Subject: Re: strange censure
wisdom's aspirant
>I see your <g> and I'm a gurril (blush, blush).
are you absolutely sure about that? (another <g> just in case)
>Did anyone see Jane Fonda on 20/20? How embarrassing!
no, I am afraid she and I don't move in the same circles.
What does 20/20 mean?
>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 mostimportant
>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!
even to call your vagina an attribute seems a bit strange
to me. (but perhaps that has to do with the difference
between the dutch word 'atribuut' and the english variant)
btw, when would you kick a men in his groin (I guess that
was what you were aiming for):
- if he said that your vagina was your most important attribute
- if he said that his penis was his most important attribute
Rowena
****************
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:44:13 +0100
From: Simon Griggad
Subject: Re: gender and performance
Jon Marshall wrote:
> But, perhaps offline power has something to do with it?
> [...]
I think I agree, just let me express it in my own
words so we can be sure whether I understand what you
are saying.
Men can wear trousers, have short hair, and no makeup.
Women can do all this as well, but in addition they
can deviate from this norm to deliberately emphasize
their femininity. If we demand to diminish or abolish
such gender differences in appearance, it is assumed
that the only accepted appearance is that of the
lowest common denominator. This denominator
corresponds with the male style, and takes away what
is female specific: everybody will wear trousers,
short hair and no makeup. Men wouldn't have to change
their behavior, while women would be taken away from
some possible ways of expressing themselves.
This might explain why women tend to oppose this
unisex dogma more than men. However, there are two
problems with this view: first, men sometimes find
women with skirts, long hair and makeup more
attractive, while I haven't heard anybody saying that
a woman is attractive because she writes in a female
style.
Second, Renata says she can easily tell from the
writing style whether the author is male or female. It
seems that women feel more uncomfortable writing in a
male style than they feel wearing trousers. Perhaps a
better offline analogy would be cars: it is said that
men prefer bigger, heavier cars, which women feel
uncomfortable in. However, demanding unisex cars would
take possibilities away from both genders, so men
wouldn't consider it less problematic than women.
It seems that neither the trouser nor the car analogy
really fits the online situation. I still think what
you say about offline power sounds right, but it would
be nice to have a better offline example than those I
have come up with.
Simon
****************
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:08:36 -0600
From: Wendlyn Alter
Subject: Re: Mankind as Those Who Menstruate
Jon writes,
"This might go back to the earlier point about the default western
human self historically becoming male, as in 'Man'."
The experience of menstruation may well have originally been THE defining
characteristic of homo sapiens.
A strong case can be made that during the emergence of Neolithic culture,
the human self was historically female. Even the word "Man" signifies
"those who measure," "moon," "menstruate." The human animal (specifically,
the female human animal) developed the science of mensuration as a direct
consequence of menstruation. The Paleolithic Venus of Laussel,
demonstrating with one hand her pregnant belly and in the other holding up
the horn (moon symbol) with the fifteen notches cut into it (the optimal
point in the cycle for becoming pregnant) is our first human image of a
scientist.
Out of this grew many other sciences and engineering feats involving
counting, measuring, time-keeping and advance planning, all initially
invented and practiced by females - textile production, agriculture, the
use of kilns, food preparation, beer brewing, etc., during a time when male
activities were predominantly still the same as in the Paleolithic period.
There's a good reason why Sumerian mythology credited the goddess Inanna,
Queen of Heaven and Earth, with providing humans with the 'me's (or in
current terminology, memes) of civilization.
Sumerian mythology also documents how reluctantly and belatedly males came
along for the ride. The Old Testament confirms as well that fruit of the
Tree of Knowledge was initially plucked by the woman.
I have an amusing theory that gender priority alternates through history,
moving civilization forward through a pumping action with a cycle time of
eons. We're in the process now of alternating back into a female-prominent
stage of development, of which the internet is a dramatic initial
development. We may still use vestigious male language here, but the medium
is feminine and will ultimately drive us to new forms of communication.
Wendlyn Alter
Technology Director
techdirector@thewomensmuseum.org
****************
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:40:14 -0500
From: Tom Ellis
Subject: Re: Mankind as Those Who Menstruate
I am genuinely curious as to how this medium is feminine?
****************
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:57:50 -0600
From: rak
Subject: Re: Mankind as Those Who Menstruate
>===== Original Message From Tom Ellis
>I am genuinely curious as to how this medium is feminine?
>
>.
Tom, need you ask?
This is simply nothing more than an another attempt to
ooops.
the gender cops are out.
HIDE HIDE HIDE !!!
Robert A. Kezelis
****************
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:26:50 -0500
From: Tom Ellis
Subject: Re: Mankind as Those Who Menstruate
I need ask, because I don't think there is a logical....DAMN! (ducks under
his desk)
-----Original Message-----
Subject: Re: Mankind as Those Who Menstruate
>===== Original Message From Tom Ellis
>I am genuinely curious as to how this medium is feminine?
>
>.
Tom, need you ask?
This is simply nothing more than an another attempt to
ooops.
the gender cops are out.
HIDE HIDE HIDE !!!
Robert A. Kezelis
****************
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:27:51 -0600
From: Wendlyn Alter
Subject: errata
Wrong word usage in my last post --
replace "eons" with "millenia"
replace "vestigious" with "vestigial"
That'll teach me to proof-read before firing!
If anyone has already corrected me, I'm sorry - this being on digest can be
frustrating.
Wendlyn Alter
Technology Director
techdirector@thewomensmuseum.org
****************
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 20:58:27 -0500
From: Tom Ellis
Subject: Curious
I am curious about a practical matter. What specifications does the
computer you most often use to connect to the Internet have? Processor,
memory, video capabilities, hard drive size, whatever else you care to
share. I'm interested in what our demographic is like.
