From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V8 #132 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, April 9 1999 Volume 08 : Number 132 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: The linguistic differences blah blah [Eb ] Re: Linguistics of song [Christopher Gross ] Re: Linguistics of song [amadain ] This is going to suck. (Girls and boys) [Capuchin ] Profanity [Capuchin ] Re: This is going to suck. (Girls and boys) [Eb ] Civilization (was Re: Linguistics of song) [Christopher Gross ] Re: Linguistics of song [Capuchin ] unprecedented [dmw ] Re: Linguistics of song [amadain ] Re: Linguistics of song [Joel Mullins ] re: Linguistics [Eb ] Re: Linguistics of song [Aaron Mandel ] Re: Linguistics of song [Joel Mullins ] comparative plastics [DDerosa5@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 14:02:27 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: The linguistic differences blah blah Susan: >Hell, I think Woj, a bio-male, has much more of a feel/identification thing >going on with a lot of women artists than I do. I don't see anyone getting >on his case for being a traitor to his own gender or having vagina envy or >some other damn fool thing. Do you even read my posts, anymore? ;) Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 17:25:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Linguistics of song On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, Joel Mullins wrote: > Hey, I about to begin research for a paper I have to write for a > linguistics class. [snip] > Basically, I want to use the same idea, but apply it to songs as a form > of communication. I would look at songs written by men and songs by > women and try to compare and contrast these according to the 1) style of > language, 2) purpose of communication, 3) success in achieving > communication Two comments. First, I tend to think that there may well be differences between men's and women's styles of communication, but I think they will be in the form of *tendencies*. In other words, you might find that men are more likely to [x] and women are more likely to [y], but you won't find that men never [y] and women never [x]. Also, I think that individual differences within each sex will generally outweigh the tendencies members of a sex might share. Put me down for a milder version of what Jeme said. Second, I think you'll have to be very careful with song selection. You could easily wind up sounding like you started with a preconceived conclusion and then selected only examples that support it. (This is actually a pretty common practice, but that doesn't mean it's good, nor does it mean that your prof will accept it as valid.) One way around that might be select all songs that meet some criterion instead of picking and choosing. For example you could look at the top-selling male- and female-written songs for each year from 1978 to 1998. The downside of this is that it would require you to focus on a lot of crappy songs.... - --Chris ps. Re: another recent thread, I grew up mainly with vinyl and cassettes, and didn't get my own CD player until I was 23 (1992). But despite this, I have very CD-oriented listening patterns, frequently playing only a few songs from a disc and then switching to another. Come to think of it, I used to do that with LPs and cassettes, too (though all that fast-forwarding cost me a fortune in walkman batteries). ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 16:48:48 -0600 From: amadain Subject: Re: Linguistics of song >"male" characteristics as well -- I don't know that many female Rush >fans, for instance, or women who enjoy playing the computer game >Civilization. AND YES, of course there are exceptions!) Oh man! I'm damn near obsessed with Civilization! And no, it's not because I'm a masculine woman. I'm just not much into this "women are mysterious", "men are mysterious" thing. This is not to say that Quail is sexist or that he doesn't have any good points in his argument. I don't believe that's the case at all. It's just that well, among other things I know a lot of female dominants who are really really tired of being told they can't be dominant because dominant females don't actually exist, or that they are "unnatural", or "trying to be a man", or de facto totally lacking in femininity, because femininity=submissive. It's very insulting, patronizing, and RIDICULOUS to be told that because of your gender, you cannot be what you in fact ARE, because your gender isn't that, ever, and things just are that way, toots. And IMHO that's the sort of risk you run if you go too far along that thought-path. Love on ya, Susan ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 14:39:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: This is going to suck. (Girls and boys) I shouldn't do this, but I have so much work to do (therefore I'm procrastinating). First, on Fri, 9 Apr 1999 overbury@cn.ca wrote: > So if we're not allowed to speak in generalities, is the whole > field of psychology to be declared a lie? Every person is > different. How dare they assume they know what I'm thinking! Did I ever tell you about the time I made my psychology professor cry? She threw me out of class, wouldn't let me attend or drop, and gave me a Very Poor grade at the end of the term. > I can think of a few songs by guys who say "I can't say I love you > in person so I wrote this". I bet there's a disproportionate number > of those penned by men, and I don't think I'm a sexist for saying that. For one, I think you're sexist for assuming it. If you're just thinking about what you recall, well, then you have a much better knack for remembering songWRITERS than I have and you're not making any particular judgment call so that's just dandy. > Is freedom