I was discussing a larger issue with commentary on this list when I said "so
write your own essay, then." Because it seems very easy for everyone to
throw in opinions on any given subject, no matter how imaginary the object
of thier criticism is [in this case, the false idea that I support a
chemical construction of gender.] I found Mark's criticism to be much like a
lot of criticism on rhizome: "I would have done it this way." I don't care
how you or anyone else would do it. Why don't *you* *do* it? Or look at how
I did it and understand it from where I am coming from. In the same regard,
if Mark wanted me to write an essay on a different subject, then let him
write the essay, instead of writing a ten cent quip on what he would do
differently.
Secondly, his criticism was delusional. "To say that there is a natural
masculinity and femininity does nothing but throw us back in the same ball
game of claiming nature rather than taking the responsibility of claiming
culture as responsible for sexism. I think it is important to remember that
Masculinity and Femininity are themselves culturally constructed concepts
(made by a sexist society) that are used to naturalize sexism by claiming
these identities as natural." Which is a very valid statement, excepting
that I never said these identities were naturally constructed and neither
did they have any appropriate bearing on the essay. Nowhere in the essay.
His point is fine but not in the framework of a "critique" on what he finds
"troubling" in the essay. The essay is not about how gender is constructed.
His critique was not actually a critique but a proposal for another paper. I
encouraged him to write it. But I also don't like having misogynistic ideas
from Freudian Gender Theory shoved into my mouth. Had he taken any time to
read the thread he would have seen that I already addressed these issues in
follow ups to my essay itself.
His critique was not "respectful" and it certainly was not "objective." If
someone wants to comment on a thread they should read the thread and react
to what is in the thread, [which would be "respectful" of the author and the
community] as opposed to knee-jerking at the sight of the word "gender"
because it doesn't specifically endorse one's personal pov on the subject-
and actually consider content within context [which would be "objective
analysis."] This is not to say that I personally invalidate Mark Cooley as a
person with intelligent and insightful things to say, quite the opposite, in
fact, I believe he would but I wish he would express them appropriately by
taking the time to give his ideas the respect that all ideas deserve. If you
take your ideas seriously then you consider them carefully and you enter
them into dialogue appropriately.
There are people on this list who are not interested *at all* in the sharing
of ideas and the forward motion that most ideas are intended to take by way
of *exchange*. Instead, when a group of ideas are presented, some people
will respond with peripheral information that benefits the discussion and
others will attack the way in which it was presented. In this particular
email from Mark Cooley, he decided to inject not "ideas", which would expand
the scope of conversation. Instead, he chose "criticism" which could have
been phrased in a way that expanded on my essay, rather than reduced it for
the sake of a particular overvalued idea that he felt needed to be asserted
more rigorously. He did so not by simply asserting those ideas, but by
claiming that my essay was flawed because it did not address what his ideas
were. This is followed up by you, Eduardo, now taking exception to the
delivery system of my ideas in response to his ideas, as if policing the
exchange will benefit it. And so far, four emails have been exchanged which
have nothing to do but restrict the flow of ideas and the expansion of the
discussion, all based on the imaginary idea that I believe in anatomical /
chemical constructions of gender [I don't] and then your imaginary idea that
you can tell my emotional state by the brevity of my statements in an email.
(You can't.) Perhaps we should concern ourselves with the ideas in the
essay- exploring what I consider an interesting space, whether the internet
is an inherently feminist medium- instead of this absurd typewritten puppet
show of soap operatic melodrama.
If I happen to make my points a bit too clear, perhaps you should take a
look at whatever inflection you are personally projecting onto the words I
type and recast them into sing song tones rather than assume that any sense
of clarity is instantaneously "aggressive." Here we are in the midst of our
seventh subscriber who randomly takes on an anti-"personal attack" crusade.
