[[snip]]
Onto Part 6
This page hosted by
Get your own Free Home Page
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 22:28:21 -0400
From: dstreever
Subject: Re: Fw: Miss Powell
Actually, the crime was *not* swearing, and if she cussed me out, I am quite
sure she would not have gotten the boot.
Now, please look at it my way.
Cybermind is, ultimately, *Alan's* list. Diane Powell came ON alan's list of
her OWN FREE WILL, and decided she did not like it. Now, what is
appropriate? Unsubbing. So when she made her distate clear, Alan unsubbed
her.
Now, let's say she came into Alan's home, and attacked him for his
wallpaper/books/furniture. Would it not be appropriate for Alan to
unsub her?
The only "bad behaviour" here was mine, in swearing back and losing my
temper. Alan had every right to unsub her.
****************
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 22:24:02 -0500
From: Wendlyn Alter
Subject: Re: How?
> How did you find Cybermind. Or, did it find you?
Browsing through some list of lists... Couldn't remember which, or what
description captured my interest. So I went out searching to see how
Cybermind presents itself to the unsuspecting. ;-) It might be easier to be
tolerant with newbies when we see through their eyes what THEY come in
thinking the list is about.
TOPICA --
List Name CYBERMIND (CYBERMIND)
Purpose: Cybermind is a mailinglist devoted to the discussion of
philosophical, psychological, and social issues emerging in cyberspace.
List Type: Unmoderated discussion
www-psych.stanford.edu --
Cybermind (Subjectivity in Cyberspace)
Discussion of the philosophical and psychological implications of
subjectivity in cyberspace.
...And have we not been doing that lately, in spades! A veritable case
study in the core theme of the list.
I also took the time to thoroughly reread the Intro on the Cybermind
homepage. I confess I only skimmed it when I joined - at the time, it
seemed abstractly idealistic and lovely, but it's actually quite specific
to the interesting dynamics since I've been here... and having immediately
gotten into trouble, I realized I'd better know the rules.
In all caps -- by policy, posts containing offensive *subjects or language*
will NOT be censored. I assume though that pointing out that such posts may
be considered offensive will also not be censored. (The potential for
offense is priorly assumed by the policy that protects it.) Further, I
respectfully propose that a post using offensive language to declare
someone else's post offensive is clearly also protected speech under this
policy. <wry grin>
The official CM Intro is an exciting vision, allowing for differences, even
challenges, in the context of collective exploration. I know this is old,
well-owned text for many of you, but consider how these ideas strike
someone approaching the list with "beginner's mind"--
"This is an 'open list' - posts on all aspects of the above issues and
more will be welcomed. It is open to general discussion, group readings
of published works, and the sharing and critique of participants'
works-in-progress.
"One concern we hope to address is the way in which much theoretical work
on cyberspace to date reflects an exclusive, totalizing bias, thus
foreclosing some of the most interesting and radical possibilities for
the development of Net culture. We want to challenge ourselves and the
list members to integrate issues of race, sex, class, sexuality and
culture in our efforts to think cyberspace together.
"We believe this list will be an important forum for opening up new
perspectives on cyberspace and cyberculture, and are anxious and excited
to engage in a dialogue with all interested parties on the types of
issues described here. Our list is open to everyone, be they academics,
Net "technicians," or ordinary citizens of cyberspace who wish to join us
in thinking and discussing the present and future of this fascinating,
exciting, and sometimes frustrating realm - and, ultimately, of
ourselves."
****************
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 23:27:20 -0400
From: dstreever
Subject: Re: How?
Good points, Wendlyn, as always :-)
I do disagree with the case of Ms. Powell. I feel her behaviour was not fit
for society, let alone this list.
****************
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 23:10:33 -0500
From: Wendlyn Alter
Subject: Re: Fw: Miss Powell
>Now, please look at it my way.
>
>Cybermind is, ultimately, *Alan's* list.
As you see from my previous post, my reading of the official list Intro
disallows **neither** your colorful posts, nor Miss Powell's. (Nor Alan's
initial post, nor my objection to it.) All are permissible within the
STATED policies of the list.
Please look at it my way - when I joined the list, read the descriptions
and the lengthy intro, nowhere did it state that this was ALAN's list.
