From: Michael Wiik (mwiik@messagenet.com)
Date: Thu Aug 29 2002 - 15:24:03 MDT
Charles D Hixson wrote:
> I've been thinking about that. Flames seem to be endemic in on-line
> groups, and I think that a part of the reason is the etiquette that has
> grown up.
I wasn't just talking about online. I was talking in general society.
I have a theory. I've heard that in a classroom of half boys and half
girls (that is, 50% of the pupils are male and 50% female, this isn't
some hermaphrodite school, but figure I need to be clear on this list
:-), that if the girls get 1/3 the talk time, the boys feel the girls
are dominating the conversation. This of course makes the boys seem
biased at first look (though I suspect density of the discourse may be a
factor. Other than AOL exec Steve Case, I've never heard any male go on
and on for hours w/o actually saying anything, a talent I see in many
women :-) *dont kill me please*
So my theory is the uppitiness factor of modern social behavior.
At the baseline, propertied white males get 100% of the rights, and
everyone else gets none.
Then some marginalized race or gender is given 'equal rights', but now
instead of this group and white males each having 100% rights, they now
both get only 90% rights. The baseline group loses a few rights to
accomodate the new rights of the former marginalized group.
Then the marginalized group tries to converse and act the way they saw
the baseline group conversing and acting, and the baseline group thinks
they are being uppity since they themselves can't even converse or act
that way anymore. Resentment builds. Tick tick tick...
This goes on and on and we end with a situation much like today, where
we all have rights, but only a fraction of the rights the baseline group
originally held. And we all get to argue with each other instead of the
system that put us in this position.
-Mike
--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:31 MST