From: KATHY MCCLOSKEY <KMCCLOSKEY@FALCON.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL>
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: my two bits....
Date: 18 Dec 1992 16:29:36 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

I just received soc.fem digests #208-#215, and did some more math.  Out of 65 
postings, 44 were from men (67.7%), 16 were from women (24.6%), and 5 could 
not be determined by header (7.7%).

This has really been interesting.  I've sat back and watched.  But there's a 
danger in this "god's-eye-view" -- namely, feeling morally superior.  It would 
be SO easy to feel puffed up over this.  Indulge me and let me shoot myself in 
the foot some more.

>From my perspective, it looks like some of the things I've felt, heard, and 
read are so true.  Communication styles are so readily apparent by sex that 
it's sort of scary.  Basically, _The Mismeasure of Women_ is right on target 
when it comes to this net.  Those members of the dominant culture have a 
particular language and set of mores from which they measure all others. Those 
members of the non-dominant culture know and understand the dominant language 
as a simple matter of survival.  But, and here's the crux of the thing as far 
as I can see, the non-dominant members of society have created their own 
language and mores in order to survive, also.  There seems to be some 
off-shoots to the existence of this "other" language.  First, the dominant 
culture doesn't have to learn this other language in order to survive, and in 
some cases doesn't even know it exists.  When it is recognized as existing, 
some members of the dominant culture will use it as evidence for the 
"undeveloped" status of the non-dominant culture in order to keep them "in 
their place."  Other members will seek to learn the language in order to 
understand the experiences of the non-dominant members.  Still others will 
learn it in order to "infiltrate," subvert, and divide (notice the war 
metaphors).

In addition, language in some cases will drive mores.  In some instances here, 
the dominant language is used to uphold the concept of "equality" as the 
dominant culture understands it -- equal treatment of everyone, period. In the 
non-dominant language, by virtue of their stature in the structure of things, 
"equality" doesn't mean the same thing.  Members of the non-dominant culture 
cannot treat each other as equals in all things simply because they are NOT 
equal in all things (whether it's pay, childcare responsibility, racial 
discrimination, etc.) in relation to the dominant group, as well as in 
relation to each other.

This seems to be the way things are whenever one group of people have more 
resources than others simply by virtue of their membership in some group.  It 
so happens that sexual classification (female/male) transcends all races, 
nationalities, and religious classifications.  However, we cannot also ignore 
the power structures that go along with these "secondary" classifications.  
But it does give a renewed urgency to feminist principles (although some 
people say that the subordination of women is what all other subordinate 
classes are based on, that's open to more thought, and very difficult to 
prove or disprove in the classical sense).

So what, eh?  Well, from my perspective, the dominant group (meaning here on 
the net, men) does what it does naturally, dominates -- by that I mean the 
discussion, the direction and tone of discourse.  The "policing" may be 
subtle, but the recent discussion concerning aggressive versus warm-fuzzy 
discussions appropriately de-railed the thread about different communication 
languages by:  1) focussing the discussion on comparisons between the 
dominant, and therefore correct, language of point-counterpoint to the 
stereotype of the "other" language (warm fuzzies); 2) assuming by default that 
the dominant language is superior; 3) although there was a fine parody of the 
dominant language, it still did not motivate a one-language man to learn the 
"other" language.

In addition, before I stop this brain dump, there's also another off-shoot to 
the existence of dominant/subordinate languages -- the members of the 
subordinate groups may come to view their language as morally superior (as I 
have in the past).  This is an easy mistake to make.  Basically, people who 
know and understand another culture other than the dominant one DO know and 
understand more.  The point is not to be "dominant" with it, lord it over 
other people.  That's hard.  Because these realities are right in front of you 
day in and day out, and it's very difficult to have members of the dominant 
group deny your perceptions, and in some cases, deny their own eyes and their 
own feelings.  And, here's a hard one -- it's sometimes really FUN to turn the 
tables, to be one-up on the dominant group.

And so we walk the tightrope....

Kathy
kmccloskey@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.