801. jkuzmak - Feb. 14, 1999 - 4:56 PM PT
Perhaps we should move to the Homoiousia Roadhouse, Seguine, the first worthwhile, " point" off the steppe.
---Uzmak-
802. Seguine - Feb. 14, 1999 - 4:56 PM PT
Uzmak, I'm not interested in your rhetorical dance around the maypole of Dumb Assertions About Women's Nature. The world does not now and has not always exclusively worshipped male gods, and the extent to which they ever have or will is doubtless irrelevant to anything you're about to assert. So maybe you'd better just cut to the chase and say what you mean by "intellectual homosexuality".
803. jkuzmak - Feb. 14, 1999 - 5:04 PM PT
Why, Seguine, I'm actually very female in my ways. Didn't I just cook dinner for my family. Cut to the chase? Oh, you're so masculine. You are asking me to do something that is against my nature and that I have no desire to do. Cut to the chase. Tell you precisely what it is that I mean. State the undeniable truth just like a man. You are certainly barking up the wrong tree, my dear.
804. jkuzmak - Feb. 14, 1999 - 5:35 PM PT
Lady Chaos:
My favorite transexual. Don't give up on us yet. We are working on new "techniques" of communication so that we can all form one amorphous sexless mass.
805. Pseudoerasmus - Feb. 14, 1999 - 5:58 PM PT
Well, I vote Seguine's remarks in this thread whether right or wrong among the most passionate yet well-thought out I've read in the Fray in a while.
Uzmak is of course as usual blithering.
806. jkuzmak - Feb. 14, 1999 - 6:06 PM PT
Erasmus:
Only to you, you beast.
807. CalGal - Feb. 14, 1999 - 6:10 PM PT
Well. Not *only* to him.
808. jkuzmak - Feb. 14, 1999 - 6:15 PM PT
Cal Gal:
I hate to blither. Slap me. How can I translate my blither into something that can dispel your confusion.
809. jkuzmak - Feb. 14, 1999 - 6:30 PM PT
And another thing, Erasmus, I will not be intimidated by your or Seguine's male aggressiveness. Especially not on this thread.
810. jkuzmak - Feb. 14, 1999 - 6:58 PM PT
And another thing, Erasmus, here is a big wet kiss goodnight.
MMMMWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
811. Msivorytower - Feb. 14, 1999 - 7:27 PM PT
Ellespelle
reMessage #796 On this we can agree completely, however, I've not noticed this to be a predominantly female characteristic. Indeed, if one challenges a man on his logic or correct thinking, one often is subjected to ruffled feathers for no greater reason that deference and reverence is expected by the man.
I don't think women have a corner on expecting their "feelings" (read ego for men) to be catered to.
Seguine and Ellespelle
Perhaps I'd have been more inclined to see the veracity of your positions if you'd not immediately attacked women as the culprits of "childish and emotional" communication techniques. I agree, Seguine, upon further reading of your subsequent posts, that you did strive to include both in your discussion, and I missed that the first round.
I don't agree that women alone fail to use grownup strategies, and I reacted with some degree of distaste at the assumption I thought I heard in yours, Ellespelle's and Calgal's posts. All three of you were saying something slightly different. Most of all, I do NOT agree that women need to become "more like men" to be taken seriously, or need male "skills" in order to communicate more effectively. Rather, they need to develop better ways of presenting their own ideas, regardless of their emotional base, and be more willing to defend those ideas with calm and logic in heated exchanges.
On this, I think I can agree with at least some of your positions.
812. CalGal - Feb. 14, 1999 - 7:42 PM PT
Ms,
"Most of all, I do NOT agree that women need to become "more like men" to be taken seriously, or need male "skills" in order to communicate more effectively. "
It was perfectly clear that this is what you thought was being said. I can't see how you got that impression from the posts that were made.
Saying that women who are uncomfortable with open confrontation and dealing with insults don't have the "skills" that are needed is not saying that they need to be "more like men". Nor that the skills needed are male.
(And no, I'm not asserting that Seguine or Ellespelle were making the same case as I was. I just don't see that argument made by any of the three.)
813. Msivorytower - Feb. 14, 1999 - 7:45 PM PT
My original interest in Herrings article was in how it paralleled some of the interaction and styles I've noted here in the Fray.
I would argue that a much higher percentage of the women posting in this forum rely on the communication techniques she identified as more feminine then those who post with a more masculine "voice". While there are some males who are more "feminine" in their style, and non-confrontational to boot, they are largely outnumbered by those males who are more inclined to post along the masculine patterns she noted in her paper.
I've not once been interested in assigning blame for why that happens, nor do I think the males in this forum actively seek to surpress female posters, but these patterns of style and language Herring identified are evident here, and that's what interested me initially.
I also agree with her conclusion that the internet is no more or less democratic than other forms of communication, and that the early hype about the internet being a vehicle for *greater* democratization of our society is largely unmet. I would argue this is true even if one doesn't consider the issue of gender, but just the kind of communication that frequently takes place on the net.
And if someone argues that access to information is better, particularly political information, I'd have to say that the information accessible on the net does not have any quality filters, in fact, it has fewer standards of quality than traditional information networks. So more information is not necessarily better if the information is bad.
814. Msivorytower - Feb. 14, 1999 - 7:48 PM PT
Finally, I'd have to disagree with the general tone of criticism of Habermas's definition of democracy, and the notion that some are fit while others are not. In this country at least, the idea that some are not fit is not plausable (unless the person is mentally deficient). Certainly everyone has at least an 8th grade education, with the majority of the population being high school graduates or better. By this yardstick, we are a fit population to participate in democracy.
The main problem the FF's saw with regard to fitness had to do with being educated enough to understand and intelligently debate the issues of the day. I'd say that if this was the yardstick, very few of us would be considered fit even by todays standards.
And just who gets to determine fitness? Some political elite? Some intelligencia? The majority? A chilling thought. So, I am disinclined to accept notions of fitness that suggest people must perform in certain ways in order to gain enterance to the club (of fitness).
815. Msivorytower - Feb. 14, 1999 - 7:50 PM PT
Calgal
I thought you'd back away from the intent of your posts. Frankly, I'll let others read them to figure out what you were "really saying" themselves.
816. CalGal - Feb. 14, 1999 - 7:55 PM PT
Ms,
?????
I don't see why you say I back away. I said very clearly that the skills were neither male or female.
Without question, I am unsympathetic to the notion of "democratizing" the internet by softening it up for women. I don't consider this as requiring them to become more like men.
Try not to determine what I am "really saying". If my posts are unclear or if you take issue with something that I actually said, have at it.
As I said before, try not to personalize this, if you can.
817. Msivorytower - Feb. 14, 1999 - 8:02 PM PT
Calgal
Only later did you say this. I'm not going to argue with you. Go back to the 770's and reacquaint yourself with your posts.
1) You read *subtext* into the author's arguments, even though you vehemently oppose anyone reading subtext into your posts
2) you use this strawman (subtext) to argue that she's stating the internet needs to become more female-friendly and that women simply "don't have the skills" to participate in the objective, dispassionate, aggressive kinds of conversations that go on in the internet (all characteristics attributed to men in the Herring study)
3) I'm not personalizing this discussion at all. In fact, you are, by assuming my comments are personal.
