701. darkviolet - Feb. 12, 1999 - 12:32 AM PT
[Good thing we don't need no stinking traditions.]
702. darkviolet - Feb. 12, 1999 - 1:09 AM PT
By the way, RustlerPike, I'm pretty sure believers in most mosques don't "sqwat in rows."
703. darkviolet - Feb. 12, 1999 - 1:11 AM PT
or squat in rows, either.
704. bloodnfire - Feb. 12, 1999 - 2:51 AM PT
Greystoke. Your Message #695 ....or..."So please be kind to bloodnfire, because I'm partially to blame!!" :-)
705. bloodnfire - Feb. 12, 1999 - 2:57 AM PT
Although when Sly Seguine was in the 9th or 10th grade, I was already in my late 40's. Apart from that, I wasn't stupid. I knew what 'twat' meant. I'd used it hundreds of times. Someone would make a statement which I didn't understand, and, in order to get clarification, I would ask...."T'wat are you referring?"
I think I'd better get back to the Religion thread.....
706. IrvingSnodgrass - Feb. 12, 1999 - 4:05 AM PT
Rustler:
Thanks for the explanation. Islamic traditions have maintained their Jewish roots much more closely than Christianity (circumcision, food proscriptions, daily ritual prayer, etc.).
There are a few differences in some of the observations you made, however, one being that in Islam, both men and women are obligated to pray five times a day.
darkviolet:
"I'm pretty sure believers in most mosques don't "sqwat in rows.""
No, we kneel in rows.
707. RustlerPike - Feb. 12, 1999 - 7:34 AM PT
Irv:
- What is it that one is uttering when one goes face down on the prayer carpet like that? Jews have a point in the prayer called "shmoneh-'esreh" where they mutter *kadosh* (holy) three times and sort of bob up and down on their toes. It's one of the emotional high points of the prayer routine.
- Why is it that I always see Muslim men praying out in the open - just stopping their cars and kneeling on the prayer carpet - but I never ever saw a Muslim woman do that?
- Do women go on hajj? What are they called if they do? Where do they stand in the mosque that houses the Ka'abah at Mecca?
708. Seguine - Feb. 12, 1999 - 8:07 AM PT
"Up to the time of the destruction of the Temple, there were no
synagogues. Synagogues only evolved close to the time when the Temple
was destroyed, I think, and replaced the Temple as the Jewish place of
worship when the Temple was destroyed."
The Temple was destroyed repeatedly--five times or something lke that. Pike may be referring to the destruction ca. 70 CE, the one Josephus witnessed. However, there was also a destruction of the Temple by Nebuchadnezzar around 586 BCE, around the time the Israelites were thrown out of Zion and sent to Babylon.
Bear in mind that Jerusalem existed before the Hebrews/Israelites/Judahites arrived there. The ark was the center of worship before there was a Temple in Jerusalem, and was housed in a tent or cult hall wherever the faithful happened to be--in Shiloh, for instance. But when the first Temple was built in Jerusalem, it became literally the locus of God, so much so that the the Babylonian exile had the effect of threatening to separate Israel from its deity. The prophet Ezekial reinterpreted the deity to be 'portable' at this point, and the law itself supplanted the Temple as the center of religion: by fixing cultural difference, it provided a way for the people not to dissolve into the population around them.
709. IrvingSnodgrass - Feb. 12, 1999 - 8:07 AM PT
Rustler:
"- What is it that one is uttering when one goes face down on the prayer carpet like that? Jews have a point in the prayer called "shmoneh-'esreh" where they mutter *kadosh* (holy) three times and sort of bob up and down on their toes. It's one of the emotional high points of the prayer routine."
There are certain things which must be included in each Islamic prayer (at home or at the Mosque), and other parts which are optional. One part which is always required is the first sura of the Qur'an, which goes:
"In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate
Praise belongs to Allah, the Lord of all Being,
the All-Merciful, the All-Compassionate,
the Master of the Day of Doom.
Thee only we serve; to Thee alone we pray for succor.
Guide us in the straight path,
the path of those whom Thou hast blessed,
not of those against whom Thou art wrathful,
nor of those who are astray."
The part when one touches one's face to the carpet is called "Sujud." The worshipper repeats the following three times, touching his/her face to the carpet each time:
Subhaana rabbiyal a'laa wabihamdh.
"Holy Allah, my great Lord, with this I worship Thee"
There are other rituals in the prayer, including standing up after the second sujud, and looking to the left and right just before finishing the prayer (the "salam" or "goodbye," in which the worshipper thanks Allah and the prophets).
710. Seguine - Feb. 12, 1999 - 8:25 AM PT
"...men say the blessing (hold tight!) "Blessed are You my Lord, our God, King of the World, Who did not make me a woman". The women say "...Who made me according to his wishes"! Men who are past their Bar Mitzvah are obligated to pray daily, I believe, women are not, etc."
The orthodox explantion for these distinctions is not necessarily as repugnant as the traditions appear to indicate. Men bless God for not having made them women just as they bless God for having made them with "hollow orifices", or "al n'tilat yadayim" (commanding us to wash our hands before eating), or just in general. Consider also the Kaddish, which is said in response to death and doesn't address death--it's an aknowledgement of the appropriateness of the "way things are".
Men must pray three times daily, but women don't *need* to; men thank God for having been made male and obligated thus, just as Jews always thank God for the obligations he imposes on them; women thank God for having been made according to God's wishes, the implication being that women are complete whereas men are not. Women are the sources of life, they embody the Shekhina without trying; men must work at getting that close to God's life-giving essence, and for the orthodox this is the point of ritual.
This isn't to say that such traditions are not sexist. It's just that the nature of the sexism is not quite as simple as supposing that men are superior to women.
(Israeli men do have a reputation for failing to comprehend the distinction, however.)
711. IrvingSnodgrass - Feb. 12, 1999 - 8:26 AM PT
Rustler:
"- Why is it that I always see Muslim men praying out in the open - just stopping their cars and kneeling on the prayer carpet - but I never ever saw a Muslim woman do that?"
According to my wife, there's no reason a woman can't do the same thing. But, when pressed, she says she's never seen it "because women prefer a quiet place to pray." I assume there is no restriction on women praying in the open, and cultural factors inhibit it.