It kept emphasizing phrases like "sharing and critique... challenge ourselves
to integrate... think cyberspace together... anxious and excited to engage
in a dialogue... open to everyone." Please - recognize that people are
arriving with that in mind.
I mean, of course he's one of the originators and moderators. But all the
lists I've been on have had originators and moderators, and none of them
have played the very central defining role Alan does on this list. (Well,
one - but it self-destructed because most of us insisted on thinking
independently and sometimes disagreeing with her, and it drove her crazy to
be disagreed with.) If it really is Alan's list in an exclusive sense, then
I suggest that it should SAY so in the descriptions, and CERTAINLY in the
Introduction. If criticism is not allowed, then it should say so! You can't
have all these ferocious unwritten rules and then wax livid when unwitting
people break them.
Sure, I "should" have done my homework to find out the context of the post
of Alan's that I found offensive. (And I am doing that, now.) But nobody
can legitimately complain when such a post hits someone out of the blue and
they react to what it APPEARS to be saying. Especially when those same
people react to how somebody ELSE's offensive post appears, without doing
the homework to find out why SHE wrote what she wrote, and what personal
history was behind it. We can't insist that person 'A' be given the benefit
of the doubt on a single rather scary out-of-context text, but that person
'B' may be harshly judged and virtually "executed" based on a likewise
out-of-context text.
Doesn't this seem reasonable to you? I mean from a strictly objective point
of view?
I know you are speaking truly from your heart, but there are other widely
varying, perfectly valid subjectivities present here too. That's what makes
CM so rich and distinctive!
--Wendlyn
****************
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 11:31:29 -0500
From: Elizabeth Barrette
Subject: Re: Since so many asked....
On 14 Apr 01, at 10:28, Dr. Salwa Ghaly wrote:
> Your project is really interesting, and I look forward to hearing more
> about it in the future. One question about French feminism comes to
> mind: how do you respond to critics of this school who accuse it of
> biological essentialism?
<eeeeeevil grin> Oh, I used to do this all the time in college. I
just be myself. They last an average of five minutes before my
notably genderflexed personality starts to cause bricks to rain from
the ceiling of their reality tunnel.
Just as an example, Doug and I were shopping the other day.
I've recently gained enough weight (this is a good thing) to make
my legs rub together when I walk (not such a good thing) so I was
looking for underwear with short legs that would keep my skin from
chafing when I'm wearing a skirt. I don't wear skirts often, but I do
dress up for special occasions. Well, the only women's undies
currently sold with legs are horrid control-top contraptions. Feh! I
did find some biking shorts that looked promising, which I may try.
And then Doug suggested *boxers* and a little bell went bing!
inside my head. Perfect. Just what I was looking for. The idea of
wearing boxer shorts under an elegant dress just tickles me no end.
Biological essentialism is a slice of a very broad bell curve.
Some people are quite characteristically masculine or feminine,
matched to the body they happen to be wearing. It's a strong
determining factor -- but *universal* it isn't. My personality
contains some very strong markers for both masculine and
feminine genders, and then some. When people hit one that they
don't expect, it *really* tends to throw them for a loop. The little
genderflexy things like the above are bad enough. But when I pop
out one of the seriously male ones in a very blatantly female body,
well, that's worse -- like when a woman starts blathering about
upteen-zillion details of her personal life and other people's
relations and I come back with the classic male "Who CARES?"
(This is not to say that all men or all women would respond in the
same way, but there are observable patterns and people tend to
mistake those for universals.) You can just *see* the mental
image on her movie screen flash to a young man wearing a white t-
shirt and a five-o-clock shadow. Ah, the fun of a personality that
includes roughly equal proportions of feminist and male chauvinist.
You haven't seen mayhem until you've seen the bitch and the pig
cohabiting the same body.
>I think it's a charge that one has to take
> seriously. Are we willing to subscribe to the view that "gender
> difference" is absolute?
Well, no. It's absolute for some people, in that there are
individuals who seem quite exclusively masculine or feminine, as
defined by their culture or an average of known cultures. But there
are others for whom gender is as much a mood as the color of
clothing they feel like wearing that day.
>Wouldn't this lead to other blind spots and
> limitations in the way we view women's writing and women *and*
> writing? Questions, questions. Anyway, thank you for giving us a
> glimpse of your work.
