902. Msivorytower - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:29 PM PT
"Such behavior is legally actionable, however. I might even argue that it should be more so."
Hahahaha, ya, I agree in principle, but how are you going to prove it? Trust me, institutions would rather close ranks than actually allow anyone to win such a case. Besides which, the danger to women is not something they can directly address, because it's done behind the scenes (at least in a work environment).
903. Seguine - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:30 PM PT
"I disagree that this kind of emotional voice is any more effective than women's helpless voice. But then, we may be thinking of entirely
different exchanges when we think of the emotionalism displayed by these posters upon occasion. (I am referring to the rather tedious fighting that ends up with typically adolescent insults flying around the place.)"
It's not the insults themselves, but the inflexibility and predictable, reflexive habits of the minds which are provoked to them, which is tedious. The insults can be entertaining. I think they are indeed worth emulating, but are best kept in reserve for very special occasions.
904. MrSocko - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:31 PM PT
CalGal:
I very much doubt that JadeGold is female.
905. CoralReef - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:32 PM PT
"What woman in the Fray has threatened someone IRL?" That's irrelevant. I never questioned that the worst offenders in the fray, especially the short term cranks, were men. I just noticed that the second tier, where women show up in heavier numbers, were not mentioned. What male fray regular has wished cancer on anyone?
906. chloel - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:33 PM PT
CoralReef
This towards 892; No, one never does know who's lying; but it's still relevant to 'gender in online debate' that posters attacking women-per-se reliably present themselves as male. It would be interesting if many of them weren't biologically male, but it doesn't seem likely. I'm probably not a St Bernard.
One can judge the consistency of an alias' posts. That's what I usually measure Fraysters by. You?
About my particular examples: I've rummaged around in DOJ stats, but couldn't find a number even for restraining orders issued in the US, so I don't know if my experience has been unusually bad. This was ten years ago, when women were very rare online and the frontier was wild.
907. Seguine - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:34 PM PT
"...the danger to women is not something they can directly address, because it's done behind the scenes (at least in a work environment)."
And underneath the mind. It's like a goddamned zeitgeist in some places, some sort of Jungian mist of common understanding.
908. Msivorytower - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:38 PM PT
Calgal
reMessage #888
Yes, right now there are, and how many men are around? Two? If we're lucky.
"In the Clinton thread, or any other political thread, there have been many times when at least that many women are present and posting substantially--JadeGold, Arky, Judith, Ad, me, you. Six. The men don't run off. They stay there and argue."
I strongly dispute this. Rarely are we there posting substantially together or simultaneously. I have never seen the conversation in that thread dominated by the posts of women. We all ebb and flow in that thread, but at no time are we ever posting substantively together, en masse. Btw, when you, or I, or Arky posted too much in that thread in the presence of a few of the men, they attacked, and attempted to run US off. It didn't work, but the abuse was intense.
So, I modify my comments to include behavior where some men don't run, they try to run the women off.
909. CalGal - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:40 PM PT
Seguine,
"...emotional resilience (which I have been maintaining from word one is the province of *adulthood, NOT MEN*). "
Yes, I am confused as to how that miscommunication occurred. None of us ever said women have to be like men.
"for bemoaning their lack of inclusion while ignoring their own agency in the matter. "
In fairness, I don't think most women do. However, those people (men and women) who look at these numbers and worry (or point out) the lack of participation by women are not acknowledging women's own "agency in the matter".
910. phillipdavid - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:40 PM PT
re Message #894
"I've never thought about whether
being a woman in debates here affects how my arguments
are addressed, and it's never seemed to be an issue."
I remember one time in Religion when VicKuligan was taken to task over such an issue by Msit. I don't remeber specifics, but I do remeber thinking at the time that Msit's point about how Vic addressed her, and her arguments, had merit.
911. CoralReef - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:41 PM PT
Chloel, "One can judge the consistency of an alias' posts. That's what I usually measure Fraysters by. You?" I just generally avoid discussions that delve into personal anecdotes and life stories, unless they are funny.
912. Msivorytower - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:42 PM PT
Socko!
reMessage #904
Yes, I agree.
913. CoralReef - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:45 PM PT
Message #910 Yes, I remember various remarks to him about that and felt the same.
914. chloel - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:45 PM PT
darkviolet
That's just sublimation. The successful ones can get real root access.
CoralReef, re 905
No, it isn't irrelevant to my argument, which is that
1) there are enough threats towards women in the online world to make many reasonable women stop posting as women, and
2) the Fray is much milder than most of the online world.
It's a side-issue to me whether the threats are coming from men or from women; Mrtoner brought it up, and in my experience they certainly present themselves as male, but there's no reason I should trust them while I'm posting as male myself.
What are you counting as second-tier aggression? Wishes-of-harm, or calling someone nasty names, or what?
915. CalGal - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:47 PM PT
Ms,
"Btw, when you, or I, or Arky posted too much in that thread in the presence of a few of the men, they attacked, and attempted to run US off. It didn't work, but the abuse was intense. "
What on earth are you talking about?
