From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.EDU (Muffy Barkocy)
Subject: Re: Net discussion styles and gender
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
Date: 21 Dec 92 23:42:04 GMT
	<Bz02o0.2IC@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> <1give7INNp8@agate.berkeley.edu>

In article <1give7INNp8@agate.berkeley.edu> bickis@skmath3.usask.ca (M. Bickis) writes:
[about replies to this posting:]
>>>A few months ago I received a lot of flak for raising the
>>>possibility that the essence of gender differences was that
>>>masculine=agressive, feminine=nurturing.  Now I see many postings,
>>>mostly from women, which suggest that the male style of net-talk is
>>>argumentative, "point-counterpoint" whereas the female style is
>>>more supportive and sharing. Is my earlier hypothesis then
>>>vindicated?

>1) The difference is good, and should be preserved.
>2) The difference is bad, and should be eliminated.
>3) The difference is merely a fact, and has no moral bearing.

>1) and 2) could be further specified by asking whether it is good or bad
>for the individual, or for society generally.

>On the agression/nurture question, though, I lean toward 1) for
>reasons that I have already discussed, and will not repeat.  Let me
>just add that I believe these differences are good both for the
>individual *and* society, but the social benefits seem to maintain
>the stronger argument.  It is this belief that prompted me talk about
>myths and "ought"s which Janis and Anna appear to dislike.

>The prevailing view in soc.feminism seems to be 2).  I can certainly
>support this if the differences relate to things like personal worth,
>general respect, legal rights, social status, self-esteem etc.

I don't think that you have actually covered all the options.  The
view that I see as being most prevalent here is:

There is obviously a difference caused by society ("nurture").  This
difference aids discrimination, since the styles encouraged in men are
those which are valued in our society and the styles encouraged in
women are not as valued.  *This* is what is "bad" and "should be
eliminated."

I don't think that, if it *happens* that a woman, WITH NO SOCIETAL
PRESSURE, turns out to be "nurturing," that that is "bad."  However,
that is not the current situation.

What is also "bad" and "should be eliminated" is the CENSURE of women
(and men!) who do *not* conform to the societally-defined roles.

What the people in the discussion of discussion styles have been
saying seems to have two components:

1) Regardless of the source of the difference, men and women have
different discussion styles.
2) It is not actually true that the "male" discussion style is
"better" than the "female" one, even though our society says that it
is.

Note that *no* combination of these says that society should *enforce*
these differences, which is what you appeared to be saying in your
earlier set of posts.  Your "hypothesis" is simply a description of
what society currently enforces.

Muffy

--

Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Can you tell me how much bleeding/it
muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  takes to fill a word with meaning and/
"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  how much how much death it takes/to give
not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  a slogan breath?~ - Bruce Cockburn

--
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
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.