818. CalGal - Feb. 14, 1999 - 8:06 PM PT
Ms,
Um. You told me to grow a penis.
819. Msivorytower - Feb. 14, 1999 - 8:10 PM PT
No, I did not. I said that your post implied we women needed to be like men. Grow a penis.
The one statement was connected to the other. I gather you thought I told YOU to grow a penis. Not at all, the implication from your post was that if only WOMEN grew a penis we'd have those skills we need to be able to play on the net.
As I said, you're the one unable to detach from the commentary.
820. Msivorytower - Feb. 14, 1999 - 8:13 PM PT
Btw, that explains your completely nutty (and hostilely emotional) reaction to my comment earlier. I'd let it pass because, frankly, I thought it too strange. It now makes sense to me.
821. CalGal - Feb. 14, 1999 - 8:16 PM PT
As for the rest of your post, I am saying this:
1) If women are underrepresented in the internet and it is for the reasons given, then the way to increase female participation is for women to change. I have no idea what Herring is implying. She's not here, so I can speculate. But I would not change my opinion about the solution.
2) The way the women would change is to develop the appropriate skills. If they don't want to develop the skills, no great loss.
3) As I said before--men change, too, when the forums become mixed instead of predominantly male. It's just not as obvious and no one is measuring it.
822. CalGal - Feb. 14, 1999 - 8:18 PM PT
Hostilely emotional? Good heavens. I thought I was being polite.
Besides, read PsychProf's post right after yours and tell me he didn't think the same thing.
I believe you, mind you.
It's just that your sentence was...ha! It was ambiguous!!!!!
823. Seguine - Feb. 14, 1999 - 10:11 PM PT
"Perhaps I'd have been more inclined to see the veracity of your
positions if you'd not immediately attacked women as the culprits of
"childish and emotional" communication techniques."
I did not level an attack but a criticism, and I did so in agreement w/a post from someone else that labelled certain habits of women "infantile". It's been my observation for some time, in fact, that women are allowed by society (in the US--elsewhere I don't know about) to be infantile--not *childish* in the way males tend to be, which is a terroristic kind of non-adulthood--but INFANTILE. Helpless.
The question of who gets heard in an open forum is political, not moral. Babies don't have a chance in politics; screaming 4-year olds do. How would you change the odds?
"In this country at least, the idea that some are not fit is not
plausable (unless the person is mentally deficient)."
Untrue. Children are not allowed to vote, nor to speak freely or assemble peaceably without adult permission. Nor are people convicted of capital crimes. Moreover, the fact that some who are legally fit are not intellectually or morally fit is acknowledged and accounted for by the fact of majoritarianism itself: the unfit are presumed to be a minority. And we have to hope that they are. Anyway, isn't one of the arguments for public education that it ensures a minimum of fitness for participatory democracy? Who came up with that idea--some cabal of evil cognoscenti?
"And just who gets to determine fitness? Some political elite? Some
intelligencia? The majority? A chilling thought."
The majority, through its elected and appointed legislators, of course. Does it chill you that your minor child can't participate fully in democracy?
But look, before we get too far afield there's rather a big difference between legal rights to vote or assemble or speak, and the 'rights' of people to be hear
824. Seguine - Feb. 14, 1999 - 10:12 PM PT
...to be heard, in online discussions, among putative peers. No one *really* grants or protects the latter except for the participants themselves. So, aside from the fact that I think your definition of "democratic" is probably closer to a socialist ideal anyway, perhaps it's foolish to discuss internet discourse in terms of "democracy" at all, since such intercourse is closer to slightly regulated anarchy. We are not, after all, talking about who has the right to address a court of law, or a congressional body, or some other rights-granting or -affirming institution. We're talking about who can make herself heard among four year olds.
825. chloel - Feb. 14, 1999 - 11:19 PM PT
A healthy democracy must have some civility among the citizens; I must listen to those I disagree with, and they to me, for us to find any middle ground. The right to speak is useless without the duty to listen, though listening can neither be measured or enforced.
Remember that I used to decide whether I would post as a male or a female *after* writing the post. That experiment convinced me completely that a significant number of online participants did not base their reactions just on the content of my posts. Until reactions are based on the words, not the alias, it will never suffice for a visible subgroup like women - or foreigners, or AOHell newbies, or whatever is unpopular in a particular forum - to change their styles: there will always be a double standard. If it didn't matter how people responded to us, we could just write our posts to ourselves, in Notepad. (There's a solution to Slate's server problems.)
The Internet might be a democracy of ideas when we all have anonymity - and our own servers - but it isn't yet.
826. Ellespelle - Feb. 15, 1999 - 6:11 AM PT
MsIvTo:
In response to your Message #811, nowhere in my Message #760 and Message #796 did I speak in absolutes. I merely intended to suggest that women have POWER to affect this situation: parenting is a very POWERFUL activity in shaping the behaviors of subsequent generations. Seeing as it was a woman who conducted the analysis in the article being discussed, I felt it was fair to draw attention to an approach wherein women are the ones to accept responsibility for their own demeanors and realize that they're in a position to alter the current status quo--not in their lives exclusively, but in the future adult lives of their children. Why wait for men to change, or, worse yet, simply continue the bitchfest with complaints about the way things are...? If you don't like the situation, look to yourself as the first candidate for change. I would be a complete and utter cynic about my life if I didn't take action to change the parameters that don't suit me, and a helplessly pathetic dreamer if I expected someone else to hand me a greater voice in my society: I fully realize that if I want that increased presence, I'll have to pave the way for myself, hopefully with the assistance of others who feel as I do.
Your repeated assertion that I was "blaming" and "attacking" women reflects just what it is I'm describing as emotional retorts when a better response might be a more effective statement of the problem. Would that the individual citing the problem look to her own culpability in the matter instead of pointing the finger at those who really have no vested interest to change--that is, not until change is made necessary by the increasing presence of competency in women. That, in and of itself, will require men to change their strategies if they desire the continued presence of their seed in subsequent generations...hehheh. ;)
827. Mrtoner - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:14 AM PT
Gee, I don't agree that we should scrap this thread...it's smokin' in my view.
RE: jkuzmak #791, Sequine #793, jkuzmak #803:
I don't know for certain what jkuzmak means by "intellectual homosexuality" in reference to male discourse, but I think it's an interesting and potentially meaningful phrase not to be dismissed too readily. Jkuzmak may really be on to something here.
'Suspect its a (pretty colorful) reference to the mostly male form of hyperaggressive argument that seems, in this thread, sometimes to be regarded as some kind of ideal for everyone's attainment.
By the way, whoever observed that Seguine can turn a helluva good phrase is absolutely right! She rattled some of the people in here whose views I usually really like...but you gotta admit, she did it awfully well!
828. Msivorytower - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:36 AM PT
Ellespelle
1) Then your comments in Message #760 could have been qualified better.
2) I did not accuse you of blaming anyone, although I suggested a few of your posts appeared one-sided in their criticism (attacks) to me, even if I agreed, in principle with them. Rather, I've tried to defend the intent of the article (the one you said you didn't read) as not descending to blame. Calgal, particularly, seemed to interpret Herrings article as blaming men for women's lack of voice.
