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"
>
> > 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>