My Email Is Longer Than Your Email: Gender in Online Communities

this is quite an interesting question and could make for a great
project:
>>>
What might a feminist version of the internet look like, as opposed to a
masculine system adapted to feminine uses?
>>>

This essay raises excellent points and is well thought-out. The only
thing that I find problematic is creating constructions of gender or
gender-driven behavior that are too specific and narrow (e.g.
"Femininity is the gender of networks, traditionally seeking out
relationships to others as a means of definition.", "In chat rooms,
women are looking for intimacy and men are looking for sex.") I realize
that in order to say anything meaningful about the role of gender in
these issues you must make distinctions but I think it's important to
retain a level of fluidity and also talk about exceptions to the rule
(in order to present a full, balanced picture). I, for one, post more to
mailing lists than I go to chat rooms.

In educational technology-speak, each technology offers different
"affordances" (opportunities and limitations) - perhaps a study of how
those affordances facilitate or inhibit certain gendered behaviors
(while acknowledging that a fuller spectrum exists).

What about usages of technologies that are not exclusively male or
female, such as googling to find information about programming syntax or
helping someone online find a solution to a problem? Or are all usages
prompted by gender? I would argue not. What behaviors can you
characterize as motivated by gender and why? Is that only because they
fit our stereotypes of what gender is (e.g. women are more emotional,
men are more competitive, etc)?

I think essays like this could be supported by both a quantitative
perspective (which you have provided) and a qualitative perspective –
e.g. some primary source material about why people use technologies in
certain ways, what prompts their thinking about the technology, etc.
Quantitative data can often be reductive (as in the sense of
demographics – I find it rather offensive when people tell me I belong
to a certain demographic - as if all your wants, needs and values can be
predicted based on a few accidental variables).

thanks for the essay,
kanarinka



—–Original Message—–
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Eryk Salvaggio
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 2:33 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: My Email Is Longer Than Your Email: Gender in
Online Communities



