[Xmca-l] Re: The genesis of gender(ed) expectations: demand, production, and reproduction (and reversibility)

[mike cole]

All the data are publicly available.
Mike

On Friday, November 4, 2016, David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu> wrote:

> I like Annalisa's considerations of some kind of empirical analysis of the
> *Dilemmas of Gendered Discourse on XMCA*.
>
> 1. What are the base rates of male/female membership in XMCA?
> 2. How many posts are initiated by men/women (raw data, plus per base
> rate)?
> 3. Percentage of posts by gender that receive negative/no/positive
> response.
> 4. Discourse analysis of types of responses in terms of polarity (what are
> the varieties of negative and positive responses).
> 5. Calculation of an Affect of Replies Score (ARS) for each poster (-1 for
> each negative response, +1 for each positive response).
> 6. Trend analysis of ARS scores over time by gender (do people's scores
> tend to improve over time).
> 7. Persistence analysis by ARS scores and gender: likelihood of subsequent
> posting as a function of ARS.
> 8. Survey of a stratified sample of members (frequent posters, occasional
> posters, lurkers X male, female) concerning factors affecting
> participation, including
> 9. an Affect survey: Likert scale questionnaire concerning affective
> response to positive and negative replies.
>
> Anyone looking for a dissertation topic -- tentative title *above"?
>
> David
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <javascript:;> [mailto:
> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <javascript:;>] On Behalf Of Annalisa
> Aguilar
> Sent: Friday, November 4, 2016 4:58 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <javascript:;>>
> Subject: [Xmca-l] The genesis of gender(ed) expectations: demand,
> production, and reproduction (and reversibility)
>
> Hello,
>
>
> It seems that people are having a time with the originating thread
> pertaining to the subject "Analysis of gender in early XMCA discourse,"
> which I find to be a goose chase, since it is difficult to analyze posts
> that were never made (owing to the fact that, as a few members have spoken
> up to say, they were never made to feel safe enough to post because of the
> domination of a kind of discourse that is called gendered - though some
> admit it has to do with time and prior commitments).
>
>
> How does one study discourse of non-participants? I'm utterly perplexed by
> that.
>
>
> If men have been dominating the discourse, then what the subject line
> really means is we should a study of male discourse and how others are kept
> out.
>
>
> Why do we need to know how others are kept out when we can just explain it
> ourselves to you?
>
>
> Or are we not fit enough for our explanations to be taken seriously?
>
>
> What I liked about one of Jacob's recent posts is that he revealed to us
> *the discourse* that goes on *off-the-list.* But no one seemed to give that
> any notice. I hope I am giving him appropriate credit for that. I caught
> it, but I wanted to wait to see if anyone else did.
>
>
> Respectfully, I think it would be more productive discuss how gender is
> expected and *entrained* (and maybe this is what Maria Cristina means by
> reproduction, not sure). Not about what gender is, because we'll never get
> anywhere with that.  If we understand the demands and the production of
> those expectations-fufilled, is it possible we can raise our awareness of
> how those process do not serve those who are harmed by those expectations.
>
>
> I would offer that these gendered expectations are harmful to everyone,
> not just those lacking privilege. I say that because of lost opportunities,
> which I've already discussed in a previous email on the original thread.
>
>
> If there are allies on this list, and I think that there are, then would
> it not be of help for them to sit back and let those of us who feel harmed
> or threatened, or just uncomfortable, explain it how it is. And how we
> (that is, those of us who feel irrelevant despite having something
> meaningful to offer) believe the problem might be solved, or at least
> ameliorated.  Can we explain it ourselves without any help from explainers?
>
>
> I would like to encourage trailblazing this new path of comparing how
> non-gendered discourse might compare to gendered discourse. Because that
> comparison might reveal something important to all of us. All of Us.
>
>
> Or it may not, but who knows for certain until we try. Or... will this
> suggestion be shot down because it doesn't remain within the status quo? Or
> will it be somehow made to sit outside what is allowable to post on this
> list because it (somehow) doesn't pertain the XMCA's mission statement? Or
> some other law I have broken?
>
>
> Of course, it remains the case that some might believe that it is
> impossible to speak about anything without gender, but I'd say that that
> might possibly mean that such a position considers the problem essential (I
> do not), that somehow biologically, or in some other determined way, gender
> is hard-wired like biological sex is hardwired (Note: with the growing
> awareness of the existence of trans-gender populations, I'd like to offer
> that even that position, that biological sex is hardwired, is now suspect).
>
>
> I do think that there are some areas where we don't speak about gender,
> and I'm only asking that we might compare those discourses with discourses
> that are heavy on the influence of gender.
>
>
> Is that somehow a faulty proposition?
>
>
> It felt that there was something of a spark with Maria Cristina's
> contribution combined with Larry's juxtaposed and mine. So I'm hoping there
> might be a continuance from this point. Is that interesting enough?
>
>
> So I am adhering to Greg M's suggestion of cordoning off a space for this
> topic. Let's see if these swim lanes actually work. I doubt it, but I will
> exhibit a willingness to cooperate if it will foster more discourse about
> the matter at hand.
>
>
> Though, actually, I think I've just been invited to place myself into a
> ghetto. I suppose that is an inflammatory thing to say, but I'm just trying
> to be honest. Or maybe I've been invited to populate the periphery, because
> I don't have a privileged credentials to be in the center.
>
>
> It's always something, as Gilda Radner used to say.
>
>
> Kind egads,
>
>
> Annalisa
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>