Tom, ever hungry
[[included because it starts an extremely intense thread on the machinery people use, which in offlist conversation is seen by some members as a male-gendered response to discussion of gender, but see one example below 18th Feb]]
****************
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 21:28:46 -0600
From: wisdom's aspirant
Subject: Re: strange censure
>no, I am afraid she and I don't move in the same circles.
>What does 20/20 mean?
20/20 is a program dealing with events of current interest in the USA. I
don't usually watch it but I was interested in Jane Fonda's re-appearance in
public after several years.
>when would you kick a men in his groin (I guess that
>was what you were aiming for):
>
>- if he said that your vagina was your most important >attribute
>- if he said that his penis was his most important attribute
If he said my vagina was my most important attribute (you're right: that is
a strange way to speak of it), I would want to kick him. If he said his
penis was his most important attribute I would just think he was stupid.
Deanna
****************
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 23:20:51 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: strange censure
--- wisdom's aspirant
> If he said my vagina was my most important attribute, I would want
>to kick him. If he said his penis was his most important attribute I
>would just think he was stupid.
A man I know once declared:"If you ask me, women are just made to be
masturbation pits."
I didn't kick him, but he was close.
renata
****************
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 03:29:16 -0500
From: Dominic Fox
Subject: Re: Mankind as Those Who Menstruate
>I have an amusing theory that gender priority alternates through history,
>moving civilization forward through a pumping action with a cycle time of
>eons. We're in the process now of alternating back into a female-prominent
>stage of development,
Nooo! Nooooooo!
This is so not the way to go...
Dom
****************
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 09:53:45 -0600
From: Wendlyn Alter
Subject: Re: Mankind as Those Who Menstruate
>>I have an amusing theory that gender priority alternates through history,
>>moving civilization forward through a pumping action with a cycle time of
>>eons. We're in the process now of alternating back into a female-prominent
>>stage of development,
>
>Nooo! Nooooooo!
>
>This is so not the way to go...
>
>Dom
Okay, what IS the way to go? What's your vision?
I wasn't trying to advocate anything - my theory of the
alternating-current method of powering human development is based
on observation of how things seem to actually BE, not how they
"should" be. Nature just does seem to like to use pumping action,
cycles, to keep things moving and growing. But after all, it's
not much of a theory since it's based on only a single observable
cycle so far.
BTW - I've subbed from my home address, since I could see this
list was going to be way too distracting at work.
- Wyn Alter
****************
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 10:54:59 -0500
From: David Streever
Subject: Re: strange censure
HTML, Rowena. You must be sending it as HTML, or recieving it as such, so
it cuts out that bracket. In HTML, a < followed by a word, followed by a
"close bracket" represents an html command. Try it like this: *G* or some
other such symbol.
At 10:29 PM 2/11/01 +0330, you wrote:
>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: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 10:55:31 -0500
From: David Streever
Subject: Re: nice girl
I recieve your "G"s because I never recieve mail as HTML
At 10:39 PM 2/11/01 +0330, you wrote:
>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: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 10:00:04 -0600
From: Wendlyn Alter
Subject: Re: strange censure
>A man I know once declared:"If you ask me, women are just made to be
>masturbation pits."
>
>I didn't kick him, but he was close.
>
>renata
What a strange, sad, lonely world that man lives in. Lucky for
him, there will still always be women who will try to care for
him. Women are funny that way.
--Wyn
****************
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 16:04:29 +0000
From: Rowena Alberga
Subject: Re: strange censure
-------------------------------------------------------------
DE DIGITALE STAD
Op Tue, 13 Feb 2001, David Streever schreef:
> HTML, Rowena. You must be sending it as HTML, or recieving it as such, so
> it cuts out that bracket.
Hi David,
thank you, but I don't think that is the case. The program I was using is
a web based one which doesn't even allow HTML. What is really strange is
that the <g> was lacking in te posts I received but that it showed up
when I replied and 'included the the original message' in the new post.
Greetings
Rowena
****************
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:48:27 -0500
From: David Streever
Subject: Re: strange censure
I think that's pretty fucking funny
>A man I know once declared:"If you ask me, women are just made to be
>masturbation pits."
>
>I didn't kick him, but he was close.
>
>renata
(Please don't get mad at me. I have limited presentience and I see you
getting angry with me if I don't ask you not to.)
****************
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 16:55:25 +0000
From: Rowena Alberga
Subject: Re: strange censure
Op Tue, 13 Feb 2001, David Streever schreef:
> I think that's pretty fucking funny
> >A man I know once declared:"If you ask me, women are just made to be
> >masturbation pits."
> >
> >I didn't kick him, but he was close.
> >
> >renata
>
can you explain why that is funny?
(THE impossible question, I know)
it reminded me of the Dutch writer/filmer and television personality (in
case you know him Renata; Theo van Gogh) who called his girlfriend his
favourite 'puntenslijper'(pencilsharpener)
Rowena
****************
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 12:11:01 -0500
From: David Streever
Subject: Re: strange censure
Maybe Cybermind is cutting it out from people who subscribed and said they
did not want HTML mail? That could be the case, as regardless of how you
send it it still can be read as HTML if you use brackets.
At 04:04 PM 2/13/01 +0000, you wrote:
>Hi David,
>
>thank you, but I don't think that is the case. The program I was using is
>a web based one which doesn't even allow HTML. What is really strange is
>that the <g> was lacking in te posts I received but that it showed up
>when I replied and 'included the the original message' in the new post.
****************
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 12:12:15 -0500
From: David Streever
Subject: Re: strange censure
Just seemed like a hilariously irreverent comment.
