I guess it's a matter of personal preference of communications. I don't tend to enjoy very much humor that comes at the expense of others, and I recognize the majority of the Ayal readers have different tastes. I also have a personal preference for communications that express doubt and leave open questions, rather than being 100% convinced of what one is saying. The self-confidence that one "has it right", to the point of discrediting any alternative perspective, deters me from entering a discussion, even when I think I could illuminate something the person didn't. I acknowledge that many others prefer these polarized communications, because the passion ignited by the conflict brings out the best in them. The preferences that lead me and the hashmanit to enjoy this type of communication less might be credited to gender, but could also be related to other cultural factors. I don't know her well enough to assume things about her cultural background, but I can say that mine was shaped in a society much more conflict-shy and chivalrous than Israel (Catholic South-America). So perhaps gender isn't everything.

Let me rephrase: I agree that there would not be strong dichotomies, but more a combination of factors, some of which can be attributed to personality and some to cultural issues. Isn't it interesting, though, that whenever gender issues in the Ayal are discussed, it is the women who feel the difference and the men who argue there is no difference? Not needling, just bringing this up for discussion. We could argue whether there is a male dominant culture here (it's a complex question and I don't have an answer for it), but if there is, it has certainly been identified by the females and immediately discredited by the males in every discussion where it was mentioned (then again, we might be slipping into our previous discussion of female and male methodology, and I don't want to take this discussion there).

As to the humor at other's expense, I've reread my post and I might have exaggerated; at least, I can see how my words could be read like that. However, I need to stress that this is a personal perspective. What someone with a thicker skin might not even see as a "yerida" on someone else, or not even notice an "akitza", someone with a thinner skin, such as myself, would. Jonathan mentioned ealier that for him, such "akitzot" (heck, I must fix the English on this computer. Ugh) liven up the discussion and make it "peppery", whereas for me they divert my attention from the argument and upset me sometimes. So we both locate the "responsibility" on different parties. While he says that the receptor should learn to "deal with it" and develop a thicker skin (not necessarily a bad idea), I say that the transmittor should learn to assume thinner skin (not necessarily a bad idea, either).

In Brainstorms, my virtual community, we go by a thuumb rule called Assume Good Will. Whenever something can be interpreted as innocent or as hurtful, the assumption is that the person didn't mean to mock us, or insult us, or discredt us. The communication is sometimes less heated, but I don't think it "sterilizes" the discourse. It's not a bad tool for internet dicsussions, where much can be misunderstood, and might not be a bad idea to live by here.

>Isn't it interesting, though, that whenever gender issues in the Ayal are discussed, it is the women who feel the difference and the men who argue there is no difference?