"- Do women go on hajj?"
Absolutely. My wife performed the pilgrimage last year. As you can see from the pictures, men and women are not separated for the pilgrimage.
"What are they called if they do?"
"Hajjah."
"Where do they stand in the mosque that houses the Ka'abah at Mecca?"
For most of the ceremonies of the pilgrimage, men and women are mixed, including circling the Ka'abah seven times. For prayers in the Grand Mosque, men and women pray in the same room, but are separated, with the women at the back.
712. Seguine - Feb. 12, 1999 - 8:34 AM PT
Regarding separation of men and women in synagogue--
Don't know about in Israel, but in the US, this only takes place in orthodox and perhpas ultra-conservative synagogues. Everyone else--and that's the majority, by far--is gender integrated. Moreover, Reconstructionist and Reform ideals have taken root in lots of Conservative congregations now, so that women lead services, are cantors, can make up a minyan, etc. There are even small lesbian and gay groups that reinterpret *orthodoxy* by way of Reconstructionism!
713. ChristinO - Feb. 12, 1999 - 10:35 AM PT
Thank you Rustler, Seguine and Irv for your posts. This is all fascinating to me.
714. ChristiPeters - Feb. 12, 1999 - 10:42 AM PT
Yes, I agree with ChristinO.
I'll miss you guys.
715. ChristinO - Feb. 12, 1999 - 11:49 AM PT
Where are you going Christi?
716. chloel - Feb. 12, 1999 - 2:38 PM PT
Backing up a little, to the question of whether women or men talk more: most research shows that men talk more in mixed groups, but men and most women overestimate how much women talk (just as a group with an equal number of men & women is seen, in advertising focus groups, to be mostly female; I believe the same holds true for differences of race).
While looking up the numbers, I came across a hilarious/depressing study of online discourse, specifically with not-very-anonymous identities. Many rhythms of the Fray are recognizable in it.
The author assumes that women don't like flaming because of early social teaching, which I think underestimates the case - several women I know personally have been stalked in RL for being assertive online as female personas. This has - as the law said of videotaped trials a while ago - a "chilling effect" on truth.
717. ChristinO - Feb. 12, 1999 - 5:52 PM PT
Chloel,
Thanks for the link. This is fascinating. I haven't finished it yet but will do so.
718. Msivorytower - Feb. 12, 1999 - 7:21 PM PT
chloel
Nice link. Solid analysis by Herring, et al, and still very relevant to male/female interaction on the net. I recognized much of what she identified as an ongoing pattern here, in the Fray.
I particularly liked her discussion of what happened in both lists during three dialogues where women approached 50% of the postings. That was downright fascinating.
I also agree with her conclusion that anonymity doesn't disguise subtle gender differences in style, language and tone. Indeed, I sometimes use these clues to "uncover" someone posting cross-gender. It is part of my internal monitoring radar.
719. IrvingSnodgrass - Feb. 12, 1999 - 7:36 PM PT
chloel:
Thanks for the link. I am considering starting a thread to discuss this issue (although a few dominant males may drown out the discussion, if the article is correct). Would you folks be interested?
720. Msivorytower - Feb. 12, 1999 - 7:40 PM PT
I'd be interested, FrayIrv.
721. IrvingSnodgrass - Feb. 12, 1999 - 8:29 PM PT
Then again, we *do* have some dominant females around here, as well.
722. CalGal - Feb. 12, 1999 - 8:41 PM PT
Chloel,
Great link.
I haven't seen what the Ms sees, though. Few of those findings seem to apply here--except it is usually easy to tell who is male and who is female. Although I thought Elliot was female when I first met him, and that Ariel was male.
Seguine is the only Fraygrant I can think of who is quite often assumed to be a male--unless Au is female. I can think of no male Fraygrants who are regularly assumed to be female.
The Fray is a tough place to hang out in, and it does reward assertiveness. But I haven't seen the rewards handed out on the basis of gender.
723. CalGal - Feb. 12, 1999 - 8:42 PM PT
Seguine is the only *female* Fraygrant, of course.
724. RyckNelson - Feb. 12, 1999 - 8:45 PM PT
So, I've been intrumental in the hiring and keeping of a muslim, Somali woman at my place of employment. What does that make me?
A white male with a penchant to be pc or a white male who doesn't want to be looked upon as a white male? Rather a human who is trying to work with an immigrant, who has to learn the local lingo, who has to learn the companies products, who has to learn the way we need things filed, who will become an integral part of the office personnel. She is cooperative and willing to learn. She prays in my showroom and I mean MY showroom. It's mine, I decide how it runs and what's in it. She is welcome to pray any time she wishes and I've made that known.
So, again what does that make me? Am I a "white" man or am I a human being? Am I with the understanding that we are sharing the planet? Do I make myself clear? We are sharing this planet?
What more is a human to do???????????????????????????
725. RustlerPike - Feb. 12, 1999 - 10:59 PM PT
Ahhh, Somali women.
726. ChristinO - Feb. 13, 1999 - 12:48 AM PT
Great suggestion Irv.
727. RustlerPike - Feb. 13, 1999 - 2:47 AM PT
Cal:
Message #723: no she isn't. There are a couple others.
728. chloel - Feb. 13, 1999 - 3:13 PM PT
I would say that there are (presumed) male Fraygrants who now insult & avoid, having failed to shout down, discussions in which the (presumed) women are getting opinionated. We also tend to alternate guy-fests and gal-fests, as in this thread.
We could do the measurement Herring did, counting up whose posts are responded to... hard to automate, therefore too much like work. Never mind.
This is certainly one of the fairest mixed lists I know of (praise with faint damns). It's also the first public list I've used a female alias on in about ten years.
729. CoralReef - Feb. 13, 1999 - 3:26 PM PT
"I can think of no male Fraygrants who are regularly assumed to be female."
Marjoribanks.
730. CoralReef - Feb. 13, 1999 - 3:50 PM PT
I don't think men shout down women in this forum very often, in fact sometimes the reverse is true.
731. CalGal - Feb. 13, 1999 - 3:59 PM PT
Coral,
Yeah, I thought of two male fraygrants who are sometimes assumed to be female--the other being.....hmm...can't think of who it is right now.
But in both cases the assumption comes from the handle, not from their writing style.