And I was trying to clarify that MY posts were not intended to blame men, per se, nor am in interested much in that level of the conversation.
829. Msivorytower - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:38 AM PT
Seguine
Really, I've not much dispute with your comments, however, you continue to misread mine and to create problems where none exist. The fact that I qualified my comments regarding fitness to vote to the adult population should have eliminated your need to discuss voting among children, which is really not even relevant to the point I was making.
Wrt your comment regarding public schooling, yes, precisely, if we believe that one of the main purposes of public school is to create adults prepared to assume the role of citizen, then the fact that the majority of our population are high school graduates, and that hardly anyone doesn't have at least an 8th grade education suggests that the population is overwhelmingly fit to participate in democracy. The exceptions, of course, are the criminal, mentally deficient, and possibly clinically emotionally deficient (I'm not sure about this one, it could eliminate the majority of the population).
Finally, I admit to some degree of confusion over your earlier comments regarding infantilism, but understand it to now mean helpless. In this regard, I have no disagreement at all. One of the least attractive (to me) characteristics of some women is that they actively promote helplessness. The problem, as I see it, is that sexually, many men still like that aspect of women, indeed use that as their main barameter of "feminine". I suggest we have a very long road to go before women eradicate those patterns of behavior because they remain successful as a means of attracting the opposite sex (and retaining them as mates).
830. Msivorytower - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:10 AM PT
I think this discussion has been derailed, in many ways, and attributes some views to Herring that are not what I took from her piece.
I saw her article as attempting to discuss the issue of whether one can say that the internet has fostered greater "democratization" of our society, and particularly communication between individuals. Herring concludes that if we look at one parameter, gender, then no, it has not lead to greater democratization of communication.
She examines three measures of participation by men and women and discusses their impact on democratizing communication: amount of posting, manner of posting and topics posted on.
Wrt amount of posting, she found that not only did women speak less, they also got less responses from others.
Wrt topics she noted that women have a preference for discussing concrete issues as opposed to abstract theories. She idenfitied the following flow chart of topic preferences by gender
MEN: issues > information > queries > personal
WOMEN: personal > queries > issues > information
Finally, and the most interesting to me, Herring noted differences in manner, that is style and language of posting between men and women.
Table 1 Features of women's and men's language
WOMEN'S LANGUAGE............MEN'S
attenuated assertions.......strong assertions
apologies...................self-promotion
explicit justifications.....presuppositions
questions...................rhetorical questions
personal orientation........authoritative orientation
supports others.............challenges others
............................humor/sarcasm
831. Msivorytower - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:13 AM PT
To me, the discussion of women's infantilism is not related to what Herring found in her study, since the forums she evaluated were academic, and naturally less inclined to that sort of interaction by any participants. I also think that the gender distinctions in language and style are valid, they indicate that gender is not just associated with the clear identification of sex, but is embedded in the language and tone of communication by sex.
I would argue that the differences in style, language and tone of male and female posts noted by Herring are certainly exhibited in the Fray, and in most other online discussion groups I've ever participated in.
832. SaraBand - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:33 AM PT
A few years down the road. Casket. Flattened and dried up tiny frog-like corpse (at the head of which is positioned a huge hollow ball of what appears to be black hair [encased in 500,000 coats of high-gloss polyurethane]). Anyone we know?
833. Ellespelle - Feb. 15, 1999 - 9:53 AM PT
Re: Message #828
I gave the article albeit cursory attention (meaning, I read it as closely as was necessary to get the gist), as a more thorough reading would have been a waste of time. Being that I love to read, I must be selective in my material to even begin to cover the territory of what's worth reading. This article was utterly predictable in its conclusions--a section that I did read rather closely. My impression overall was that an anecdotal rendering of the issue would have offered about the same level of enlightenment as was provided in her more statistical analysis. I mean, come on--are we shocked to learn that women don't like confrontation and that this fact continues to bear out on the internet? The state-the-obvious nature of the article didn't deserve more than a cursory reading. I wasn't shocked by its mediocre conclusions and would prefer to have encountered an analysis wherein feasible solutions to the age-old "war" between the sexes were viably researched.
For the record, MsIvTo, you did indeed say I was "blaming" and "attacking," where I would prefer to say I was criticizing; ah, what the hell--it's all semantics, right? ;)
834. Seguine - Feb. 15, 1999 - 9:55 AM PT
Message #832
Al Sharpton?
835. CalGal - Feb. 15, 1999 - 10:24 AM PT
Ellespelle,
"The state-the-obvious nature of the article didn't deserve more than a cursory reading. I wasn't shocked by its mediocre conclusions and would prefer to have encountered an analysis wherein feasible solutions to the age-old "war" between the sexes were viably researched."
Generally, I agree. But the actual documentation of the nature and number of the responses was interesting. Now that the data is around, there is more that can be done with it.
It seems to me that the next step might be to drill down deeper into the data that exists. Is the "ignore" rate the same between all forums? Do all women get treated the same way?
836. PsychProf - Feb. 15, 1999 - 10:32 AM PT
Does the "fray" ignore women?...what think you female fraygrants.
837. SaraBand - Feb. 15, 1999 - 10:37 AM PT
re: Message #834,
Mr. Sharpton will forgive you, Seguine; I failed to describe the mourners.
838. Ellespelle - Feb. 15, 1999 - 11:26 AM PT
CalGal: I guess my response to any further analysis of the data would probably remain one of frustration. I'm not so eager to know who is ignored because I really believe that, for the most part, compellingly informed voices are heard, regardless of gender. I do not employ absolute egalitarianism in choosing from the myriad of publications I encounter everyday: I don't have time to hear all of the voices and it is my right to pick and choose amongst them. Hence, if some men choose even to ignore ALL female opinion--however sad and provincial that might be--it is their right. I find political "correctness" abjectly offensive and extremely intrusive.
I should add that I've found many of your posts very compelling and well on the mark. ;)
839. SaraBand - Feb. 15, 1999 - 11:44 AM PT
Hermaphrodite?
840. PsychProf - Feb. 15, 1999 - 11:55 AM PT
Sara...you are a "newcomer" that knows how to link!!!???
841. CalGal - Feb. 15, 1999 - 11:55 AM PT
Elle,
"... I really believe that, for the most part, compellingly informed voices are heard, regardless of gender. "
Agreed.
"Hence, if some men choose even to ignore ALL female opinion--however sad and provincial that might be--it is their right. "
Also agreed. I just haven't ever experienced it, myself.
Re further analysis of data: What I am interested in is discovering both the how and the why. There may be no solution--it may be that the state of online communication is what it is because everyone is happy with this particular state of affairs. But it does become tiresome to see these numbers brought up again and again. Regardless of what Herring intended, this study will undoubtedly be used sometime in the future to demonstrate the inequities of online communication.
In the state that it is, I find the data are about as useful as that oft-mentioned statistic about women's income being 75% of men's. It lumps too much under the same header. Were all women equally likely to be ignored? What are the communication methods of those who were not? There may be women who are ignored and don't want to be--it seems the least a study like this could do is give them tips on how to proceed.
"I should add that I've found many of your posts very compelling and well on the mark. "--How odd. I've been thinking the same about you. Thanks!