I singled this sentence out for special attention, because I have *no* idea where you are coming from. But your entire post speaks of situations I don't recognize.
Mind you, even if the Fray *were* like this, my opinion of what women should do would be the same. But I just don't see where you get this impression.
916. Seguine - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:48 PM PT
"...institutions would rather close ranks than actually allow anyone to win such a case."
They would rather circumscribe male-female interaction severely than risk a lawsuit at all, now that companies can be held liable for failing to restrain their employees from things like sexual harassment. But that doesn't necessarily help with the other, subtler business.
BTW, MsIT, I do not begin to understand your distinctions, if you make any, between the dangers to participation in democracy at large and participation in "democratic" discourse. Your posts on that subject were contradictory.
917. CalGal - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:51 PM PT
Phillip,
Earlier, I made reference to two male Fraygrants who are clearly different in how they handle disagreements with women.
918. CoralReef - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:52 PM PT
"What are you counting as second-tier aggression?" I don't have a checklist, just going far but not quite being bannable, ie causing severe disruption but not taking it outside the forum.
btw, put like that I generally agree with your argument, although it would depend on where the person was posting, of course.
919. Msivorytower - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:53 PM PT
Look, Arky, Calgal, et al
The question isn't how we are each individually treated, although there are a few instances of hostility against being a woman, it's about what happens in a forum when women begin to dominate the conversation. Women, en masse. Not one at a time, in a conversation where mostly men are posting.
Btw, I'd say that the Fray is the least hostile environment I've experienced on the net, as a woman. The men posting here are generally very willing to engage in discussions with anyone (all they want is a live body to abuse!hahaha).
That doesn't mean that I've not noticed some patterns of style, language and, yes, interactions that border on what Herring discussed in her article. And, quite frankly, there aren't enough women posting here to make a dent in many of the conversations (in terms of ever dominating them). We really don't make up even 20% of the total number of participants in the fray, on an ongoing basis. And many of us don't post together for lack of agreement in each others perspectives.
We are mostly quite independent ourselves, and perhaps that speaks to some of our success here in this forum.
920. CalGal - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:53 PM PT
Socko,
You may be right. But she is thought to be female by those who address her, so the point about male reaction in the face of lots o' wimmenfolk around still stands.
921. Seguine - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:53 PM PT
CalGal,
re: ""for bemoaning their lack of inclusion while ignoring their own agency in the matter. "
These were not my words. Possibly Ellespell's.
922. Seguine - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:59 PM PT
Males participating here or lurking in the last 24 hours: Snirv (of course), Pseudoerasmus, Uzmak, ScottLoar, MrToner, CoralReef, Socko.
I bet the lurkers are justifiably cautious about saying much on this subject.
923. chloel - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:00 PM PT
CoralReef
A point of agreement! now all we need is a lever. (Then we can seesaw on opposite ends of the lever, for maximum entertainment value.)
924. CalGal - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:00 PM PT
Ms,
"And many of us don't post together for lack of agreement in each others perspectives."
Well, yes. In fact, were all the women to regularly and en masse address a particular topic from a "feminist perspective" (god forbid), I'm sure the men would leave. I wouldn't blame them. In fact, I'd be following them out the door.
"We are mostly quite independent ourselves, and perhaps that speaks to some of our success here in this forum."
Bingo. You wouldn't expect the men to all address an issue in total agreement, would you? Yet you think it's unusual that we do not?
Incidentally, I think women are about 30% of the Fray. Not sure.
925. CalGal - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:02 PM PT
Seguine,
Yes, I intended that to be a two-fer and forgot to write in Ellespell's name. Apologies to both.
And you beat me to the point about male Fraygrants. I think a fair amount of them are monitoring this.
926. darkviolet - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:03 PM PT
It doesn't humiliate me for a circle of men to be silenced by something I've said. I understand that they may be and probably are reserving the level of competitive response they would have to another man who had challenged them with an original idea in an argument. I respond by acknowledging that I am not any kind of threat, and finish making my point. It's a simple and extremely effective strategy that makes me welcome in conversations that would usually be all-male or strongly male-dominated. I've found conversations dominated by a group of men at least as interesting as conversations dominated by a group of women.
927. CalGal - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:05 PM PT
Arky,
BTW--there are no female conservative Fraygrants that aren't also Thumpers. Jen votes Republican, as I recall. Marshame probably does as well.
If (s)he is female I'd say Au is the farthest "right"--although (s)he seems more libertarian than anything--of the non-Thumper potentially female Fraygrants.
Phew.
928. Msivorytower - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:14 PM PT
"Well, yes. In fact, were all the women to regularly and en masse address a particular topic from a "feminist perspective" (god forbid), I'm sure the men would leave. I wouldn't blame them. In fact, I'd be following them out the door."
