—– Original Message —–
From: "Eduardo Navas" <[email protected]>
> 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.
Classic. I respond to criticism with criticism and so I am "reactionary" and
"defensive". Perhaps I am only defending my position?
> 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.
I never said I did not want to hear what you wanted to say. What would I not
want to hear? What am I afraid of? Maybe you can tell it through the
nonexistent inflection in my words. Is my typing angry yet? How about now?
Maybe this particular sentence is written with benevolence and overwhelming
joy? Can you tell? How?
> 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.
And my position was affirmed to be in agreement.
> 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,
Don't get personal, Eduardo.
> 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?
What childish behavior! You ask me questions and then assume that my
response to them is a petty attempt at "the last word?" How about responding
to criticism of a text that I wrote? That's verboten under the Eduardo
Navas-led Rhizome Niceties Bureau?
I will point out again: You are focusing entirely on personal issues and
emotional straws in your attempt to eliminate personal attacks and
emotionalism on rhizome. You are perpetuating it. Write back again with how
I am attacking you personally and I will respond again- we can drag this
discussion on for as long as you like. I could care less.
> 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.
Did you read this sentence after you wrote it? The platform is not
problematic Eduardo. The constructions of gender have end results.
Regardless of the root cause of these problems, feminine/masculine gender
types *do exist* and are not "stereotypes" but *constructions* that effect
vast majorities of people who don't abide in the enlightened left. Please
find supporting evidence in my essay that I ask people to "suspend thier
reevaluation of gender stereotypes." I have supported the evaluations of
both parties interested in the construction of gender with agreement and I
have made my point that _how_ gender is constructed has little to do with
whether it is constructed or isn't. And I told Mark Cooley that he should
persue an essay written on the subject. But apparently, asking people to
take thier own ideas seriously is "a personal attack."
> 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.
Those "problematic terms" are not problematic unless you are in a state of
denial that social constructs have end results. I find it shocking that it
is IMPOSSIBLE to be TOO FAR LEFT on this mailing list, someone always has to
"out left" someone else, it's a fucking joke. The minute anyone wants to
look at *reality* they are accused of not looking at a *leftist enough
version* of reality and held accountable, as if I personally am responsible
that social conditioning affects the way a majority of men and women
communicate online.
Despite polls and actual numbers taken to support the position, I cannot
understand how anyone can say "Oh but that is fictional, these things don't
really happen, and you are trying to dictate how men and women *must* behave
online, even though you have indicated otherwise quite clearly, it was not
clearly enough to our liking as lefty zealots." The essay concerned itself
with what the constructs are.
> 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.
I totally, 100% support that there are differences in how the majority of
women and the majority of men communicate.
> It is because of your lack of critical
> position on gender stereotypes–
Gender constructions are not gender based stereotypes. Understanding the
constructions of behavior helps identify the root of the cause and can lead
to perpetuation if one is interested in perpetuation, or can lead to
identification and elimination in one's personal behavior. If you identify
cliches in art you learn to avoid them. The same is true if you learn to
identify cliches in one's identity. If we can analyze the roles that are
dictated by culture in regards to gender, we can identify and neutralize
them.
> not to mention major assumptions about what
> people know and do not know as you so eloquently admitted in your e-mail
to
> Mark –
Right, what does it mean that I admitted to it? It should have indicated
that I acknowledged the problem as a legitimate concern. Why didn't you see
that?
> 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
This is a brilliant position to defend Eduardo; and it comes in exactly
where I need it:
"Do not expect them to elaborate on ideas, because they will always be more
interested in commenting on problems."
And this is what I should expect and settle for? A world where people sit
around and complain instead of creating new spaces and new ideas? Sounds
quite dystopian to me.
> As I know you like to have the last word, I hope you actually consider
what
> I have said above.
Your childish exploitation of the "last word" defense only underlies your
inability to carry on a discussion of ideas without you yourself resorting
to personal criticisms of the people involved. Funny how just one email ago
you had said: "On Rhizome, as soon as someone disagrees it becomes
personal. The list is not going anywhere if this keeps being the norm."