842. Msivorytower - Feb. 15, 1999 - 12:34 PM PT
"For the record, MsIvTo, you did indeed say I was "blaming" and "attacking," where I would prefer to say I was criticizing; ah, what the hell--it's all semantics, right? ;)"
Perhaps it is. For the record, I read your posts as more derisive attacks than criticism (and very over generalized). However, criticism implies addressing the issues as raised in the article. It also implies suggesting some solutions beyond the old (and trite) "it's all womens fault anyway" mantra.
It's good to know the world doesn't need academics to tell them the obvious. The only problem with this is that sometimes what appears obvious is actually completely incorrect. For instance, one of the main points of Herrings article (one you keep ignoring in your commentary) is that the internet, contrary to hype and popular belief, is NOT necessarily any more (or less) democratic than any other institution or form of communication in our society. Hence claims that the internet can potentially create greater democratization within our culture are clearly overstated.
I'm not much into PC myself, but then I'm not much into waving the anti-PC flag either, particularly as a knee jerk reaction, given that I think the power of language and images do have a huge impact on the continued marginalization of some groups in our society. Your position suggests there is nothing valid in trying to understand the power of language and meaning. Odd, that, given you think women are powerful enough to change the entire socialization of future generations at the drop of the hat.
843. ChristinO - Feb. 15, 1999 - 1:42 PM PT
Oh, where to begin?
First: Seguine could you provide some examples of Female infantilism----I see plenty of puerile strutting and antagonism. My observations are likely skewed since I do not participate in forums other than the Fray, or maybe I'm just biased in general.
Second: Ellespelle, semantics aside when one talks about not blaming men when mothers are repsonsible for the lion's share of early childhood development I find it difficult to see how you can call that criticism of the article rather than "blaming" or "attacking" women for being in the position they are.
Third: Like the Ms, I was particularly interested in the stylistic differences noted between masculine and feminine writing. I'm quite aware that my style is distinctly feminine in many ways, however, I haven't found that I get ignored or that I even very often get attacked. In most instances I feel that I am heard and get my point accross with a minimum of ill will flowing in either direction. This seems to me to argue that it is NOT necessary to be abusive, hostile, sarcastic, arrogant or authoritative to be heard.
Last: Does it make any difference that men are more likely to be the majority of Internet posters because it is a technological area? "Women type correspondance and men write code" seems a basic point that appears to have been totally overlooked. (If this was addressed in the article I missed it, sorry)
844. ChristinO - Feb. 15, 1999 - 1:43 PM PT
jkuzmak,
Silly me, I never thought of it as being homosexual, but I suppose it could be. Isn't it as likely to be onanistic, though?
845. TabouliJones - Feb. 15, 1999 - 2:07 PM PT
"Isn't it as likely to be onanistic, though?"
LOL!! The Fray as circle-jerk.
846. PsychProf - Feb. 15, 1999 - 2:13 PM PT
OK TJ...but then some will have to grow a penis......
847. Seguine - Feb. 15, 1999 - 2:16 PM PT
MsIT: "Really, I've not much dispute with your comments, however, you continue to misread mine and to create problems where none exist."
Not so: I have a quarrel with your apparent divergence from Herring on the issue of the appropriateness of "female" discursive habits--your assertion that the "problem" lies elsewhere--and with certain assumptions about democracy and censorship made by Herring, and apparently accepted by you as well.
"The fact that I qualified my comments regarding fitness to vote to the adult population should have eliminated your need to discuss voting among children, which is really not even relevant to the point I was making."
You did *not* qualify your remarks in that manner. Eighth graders are not adults; mental incompetents can be. Convicts of voting age are adults, but can't vote. My point, which you conceded seemingly without realizing it, was that we DO decide who is competent to participate in democracy. We also decide, as peers and/or combatants, who is competent to participate in a given discourse. I insist that there's nothing necessarily wrong with that--nothing "chilling".
Previously, you asked me (rather bizarrely) whether I thought that women were incompetent to participate in democracy. I said that, to the extent traditionally "female" discourse does not embody a full range of strategies for dealing with rhetorical combatants, that discourse is incompetent.
Here's Herring's example, and characterization of, a "typically" female online conversant:
" I am intrigued by your comment that work such as that
represented in WFDT may not be as widely represented in
LSA as other work because its argumentation style
doesn't lend itself to falsification a la Popper. Could
you say a bit more about what you mean here? I am
interested because I think similar mismatches in
argum
848. Seguine - Feb. 15, 1999 - 2:18 PM PT
...similar mismatches in
argumentation are at stake in other areas of cognitive
science, as well as because I study argumentation as a
key (social and cognitive) tool for human knowledge
construction.
[personal orientation, attenuation, questions, justification]"
But what is the *overall* impression conveyed by these remarks? Supplicant. Student. Intellectually uncertain. How will her stance actually advance the discussion, as opposed to giving an arrogant interlocutor too much room to pontificate? This is, in fact, a mild version of infantilism: the woman has made herself *helpless* in front of a man, has essentially asked for a (potentially annonying) performance from him.
And what is she getting at, anyway? Why does she use so conspiciously non-judgmental a phrase as "mismatches in argumentation"? Is the guy she's talking to saying, perhaps, that the ability to falsify assertions is what makes them worthy of discussion? If she doesn't agree with this, why can't she just say or imply as much and get on with defending her position? Why, for instance, didn't she say something like this:
"Your comment regarding work like that represented in WFDT not being as widely represented in LSA because its argumentation style doesn't lend itself to falsification, a la Popper, is interesting. I've certainly noticed similar stylistic distinctions in other areas of cognitive science. But given the importance of argumentation as a cognitive and *social* tool for human knowledge construction, I'd be curious to know whether you're suggesting that styles that do lend themselves to falsification are inherently superior to those that don't. If unfalsifiable arguments have any merit at all, why shouldn't LSA accommodate them?"
Polite, confident, skeptical, specific, unaggressive but challenging, direct. Nothing inherently "male" about it, except for the second sentence, which D
849. Seguine - Feb. 15, 1999 - 2:19 PM PT
...which DARES place the speaker on the same authoritative planet with the guy she's talking to. Anything so awful about that? Any reason this approach should not be considered objectively preferable to the example cited by Herring?
850. ScottLoar - Feb. 15, 1999 - 2:22 PM PT
The word is so often misspelled that I was prompted to look it up rather than trust my own spelling but there it is, please, "correspondence", unless there is a quadrille and I'm without my dance card.
851. Seguine - Feb. 15, 1999 - 2:29 PM PT
Herring: "A tendency is noted for a minority of male participants to effectively dominate discussions both in amount of talk, and through rhetorical intimidation. It is argued that these circumstances represent a type of censorship, and thus that an essential condition for democratic discourse is not met."
Neither "democratic discourse" or "censorship" is defined here, except via reference to Habermas.