Of course. Most writing, in my experience, is not significantly
gender-marked. Some, however, is *very* gender-marked. There
are certain types of stories that most people of the opposite gender
just won't "get." Check out _Sisters in Fantasy_ if you want an
example of women's fiction that is so strongly expressive of
women's reality that it *didn't sell*. The editors asked the writers to
send them the story they couldn't publish anywhere else. Most of
the writers already had at least one such in the drawer. The
difference is hard to pin down -- some ineffable shift in worldview --
but when you look at the stories, you can see its shadow cast long
across the page. Ditto Suzette Haden Elgin's excellent dictionary
of Laadan, the women's language. It contains words that make
most men go, "Why would anyone want to talk about *that*?"
Who cares? What does it matter? Well, the premise was that all
the current languages are pretty male-oriented and tend to
shortchange women's perceptions. Looking at these books, I can
see why. <g> But I've got to be in feminist mode to "get" it.
Blessings,
Elizabeth
****************
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 12:59:27 -0500
From: "Robert A. Kezelis"
Subject: Re: How?
on 4/13/01 10:24 PM, Wendlyn Alter at wynalter@EARTHLINK.NET wrote:
>> How did you find Cybermind. Or, did it find you?
>
> Browsing through some list of lists... Couldn't remember which, or what
> description captured my interest. So I went out searching to see how
> Cybermind presents itself to the unsuspecting. ;-) It might be easier to be
> tolerant with newbies when we see through their eyes what THEY come in
> thinking the list is about.
[[snip]]
> "We believe this list will be an important forum for opening up new
> perspectives on cyberspace and cyberculture, and are anxious and excited
> to engage in a dialogue with all interested parties on the types of
> issues described here. Our list is open to everyone, be they academics,
> Net "technicians," or ordinary citizens of cyberspace who wish to join us
> in thinking and discussing the present and future of this fascinating,
> exciting, and sometimes frustrating realm - and, ultimately, of
> ourselves."
>
well, methinks that from a hyper-view, we are "living" out our philosophical
thoughts, perceptions and ideas (Maurizio excepted, of course).
Alan is obviously an important part, but not an exclusive one, to be
sure.
On many threads, he remains silent. On certain issues, he is the first, only
and total correspondent. He weaves his thoughts, sometimes imperceptably,
yet in the background. He does not CONTROL thought or concepts in any
egotistical way. To the contrary. He loves open eyes and thoughtful
opinion.
Is this list a collegial instruction in how to learn philosophy on the
net?
Of course not. Is it interactive, aware, confident, yet almost shy?
Absolutely. Is it polite? with out a doubt. Does it contain gems, wonderful
facets from around the world? That is it's greatest asset.
Then again, we are "living" this forum, not merely being snobbish
educational types talking down our collective noses, worried about tenure
and abusing all that don't fit our biased preconceptions of philosophy,
art and life
****************
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 14:10:13 -0400
From: Mike Gorecki
Subject: Re: Fw: Miss Powell
No! I will not be Filed, Stamped, Briefed, Debriefed, or Numbered! I am not
a eID_Number, I am a free man... ;-)
------Original Message------
From: Wendlyn Alter <wynalter@EARTHLINK.NET>
To: CYBERMIND@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Sent: April 14, 2001 4:10:33 AM GMT
Subject: Re: Fw: Miss Powell
>Now, please look at it my way.
>
>Cybermind is, ultimately, *Alan's* list.
[[snip]]
****************
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 14:30:27 -0400
From: dstreever
Subject: Re: Fw: Miss Powell
This is true!
I think one thing many people think is that *I* unsubbed Powell. In fact, I
did not do this, nor could I.
However, I agree with the decision to unsub Ms. Powell, as she clearly did
not like the list nor it's contents; she insulted the entire list in her
reply to me.
****************
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 23:11:46 +0400
From: Salwa Ghaly
Subject: Re: Since so many asked....
Biological essentialism is a slice of a very broad bell curve.
Some people are quite characteristically masculine or feminine,
matched to the body they happen to be wearing. It's a strong
determining factor -- but *universal* it isn't. My personality
contains some very strong markers for both masculine and
feminine genders, and then some. When people hit one that they
don't expect, it *really* tends to throw them for a loop.