Well, who the hell said anything about us all posting from a feminist perspective? Good god, I simply meant that we don't even post in tandem with one another. We typically don't post in agreement with one another. We don't even discuss the same subjects very often in large numbers (and btw, I maintain that females don't make up more than 20 percent of the total fray).
929. ScottLoar - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:18 PM PT
After two recent posts here doubting her gender I must say I never doubted from the very first of her posts that JadeGold is a woman. Very much a woman. A very, very interesting woman.
930. Msivorytower - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:19 PM PT
"Males participating here or lurking in the last 24 hours: Snirv (of course), Pseudoerasmus, Uzmak, ScottLoar, MrToner, CoralReef, Socko."
And this proves what? That we have a cross-gender discussion going on here? I disagree. Side comments do not make a conversation.
"I bet the lurkers are justifiably cautious about saying much on this subject."
Whatever for? Has this conversation been hostile to men? I beg to differ, it's been more hostile/critical of women than anything else. I fail to see why the male fray population would be reticient about this conversation when they have so much to say about everything else under the sun. AND had a great deal to say about what women were the most beautiful to them.
931. Msivorytower - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:20 PM PT
Actually, Scott, I keep hoping she is a woman, but various bits of information that have surfaced over the last few months have caused me to question this recently.
932. CalGal - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:23 PM PT
Ms,
"Good god, I simply meant that we don't even post in tandem with one another. "
Oh, okay. But I disagree even with that. Clearly our perceptions of the Fray are very different.
"and btw, I maintain that females don't make up more than 20 percent of the total fray"
I built a list once a while ago of all Fraygrants and came up with about 100 male and 30+ female. This was nearly a year ago. It'd be interesting to check it out again. You may be right.
933. Mrtoner - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:24 PM PT
Re #919 Msivorytower...
I know I'm new, but I've been haunting this thread, the Impeachment thread, News and Movies now for several days and my own impression is that women comprise far more than 20% of the posters. It's obviously unscientific, and who knows how many people are misrepresenting their gender (not to mention mis-representing their gender), but I'd estimate something like 55-45% male during the time I've been here.
934. ScottLoar - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:25 PM PT
A typically arch comment by JadeGold, "Oh, how distressing to your co-workers in the lube pit", betrays her sex. I also guessed right and from the very first that she was American-born Chinese, but delayed confirming so for ages.
935. CalGal - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:26 PM PT
Ms,
"I fail to see why the male fray population would be reticient about this conversation when they have so much to say about everything else under the sun. AND had a great deal to say about what women were the most beautiful to them. "
Not all that many make such comments. That was a low blow when talking about the men at large.
And I have to agree with Seguine--I think by and large the men are just lurking right now. Probably a good deal of the women, too.
936. Msivorytower - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:29 PM PT
"Clearly our perceptions of the Fray are very different."
Oh, I've never doubted that.
MrToner,
Sorry to disappoint you, but really, we are small in number, but a few of us don't shut up.
937. chloel - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:30 PM PT
CalGal
""AND had a great deal to say about what women were the most beautiful to them. "
Not all that many make such comments. "
I remember several men in a row in this thread fondly saying that they really approved of women being modest because it made the women so sexy. It wasn't a high proportion of the men who sometimes post in the Fray, but it seemed like a high proportion of the ones posting then.
And, of course, it was funny.
938. Msivorytower - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:31 PM PT
"That was a low blow when talking about the men at large"
Oh please.
939. Mrtoner - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:34 PM PT
I'm going to stop lurking now...not because women are dominating the thread, but because Letterman is coming on.
940. Msivorytower - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:35 PM PT
Okay, I've had a long day, I'm done for the night, and I may be done with this conversation. I've stated my position, defended it as much as I'm likely to do, and haven't much more to say.
Tomorrow.
941. CalGal - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:36 PM PT
Ms,
Actually, I just reread your comments. For some reason I thought you were implying that male Fraygrants talked about female Fraygrants. No clue why. Sorry.
However, we women here go through times of talking about what we like in men, too.
942. marjoribanks - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:37 PM PT
" but various bits of information that have surfaced over the last few months have caused me to question this recently."
I'm entirely sure that JadeGold is female, there's not a doubt at all.
(And I haven't been lurking, I haven't even read back in this thread yet.)
943. CoralReef - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:37 PM PT
"However, we women here go through times of talking about what we like in men, too."
The biggest understatement of this discussion so far.
944. CalGal - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:44 PM PT
Coral,
If I made it sound as if women engage in droolfests substantially less often than men, I apologize. I'd give the edge to men, but not by much.
But then, I don't think the Fray is sexist.
BTW, I started a list of female Fraygrants. It is inevitable that I have forgotten someone critical, so apologies in advance. However, my rule of thumb has been 30% and I'm wondering if that needs to be updated. Male Fraygrants coming up.