Censorship, in particular, is a loaded word. But ANY definition of it that can be said to be inimical to democratic discourse and not actually a normal part of it implies _authority_ over the censored.*No such authority exists* on the internet, except by virtue of rhetorical tactics that are just as available to women as to men. And Herring acknowledges this! Here's what she says:
"While it is true that no external censorship was exercised
by the moderators or owners of LINGUIST or MBU, women
participating in CMC are nevertheless constrained by
censorship both external and internal. Externally, they are
censored by male participants who dominate and control the
discourse through intimidation tactics, and who ignore or
undermine women's contributions when they attempt to
participate on a more equal basis. To a lesser extent, non-
adversarial men suffer the same treatment, and in and of
itself, IT NEED NOT PREVENT ANYONE WHO IS DETERMINED TO PARTICIPATE FROM DOING SO. [Emphasis added.] Where adversariality becomes a
devastating form of censorship, however, is in conjunction
with the internalized cultural expectations that we bring to
the formula: that women will talk less, on less
controversial topics, and in a less assertive manner."
Herring is properly CRITICAL here of female passivity as a component of "censorship", while MsIT lays the source of the problem of female marginalization in discourse elsewhere: "But the rigors of democracy do no
852. Seguine - Feb. 15, 1999 - 2:31 PM PT
...the rigors of democracy do not demand that women interact like men [LIKE MEN??], only that they have sound reasoning behind their discussions. [!!!]...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."
But women are *not* more emotional than the most aggressive males--the very types who do tend to dominate discussions and discount women's remarks--and assertive women are NOT "automatically discounted", certainly not according to Herring!
Consider: ScottLoar, Resonance, Pseudoerasmus, VicKuligin, PincherMartin, JKuzmak--all at times quite emotional in their argumentation. But the issue is what KIND of emotion we're talking about. Why *shouldn't* unnecessary caution, submissiveness, equivocation, and aversion to conflict be discounted? I mean, this isn't *sexism*. The discounting of certain behaviors isn't sexist simply because those behaviors are manifest more often in women. The discounting of women *because they are women* is what is sexist. And that is fucking bad enough--bad enough that women simply MUST not run from it.
But it is just wrong to suggest, as Herring does by implication, that criticism or rhetorical aggression in itself is inimical to democracy. By "democracy" in discourse, does she/Habermas mean that all voices will participate equally and be given an equally polite reception? Are conversations somehow to become like *voting*? What makes her think this is desireable?
Let me put it another way--and I'm addressing these remarks mainly to Chloel's Message #829: In order to be a properly "democratic" interlocutor, have I a "duty" to entertain with civility the rhetoric of David Duke? If Khalid Abdul Mohammed entered our conversation, would I be "obligated" to listen to him? If my derisive response succeeded in shutting up
853. Seguine - Feb. 15, 1999 - 2:33 PM PT
...in shutting up some antisemitic spew of his, would I not by Herring's definition be a "censor"? And yet, would I not be within my rights *in a democracy and nowhere else* to point my finger at his folly? To gain support for my position?
Do you really want an idealized version of "democracy" that insists you hear out *everyone*, even zealots and nuts and people who can't think their way out of a paper bag, and then find some "middle ground" between your own middle ground and their extremes of nuttiness, ignorance, or plain stupidity? And if you do propose that this Utopia is better than the somewhat uncivil thing we have, how will you ensure that David Duke listens to you?
One more thing: if it can be "censorship" to disregard and discount submissive, apologetic people, it can just as easily be "censorship" to shut up rude or aggressive people by disregarding them, discounting them, or scolding them for behaving "like men". And women do this to other women far too often, in my experience.
854. Seguine - Feb. 15, 1999 - 2:37 PM PT
Sorry, my reference to Chloel's remarks should have been to Message #825.
855. Seguine - Feb. 15, 1999 - 3:01 PM PT
MsIT: "To me, the discussion of women's infantilism is not related to what Herring found in her study, since the forums she evaluated were
academic, and naturally less inclined to that sort of interaction by any participants."
Actually, one of the things that disturbed me about Herring's analysis was that she described not only a professional academic forum but a *student* forum dominated by the very worst sort of adolescent male strutting, and then blithely conflated the two, as though the male behavior in one was simply an extension of the male behavior in another, and so a female disinclination to participate in either could therefore be considered a reaction to the same phenomenon.
Moreover, she conspicuously failed to mention an observation brought up by CalGal, which is that when enough women participate assertively in conversations previously dominated by men, the tenor of those conversations does change. This suggests that Ellespelle is right: women have the power to be heard, therefore women have a responsibility to make themselves heard.
None of which is to claim that sexism isn't a persistent problem. But suggesting that men ought to relinquish sexist notions just because they 'should' is not, in my considered opinion, a very good idea. It's on the level of complaining that the world is not fair, and then waiting stubbornly for the world to become fair so that we can join it without having to adjust in any way.
856. Mrtoner - Feb. 15, 1999 - 3:03 PM PT
Although I don't know for certain the sexes of the several participants in the thread, my impressions are: (1) most of them are women; (2) they are dominating the debate; (3) several people that I think are men have been pretty much ignored, as I have been.
Conclusions? Maybe who gets ignored depends on (a) the subject matter; (b) the weight and value of opinions being expressed.
I get ignored fairly frequently, here and elsewhere in the Fray. My first thought was that my expressions of opinion probably just weren't all that enthralling. Now I begin to wonder...perhaps my penis isn't big enough?
857. ChristinO - Feb. 15, 1999 - 3:06 PM PT
MrToner,
It tends (as in real life) to be a matter of technique rather than endowment. The question of what technique to use and when is (also as in real life) one of those things that must be "felt out".
858. Seguine - Feb. 15, 1999 - 3:08 PM PT
Christin,
No. No. You must not placate their fears like that. It's just dishonest.
859. arkymalarky - Feb. 15, 1999 - 3:10 PM PT
And, as an extension of Christin's point, it comes with practice. So stick around. Many of us felt that way when we first started here.
860. ChristinO - Feb. 15, 1999 - 3:15 PM PT
Seguine,
I'm on a quest to convince them that the having of a thing does not make up for lack of knowledge in how to use it.
861. jkuzmak - Feb. 15, 1999 - 3:33 PM PT
ChristinO:
I just don't know whether it is homosexual intellectuality or onanistic intellectuality. I just don't know. But Seguine keeps bullying me, telling me to lay the whole thing out on the table like a real man, one or the other, either or. Please tell her to stop.
862. Msivorytower - Feb. 15, 1999 - 3:56 PM PT
Seguine
Thanks for your comments, they provide much food for discussion.
"You did *not* qualify your remarks in that manner."
Yes, I did, I assumed we were talking about an adult world, and my comments suggest such in that I refer to the adult population being relatively highly educated. However, I concede I assumed this and did not make it as explicit as I could have.
"My point, which you conceded seemingly without realizing it, was that we DO decide who is competent to participate in democracy."
There is no concession here, since the criteria we impose for participation are generally objective (adults, legally mentally competent, with some exposure to public schooling at a minimum, not criminals). So we do make some qualifications on who is competent to vote, but those qualifications are objective, typically at a minimum level. What I objected to was the path you seemed willing to go down, that of having clearly subjective standards for determining who is "fit" to participate in a democracy. I think that a dangerous road to travel, particularly since who might be considered fit will mesh very nicely with who's in power.
"We also decide, as peers and/or combatants, who is competent to participate in a given discourse."
Oh absolutely, and it is this process that I suggest is inappropriate to apply to the concept of who's fit to participate in a democracy. The wide range of tastes and perspectives on "who is competent to participate in a given discourse", and the objections that occur when many are excluded, highlights the dangers I see in subjective evaluation of who can have a place at the table in democratic discourse.
