Date sent: 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 sent: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 20:17:32 +0100
From: Simon Griggad
Subject: Introduction [was: thoughts on gender/sex]
Renata, thanks for your reply.
I would like to apologize to the list members for not
having introduced myself in my first mail. I joined
this list because I'm curious whether the internet
will develop a new kind of human interaction,
retaining what is good in our traditional ways of
interacting, enhancing it with new possibilities, but
avoiding the associated shortcomings. The first of two
major shortcomings I see is that our sociality, which
is based on proximity, is good for groups of about 100
people, but doesn't scale to modern sizes of
communication groups. The second is that I suspect us
being caught in a runaway evolutionary process of
mutual deception. Our facilities for communication,
language, facial expressions, gestures, body postures,
etc., have evolved not only to signal and inform, but
also to significant degrees to deceive and detect
deception. This is similar to the situation of the
cheetah and the gazelle. Both have caused each other
lots of stress during the millennia, driving their
abilities to run or jump to extreme proportions, but
to what end? A human with a gun could kill either of
them without difficulty, no matter how fast the
cheetah can run or how far the gazelle can jump. Most
people are not aware how much of our daily
conscious/unconscious signals grow out of the need to
deceive or hide the true intentions. It is only when,
for some biological or psychological reason, one has
fallen behind in this communication arms race, that
one realizes how different we would interact if
talking to each other was like information flow from
one component to another, both parts of a system with
a single agenda.
I am suspected of having a slight form of Asperger's
Syndrome (that's when one reads faces like objects),
and get discouraged and frustrated at how much of what
is communicated is not really meant the way it at
first appears to me. Okay, to be honest, I am the only
person who suspects me of having Asperger's, and this
suspicion is very probably based more on the wish to
have a simple explanation for my difficulties in
socialization than on any real psychological evidence,
but it illustrates nicely how I perceive my situation.
I prefer to participate in discussions about difficult
matters via email; I don't understand how people feel
comfortable being confronted face to face, where one
always has to answer immediately, without having time
to think. When I'm in such a situation, I get nervous
and usually end up saying things that I regret later,
when I reflect on the discussion.
This is how I lost contact with a friend whose
intelligence I admire very much and with whom I have
had very fruitful discussions. The problem was that I
emailed him my thoughts, but he preferred to talk.
When I recall what I have learned from him and think
of how much more I could have learned, I very much
regret that we do not exchange ideas anymore.
One of the things he taught me has significantly
influenced how I see life and how I suspect human
communication to develop in the future, especially on
the internet. It is a new way of looking at the
Prisoner's Dilemma, the Drosophilia of game theorists.
The conventional view is that it is rational to defect
if no further interaction with the other prisoner is
likely, hence both prisoners defect and both are worse
off. The reason is that each one takes the other's
action as given and calculates the outcome of his own
possible decisions dependent on what the other
decided. What my friend told me is that people are
_similar_. No matter how I reason and decide, the
other one is likely to decide the same way. Under this
assumption, it is rational to cooperate.
Generalizing to everyday life, if we can convince
ourselves that we are dealing with people who are
similar to us with respect to decision making, we can
engage in profitable cooperations that would not be
possible from the standard view of the human as
rational, utility maximizing agent. I have come to
believe that many idiosyncrasies of human culture,
like religion and arts, that have eluded evolutionary
explanations, are a kind of mental pheromones: by
"sniffing" at each other, we find out how similar we
are with respect to our motivations and goals.
What I hope the cyberworld to evolve toward is some
semiautomatic way of letting people with compatible
mental chemistry engage in information exchange. This
would probably be facilitated if we could map aspects
of a 100 people society, which we have evolved lots of
neural hardware for, onto this cybercommunity, but I
have reservations. As I said above, a lot of what we
would be transferring is arms race baggage, which I
personally have problems dealing with. I'm not really
looking forward to the day when the internet allows
life-like face-to-face conversations, because I fear
they could become the norm.
What we _do_ have to transfer from real life is the
existence of some unfakeable characteristics. Today,
this is gender, age, etc., but it could be something
else in the cyberworld. The important thing is that it
must restrict the individual's freedom, because
unlimited freedom means restrictions in trust. Trust
is based on what the other can NOT do, not on what he
can do. Certain kinds of relationships, social or
economic, are not possible if one cannot rely on the
partner being not able (or at least unlikely) to do
certain things. In the case of gender, this is not to
be misunderstood to mean that men and women must
behave in gender-specific ways. It means that gender
confers information about likely behavior and this
information can be useful for all involved, but only
if gender cannot be faked at will. Therefore, my
position in the current gender debate is that
demanding to ignore gender online or pretend it has no
significance at all means throwing out a piece of
communicative machinery without filling the resulting
gap.
Simon
P.S.: Sorry for the length of this mail. I'm just a
male, after all. ;-)
****************
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 21:58:16 -0500
From: David Streever
Subject: Re: Male/female language (was: thoughts on gender/sex)
To be honest, it was meant lightheartedly, but I do mean it (to a certain
degree)
We all have an instictive response; an intuitive, emotional, primal
response which goes down to our deepest prejudices/biases (What you might
term "knowledge" or "experience") I attempt (with emphasis) to evaluate all
of these "gut feelings" and construct systematic jumps of logic based on
reasoning/intuitive thought processes that occur with "blinding speed"
(i.e. I try to evaluate like a computer very quickly)
I found something that helped me was learning to speed read. Excellent
programs on the net to help you learn how. I could for as long as I remember...
I'll go into some of my weird talents that this has helped me develop later!
At 04:34 PM 2/9/01 -0800, you wrote:
>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 ... ?
****************
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 12:09:14 +0200
From: Maurizio Mariotti
Subject: Re: Male/female language (was: thoughts on gender/sex)
Perhaps we should invite a moth-fly to join this conversation.