MsIvoryTower
Seguine
ArkyMalarky
DarkStar
CalGal
Chloel
Harper
TheDiva
Bubbaette
Christino
Jenerator
Marshame
JadeGold
Adrianne
ChristiP
Judithathome
PamIAm
Maria
Blaise
Ellespell
AuNaturel
Wabbit
Webfeet
ConnieMack
KateWrath
Thoughtful
MizPhyz
LadyChaos
945. CalGal - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:48 PM PT
Forgot PatsyRolph
946. CoralReef - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:49 PM PT
And tmachine.
947. CalGal - Feb. 15, 1999 - 8:58 PM PT
Ack. Sorry, tmachine! I went through all the threads to think of regulars and went right by Language.
948. CalGal - Feb. 15, 1999 - 9:14 PM PT
Preliminary list of male Fraygrants--69 of them. There were 29 female Fraygrants.
IrvingSnodgrass
PseudoErasmus
Niner
MrSocko
Cllrdr
Elliot
ScottLoar
Bloodnfire
JoeZan
VicKuligan
Resonance
CoralReef
Cigarlaw
MrToner
Spooky
Wombat
LazyGeorge
JamesWright
DaveCook
Millhead
Raskolnikov
Glendajean
Boohab
PTBoya
JonesatLaw
TabouliJones
Cartman69
Cartmhan
KurtMondaugen
AdamSelene
Fraaaaaaaaank9
Lemwalker
Verdeazule
Ronski
Super80
Escabro
TrouserPilot
ScotusAntonovich
RustlerPike
JJBiener
CharlieL
FreetoChoose
PhillipDavid
Slackjaw
Spudboy
RickC2000
Stostosto
BobaFett
BoomerJeff
BTerry
Seadate
Copans
PsychProf
PincherMartin
TCKrulak
RyckNelson
Viewpoint
Wexxler
JayAckroyd
Pellenillson
Marjoribanks
OhioSTOPAS
DavidMeyer
Labarjare
ProfEmeritus
DavidTudor
NuPlanetOne
Seamus
Jkuzmak
Winston Smith hasn't been around for a while--hope he is okay.
Also, someone called rondiaherlihy posts--no clue as to gender.
And, again, apologies to anyone I've left off the list.
949. CalGal - Feb. 15, 1999 - 9:16 PM PT
Sigh. So the apologies can begin with vonKreedon and BGPelaire.
But anyway--so far, women are running at about 30%. If I'm doing the math right.
950. phillipdavid - Feb. 15, 1999 - 9:17 PM PT
Seguine,
Message #922,
I am lurking too.
"I bet the lurkers are justifiably cautious about saying much
on this subject."
I am not cautious so much as contemplative. I don't have a staked out position to support or defend, and I am not afraid of exposing some vulnerable aspect of myself. I am more interested in reading your thoughts and others' and thinking about them. I did make one small point about the article yesterday, but really don't have anything else to add (except that I believe JadeGold to be a woman).
951. marjoribanks - Feb. 15, 1999 - 9:19 PM PT
With all due respect, which is none, I have to say these two lists are absurd and nonsensical and ignore the basic point of the Fray which is the (relatively) anonymous exchange of ideas.
952. CoralReef - Feb. 15, 1999 - 9:20 PM PT
luthercalvin? pjacobson?
953. marjoribanks - Feb. 15, 1999 - 9:24 PM PT
What is next? A list of fraygrants according to regional distribution (as if that means anything)? Or a list of skewed/perceived political affiliations (as if that means anything)? Or a list of those who have posted here longer than others (as if that means anything)?
This kind of crap is the very antithesis of a meaningful exchange of ideas in discussion. It manages to combine the worst prurient factors of normal day-to-day interaction with the least compelling, most brain-dead aspects of Internet exchange.
954. Seguine - Feb. 15, 1999 - 9:25 PM PT
My point about the lurkers was that they're unlikely to post remarks that might even be construed to confirm their possibly sexist inclinations WRT male/female discourse for fear of being eviscerated now and remembered for months to come.
Since some of them actually like some of us and probably don't wish to risk being considered by us or anyone else to be unreconstructed baboons, they are being very quiet and observant, just as we are being careful at the moment not to identify by name the men we know to be sexists, nor analyze in public each sexist's failure to enlighten his sorry ass. And why are we not? Because we actually like some of them, too, and they haven't given us cause, today, to git momma's shotgun down off the shelf.
I was going to post the forgoing without further remarks, but now I think perhaps the boys aren't weighing in lately because the conversation has gotten less amusing:
Chloel,
"I remember several men in a row in this thread fondly saying that they really approved of women being modest because it made the women so sexy. ... And, of course, it was funny."
I missed that exchange, so went looking for the horrible "I love modest women" posts, but couldn't find them. I did find this:
594. bubbaette - Feb. 9, 1999 - 12:59 PM PT
Niner has the muscle head of a little boy. His penis is bombastic and freakish, but it lives. He needs to vomit now.
That's so goddamned funny I can't stop laughing. (And if MsIT's going to take the guys to task for their remarks about modesty, CR has a right to scowl mightily at me for being helpless before Bubbaette's surreal attack on Niner's hose...)
