I've been doing a bit of research on the usage of the La Ville au Roi (Eleusis) site. I find that there are equal numbers of men and women but, excluding the three of us who are resident at La Ville au Roi, there is a surprisingly large preponderance of female participation. Of all the substantive postings in my sample period, more than three quarters were by our women members and even if one includes single click items (like "likes") it is still two thirds. Similarly, of all the people participating two thirds are women.
We have been discussing this over breakfast.
- Does this say something about the nature of the site content? What sort of content appeals to men and what to women? What do you not read, what do you just read and what do you feel drawn to respond to?
- Is the motivation of men and women different when it comes to posting on the internet? When do you jump in and when do you hold back?
- Do men feel more at risk of not appearing expert enough? Is this a real issue? Or is it just that women talk more? Or a matter of style - as in our discussions over the cartoon ?
What do you think?
Replies
Hint understood. Bit of hesitation, twofold: do not want to disrupt an agreeable conversation with the real of the matter, which asks not only for an psychological or sociological key of conversing. Elsewhere: https://eleusis.ning.com/group/men-women/forum/topics/taboo-subject, you say that psychoanalysis has a lot to say about men and women and particular in the subjective domain I would add. I'm glad about that because it makes it possible perhaps to come to speak about some core matter. This core being the way in which men and women become male and female subject and the fundamental or even radical injustice towards women in the way Parents, Society, Culture,( the big Other in Lacanian) speaks about women en men. Because so much is clear: one's sexuated identity as a man or women is something one has from hearsay, from what They (the m(Other)) has said to you and about you. And is not and cannot be reduced to biology and/or anatomical differences. It is not that this does not exist and have all kind of practical consequences, but the question of having a male or female identity is a matter of language basically.
People are speaking bodies, which is a mystery. Here we are just after we are born, just and only body, amidst bodies that speak.
This is the core what I think is true, we are what we are because of language and its formative interpellatong force.
That is how we become subject. We are just body with emotion but not yet able to articulate. By language we achieve articulation and, if the relationship with the parent/speakers is good, orientation. This interpellation by language comes in two flavors or rather in one, which is just the problem. Language is phallocentric, meaning that male metaphors have preference. In short: someone who is sexuated (who's body is inscribed by the symbolic order) as woman is subsequently subjected to a masculine, phallocentric language with which she is brought to make sense of her body and or her identity.
So it is no wonder that if we keep on neutralizing this in more language that has a build in preference for masculine signifiers, women can rightfully say that they in all kind of matters are brought to express themselves in alienating ways.
Because I did not found in the Buddhist canon, sutra's and old and most modern comments (my knowledge is very limited here) some theory about feminity and womanhood and the difference with men, I feel some creative urge to see if I can contribute to some conversation with an psychoanalytical (Lacan and feminist followers/critics) and Buddhist inspiration. Is it possible to think about a feminist Buddhism like there is a feminist theology,that do an appeal that cannot be denied?
But talking about the effect the symbolic order has on one's subjectality (to prevent the objective-subjective opposition) how one present's oneself. How men and women experience sex, and what the place of sexuality has cannot be denied in an conversation that can eventually lead to more respect for the female jouissance.
An example what reading and discussing the works of feminist psychoanalists can produce is in my idea something like this beautiful text. (Non phallic because she uses an other mastersignifier than the Phallus as that what organizes language namely Love. But we need a long conversation to see what power(s) such a new mastersignifier would have.)
On the basis of my desire, I imagine that other desires like mine exist. If my desire is possible, it means the system is already letting something else through. All the poets know that: whatever is thinkable is real... And it's true. There have to be ways o relating that are completely different from the tradition ordained by the masculine economy. So urgently, and anxiously, I look for a scene in which a type of exchange would be produced that would be different, a kind of desire that wouldn't be in collusion with the old story of death. This desire would invent Love, it alone would not use the word love to cover up its opposite: one would not land right back in a dialectical destiny, still unsatisfied by the debasement of one by the other. On the contrary, there would have to be a recognition of each other, and this grateful acknowledgment would come about thanks to the intense and passionate work of knowing. Finally, each would take the risk of other, of difference, without feeling threatened by the existence of an otherness, rather, delighting to increase through the unknown that is there to discover, to respect, to favor, to cherish.
You will hear from me. Much love.
Maitrisimha
thanks for your respons on the question Jeff. I am glad to read that you feel comfortable at the site and that you comment in your own way, in your own time, when you like it. :-) Namo Amida Bu
As a gay man I may construct these male/female binaries a bit differently.
I don't post so much because I am new to Amida Shu and Shin Buddhism in general so perceive myself very much as a beginner, which is really rather nice as things feel fresh and new to me. I love learning new things. When I do post it tends to be a message of thanks and appreciation for what I have read here. I read then go away and think about what I have read, perhaps do some of my own research and say nembutsu. This last is the petrol in my spiritual engine (or as my American husband would say 'the gas in my tank).'
I feel I don't have to prove myself here in any way. I don't have to appear 'clever' (which I am wont to do at times). This for me is very freeing. When I do post it will be either to say thank you or if, in time, I have something I think is useful enough to share I will. If I am incoherent then I am not worried because I know I am still accepted and valued.
Very much a work in progress here. Deep gratitude to all who do post here.
Namo Amida Bu
Btw in thinking about this question I did some research about Jodo Shinshu and LGBT people. Buddhist Church of America have been performing same sex marriages for FORTY YEARS! And for all Trekkies, an interesting snippet, George Takei and his partner Brad are Shin Buddhists and were married in a BCA temple. But that is a whole other post!
Well, Jeff, there is a bit of research for somebody to do !
Just to complicate things a bit. Is it the same with Friends of Amida Shu site and the temple in Malvern?