I find irreverence funny as hell.
What's so serious about this life anyway?
At 04:55 PM 2/13/01 +0000, you wrote:
>
>Op Tue, 13 Feb 2001, David Streever schreef:
>
> > I think that's pretty fucking funny
> > >A man I know once declared:"If you ask me, women are just made to be
> > >masturbation pits."
> > >
> > >I didn't kick him, but he was close.
> > >
> > >renata
> >
>
>can you explain why that is funny?
>(THE impossible question, I know)
>
>it reminded me of the Dutch writer/filmer and television personality (in
>case you know him Renata; Theo van Gogh) who called his girlfriend his
>favourite 'puntenslijper'(pencilsharpener)
>
>Rowena
****************
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 12:15:27 -0500
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: Re: strange censure
I don't find either of the examples funny; I see enough misogyny on the
street here to last me a lifetime. It's like a funny anti-semitic joke
in Nazi Germany...
I can't imagine how someone can think like that.
Alan
****************
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 17:22:20 +0000
From: Rowena Alberga
Subject: Re: strange censure
-------------------------------------------------------------
DE DIGITALE STAD
Op Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Alan Sondheim schreef:
> I don't find either of the examples funny; I see enough misogyny on the
> street here to last me a lifetime. It's like a funny anti-semitic joke
> in Nazi Germany...
>
> I can't imagine how someone can think like that.
well, I don't know about your analogy but I don't find them funny either.
I guess they were meant seriously though (though I guess in what the
speaker thought a humorous manner)
Rowena
****************
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 13:15:03 -0500
From: David Streever
Subject: Re: strange censure
That is WHY I find them funny.
>I guess they were meant seriously though
****************
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:53:35 -0500
From: Dominic Fox
Subject: Re: Mankind as Those Who Menstruate
I've read some accounts of a shift from a matriarchal/pagan/feminine order
to a patriarchal/monotheistic/masculine order; they seem to me to be
lapsarian fables, stories about a fall from original wholeness, oneness and
unity into division, strife and oppression. Where there's a lapsarian
fable, there's usually a politics of restoration not far behind - "we can
build a society that will be as it was before the Fall; we can reconstruct
what lies in ruins, reconcile the warring parties, bring peace and
integrity to a fractured world". I'm worried by what that politics tends to
mean for dissonant and dissident elements within a society...
****************
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:26:15 -0500
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: Re: Mankind as Those Who Menstruate
Yes; and as Sandor Gilman pointed out, in Germany all the way up at least
until WWI, there was a belief that Jewish men menstruated; there is a
whole complex of ideologies at work here.
Alan
On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Dominic Fox wrote:
> I've read some accounts of a shift from a matriarchal/pagan/feminine order
> to a patriarchal/monotheistic/masculine order; they seem to me to be
> lapsarian fables, stories about a fall from original wholeness, oneness and
> unity into division, strife and oppression. Where there's a lapsarian
> fable, there's usually a politics of restoration not far behind - "we can
> build a society that will be as it was before the Fall; we can reconstruct
> what lies in ruins, reconcile the warring parties, bring peace and
> integrity to a fractured world". I'm worried by what that politics tends to
> mean for dissonant and dissident elements within a society...
****************
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:39:40 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: strange censure
--- Wendlyn Alter
> What a strange, sad, lonely world that man lives in. Lucky for
>him, there will still always be women who will try to care for him.
>Women are funny that way.
Talk about synchronicity - I bumped into him today - he was with a
woman he introduced as his new girlfriend. She had an extremely nice
and positive aura around her, and he managed to talk to me for 15'
without insulting me (first time ever). I think you're right.
renata
****************
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:46:07 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: strange censure
--- David Streever
(first I wrote)
> >A man I know once declared:"If you ask me, women are just made
> >to be masturbation pits."
> I think that's pretty fucking funny
> (Please don't get mad at me.
Mad, no ... puzzled, yes. Can you explain what's funny? I really
don't get it - I know, sometimes I'm thick.
renata
****************
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:54:09 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: strange censure
--- David Streever
> Just seemed like a hilariously irreverent comment.
> I find irreverence funny as hell.
To me irreverence (lack of respect) is only funny when applied to
something that doesn't "deserve" respect in the first place. In this
case it's more a sign of a sick mind than it is a sign of humour.
Anyway, I have no sense of humour whatsoever when living creatures
are being humiliated.
renata
****************
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:04:56 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: Mankind as Those Who Menstruate
--- Alan Sondheim
> until WWI, there was a belief that Jewish men menstruated;
Reminds me of a story my mother told me - she once dated a gojim -
at a certain point they were necking and he suddenly stopped, his
hand somewhere on her thigh - after some hesitation he told her that
he'd heard Jewish girls could bite your finger (or worse) off with
their (toothed) vagina's.
More recent: in school some kids asked me if I already had to shave
- theyt thought Jewish women grew beards.
renata (who thinks this might be funny if it weren't sad)
****************
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 19:20:46 -0500
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: Re: Mankind as Those Who Menstruate
Years ago in Israel I was checked by a Catholic woman to see if I had two
navels; in Atlanta's Cabbagetown I was supposed to have horns.
Alan, checking his appendage
****************
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 19:39:27 -0500
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: had to extend
had to extend the daily message limit on Cyb - we were over 80 - close to
the record of 117 - well not exactly but this is the first time in years
went that high - alan -
****************
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 22:01:30 -0600
From: Wendlyn Alter
Subject: Re: Mankind as Those Who Menstruate
>I've read some accounts of a shift from a matriarchal/pagan/feminine order
>to a patriarchal/monotheistic/masculine order; they seem to me to be
>lapsarian fables, stories about a fall from original wholeness, oneness and
>unity into division, strife and oppression.
