Dear list members

hope its ok to reply to himanshu khatri's post on list, you'll find the post below mine here

 (apologies if I have your name wrong way round- I was not sure from email  address)

the question/reflection was
>>
"how do we mature as unisex disciplines yet perform as nature
codes us to be........?"
>>
It really got me thinking:

My response is that I don't know- so here's a bit of a ramble in the meantime

I think that  disciplines would be more rounded if they don't try to be unisex in their thinking- I don't think that's the way forward. 

I should mention here that in my department  we are trying hard to shift the gender balance in our games design course, it is changing - and we have a research group called Games For Girls which is a support group for female researchers in games but also in the wider field of having fun in research. Its a bit of a contrived pendulum swing I suppose - but our aim is to create a supportive, like minded environment, so that ideas that might get squashed by more 'male' thinking have a different chance to get going. In a field like games there's a lot of catching up to do.

I'd be interested if any other list readers have similar groups - perhaps we could all network together?
 
I think there is a possibility that as far as design research goes, which is the context that Teena specified when she initiated this thread, there is a strong link (certainly in UK) with particular design disciplines like engineering and product design. This is often very evident on this list. These were probably first in to the research forum when Design schools were amalgamated into universities in UK - and as a result have shaped the academic concept and nature of 'design research'. These are traditionally, male dominated  disciplines, we could argue. Most  textile or fashion design research tends to go to other forums - like history, performance, craft or more arts led groupings. There are several ways of interpreting the reasons for this. There doesn't seem to be enough crossover, which is a shame for this list. 

Back to Teena's theme, I have often allowed myself to feel intellectually diminished by male academics. (sounds bit like Alcoholics Anonymous- "I am an insecure female"!!)  In general,  I have found this experience to be more likely outside of Art and Design - where the diminishing effect can seem to be doubled by prejudice and lack of understanding of issues within Art and Design. My department is now part of a Faculty that also encompasses Arts, Law, Humanities, Business, Languages, Social Sciences. I find faculty meetings fascinating - as it gives me a chance to break through my own wider prejudices about academia (or not!). I get useful insights into the way that art and design is perceived in a university structure.  These can range from utter disdain at one end to almost sychophantic fascination at the other, with not much in between! Often Art and Design is still  having to try to fit in, when as far as I'm concerned, we should be leading the way.

But back to gender- Ultimately its a grey scale - not black and white, not unisex.

So as far as this list goes, all design researchers - both male and female, must learn to strut their stuff with confidence in this arena. And each of us need to be wary of making assumptions, gendered or otherwise, and to reflect at least now and again, on the ways that our thinking, and that of others,  is materialised by the things we design, make and use. 

Its a tricky balance to maintain - keeping open to ideas at the same time as having a lot of knowledge. If I might dare use a textile metaphor - to try to  keep an elastic mind.

Be interested to hear about any gendered research support groups

Fiona
www.a-brand.co.uk 




>>> "himanshu khatri" <[log in to unmask]> 01/20/08 1:21 pm >>>
  (adding this later......this is not a comment, or question.......just a
reflection)....

Hey Fiona,

But isn't it just how evolution has been.....studying the anthropometric and
~pological
evolution of males and females and their roles in the civilized system of
existence.....
one notices strong role demarcation based on body structure leading to the
befitting roles that ensue
...... roles of foraging gathering hunting defending being of men and
structuring tending
nurturing and caring being of women ...perhaps strongly so in stone age when
we lived
in caves. That would have been too pure a system to have SOCIAL biases to
demark
roles .....one would instead expect "body structure and performance" being
the basis
of such role demarcation.
For instance the heavy pelvic structure limiting the speed and agility in
females but on
the otherhand known to have better Peripheral vision and keener senses for
their tasks.
How ever since the stone age is long gone and even though "survival of the
fittest" might
still imply ......fitness no longer implies muscle, claws, teeth and
instincts. and this is
where i think the friction is .......the premises of drawing roles- that
being of body type-
have been bridged and faded by mechanization and civilization in general,
thus should the
roles be demarked on those basis even now?.......not forgoing the reality of
biological
functional role demarcation of bearing the newborn etc.

But i believe atleast in the workplace where muscle teeth and claws are no
longer needed
anymore.......those roles can be mixed and matched to ....see if we can
solve all the
issues we have created for ourselves in living the existing system we
created.

does that necessarily mean erasing/curbing our instinct demarcation
aswell......"crafty
textile ladies"....."barbaric game developer".......goes all the way back to
stoneage
doesn't it?....how do we mature as unisex disciplines yet perform as nature
codes us to be........?





On 1/19/08, Fiona Jane Candy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Gunnar
>
> Oh blimey
>
> PROVISO: I am speaking here from personal observation and experience (I've
> not done the 'research') and its going to be recklessly quick as I'm going
> out shortly and I've got to wash my hair.....
>
> In the textile workshop I saw and felt the ideas of cloth and its
> construction from many threads and  materials, coming in from many
> directions, compliant, interlaced, interwoven, sociable - knowledge
> transmitted and acquired through empathy, touch, contemplation, mood,
> emotion -  Softness and strength; chaos but also order.
>
> In the games studio I saw and felt the ideas of war and survival, killing
> and fighting,  winning and losing, self sufficiency and decisiveness-
> knowledge transmitted and acquired through cognition, action, strategy,
> emotion - Strength and weakness;  order but also chaos.
>
> This is a very impressionistic reply I know (not to mention outrageously
> romantic) - but its an attempt to explain what I was thinking and feeling as
> I encountered the two studio spaces and experienced their contrasts and
> similarities and what I meant how ways of thinking are made material and
> palpable by (what can be realistically described as) gendered
> disciplines..............
>
> Is this going to get me into trouble?
>
> Fiona
>
>
>
> >>> "Swanson, Gunnar" <[log in to unmask]> 01/19/08 5:59 pm >>>
> > currently no males on our Textile Innovations
> snip
> > 3 female students on our games design d
>
> Fiona,
>
> A clear demonstration of gender roles (in the sense of gender tasks) but
> I'm curious what your observations are about gendered thinking: What sort of
> gender-based thinking is represented by textile design (at least as
> generally practiced) and games design (at least as generally practiced)?
>
> Gunnar
>



-- 
Cheers and Greets

_ _ _ Labs
Himanshu Khatri & Sumiran Pandya
National Design Business Incubatee - (NDBI)

NID, Paldi,
Ahmedabad     380 007, India.
Phone:            (079) 2662 3692 (extn - 5008)
Mo:                 +91 9898282336