to be defined by the avoidance of issues that might make > one seen in this light? Woah. Freedom is defined by the smallest ruleset (in number and scope). I'm not saying we should avoid the issue. Talk about what you like. You're still going to piss me off. More on this in just a moment. > This was penned as hastily as Jeme's letter, and not meant to offend, > but I think we need to defuse this thing fast. Defuse what? The topic? Oh yeah. I'm not going to drop it for at least a day. On Fri, 9 Apr 1999 MARKEEFE@aol.com wrote: > Now, c'mon, you can't deny that trends and tendecies exist in the world. Absolutely not. There are trends and tendencies. And they do absolutely fuck-all in helping us determine how we interact with individuals. > Women and men are socialized in vastly different ways. And, sure, these > differences are also very much perpetuated by ignorant and/or casual > stereotyping in the media and in interpersonal interactions. And the stereotypes are also perpetuated by things like (let's just pick an idea out of thin air) papers based on an initial assumption that men and women communicate differently SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT THE SAME SEX. > On the other > hand, to just deny the similarities amongst the members of one sex or the > other actually works *toward* maintaining these stereotypes, because you're > saying that these trends shouldn't even be looked at and questioned. I would argue (and often do) that just the opposite is true. The more you talk about the differences between groups of people, the more you validate those differences. You say that it's ok to divide folks up that way and make grand statements about huge segments of the population. If your initial assessment of a situation involves evaluating the race of the individuals involved, you're racist. Same goes for sex. It should also be understood that most popular music has very specific interpretation. The songs are often written with whole sentences that have direct denotative meaning. This isn't like Copland's non-political "art". This is a statement of specific ideas. "I want to fuck you 'til your dick is blue" is not about waterskiing. And these are recordings up for sale. In other words, these are particular ideas that are meant to be consumed. You cannot deny that there will be a certain attempt to create an image acceptible for a man or woman to hold in a given market. We can take particular examples. We can compare Shirley Manson's words (if you can separate them from those written collectively with her bands) and Liz Phair's and Indigo Girls' and Joan Baez and Alanis Morrisette (until you realize that her male producer wrote the songs on Jagged Little Pill and added her credit for "interpretation and influence") with Robyn Hitchcock and Rufus Wainright and Steve Jones and Mick Jagger and Hoyt Axton and Kris Kristofferson or whatever. And what you'd have would be a comparison of those particular artists. Any abstractions you made would be extraordinarily poorly conceived. > Just > because someone writes a paper (let's call this someone "Joel" :-)) about > sex-based communication styles in song, that doesn't mean that these trends > and similarities are necessarily being condoned. It just means they're being > investigated. But he's already pitting it man against woman. What conclusion will you find? You'll find that the stereotypes hold? Ok, so you've justified the bullshit. You'll find some other relationship? Ok, so you've made NEW stereotypes. If all you do is point out similarities, you're being dumb and missing the differences. If all you do is point out differences, you're being dumb and missing the similarities. If you point out both, you have no conclusion and no paper. > Possibility the first step toward them being erased? Well, > reform begins with understanding (either that or a good militia!). Teach us > a little something, Joel. Help bridge that gap between the sexes! WHAT FUCKING GAP?!? If we nail down exactly the difference between the GENERAL way in which men write songs versus the GENERAL way women write songs, what good will that do? Will you evaluate a new artist on their gender first and then give it a listen to see if they conform? Of course not. You're going to judge them individually anyway, so what does it matter if 51% of female songwriters take an aggressive stance on needlepoint. That doesn't mean shit to the next release by anyone. > And, Jeme, you once said, "I love Joel!" Now you're saying "fuck you" > to him? Such a cranky, fickle monkey you can be sometimes. When did I say this? Are you sure I didn't mean Joel Hodgson? Kind of distracted halfway through writing this. I think I just ruined someone's life. Je. - -- ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 14:44:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Profanity On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, The Great Quail wrote: > >Fuck. > >No, wait. Fuck you. > Ah, now see, that's just not nice. You should bake Joel some cookies, > Jeme! Actually, I just thought that part was funny. J. - -- ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 14:50:22 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: This is going to suck. (Girls and boys) >Did I ever tell you about the time I made my psychology professor cry? She >threw me out of class, wouldn't let me attend or drop, and gave me a Very >Poor grade at the end of the term. That happened to me once, with a photography teacher. But hell, that was in seventh grade, when I was a squirrelly tyke. You had less excuse. ;) Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 17:53:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Civilization (was Re: Linguistics of song) On Thu, 8 Apr 1999, amadain wrote: > >"male" characteristics as well -- I don't know that many female Rush > >fans, for instance, or women who enjoy playing the computer game > >Civilization. AND YES, of course there are exceptions!) > > Oh man! I'm damn near obsessed with Civilization! For what it's worth, besides Susan I know at least two other female Civilization addicts. (Well, my info is out of date on one of them; she might just be a former addict. But I don't think you can ever really be cured of Civilization addiction; there are just stages of recovery. The important thing is to take life one day at a time.) - --Chris (who has played games as Emperor Joe Paterno of the Penn Staters and Emperor Peter Murphy of the Goths. Maybe next I'll do Emperor Robyn of the Fegs?) ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 17:47:39 EDT From: MARKEEFE@aol.com Subject: Re: The linguistic differences blah blah In a message dated 99-04-09 17:11:11 EDT, you write: << I don't identify with men or women. I identify with people. As it happens, I can relate to Momus a lot more easily than, say, Joni Mitchell, OR Liz Phair, for that matter. That's just how it is. >> Well, I think most of the coolest people I know are able to identify with, or at least try remain open to, other genders and orientations and races and all that. But I already knew that you, Susan, were one of the cooler people out there. But I think you're talking mostly about yourself here . . . well, I'm sure you could be speaking on behalf of a *lot* of people, actaully. But I think you're also saying something like, "I don't want to be perceived of as X," rather than "I don't think X really exists." Fair enough. But that doesn't mean that these similarities within the sexes aren't real. I'm not necessarily saying that they're productive or good . . . or maybe they are . . . who knows! Either way, they're here for us to deal with. << And frankly I'm really a little tired of getting shit for that kind of thing. As if the mere fact that someone has the same body parts means that I am under some sort of obligation to like or identify with them, and if I do not respect this obligation it is an indication of self-hatred or "secretly wanting to be a man" or penis envy or dog knows what. >> Yeah, well, that's really stupid. And that's the difference between examining a trend and trying to force people into a mold. The latter being in the "bad" category :-) - ------Michael K., caught up in this somehow ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 14:55:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Civilization (was Re: Linguistics of song) On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, Christopher Gross wrote: > For what it's worth, besides Susan I know at least two other female > Civilization addicts. (Well, my info is out of date on one of them; she > might just be a former addict. But I don't think you can ever really be > cured of Civilization addiction; there are just stages of recovery. The > important thing is to take life one day at a time.) I know two girls who play Civ... and I know two boys. So there. > (who has played games as Emperor Joe Paterno of the Penn Staters and > Emperor Peter Murphy of the Goths. Maybe next I'll do Emperor Robyn of > the Fegs?) I play Robyn of the Egyptians all the time (not literally). Sometimes RobynHitchcock or some perversion thereof. I'm embarrassed at some of the things I've played. But I'm no Emperor. Phew. No way. J. -- who almost always goes for the spaceship. - -- ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 99 18:05:01 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: Linguistics of song Susan says, >Oh man! I'm damn near obsessed with Civilization! I like making up my own tribe . . . especially the "Lovecraftians," because then I can fairly nuke the shit out of the planet with impunity. Once I even played the Tewsians, but I was beaten by the Russians and Chairman Eddie won only a 7% Civ Rating. . . . >I'm just not much into this "women are mysterious", "men are mysterious" >thing. I don't know Susan, you're certainly a mystery to me. . . . I said there was an undefineable zone of mystery between the sexes. Why does Woman X trigger a spark in Man X? Why do the Pre-Raphaelites seem to capture a certain idealization of women and men that denies reality and yet seems to capture a certain truth about us? Yadda yadda. There is a mystery in difference. Again, no reason to make it a social policy. >This is not to say that Quail is sexist or that he doesn't have any good >points in his argument. Please let's ne careful with this word "sexist." I for one am sick of labels like this being thrown around the second someone points out a *difference.* As I leaned from "A Swiftly Tilting Planet," EQUAL does not mean THE SAME. >I don't believe that's the case at all. It's just >that well, among other things I know a lot of female dominants who are >really really tired of being told they can't be dominant because dominant >females don't actually exist, or that they are "unnatural", or "trying to >be a man", or de facto totally lacking in femininity, because >femininity=submissive. It's very insulting, patronizing, and RIDICULOUS to >be told that because of your gender, you cannot be what you in fact ARE, >because your gender isn't that, ever, and things just are that way, toots. "Toots," eh? Well . . . you brought up S&M, but at least you left Momus out of this post, so I suppose I should feel lucky, sweetheart. >And IMHO that's the sort of risk you run if you go too far along that >thought-path. Uh huh. I see. So by saying that there ARE small differences -- not inequalities, mind you, but differences -- between SOME of the ways that men and women view and communicate their views of reality, IN GENERAL, this way leads -- wallah! -- to denying the existence of dominant females, period. Thank you for the warning; I feel so much better that you are there to monitor my thought-paths. I am fairly unintelligent, and I certainly need that sort of thing pointed out. I see your post was brought to us by the letter "Condescending" and the number "Self-Righteous." - --Quail, almost as grumpy as Capuchin. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Great Quail, K.S.C. (riverrun Discordian Society, Kibroth-hattaavah Branch) For fun with postmodern literature, New York vampires, and Fegmania, visit Sarnath: http://www.rpg.net/quail "With the quail you had to stay on the move... Quail was king. Only the quail exploded upward into the sky and made your heart bang away so madly in your ribcage." --Tom Wolfe ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 15:13:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Linguistics of song On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, The Great Quail wrote: > >Oh man! I'm damn near obsessed with Civilization! > I like making up my own tribe . . . especially the "Lovecraftians," > because then I can fairly nuke the shit out of the planet with impunity. > Once I even played the Tewsians, but I was beaten by the Russians and > Chairman Eddie won only a 7% Civ Rating. . . . Nice. Figures. > >I'm just not much into this "women are mysterious", "men are mysterious" > >thing. > I don't know Susan, you're certainly a mystery to me. . . . And you're a mystery to me, Q-boy. We should all get together and compare biology. > Please let's ne careful with this word "sexist." I for one am sick of > labels like this being thrown around the second someone points out a > *difference.* As I leaned from "A Swiftly Tilting Planet," EQUAL does not > mean THE SAME. As I learned from Brown Vs. The Board of Education, "Separate is inherently unequal". > >And IMHO that's the sort of risk you run if you go too far along that > >thought-path. > Uh huh. I see. So by saying that there ARE small differences -- not > inequalities, mind you, but differences -- between SOME of the ways that > men and women view and communicate their views of reality, IN GENERAL, > this way leads -- wallah! -- to denying the existence of dominant > females, period. There are small differences (and inequalities) between individuals. And while some aspects of some women are mysterious to you, I'm sure the same can be said for some men. It's not true for all women and the generality does you no good whatsoever. You still have to deal with individual women that may or may not conform. So you can't use the information. I know I'm repeating myself. There ARE mysteries about what draws Man X to Woman Y. But there are the same mysteries about Man X and Man Y and Woman Y and Man X and Guillotine J. I'm kind of tired. What a day. Je. - -- ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 18:32:55 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: unprecedented could we all just count to ten and take a chill pill before everybody hates each other? it's friday avfternoon, rer chrissakes, i goget to see the resdients tonight, and y'all are stomping my vibe ;) there are somethings about which responsible, intelligent humans are unable to calmly discuss, the differences of opinion run so deep. i think we've stumbled into one of them. i ain't even gonna tell you which side i'm on, although i'm enough of a myers-briggs "P" to see some validitiy on most sides. not just metaphorically, i'm watching a storm roll in with truly frightening speed. we're sposed to get hail in excess of 3/4 in diameter. crash! boom! - -- d. np wedding present _singles 1989-1991_ "pictures of perfection make me sick and wicked." -- miss jane austen - - oh no!! you've just read mail from doug = dmw@radix.net dmw@mwmw.com - - get yr pathos:www.pathetic-caverns.com -- books, flicks, tunes, etc. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 17:58:08 -0600 From: amadain Subject: Re: Linguistics of song >yet seems to capture a certain truth about us? Yadda yadda. There is a >mystery in difference. Again, no reason to make it a social policy. Sure. I'm just not comfortable with the notion that it applies in toto, to everyone, or that it be a standard that people get tarred and feathered for not strictly hewing to. I never said there were no differences between men and women atall. I was only expressing the opinion that when value judgements come into the picture that can be a problem, as women often tend to come out with the short end when that happens. >"Toots," eh? Well . . . you brought up S&M, but at least you left Momus >out of this post, so I suppose I should feel lucky, sweetheart. I suppose so. I used an illustrative example that came to the top of my head, rather than wrack my brains to try and find a different kind of example. You want I should make an extra effort to self-censor? >this way leads -- wallah! -- to denying the existence of dominant >females, period. I've seen it happen, when taken to extremes. It is NOT ipso facto the end result and I don't recall having explicitly implied that. I was NOT attempting to lecture you personally. Love on ya, Susan not grumpy yet, but it may happen ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 17:55:23 -0700 From: Joel Mullins Subject: Re: Linguistics of song Capuchin wrote: > I'd just like to express how revolted I am by the inherent sexism in shit > like this. > > Don't you realize that the differences between, say, me and Bayard are > much greater than the differences between me and, say, Viv? > > I mean, people express themselves individually and any generalization you > make about "the way women communicate vs. men" is just