[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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



Greg- Briefly.

You are correct when you speculate that about a "high stakes" nature to the
list that some of the old heads on the list might not appreciate."
 Speaking personally, I do not like it in the least.

These discussions were initiated to provide an inter-medium of half baked
ideas that contributors were welcome to bake up if they could, and let
other people know how they did it. It became a medium to provide authors
with rapid feedback on work that invites collective consideration about
pressing problems of mind, culture, and activity. It is a currently a
hybrid of these impulses and projects.

To the extent that it is allowed to become a high stakes shoot out
spectator sport with a rep for being an old man's club it has miserably
failed in its aspirations. Like it or not.

mike

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Annalisa et al,
>
> Tell me if you'd rather that I hush-up already but I'll just mention two
> things that are very telling from the conversation:
>
> 1. There has NOT been much consideration of the placemaking of the
> listserve - i.e., what exactly is this place called XMCA - what is the
> nature of the place/space that has been created by our collective "talk"?
> And how might this context itself be alienating for many women. [and btw,
> I'm sure I'm just repeating what other women have said thus far, which may
> be bad or good since I seem to recall a report from a group of women who
> were trying to figure out how to make women's voices heard in meetings (the
> typical thing that men do with women's comments is pay lip service, if
> that, and then introduce their own (manly) ideas and move the meeting in
> their direction); one strategy that these women came up with was anytime a
> woman says something, to have another woman repeat exactly what the
> previous woman had said - that serves to reinforce the point and make it so
> that men can't so easily disregard it. Seems a useful approach - whether or
> not it works with a man seconding the woman's point, I'm not sure (since it
> easily could reinscribe a gendered hierarcy - the point is ignored when the
> woman says it, but when a man says it...)]
>
> 2. Relatedly, Jacob's comment that he always first hesitates to post, then
> has a conversation with his partner who says "don't do it!" and then, after
> posting, realizes that he shouldn't have posted -- this suggests to me that
> there is a "high stakes" nature to the list that some of the old heads on
> the list might not appreciate. I'm open to the possibility that the "high
> stakes" nature of things might have some value, but I also suspect that,
> for engendered reasons, this is also what makes it a place that many women
> find unwelcome for their participation (and no, I don't necessarily see
> this in essentializing terms - as if the female sex doesn't welcome high
> stakes conversations, rather I see it as being the case that in this
> particular here and now this seems to be common - and there are certainly
> women who seek out such conversations, as well as men who disprefer them).
>
> And once again, I don't know what to do about this.
>
> I'll hush-up now.
> -greg
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Anthropology
> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>
Status: O