My Email Is Longer Than Your Email: Gender in Online Communities

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, despite the imposition of
male hierarchical organization. While the network is out there,
rhizomatic and widespread, the main interface- search engines- are a
structure based on rankings and popularity. In other words, we navigate
a feminine world by way of masculine strategies. We are, in a sense,
organizing hunting parties in the search for potatoes. But does this
affect the way women use the web, or the way men do?
Look at the internet revolution- instant messaging, chat room
technology, email, search engines, the development of personal home
pages, a proliferation of geocities websites and online diaries, blogs-
and look at how they affect the behaviors of each gender that interacts
with them. How it is used differently by men and women?
First of all, who is using the web? Statistics vary from year to year
and from source to source, but according to a 2001 Nielsen/NetRatings
poll, there were "53.33 million women actively used the Internet
compared to 49.83 million men" [Roach, p.1]. However, an overwhelming
majority of papers I have encountered use the statistic that only 40% of
users are women. How are women using the web? According to a poll
conducted net wide by British Marketing Researchers ICM, "86% of women
use it to keep in touch with friends and relatives, while 80% of men use
it for hobbies and interests" [Anon, p.1]. Given the natural feminine
inclination for relationships, this is not at all surprising. (I should
point out that I use the term "feminine" and "masculine" to represent
patterns of behavior- and I do not resort to "male" and "female" as
indicators of that behavior.)
Femininity is the gender of networks, traditionally seeking out
relationships to others as a means of definition. The internet chat room
is a relational technology, designed to facilitate communication. The
forums are constantly available and usually on going. Many of them have
recurring personalities, making it similar in atmosphere to a bar or
coffeehouse, with an emphasis on conversation, oftentimes with many
regulars. These places tend to function as social networks, where people
are able to discuss subjects of either specific or general interests. In
many of these forums, the regulars tend to form an emotional network,
where casual conversation can lead very rapidly to extremely open
communication and the illusion of intimacy among people residing in
widely disparate geographical locations. Since it is widely known that
feminine psychologies tend to respond to relational and social
situations, [Miller, 1981] geographical concerns seem to pose little
problem for their widespread use of these forums. It is not surprising
that women tend to overwhelm men in such rooms.
However, there is an interesting paradox that comes from looking at this
phenomenon closer. For one, online communication is considered "less
satisfying" than face to face communication by a larger number of people
asked in a survey taken in 2000. [Cummings, 2002] However, more people
are reporting that they are spending less time with those "offline"
friends as a result of spending time online [Kraut, 1998]. While these
numbers come from different studies, it does present enough information
to question how these disparities could exist.
I contend that this data suggests that the feminine conception of
connectedness could be seen as manifested in the desire for "access".
Chat rooms are very open and constant presences in most internet
connected homes and offices, and the relationships tend to develop at a
quicker pace given several factors. The time spent online, and the
anonymity of the space, which serves to encourage openness and good
faith. "The perception of trust, intimacy, and acceptance has the
potential to encourage online users to use these relationships as a
primary source of companionship and comfort" [Griffiths, 2001]. To me,
the data suggests that the actual quality of a relationship may not be
as important as the perceived availability of those relationships. While
it is not to say that there is a substitution of quality for quantity,
it may be accurate to say that maintaining one's self within a larger
context of a mailing list or chat room may serve as a comforting
affirmation of one's ability to do so, regardless of any situations
external to that online context. As Miller puts it, "women's sense of
self becomes very much organized around being able to make and then
maintain affiliation and relationships." (Miller, 1976; referenced by
Surrey, 1981.) A chat room could be accessed daily, to check up quickly
on friends and colleagues, and to quickly affirm the status of those
relationships. Could it be that this sense of self can be just as potent
when it comes in the guise of less satisfying and less emotionally
fulfilling online relationships? It is interesting to note that within a
survey of online computer users, men were more likely to describe
themselves as "lonely," whereas women were more likely to describe
themselves as "depressed" [Jackson, 2001]. Women are using chat rooms
with constant social affirmation, so loneliness is not an issue, but
those relationships do not seem to be able to provide an actual
fulfilling sense of self. The lack of authenticity and true
connectedness within those relationships could be very depressing.
This does not contradict any evidence in regards to masculine
relationships. Men are participating in online activities such as the
aforementioned mailing lists and chat rooms, and in fact, they are doing
so in a way that is strongly in line with what is now becoming the
predictable standby of most masculine theory: They are arguing,
oftentimes aggressively, and competing. One researcher, who followed a
single mailing list on the subject of linguistics- an area of study
without much opportunity for heated dissent- found that
A daunting 68% of the messages posted by men made use of an adversarial
style in which the poster distanced himself from, criticized, and/or
ridiculed other participants, often while promoting his own importance.
The few women who participated in the discussion, in contrast, displayed
features of attenuation – hedging, apologizing, asking questions rather
than making assertions – and a personal orientation, revealing thoughts
and feelings and interacting with and supporting others [Herring, 1994].

