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

[Xmca-l] Re: The manologue

Hi Philip,

Thanks for your reply! I have heard about the particular (and historical) gendered patterns on XMCA. Even experienced some myself! :)

By the way, I learned yesterday in my Greek class that "Phillip" means "lover of horses." From "phil-" meaning "love," and "ippo" meaning "horse," and also that it was an aristocratic name, since only aristocrats would have horses, certainly elegant animals in their own right. I'd never known that. 

But to the topic at hand: It would be marvelous to have more women post on the list, not only to this thread, but in general. (OK marvelous ladies, where are you?) But perhaps it's just not worth it for them to do so because of past personal experiences, I don't know. I can't speak for all women on the list, obviously, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were connections to be made between patterns of written posts and their asynchronous appearance on the listserv and patterns of verbal speech, and how they make women feel included or excluded.

I can say I have felt hazed and ridiculed at certain points in my time here; maybe another person wouldn't have bothered to return. But there are, for the most part, really great experienced thinkers here. The thread on Collaboration started by Michael last week is an example of the best we have to offer. Real gems in that tapestry. 

Phillip, do you require a formal invitation to share your ideas about why men regularly dominate xmca through multiple long postings? If you do decide to share, I hope that there are enough grownups in the vicinity that will allow for mature and caring exchange on this topic? And if there is no pleasantness to be had, might there be just the right number of grownups in the vicinity that will send the unpleasant ones to their rooms without any supper? Can we send in the tickling clowns as a last resort? Maybe squirt guns?

Might we collaborate upon a discussion of gendered speech patterns on this list or in general, you know, and "play well with others?" Can we allow our interlocutors to make mistakes? Can we maintain our humor? Can we offer care and community to try to crack this very hard nut and actually transform this here apparatus? Can we improvise and create meaning not "to-get-her" but TOGETHER?

I feel confident that if we refrain from posting asphixiating generalizations or gobsmacking stereotypes, we'll make our getaway clean! 

If we try by way of experiment to post in the first person rather than in the second and third, so as to share feelings about it, I believe there will be a lot of beneficial discovery ahead. 

Let it be so!

Perhaps our collaboration and cooperation will start a meaningful shift in our activity triangle of written speech patterns on xmca? Who knows?

I mean, aren't men curious about how women feel and think about xmca topics? Just to have a different viewpoint? To learn something new? Don't we want to learn how some, if not many, men feel who may miss not hearing from the other side of our population? As another side of discourse? And won't we all benefit from this equality in speech?

Thanks for your courage Phillip! (plus all the other brave ones, past present & future: you know who you are)

Kind regards,