Everyone who does this is simply looking at the emotionality that has been
projected onto typewritten text and pretending that you will "make the list
better" by doing so. The list does not need epistolary tone police, Eduardo,
the list needs ideas and the discussion, and your emotional regulation
system hijacks this exchange. This list will not be able to "be better"
until some of its more vocal subscribers learn how to read and consider an
email appropriately instead of responding instantly to keywords they have
been programmed to respond to by years of indoctrination; and when people
stop taking it upon themselves to hop into the reply button train with a
suitcase full of reprimands for anyone who asks that people work a little
harder towards generating discourse and respects thier ideas enough to treat
them like chocolates.
Cheers,
-e.
—– Original Message —–
From: "Eduardo Navas" <[email protected]>
To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]>; "mark cooley" <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 1:33 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: My Email Is Longer Than Your Email: Gender
in Online Communities
>
> > So write your own essay, then.
> >
> > Gender constructs are totally socially constructed and nothing in the
> essay
> > falls apart under that view. It was written under that view by an author
> who
> > vehemently believes in social learning theory. That's why they are
> > "constructs." My essay was on how the products of these constructs
engage
> > with the internet.
>
> I think Mark Cooley's criticism is quite objective and respectful, and
there
> is no reason why to respond in a reactionary form. On Rhizome, as soon as
> someone disagrees it becomes personal. The list is not going anywhere if
> this keeps being the norm.
>
> Just because someone is critical does not mean they do not respect you or
> your work, it just means that there is room for improvement.
>
> Take it and move on, Grow with it.
>
> Eduardo Navas
>
>
>
>
>
The Rhizome Bureau of Social Niceties
-
Type: discussion
Comments
<–snip–>
>This is followed up by you, Eduardo, now taking exception to the
> delivery system of my ideas in response to his ideas, as if policing the
> exchange will benefit it. And so far, four emails have been exchanged
which
> have nothing to do but restrict the flow of ideas and the expansion of the
> discussion, all based on the imaginary idea that I believe in anatomical /
> chemical constructions of gender [I don't] and then your imaginary idea
that
> you can tell my emotional state by the brevity of my statements in an
email.
> (You can't.) Perhaps we should concern ourselves with the ideas in the
> essay- exploring what I consider an interesting space, whether the
internet
> is an inherently feminist medium- instead of this absurd typewritten
puppet
> show of soap operatic melodrama.
As good of a rhetoritician that you are, you also assume too much. I do not
have imaginary projections about your emotional state; but if your response
to my e-mail is not proof enough that you are quite defensive when it comes
to taking criticism, then perhaps I may be projecting. And this might be
the better interpretation to believe in the long run, no? But just in case
this is not so, I will comment on a few things below.
First of all, if you think of me as policing, it may be because you just do
not want to hear some of the things I have to say. And that is simply too
bad, because I will say things when I deem appropriate, so live with it.
Second, it is hard to talk about ideas which are developed on a problematic
platform, this had already been pointed out to you by Kanarinka (yes, I have
followed the whole thread, otherwise I would not have commented on it). She
was certainly nicer about it than Mark, but the problems with the
construction of gender were brought up by her as well. Just because you
had responded to her comment did not mean that Mark could not add his own
comment – even if it was similar to Kanarinka's, but since you always have
to have the last word, you tried to shut him out, as opposed to letting his
comment be the last. Must you always have the last word? I guess we will
find out after this message, no?
To make this short, you can not expect to write an essay on a problematic
platform and expect that people will suspend their reevaluation of gender
constructs as these are currently understood simply because your essay
implies that this be the case. One question that ran through my mind as I
read your essay was "Why is this essay imposing problematic terms on to the
web?" And this was then followed by "Maybe he will take a more skeptical
position on it." But instead, your essay ends up supporting a problematic
ideology of gender types.