This would fall in line with the general consideration for competition
in masculine relationships. The idea of distance is a strong factor in
masculine relationships, which are traditionally considered to be more
"active" friendships. An adversarial style of communication is a "doing"
action- it engages the other in a debate and an argument, as opposed to
a feminine framework of empathic and supportive communication. But it
also reinforces the notion of the online space as one where the presence
of openness and intimacy is threatened and unwelcome. Therefore, it is
"safe" from the feminizing forces that could otherwise come through in a
communication forum. Note that the online mailing list is different from
a chat room. A mailing list allows for the monopolization of
conversation, and is archived to a permanent record. Whereas in a chat
room, conversations are temporal, and occur in a what I call a "chatter
formation", in that all parties are capable of speaking at once, while a
mailing list is one speaker at a time. This allows for an authoritarian
posturing in any communication, and one can write with the assumption
that the reader is giving the writer exclusive attention. A mailing list
is also similar in its properties to the "public meeting space" which
men seem to prefer in their friendships, notably because public spaces
restrict the level of intimacy that one is expected to display in public
[Walker, 1994]. However, while a chat room is usually a smaller space
with people who are there to engage in communication, a mailing list has
"lurkers", a set of subscribers who do not communicate and merely read.
This adds an element of a "public" to the mailing list which is not as
prevalent in a chat room. In this regard, a mailing list is a kind of
podium, but a podium where your face cannot be seen. This faceless,
public forum, which is completely alien from any sense of intimacy,
seems to encourage men to behave in a way that is even more masculine
than they may be in a bar, coffeehouse or other meeting place. Perhaps
because the entire nature of identity is so challenged by these factors,
the entire system of masculinity is itself challenged. It is not enough
to simply be a man online in order to be masculine- no one can see who
you are, physically. Instead, all of one's masculinity must come through
in behavior and means of communication. That this is exaggerated online
may have to do with the illusions of intimacy that the web provides-
because it is anonymous, there exists more freedom with regards to
opening up or sharing ones feelings with strangers, making it a more
threatening location to the male psyche.
I would now like to change focus to look at the phenomenon of the
internet web page. One of the sharpest rising demographics for personal
web pages seems to be teenage girls. According to research done by Media
Metrix and Jupiter communications and reported in ABC news, a large
number of teenage girls are creating expressive web pages as an
extension of their online socialization. Girls are publishing online
diaries and making themselves known on the web. This is in direct
conflict with the general assumption of non-assertive femininity,
particularly for adolescents. The dominant social construction for
adolescents has been, as Miller points out, "that this is a time when
girls 'contract' rather than expand" [Miller, 1981]. If girls are making
web pages, doesn't this mean they are breaking through the gender
barrier into a realm of self expression and assertiveness? I assert that
they are. The online environment provides an opportunity to create new
rules for communicating, and it is promising that this space is being
taken advantage of.
In a very real sense, the existence of girls web pages on the net are
evidence of a new niche for adolescent feminine assertiveness. Whereas
the masculine-defined act of assertiveness draws on bringing attention
to oneself, it is usually derived from elements of competition. The
masculine assertiveness makes references to achievements, or, as we see
in email exchanges, boasts of a superior intellect or some sort of
superlative in the realm of ability. A feminized version of assertive
behavior seems to emphasize expression but at little expense to others
and with little regard for comparison or competition. A web page is less
imposing than an online, public forum such as a mailing list. It is
interesting to note that within the information technologies industry,
mailing lists are known as "push content" whereas a web site is
considered "passive" content. A web page does not come to you, instead,
you have to seek it out- whereas emails are a "push" media which arrive,
often whether you want them or not. This also gives the web page a
strange sense of intimacy as compared to more aggressive mediums.
Whereas any comments made to a mailing list are made in a social, group
context, a web page is designed to be viewed by one person at one
location, although it can happen multiple times per day, or hour.
Nonetheless, looking at a web page is a solitary experience. Here, the
feminine desire for intimacy comes through by way of a new kind
assertiveness, in the presence of a "virtual intimacy." A web page is a
very long, one on one conversation, distributed across hundreds to
thousands of people.
It is again fitting that the flip side of this intimacy is the
existence, and use, of online internet pornography, some of which
utilize the same technologies women seek out for their conduciveness to
emotional intimacy. In this space, men are using chat rooms and web
sites in a sexual context. In chat rooms, women are looking for intimacy
and men are looking for sex. While the phenomenon of "cybersex" streaks
through both genders, there are differences in how genders engage with
it. Most notably, men are drawn towards web sites in which photographs
can be downloaded or exchanged, whereas women tend to be involved with
more "intimate" or "relational" cyber sexual encounters such as chat
rooms and one on one text messaging [Griffiths, 2001]. That men favor
photographs reflects again on the notion of resistance to intimacy, but
also works as a parallel to adolescent girls web diaries. From a
feminine perspective, a website with personal content is made more
intimate by the viewing conditions of such a site. There are invitations
to engage in dialogue by way of multiple email links and guest book
options, which turn the web site itself into a starting point for more
intimate interactions. A masculine perspective places emphasis on
different elements. For example, a pornographic image downloaded from a
website is rendered even less intimate by its means of distribution.
Newsgroups and sexualized chat rooms are still communications forums,
only in these cases, they revolve around multiple men in a mutual
observance of women in sexualized roles. This allows men to affirm their
heterosexuality while engaging in social interactions simultaneously.
Men can communicate with each other over the acquisition of pornography
much as men will bond in the presence of a sex worker at a bachelors
party or strip club [Schulz, p.397]. Connections are made through a
desire to obtain or trade images, a social network which shifts itself
away from intimacy. The images themselves are sexualized, but aside from
the production of these images, women serve almost no role in the social
aspect of these communities.
It should come as no surprise then that gender roles on and offline tend
to follow suit with each other. What this proves is that, regardless of
where these differences come from, they are adaptable. Even in a
situation of total anonymity, there is still an element of self that
must be asserted. In the case of the web, it is interesting to note that
gender is one of the most basic elements of personality that comes
through. With the advent of such a radical new forum for social
relationships as the web, there seems to be some hope that it can lead
to changes in basic human behaviors. One such phenomenon was that of
online gender switching, the idea that one gender could attempt to
masquerade as the other when online. However, it is now reported that
this has been overemphasized. According to research done at American and
Australian Universities, "while 60 percent of the individuals in both
studies said they had never tried gender switching, 21 percent reported
they were currently gender switching. Another 19 percent had
experimented with it but stopped" [Schwarz, 2000]. So, the status quo
seems to be maintained. Based on this study, which included 400 online
participants in a gaming scenario, the top reason for gender switching
was not curiosity over gender differences, but merely for new approaches
to gaming.
It appears that the internet, despite being organized by male
hierarchies in its early histories, is still a more or less open forum
in regards to gender. However, we should keep in mind that the feminine
behaviors we see here are feminine behaviors adapted to these male
structures. I would argue that even the early text messaging chat rooms
were male oriented- consider that these rooms were pure text, with
almost no capacity for emotion or creative expression. What has happened
to the popularized versions of these systems has been the addition of
graphical "emoticons" which allow the writer greater control over the
tone of their text, as well as the options to change color and size of
text. The addition of these features, on a time line, seems to
correspond with the rise of adolescent girls in chat rooms and in
instant text message conversations. Which way any possible correlation
runs would make for interesting research. What might a feminist version
of the internet look like, as opposed to a masculine system adapted to
feminine uses? Would it enable more types of power for women, in regards
to access, empathy, and ease of communication? Perhaps these questions
will be answered by technology. For example, an increase in the presence
of video phones, web cameras and teleconferencing would open up the
internet to a greater degree of intimacy, in creating a greater sense of
"face to face" communication. Of course, this same technology is already
being used in online web portals which range from open chat rooms to
pornographic communities, both of which share the same name as a
phenomenon: "Cam Girls."
It could be said that the internet does not radically alter the nature
of men and women, nor does it alter the relationships between men and
women when they interact with each other. The dynamic of power between
genders remains intact, and it remains to be seen whether technology can
spark changes in these structures, or simply serve as another means of
facilitating them.
-eryk salvaggio







