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

[David H Kirshner]

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 [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Annalisa Aguilar
Sent: Friday, November 4, 2016 4:58 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
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