Isn't this yearning to believe in a utopian past pretty
universal? Just about every era is looked back on fondly by
somebody or other. Doesn't invalidate sensible historical study.
>Where there's a lapsarian
>fable, there's usually a politics of restoration not far behind - "we can
>build a society that will be as it was before the Fall; we can reconstruct
>what lies in ruins, reconcile the warring parties, bring peace and
>integrity to a fractured world". I'm worried by what that politics tends to
>mean for dissonant and dissident elements within a society...
Oh! This is funny. Surely you don't think *anyone* believes we
could or would remotely want to return to Neolithic conditions?!
No need to erect a straw man. There are no insidious feminist
restoration plots afoot. The true advantage to acknowledging the
female role in the development of human culture and technology is
merely to help dispel modern cultural misconceptions that women
are inherently less capable of these activities. This isn't a
zero sum game - our world can use all the competence it can get.
Consider instead the possibility that the feminine quality of the
next phase of the cycle won't be a return to an earlier time, but
will build on what has been done up to this point. That the gains
made during the masculine phase won't be negated, but used in
new, innovative ways. That this wouldn't mean women will climb
over men on the hierarchy and push them down, but instead that
there might be a different *flavor* to the culture, that both
women and men will explore, enjoy and profit by.
The very idea of a hierarchy - if I am to go up, you must go
down - is an artifact of male psychology. It's been writ large in
our culture during the male predominant phase, but is not the
only organizational model available to us. The female model is
much more lateral, more networked, more interactive... Sound
familiar? What I said about the internet...
--Wendlyn
****************
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 22:35:28 -0600
From: wisdom's aspirant
Subject: Re: Mankind /Wilber
>The very idea of a hierarchy - if I am to go up, you must go
>down - is an artifact of male psychology. It's been writ large in
>our culture during the male predominant phase, but is not the
>only organizational model available to us. The female model is
>much more lateral, more networked, more interactive... Sound
>familiar? What I said about the internet...
>
>--Wendlyn
Has anyone here read Ken Wilber? What do you think of his work?
Deanna
>
****************
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 23:17:08 -0600
From: Wendlyn Alter
Subject: Re: Mankind /Wilber
>Has anyone here read Ken Wilber? What do you think of his work?
>Deanna
Yes! I found his early work very stimulating, even while
disagreeing with a fair part of it. Actually enjoyed a debate of
sorts with Wilber in 'The Quest' magazine in '92 or thereabouts -
on gender issues, surprise! Wasn't much of a debate though, as he
immediately agreed with me when I disagreed with him. In my
limited contact, he was much softer and more human in person than
I expected from his incisive writing. Very good guy.
Later read Jean Gebser and discovered how derivative Wilber
actually was. Gebser's "The Ever-Present Origin" has been one of
the most significant, influential books in shaping my world view.
I haven't read Wilber's later work. That gigantic tome where he
supposedly summed everything up was just so MENTAL. Gebser
defines four stages of human cultural evolution as Magical,
Mythic, Mental, Integral - we're supposed to be moving out of the
Mental phase now into the Integral, and once I caught a glimmer
of what the Integral must be, it seemed pointless to try to
describe it using Mental tools. Though Gebser himself was stuck
doing the same thing, you can't define or understand a phase in
terms of previous ones.
(Alan's work here strikes me as being supremely Integral.)
Wilber took Gebser's concept of the four stages up to now,
(renamed them) and extended the scale to future stages of human
development based on achievements of spiritual masters. He
hypothesized that they represent the leading edge of the bell
curve and where they go, the rest of the human race will one day
follow. While I think he may be on to something, I'm skeptical
about his analysis because the whole damn thing was Mentally
accomplished. How could he possibly analyze and rank states of
spiritual development that he himself has not yet achieved? I got
the sense he was making a lot of stuff up.
This said, I still think Wilber is one of the finest, most
intriguing minds I've known. I loved that he didn't feel
threatened by disagreement, but was open to other ideas even
though his own ideas were so compelling.
--Wyn
****************
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:09:15 +0000
From: Jon Marshall
Subject: Re: Mankind as Those Who Menstruate
On 13 Feb 01, at 22:01, Wendlyn Alter wrote:
> The very idea of a hierarchy - if I am to go up, you must go
> down - is an artifact of male psychology. It's been writ large in our
> culture during the male predominant phase, but is not the only
> organizational model available to us. The female model is much more
> lateral, more networked, more interactive... Sound familiar? What I
> said about the internet...
I'm not exactly sure about this - at least it seems not to be the
case in my experience, and certainly ignores lots of stuff that
women have told me about their problems with other women who
are 'above' them in a hierarchy, or even a tendency of women to
form exclusive groups which pointedly exclude other women. It also
might ignore the fierce hierarchies and submissions which often
seem to be demanded by adolescent girls...
However this, does not invalidate the idea that other forms of
authority or organisational structure might not be useful. Though i
think it is best to be aware that shallow hierarchies should not
automatically be presumed to be more democratic or free than
compex graded hierarchies - as in complex hierarchies the top
frequently does not know what the bottom is doing, and cannot
control it with as much ease.
jon
****************
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:37:45 +0100
From: Simon Griggad
Subject: Re: Mankind as Those Who Menstruate
Jon wrote:
> Though i think it is best to be aware that shallow
> hierarchies should not automatically be presumed to
> be more democratic or free than compex graded
> hierarchies - as in complex hierarchies the top
> frequently does not know what the bottom is doing,
> and cannot control it with as much ease.