863. Msivorytower - Feb. 15, 1999 - 3:57 PM PT
"I insist that there's nothing necessarily wrong with that--nothing "chilling"."
I disagree when it applies to measures of democratic participation. There is a chilling effect, one that I'm perfectly willing to live with when it applies to a given discourse, but it is not a standard necessarily beneficial to democracy.
864. Msivorytower - Feb. 15, 1999 - 4:15 PM PT
I also interpreted Herrings example of a typically female correspondent somewhat differently.
"But what is the *overall* impression conveyed by these remarks? Supplicant. Student. Intellectually uncertain."
My main interpretation was that they were non-challenging. Stated in such a way as to come toward the other individual from a position of inferiority. Yes, they were all the things you noted, but they also typified how women DO present themselves and non-threatening intellectually.
And while your example came across as
"Polite, confident, skeptical, specific, unaggressive but challenging, direct.....which DARES place the speaker on the same authoritative planet with the guy she's talking to."
It is the latter that can be very problematic for women in some situations. I believe this is dangerous to women, professionally and sexually. Professionally because it only takes a few of the men women work with to find this behavior unacceptable for her to be sabatoged in the work environment. Sexually because women who DARE to claim equality with men are often ridiculed by both men AND women, who find this sexually threatening and unappealing.
Now, we can argue til we're blue in the face that this shouldn't matter, but it does to many women, and the fact that so many younger women have deliberately distanced themselves from what they see as hard line feminism (portrayed as women who think they're men and who "hate" men by virtue of trying to "be" men) suggests that they are ambivalent about what is the appropriate female voice.
865. chloel - Feb. 15, 1999 - 4:19 PM PT
Seguine
A democrat does listen to the David Dukes long enough to know what they're saying before ignoring them for it. It's more probable that the democrat can convert some of his possible followers knowing how he argues, which is also profitable for the body politic. Finally, the democrat is ignoring him because of what he says, which is not the behavior observed in differing reactions to similar posts under different aliases.
I assume there is no-one from whom you'd consider Duke's rhetoric acceptable. This makes your stance unlike that of people who would accept an argument from anyone but a woman/Mac user/[racial epithet].
A lot of people disagree with you on some public issue but are more reasonable than David Duke. Since you don't always ignore people you disagree with - since you are now arguing with some of them heatedly but carefully - it looks to me as though you're being civil, in my /civitas/ sense. Why does it look different to you?
After all, Herring and MsIT and I, and you and Calgal and thousands of others, are changing the habits of online discourse as well as operating within the existing standards. Flamage has destroyed most of the unmoderated lists I enjoyed ten years ago. Only moderated lists (like the Fray) and unusually focussed, technically apt ones with outside trust mechanisms survive. Reducing flamage increases efficiency, and no-one has found a more-speech solution to it, so it is very useful to find social checks instead.
866. Msivorytower - Feb. 15, 1999 - 4:38 PM PT
"Any reason this approach should not be considered objectively preferable to the example cited by Herring?"
None whatsoever. Let's agree that this is preferable, however, I didn't get the idea that Herring was attempting to present an idealized example of female interaction, just an example of what she observed.
"Moreover, she conspicuously failed to mention an observation brought up by CalGal, which is that when enough women participate assertively in conversations previously dominated by men, the tenor of those conversations does change."
My experience is that when enough women participate assertively in conversations the discussions either end quickly (die out), or become female only conversations (the men leave). So, I'd like to hear what you mean by a changing tenor in the conversation, and some examples where women (en masse) became equal participants in the discussion.
This suggests that Ellespelle is right: women have the power to be heard, therefore women have a responsibility to make themselves heard."
Oh, I never disagreed with this, women, individually can make themselves heard. This does not, I think, automatically suggest that many women participating assertively in a discussion on the net at once would be met with full acceptance by the majority of the men and would be embraced enthusastically in an ongoing discussion (not without many men complaining or leaving). Personally, I don't have much problem with this, but I'd hesitate to call it successful or effective cross-gender communication.
867. Ellespelle - Feb. 15, 1999 - 4:40 PM PT
MsIvTo states: "...criticism implies addressing the issues as raised in the article. It also implies suggesting some solutions beyond the old (and trite) 'it's all womens fault anyway' mantra." I take this to "imply" that all criticism must pertain to "the article?" Huh? I was criticizing women at large, in that refrain, and I felt the criticism was apt. I also very much spoke to solutions by imploring women to consider appropriate changes in their own demeanors in contrast to awaiting behavioral changes in men; the latter is virtually impossible in the absence of at least a modicum of power to force such a change, and seeing that the entire issue seemingly surrounds women's lack of power at present TO enact positive changes in their own levels of participation, my advice surrounded the individual's role in effecting changes in her own life. As to your quoted "mantra," I must say that, in this regard, it IS an individual woman's CHOICE to become discouraged and refrain from further participation in a discussion where she ALLOWS herself to be silenced by aggresive opinions. If, on the other hand, she exits the discussion due to a sense of futility in making herself understood by people who won't seem to take her seriously--that is quite another matter: she recedes not to pout and lament her lack of inclusion, but rather because she seeks to move on from a debate that no longer offers requisite stimulation....
868. Msivorytower - Feb. 15, 1999 - 4:44 PM PT
"Consider: ScottLoar, Resonance, Pseudoerasmus, VicKuligin, PincherMartin, JKuzmak--all at times quite emotional in their argumentation. But the issue is what KIND of emotion we're talking about."
I really don't think the kind of emotion that fuels the exchanges between these participants when they get going is anything women ought to actively mimic. In fact, the emotional exchanges between these individuals and those whom they are arguing with at the moment often devolve to that "adolescent male strutting" you so scathingly referred to earlier.
I disagree that this kind of emotional voice is any more effective than women's helpless voice. But then, we may be thinking of entirely different exchanges when we think of the emotionalism displayed by these posters upon occasion. (I am referring to the rather tedious fighting that ends up with typically adolescent insults flying around the place.)
869. Msivorytower - Feb. 15, 1999 - 4:45 PM PT
"I was criticizing women at large,"
Yes, you were.
870. CalGal - Feb. 15, 1999 - 4:46 PM PT
Ms,
"My experience is that when enough women participate assertively in conversations the discussions either end quickly (die out), or become female only conversations (the men leave). "
??????
Not here in the Fray. Or are you excluding it from your experience?
Surely you haven't noticed all the men leave the "room" when you show up, have you?
About the only time that I notice a drop in male participation is when feminism is discussed. Which is too bad, quite frankly--I'd welcome some male opinions. (and yes, MrToner, that means you.)
871. CalGal - Feb. 15, 1999 - 4:48 PM PT
Incidentally, I don't have that experience of men leaving when women join in the conversation in real life, but I've heard women complain of it. My experience is that men leave the room when the conversation no longer interests them. Which is generally what I do as well.
But I'm assuming the Ms refers to online forums.