Yes, it's always a riot when this happens!! But that's exactly my point.
Some of the tenets of mainstream French feminism are too deterministic, too
totalizing to allow us to see the nuances you point to and the tremendous
variations and possibilties. I personally think some of these feminisits
lack a sense of humor. Relax and everything will fall into place is what I
say. But to keep harping on this idea of writing with the body, the only
way women know how ... well, not very convincing, for me at least.
>
I think it's a charge that one has to take
> seriously. Are we willing to subscribe to the view that "gender
> difference" is absolute?
Well, no. It's absolute for some people, in that there are
individuals who seem quite exclusively masculine or feminine, as
defined by their culture or an average of known cultures. But there
are others for whom gender is as much a mood as the color of
clothing they feel like wearing that day.
I agree with you 100%. But, the French feminists don't. They (along with
Kristeva, btw) argue with a straight face that women have been banished from
the realm of the symbolic due to specific biological characteristics.
However, all isn't lost, because they can always fall back on the
pre-symbolic, the source of poetic impulse and artistic creativity. If
women want to be successful writers, they should nurture "le parler femme,"
this "writing with the body." I don't know about you, but I find this a
Pandora's box. Jen is right, there is something admirable about unsettling
and deconstructing patriarchal linguistic structures and practices. And
working with a sexist language like French, these feminists have quite a
battle ahead of them. But, must we attack "male" modes of discourse (if
there is such a thing!) by arguing that we, women, are "unique" in the way
we wield language?! Wouldn't we be strait-jacketing ourselves by accepting
such a contention?
Over the past two days, the sociolinguistic comments on Canadians and
Americans have been most enlightening and delightful :-) We can also draw
on a whole body of research that has come to alarming conclusions about how
men and women converse. Dale Spender and others did a good job of
attracting attention to all the difficulties women encounter when trying to
put in their two bits worth, your point exactly about getting a "decent
education" in a class full of boys. I personally see *this* as the terrain
where our energies, as women, should be deployed: unmask that which appears
"normal," show the ways in which language is sexist, work on changing modes
of communication etc. But to condemn me to the pre-linguistic? I think
not.
>Wouldn't this lead to other blind spots and
> limitations in the way we view women's writing and women *and*
> writing? Questions, questions. Anyway, thank you for giving us a
> glimpse of your work.
Of course. Most writing, in my experience, is not significantly
gender-marked. Some, however, is *very* gender-marked. There
are certain types of stories that most people of the opposite gender
just won't "get." Check out _Sisters in Fantasy_ if you want an
example of women's fiction that is so strongly expressive of
women's reality that it *didn't sell*. The editors asked the writers to
send them the story they couldn't publish anywhere else. Most of
the writers already had at least one such in the drawer. The
difference is hard to pin down -- some ineffable shift in worldview --
but when you look at the stories, you can see its shadow cast long
across the page. Ditto Suzette Haden Elgin's excellent dictionary
of Laadan, the women's language. It contains words that make
most men go, "Why would anyone want to talk about *that*?"
Who cares? What does it matter? Well, the premise was that all
the current languages are pretty male-oriented and tend to
shortchange women's perceptions. Looking at these books, I can
see why. <g> But I've got to be in feminist mode to "get" it.
Agreed. But, from my experience with comparative literature, when writings
are clearly gendered, they are so by virtue of their themes and worldview,
as you put it, and not necessarily or consistently because of any "feminine"
idiosyncrasies in language, style or literary technique.
Thanks for giving me the chance to think aloud! I think we're more or less
in agreement here...
Salwa
****************
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 14:23:05 -0500
From: "Robert A. Kezelis"
Subject: Re: Miss Powell
on 4/14/01 1:10 PM, Mike Gorecki at mjgorecki@EARTHLINK.NET wrote:
> No! I will not be Filed, Stamped, Briefed, Debriefed, or Numbered! I am not
> a eID_Number, I am a free man... ;-)
>
you are number 6.
I am number 2.
Who is number 1?
you are number 6.
****************
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:09:06 -0300
From: Rose Mulvale
Subject: Re: Fw: Miss Powell
> No! I will not be Filed, Stamped, Briefed, Debriefed, or Numbered! I am
not
> a eID_Number, I am a free man... ;-)
Did that TV programme have *impact*, or what?!