955. CoralReef - Feb. 15, 1999 - 9:27 PM PT
Yes, Banks, but it gives her something to do. Idle hands....
956. CalGal - Feb. 15, 1999 - 9:31 PM PT
"With all due respect, which is none, I have to say these two lists are absurd and nonsensical and ignore the basic point of the Fray which is the (relatively) anonymous exchange of ideas."
The Ms asserted that the Fray is 20% female. My estimate was 30%. I
thought it was worth going through the exercise, since part of the debate is about whether or not there are enough women here to affect the Fray.
Also, the "basic point of the Fray" is whatever the hell we want it to be.
Seguine,
Niner is in the habit of posting nonsensical Spanish and Bubba's translations are famous. Didn't know if you saw the preceding post.
I agree with your comments about why male Fraygrants might be lurking rather than posting.
957. Seguine - Feb. 15, 1999 - 9:32 PM PT
(Sorry PD, I didn't see your Message #950 in time. My last was in response to one of MsIT's.)
958. CalGal - Feb. 15, 1999 - 9:34 PM PT
And that is odd--the first 450 posts in this thread have been archived. Have we begun only saving 500 at a time?
959. CoralReef - Feb. 15, 1999 - 9:37 PM PT
I don't think there's any set number, CalGal, as to the archiving.
960. CalGal - Feb. 15, 1999 - 9:44 PM PT
I found this discussion interesting for a couple reasons:
1) It is always enjoyable to do a round of "change the environment" vs. "change women", which has always seemed to me to be a major point of division in feminist approach. "Feminist" used in the broadest sense, since I don't wish to get into another debate about what, exactly, is a feminist.
2) The Ms' perception of pervasive sexist attitudes in the Fray surprised me--although she did say it was rarer here than elsewhere. Are there others--women or men--who agree with her observations?
961. CalGal - Feb. 15, 1999 - 9:45 PM PT
Coral,
Really?
I'm pretty sure it has always been 1000 posts, but maybe it has changed recently. (Or maybe they are more aggressively archiving due to the lousy performance?)
962. marjoribanks - Feb. 15, 1999 - 9:46 PM PT
Next! Negroes In The Fray, the comprehensive list!
963. marjoribanks - Feb. 15, 1999 - 9:47 PM PT
Homosexuals!
The Handicapped!
All catalogued exhaustively!
964. CoralReef - Feb. 15, 1999 - 10:00 PM PT
CalGal, sorry, I thought you meant a different thing by "archived". Yes, it's weird that the posts are not accessible, very strange.
965. patsyrolph - Feb. 15, 1999 - 10:03 PM PT
MarjoriBanks:
Although I was listed as an afterthought among women in the fray, I demand a category of
Little Old Ladies!
966. CalGal - Feb. 15, 1999 - 10:04 PM PT
Oh, that kind of archiving. No. I meant the deletion of them.
And I just checked another thread. It's at 500.
967. marjoribanks - Feb. 15, 1999 - 10:09 PM PT
Patsy,
Not to worry! There will be a ridiculous Fray list into which you will be shoehorned very soon!
968. CoralReef - Feb. 15, 1999 - 10:11 PM PT
A list of Desis in the fray!
969. patsyrolph - Feb. 15, 1999 - 10:19 PM PT
marjoribanks: I can be shoehorned into Eclipse Chasers. I have made my resrvation for a Black Sea cruise to view the last total solar eclipse of the the century August 11 and youse guys in International are making me salivate. The trip will end in Istanbul....
970. marjoribanks - Feb. 15, 1999 - 10:19 PM PT
At least five Reefer! And that's not counting honorary ones!
971. marjoribanks - Feb. 15, 1999 - 10:21 PM PT
Eclipse Chasers in the Fray!
patsyrolph
godlessclif
972. IrvingSnodgrass - Feb. 15, 1999 - 11:43 PM PT
Seguine:
I think PD's Message #950 sums up a common lurker's attitude in this thread. I find the conversation intensely interesting, but have nothing of any value to add from my perspective.
CalGal:
"And that is odd--the first 450 posts in this thread have been archived. Have we begun only saving 500 at a time?"
Someone went into the Fray Admin site and changed the number of posts which were saved, probably thinking it would make the Fray load faster. I was not informed. As a result, we have lost over 10,000 posts, most of which were probably not archived by our volunteer archiving team. I have set the figure back to 1000, but the lost posts are gone forever.
973. PincherMartin - Feb. 16, 1999 - 12:10 AM PT
chloel -- Message #883
"Since I've been physically attacked several times for being an assertive female in male fields IRL, and have known three women who got actionable threats or worse for the same online, I always had to make a cautious little calculation based on physical risk (where I couldn't be anonymous). It's a form of terrorism, one which I don't *think* affects men as much, and which makes moderation, as in the Fray, useful."