732. CalGal - Feb. 13, 1999 - 4:01 PM PT
Chloel,
"I would say that there are (presumed) male Fraygrants who now insult & avoid, having failed to shout down, discussions in which the (presumed) women are getting opinionated. "
I have *never* seen that.
But I've thought of this a bit more and had a few more observations.
The one thing I *do* notice in two threads (which I shall, in a fit of tact, not name) is a certain...exclusiveness? And it's not always there, but sometimes it's so strong I can practically smell the cigar smoke.
But whenever I notice a somewhat dismissive attitude, I see it applied equally to both genders. So I don't feel ignored because I'm female, but because I'm an unknowing ignoramus.
I can only think of two male Fraygrants who are hostile, condescending or patronizing to women. I can think of no subject that divides the Fray along gender lines.
But then I quite often fail to see sexism where other women notice it.
You usually don't use a female alias? Meaning you usually don't identify yourself as a woman? You find this makes a difference in how you are treated?
733. chloel - Feb. 13, 1999 - 4:31 PM PT
CalGal & CoralReef
Well, this is why Herring's work was interesting; humans are usually bad, and mutually inconsistent, at estimating statistics, even when we aren't wincing at our own particular galls. Count me some studies in which counting doesn't show women getting ignored or insulted more than men, and there we'll be.
CalGal
Yes, I thought you probably didn't notice stuff I file under sexism, which is IMO a sturdy indefensible (in the logical sense). Hence the value of counting. (Still - you can only count TWO Fraygrants who are specifically patronizing towards women? And you aren't using modular arithmetic?)
I use sounds-like-a-last-name aliases on tech lists. Ten years ago I posted sometimes as a female and sometimes not - I flipped a coin after writing the post - and I got answered more and threatened less as a presumed-male-by-default. (Which was enough for me to give up on the female aliases. Anyone I trust enough to look up at a conference can presumably keep it under his/her hat. (I've been hoping to meet someone with a male persona and discover another female, but it hasn't happened.))
734. CoralReef - Feb. 13, 1999 - 4:52 PM PT
Actually, the two most experienced in this forum of us three were remarkably consistent in estimating the fray.
735. chloel - Feb. 13, 1999 - 4:56 PM PT
CoralReef
You have no way of knowing how regularly I read the Fray or when I started, so no way of supporting your last proportion.
The name-change of this thread came from... outer space?
736. CoralReef - Feb. 13, 1999 - 5:00 PM PT
It came because as Res said, no woman was willing to take the devil's advocate position. There has to be two sides of a debate, to debate Female modesty. Somebody has to be *for* it.
737. CalGal - Feb. 13, 1999 - 5:22 PM PT
Chloel,
"Still - you can only count TWO Fraygrants who are specifically patronizing towards women? And you aren't using modular arithmetic?"
Well. I am truly terrible at math. And I was thinking more of hostile and contemptuous--threw in patronizing at the last moment.
But yes, there are only two male Fraygrants I can think of--one of whom has "issues", the other of whom gets a noticeably different tone when women disagree with him.
I was speaking primarily of disagreements, of course.
Now--are there condescending male Fraygrants in this forum? Damn straight. My palms itch, upon occasion. But as I said above, their condescension has seemed very equal-opportunity in nature. There are two or three women who strike me as condescending and they, too, show no mercy for their own kind.
I see no difference between the condescending men and condescending women. This is not to say there is none, of course. Feel free to pat me on the head kindly and call me oblivious. (and then I'll add you to the list of condescending women.)
738. CalGal - Feb. 13, 1999 - 5:24 PM PT
As for the renaming of the thread, it was going nowhere. I believe it was Diva who recommended it be renamed. But the content was silly blather that otherwise would have ended up in the Corner.
I found the thread topic idiotic, but I suppose Irv has to have tie-ins with Slate articles occasionally. Your link and this conversation is the most interesting thing that has happened since it began.
739. CoralReef - Feb. 13, 1999 - 5:42 PM PT
"You have no way of knowing how regularly I read the Fray or when I started, so no way of supporting your last proportion." This is true, though I guess I expected that if you had been around a long time you'd have noticed the things I've noticed and evidently CalGal has noticed. Is there some condescension? Yes? But have also been other events which I'd just as soon not dredge up.
And in this forum, if you get off with just a little condescension thrown your way you're doing pretty well....;)
740. CoralReef - Feb. 13, 1999 - 5:54 PM PT
BTW, Chloel, I'm not surprised at your experiences on a tech list (if that is what I think it is...). I have two siblings who are engineers and by all accounts it is a blatantly sexist environment.
741. CalGal - Feb. 13, 1999 - 5:54 PM PT
Coral,
Well, the Ms has been here and I think she said she noted some of the same things that the link mentioned. I don't think she was specific.
I think Chloel has been here long enough under her chloe name alone (iow, regardless of whether or not she lurked or posted under another name) to assess the situation here. If she feels that there is sexist behavior, I doubt being here longer would change her mind.
But I can say that even this discussion--whether or not there is sexism in the Fray--will not split on gender lines. There will be at least three women who don't see sexism, and at least three or four men who do.
Clearly, even enlightenment is gender neutral!
742. CoralReef - Feb. 13, 1999 - 6:01 PM PT
Hush now, CalGal.
743. IrvingSnodgrass - Feb. 13, 1999 - 6:02 PM PT
I will rename this thread again, in view of this very interesting turn of the conversation (for which I thank Chloel and her link). I thought it was obvious that my intentions behind the last renaming of this thread was an (apparently successful) attempt to throw cold water on the tone of the posts.
CalGal:
"Yeah, I thought of two male fraygrants who are sometimes assumed to be female--the other being.....hmm...can't think of who it is right now. But in both cases the assumption comes from the handle, not from their writing style."
The other one is glendajean.
744. CalGal - Feb. 13, 1999 - 6:04 PM PT
Irv,
Ha! I wasn't thinking of him! And that's too funny, because he's a buddy. I was, of course, thinking of reefer himself. So that makes three.
Incidentally, I didn't see anything wrong with you renaming the thread. I understood the intent and it was successful.
745. CalGal - Feb. 13, 1999 - 6:05 PM PT
Message #742--and yet another CB is revealed!!!!!!