- Number One
****************
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 22:16:45 +0200
From: Rowena
Subject: Re: Fw: Miss Powell
Rose,
please help a tv-less European,
what program?
Rowena
****************
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 16:40:35 EDT
From: Jennifer Vasil
Subject: Re: An Alternative Alternative Was Re: talks with God
Actually, David, biological sex is a genetic fact. Gender has fairly been
proven a social construction. And if the human genome project has any
impact, the 1/100,000 bit of difference between any two people's DNA
sequences will probably nullify most issues of race and sex within the next
few years anyway...
Jen
In a message dated 4/14/2001 1:54:54 PM Central Daylight Time,
dstreever@NETZERO.NET writes:
you don't see Race as a "fact", but what about Gender? Both have genetic and
cultural difference, the only thing about Gender is it is a standard in all
cultures. (I.E. it is a genetic fact in all cultures)
****************
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 16:41:43 -0400
From: dstreever
Subject: Re: An Alternative Alternative Was Re: talks with God
Actually, by Gender, I was referring to biological sex...
sorry if my term was incorrect! I had assumed Elizabeth to be referring to biological sex, with her usage of the term Gender...
****************
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 19:57:10 -0300
From: Rose Mulvale
Subject: Re: Fw: Miss Powell
Rowena -
Do you see that red glow in the west? That isn't sunset, Ma'am - that's a
Rosy glow. I can't remember the name of that absolutely stunning,
captivating, brilliant TV series written by and starring a purely _gorgeous_
British actor named Patrick McGoohan. Oh - wait! Was it "The Prisoner"? A
psychological thriller - only you had to think for the thrill. Bloody
marvellous, it was!
I understand that some segments are available on CD - is true?
- Rose, who isn't a number either (she said, carefully)
****************
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 22:06:54 -0500
From: Elizabeth Barrette
Subject: Re: An Alternative Alternative Was Re: talks with God
On 14 Apr 01, at 14:50, dstreever wrote:
> Reincarnation doesn't work for me, simply because I don't believe in time.
> I rather see myself as existing simultaneously everywhere/when and
> therefore "deja-vu" are just brief glimpses into another place/time I
> happen to be at. (Using the terms time and when merely for those who
> do happen to believe in said concept)
This is actually closer to the truth. Linear time is an illusion.
Mortal life is a temporal gravity well. Step outside it, and you can
do all kinds of stuff. Alas, I can't explain in English why
reincarnation still works given the lack of linear time ... the closest
I can come is to say it's a bit like riding a bicycle and listening to
music at the same time. A soul is large and complex and can do
many things "at once" even though it doesn't feel like "at once"
from some perspectives. Complicated.
> As for Race...
>
> you don't see Race as a "fact"
The genetic composition of a human is fact. The drawing of
racial lines is a social convention, which many people insist on
treating as fact. Watch the ruckus when scientists assess a
bunch of, say, "Black" people for determinative factors and find that
physical appearance really isn't a very good yardstick for figuring
out the boundaries of genetic groups.
, but what about Gender? Both have
> genetic and cultural difference, the only thing about Gender is it is
> a standard in all cultures. (I.E. it is a genetic fact in all
> cultures)
Gender is a social identity. Sex is a biological one. Both
have factual aspects, but gender is *not* standard across all cultures.
Some cultures offer more than two gender options -- one of the
most famous is the "berdache" or "two souled" category that some
Native American tribes recognized, men who behaved in many
ways as women, or women who behaved in many ways as men, a
kind of "between" status and believed to be very powerful
magically. And of course, while many cultures agree on rough
outlines of what is "masculine" or "feminine" there are some
notable exceptions. Gender is more a matter of opinion or
preference than fact.
With sex, well, biology does weird things with chromosomes
and body development at times. Doctors usually try to cut-n-paste
things into a more socially acceptable configuration. This has met
with a spectacular lack of success with regards to making the
ambiguously-sexed individuals happy with their bodies. If your
chromosomes are XX, then you're genetically female and that's a
fact. But if your chromosomes are X* (that is, the guy looks
through the microscope and says, "Well, that's an X chromosome,
and that blot next to it doesn't look like either an X or a Y.") then
the fact is that you are not biologically either male or female, but
something else.
