[Xmca-l] Re: Analysis of Gender in early xmca discourse

[Martin John Packer]

Oh, I see I am just slow to catch up!  :)

Martin

> On Nov 3, 2016, at 5:22 PM, Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote:
> 
> Am I crazy (or perhaps “blokey), but isn’t Jacob in fact Jenna?
> 
> Martin
> 
>> On Nov 3, 2016, at 3:13 PM, Greg Mcverry <jgregmcverry@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Annalisa,
>> 
>> It was I, and not Jacob, who originally brought up that the concept of
>> "logic" has engendered roots because of the roots it had in a Western
>> tradition that has long favored the activity of those who identify as male
>> versus those who identify as female or other.
>> 
>> If power influences meaning than our definiton of logic was influenced by
>> existing structures.
>> 
>> I was not in anyway trying to suggest the conclusion men are logical and
>> women are illogical. I think the song quote goes, "That's right the women
>> are smarter."
>> 
>> What I positing, and then to which Jacob provided some research to support,
>> was that how we as a society view an epistemological definition of "logic"
>> and how to "make logical arguments" is rooted in the same power structures
>> and discourse patterns that have lead to gender inequality.
>> 
>> I didn't respond.... yet...to calls for clarifications of my thoughts about
>> gender and etymology of logic mainly because I had to do work that pays
>> bills (get feedback out to students) and I wasn't prepared (either with
>> energy or knowledge) to argue subjectivity versus objectivity.
>> 
>> It is just as  hard to convince a hunter to be a vegetarian as it  is to
>> argue with someone rooted rationalism that objectivism may not exist.
>> 
>> I am intrigued by this idea that Rein brought up that our gender fluidity
>> changes over time and cultures. Yet I am always reminded that the Western
>> heroes we celebrate today ...Luke Skywalker, Harry Potter, Batman and
>> Superman...share much of the ideal male detailed in Greek and Roman
>> mythology. Until recently female heroes were missing from our ideal.
>> 
>> I have to disagree with David that gender differences are rooted at some
>> biological differences. I think I may have more in common with any given
>> female as I do with any given male. Yet as the father of three boys I can
>> see the differences of engendered practices up close. I really don't know
>> the answer. I think this is because we have conflated gender and sex as a
>> binary and it isn't.
>> 
>> I might suggest we retire this thread and split it into three:
>> -Creating more inclusive practices on XMCA
>> -Engendered nature of logic
>> - the role of reproduction, deman, and production
>> 
>> As I stated earlier listserves are awful for this kind of conversation
>> because they work so well. I don't think the current format, while allowing
>> for distributed thought and federated content,  has all the tagging and
>> moderation tools necessary to ensure an inclusive environment.
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 3:50 PM Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> If I might comment, I think what has happened in what was being talking
>>> about, what causes gendered discourses has been reduced to questions of
>>> whether men are logical and women are illogical, and therein lie a bunch of
>>> problems and silly assumptions, if you don't mind me calling them silly.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I don't recall when it was Jacob brought to the list questions and
>>> observations pertaining to logic and how it was he had been struck down
>>> from unfolding his thoughts about it, but I certainly do not want to
>>> prohibit him from speaking out about it. Perhaps he could start a special
>>> thread Just For That. I would be happy to contribute. I would suggest that
>>> we should let him moderate that thread, and respect his leadership of that
>>> thread.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> However, one of the developments that I am witnessing, is Maria-Cristina
>>> and Larry and I were kind of going somewhere with the weaving we were
>>> working upon, and then that development was sideswiped to return to an
>>> unpleasant memory of being a jerk and being logical (as if these are
>>> inherently intertwined behaviors). It was an interruption of sorts. I'd
>>> rather not go back over it because I don't want to descend into an
>>> essentialist discourse.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> That's why I would rather go back what Maria Cristina and I were
>>> unfolding, with some nice contributions from Larry.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> At the same time, because it merits a response, I would like to address a
>>> perfect example of what happens to logical women. Consider Hypatia.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This idea that logic is gendered is ridiculous. Many women can be logical.
>>> Many men can be illogical. It's just that the basis of the inquiry,
>>> specifically, the values that the logic support are different, and that
>>> difference is based upon culture and what I will call "entrained gender."
>>> 
>>> 
>>> When women use logic (argumentative or otherwise) to the better of their
>>> male peers, what usually happens is that she is then castigated for her
>>> looks, or her lack of nurturing, etc. That aggressive act is an act of
>>> entrainment, where she is punished for being empowered with her own mind,
>>> and thus she is attacked and put back in her place. When she is dependent
>>> and entrained to be like Barbie or a trophy wife, to speak in high-contrast
>>> indicative terms, she is rewarded, but then punished and ridiculed for
>>> being so illogical (or even better emotional, sinful, fill in the blank).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This kind of entrainment is a double bind. The various "she"s and the
>>> various shapes and sizes we come in, can't win without suffering some kind
>>> of hurtful insult, coming or going.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Look at what is happening in the US election. If any of the candidates is
>>> being more logical in the context of this election, it is Hillary. if there
>>> is anyone being more irrational, emotional, and off-topic, it is Trump, and
>>> yet there are forces seeking to promote a witch hunt and that fire is being
>>> kindled by the FBI, the highest police department in the land. *There it is
>>> in living color.*
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Has any presidential candidate ever in the history of this country ever
>>> been threatened by the other candidate to be put in prison???
>>> 
>>> 
>>> It is a typical male chauvinist tactic to threaten a woman with
>>> confinement and to attack a woman's mental state as being far from sane.
>>> That is why saying that men are logical and women are not, is a veiled
>>> statement against the mental health of a woman, because somehow there is
>>> the belief that women's bodies are not genetically or biological capable of
>>> supporting a math problem. Hope that that is clear.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I would like to assert that all humans with proper education and guidance
>>> can be logical. It isn't gendered, it is just being a good thinker, a
>>> critical thinker.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> That is why to say that somehow logic is male is hugely insulting. So I
>>> hope that men will understand that that is a likely trigger for intelligent
>>> women, many who populate this list.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Let me add that logic has typically been used as an intellectual weapon,
>>> in an adversarial mode, which has been already commented upon. But this
>>> has, as I said above, to do with the basis of the particular logical
>>> inquiry. The foundation. That basis has to do with values. If your values
>>> are to keep women in their place, whether conscious or not, then you will
>>> use logic as a weapon and indicate logic is for the male brain only.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> If your values are for social justice, then you will see logic as an
>>> intellectual tool to build better minds which builds better people, and
>>> subsequently builds better community and results in a more just society. Is
>>> that logical enough?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hammers can crack skulls or build houses, take your pick *based upon* what
>>> you value, and what you want to create, what kind of friends to you want to
>>> hang out with? Turkeys or eagles?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Anyway, I'd like to return to the conversation with Maria Cristina and
>>> Larry, and of course anyone else interested, about demand and production,
>>> or in her view, reproduction, and I think in Larry's version,
>>> reversibility, if that is OK. But before I tie off on this topic, I also
>>> want to share how very much I appreciate Vera's post, whose tone might be
>>> representative of those women and others more prone to lurk until they are
>>> ready to contribute. Again, I hope there is an emerging safe space here, at
>>> least I'd like that to be the case. So that other women can participate and
>>> not feel irrelevant, but cherished and cared for as valuable contributors
>>> that they are.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Kind regards,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Annalisa
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 



Martin