Sources
Anonymous, (2002) ICM survey shows gender difference in Internet use
amongst adults. Internet Business News, Volume 7. August 20th.
Cummings, J., Butler, B., & Kraut, R. (2002). The quality of online
social relationships. Communications of the ACM, 45(7), 103-108.
http://homenet.hcii.cs.cmu.edu/progress/cummings02-QualityOfOnlineRelati
onships.pdf
Griffiths, M., (2001). Sex on the Internet: observations and
implications for Internet sex addiction. The Journal of Sex Research,
Nov. 20th 2001. Retrieved April 26th, 2003 from find articles.com.
Herring, S., (1994) Gender Difference in Computer Mediated
Communication: Bringing Familiar Baggage To The New Frontier. Retrieved
April 23rd, 2003 from http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/gender/herring.txt
Jackson, Linda A., Ervin, Kelly S., Gardner, Philip D., Schmitt, Neil,
(2001) Gender and the Internet: Women Communicating and Men Searching.
Sex Roles. March 2001.
Miller, Jean B., (1981). The Development of Women's Sense of Self. In
Jordan, Judith V., Kaplan, Alexandra G., Miller, Jean B., Stiver, Irene
P., and Surrey, Janet L., (Eds.) Women's Growth In Connection 11-26 New
York, The Guilford Press.
Roach, R., (2001) Internet Usage Reflects Gender Breakdown. Black Issues
In Education, Volume 18. July 19th.
Schulz , J, (1995). Getting Off On Feminism. In Kimmel, Michael S., and
Messner, Michael A., (Eds.) Men's Lives 390-398 Needham Heights, Allyn
and Bacon.
Schwarz, J, (2000). Gender switching on the Internet isn't as common as
believed. Retrieved April 27th, 2003 from
http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/2000archive/05-00archive/k052200
a.html
Walker, K, (1994). I'm Not Friends The Way She's Friends: Ideological
and Behavioral Constructions of Masculinity in Men's Friendships. In
Kimmel, Michael S., and Messner, Michael A., (Eds.) Men's Lives 367-379
Needham Heights, Allyn and Bacon.