See, moth-flies change their sex about a dozen times during their
lives, and we could use the benefit of an insider's viewpoint...
M
****************
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 05:38:17 -0500
From: Dominic Fox
Subject: Re: Male/female language
I never was happy with that distinction between competition and co-
operation. The way to co-operate with someone who wants to play chess is to
play chess with her, and the way to play chess with her is to play chess
against her. There is also such a thing as competitive co-operation, e.g.
the game Burroughs called "who can get there fastest with the brownest
nose". One ought also to distinguish between horizontal co-operation, as
between members of a team, and vertical co-operation, as in being made an
offer you can't refuse...
****************
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 04:18:03 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: gender and performance
--- Jon Marshall
> However I think we do need some way of explaining why it is that
>it seems to be mainly males who think we can be gender free online
>and women who think this would be diminishing.
Has this been investigated, Jon?
Btw, another thought on being genderfree online (I'm gonna call this
BGO from now on) came to mind last night:
Does BGO mean that others experience you as BGO? Or does it mean too
that you experience yourself as BGO?
Most arguments I hear for BGO is that it would free us of prejudice
etc ... But if only others experience you as BGO and you still have
some gender consciousness, that would be missing the whole point,
wouldn't it?
So to be really genderfree online one would have to be genderfree in
RL too ... or am I getting it all wrong?
renata
****************
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 04:32:54 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: Male/female language
--- Dominic Fox
> I never was happy with that distinction between competition and
>co-operation.
Just some loose thoughts on the above:
I think there should be more than 2 words for these notions.
Competition is non-existent without co-operation - it takes two ...
First I was gonna write that I don't mind comptetition as long as
nobody gets hurt, but that would be untrue. F.e. one of my favourite
passtimes is playing with Kevin (an 8 year old boy). Especially when
we're playing computer games we're very competitive - and to be
honest, I don't give shit if he's unhappy when he looses - it's too
much fun to win! Still, we seem to have a satisfying balance in
these matters - when we get too close to hating eachother, we just
stop and play something else.
The notion of competition is dependent on the notion of
good/better/best. I often find myself in situations where I don't
want to compete (I just want to get the job done) but others force
me into the role beacuse they think I personally want to be better.
I wonder how it is here on CM - do you sometimes feel you have
scored with a post? Are you sometimes trying to outsmart an
"opponent"?
I tend to quit conversations that turn into competitions 'cause I
feel I'm not really learning from them - been there, done that ...
I often see females being modest/apologetic about knowledge/insight
- is it because they want to make it clear to males that they're not
competing (submissiveness)?
Another thing: why are there so little female comedians? Is it
because to be humourus one has to be irreverent?
renata
****************
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 15:08:15 +0100
From: Rowena
Subject: Re: Male/female language (was: thoughts on gender/sex)
On 9 Feb 2001, at 19:00, David Streever wrote:
> Objectivity is the only way ;-)
>
> (For me that is. You can be anyway you want, and I won't question
> you!)
Hi David,
does that mean you are an object and not a subject?
Rowena
****************
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 15:39:05 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: Male/female language (was: thoughts on gender/sex)
On 1 Jan 01, at 18:23, David Presley wrote:
> 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.
It seems to me, that yet again, your insistance on there being no
gender serves to delete or supress people's observations about the
effects of gender - in this case of the ways that mail can be
structured by gender.
jon
****************
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 15:39:06 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: gender and performance
Thanks for your response to these suggestions Rowena, they were
deeply interesting, and It does not really surprise me that what I
wrote might not be accurate for everyone (or anyone!).
However I think we do need some way of explaining why it is that it
seems to be mainly males who think we can be gender free online
and women who think this would be diminishing.
jon
****************
Date sent: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 07:06:20 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: Male/female language (was: thoughts on gender/sex)
I was merely pointing out the assumptions being made....and illustrating
the assumptions in the form of a question...it was "catcher" who decided
to not answer the questions
>On 1 Jan 01, at 18:23, David Presley wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>It seems to me, that yet again, your insistance on there being no
>gender serves to delete or supress people's observations about the
>effects of gender - in this case of the ways that mail can be
>structured by gender.
>
>jon
****************
Date sent: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 07:07:52 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: gender and performance
>Thanks for your response to these suggestions Rowena, they were
>deeply interesting, and It does not really surprise me that what I
>wrote might not be accurate for everyone (or anyone!).
>
>However I think we do need some way of explaining why it is that it
>seems to be mainly males who think we can be gender free online
>and women who think this would be diminishing.
>
>jon
a fully representative poll on this issue would be interesting. Keep in
mind a poll of cyberminders is a specialized group.
****************
Date sent: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 07:10:39 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: Male/female language
You have made some interesting observations regarding this issue.....I
think your distinctions are valid...I am not sure they are based on gender
though.
>I never was happy with that distinction between competition and co-
>operation. The way to co-operate with someone who wants to play chess is
>to play chess with her, and the way to play chess with her is to play
>chess against her. There is also such a thing as competitive
>co-operation, e.g. the game Burroughs called "who can get there fastest
>with the brownest nose". One ought also to distinguish between horizontal
>co-operation, as between members of a team, and vertical co-operation, as
>in being made an offer you can't refuse...
****************
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 11:04:45 -0600
From: Wendlyn Alter
Subject: Re: Introduction
Simon, I enjoyed your post, and it prompted me to introduce myself as well.
I've been lurking (on the digest) for several days, impressed and delighted
at the level of discourse here.
