to recognize the
> strength and the limitations of individual experiences. While
> "feelings" are important to the individual they are subjective...In
> other words each individual's experience of the color purple or gender
> is different....we can agree on what purple or gender is but never on
> what they feel like.
I'm also taking this as a reply to my assertion that thought involves
more than concepts....
In which case, I'd suggest that this point does not disprove this
assertion. It might even go far to agree with it. Firstly, by showing a
term for which subjectivity is important it could imply that this is
the case for other terms. For example, we might have even less
chance of figuring out whether we agree about what 'concept', or
'thought', or 'subjectivity' means, because I can't point towards, or
manipulate, 'concept', 'thought' or 'subjectivity' and check that it
categorises everything for me that it does for you, which we could
do, to some extent for 'purple'.
subjectivity, and embodiment, creep in everywhere.
> > Also, precisely because theory or interpretation is involved in any
> > experience, then *unbiased* discussion may well be impossible (or at
> > least the best you can aim for is to be ready to abandon your ideas
> > if they do not match up with people's experience). The possibility
> > of unbiased discussion being impossible does not, perhaps, excuse
> > flagrent bias, just as the uncertainty of knowledge does not justify
> > radically uncertain propositions - as in common defenses of
> > theology.
>
> This is true but what is your conclusion from this observation....?
One thing might be, that it might not be possible to simply remove
gender factors from speach, writing, behviour, response and
interpretation :)
jon
*****************
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 12:21:11 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: An experimental gender group? (was: genderfree = free?)
On 9 Feb 01, at 16:06, catcher at times wrote:
> Maybe we should set up a temporary list (on Egroups or something) just
> for the experiment - anyone (except Lynne and me) feel like trying
> this out?
Sounds interesting to me - perhaps we could also forward mails to
Cm for those who might like to observe but not to participate.
> Just imagine: a list where the main purpose is to cross/change
> gender barriers - one could choose to be male/female/other or be
> everything at the same time with different addies - like a gender
> playground. Maybe we'd even come up with interesting conclusions. ,-)
>
> Jon, you could use it in your book.
yes, the only question is who would set it up? assuming there are
enough of us to 'play'?
And i don't think egroups allows people to use substitute
addresses, obviously we'd recognise who we all were if we used
the same addresses - because we'd need, at the end of the
experiment, to find out what gender people 'actually' were, in order
to see how it went.
jon
*****************
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 18:10:27 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: An experimental gender group? (was: genderfree = free?)
--- Jon Marshall
> yes, the only question is who would set it up? assuming there are
>enough of us to 'play'?
On Egroups it takes about 5' to set up a list - I could fit that
into my busy schedule.,-)
How many members would you want at least?
> And i don't think egroups allows people to use substitute addresses,
I don't really know what you mean with "substitute addresses".
Anyone can make a Yahoo (or Hotmail or ...) address and sub to an
Egroups list with it.
> because we'd need, at the end of the experiment, to find out what
>gender people 'actually' were, in order to see how it went.
Practicalities (as I see them):
1. you choose an "objective" person (x) - h/she doesn't participate
2. x makes a list - membership settings should be:"to be approved"
because A) x has to keep track of who's subbing and b) it might be
best to only hafve members who are interested in the gender thing
3. anyone who wants to participate sends a sub request to x,
mentioning their real name and gender
4. members present themselves with whatever name/gender they choose
and x knows who's who
A remark: ot might be fun to invite people who aren't active in the
CM gender discussion (or not even CM members) but who are interested
in the topic - just to dazzle and confuse us all ,-)
Rem. 2: To really try out the gender thing, we should talk about all
kinds of topics, not only gender, I think.
------
I really hope we get enough enthusiasm - I'd absolutely love to do
this.
renata ,-)
On to Part 8
This page hosted by
Get your own Free Home Page