—– Original Message —–
From: "Kanarinka" <[email protected]>

> This essay raises excellent points and is well thought-out. The only
> thing that I find problematic is creating constructions of gender or
> gender-driven behavior that are too specific and narrow (e.g.
> "Femininity is the gender of networks, traditionally seeking out
> relationships to others as a means of definition.", "In chat rooms,
> women are looking for intimacy and men are looking for sex.") I realize
> that in order to say anything meaningful about the role of gender in
> these issues you must make distinctions but I think it's important to
> retain a level of fluidity and also talk about exceptions to the rule
> (in order to present a full, balanced picture). I, for one, post more to
> mailing lists than I go to chat rooms.

I agree; and there are my own momentary lapses; but there is one very
important statement I placed in parenthesis: "I should point out that I use
the term "feminine" and "masculine" to represent patterns of behavior- and I
do not resort to "male" and "female" as indicators of that behavior." So
occasionally I do return to "men" to mean "masculine" and "women" to mean
"feminine" simply because it's usually the case, and because it's what the
polling data uses, but there is certainly a difference. And what I wrote
doesn't touch the concept of androgyny. An androgynous web would be very
interesting as well.

I also think the project at the artport right now- "Bumplist"- is really
interesting in terms of sociological experiment. In a sense, it is taking a
predominantly masculine media and putting in factors that would exaggerate
its masculinity by limiting the time one has to make one's point. I have to
wonder what the result is, but I haven't subscribed and haven't had a chance
to look at the archive. Conversely, MTAA's project "Endnode" is an
interesting excersize in feminine mailing lists dynamics, since the way the
list was promoted was as a short term collaboration where the team worked
together for the sake of the tree (roots working for the benefit of the
trees.) And, ehhh, both of these projects are made by men.


> What about usages of technologies that are not exclusively male or
> female, such as googling to find information about programming syntax or
> helping someone online find a solution to a problem? Or are all usages
> prompted by gender? I would argue not. What behaviors can you
> characterize as motivated by gender and why? Is that only because they
> fit our stereotypes of what gender is (e.g. women are more emotional,
> men are more competitive, etc)?

Well; thats the important distinction right there. "Women" are not more
emotional, but feminine personalities are. This, at least, according to the
bulk of gender identity research I have done. There are tests which
determine your gender based solely on how you identify yourself; I mentioned
on another list recently that I myself scored a 2.53 on a test where 2.50
was considered "extremely feminine" [0 = androgyny, -2.5 = extremely
masculine.] At the same time, I engage in a lot of masculine behavior online
that I do not at all engage in in real life.

There are concepts of gender which inform every culture; every culture has
some construct of "what a girl should be like" and "what a boy should be
like." From a Freudian perspective all the way down to modern psychotherapy
[Nancy Chodorow, etc] and even to more straightforward cognitive or social
learning models of gender, it is a huge component for how we interact with
the world. If your social learning took place in a sphere somewhat removed
from placing emphasis on gender, you still got lessons on gender somehow.
Even if, as a girl, you were told "Girls don't have to be feminine" or as a
boy you were told "boys don't have to be masculine," these are still gender
constructions and still create a very large area of one's identity.


> I think essays like this could be supported by both a quantitative
> perspective (which you have provided) and a qualitative perspective –
> e.g. some primary source material about why people use technologies in
> certain ways, what prompts their thinking about the technology, etc.

I agree; though the problem with any sort of qualitative research is you get
"opinion" and not many people would be self aware enough of why they act the
way they do- and most would deny the idea that gender is important at all.
It's very easy to dismiss something like that in the modern, PC world of
alledged "equality" between the sexes. But at the same time; entire concepts
of power, relationships, sexuality and god knows what else were informed
under a flagship of masculine control. In this regard, women don't have
"power" simply because "power" has been defined by way of masculinity to
equate "control" which of course it doesn't have to do. Power can come
through unification, consensus, etc. [and a lot of the modern buisiness
world is starting to change into a more feminine model, ever since the word
"empowerment" came down to the employees. But whats neat is that the
feminine model supports a rhizomatic network, whereas the masculine systems
of management emphasize hierarchy and "power." These are also the huge
distinctions between the internet and traditional media like television and
radio.]


> Quantitative data can often be reductive (as in the sense of
> demographics – I find it rather offensive when people tell me I belong
> to a certain demographic - as if all your wants, needs and values can be
> predicted based on a few accidental variables).