Are you talking about a hierarchy that is forced upon
the people? I thought "democratic" means "ruled by the
majority". In a democratic hierarchy, the top
represents the majority's will. If everybody in the
bottom layer had more freedom from the top, wouldn't
that be less democratic?
I am interested to know what the resource subjected to
this hierarchy would be on the internet. If it is
freedom then I agree that more for the bottom is
better. But what would be the substantiation for the
hierarchy in the first place? Perhaps the resource is
"attention"?
Simon
__________________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
****************
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:04:48 +0100
From: Simon Griggad
Subject: Re: Mankind as Those Who Menstruate
What would a hierarchy on the internet look like?
There isn't already one, is there?
Simon
****************
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 21:23:09 -0600
From: Wendlyn Alter
Subject: Re: Mankind as Those Who Menstruate
>I'm not exactly sure about this - at least it seems not to be the
>case in my experience, and certainly ignores lots of stuff that
>women have told me about their problems with other women who
>are 'above' them in a hierarchy, or even a tendency of women to
>form exclusive groups which pointedly exclude other women. It also
>might ignore the fierce hierarchies and submissions which often
>seem to be demanded by adolescent girls...
Good point, Jon, though I'm not sure adolescent girls are so much
into hierarchy as lateral exclusivity. You're in or you're out of
The Group. Both feminine and masculine forms of organization have
the capability for extreme cruelty in their negative expressions.
>Though i
>think it is best to be aware that shallow hierarchies should not
>automatically be presumed to be more democratic or free than
>compex graded hierarchies - as in complex hierarchies the top
>frequently does not know what the bottom is doing, and cannot
>control it with as much ease.
Very good point. Knowing one's place and being left alone in it
is a form of freedom. Interesting that our hierarchical culture
has also been such an incubator for extreme individuality.
--Wyn
****************
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:01:21 -0500
From: David Streever
Subject: Re: Mankind as Those Who Menstruate
Power attracts the corruptible.
****************
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 18:13:29 -0500
From: Dominic Fox
Subject: Re: Mankind as Those Who Menstruate
The quotation is attributed to Frank Herbert: "Power attracts the
corruptible; absolute power attracts the absolutely corruptible".
Now a discussion of the gender politics of the _Dune_ series could go a
long way...
****************
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 18:37:30 -0500
From: Tom Ellis
Subject: Re: Mankind as Those Who Menstruate
Now, that would indeed make an interesting discussion. The 'three tiered'
power structure of _Dune_, the Bene Gesserit, the Spacing Guild, and the
Houses of the Landstraad, had many intriguing dynamics.
Over time these changed, with the Bene Tlielax, the Fish Speakers, the
Fremen, and other groups having their 'day in the sun' with regards to
power. Through it all, however, there are many gender based themes and
undercurrents.
Take the Bene Gesserit. A sisterhood, all women. Called 'witches' by many
because of their tremendous powers of mind and body. No man could become
one of their elite Reverend Mothers, except for the one who would ultimately
become more powerful than any woman could ever be. The Bene Gesserit seemed
to view men as not much more than sperm factories. Even their fabled
Kwizatch Haderach then planned on harnessing and controlling. Generally,
their tactics were the most subtle and long term of any group. Elaborate,
multi-generational breeding programs, subtle mind control techniques (and
some not so subtle), using sex often as a tool, not only for breeding but
for control.
The Guild we never find much out about with regards to gender. For all we
know, the things that were once human and became the Navigators were both
male and female, or perhaps truly androgynous or hermaphroditic. The Guild
was used to getting what it wanted, and were fairly blunt about it. Male
qualities?
As for the Houses, they were all, as far as I know, ruled by men, at least
ostensibly. Then again, there were the 'witches', acting as advisors, or
wives, or concubines. They had quite a bit of influence over the decisions
their men made. The general tactics and demeanor of these noble families
were mostly male-dominated. Profit, war, assasination, trade, these were
the main drivers and tools used to craft policy. Sounds a bit like nation
states today....
I could go on, but others could no doubt do a better job of it.
Tom, feeling loquacious tonight.
****************
[[discussion wanders off-topic - the nature of good and evil, the nature of power, the politics and symbolism of the novel Dune etc. As a result i have not included many mails that were formally within the threads which are active. That does not mean the mails are not analytically interesting, just that its time to use the archives....]
****************
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:08:30 -0500
From: David Streever
Subject: Re: strange censure
I forget who said it, but someone said, "He meant it seriously" That is
precisely WHY it is funny; he took himself so seriously as to make such a
broad, sweeping, generalized comment (which is, in a way, true from the
standpoint of evolution) about an entire gender. However, while taking
himself oh so seriously, and making this comment, he failed to see utterly
how irreverent and non-serious the comment is. I don't know if that helps
or if I'm just confusing the issue. I guess my point is: He was being
serious, but he was saying something ridiculous. The situation is funny to
me; not the actual comment in and of itself.
****************
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:58:39 -0600
From: "E. Dettmar"
Subject: Re: strange censure
'Shall I laugh or must I cry' kinda thing?
Emily
>From: David Streever
>Reply-To: Philosophy and Psychology of Cyberspace
>
>To: CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
>Subject: Re: strange censure
>Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 13:15:03 -0500
>
>That is WHY I find them funny.
>
>>I guess they were meant seriously though
>
****************
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:11:51 -0500
From: Dominic Fox
Subject: Re: Mankind as Those Who Menstruate
> Doesn't invalidate sensible historical study.
Well, what possibly could? But a historicist schema based on a lapsarian
fable is unlikely to be all that "sensible".
>Surely you don't think *anyone* believes we
>could or would remotely want to return to Neolithic conditions?!
No, but prelapsarian conditions is another matter. "Let's keep the tech but
just lobotomize all the scientists".