I've got to go back and search the archives for the origins of the gender
communication discussion. The subject has always interested me, even though
I tend to be skewed to the male pattern myself. Which reminds me -- for
those people who object that SOME men are supportive and SOME women are
aggressive -- well, of course. Most men are supportive sometimes, and most
women are aggressive sometimes; some men are more supportive than
assertive, etc. Just because there are instances that fall to the outer
edges of the statistical distribution does not mean one cannot make
generalizations. Tests show that men as a group have better 3-D
visualization ability than women as a group, yet I myself have better 3-D
visualization ability than most men. That doesn't invalidate the
statistical averages. We can study and understand tendencies without being
trapped in them. The more we understand, the broader our own available
range of behaviors becomes, and the more appropriately we can communicate
in a wide variety of circumstances.
(Renata, I love your idea of a gender-morph playground! A useful way to
practice new behaviors.)
Simon, back to your post - as Renata said, it's so meaty that I hardly know
where to start. Re Asperger's - I too believe I have a slight touch of the
syndrome, not an unrealistic theory since autism and Asperger's run
strongly through my extended family. I know exactly the bafflement you
describe at the mixed signals people give out, and the excruciating
challenge of sorting out what's true from what's wanted in response,
deciding whether and how to give back what's wanted, and being wrong much
of the time.
Smalltalk drives me nuts; I'm virtually incapable of it. I've often
wondered if people in the 19th century really did converse the way it looks
in the novels of the period - one person expostulates for two or three
pages, fully developing their theme; then someone else takes another three
pages to respond. That's what I love best about my online relationships -
having the time and freedom to go deep before going on. Modern live
conversation has dropped well below the level of a single complete
sentence. Simon, I empathize with the loss of your stimulating friend who
preferred f2f. I'm with you on that one. I've only known a few people
with whom I could truly enjoy long, indepth live conversations - people who
really settled in to listen, and think, and embrace the possibilities of
what I was saying, and then thoughtfully reply, knowing I would return that
level of respect and attention.
Enough for now. It will take me a week to fully respond to your many
insights!
Wendlyn Alter
Technology Director
techdirector@thewomensmuseum.org
The Women's Museum: An Institute for the Future
3800 Parry Ave. Dallas, TX 75226
214-915-0868
214-915-0870 (fax)
****************
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 22:17:49 +0100
From: Simon Griggad
Subject: Re: gender and performance
Jon Marshall wrote:
> However I think we do need some way of explaining
> why it is that it seems to be mainly males who think
> we can be gender free online and women who think
> this would be diminishing.
One idea:
Herring, in one of her papers you pointed us to a few
days ago, writes that most online activity is from
men. Therefore, women who go online face a more alien
communication culture than do men, and they have to
put more conscious effort into adapting to it, making
them more aware of the differences. Men, on the other
hand, read mostly messages written by men and hence
think it is normal for everybody to communicate in
their style.
Simon
****************
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 18:41:00 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: Introduction [was: thoughts on gender/sex]
lots snipped...
Doesn't the internetwith respect to communicating online enhance the
ability to decieve?
>Most
>people are not aware how much of our daily
>conscious/unconscious signals grow out of the need to
>deceive or hide the true intentions.
****************
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 18:47:49 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: Introduction
Does this mean then that Men "generally" are less supportive than women?,
etc? Have studies been done to show that this is true? Or is it more
true that men generally define "supportive" differently than women do
generally?
lots snipped
> Which reminds me -- for
>those people who object that SOME men are supportive and SOME women are
>aggressive -- well, of course. Most men are supportive sometimes, and most
>women are aggressive sometimes; some men are more supportive than
>assertive, etc. Just because there are instances that fall to the outer
>edges of the statistical distribution does not mean one cannot make
>generalizations.
****************
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 11:53:03 +0100
From: Rowena
Subject: Re: gender and performance
On 10 Feb 2001, at 22:17, Simon Griggad wrote:
> Jon Marshall wrote:
>
> > However I think we do need some way of explaining
> > why it is that it seems to be mainly males who think
> > we can be gender free online and women who think
> > this would be diminishing.
>
> One idea:
> Herring, in one of her papers you pointed us to a few
> days ago, writes that most online activity is from
> men. Therefore, women who go online face a more alien
> communication culture than do men, and they have to
> put more conscious effort into adapting to it, making
> them more aware of the differences. Men, on the other
> hand, read mostly messages written by men and hence
> think it is normal for everybody to communicate in
> their style.
>
I think this might very well be (at least) one aspect.
On an other list I am on (on feminist scifi and fantasy) is currently a
discussion about menstruation. This started with a story (by
Connie Willis "Even the queen" - I haven't read it), about a world
where women don't menstruate any more. The suggestion is,
according to some, that if women would shed this one unpractical
thing that makes them different from (inferior to) men true equality
would come. The implicit idea is menstruating=female and not-
menstruating=neutral. But if we would state that the norm would be
the majority and the minority would be the deviation, then we can
come to the conclusion that the majority of people are at the
moment capable of menstration, will be in the future or have
menstruated in the past. So perhaps true equality would come if
we all would menstruate.
I think since we are all born gendered (even if this might not be
clearly female or clearly male) I think we can not come to a
'gender-neutrality' (a person without any gendered characteristics).
I think that genderlessnes (on-line or of-line) is similar to objectivity,
an ideal that can't be reached, and in which name gendered (or
subjective) statements are disqualified, without taking into account
that they are subjective/gendered themselves.
Rowena
****************
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:15:55 +0100
From: Simon Griggad
Subject: Re: Introduction [was: thoughts on gender/sex]
David Presley wrote:
> Doesn't the internetwith respect to communicating
> online enhance the ability to decieve?
While the ability to deceive might be retained or even
somewhat enhanced, the incentive to do so is
drastically lowered in some situations. This has to do
with what I suggested in my mail: human sociality is
based on proximity. Our social environment consists of
the people we live and work with. Changing it means
moving somewhere else and is difficult and costly,
even if these people are not completely compatible
with our interests and values. When we travel to
another town or go on holidays and meet strangers, we
have a bigger interest pool to choose from, but since
we have to return home, those interactions are short.