Charming bit of hypocrisy don't you think?
It is okay to let it go. Move on Eryk. Take the
> criticism.
So I should take "shut up" as an enlightened and reasonable discussion
tactic? Charming displays of hypocrisy abound. I will take criticism when it
is valid, and I have done so in the past, but I have a right to defend
myself, and if I do it with well written responses then that is not my
problem.
>
> And please notice that this e-mail is much shorter than yours, brevety is
> gold.
Brevity is not gold. Brevity is Brevity. It could also mean either that you
don't type fast or that you have nothing to say.
-e.
Re: The Rhizome Bureau of Social Niceties, Directors Cut
-
Type: discussion
Comments
The problem does not lie in what you said after you wrote the essay, but
rather in how the essay is wrtten. It is in the tone of voice (and do not
claim that one can not read tone of voice in writing). And a huge
assumption.
It all starts with the first sentence:
"The internet is, at its heart, a network of information, designed to spawn
communication and easy connections between sets of data. In this regard, it
is a primarily feminine structure."
Femine based on what grounds? Who defined femine? Is this one of the
asumptions of gender constructs you admited to in the e-mail to Mark Cooley?
You should always define your ideological grounding early on, because the
reader's understanding of femine and masculine constructions may be
different from yours, so to assume that I know exactly the implications
behind your words can only lead to the problems already stated not just by
me but by two other people prior to me.
Three people have already stated that the ideas you propose can not be
explored because you have not provided a specific ideological grounding to
grow from. Your essay rides on a very bad assumption which you exposed in
your response to Mark's e-mail:
"Because I take it for granted that any thinking person by this point in
history understands where gender constructions are manufactured and don't
need another essay to reinforce that there is no such thing as "natural"
femininity or masculinity evident in one's brain chemistry."
How can anyone take an essay seriously with such a problematic assumption?
There is no way the ideas can be discussed until the ideological grounding
is clear, and this ,the essay does not have. You can defend it to death,
but all one has to do look at what you have written so far.
Best,
Eduardo Navas
>It is in the tone of voice (and do not claim that one can not read tone of voice in >writing). And a huge assumption.
;-)
-af
—– Original Message —–
From: "Eduardo Navas" <[email protected]>
> It all starts with the first sentence:
>
> "The internet is, at its heart, a network of information, designed to
spawn
> communication and easy connections between sets of data. In this regard,
it
> is a primarily feminine structure."
>
> Femine based on what grounds? Who defined femine?
I assume that, for all the lefty intellectual posturing on rhizome, people
would have had a rudimentary understanding of gender. Once again, I made the
mistake of assuming a general level of intellectual capacity among rhizome
subscribers. I apologize for forgetting that everyone is simply pretending
to lean left and that no one understands that if a paper doesn't have "left
wing" stamped on it, it must be a backwards missive from the office of
hegemonic power constructs.
Most (educated) people understand what is talked about when you say the word
"feminine." The dictionary defines it as "of or relating to women or girls."
Most Gender Theorists reject this definition, as do I. However, the concept
of femininity- and the attributes it developed as a term, have been run
through the patriarchial ringer and are now being hung by most feminists.
Femininity as defined by one of the more socially progressive psychologists
in femininity, Nancy Chodorow, emphasizes not "weakness and passivity" as
feminine traits, but rather looks at what is common to the approach of women
who have been brought up under patriarchial concepts of power. There is a
definition of power within that which had been traditionally under the radar
of masculinity-defined power displays.
The problem is that gender is more or less an issue of social learning, and
can't be applied to men or women as it had been in the past. The other
problem is that feminine and masculine define only extremes of either gender
people are more than capable of fitting into a hybrid category [outside even
of androgyny, which is, in a sense, a third gender value.]
The way power develops within any culturally defined, non-dominant group,
influences an individuals concepts of power and how that power is obtained.
Centuries of patriarchy have influenced women to seek out power and
influence with connectivity and a control of group dynamics, possibly
[though unlikely] genetically influenced by millenia of hunter/gatherer
societies but more than likely a social holdover of men work, women stay at
home. That this is not longer the case in actual society has little to no
influence on how we raise girls and boys differently according to these
constructs. The binary of masculine/feminine has to be understood in order
to understand where it fails.