Actually, this sort of thing affects men all the time (at least young men under the age of say thirty-five or forty). It is something that happens on the playing fields, in the workplace, and in just about any kind of gathering that has more than a couple of males who do not know one another.
974. MrSocko - Feb. 16, 1999 - 6:13 AM PT
I agree with Mrs. Erasmus's Message #973 and I'm dead keen to know the name of the country where chloel resides. Is it America? It sometimes seems as if America is the only place in the developed world where people are always harping on about being too scared to say something online, lest they suffer the direst consequences, both privately and publicly. Why should this be?
975. Msivorytower - Feb. 16, 1999 - 6:21 AM PT
"The Ms' perception of pervasive sexist attitudes in the Fray surprised me--although she did say it was rarer here than elsewhere. Are there others--women or men--who agree with her observations?"
Gad, you really have NO sense of balance or perspective. Must everything be exaggerated in your world view? At NO time did I say that sexist attitudes are PERVASIVE in the fray. My POINT has been that the gender differences in language, style and tone that Herring identified in her study are evident here, and not just occasionally.
That is not the same thing as saying pervasive SEXIST attitudes exist in this forum. I have not said this, nor would I. There are a handful of posters who are hostile to women participating in ongoing debates, but that never reaches more than a handful at any one time, although sometimes the characters change. This is not an indication of pervasiveness, but on the other hand, I would not go so far (as you do) to say that it doesn't exist AT ALL here. For you, one or two unpleasant posters suggests a zero hostile environment, I do not agree in either the number or the effect (although, again, the number hostile to women is low, just not as low as one or two).
976. Msivorytower - Feb. 16, 1999 - 6:26 AM PT
Seguine,
Point taken regarding lurkers and why they may be lurking. However, I must say that lurking isn't participating, is it?
And it's too bad that the first 500 posts were deleted, from 100 to around 350, the conversation was predominantly male and centered around their tastes in women around the world. Now, please note, I wasn't saying this conversation shouldn't have happened, nor that it indicates anything other than that a number of men were hanging around and talking about women, the way they wanted to, when the conversation was not on this particular issue.
Not lurking.
977. Msivorytower - Feb. 16, 1999 - 6:41 AM PT
Socko
Well, I don't know about other western societies, but in America there are problems women face as a result of both a less connected society and a more open legal one. For instance, until recently a woman (or man, for that matter) could not get much police protection from harassment or stalking by an individual. Even now, one must know the identity of the stalker, and that person must be willing to obey any court order to remain away from your residence or place of work. And by the time the individual is given the restraining order, much havoc has already been wrought.
This isn't a trivial problem, either, we now have cases where children have been stalked, several thousands of women, and men (mostly celebrities). There are warning networks about this sort of thing, and every advice piece I've read on chatting and communicating on the internet suggests that one hides personal information from everyone, precisely because of the potential dangers.
I do know that a few fraysters have actually recieved quasi-threatening calls from anonymous lurkers who determined their real location from comments made casually in the fray. It is also why so many of us have retreated from discussing personal information any more. It certainly is why *I* have done so.
I don't know what this says about America, other than that we must have some really ugly undercurrents to our culture for it to be so present here. I also don't know the extent to which it is apparent in other countries where the level of internet penetration is the same. However, the internet is not the only forum where these sorts of ugly behaviors can be found in this country, unfortunately.
978. PincherMartin - Feb. 16, 1999 - 6:50 AM PT
A Little Fray History Relevant to the Discussion at Hand:
Back about a year and a half ago, when a certain male fraygrant made his first appearance in the Fray, there was a "Politics Thread" that was quite popular with fraygrants of both genders. After this male fraygrant had been in the Fray a couple of weeks or so, he posted a couple of items in that thread hoping to spark some discussion. Along came a female fraygrant by the name of "Phoenixx" (whose gender was unknown at the time), later divulged to be "Ariel the Sprite", who was more than up for his game. Witty and capable of rapid-fire posts, she took a few shots at the new male fraygrant before he and another male fraygrant -- "FreeToChoose" who had put himself in harm's way by trying to protect the newcomer -- managed to run for cover where they would sit and lick their wounds. Into the mix jumped "MsIvoryTower" and "CalGal" ("Resonance" was also there in his "Jacobin" guise, but not as directly involved in the conflict, although as usual he posted an incredible amount of stuff). For the next couple of days, the ladies would throw thunderbolts at each other while the men literally scattered for any safe haven they could find. Back and forth it went at the tune of about 300+ posts a day before it finally disintegrated into a volley of "Fuck you" and "Up yours" that would have made the crudest of male fraygrants proud. Finally, MsIvoryTower bowed out with a farewell of "Fuck you" to "Phoenixx", leaving the Burning Bird and "CalGal" to slosh it out for a few more posts. CalGal, who is the Fray equivalent of the human backboard, ended up wearing down the extremely adept and usually tireless Phoenixx. Suddenly, all was quiet.