872. Msivorytower - Feb. 15, 1999 - 5:01 PM PT
"Herring is properly CRITICAL here of female passivity as a component of "censorship", while MsIT lays the source of the problem of female marginalization in discourse elsewhere:"
Yes, but my comment, which you highlight here, was in rebuttal to a combination of posts made by you, Ellespelle and Calgal about women being "too emotional", and incompetent to participate in a democratic dialogue, or an online forum (calgal). I perceived you were all saying that women needed to adopt male patterns of communication (and skills), which both you and calgal qualified at a later point. Ellespelle still seems to think women are too emotional.
I see no reason to defend that comment in light of Herring's, since it was not made in reference to her discussion, but the offshoot that had begun among us. Besides which, I still stand by it. I don't think women need to act like men online in order to find a more authoritative voice, and I've already agreed your re-interpretation of Herrings example was a better way for women to dialogue in mixed communication forums.
873. Msivorytower - Feb. 15, 1999 - 5:02 PM PT
"But I'm assuming the Ms refers to online forums."
Yes, I am, I forgot to qualify that. Thanks.
874. Msivorytower - Feb. 15, 1999 - 5:03 PM PT
"Not here in the Fray. Or are you excluding it from your experience?"
Absolutely here in the Fray. I make no exceptions.
875. Msivorytower - Feb. 15, 1999 - 5:05 PM PT
Btw, Calgal,
I was referencing your comment regarding this issue. My understanding was that you were not referring only to a few women participating, but to a fairly substantial number of women (enough women, in your words).
876. ChristinO - Feb. 15, 1999 - 5:16 PM PT
I'm still looking for examples of the different type of emotionalism (read temper tantrums) displayed by women here in the Fray as compared to that of the men.
I think we've accepted as gospel an assumption that simply is not true.
877. CalGal - Feb. 15, 1999 - 5:22 PM PT
Christin,
????
I would say the opposite. We don't have very many emotional females in the Fray. Two major exceptions I can think of, obviously.
But far more men I can think of get fussed.
878. chloel - Feb. 15, 1999 - 5:22 PM PT
ChristinO
No! Common opinion, wrong?!?
I don't think an alien, or Thorstein Veblen, would see the differences most people in one human culture see. I also know people from different human cultures have skewed views of how men and women 'naturally' act. I also have experienced similar posts being reacted to differently based on the poster's perceived gender (hasn't anyone else done that? What this thread needs is the Turing experiment).
879. CalGal - Feb. 15, 1999 - 5:30 PM PT
Ms,
"Yes, but my comment, which you highlight here, was in rebuttal to a combination of posts made by you, Ellespelle and Calgal about women being "too emotional", and incompetent to participate in a democratic dialogue, or an online forum (calgal). "
There is a quantum difference between saying "Pah! Women are too emotional to engage in objective discussion!" and saying "Rather than assume that the online world is sexist and hostile to women, why not figure that fewer women have the skills to thrive in this setting?"
Provided that you acknowledge the difference between those two responses, and accept that I was saying the second, I suppose that is an accurate characterization.
"I don't think women need to act like men online in order to find a more authoritative voice, "
Nor do I. As I said, the skills are gender neutral. You also seem to assume that the skills I am referring to are the insults, temper tantrums, etc. Not so--although they are fine, as well. I was referring to the *response* that women have to being ignored, being insulted, being dismissed, etc. Do they run away traumatized? Get hurt? Emotional? Need more mentoring to find their way? Or do they hang in there and grit it out? Learn how to be heard?
And is that toughness part of being male? Or is it just a behavior that hasn't traditionally been encouraged in women?
880. CalGal - Feb. 15, 1999 - 5:31 PM PT
Ms,
"Absolutely here in the Fray. I make no exceptions."
Examples?
881. Mrtoner - Feb. 15, 1999 - 5:33 PM PT
I notice that while several of you (all women, I think) have been vigorously debating the true characteristics of women as communicators in forums of this kind, you all have tended to "agree" (or at least, have not really seen fit to argue about) the supposed characteristics of the men.
There seems to be agreement among you that the male communicators are aggressive, somewhat arrogant, overbearing, etc.
There is a lot of truth to this, I have to admit, and I also agree that it does seem to be more common among the male participants than the female. I don't even object to the generality. (Sometimes it's difficult to get any communicating accomplished if someone's constantly challenging you for employing generalities.)
Still, we men have been pigeonholed rather thoroughly in this thread, without much of an effort on the part of the several participants to suggest that wide variations in approach may exist among men, as well as among women. (One commenter did observe that some of the men exercised a more "feminine" approach to argument.)
My conclusion? It doesn't seem that any of you women are exactly defenseless out here. There's no substitute for being articulate, informed and capable of a well-grounded, fact-based, considered rejoinder.
Y'all go on out there now and mix it up with the worst of the boys.
882. ChristinO - Feb. 15, 1999 - 5:40 PM PT
Actually, before coming to the Fray we were all shy retiring types, MrToner. Have we been introduced? I'm Mother Theresa. Nah, seriously this is part of what I'm getting at. I've got to run now so I apologize for not being able to elaborate at this time.
CG & Chloel
Right. It just seemed to me that Seguine and Ellespelle and the Ms while disagreeing about the causes and effects of this phenomenon were all pretty much in agreement that women have "tenderer" emotions in here than the men do. I haven't seen evidence of that.
I apologize if I've misunderstood anyone, but it just seemed to me that we were discussing something that I have yet to find in existence. Sulking and hurt feelings as opposed to the more aggressive abuse and ad hominem attacks are equally expressed by men her in the Fray.
Damn! I hate it when I have to leave in the middle of this stuff.
See you tomorrow.
883. chloel - Feb. 15, 1999 - 5:56 PM PT
Mrtoner
Actually, what I found (in unmoderated forums) was a tiny proportion of extreme anti-female-authoritativeness posters. (I think all of them were posting as men. I myself am actually a St Bernard, so make no assumptions about who people are IRL.) The vast bulk of men & women online are in the same general range to me, but the outliers are important. It's a stats thing.
Since I've been physically attacked several times for being an assertive female in male fields IRL, and have known three women who got actionable threats or worse for the same online, I always had to make a cautious little calculation based on physical risk (where I couldn't be anonymous). It's a form of terrorism, one which I don't *think* affects men as much, and which makes moderation, as in the Fray, useful.
I also distrust presumed-men who are 'present' during the threats, but don't rebuke them. I don't assume they approve, but don't assume they don't.
884. Msivorytower - Feb. 15, 1999 - 6:11 PM PT
Calgal
My point was that women reach a critical mass of posting in an online forum men generally leave, or the conversation just dies out. I said that this also happens in the fray. It does, one example has been this thread. You said it only happens when feminism is discussed, but the truth is, women don't reach a critical mass of posting in most other threads, ever.
A more recent example was when you, Diva and myself were heavily posting in race. At no point did the three of us dominate, together, the conversation. So, how can one argue that it doesn't happen in the fray (conversation dying, men leaving) when you exclude feminist topics given those are the only ones where women are posting en masse.
There is the FC, but that speaks for itself.
One female, posting among a slew of men does not equality make. Nor does it test Herring's basic hypothesis that when women account for a critical level of the posts on a topic, a lot of men get upset, and either complain or leave.
Btw, how about providing examples of cases where "enough women" assertively posting changes the tenor of the debate in a way that doesn't result in men leaving the conversation.
885. CoralReef - Feb. 15, 1999 - 6:12 PM PT
"so make no assumptions about who people are IRL."