Well, again- the distinction of "masculine and feminine" from "men and
women" is designed specifically for that purpose. There are, however,
demographics that support the theory. And yes, men do tend- on a whole- to
be more "masculine" and women more "feminine," as the demographics I
provided kind of demonstrate, but it shouldn't be seen as all encompassing.
There aren't many hermaphodites or transgendered individuals being polled to
see how they interact with the web; but the results could be interesting.

Even terms like "feminism" have some level of contention. There is the
feminism of "women can do what boys can do" but modern feminism tends to
concern itself with embracing the strengths of femininity. The web is a
major boon to feminism for this reason; which is why I had been relatively
dismayed that one of the more popular images of feminity on the web happened
to be Mouchette, the perpetual victim. Cyberfeminism seems like this murky
ghetto and it doesn't have to be. The web- and web art, with its emphasis on
collaboration and interactivity- is *inherently feminist*.

-e.

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 didn't intend to write a ten thousanth essay on how
gender roles are socially constructed. It's kind of like- no shit they are.
But given the vast fundamental communication differences between feminine
and masculine majorities, it's not enough to just put our heads in the sand
and say "well they're imaginary anyway, so don't look at them." Nothing in
my essay changes, either way.

In reality, the numbers show trends. The essay was a look at those trends.
It made no claim to "natural" masculine or feminine behaviors at any point,
because it didn't even bother addressing the root cause. Why? 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. I also assume that we no longer need to
point out that the intellectual capacity of the Common Negro theoretically
rivals that of any European. I think most of civilized society understands
that.

Of course I got all my education at a Lefty Ivy League Night School so maybe
I should be more in your face about archaic Freudian and Biologically
misinformed concepts of gender, ("cheminists") but I don't see the point in
this case. The essay you wanted me to write is another essay altogether.

Cheers,
-e.



—– Original Message —–
From: "mark cooley" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 7:34 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: My Email Is Longer Than Your Email: Gender in
Online Communities