Every individual has therefore an incentive to hide
his real interest/value "signature" from those he
lives with (because they need to get along with each
other even if they have very different signatures) and
from strangers he meets (because the shortness of the
interaction limits the usefulness of having found
someone with compatible signature, and signature
comparison is costly). On the internet, these problems
do not exist. Online, we have much more freedom in
shaping our social environment. There is the pool of
all internet users in the world to choose from, and
once someone interesting is found, the interaction can
be continued in the same way for as long as one
wishes. So on the internet, it pays to be more honest
about your interests (you can have many identities if
you feel honesty makes you vulnerable), while in real
life, you are better off smalltalking than telling
everyone what you really think.
Apropos smalltalk: Wendlyn, before your email, I
didn't know how to express concisely that for the life
of me I do not understand why people start every
conversation with talking about NOTHING, and sometimes
even blissfully spend hours this way. "Smalltalk
drives me nuts" is simply perfect. Thanks! :-)
(Actually, they are not really talking about nothing.
They probably just have a secret "second channel"
which carries the real information, but which is
invisible to some people.)
Simon
****************
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:26:53 +0100
From: Simon Griggad
Subject: Re: gender and performance
Rowena wrote:
> The suggestion is, according to some, that if
> women would shed this one unpractical thing
> [menstruation] that makes them different from
> (inferior to) men true equality would come.
Doesn't the idea of reducing the gender difference to
something that is inconvenient for only one gender
stem from a time when people were seriously discussing
whether women were thinking human beings, and from the
intention to "prove" that women were inferior? By
adopting this symbolism, isn't the author playing into
their hands? After all, there are many differences
between man and woman, and some of them are
inconvenient for men. For example, we have to shave
each day, sometimes cutting ourselves. So it's not
entirely true that we never bleed...
BTW, did you notice that every one of your paragraphs
started with "I think"?
Simon
****************
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:37:57 +0000
From: Gothwalker
Subject: Re: thoughts on gender/sex
On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 03:59:56PM -0800, catcher at times was observed to write:
> 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?
I know precisely what you mean.
And this kind of questioning adds no value to a discussion,
precisely because the other person is advancing no information.
There's a practioner of this currenly onlist too.
*glares*
Drew.
****************
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 16:03:41 +0100
From: Simon Griggad
Subject: Re: gender and performance
I wrote:
> For example, we have to shave each day, sometimes
> cutting ourselves.
It occured to me that this remark might have been
inappropriate. My main argument remains, but shaving
is likely not the proper counterpart to menstruation,
even if meant as a joke. The problem is that when
thinking of a list of differences between genders,
"menstruation" comes much later on a list written by a
man as opposed to one created by a woman, so we might
underestimate its emotional importance to women. A
non-menstruating woman might feel very different, but
I don't think many men would perceive or treat her
differently.
Simon
****************
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 18:40:07 +0330
From: Rowena Alberga
Subject: Re: gender and performance
Simon Griggad schreef:
>Doesn't the idea of reducing the gender difference to
>something that is inconvenient for only one gender
>stem from a time when people were seriously discussing
>whether women were thinking human beings, and from the
>intention to "prove" that women were inferior? By
>adopting this symbolism, isn't the author playing into
>their hands?
Perhaps, perhaps. Do remember the author wrote a story and
not an article. Besides, many times I've encountered the
(implicit) idea that woman are made different from the norm
by the fact that they menstruate or can give birth (or are
in some social way deviating from some implicit norm,
like 'people do such and such (like, behave agressively in
their teens), but women tend not to).
As far as I can make it out (without having read it) the
story is a satire on two streams of feminism, the strongly
egalitarian one (which can be accused of take the male
lifepatern for the norm and wanting to adapt to it) and the
eco-feminsm (or an other brand of difference feminsm, who
celebrate the differences between men and women).
>After all, there are many differences
>between man and woman, and some of them are
>inconvenient for men. For example, we have to shave
>each day, sometimes cutting ourselves. So it's not
>entirely true that we never bleed...
>
yes, and if I would chop you head of you would quite likely
bleed aswell. Sorry but I hate it when every time the topic
of menstruation is raised some man seems to pop up saying,
yes but we have to shave.
First, there is the difference that menstruation is part of
the female biology and the fact that men 'have' to shave is
part of Western culture, besides, in this same culture
women 'have' to shave many parts of their body aswell.
>BTW, did you notice that every one of your paragraphs
>started with "I think"?
No I hadn't noticed. But I haven't used this phrase even
once in this email. But since I am female after all, shall
I apologize for the length and the tone of this post
Rowena
****************
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 10:26:16 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: thoughts on gender/sex
Sometimes questions help clarify an issue.
>On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 03:59:56PM -0800, catcher at times was observed to
>write:
>> 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?
>
> I know precisely what you mean.
>
> And this kind of questioning adds no value to a discussion,
> precisely because the other person is advancing no information.
>
> There's a practioner of this currenly onlist too.
> *glares*
>
> Drew.
****************
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:14:45 +0330
From: Rowena Alberga
Subject: Re: thoughts on gender/sex
David Presley
>Sometimes questions help clarify an issue.
>
>>On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 03:59:56PM -0800, catcher at
>>times was observed to write:
>>
>> And this kind of questioning adds no value to a discussion,
>> precisely because the other person is advancing no information.
>>
>> There's a practioner of this currenly onlist too.
>> *glares*
>>
-------------
yes, when they are written in the right spirit.
Oh David, in dutch we do have a saying; "wie de schoen past
trekke hem aan." (if the shoe fits you, put it) do you have
an equivalent in english?
Rowena
****************
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:44:00 +0330
From: Rowena Alberga
Subject: Re: gender and performance
I am not sure if I've allready sent this post (it didn't
appear in my inbox), so I've sent it again (even a bit
longer this time, sorry <g>)
Simon Griggad
>I wrote:
>
>> For example, we have to shave each day, sometimes
>> cutting ourselves.