When the more masculine of us finally worked up enough nerve to poke our heads back in the "Politics Thread", we found that t
979. PincherMartin - Feb. 16, 1999 - 6:55 AM PT
...Continued
A Little Fray History Relevant to the Discussion at Hand:
When the more masculine of us finally worked up enough nerve to poke our heads back in the "Politics Thread", we found that the girls had conducted a *scorched earth* policy in it. Normally the scene of much activity, the thread would hardly move for the next three days. The hurt feelings would remain much longer as the three ladies carried their grudges into other threads.
Interestingly enough, the whole thing started because the new male fraygrant wanted to discuss the unsuitability of women in combat.
980. Msivorytower - Feb. 16, 1999 - 7:06 AM PT
My Gawd
You are JS!
Btw, I never said Fuck you to Phoenixx. No, no, I may have said that in so many words, but I never said THOSE WORDS.
And my recollection of the events differs substantially from yours. We never dominated the Politics thread, and the conversation between Phoenixx and myself may have been scattered over a few hundred posts, but was NOT the main topic. That occurred in another thread.
And are you suggesting we few women in that episode are the only ones who have used a "scorched earth" policy wrt exchanges here in the fray? If so, I beg to differ.
981. PincherMartin - Feb. 16, 1999 - 7:22 AM PT
MsIvoryTower --
"Btw, I never said Fuck you to Phoenixx. No, no, I may have said that in so many words, but I never said THOSE WORDS."
You did so, at least twice. To be fair, I have never seen you so angry since.
"And my recollection of the events differs substantially from yours. We never dominated the Politics thread, and the conversation between Phoenixx and myself may have been scattered over a few hundred posts, but was NOT the main topic. That occurred in another thread."
The three of you (and Resonance) *absolutely* dominated that thread.
"And are you suggesting we few women in that episode are the only ones who have used a "scorched earth" policy wrt exchanges here in the fray? If so, I beg to differ."
Hah, of course not. But I have never seen an exchange here get so ugly. It makes me laugh to see you write now about how women are at a disadvantage in web discourse -- you and the other girls certainly weren't that day
982. PsychProf - Feb. 16, 1999 - 7:33 AM PT
Lurking in a thread is very appropriate for me...much of the time I have little to offer that is of more value than what is being said.
983. 109109 - Feb. 16, 1999 - 7:34 AM PT
Interesting history. I have another possibly relevant recounting.
I remember when Rustler Pike penned a rather tepid sketch lampooning women in combat roles. He assembled a squad of female fraygrants, and in fact, in his tiny melodrama, one was KIA.
The howls of protest on the part of several female fraygrants were hilarious and, dare I say, disproportionate to the offense. Umbrage was intense, and gender was bandied about with flavor.
Nothing that has occurred in this forum - and I have witnessed my fair share of political turmoil - had me so stumped.
984. 109109 - Feb. 16, 1999 - 7:42 AM PT
marj
"This kind of crap is the very antithesis of a meaningful exchange of ideas in discussion. It manages to combine the worst prurient factors of normal day-to-day interaction with the least compelling, most brain-dead aspects of Internet exchange."
Relax, Mary.
985. cllrdr - Feb. 16, 1999 - 7:49 AM PT
Oh Mary!
Well, as we all have learned from Christopher Snitchens, straight men can be *infinitely* bitchier than women OR gay men.
986. PincherMartin - Feb. 16, 1999 - 7:50 AM PT
Niner --
I vaguely remember RustlerPike's skit. I do remember that the bloodshed in it did not begin to match the carnage that came directly after it.
987. PsychProf - Feb. 16, 1999 - 7:51 AM PT
Banks...I think at least some of the intellectual exchange you reference is nothing more than I'm smarter than you and my penis is bigger than yours.
988. marjoribanks - Feb. 16, 1999 - 7:57 AM PT
"human backboard"
Very good.
989. 109109 - Feb. 16, 1999 - 7:58 AM PT
Pincher
It was, in a word, bizarre.
cllrdr
I love bitchy me, straight or gay.
Except on a basketball court. They have no place shooting the rock.
990. CalGal - Feb. 16, 1999 - 7:58 AM PT
I agree with Niner's RP recollection. I also thought the reaction was extreme--although I didn't care for the skit, either.
As far as PM's story goes, it was NOD, not Politics. His recollection is not accurate, but there are certainly times when a thread can be dominated by a particular meltdown, and the participants of the meltdown can be of any gender.
991. 109109 - Feb. 16, 1999 - 8:01 AM PT
"bitchy me" was supposed to be "bitchy men"
I believe I have tipped my hand.
Driver! Dupont Circle, and step on it.
992. FreeToChoose - Feb. 16, 1999 - 8:40 AM PT
PincherMartin
I agree that the recollection of the event is entertaining, although not accurate. I won't bother to correct the record regarding my involvement…who would care…but I am intrigued by one point.