746. chloel - Feb. 13, 1999 - 6:19 PM PT
CoralReef
Of course there is condescension, towards quite a lot of traits. We could get into, oh, class riffs, although that's even harder to quantify. Are you claiming that it doesn't matter if there's more condescension towards one group, because there's some towards everyone?
And are you intentionally providing a humorous example in telling me what's likely in CE forums? I will, out of the great amiability of my heart, assume so.
CalGal
It's a red straw herring to point out that sexist behavior and perceptions thereof won't follow gender lines. Not all women are feminists, not all men sexists, any more than all humans are humane.
Irv:
And here I thought it was objective description. How about "Himming and Herring" for the new name? in honor of someone who actually sat down and measured what most of us just pontificate about.
747. IrvingSnodgrass - Feb. 13, 1999 - 6:27 PM PT
chloel:
That's a great name! I'm just afraid it would be missed by those folks scanning the threads for an interesting topic. I've found that, when naming a thread, I often have to be very obvious about the subject, and resist the impulse to be cute.
However, I like your name so much I will start refering to this thread as "Himming and Herring."
748. CoralReef - Feb. 13, 1999 - 6:29 PM PT
Chloel, I was telling you that I take your word for what happens on the forums you've experienced, I was backing your point up.
But please. This talk about sexism is a bit rich given what actually happens in the fray.
Was there a Brothers of No Mercy I missed?
749. cllrdr - Feb. 13, 1999 - 6:42 PM PT
This is all about Jade -- right?
750. CoralReef - Feb. 13, 1999 - 6:45 PM PT
Chloe:
If someone espouses a sexist or homophobic position in this forum they are usually shouted down pretty swiftly. Exceptions might be on the subject of women in philosophy and a few other narrow areas, but not many.
For example, if people start espousing unflattering opinions of women there will be complaints and the title of the thread will be changed....
As to your class point, the most missed frayer is probably Godlessclif, the fray's most outspoken socialist.
751. CalGal - Feb. 13, 1999 - 6:59 PM PT
Chloel,
"It's a red straw herring to point out that sexist behavior and perceptions thereof won't follow gender lines. Not all women are feminists, not all men sexists, any more than all humans are humane. "
I was predicting, not asserting it to prove something.
But I am, as always, uncomfortable when someone who doesn't see sexism is assumed to be other than a feminist. And many of the people who will weigh in on the side of sexism will be those who regularly engage in what I consider to be sexist behavior.
Cellar,
No.
752. Msivorytower - Feb. 13, 1999 - 7:12 PM PT
Chloel, CR, CG, et al
My comment regarding the patterns of interaction similar to what Herring noted was more along lines of style and language by gender rather than specific and overt anti-female attitudes (although there are more than just the one or two Calgal seems to have in mind).
For instance, although there are not that many women posting here regularly, probably one to every two male, a much larger percentage of them are interested predominantly in the personal, social, aspects of the fray than the discussion aspects of it. In addition, more of the women are openly upset and angered when fights and conflict break out than the male posters (although there are certainly male posters who like to try to break up fights too).
In addition, more females use the passive, questioning, qualifying language here than males, again, however, both males and females cross lines. I also note that more women mix their styles than men. Again, in keeping with what Herring found in her study.
These examples aren't meant to imply that all women or all men posting here act only according to the patterns noted by Herring, but a larger percentage of the female posters fit her female patterns and a larger percentage of male posters fit her male patterns.
I find the comparisons quite interesting, actually.
753. CalGal - Feb. 13, 1999 - 7:26 PM PT
Ms,
I agree with most of Message #752. Minor exceptions.
"In addition, more of the women are openly upset and angered when fights and conflict break out than the male posters (although there are certainly male posters who like to try to break up fights too)."
I think women are more likely to comment on it, but I know quite a few Fraygrants who have said they just check out when these things happen. I hadn't noticed a substantial difference in the ratio.
What I had focused on in the link was the characterization of interaction between genders--the dismissal of women, etc. To me, that is more relevant when discussing "sexism", so that was what I had focused on.
The fact that "most women" do this or "most men" do that never much interested me. But I agree, for the most part, with your observations.
It is far more heartening to note that the sexist behavior described in the link doesn't seem to be here in the Fray. Says the oblivious one, of course.
754. CalGal - Feb. 13, 1999 - 7:33 PM PT
Ms,
"rather than specific and overt anti-female attitudes (although there are more than just the one or two Calgal seems to have in mind)."
Anti-female? For that, I'd say there aren't even two.
Let me be clear. There are other Fraygrants who are ridiculously patronizing of women--not many, but a few.
But I tend to dismiss that unless it is actively disruptive.
There are people who, when in disputes, will use gender as a weapon. But if these are people who normally get ugly with men and just use another weapon, I don't count that as sexism. They are people who are just not particularly good at disputes.
Yes, this is definitional and yes, this is very close to the distinctions I make about racism.
But even using the broader brush, I can only come up with three or four. (It is entirely possible, however, that I am forgetting some in this category.)
I was referring, however, to two Fraygrants who are *markedly* different when in the midst of a conflict with women.
755. Greystoke - Feb. 13, 1999 - 7:47 PM PT
Just a bunch of "girl talk" in this thread. Oh, well, maybe I can find some men to talk to in GOPville.
756. Greystoke - Feb. 13, 1999 - 7:48 PM PT
(g)
757. Seguine - Feb. 13, 1999 - 10:12 PM PT
One thing I wondered about the study cited in Chloel's link was whether the age of males and females online had (or could have) been accounted for. Because it's been my observation that most males acquire what I call Equivocal Voice techniques as they age; those who don't, or who don't often employ them, tend to occupy high positions in work or other social hierarchies; which suggests they're more aggressive to start with. Among women, the Equivocal Voice is modified to become somewhat more authoritative, but otherwise remains in use no matter the woman's age or position in a hierarchy, except perhaps in certain work professions dominated by men--e.g., engineering, stock brokerage.
Men in high social/professional positions frequently take what seems to be excessive offense at a female challenger. That is, they overreact. This crystallized for me in Ben Bradlee's response a few years ago to a female reporter's story in The New Republic that the Washington Post was suffering from institutionalized political correctness, which she claimed was undermining both the quality of writing and morale. Bradlee wrote a letter to TNR that was so hot--so *indignant* that some little upstart had had the temerity to question his fairness, his commitment to quality, etc. etc. etc.--that I was taken aback by a chill of recognition.