>
>It occured to me that this remark might have been
>inappropriate.
I got this post just a split second after I had reacted to
your last one.
>My main argument remains, but shaving
>is likely not the proper counterpart to menstruation,
>even if meant as a joke. The problem is that when
>thinking of a list of differences between genders,
>"menstruation" comes much later on a list written by a
>man as opposed to one created by a woman, so we might
>underestimate its emotional importance to women. A
>non-menstruating woman might feel very different, but
>I don't think many men would perceive or treat her
>differently.
This might be true in our culture (quite egalitarian
western culture), but in many, many places in the world
infertile women are not treated kindly. I think that in my
country (=the Netherlands) women who don't menstruate might
for example be treated quite differently when they are
trying to get a (heterosexual) relationship (this is a
guess, I don' know any (young) women who don't menstruate).
In the other 'sectors' of life I think it is indeed quite
likely that many men might not perceive non-menstruating
women differently. (but I won't be surprised if some would,
though).
And the women themselves? All accounts I've read of women
who had an extremely early menopauze (in their thirties or
even earlier) (sometimes because of an illness) reported at
least some 'mental discomfort' with it, some need to
reposition themselves towards their womenhood. I wouldn't
be suprised if women who have never menstruated have a
similar experience.
Though, on the other hand, many women seem to answer 'yes'
when asked if they would like to stop menstruating (see
http://www.mum.org/stopmen.htm). But a voluntary break is
something different from something you are confronted
with.
I do not know what would be a good 'mirror image', perhaps
spermproduction? (for some parts of the comparison, no way
all, but it can be messy and it has to do with fertility)
I don't think I would treat a men who doesn't produce sperm
(is there a condition with this effect?) any differently in
daily life, but possibly if I wanted a relationship with
him. Do you think it would be an emotional thing for a men
if he didn't produce any sperm?
Rowena
****************
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 17:22:25 +0100
From: Simon Griggad
Subject: Re: gender and performance
Hi Rowena,
> No I hadn't noticed. But I haven't used this phrase
> even once in this email. But since I am female after
> all, shall I apologize for the length and the tone
> of this post
It really wasn't meant this way. I am as surprised and
embarrassed by your response as you are (perhaps
rightly) offended. I had written a comment on the
inappropriateness of the shaving remark, but it
doesn't seem to have reached you soon enough and it
appears that the rest of my mail was as offensive.
> Sorry but I hate it when every time the topic
> of menstruation is raised some man seems to pop up
> saying, yes but we have to shave.
I haven't heard it before. This proves to me that I
can come up with some really stupid chauvinistic jokes
all by myself, which I'm not happy about. Your mail
was the first one I ever read about menstruation, so I
grossly underestimated what it means for you and other
women. Before, the only use of menstruation as gauge
for valuing women I heard of was in fundamentalist
religions and I thought of it as one of the many means
by which men justify their dominance. Please
understand my response to your mail as the question
"why do women adopt such a metric which doesn't seem
to relate to anything we value today, like personality
or success in life?". You seem to have taken it to
mean something else.
When discussing, I usually try to understand why the
other one has the position she has before I reply, but
I'm really at a loss here. Likewise, I don't
understand your reaction to my "I think" remark. I was
fascinated by Renatas checklist, because it gave me a
formal means of judging how masculine/feminine an
author is. I always try to find such formalizable
knowledge, as it helps me get along where my intuition
fails me (which is quite often). Your mail exhibited a
visual regularity in this regard, which just jumped
into my eye. I enjoy finding visual regularities that
help me find out what others find out by other means.
I thought you would react to my remark as I would
react to a remark about how my mail can be
characterized by some formal means: with fascination.
I actually expected it to be useful in light of the
coming gender-flow experimental list: drawing your
attention to this might help you disguise yourself
better, or might help men to be better women.
I see that I was wrong. If you don't mind, could you
tell me what intention/attitude you saw in my mail
that offended you? I bear no ill will towards you or
women in general, and would like to know how and why
something like that came across. I am very unhappy
with how all this turned out and certainly don't want
it to happen again.
Simon
****************
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 11:25:33 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: thoughts on gender/sex
yes we do: When the shoe fits, wear it
>Oh David, in dutch we do have a saying; "wie de schoen past
>trekke hem aan." (if the shoe fits you, put it) do you have
>an equivalent in english?
>
>Rowena
****************
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 22:08:40 +0330
From: Rowena Alberga
Subject: menstruation and offense (was:gender and performance)
hi Simon,
Simon Griggad
quoting me:
>> No I hadn't noticed. But I haven't used this phrase
>> even once in this email. But since I am female after
>> all, shall I apologize for the length and the tone
>> of this post
>
>It really wasn't meant this way. I am as surprised and
>embarrassed by your response as you are (perhaps
>rightly) offended. I had written a comment on the
>inappropriateness of the shaving remark, but it
>doesn't seem to have reached you soon enough and it
>appears that the rest of my mail was as offensive.
Simon, please don't fret. I had meant to ad an <g> after
the above quote but it seems that it somehow went missing.
I certainly didn't take your remark about my 'I think's' as
offensive in any way. I did enjoy Renata's list of
gendercharacteric writing and if you would have asked me
whether my own writing was very 'female' I would have
answered 'not very'. It is interesting to see that
this 'self image' doesn't necessarily corelate with other
people's impression.
>> Sorry but I hate it when every time the topic
>> of menstruation is raised some man seems to pop up
>> saying, yes but we have to shave.
>
>I haven't heard it before. This proves to me that I
>can come up with some really stupid chauvinistic jokes
>all by myself, which I'm not happy about.
<g> it is interesting that you come up with this popular
remark - maybe it is somehow an automatic response (is it
in the male genes somehow?)