>No need to erect a straw man. There are no insidious feminist
>restoration plots afoot.
My erection is not made of straw.
>The true advantage to acknowledging the
>female role in the development of human culture and technology is
>merely to help dispel modern cultural misconceptions that women
>are inherently less capable of these activities.
I suppose it would be, yes.
>Consider instead the possibility that the feminine quality of the
>next phase of the cycle won't be a return to an earlier time, but
>will build on what has been done up to this point. That the gains
>made during the masculine phase won't be negated, but used in
>new, innovative ways. That this wouldn't mean women will climb
>over men on the hierarchy and push them down, but instead that
>there might be a different *flavor* to the culture, that both
>women and men will explore, enjoy and profit by.
The idea that cultures have gendered "phases" seems to me to be
incompatible with the idea that genders, as sets of attributes, are
themselves cultural artifacts. Is our present culture "masculine" in terms
of its own definitions of masculinities, or some other's? Or are the
attributes of "masculinity" trans-cultural and universal?
>The very idea of a hierarchy - if I am to go up, you must go
>down - is an artifact of male psychology.
It can be seen as an artifact of struggle, which is not altogether
psychological and is driven by other factors besides the "competitiveness"
of the antagonists. I mean that there are other answers to the
question "why can we not all live together peacefully?" besides "because we
are all mad". "Because there is not enough food" is one of them; "because
*some* of us are mad" is another. Enmity is not just something you
hallucinate, unless you are simply psychotic.
It's been writ large in
>our culture during the male predominant phase, but is not the
>only organizational model available to us. The female model is
>much more lateral, more networked, more interactive... Sound
>familiar?
Sounds like (Stanislav) Grof's Basic Perinatal Matrix #1, actually.
>What I said about the internet...
Which one?
- Dom
****************
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:13:00 -0800
From: catcher at times
Subject: Re: strange censure
--- "E. Dettmar"
> 'Shall I laugh or must I cry' kinda thing?
I'm doing both when I read some of this thread - all spiced with a
little anger.
renata
****************
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:03:01 -0500
From: David Streever
Subject: Re: strange censure
No, not really. I'm laughing at HIM; not at his comment. I'm laughing at
his ignorance.
Oh wait, maybe it is a laugh/cry situation after all...
At 09:58 AM 2/14/01 -0600, you wrote:
>'Shall I laugh or must I cry' kinda thing?
>
>Emily
>
>
>>From: David Streever
>>Reply-To: Philosophy and Psychology of Cyberspace
>>
>>To: CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
>>Subject: Re: strange censure
>>Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 13:15:03 -0500
>>
>>That is WHY I find them funny.
>>
>>>I guess they were meant seriously though
>>
****************
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 20:40:24 -0600
From: Wendlyn Alter
Subject: Re: Mankind as Those Who Menstruate
>
>The idea that cultures have gendered "phases" seems to me to be
>incompatible with the idea that genders, as sets of attributes, are
>themselves cultural artifacts. Is our present culture "masculine" in terms
>of its own definitions of masculinities, or some other's? Or are the
>attributes of "masculinity" trans-cultural and universal?
Why not all of the above? We humans like to take not only aspects
of our environment, but also our own physical and emotional
qualities, and play with them in artistic ways. Expression of
gender has been sculpted and expanded upon in innumerable ways
throughout various cultures.
But the underlying behaviors are pretty much universal throughout
the range of simian species, of which we're perfectly typical.
Have you ever watched any footage of chimps in the wild, or
gorillas? In general males do perform status displays numerous
times daily, while females only assert their status a few times a
year... as one example of gender behavior.
>>The very idea of a hierarchy - if I am to go up, you must go
>>down - is an artifact of male psychology.
>
>It can be seen as an artifact of struggle, which is not altogether
>psychological and is driven by other factors besides the "competitiveness"
>of the antagonists. I mean that there are other answers to the
>question "why can we not all live together peacefully?" besides "because we
>are all mad". "Because there is not enough food" is one of them; "because
>*some* of us are mad" is another. Enmity is not just something you
>hallucinate, unless you are simply psychotic.
Hierarchical behavior is not the only possible response to
conditions like insufficient food. The Eskimos, for example,
responded by developing a culture of supremely selfless
generosity.
>Sounds like (Stanislav) Grof's Basic Perinatal Matrix #1,
actually.
Not familiar with it. Intriguing name - I'll keep an eye open for
more about it.
--Wyn
****************
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 03:09:17 -0500
From: Dominic Fox
Subject: Re: Mankind as Those Who Menstruate
>Why not all of the above?
I like to be choosy.
>We humans like to take not only aspects
>of our environment, but also our own physical and emotional
>qualities, and play with them in artistic ways. Expression of
>gender has been sculpted and expanded upon in innumerable ways
>throughout various cultures...
...but revert or reduce to an ahistorical set of characteristics which may
be exhaustively defined through close observation of the behaviour of
chimpanzees? Now that would be a fable: one of Aesop's?
>But the underlying behaviors are pretty much universal throughout
>the range of simian species, of which we're perfectly typical.
>Have you ever watched any footage of chimps in the wild, or
>gorillas? In general males do perform status displays numerous
>times daily, while females only assert their status a few times a
>year... as one example of gender behavior.
Poor old simian ancestors - always being made an example of. I personally
make all of my status displays for the benefit of Martian anthropologists,
because I feel that they could use a little assistance in explaining the
structures of their own societies. It's a shame they're silicon-based,
really.
I think we're somewhat imperfectly typical of "the range of simian
species": we're comparatively hairless and we build particle accelerators.