Sure one can take the position of saying, "I was merely reporting what other
researchers have done," but people do not report things that they do not
support at least implicitly. It is because of your lack of critical
position on gender stereotypes– not to mention major assumptions about what
people know and do not know as you so eloquently admitted in your e-mail to
Mark – why people have commented on the problematics of your essay as
opposed to the ideas you reported. So, it is your position that is
problematic for some people on the list, and that is fine. But do not
expect them to elaborate on your ideas, because they will always be more
interested in commenting on the problematics behind your ideology – even
when you claim not supporting such. Not taking a clear position is
supporting the naturalized state. And if you are not willing to talk about
what you support, then there in not much to talk about.
As I know you like to have the last word, I hope you actually consider what
I have said above. It is okay to let it go. Move on Eryk. Take the
criticism.
And please notice that this e-mail is much shorter than yours, brevety is
gold.
Well, time to get off my patrol car. I think I am off-duty.
Cheers,
Eduardo Navas
<–snip–>
>This is followed up by you, Eduardo, now taking exception to the
> delivery system of my ideas in response to his ideas, as if policing the
> exchange will benefit it. And so far, four emails have been exchanged
which
> have nothing to do but restrict the flow of ideas and the expansion of the
> discussion, all based on the imaginary idea that I believe in anatomical /
> chemical constructions of gender [I don't] and then your imaginary idea
that
> you can tell my emotional state by the brevity of my statements in an
email.
> (You can't.) Perhaps we should concern ourselves with the ideas in the
> essay- exploring what I consider an interesting space, whether the
internet
> is an inherently feminist medium- instead of this absurd typewritten
puppet
> show of soap operatic melodrama.
As good of a rhetoritician that you are, you also assume too much. I do not
have imaginary projections about your emotional state; but if your response
to my e-mail is not proof enough that you are quite defensive when it comes
to taking criticism, then perhaps I may be projecting. And this might be
the better interpretation to believe in the long run, no? But just in case
this is not so, I will comment on a few things below.
First of all, if you think of me as policing, it may be because you just do
not want to hear some of the things I have to say. And that is simply too
bad, because I will say things when I deem appropriate, so live with it.
Second, it is hard to talk about ideas which are developed on a problematic
platform, this had already been pointed out to you by Kanarinka (yes, I have
followed the whole thread, otherwise I would not have commented on it). She
was certainly nicer about it than Mark, but the problems with the
construction of gender were brought up by her as well. Just because you
had responded to her comment did not mean that Mark could not add his own
comment – even if it was similar to Kanarinka's, but since you always have
to have the last word, you tried to shut him out, as opposed to letting his
comment be the last. Must you always have the last word? I guess we will
find out after this message, no?
To make this short, you can not expect to write an essay on a problematic
platform and expect that people will suspend their reevaluation of gender
constructs as these are currently understood simply because your essay
implies that this be the case. One question that ran through my mind as I
read your essay was "Why is this essay imposing problematic terms on to the
web?" And this was then followed by "Maybe he will take a more skeptical
position on it." But instead, your essay ends up supporting a problematic
ideology of gender types.
Sure one can take the position of saying, "I was merely reporting what other
researchers have done," but people do not report things that they do not
support at least implicitly. It is because of your lack of critical
position on gender stereotypes– not to mention major assumptions about what
people know and do not know as you so eloquently admitted in your e-mail to
Mark – why people have commented on the problematics of your essay as
opposed to the ideas you reported. So, it is your position that is
problematic for some people on the list, and that is fine. But do not
expect them to elaborate on your ideas, because they will always be more
interested in commenting on the problematics behind your ideology – even
when you claim not supporting such. Not taking a clear position is
supporting the naturalized state. And if you are not willing to talk about
what you support, then there in not much to talk about.
As I know you like to have the last word, I hope you actually consider what
I have said above. It is okay to let it go. Move on Eryk. Take the
criticism.
And please notice that this e-mail is much shorter than yours, brevety is
gold.
Well, time to get off my patrol car. I think I am off-duty.
Cheers,
Eduardo Navas