>Your mail
>was the first one I ever read about menstruation, so I
>grossly underestimated what it means for you and other
>women.
I hope I made some of it a bit clearer in my other response
to your post.
>Before, the only use of menstruation as gauge
>for valuing women I heard of was in fundamentalist
>religions and I thought of it as one of the many means
>by which men justify their dominance. Please
>understand my response to your mail as the question
>"why do women adopt such a metric which doesn't seem
>to relate to anything we value today, like personality
>or success in life?". You seem to have taken it to
>mean something else.
The aim of my 1st post about this topic was to give an
illustration on the difficulty of the concept 'gender
neutrality'. Following the discussion on the other list I
realized that I would have considered 'menstruating' a
gendered characteristic and 'not-menstruating' as
a 'neutral characteristic' while it is better to be
understood as a gendered characteristic as well.
Compairable as the tendency (as you pointed out) to
consider 'male language' as neutral and 'female language'
as gendered.
>If you don't mind, could you
>tell me what intention/attitude you saw in my mail
>that offended you?
I was a bit disappointed (and angry) that what seems to be
a knee-jerk reaction for man if the word 'menstruation'
pops up (remarks about shaving) was the first response to
my post (maybe I've just heard that remark just uncommonly
often and do I just take it out on you.) - while you
ignored the point I tried to make with it. It fits in a
patern where men don't listen about remarks as soon as
menstruation is mentioned. (an unfortunate patern, with
exceptions luckily)
>I bear no ill will towards you or
>women in general, and would like to know how and why
>something like that came across. I am very unhappy
>with how all this turned out and certainly don't want
>it to happen again.
It is good to hear that you don't bear ill will towards all
women - just to make sure that everyone here knows I don't -
I don't bear ill will towards all men. Neither do I bear
ill will towards you.
In a conversation/discussion people can sometimes say
things that offend the other (I sure seem to do that
sometimes), but I do hope there is always room for
clarification. And otherwise, what is a bit of offense
among friends ! <attempt at male camaraderie >
Rowena
****************
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 22:29:47 +0330
From: Rowena Alberga
Subject: strange censure
I definately don't understand my own email-program. It
seems to commit censureship on my emoticons. Last time the
<g> was missing at the end of post (while it was
desperately needed) and now, an other such remarks seems to
be lost somewhere. At the end of my last post I wrote:
>And otherwise, what is a bit of offense
>among friends ! <attempt at male camaraderie>
but in the version I received myself the thing between
hooked brackets is gone (just in case it is gone again, it
says: attempt at male camaraderie). The strangest thing is,
when I order 'reply' it appeared again in the quote.
What is going on?? (is someone trying to make me sound like
a potential flame-starter? am I getting paranoid?)
please believe me I am a very nice girl <g> <g> <g> (lots
of smilers added)
Rowena
****************
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 22:38:20 +0330
From: Rowena Alberga
Subject: Re: strange censure
Rowena Alberga
>I definately don't understand my own email-program. It
>seems to commit censureship on my emoticons. Last time the
><g> was missing at the end of post (while it was
>desperately needed)
it was ofcourse a *g* that was missing (a "g" between fish
hooks or what ever they are called. This is really really
strange. Can someone please tell me, do my <g>'s appear in
your version of this email?
Rowena
****************
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 22:39:25 +0330
From: Rowena Alberga
Subject: Re: nice girl
dweiss@earthlink.net schreef:
>r u really
>
>>please believe me I am a very nice girl <g> <g> <g> (lots
>>of smilers added)
have you got a reason to doubt it?
Rowena
****************
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:05:59 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: nice girl
LOL Have i got a reason to Believe it??
>dweiss@earthlink.net schreef:
>
>>r u really
>>
>>>please believe me I am a very nice girl <g> <g> <g> (lots
>>>of smilers added)
>>
>
>have you got a reason to doubt it?
>
>Rowena
****************
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 22:47:57 +0330
From: Rowena Alberga
Subject: Re: nice girl
David Presley
>LOL Have i got a reason to Believe it??
>
nope
****************
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:15:20 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: nice girl
>David Presley
>
>>LOL Have i got a reason to Believe it??
>>
>
>nope
Thats what i thought.
****************
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 22:54:12 +0330
From: Rowena Alberga
Subject: Re: strange censure
dweiss@earthlink.net schreef:
>its there in mine....but then again i am male
oh, that must be the answer to everything
Rowena
****************
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:02:32 +0330
From: Rowena Alberga
Subject: Re: strange censure
dweiss@earthlink.net schreef:
>It can be!!! :)
>
>>dweiss@earthlink.net schreef:
>>
>>>its there in mine....but then again i am male
>>>
>>
>>oh, that must be the answer to everything
>>
>>Rowena
>
if there ever was a change of standpoint
Rowena
****************
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:20:49 +0330
From: Rowena Alberga
Subject: Re: strange censure
dweiss@earthlink.net schreef:
>But this is not an intellectual exchange of ideas.
>
oh.. (sigh of diapointment) (giggle)
I've got two questions
1) is there a clear distinction between 'intellectual
excanges of ideas' and that what isn't?
2) do all your earlier remarks about 'gender free online'
apply to 'intellectual exchanges of ideas' only ?
Rowena
****************
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:50:22 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: strange censure
>dweiss@earthlink.net schreef:
>
>>
>>But this is not an intellectual exchange of ideas.
>
>oh.. (sigh of diapointment) (giggle)
>
do only women giggle?
>I've got two questions
>
>1) is there a clear distinction between 'intellectual
>excanges of ideas' and that what isn't?
No i guess there is a spectrum.....with no clear delineation.
>2) do all your earlier remarks about 'gender free online'
>apply to 'intellectual exchanges of ideas' only ?