When they discover the biological weapons research facility where the
bonobos manufactured the ebola virus ("ook! ook! This'll really slay
them!"), I may be persuaded to change my mind about this.
Why do I have a parade of Gary Larson cartoons running through my head at
this moment?
>Hierarchical behavior is not the only possible response to
>conditions like insufficient food. The Eskimos, for example,
>responded by developing a culture of supremely selfless
>generosity.
Were Eskimos supremely selflessly generous towards non-Eskimos? Internal
dynamics and behaviour vis-a-vis the other tribe who wants to take the
already scarce resources that one has are two different things. An army
will often base its ground-level ethic on comradeship, co-operation and
sacrifice - this for the Chums and Pals - whilst simultaneously maintaining
a rigidly hierarchical command structure (and, of course, existing for the
general purpose of warfare). I can imagine a matriarchy organised along
similar lines, all nurture and co-operation for the skivvy class while the
power-dressing Big Mama hands down the timetable for the ritual
circumcisions. Don't know how the Amazons went about it. Big Boss Chief
says fall on your spears. Pass up the Gatling.
- Dom
****************
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:49:24 +0800
From: Lynne Harding
Subject: Re: strange censure
David,
you asked
>Is there any logical reason to take this life oh so seriously?
perhaps you are confusing the difference between taking life "so seriously" and having respect for one another. This entails *living* respectfully, as regards all people.
That respect would overlook the notions of difference that we create, the differences of gender, colour, religion or any of the other ways we manage to draw safe little boundaries around ourselves.
Outside of those boundaries leaves *more* room for laughter and happiness as suddenly there is less to be scared of:)
Lynne
****************
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:48:31 -0500
From: Tom Ellis
Subject: Re: strange censure
I have always felt that if you let someone offend you, you've given them a
measure of power over you. Words cannot humiliate unless you let them, no
matter how egregious or hateful the statement is.
I would also laugh at any man who would make such a statement. I would
not be laughing at his words, but at HIM.
If a woman told me that I was only good because of my penis and libido,
I'd laugh in her face, because I know different.
****************
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:29:12 +0330
From: Rowena Alberga
Subject: Re: strange censure
Tom Ellis
>If a woman told me that I was only good because of my penis and libido,
>I'd laugh in her face, because I know different.
as long as there is still a big power difference between
men and women I don't think the two statements are realy
comparable.
Rowena
****************
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:55:18 -0500
From: Alan Sondheim
Subject: differend
However this is what is called the differend by Lyotard. Note that the men
are more or less taking it less lightly than the women - who are the ones
being attacked, not the men. And this makes a huge difference; if someone
makes an anti-semitic remark, and non-Jews tend to write it off - where
does that leave me?
Alan
****************
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:45:00 -0500
From: David Streever
Subject: Re: strange censure
Living respectfully and being ignorant are too different things.
Personally, I learned a long time ago most people I deal with are inches
away from being functionally useless, ignorant, and therefore, I don't take
offense at stupid comments. Such as "Woman are masturbation pits". It's a
dumb, sweeping generalization describing an entire gender, made by someone
who obviously took himself seriously enough to think he was somehow able to
describe an entire gender with a "clip" that he probably heard someone else
say first. Therefore, my response is to laugh at his idiocy. If I wasted
time being offended and fighting everyone that ignorant, I wouldn't be
where I am today; I'd be miserable, embittered, and rail about the
miserable world I live in.
Instead, I'm a generally happy and upbeat person, who gets through the
painful stuff by realizing, utterly how fucking stupid it is. Does your
soul have a gender? Does that which lie beyond life care if you were male
or female? Does it matter if you are a masturbation pit, or a masturbator?
If women are nothing more than masturbation pits, men are nothing more than
masturbators. I laugh because he's an idiot; you want to waste time
getting angry at him, that's your perogative, but you don't even know this
guy, do you Lynne? You are actually going to waste more than 2 seconds
thinking about an ignorant comment, made by an ignorant stranger? THAT is
what is taking yourself too seriously; wasting so much time on Maya.
Ultimately, we live and die here after about 70 years, and then it's
over; out of all of eternity, an unfathomable unit of time measurement,
you have 70 years in this life. 70 years. Tell me the 5 minutes you wasted;
the five minutes I just wasted; the 5 minutes anyone wasted on this
subject isn't precious. Ultimately, one ignorant man's assessment of an
entire gender doesn't seem important enough to raise my blood pressure over.
Zen:
It works.
****************
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:33:16 -0500
From: David Streever
Subject: Re: strange censure
I knew you were going to get mad at me.
****************
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:24:00 -0600
From: Wendlyn Alter
Subject: Re: Mankind as Those Who Menstruate
>Poor old simian ancestors - always being made an example of.
Oooh! Who said anything about chimp ancestors? You know we are
not 'descended from' the other simians, but rather that the
species all split off from common roots, and we ARE a simian
species. Oops, I see that's a sensitive point for you.
>I think we're somewhat imperfectly typical of "the range of simian
>species": we're comparatively hairless and we build particle accelerators.
>When they discover the biological weapons research facility where the
>bonobos manufactured the ebola virus ("ook! ook! This'll really slay
>them!"), I may be persuaded to change my mind about this.
You cling to the idea that if "this" is true, then "that" must
not be true. (I generally find that lots and lots of things are
true simultaneously.) If humans can do impressively mental things
that other simian species can't, then they must not have the same
emotional makeup as other simian species. These are apples and
oranges.
Emotional behavior is extremely ancient in evolutionary history,
whereas all these little mind games are very, very recent.