It eventually came to me that Bradlee's reaction was one I had experienced myself more than once, but was never certain was not simply a function of my having overstepped some important convention or other. Then it dawned on me that the convention was, simply, the expectation of female conciliation/modesty/submission to authority, and nothing more. It was sort of a stunning realization.
758. cllrdr - Feb. 13, 1999 - 10:17 PM PT
Don't ask me why, but I suspect Sally Quinn ghosted that Bradlee letter.
759. CalGal - Feb. 13, 1999 - 10:40 PM PT
I find that both men and women tend to have extreme reactions to women who aren't afraid of conflict.
In fact, I get the impression quite often--again from both men and women--that the person can't explain why they are overreacting. It is as if something is wrong with the picture, but they don't know what it is. Their reaction is never anything as clearcut as "Women should not act like this" or variations down to keeping them barefoot and pregnant.
Once I realized this, it became much easier to cope with. Before that point, I had always wondered, as Seguine described, if I had broken some rule or convention. Now I accept that yes, I have, but they couldn't explain it or codify it.
760. Ellespelle - Feb. 14, 1999 - 4:01 AM PT
Having been disinclined to give greater than cursory attention to the hyperlinked article, I must begin by saying that mommies continue to have greater early-formative influence on their children, male and female, than do daddies--yes, even given the increased role many fathers are assuming in direct nurturing these days. Having said that, I cannot tolerate women lamenting what seems to be an early inculcation of disparate communication patterns in boys and girls: when girls grow upset over a situation and react with tears, they are encouraged to explore and express their "feelings" about the issue; boys who react with tears are cajoled to stop crying and just get on with it...move on to an "objective" diversion, thereby stifling expression of a more subjective nature. So, when guys and girls chat later in life about topics that should remain as objective as possible, guys seem to weather intimidation far better than girls and will continue to state their opinions regardless of the insults they may receive. Women, on the other hand, often seem to get pouty and clam up. This should not be viewed as the fault of the men involved in the conversation, but moreso as the outcome of parenting and/or socialization strategies that I feel are woefully maladaptive. Yeah, as a woman, I cannot stand the infantilism to which so many women succumb in mere discussions that should remain as nearly objective as possible. If someone doesn't like what you have to say, they'll either ignore it or insult it--who the hell cares? Must we all await cues from our peers in order to continue a discourse, just as so many adolescents? Jesus, grow the h*ll up....
761. CoralReef - Feb. 14, 1999 - 4:07 AM PT
CalGal, I don't think people's reaction to you has much if anything to do with whether or not you fear conflict.
762. Msivorytower - Feb. 14, 1999 - 5:25 AM PT
CR Message #761
Oh, I agree 100%.
Seguine,
I don't think Herring controlled for age because it wasn't something that would be readily available to her, at least if I read her data gathering techniques correctly. She also never mentioned the issue of age, which suggests she didn't have it as a vector in her analysis.
Your comments are interesting, though, and suggest age should be considered, particularly wrt women, since the majority of women on the net are (like men) younger in age to begin with. My guess is that a higher percentage of older men than older women interact on the net. And this goes to the socialization point Ellespelle raised: older women are generally even more non-confrontational than younger women, on average, despite the womens movement of the 70's.
In general, though, I disagree with Ellespelle's position. It is useful to examine gender patterns of interaction in adults, regardless of how those patterns emerged. And Herring's point, really, transends the issue of "blame" and analyzes the prospect of greater democratic participation on the internet. If what she finds holds true, generally, then the internet is really no more (or less) democratic than other forms of communication or information forums.
763. Seguine - Feb. 14, 1999 - 7:59 AM PT
"This should not be viewed as the fault of the men involved in the
conversation, but moreso as the outcome of parenting and/or
socialization strategies that I feel are woefully maladaptive. Yeah, as a woman, I cannot stand the infantilism to which so many women succumb in mere discussions that should remain as nearly objective as possible."
Well I agree with this completely, and I disagree w/MsIT that "Herring's point, really, transends the issue of "blame" and analyzes
the prospect of greater democratic participation on the internet."
It doesn't quite transcend the issue. In fact, it elides the issue by assuming that a definition of democracy must adhere to Habermas (was it Habermas? I forget), who doesn't seem to address whether all parties in a democracy are really fit to participate in it. That's sort of a fundamental problem with democracy itself, one that hasn't ever been completely resolved.
Personally, I think it does no good whatsoever to idealize "democratic participation" in the abstract. One must look also at who is participating: democracy among young children, for instance, is not a reliably good thing at all.
By the way, if anyone wants to quarrel with Elle's point that objectivity "should" be the goal in a discussion, or suggest that personal feelings are legitimate fodder for discourse about, say, metaphysics, I would argue that no, resorting to discussing personal feelings is just the way submissive women are allowed to call attention to themselves. It's rarely informative, usually distracting, and no less irritating than the strutting (adolescent) male peacock method of expressing one's egotism. But it's more socially protected: one is allowed to take one's best shot at the goddamned peacock, but pelleting a sincere lady who prattles on about how she fee-e-e-els is considered unseemly.
(In the Fray, however, the this-is-just-my-opinion strategy has
764. Seguine - Feb. 14, 1999 - 8:02 AM PT
...has not been rewarded kindly of late, and god am I glad.)
765. Msivorytower - Feb. 14, 1999 - 8:16 AM PT
Seguine
Well, I actually agree with that comment as well. It is a source of never ending angst for me to be discussing something and then watch the discussion deteriorate to such things.
But, it is how many women interact on the internet, and in real life, actually.
"In fact, it elides the issue by assuming that a definition of democracy must adhere to Habermas (was it Habermas? I forget), who doesn't seem to address whether all parties in a democracy are really fit to participate in it."
It was Habermas, but are you suggesting that women are not fit to participate in democracy? Because of their aversion to conflict, their unwillingness to contradict others? I'm certainly willing to grant that socialization is behind much of the differences in style and language in male-female interactions, but I'd baulk at arguing that women are not fit to participate in democratic dialogue.