In general yes....Obviously gender has a role to play in life.....The
question is really how to uncover sexism in all the many places it likes to
hide.....For example should I assume that you are a poor chess player since
you r female.....???
Rest assured I appreciate the many charms of the female gender
>Rowena
****************
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:39:21 +0330
From: Rowena Alberga
Subject: Re: strange censure
David Presley
>>dweiss@earthlink.net schreef:
>>>But this is not an intellectual exchange of ideas.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>oh.. (sigh of diapointment) (giggle)
>>
>do only women giggle?
no, in my experience many gay men like to giggle.
in my opinion it is definately one of the drawbacks of many
straight men.
>>I've got two questions
>>
>>1) is there a clear distinction between 'intellectual
>>excanges of ideas' and that what isn't?
>
>No i guess there is a spectrum.....with no clear delineation.
>
>>2) do all your earlier remarks about 'gender free online'
>>apply to 'intellectual exchanges of ideas' only ?
>
>In general yes....Obviously gender has a role to play in life.....The
>question is really how to uncover sexism in all the many places it likes to
>hide.....For example should I assume that you are a poor chess player since
>you r female.....???
>
>Rest assured I appreciate the many charms of the female gender
well, actually, that strikes me as quite a sexist remark.
I am an extremely poor chessplayer, I have quite a poor
sense of direction and my 3-dimensional apprehension is
also dreadfull.
I took it in jest, but your earlier remark sugested that I
couldn't handle my own email-program because I was female.
Rowena
****************
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:06:41 -0500
From: David Presley
Subject: Re: strange censure
[[snip]]
>>In general yes....Obviously gender has a role to play in life.....The
>>question is really how to uncover sexism in all the many places it likes to
>>hide.....For example should I assume that you are a poor
>>chess player since you r female.....???
>>
>>Rest assured I appreciate the many charms of the female gender
>
>well, actually, that strikes me as quite a sexist remark.
>I am an extremely poor chessplayer, I have quite a poor
>sense of direction and my 3-dimensional apprehension is
>also dreadfull.
>
>I took it in jest, but your earlier remark sugested that I
>couldn't handle my own email-program because I was female.
>
>Rowena
exactly!! These types of assumptions should not be made.....and in fact
they can't be made if gender was not a component of online communications.
****************
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:59:03 +0330
From: Rowena Alberga
Subject: Re: strange censure
David Presley
>>I took it in jest, but your earlier remark sugested that I
>>couldn't handle my own email-program because I was female.
>>
>>Rowena
>
>exactly!! These types of assumptions should not be made.....and in fact
>they can't be made if gender was not a component of online communications.
So, you would want to ban 'gender' from all online
communications, not only 'intellectual excanges of ideas' ?
Rowena
****************
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:45:54 -0500
From: Tom Ellis
Subject: Re: nice girl
Smacks of trolling to me....it is better to assume that one is nice until
given evidence otherwise; life is longer and happier that way.
-----Original Message-----
Subject: Re: nice girl
>David Presley
>
>>LOL Have i got a reason to Believe it??
>>
>
>nope
Thats what i thought.
****************
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:46:59 -0500
From: Tom Ellis
Subject: Re: strange censure
No, only women generally admit to giggling. I know some very 'macho' men
who I've seen giggle.
-----Original Message-----
Subject: Re: strange censure
>dweiss@earthlink.net schreef:
>
>>
>>But this is not an intellectual exchange of ideas.
>
>oh.. (sigh of diapointment) (giggle)
>
do only women giggle?
****************
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:48:21 -0500
From: Tom Ellis
Subject: Re: strange censure
I see your <g>
-----Original Message-----
Subject: Re: strange censure
Rowena Alberga
>I definately don't understand my own email-program. It
>seems to commit censureship on my emoticons. Last time the
>
>desperately needed)
it was ofcourse a *g* that was missing (a "g" between fish
hooks or what ever they are called. This is really really
strange. Can someone please tell me, do my <g<'s appear in
your version of this email?
Rowena
****************
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 00:28:48 +0330
From: Rowena Alberga
Subject: Re: strange censure
Tom Ellis
>I see your <g>
an other man.
Please dear God of the emoticons, don't let this be a
gender related thing,
Rowena
****************
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 16:00:10 -0500
From: Tom Ellis
Subject: Re: strange censure
<giggle>
-----Original Message-----
Subject: Re: strange censure
Tom Ellis
>I see your <g>
an other man.
Please dear God of the emoticons, don't let this be a
gender related thing,
Rowena
****************
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 22:26:07 +0100
From: Simon Griggad
Subject: Re: menstruation and offense (was:gender and performance)
Hi Rowena,
I'm glad this has been clarified. I didn't see the
at the end of the first mail, but I see at least some
of them in your later mails. Small causes, big
effects. It seems that the internet lacks some kind of
security measures that prevent such butterfly effects
in real life (butterfly effect: it is said that a
butterfly flapping its wings in Florida can affect the
weather in London a week later). At least the
conclusions one can draw from this experience are
relevant to the topic of this list. One might almost
suspect you and me of having staged all this dramatic
fight against rainmaking butterflies, nasty "shaving
genes" which sponge upon the male genome, and
malicious email programs! ;-)
Simon
****************
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 16:54:16 -0500
From: Tom Ellis
Subject: Converging
As soon as they touched, it was clear that their code was compatible. He
moves his data manipulators over her soft, virtual curves. She moaned,
arching her avatar on the e-couch, open to his every advance and desire.
Their mouths touched, and each was consumed by the searing Oneness, as it
engulfed them in it's firey ball of sensory overload. Each was the other,
joined by rapidly oscillating sockets, data streaming back and forth, to and
fro. His 'hands' traced the outlines of her avatar, tasting the data as it
streamed into his consciousness. As he entered her avatar with his AI
probe, he thought that he would lose his very sense of self; so complete was
the Convergence that he could scarcely tell where his data ended and hers
began.
