Quoth Chris:
>>Email lists where issues of power and influence are contested, may
>>remain dominated by men, because of social condition of this role. I
>>suggest.
Well, granted that women are as scarce on lists as clear and unambiguous speeches are in the Greenspan corpus, but is Chris really on to the reason for that? I mean, you can use lists for a variety of reasons (companionship, information - geez, just talking to people with whom you share a coupla basic assumptions and concerns can be nice for the more desperate among us) and most lists lend themselves as much to such uses and gratifications as to antler-locking, I'd've thought.
What about simple questions of access to time, the sorts of occupations which allow free and unconditional access to voice and info, the computer in the den, etc? I mean, just coz there might be more women on-line than men - doesn't mean they're typically free to pulse stuff like this into the ether, or cop 100 messages a day, does it? The kinda jobs where that's currently allowed might still be decisively male terrain, no?
Or is it that women are more socially integrated *in their places* than men? That we poor boobs are messing about in placeless cyberspace because we're typically white-collar boys (apologies to the gals'n'blue collars 'here') who work too hard and too long outside the home and its environs? That we're compensating for a lost social niche in real places?
I mean, insofar as we do engage in alpha-posturing on these lists, is it really any more common or more irksome here than it is down at the boozer or at a dinner table? I wouldn't have thought so. And wot's more, a good set-to at such venues generally attracts a pretty sizeable and animated female participation - why not on a list?
Waddya reckon?
Cluelessly yours, Rob.