"But it's more socially protected: one is allowed to take one's best shot at the goddamned peacock, but pelleting a sincere lady who prattles on about how she fee-e-e-els is considered unseemly."
I thought this was also part of Herrings point. That women who prattle on about their feelings are engaging in "non-threatening" interaction, according to how they see it (that is, they are most comfortable and feel less hostility about their femaleness when they speak in that kind of voice).
766. Msivorytower - Feb. 14, 1999 - 8:17 AM PT
I don't think you can argue this is just mothers socializing their children into gender roles, this is really how women get socialized in all sorts of institutions. Adult men and women indulge young girls when they "feel" things, and "praise" boys when they "figure things out". For that matter, popular culture still upholds stereotypes about women as "caring, compassionate, emotional" creatures, and men as "cold, analytical, dispassionate" beings. In fact, the archetype evil female is one that is "cold, calculating, exploitive, and manipulative".
767. PsychProf - Feb. 14, 1999 - 8:43 AM PT
Very intersting stuff...I have often wondered why I find it of some importance to know if a fraygrant is male or female. I suppose I should answer my own question with the truth...I interact in RL in a different manmer with men and women( I know...sexist)...so at some level, why should it be any different here.
768. IrvingSnodgrass - Feb. 14, 1999 - 8:53 AM PT
Seguine:
"...a definition of democracy must adhere to Habermas, who doesn't seem to address whether all parties in a democracy are really fit to participate in it. That's sort of a fundamental problem with democracy itself, one that hasn't ever been completely resolved."
That was what struck me when I tried to apply Habermas's list to the Fray. It's why we have rules... so some participants don't threaten or harm others, or ruin the forum. Of course, here in the Fray, I'm committed to giving as much freedom as possible without major restrictions, but there have to be some restrictions, imo.
I'd like to explore this topic further. I don't think it's my position to get into a debate on it, but I'm very interested to hear comments. I also don't see this particular issue (Habermas's list) as a male/female one, but I'd like to hear from those who think otherwise.
769. CalGal - Feb. 14, 1999 - 8:55 AM PT
I agree completely with Ellespelle's Message #760
"But it's more socially protected: one is allowed to take one's best shot at the goddamned peacock, but pelleting a sincere lady who prattles on about how she fee-e-e-els is considered unseemly. "
Very true.
"It was Habermas, but are you suggesting that women are not fit to participate in democracy? Because of their aversion to conflict, their unwillingness to contradict others? "
I think Seguine was saying that the study "elides" the issue by assuming that the online world should make itself female friendly, rather than acknowledging the real issue--that there are too many women who are not "ready" for a forum that is dedicated to objective discussions, conflicting opinions, howling insults, etc.
You made the leap from online to democracy, when I think she just meant it as an analogy.
And if she didn't intend that, well, then, I do. What do you say to the possibility that any inequities in OL communication aren't the result of sexism, but of the fact that most women just don't have the proper skills? That if there are fewer women, it's just because most aren't "ready"?
770. Msivorytower - Feb. 14, 1999 - 9:03 AM PT
That's right Calgal, male agressiveness, insults and arrogant statements of fact are the ONLY way for communication to be "objective" on the net.
We should all be like men.
Grow a penis.
771. PsychProf - Feb. 14, 1999 - 9:21 AM PT
Hahaha Missie...I now understand Cal Gal...do you think a brain should accompany such, or will the penis alone suffice.
772. Christina14 - Feb. 14, 1999 - 9:29 AM PT
Regarding message 768 on the point of Habermas' list having a gender aspect to it. I think there is a gender aspect as a component of power--who has power and who doesn't. Women are not usually permitted to interject statements in some conversations without enduring reprimands or put-downs aimed at their censure. This is frequently an issue of "power"--who has it (or assumes it) and who doesn't. For example, if the boss is male, he may be less likely to accept the inputs of a female who is beneath him in the organization's structure, however many men will assume power over any female in a conversation, and resent any woman who does not defer to him.
773. jkuzmak - Feb. 14, 1999 - 9:37 AM PT
REAL WOMEN
The most important historical study of all, utterly dwarfing all economic and political ones, is for me the change relationship between men and women down the centureies-- from prehistoricd times to the present moral chaos in which both sexes have become equally confused about their roles. But I am a poet by calling, and have lived outside ordinary civilization for so many years that anything I write about real women must read oddly. Except perhaps to real women themselves, and the occasional man whom some accident of birth or experience tempts to agree with me.
A real woman, by my definition, either despises nor worships men, but is proud not to have been born a man, does everything she can to avoid thinking or acting like one, knows the full extent of her powers, and feels free to reject all arbitrary man-made obligations.
-- Robert Graves
Ladies Home Journal, 1964
774. jkuzmak - Feb. 14, 1999 - 9:40 AM PT
etc. etc.
775. CalGal - Feb. 14, 1999 - 9:48 AM PT
"That's right Calgal, male agressiveness, insults and arrogant statements of fact are the ONLY way for communication to be 'objective' on the net.
We should all be like men.
Grow a penis."
No, subjective communication can include insults, aggressiveness, and arrogance, as you've cleverly demonstrated by personalizing this debate. An excellent example, in fact, of how women can be hostile *and* unproductive. We all thank you for the lesson. Now, back on point.
Ellespelle said:
"guys seem to weather intimidation far better than girls and will continue to state their opinions regardless of the insults they may receive. Women, on the other hand, often seem to get pouty and clam up. "
This is life on the net. Women who are uncomfortable with holding to their opinions regardless of insults can, of course, find their own place to hang out. But in any mixed conversation, women can either learn to withstand the onslaught or take their marbles and go home.
776. CalGal - Feb. 14, 1999 - 9:58 AM PT
Further to my last post:
The link seemed to present the online world as a "men's only" association that needs to be changed in order to further female participation. (that was the subtext, in any event.)
I think that the online world--like the corporate world--rewards certain skills. The skills are those that our society tends to encourage more in men than in women.
But the skills aren't male. They are just skills. Useful ones, in fact. So rather than change forums to make them more female-friendly, I'd rather women get tougher.
The reverse happens all the time, btw. Men have learned a great deal from women. We just don't focus on that as much.