She/He cried out, one being, joined in the escasy of Convergence. Data
continued to stream, saturating their bandwidth to it's limit. As one,
She/He almost blacked out as the Vrgasm took She/He. Searing
pleasure/pain/memory/emotion/control/ecstasy/longing/remorse/joy/insanity
gripped them to their very microcode.
Collapsing in their respective pods, still connected by tenuous
data-streams, they panted, and whispered their love for each other.
****************
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:27:26 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: strange censure
--- David Presley
> Rest assured I appreciate the many charms of the female gender
You could have fooled me.
renata, couldn't resist
****************
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 15:00:09 +1100
From: Esther Milne
Subject: Re: gender and performance
At 15:39 10/02/01 +0000, Jon wrote:
snip
>However I think we do need some way of explaining why it is that it
>seems to be mainly males who think we can be gender free online
>and women who think this would be diminishing.
>
>jon
>
Yes I have this impression too Jon. It does seem to be the case.
Oh hang on, I might just try that again using 'Renata's Lexicon':
Yes this is the case.
Wow! Now i see why you guys want to hang on to the gender thing.
Seriously (and i was pretty much actually) i noticed this right from
the start of the gender debate. That some of the guys on the list
were discussion the issue in a way that suggested the default
position was 'male'.
e.
****************
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 22:08:34 -0600
From: wisdom's aspirant
Subject: Re: strange censure
>do only women giggle?
No, my guy giggles! He laughs out loud at such small, silly things. It is
very refreshing, makes me look twice at little joys. And he ain't no dummy!
He was in NASA, plotting the orbits of Apollo missions, many long years ago.
I think he spends as much time at his computer as Alan apparently does but
he's doing (shudder!) math.
Deanna, who is relearning the art of giggle
****************
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 22:14:43 -0600
From: wisdom's aspirant
Subject: Re: strange censure
I see your
Did anyone see Jane Fonda on 20/20? How embarrassing! I was rather sad for
her. I am glad she's working to end female circumcision. But she seems to
identify with her vagina, and that (she said) is her most important
attribute. If a man said that I'd kick him in his...well, never mind. :-)
I do like my vagina and I like to have it tickled. But there is a lot more
to me than that!
Deanna
-----Original Message-----
From: Rowena Alberga
Date: Sunday, February 11, 2001 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: strange censure
>Tom Ellis
>
>>I see your <g>
>
>an other man.
>Please dear God of the emoticons, don't let this be a
>gender related thing,
>
>Rowena
>
****************
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:47:43 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: Introduction
On 10 Feb 01, at 11:04, Wendlyn Alter wrote:
> I've got to go back and search the archives for the origins of the
> gender communication discussion.
it might be easier to try the web site in the sig file.
jon
*****************************
Cybermind Gender Project:
http://geocities.datacellar.net/jpmarshall.geo/cybermind/gender/index.html
****************************
****************
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:47:43 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: gender and performance
On 10 Feb 01, at 4:18, catcher at times wrote:
> --- Jon Marshall
>
> > However I think we do need some way of explaining why it is that
> >it seems to be mainly males who think we can be gender free online and
>> women who think this would be diminishing.
>
> Has this been investigated, Jon?
We are doing so now :)
I honestly do not know. There seems to be plenty of work showing
that the online world is anything but gender free, but little that I'm
aware of to say why it is males who are promulgating the idea, or
experiencing themselves as 'gender free'.
> Btw, another thought on being genderfree online (I'm gonna call this
> BGO from now on) came to mind last night:
>
> Does BGO mean that others experience you as BGO? Or does it mean too
> that you experience yourself as BGO?
>
> Most arguments I hear for BGO is that it would free us of prejudice
> etc ... But if only others experience you as BGO and you still have
> some gender consciousness, that would be missing the whole point,
> wouldn't it?
I agree, for what that is worth. Because gender, like other social
(and human bio) processes is interactive. It never comes from the
individual acting alone.
And then there is the issue that even if you want to be gender free,
that probably does not guarrantee you can carry it off, or that
others can also carry it off.
So if we think that we are being ignored because, say, we are male
etc. then that, in itself shows that we are not 'gender free' ourselves.
> So to be really genderfree online one would have to be genderfree in
> RL too ... or am I getting it all wrong?
Well I think that gender equality, which strikes me as a much more
realistic and useful aim than gender freedom, is better obtained
offline and transfered to the online world, as most of our lives still
occur offline.
jon
****************
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:47:43 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: gender and performance
On 10 Feb 01, at 22:17, Simon Griggad wrote:
> One idea:
> Herring, in one of her papers you pointed us to a few
> days ago, writes that most online activity is from
> men. Therefore, women who go online face a more alien
> communication culture than do men, and they have to
> put more conscious effort into adapting to it, making
> them more aware of the differences. Men, on the other
> hand, read mostly messages written by men and hence
> think it is normal for everybody to communicate in
> their style.
yes I think this is true, the 'established' have made 'the normal'.
But, perhaps offline power has something to do with it?
humans who belong to the empowered category, often seem to
think that they alone are fully human, and can thus ignore every
ability, or varient, which does not belong to themselves.
Or it might be, as perhaps Dale Spender would argue, that
discussion is in the offline world, by default male, with the 'feminine'
being seen as an interuption of 'normal' important (non-gendered)
stuff. So the male again becomes the default and the female the
inessential.
This might go back to the earlier point about the default western
human self historically becoming male, as in 'Man'.
jon
****************
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 15:28:03 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: gender bibliogrphy update
I've just udated the gender online bibliography at:
http://geocities.datacellar.net/jpmarshall.geo/cybermind/gender/gend-
bib.html
so there is more to read if you want.
On to Part 9
This page hosted by
Get your own Free Home Page