Is this one of the
> asumptions of gender constructs you admited to in the e-mail to Mark
Cooley?
> You should always define your ideological grounding early on, because the
> reader's understanding of femine and masculine constructions may be
> different from yours, so to assume that I know exactly the implications
> behind your words can only lead to the problems already stated not just by
> me but by two other people prior to me.
And to which I have clarified, twice, that I am an adherent of Social
Learning Theory.
> Three people have already stated that the ideas you propose can not be
> explored because you have not provided a specific ideological grounding to
> grow from.
Three people are wrong. The essay provides information on the differences,
and it is a starting point for figuring out why those differences occur, and
what they mean. I didn't intend to write another essay on social learning
theory. If someone disagrees with the ideas in the essay, it strikes me as
much more conducive to the conversation for the parties involved to write
about ideas they agree with in contrast to the ideas presented- not to
simply declare that "the ideas are flawed because I don't know if they
relate back to the school of thought I choose to embrace."
> Your essay rides on a very bad assumption which you exposed in
> your response to Mark's e-mail:
>
> "Because I take it for granted that any thinking person by this point in
> history understands where gender constructions are manufactured and don't
> need another essay to reinforce that there is no such thing as "natural"
> femininity or masculinity evident in one's brain chemistry."
>
> How can anyone take an essay seriously with such a problematic assumption?
The essay can be taken seriously because this assumption was not included in
the essay. The "problematic assumption" were never actually problematic. The
facts in the essay were presented as facts. The way people engage with the
internet is influenced by gender. If someone wants to write a paper
explaining why these differences exist, it would be a fabulous use of thier
time and energy.
> There is no way the ideas can be discussed until the ideological grounding
> is clear, and this ,the essay does not have. You can defend it to death,
> but all one has to do look at what you have written so far.
The ideological grounding in the essay is irrelevant to what the essay has
to say. It is a sociological essay that is based on factual collected
evidence. The essay did not address "why" because it was not written to look
at why, but what. I would love if you, Eduardo, wrote about your theories on
why this happened. That would begin to approximate an intelligent discussion
instead of a roundtable proofreading.
-e.
hey eduardo, eryk calls it like it is. There was no attempt at exchange, there was an attitute of superiority. Just like your responses. Stop trying to teach, nobody gives a damn about your knowledge base. Shall I point you to a book to read about what I mean?
joseph
Eduardo Navas wrote:
> The problem does not lie in what you said after you wrote the essay,
> but
> rather in how the essay is wrtten. It is in the tone of voice (and do
> not
> claim that one can not read tone of voice in writing). And a huge
> assumption.
>
> It all starts with the first sentence:
>
> "The internet is, at its heart, a network of information, designed to
> spawn
> communication and easy connections between sets of data. In this
> regard, it
> is a primarily feminine structure."
>
> Femine based on what grounds? Who defined femine? Is this one of the
> asumptions of gender constructs you admited to in the e-mail to Mark
> Cooley?
> You should always define your ideological grounding early on, because
> the
> reader's understanding of femine and masculine constructions may be
> different from yours, so to assume that I know exactly the
> implications
> behind your words can only lead to the problems already stated not
> just by
> me but by two other people prior to me.
>
> Three people have already stated that the ideas you propose can not be
> explored because you have not provided a specific ideological
> grounding to
> grow from. Your essay rides on a very bad assumption which you
> exposed in
> your response to Mark's e-mail:
>
> "Because I take it for granted that any thinking person by this point
> in
> history understands where gender constructions are manufactured and
> don't
> need another essay to reinforce that there is no such thing as
> "natural"
> femininity or masculinity evident in one's brain chemistry."
>
> How can anyone take an essay seriously with such a problematic
> assumption?
> There is no way the ideas can be discussed until the ideological
> grounding
> is clear, and this ,the essay does not have. You can defend it to
> death,
> but all one has to do look at what you have written so far.
>
>
> Best,
>
> Eduardo Navas
>
>