so much contrived > bullshit. It's like saying "the way people with freckles communicate vs. > those without freckles". Give me a fucking break! Where the hell are you living anyway? Women and men are completely different creatures. Anyone who can't see that is blind. We do different things and for different reasons and how can you even begin to compare the differences between men and women to the differences between people with and the people without freckles? I'm not trying to be an asshole, but that's just plain ridiculous. Open your eyes and start observing the ways little girls and boys act and how they communicate. I mean, I didn't just make this shit up out of thin air. People have been studying the differences between the sexes for years. I'm not saying that men are better than women or vice versa. What I'm saying is that they are different. Okay. I'm gonna quit talking now. Joel ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 16:15:55 -0800 From: Eb Subject: re: Linguistics Hey, women are only good for one thing, anyway: SQUARE-DANCING! Who's with me? Huh? Huh? Huh? Eb, delirious from the Cult Singer-Songwriter Flu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 19:12:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: Linguistics of song On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, Capuchin wrote: > I mean, people express themselves individually and any generalization > you make about "the way women communicate vs. men" is just so much > contrived bullshit. It's like saying "the way people with freckles > communicate vs. those without freckles". and what would be wrong with studying that? i have a feeling that people with freckles are considered more attractive than average by a lot of people and so may have grown up communicating differently (expecting people to be more ready to meet their needs or, i don't know, i'm making this up.) because let's face it, the way people treat you affects the way you act. and if you're going to start telling me that nobody treats men and women differently, you're one crazy monkey. > So there you have it. For each non-biometric trait you can point out > about women in general, I can find a man who shares that trait. as you no doubt realize, the truth of this statement says nothing at all about traits which might, for instance, be common or epidemic among women, and much rarer among men. one that comes to mind is wearing lipstick. now, this is obviously 100% social construction. why is it impossible that there are social pressures on women to communicate differently? no, it's not inherent, but it's also the sort of thing that a lot of sexists will claim doesn't exist until they're shown over and over again. i feel like i must be arguing something different than that which you so violently scream about, so i'll stop for now. by the way, i think looking at popular songs as certain kinds of linguistic behavior is a very dicey idea due to the economic pressures (i.e. the extent to which a popular song is not even really created by the 'songwriter') but whatever. aaron ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 18:21:23 -0700 From: Joel Mullins Subject: Re: Linguistics of song MARKEEFE@aol.com wrote: > Just > because someone writes a paper (let's call this someone "Joel" :-)) about > sex-based communication styles in song, that doesn't mean that these trends > and similarities are necessarily being condoned. It just means they're being > investigated. Possibility the first step toward them being erased? This is the whole point. And the field of linguistics in general never makes moral judgments about anything. A linguist will never say that one certain dialect is better than another. They see "standard English" as just another dialect, being no better than ebonics or the twangy drawl of a Kentucky farmer. The same goes for gender. And actually, if I want to make my research more acurate, I should choose songwriters who are in the same age group and who grew up in the same region, because, yes, the differences in communication will vary. And no, no two people communicate in the same way. But there are trends and similarities. And sex is just another variable like age-group or region or social class. And isn't the biggest problem with marriages the fact that men and women have trouble communicating? What is the single biggest complaint women have about their boyfriends or husbands? "He won't open up to me." Incidentally, my prof says that her knowledge in this field has many times kept her out of fights with her husband, because she understands why he's the way he is. If she didn't know about this stuff, then maybe they'd get in a big fight and she'd be really hurt and need the comfort of one of her male stude... never mind. > And, Jeme, you once said, "I love Joel!" Now you're saying "fuck you" > to him? That's okay. I think I said "fuck you" to him too. Joel ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 19:25:50 EDT From: DDerosa5@aol.com Subject: comparative plastics Swinging chadbury opined: CDs and LPs -- like it's all vinyl, man. however, as someone who spends a big chunk of his life telling people about the adverse environmental effects of vinyl porduction and use (and who once pushed the line "The only place for vinyl is the rock and roll museum"), I must point out that CDs are in fact made of polycarbonate, the same plastic used in drinking water bottles etc. Still toxic, but not as bad as vinyl (yes, I know it sounds better, but that's progress, what can I say? what I don't understand is why CDs must come in plastic jewel boxes, which suck and break. Why don't more companies use cardboard cases?) dave ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V8 #132 *******************************