Blessings,
Elizabeth
****************
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 22:06:56 -0500
From: Elizabeth Barrette
Subject: Re: An Alternative Alternative Was Re: talks with God
On 14 Apr 01, at 16:41, dstreever wrote:
> Actually, by Gender, I was referring to biological sex...
>
> sorry if my term was incorrect! I had assumed Elizabeth to be
> referring to biological sex, with her usage of the term Gender...
Sex refers to biology; i.e. one's chromosomes and gonads.
Gender refers to a social construct usually but not quite always
anchored in sex. There are more than two of both, but not all
societies acknowledge this. No, sex really isn't an either/or
proposition. Chromosomes and genitalia sometimes twist
themselves into *very* strange and ambiguous shapes.
Blessings,
Elizabeth
****************
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 01:24:08 -0400
From: dstreever
Subject: Re: An Alternative Alternative Was Re: talks with God
Hmmm see the thing is, I think we might believe in a similar thing, I just
won't use the term reincarnation, simply because I feel it denotes linear
time frames...
I don't believe in karma, either; to me, there is no punishment/reward for
anything we do here.
I believe in the complicatedness of the soul; in fact, I believe I am
everywhere at once! (of course, I believe we all share the same soul
so...)
I don't believe in an individual soul/spirit, and that our personal "energy
vibration" is part of a greater "whole"...
>
> This is actually closer to the truth. Linear time is an illusion.
> Mortal life is a temporal gravity well. Step outside it, and you can
> do all kinds of stuff. Alas, I can't explain in English why
> reincarnation still works given the lack of linear time ... the closest I
> can come is to say it's a bit like riding a bicycle and listening to
> music at the same time. A soul is large and complex and can do
> many things "at once" even though it doesn't feel like "at once"
> from some perspectives. Complicated.
>
Right, the genetic composition of a human is a fact, and different races
have different genetics... as do different sexes, but there are grey areas!
Especially as inter-racial mingling becomes more and more common.
It's like a line in the movie Bullworth, where he says the problem is that
there are whites and blacks; then he goes on to say that they should all
just have so much sex there aren't anymore whites and blacks ;-) as great as
that would be, no more racism, I don't think the problem (ultimately) is
colour but culture; I have a white culture, and while I am friends with
others from other races/colours, I am not the same; they have friends that
won't have much to do with me, and I'm sure I have friends who wouldn't have
much to do with them.
>
> Gender is a social identity. Sex is a biological one. Both have
> factual aspects, but gender is *not* standard across all cultures.
Actually, I really meant sex here, of course. I agree with you on gender,
and of course sex can get messy ;-) Oh wait, I meant biology of
course...
I am curious though; you insinuate one can step outside of mortal life.
While I do believe in shamanism and practice trancework (to drums and
scents, I do not use or advocate drug usage) I believe it's just accessing
the "deeper" levels of connectivity; and can be explained in more
scientific terms than "magic" (i.e. I have a personal "energy" and by
causing changes in it by altering my mood I can alter other things with the
release)
As for stepping outside of mortal life (I obviously got carried away/off
track Please forgive me, he said with a grin :-) ) what do you mean
precisely? Do you refer to "will-working", or magick? I know you are pagan;
do you refer to assuming the "god-form"? (Can't remember the name for it...
the magickal personality? Of course, that's more Golden Dawn....)
Cheers,
David
****************
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 03:20:13 -0400
From: John Andrews
Subject: Gender&Tonic
I could use a little Gin & Tonic right now, served by my woman__been a long day in the salt mines...
However, before my drink and a deep sleep, a few thoughts on Jen's gender:
I'll never forget the day I picked up Time Magazine with the cover page saying
'Men and Women Are Different'. Gender had been declared dead in
lecture halls for years, and now it lives again. That was an epiphany for me, i.e.,
academic musings had become mainstream.
Political polemic had spilled and was now running down coffee tables all
over America...Women and men - au natural, score 1...
Social construction gender entities, score 0. The jig was up, I thought,
however, who am I to express an opinion that is socially constructive...
Chimpanzees were recently compared to man in DNA composition. Chimpanzees have
99% parity. Little things mean a lot.
Racial differences are a wonderful amalgam of diversity expressed biologically
and socially, but its social impact has the edge on the human genome, I think...
Johnny
Onto Part 6