[Buddha-l] Re: An experiment (Gender on Buddha-l)

[Franz Metcalf]

Gang,

I want to draw our attention to what I think is the *use* of this 
thread: clarifying what kind of discourse we want to promote on 
buddha-l.

Michael Paris, very reasonably, questioned my recommendations:

>> We *should* do better in promoting the voices of women on this
>> Buddhist list
>
> How?
>
>> and for Buddhist reasons, but we should do better in a *lot* of
>> areas, not just this one.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. Again, how? And what is "better?"

I think an exchange between Andrew Skilton and Joanna begins to answer 
Michael. Like Michael, Andrew wondered if we have a duty to promote 
women's voices. Joanna answered the how question, but not the why. The 
"how" is, as she said, to promote an environment that feels inclusive 
and appreciative of differing voices. Since we're online we can only do 
this through our style of interaction. But what about that pesky 
question of "why"?

I must admit my answer seems a trifle loose and fuzzy, even to me. 
Still, I'll throw it out there and say it seems to me that a Buddhist 
environment ought to be inclusive and appreciative. It should embody 
(in our case, digitally) the compassion of hearing the other and wisdom 
of learning from the other. There are things most of us just can't 
learn from folks nearly like ourselves. The cultural, psychological, 
and physical experience of others--of the Other--are invaluable to our 
growth process, even to our bhavana. Just ask Shantideva.

Joanna, is, frankly, not all that different from me, but hey we go into 
dialogue with the buddha-l we have, not the buddha-l we might want. If 
she is at least somewhat "different" and yet remains active on our list 
and others perceive her activity is appreciated, then they will more 
likely become active, themselves. Same goes for someone like Stan 
Ziobro, who holds political views different from the seeming majority 
of the list. Preserving these voices, hearing these voices, respecting 
these voices, learning from these voices is "better" (to try to answer 
Michael's question) because it compensates for or complements the 
majority voice of the list. This strikes me as self-evidently good. 
Perhaps that is not the case for others. Would it help if I said it 
reminded me of Theravada meditation, where the meditator's specific 
practice is chosen by the teacher to counteract habitual thought 
patterns or character traits?

I guess I see buddha-l as somehow inherently Buddhist or therapeutic. I 
realize, thank you Andy, that this is NOT in the constitution of the 
list. This is supposed to be an academic list. Yet I think others could 
back me up (if necessary) in asserting that an academic community 
functions best when the same principles of inclusiveness and 
appreciation are upheld. Indeed, I think one could make this case more 
easily for academia than for Buddhism. Since I've gone on quite long 
enough, I hope I don't have to add that this does not mean we have to 
include and appreciate just *anything.*

Cheers,

Franz