Yes, but if that's the case then one should make no assumptions about whether anecdotes used to buttress arguments are true.
886. CalGal - Feb. 15, 1999 - 6:12 PM PT
MrToner,
"I notice that while several of you (all women, I think) have been vigorously debating the true characteristics of women as communicators in forums of this kind, you all have tended to "agree" (or at least, have not really seen fit to argue about) the supposed characteristics of the men."
No. We aren't arguing about it, but I suspect there is no agreement. For example, the Ms has said this about the Fray (and other online forums):
"My experience is that when enough women participate assertively in conversations the discussions either end quickly (die out), or become female only conversations (the men leave)."
That isn't my experience at all. I think it is reasonable to extrapoloate that the Ms and I differ on male characteristics.
887. Msivorytower - Feb. 15, 1999 - 6:12 PM PT
MrToner
I've been reading your comments. This latest one is a fair commentary, we are assuming Herrings "male patterns" of interaction apply to this forum.
I happen to think they do, btw, but am open to reconsideration.
888. CalGal - Feb. 15, 1999 - 6:21 PM PT
Ms,
Right now, there are five women posting substantially on this topic: you, me, Seguine, Ellespelle, and Chloel.
In the Clinton thread, or any other political thread, there have been many times when at least that many women are present and posting substantially--JadeGold, Arky, Judith, Ad, me, you. Six. The men don't run off. They stay there and argue.
Religion is another example of threads that have, at various time, substantial contribution by women and the men don't leave. While I don't hang out there all the time, I can think of many individual discussions there where I've seen heavy participation by both men and women.
That suggests it is the subject matter rather than the women that causes men to lose interest or decide they have nothing to contribute.
889. chloel - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:04 PM PT
CoralReef
Why should you? You can do an experiment yourself. Try posting to cypherpunks for a week as each gender.
890. CoralReef - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:08 PM PT
Chloel, I have no doubt that much of this is true as relates to "cyberpunks" as you call them, but this forum is a bit different. I don't see much mention in this discussion of the various hyperagressive women the fray has seen.
btw, I have posted under male and female handles in the fray and didn't find much difference.
891. Seguine - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:10 PM PT
"Yes, but my comment [about aggressive males being the source of female avoidance of conflict]...was in rebuttal to a combination of posts made by you, Ellespelle and Calgal about women being "too emotional", and incompetent to participate in a democratic dialogue, or an online forum (calgal). I perceived you were all saying that women needed to adopt male patterns of communication (and skills), which both you and calgal qualified at a later point. Ellespelle still seems to think women are too emotional."
How many times does it have to be said? None of us is talking about raw "emotionalism", but about the necessity for emotional resilience (which I have been maintaining from word one is the province of *adulthood, NOT MEN*) and the ability to defend oneself effectively in argument. Many women apparently do take agressive discourse too personally (and leave!), or else respond to argument by resorting to "it's my personal opinion", or a host of other submissive strategies and tendencies we've all seen manifested here, and which Herring notices too. They are INFANTILE in that they exemplify helplessness and they are INCOMPETENT in that they do not advance debate or the position of the woman resorting to them. As such, they are not worthy of respect or defense, and calling them 'inherently female' doesn't make them value-free, or good, or acceptable.
You would NEVER vote a woman into congress who resorted to such behavior.
That said, hyperaggressive males (and *others*) can certainly shut down discussions on the internet, just as they can pop a woman in the face "cuz she tried to tell me what to do" (or whatever). But what do you want? The world is filled with terrorists. Short of filling it with policemen, the only solutions I know of are a) to get better armed and b) have somewhere more interesting to go.
892. CoralReef - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:17 PM PT
And Chloel, my comment about anecdotes was not about the specific ones relating to this discussion but just in general.
893. Seguine - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:18 PM PT
HOWEVER, MsIT, your remarks about women facing real and daunting difficulties or even dangers in the workplace, and anywhere men can exercise more than symbolic control over us, are quite well taken. Such behavior is legally actionable, however. I might even argue that it should be more so.
894. arkymalarky - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:20 PM PT
I've been following this discussion with interest. I tend to agree with Cal about the Fray and with Seguine's comments in general. I've never thought about whether being a woman in debates here affects how my arguments are addressed, and it's never seemed to be an issue. I have noticed, however, that virtually all the women here are fairly liberal. Is there one conservative woman who posts in the Fray?
Unfortunately I have to go. See y'all later.
895. chloel - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:21 PM PT
CoralReef
Cypherpunks, not cyberpunks. It's a particular technical list, entirely distinguishable from William Gibson. I've repeatedly said that the Fray, as a moderated forum, is not like general online discourse.
What woman in the Fray has threatened someone IRL?
Seguine
"get better armed" - freedom of the Internet iff you own a server? Yup! ...But if the world is "filled" with terrorists, where better can we go? - Besides the next one, but I don't want to oblige them so.
896. darkviolet - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:22 PM PT
A clue:
Men just want to have sex.
897. Ellespelle - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:23 PM PT
MsIvTo: Yes, I was "...criticizing/ATTACKING/BLAMING women"--ultimately and penultimately capped for effect, if ya get my drift...hehheh--for bemoaning their lack of inclusion while ignoring their own agency in the matter. It just strikes me as irresponsible to point the finger before having taken steps to recognize one's own culpability. As to my indifference toward the "Democracy On the Intenet" angle of the article, I've long presumed that access to more information doesn't necessarily render greater enlightenment. Obviously, not all information is equally valid. It stands to reason, therefore, that simply stating one's opinion shouldn't automatically entitle one to participate in decision-making processes that are liable to affect the lives of millions. One would love to assume that those who receive the majority of the popular vote in a democratic election possess a view of the nation that is most consistent with reality. The fact that this is rarely the case highlights the pitfalls of extending voting rights to any and all citizens who simply live long enough to participate (to the ripe old age of 18, no less) without regard to their ability to read simple text, like, say, a proposal or platform, for instance. Though this statement may appear elitist on the surface, I offer it in preface to identifying the elitist power-grabs that ensue as a direct consequence of rampant pockets of ignorance in the US. For instance, President-Elect George Jefferson Herbert Walker, etal., uh, and make that XXX (that's the 30th), to boot...I digress...anyway, this newly-elected president is more than happy to have coerced the votes of countless under-informed "constituents," few of whom he has any hope, let alone desire, of "representing" in any real way in his newly-won position of power. Their ignorance is a calculatingly advantageous circumstance to him, one which he sees fit to aid and abet. Call me conspiratorialist in this
898. darkviolet - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:23 PM PT
Another clue:
You can't change that.
899. Ellespelle - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:23 PM PT
...but the same ruse has been wrought against countless masses of un-indoctrinates, the world over, from time immemorial. So, any analysis of democracy--on or off the net--should anticipate the potential pitfalls inherent in any governing system that doesn't encourage sufficient training for its populace in making informed decisions.
900. Msivorytower - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:27 PM PT
Seguine
"How many times does it have to be said? None of us is talking about raw "emotionalism", but about the necessity for emotional resilience"
YES, I understand this is your position NOW. I am not convinced that everyone means what YOU mean, however.
You do not need to repeat your comments again. I fully understand them and I agree, generally.