>Were Eskimos supremely selflessly generous towards non-Eskimos? Internal
>dynamics and behaviour vis-a-vis the other tribe who wants to take the
>already scarce resources that one has are two different things. An army
>will often base its ground-level ethic on comradeship, co-operation and
>sacrifice - this for the Chums and Pals - whilst simultaneously maintaining
>a rigidly hierarchical command structure (and, of course, existing for the
>general purpose of warfare). I can imagine a matriarchy organised along
>similar lines, all nurture and co-operation for the skivvy class while the
>power-dressing Big Mama hands down the timetable for the ritual
>circumcisions. Don't know how the Amazons went about it. Big Boss Chief
>says fall on your spears. Pass up the Gatling.
You seem extremely fearful of women in power! Had any bad
personal experiences? But you do make a good point here about
insiders vs. outsiders. Eskimo culture evolved under conditions
where there basically were no outsiders, so when outsiders did
show up, they were viewed initially as insiders.
I never claimed or envisioned that a female-flavored culture
would be any more peaceful and utopian than the latest
male-flavored one - why do you assume that's what I was saying?
--Wyn
****************
Subject: Re: Curious
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:00:31 +1100
From: Sharon Boggon and Jerry Everard
and phones aren't electronic???
Okay, here goes:
For web stuff including email I use a 400mhz DV iMac with 13gb hard
drive 128k RAM using Mac OS9.04. web pages constructed using GoLive
(with images via photoshop 5.0/ImageReady) browser Netscape
communicator 4.75 email Eudora 4.3, occasional digital video (when I
can borrow one) via firewire, and edited using iMovie (a really easy
drag and drop system) still working on audio (otherwise my band would
have a CD out by now ;-) I haven't used a MOO for about 4 years. I
also use phones (not mobile - too expensive for my income) and
occasionally fax (but haven't been able to set that up on computer).
It is very rare for me to take pen to paper and write to people these
days.
When travelling I use email as my primary mode of keeping in touch
with my family. And I guess when I eventually update my museum piece
Psion 3a (2mb using Symbiont OS) I'll wind up doing some email and
web stuff there. In the meantime I just write my e-journal on it and
archive it to the trusty old Powermac 6300 on which I do most of my
writing, including for publication. Oh yeah and I write to my future
self on the Psion to remind me of meetings/appointments etc.
f2f I use biometric recognition (a feast for the senses) audio/visual
(talk/sound/gesture/clothing/proximity/etc - age comunicated via eye
lines, grrrey hair flecks, poor teeth condition, changing body shape
and condition) although in performance the sound and visuals are
mediated through sennhauser microphone (fiddle via Barcus Berry
transducer through DOD Tec4 preamp/effects pedal) and visuals are
coloured by small rack of filtered flood lamps (no desk controls for
that yet)
On the road I communicate with type of vehicle (Toyota Lite Ace,
Honda CB250), driving style, use of structured indicator system
(brake lights, turn signals, headlamp flashes to warn of speed
traps...)
I also communicate via occasional lectures, conference papers,
journal articles and so far, one book.
Cheers
Jerry
>Tom has me curious. When I was last on Cybermind, there were several
>directions people were going. I'd like to hear some of where that was
>(which is part of what brings me back) so here's a multifork
>question/follow up:
>
>In the electronic universe, what technologies do you use to talk to
>others (close and otherwise)? Things like email, browser/web pages,
>Voice over IP, MOOs/MUDs, IM/ICQ, WebCams, VR...
>
>In the physical world, how do you communicate with others? Things
>like phones (fixed and/or cellular), letters/postcards, travel
>(physical face-to-face)...
>
>How much overlap is there and in what areas? I find use most of the
>above with close relationships but one or the other with the majority.
>
>Jim
*************
Subject: Re: Curious - genderless
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 21:34:02 -0600
From: Wendlyn Alter
My email program truncated the "From" column so all I saw was
Sharon Boggon... halfway through the post I'm thinking, "This is
one audacious spunky crone and I sure hope I get to know her
better!"
...only to find at the end that you're Jerry, not Sharon, and
suddenly it was just typical.
So now I'm wondering what was it about the post that seemed so
refreshingly unusual when I thought it was written by a woman,
but perfectly normal from a man?
Number of clues, I guess... one being the easy humorous comfort
of describing self in such physically unappealing terms. Very few
women can ever be that self-confident.
--Wyn
***********
Subject: Re: Curious - genderless
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 20:36:07 +1100
From: Sharon Boggon and Jerry Everard
Actually we use much the same language - I guess after 20 years or so
our language kinda blends ;-)
Cheers
Jerry or Sharon
***********
Subject: Re: Curious - genderless
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 20:52:48 +1100
From: Sharon Boggon and Jerry Everard
Hi Wyn
Now you have me curious... see, Sharon is the web designer between us
(teaches the stuff at Canberra School of Art) and is the one who does
most of the video editing (that's where a fine Arts trained eye has
it all over us text weenies). And she is the main photoshop and
Illustrator user between us. I just write stuff and occasionally use
her programs to edit the odd image here and there - y'see Sharon is
the one tat NEEDS an iMac, whereas my stuff mostly happens on the
powermac and just gets uploaded on the iMac.
Anyhow - yup (as Alan knows) Sharon is one gutsy person, and
perfectly self-confident online.
Cheers
(typically) Jer
************
Subject: Re: Curious - genderless
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:29:48 -0500
From: David Presley
Is it Jerry or sharon OR Jerry and shannon....meaning the same person and
does it matter....!!!??
>Actually we use much the same language - I guess after 20 years or so
>our language kinda blends ;-)
>
>Cheers
>Jerry or Sharon
>
[[Around here I start having major problems with my ISP and AOL's connection and mail gets lost all over the place. So this becomes an arbitrary end point.]]
This page hosted by
Get your own Free Home Page