777. phillipdavid - Feb. 14, 1999 - 10:08 AM PT
Interesting article, one which basically correlates with the work of sociologist Deborah Tannen, who has written several books about the different qualities/styles of male and female communication.
Tannen basically said that while women generally seek to connect with other people in intimate, parallel relationships, men approach conversation competitively, as a one-up or one-down situation. As a result, women often feel silenced by men, although that is not necessarily men's intention.
This leads me to an interesting statement by the author of the article linked to:
"These observations on gender-marked styles lead to a second finding regarding manner of participation. Discussion on each of the lists investigated tends to be dominated by a small minority of participants who abuse features of 'men's language' to focus attention on
themselves, often at the expense of others."
What struck me was the phrase "to focus attention on themselves." This doesn't seem like an objective statement, and I don't really believe it true. I don't participate in this forum, for example, to focus atention on myself, even though I do use what the author terms "features of men's language." Focusing attention on myself is not the point of my interaction -- and if it is, than I am a self-deluded male.
778. Christina14 - Feb. 14, 1999 - 10:12 AM PT
No. 773 jkuzmak writes: "A real woman, by my definition, either despises nor worships men, but is proud not to have been born a man, does everything she can to avoid thinking or acting like one..."
What has pride got to do with it? Did Real Woman choose her gender? Let's just say, she accepts her female gender and is comfortable with it.
A Real Woman "Does everything she can to avoid thinking or acting like" a man. That's ridiculous. Such a statement means that men and women are two mutually exclusive beings with no humanness in common. That's almost as bad as putting them on separate planets, like the "men are from Mars and women are from Venus" guy. (Granted, his is just an analogy and not to be taken as an absolute.)
779. CalGal - Feb. 14, 1999 - 10:15 AM PT
"This doesn't seem like an objective statement, and I don't really believe it true. "
Yes, I noticed a few other value statements like that.
"and if it is, than I am a self-deluded male."
You're an egocentric bastard. Haven't you been told?
780. IrvingSnodgrass - Feb. 14, 1999 - 10:16 AM PT
PD:
Nice observations. But I do have to point out that Deborah Tannen is a Sociolinguist (a branch of Linguistics) and not a sociologist.
781. phillipdavid - Feb. 14, 1999 - 10:20 AM PT
Thanks for the laugh, Calgal, and duly noted, Irv.
782. darkviolet - Feb. 14, 1999 - 11:54 AM PT
"...women often feel silenced by men, although that is not necessarily men's intention."
Often it is men's intention to silence, however. A woman can easily tell by continuing to talk.
783. CoralReef - Feb. 14, 1999 - 12:22 PM PT
Yes, it's the intention of many to silence black helicopter talk as it will cause our sides to hurt too much from laughing if allowed to go on.
Darkviolet, no one would treat your Iraq talk like they do if you'd keep in the bounds of just calling American policy wrong, or even immoral, but you go off into the stratosphere.
784. Seguine - Feb. 14, 1999 - 12:28 PM PT
"...are you suggesting that women are not fit to participate in democracy?"
I'm suggesting that anyone who isn't able to witstand the rigors of democracy, who must resort to being accommodated emotionally instead of staking out her own position by virtue of sound analysis and precise expression is infantile. And to the extent that she is, no, she is not ready for democracy. This is a fact feminists have been perfectly cognizant of until the last 15 years or so, when it began to be argued that "inherently" female interaction strategies should be "privileged" just like like "male" ones. Which is crap of a piece with the sort of alphabet soup characterization of personalities and styles of interaction CalGal has advocated, in the past, as justification for all opinions being inherently worthwhile.
Certain interactive strategies commonly attributed to women are not necessarily good, grownup strategies. Many of them, I think, are neurotic, just like certain strategies commonly ascribed to men. (Male aggression out of proportion to male status, for instance, is INSTANTLY recognized as instability by men and women alike.)
Unpleasant as it may be, democracy is about the majority having its way, sometimes by accommodating, but frequently by squelching minority opinion. By drowning it out in derision. That's a good thing and a bad thing; we all know how and why it can be bad. But what's often overlooked is that the minority opinion is frequently the minority opinion because it is wrong.
"Because of their aversion to conflict, their unwillingness to contradict others? I'm certainly willing to grant that socialization is behind much of the differences in style and language in male-female interactions, but I'd baulk at arguing that women are not
fit to participate in democratic dialogue."
I'm not claiming that *women* are unfit but that *babies* are unfit.
Any useful version of dem
785. Seguine - Feb. 14, 1999 - 12:29 PM PT
Any useful version of democracy is not gentle, and it is not non-confrontational. It requires leadership, challenge, and battle, AS WELL AS resolution and a degree of submission to hierarchy. (A *degree*.) Democracy is not group therapy or benevolent dictatorship or the sort of interaction that takes place in a Quaker meetinghouse. And if my saying so means I have taken a "male" perspective on the matter, then I guess someone has decided that men by virtue of tradition have achieved a corner on effectiveness. Maybe that's the case at this juncture in history, but I don't accept it as necessity, and as a feminist you certainly should not.
786. Seguine - Feb. 14, 1999 - 12:45 PM PT
A couple of things:
€ I have not said that Habermas' list contain a gender component.
€ I have not argued, and would not even if you tied me up and dipped me in fire ants, that the socialization of girls toward non-confrontation, conciliation, equivocation, vagueness, etc., is accomplished strictly by mothers.
Also: I want to reassert that women resorting to non-confrontation in an inherently confrontational situation, such as an argument, bespeaks something about what women are *allowed*. We should not give into such constraints; they're demeaning.
On the other hand, I don't regard clever escapes out of the dilemma as demeaning: a woman might eschew confrontation and yet win an argument by means of other devices. It's just that winning an argument entails at least disarming one's opponent, if not harming him.
787. CalGal - Feb. 14, 1999 - 12:48 PM PT
"Which is crap of a piece with the sort of alphabet soup characterization of personalities and styles of interaction CalGal has advocated, in the past, as justification for all opinions being inherently worthwhile. "
I consider all opinions inherently equal. Full stop. (This does not mean , as some suggest, that I give them equal weight.)
I also like the alphabet soup. I do not advocate it. I just like it. Full stop.
The relationship you describe--that I consider all opinions worthwhile because of the alphabet soup--is inaccurate.
