[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Analysis of Gender in early xmca discourse
- To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Analysis of Gender in early xmca discourse
- From: Martin John Packer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 22:22:33 +0000
- Accept-language: es-CO, en-US
- Authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) email@example.com;
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uniandes.edu.co; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=S2CSOs1jgnfsy/eFkt16ZpLnrrfIKsKb+hA1mLFLaKs=; b=FilSsoXDDCf6GN6j2VmdL7PvA4xt+YR2sEp84YzAOSxLu1bFY6mAjJAlgbF+eZSsMqdY4Fgs7+UKTvmpvZjESVwn8lm/AK55L8cPat7RRoGcReK3CxDPLJBfffjslYRTzXlRF9XrgQTparJ+l8O5cvf561s2ZGZLCD2jT8hSW5E=
- In-reply-to: <CAKCYZhxFmu04vOACagL4JSO+gst7fObhPcyFNKah1zfMNMD5WQ@mail.gmail.com>
- List-archive: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l.mailman.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <00ab01d235fe$c29c1560$47d44020$@edu> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <BN3PR0701MB1702288E33ADA151B2B74253C1A30@BN3PR0701MB1702.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAKCYZhxFmu04vOACagL4JSO+gst7fObhPcyFNKah1zfMNMD5WQ@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Sender: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
- Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
- Thread-index: AQHSNiDG1baKXL+ZL0e0zjVGGU7eBQ==
- Thread-topic: [Xmca-l] Analysis of Gender in early xmca discourse
Am I crazy (or perhaps “blokey), but isn’t Jacob in fact Jenna?
> On Nov 3, 2016, at 3:13 PM, Greg Mcverry <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> 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
>> 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,