Subject: Re: Numbers (was:Re: Osborne response - Cyberfeminism)
From: K. Weston (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Jan 14 2005 - 08:45:16 EST
hey ! great post!
ive been arguing a similar thing over at the pho list last few days...
been reading too much chomsky i think hehe
people are so entrenched in 'state ideology'
that when you rupture their foundations
they bleat and complain like hell...
they just can't take it...
c[_] scuse the epenthesis
This is an interesting issue without a doubt, and I wish you the best
on your probing. There is a major lack of female students in
classes, but I don't think the male students are to blame...
who/what is to blame IMV
1. The school system: a well-planned conditioning of a state's youth.
embedding of gender-role concepts into the foundation of one's thought,
disguised as academia. Formerly controlled by the church, this is how
government plants its seed in our minds, but we can smell that
planning a take-over.
2. Pop-media: There was a time when the church WAS pop-media. Now it's
corporate version of the school system, perhaps even more powerfull.
be learned by reading a cosmopolitan magazine, or by watching baywatch.
3. Parents: They are themselves victims of the above propaganda, and as
perpetuate the cycle. Assimilated by consumerism, they focus on
wealth, leaving their children to be raised by the school system and
These are the top 3 enteties of childhood influence. Any mentality
rampant in a society will most likely find its roots in 1. or 2.
To conclude, why are female students less likely to be interested in
of electroacoustics? I believe you will find the answer if you probe
system and pop-media. What a long and ugly process............ tell me
if I can
Quoting Katharine Norman <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> Hi Nick,
> On Jan 9, 2005, at 4:24 PM, email@example.com wrote:
>> All this to say that I really doubt that high-school boys would ever
>> to exclude any girls from taking part in a field dear to them. Without
>> it would be a "territory" wasted...
> Rap aside... yes, I agree on both counts ....I think what I was
> pursuing (not necessarily holding up as proven for all high-school
> humanity) is the notion that a behaviour/mindset might be unconsciously
> acquired, by some
> Personally I feel we all risk adopting language and behavior that
> inadvertently excludes at times - policing ourselves round-the-clock
> mindlessly can result in ridiculous over-sensitivity from both genders
> (in the case of gender issues) but on the other hand, drawing attention
> to it for once can make you think. For instance, someone in passing
> just wrote to me that "One man's evening of laptop is another man's
> evening of torture"; I knew exactly what he meant, and I knew for sure
> there was no overt exclusion intended - but it grated a little.
> For a nice take on this kind of unconscious linguistic
> territory-mapping, have a listen to Pamela Z's "Geekspeak", it's very
> funny and not specifically about gender. (well, I think it's
>> ps. is there a word that gender-neutralizes brotherhood and
>> sisterhood? like
>> um.. siblinghood?
> dunno.....community? ain't language annoying.
>> otherwise. I, for one, am displeased at the fact that there is only
>> one girl in
>> my E/A class this semester, and the semester before that, but if it
>> wasn't for
>> her, I could have felt much worse.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:05 EST