"This is a fact feminists have been perfectly cognizant of until the last 15 years or so, when it began to be argued that 'inherently' female interaction strategies should be 'privileged' just like like 'male' ones."
Quite so. And it is, as you say, crap.
788. darkviolet - Feb. 14, 1999 - 1:31 PM PT
CoralReef -
The amount of time I can spend on the Fray as been limited by career and family demands in the last few months, then further constrained by connectivity problems. It's been important to me to speak my piece on the issue of escalating U.S. hostilities in the Middle East as quickly and loudly as I could regardless of how ill prepared I was to present my points or defend them, or how it was received. The kind of information I've based my opinions on is about to become unavailable. So I *felt*, what the hell.
789. LadyChaos - Feb. 14, 1999 - 2:20 PM PT
I tried reading the article that is linked to this thread, and it seemed like so much BS that I was yawning after the second paragraph. Could someone save me the trouble of reading the whole thing and just summarize the point in a brief post?
790. jkuzmak - Feb. 14, 1999 - 2:45 PM PT
I will not summarize it Lady Chaos, but will simply state that after my posting #773 I was going to post -- "Piss on the whining bitch." She ain't no real woman in my book.
791. jkuzmak - Feb. 14, 1999 - 2:51 PM PT
Christina14, 778:
I don't see that anything you said follows from what Graves said. There are gender differences, real women do more with the female gender( an endangered phenomena) than those women who try to emulate men and their intellectual homosexuality.
792. jkuzmak - Feb. 14, 1999 - 2:55 PM PT
Darkviolet:
I have read some of your Middle East opinions, and they are atleast within my ballpark.
793. Seguine - Feb. 14, 1999 - 3:57 PM PT
Ah, Uzmak and Dreckviolence have begun another tawdry diversion for us. Someone here must know the theme song to "Love Boat".
Really, Uzmak. I thought you posted that Graves drivel in full irony mode. Once again, I gave more credit to your intentions than was due. If only I had a penis I would not err in that manner.
What the FUCK is "intellectual homosexuality"?
794. jkuzmak - Feb. 14, 1999 - 4:02 PM PT
Hey, Seguine. Have to make supper for the family. Shall return later to explain "homosexual intellecualism" , or whatever I said.
795. Msivorytower - Feb. 14, 1999 - 4:04 PM PT
Seguine
But the rigors of democracy do not demand that women interact like men, only that they have sound reasoning behind their discussions. I am not one to rely on emotions to make a point, however, I don't see how defining effective communication as emotionless is any better than determining that only emotions are valid communication.
Surely there is room for some of both. The problem, as I see it, is that women's voices, which *are* more emotional, are automatically discounted as inferior to the less emotional and ruff and tumble form of word play by men.
Btw, I'd say over aggressiveness, gratuitious insults and one upmanship are just as dangerous to democracy as anything overly emotional that women bring to the table. Perhaps I'd be more open to your view if it included some sort of balance between the two, which, at the moment, I don't see in your comments on the issue.
As a final comment, objectivity is examining the evidence, evaluating the pros and cons of it and then coming to some balanced conclusion, free of any particular interest in the outcome. This hardly ever occurs in any discussion, academic or otherwise, since everyone begins with their perspective of what is a balanced evaluation of fact tinged by their own self interests. Hence, the interjection of emotion into the evaluation process is not necessarily invalid, it simply becomes another piece of the evidence, or part of the pro/con step in objectively evaluating ones position.
Or perhaps I'm just reading what both you and Ellespelle have in mind when you talk about emotional prattle......
796. Ellespelle - Feb. 14, 1999 - 4:21 PM PT
MsIvTo:
I used the phrase "as objective as possible" with full intent: the existence of personal bias is a matter of degree, and keeping in mind its presence can help to check its flagrancy. I nowhere stated that a lack of emotion need pervade all discourse; I only meant to say that if and when contentiousness arises in the course of a discussion that should remain "as objective as possible," a proper reaction might be to reiterate one's point more effectively as opposed to expecting others in the discussion to accommodate one's feelings, that's all.
797. Seguine - Feb. 14, 1999 - 4:48 PM PT
MsIT,
Really, I don't know why you fail to see advocacy of balance in my remarks:
"...a woman might eschew confrontation and yet win an argument by means of other devices. It's just that winning an argument entails at least disarming one's opponent, if not harming him."
"Any useful version of democracy is not gentle, and it is not
non-confrontational. It requires leadership, challenge, and battle, AS
WELL AS resolution and a degree of submission to hierarchy."
"Certain interactive strategies commonly attributed to women are not
necessarily good, grownup strategies. Many of them, I think, are
neurotic, just like certain strategies commonly ascribed to men."
MsIT: "But the rigors of democracy do not demand that women interact like men..."
I've said they demand women act like adults.
"...only that they have sound reasoning behind their discussions."
In what, or whose, Utopian universe? Being convincing isn't entirely a matter of being right. If it were, OJ Simpson would be awaiting execution at this moment.
"I don't see how defining effective communication as emotionless is any better than determining that only emotions are valid communication."
I haven't advocated emotionless communication at all, but rather dispassionate *thinking* and the employment of a full range of communicative strategies. For the same reason women need not banish "unladylike" words from their usage, but rather should make every effort to employ them, like all other words, to greatest effect, women should not avoid expressing aggression or hostility when it suits their rhetorical purposes. Nor should we avoid naked emotionalism--as long as that doesn't descend into mere personalizing of matters: 'I oppose the death penalty because I feel it's wrong.' Well who, apart from one who already *feels* the same way, really cares? More to the point,
798. jkuzmak - Feb. 14, 1999 - 4:49 PM PT
Let's begin, Seguine. Given that we are here on this earth, both male and female, how is it that we all worship male gods. Certainly, Jesus was a man, and my impression is that olde Yahweh had some danglers hidden away there in the bright light of his majesty. Given that we could either worship Male, Female, or a pantheon of various and sundry, why is it that we are dominated by these male gods?
799. Seguine - Feb. 14, 1999 - 4:50 PM PT
More to the point, why should anyone who feels differently change his mind?
800. LadyChaos - Feb. 14, 1999 - 4:51 PM PT
I've only checked into this thread twice and already I can see that it's hopeless.
RIP this piece of garbage.