> There are a number of issues that I found troubling about this essay - or
better - with what seem as fundemental assumptions upon which the essay is
structured. Most importantly (at least to me) is a lack of critical thought
on how gender functions as culturally constructed behavior. Making the
point that masculinity and femininity are not necessarily tied to being male
or female doesn't get us out of the trap of essentialism. It seems to me
that more could be done exploring how gender roles themselves are
constructed and then played out online (and everywhere else) would be a more
useful starting point for a feminist (at least the left of center feminist
position). 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.
>
> mark cooley
>
>
>
> Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
>
> >
> > —– Original Message —–
> > From: "Kanarinka" <[email protected]>
> >
> > > This essay raises excellent points and is well thought-out. The only
> > > thing that I find problematic is creating constructions of gender or
> > > gender-driven behavior that are too specific and narrow (e.g.
> > > "Femininity is the gender of networks, traditionally seeking out
> > > relationships to others as a means of definition.", "In chat rooms,
> > > women are looking for intimacy and men are looking for sex.") I
> > realize
> > > that in order to say anything meaningful about the role of gender in
> > > these issues you must make distinctions but I think it's important
> > to
> > > retain a level of fluidity and also talk about exceptions to the
> > rule
> > > (in order to present a full, balanced picture). I, for one, post
> > more to
> > > mailing lists than I go to chat rooms.
> >
> > I agree; and there are my own momentary lapses; but there is one very
> > important statement I placed in parenthesis: "I should point out that
> > I use
> > the term "feminine" and "masculine" to represent patterns of behavior-
> > and I
> > do not resort to "male" and "female" as indicators of that behavior."
> > So
> > occasionally I do return to "men" to mean "masculine" and "women" to
> > mean
> > "feminine" simply because it's usually the case, and because it's what
> > the
> > polling data uses, but there is certainly a difference. And what I
> > wrote
> > doesn't touch the concept of androgyny. An androgynous web would be
> > very
> > interesting as well.
> >
> > I also think the project at the artport right now- "Bumplist"- is
> > really
> > interesting in terms of sociological experiment. In a sense, it is
> > taking a
> > predominantly masculine media and putting in factors that would
> > exaggerate
> > its masculinity by limiting the time one has to make one's point. I
> > have to
> > wonder what the result is, but I haven't subscribed and haven't had a
> > chance
> > to look at the archive. Conversely, MTAA's project "Endnode" is an
> > interesting excersize in feminine mailing lists dynamics, since the
> > way the
> > list was promoted was as a short term collaboration where the team
> > worked
> > together for the sake of the tree (roots working for the benefit of
> > the
> > trees.) And, ehhh, both of these projects are made by men.
> >
> >
> > > What about usages of technologies that are not exclusively male or
> > > female, such as googling to find information about programming
> > syntax or
> > > helping someone online find a solution to a problem? Or are all
> > usages
> > > prompted by gender? I would argue not. What behaviors can you
> > > characterize as motivated by gender and why? Is that only because
> > they
> > > fit our stereotypes of what gender is (e.g. women are more
> > emotional,
> > > men are more competitive, etc)?
> >
> > Well; thats the important distinction right there. "Women" are not
> > more
> > emotional, but feminine personalities are. This, at least, according
> > to the
> > bulk of gender identity research I have done. There are tests which
> > determine your gender based solely on how you identify yourself; I
> > mentioned
> > on another list recently that I myself scored a 2.53 on a test where
> > 2.50
> > was considered "extremely feminine" [0 = androgyny, -2.5 = extremely
> > masculine.] At the same time, I engage in a lot of masculine behavior
> > online
> > that I do not at all engage in in real life.
> >
> > There are concepts of gender which inform every culture; every culture
> > has
> > some construct of "what a girl should be like" and "what a boy should
> > be
> > like." From a Freudian perspective all the way down to modern
> > psychotherapy
> > [Nancy Chodorow, etc] and even to more straightforward cognitive or
> > social
> > learning models of gender, it is a huge component for how we interact
> > with
> > the world. If your social learning took place in a sphere somewhat
> > removed
> > from placing emphasis on gender, you still got lessons on gender
> > somehow.
> > Even if, as a girl, you were told "Girls don't have to be feminine" or
> > as a
> > boy you were told "boys don't have to be masculine," these are still
> > gender
> > constructions and still create a very large area of one's identity.
> >
> >
> > > I think essays like this could be supported by both a quantitative
> > > perspective (which you have provided) and a qualitative perspective
> > –
> > > e.g. some primary source material about why people use technologies
> > in
> > > certain ways, what prompts their thinking about the technology, etc.
> >
> > I agree; though the problem with any sort of qualitative research is
> > you get
> > "opinion" and not many people would be self aware enough of why they
> > act the
> > way they do- and most would deny the idea that gender is important at
> > all.
> > It's very easy to dismiss something like that in the modern, PC world
> > of
> > alledged "equality" between the sexes. But at the same time; entire
> > concepts
> > of power, relationships, sexuality and god knows what else were
> > informed
> > under a flagship of masculine control. In this regard, women don't
> > have
> > "power" simply because "power" has been defined by way of masculinity
> > to
> > equate "control" which of course it doesn't have to do. Power can come
> > through unification, consensus, etc. [and a lot of the modern
> > buisiness
> > world is starting to change into a more feminine model, ever since the
> > word
> > "empowerment" came down to the employees. But whats neat is that the
> > feminine model supports a rhizomatic network, whereas the masculine
> > systems
> > of management emphasize hierarchy and "power." These are also the huge
> > distinctions between the internet and traditional media like
> > television and
> > radio.]
> >
> >
> > > Quantitative data can often be reductive (as in the sense of
> > > demographics – I find it rather offensive when people tell me I
> > belong
> > > to a certain demographic - as if all your wants, needs and values
> > can be
> > > predicted based on a few accidental variables).
> >
> > Well, again- the distinction of "masculine and feminine" from "men and
> > women" is designed specifically for that purpose. There are, however,
> > demographics that support the theory. And yes, men do tend- on a
> > whole- to
> > be more "masculine" and women more "feminine," as the demographics I
> > provided kind of demonstrate, but it shouldn't be seen as all
> > encompassing.
> > There aren't many hermaphodites or transgendered individuals being
> > polled to
> > see how they interact with the web; but the results could be
> > interesting.
> >
> > Even terms like "feminism" have some level of contention. There is the
> > feminism of "women can do what boys can do" but modern feminism tends
> > to
> > concern itself with embracing the strengths of femininity. The web is
> > a
> > major boon to feminism for this reason; which is why I had been
> > relatively
> > dismayed that one of the more popular images of feminity on the web
> > happened
> > to be Mouchette, the perpetual victim. Cyberfeminism seems like this
> > murky
> > ghetto and it doesn't have to be. The web- and web art, with its
> > emphasis on
> > collaboration and interactivity- is *inherently feminist*.
> >
> > -e.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

> 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