You said that Phoenixx was later divulged to be Ariel. I know there was speculation on this point, but Ariel said quite firmly that this was not true. In fact, there were rather heated posts over the fact that I didn't acknowledge this fact. There are other relevant issues, but they were discussed in private e-mails, so I won't discuss them here.
How certain are you that this identity was confirmed, as opposed to mere speculation? Given your, ah, creative recollection of the events, I shan't trust your memory. Did you save any posts, or can you find anyone to back you up?
993. CalGal - Feb. 16, 1999 - 8:41 AM PT
Ms,
Message #975
"There are a handful of posters who are hostile to women participating in ongoing debates, but that never reaches more than a handful at any one time, although sometimes the characters change. "
Had you said that, I wouldn't have debated you. However, here is the exchange:
You: "My experience is that when enough women participate assertively in conversations the discussions either end quickly (die out), or become female only conversations (the men leave). So, I'd like to hear what you mean by a changing tenor in the conversation, and some examples where women (en masse) became equal participants in the discussion."
Me: "Not here in the Fray. Or are you excluding it from your experience?"
You: "Absolutely here in the Fray. I make no exceptions."
I asked for examples.
You then came up with *one* example, outside of the current discussion, which I thought was pretty feeble. How can you use the fact that Joe/Bon/Envision is unpleasant to you as proof that women participating assertively in conversations here in the Fray causes the conversation to end quickly or for the men to leave?
Your initial assertion is only relevant to this conversation about sexist communication patterns in online forums if it *is* pervasive. So if it isn't, why did you include the Fray in your observations? Isolated incidents of hostility don't count.
So, to repeat my question: Have you noticed a pattern in the Fray where the male Fraygrants leave if the women start participating assertively?
994. FreeToChoose - Feb. 16, 1999 - 8:44 AM PT
PincherMartin
However, in an attempt to return to the subject matter, if Phoenixx was indeed a female (and I have reason to dispute this), it is clear that the qualities of being vile, antagonistic, and generally reprehensible are clearly not limited to male participants.
995. msivorytower - Feb. 16, 1999 - 8:55 AM PT
Calgal
I meant that I don't exclude the Fray from that potential behavior, in part, because I've never seen any discussion reach a critical mass of female posters other than those related to feminism (and in those circumstances, the men do bow out, or never really engage).
You've still not given any examples where the tenor of conversations change substantially because enough aggressive women have entered the ranks.
996. CoralReef - Feb. 16, 1999 - 9:05 AM PT
Some comments
• FTC, there's no question who phoenixx was.
• There was a similar scorched earth period in politics a little later, between Ariel and Azure that left the place radioactive for a while.
• I agree with Martin's, Socko's and 109's points above.
• On the question of the gender of JadeGold I'd have to go with the one person in the fray who would be in a position to know: cllrdr.
997. FreeToChoose - Feb. 16, 1999 - 9:07 AM PT
BTW, how do people know the sex of Fraygrants? I know that some think they can tell by the writing style (a subject worthy of its own discussion), and I realize that some people have stated their own, but surely we have ample evidence of people lying, so, other than the few instances of physical meetings, how do people know?
I don't recall ever telling anyone my sex, and why would you be sure you knew if I told you?
998. msivorytower - Feb. 16, 1999 - 9:14 AM PT
Son of a bitch
I've lost two long responses to PM and 109's comments.....
There is no way in hell I can reconstruct them.
My point was as follows
1) I disagree with both recollections.
Calgal
"How can you use the fact that Joe/Bon/Envision is unpleasant to you as proof that women participating assertively in conversations here in the Fray causes the conversation to end quickly or for the men to leave?"
What are you talking about? I've never mentioned anyone by name although his comments to a few of the women qualifies as hostile. My comments were confined to the female oriented topics (feminism) wrt the Fray, an area you automatically discounted as not relevant.
And there have been conversations here, in the fray, where the conversation ends abruptly when a few of the women start posting in volume. Of course, that could be because of antipathy toward those posters and not necessarily toward the gender issues related. Unfortunately, unlike you, I never save discussions, and am not very good at recalling details of many of them unless something remarkable happens to burn it in my memory.
"So, I'd like to hear what you mean by a changing tenor in the conversation, and some examples where women (en masse) became equal participants in the discussion."
And before I indulge any more of your demands, there are some things you've left unsubstantiated as well.
999. CalGal - Feb. 16, 1999 - 9:14 AM PT
Ms,
"I meant that I don't exclude the Fray from that potential behavior, in part, because I've never seen any discussion reach a critical mass of female posters other than those related to feminism (and in those circumstances, the men do bow out, or never really engage). "
There was nothing of "potentiality" in your first responses, although you did move quickly off to the "critical mass" issue.
So you are saying that the Fray demonstrates no sexist communication patterns at this time, and that this is because women only constitute about 30% of Fraygrants?
1000. CalGal - Feb. 16, 1999 - 10:13 AM PT
BTW, I haven't answered your other question because that isn't the exact assertion I made, but the damn Fray is so slow that it's taking me forever to get back to the original post. Trying again now.