"One should not confuse one's sex with one's gender" Mary
Wollostonecraft.
If aliens came to Earth to abduct all the males design researchers, how
would they know which was which? We are all so confused about gender and
sex, it is unlikely that some newly landed alien creature could tell the
difference. My guess is that they would merely abduct what they thought
were males, many of whom would turn out to be females, once up-ended.
Dr T
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of PHD-DESIGN automatic digest system
Sent: Monday, 21 January 2008 11:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: PHD-DESIGN Digest - 19 Jan 2008 to 20 Jan 2008 (#2008-15)
There are 17 messages totalling 1376 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. abduct all the male design researchers from this world (9)
2. Gender (6)
3. not 'gender'
4. Gender, Lacan and Elizabeth Wright
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 20:12:48 -0500
From: "Lubomir S. Popov" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: abduct all the male design researchers from this world
The more I live on this planet, the more I believe I come from
another planet. I wish I could go back.
Cheers,
Lubomir
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 01:23:27 +0000
From: Eduardo Corte-Real <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: abduct all the male design researchers from this world
Dear Teena and all,
I think that no one replied properly your first question.=20
I=92ll try to do it (and I hope that you read my post with Texan
accent,=20=
don=92t ask me why=85)
I think that one major question is: if all male design researchers were
t=
o=20
be abducted by aliens, isn=92t there a difference if they were abducted
b=
y=20
male aliens or female aliens?
Another question (which is quite pertinent): what would be the effect
on=20=
alien culture if all male earthling design researchers were to be
abducte=
d=20
by aliens?=20
These are the real important matters that no one seems to worry about.
As=
=20
always, our humancentered vision of the problems forgets about
others.=20=
Yes, what about the aliens? Does anyone thought why they are compelled
to=
=20
abduct humans? And from all humans, why they are so keen on design=20
researchers? And from all human design researchers why they would to
focu=
s=20
on male design researchers? This is so typical!=20
I=92m inclined to believe that ALL male design researchers weren=92t
alre=
ady=20
abducted by aliens because almost all addicted to abduction aliens
are=20=
also design researchers. But maybe there are other reasons.
The reasons because all male design researchers weren=92t already
abducte=
d=20
by aliens are:=20
1.=09The aliens have their lot of male design researchers and they=20
don=92t want any more.
2.=09They haven=92t got much time lately with all the female soccer=20
players to think about.
3.=09They have abducted all the Spanish design researchers because
they=20=
thought (wrongly) that they were the only male design researchers.
4.=09They thought that Australia was just a realistic painting on the=20
ocean.=20
But, probably the main reason is that, in fact, for sure, certainly,
and=20=
this is a secret very well kept for so many years, all male design=20
researchers are aliens and yes, they are not very keen on abducting=20
themselves.=20
But, what if, what if, all male design researchers were to be abducted
no=
t=20
by aliens but by (no, not by female design researchers) but by =85 ahh
aa=
hh=20
ggg swosh
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 03:52:03 -0500
From: Klaus Krippendorff <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: abduct all the male design researchers from this world
what kind of utterance can be a provocation? the answer is anything
said.
so, what makes a provocation a provocation? the answer lies in its
recipient
being unsettled by what is said, not in who unsettles.
so, the request not to make provocations says more about the preference
of
the requester of what was said then about the addressee of that request.
personally, i encourage whoever reads this to continue asking unsettling
questions. it keeps one alive. if it does not unsettle anyone, maybe
it
would not be worth saying.
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Lubomir
S. Popov
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 10:31 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: abduct all the male design researchers from this world
Hi Teena,
Please do not make provocations. You know how much contentious is this
subject matter. This can be the beginning of a major gender revolution!
I am a proponent of non-genderized science and professions. In the
professions, there should be no men and women. Men and women are in the
bars
and in bed. In the professions we have doctors, engineers, architects,
planners, not men and women. If someone performs with his/her gender
thinking on the workplace, that is too bad. That is an indication that
this
person is not professionalized. Professional thinking should be unisex
and
specific only to the profession. When professionalized, men and women
have
to give up their streetwise gender thinking in favor of professional
thinking. Anything other than that indicates lack of
professionalization.
There are a lot of myths in the world. Some of them are about dumb
blondies.
Others are about caring women. And so on. The bottom line:
there is too much ideology introduced in today's world and sadly, in the
professions. All kinds of myths are disseminated in order to obtain a
better
position in the process of acquiring resources.
I can talk a lot about this, but this is enough.
Best wishes Teena, I know that your provocation is only an intellectual
challenge.
Lubomir
At 04:44 PM 1/18/2008, teena clerke wrote:
>Dear All,
>
>I have a question for the list:
>
>Q: If aliens were to abduct all the male design researchers from this
>world, how do you think the field of design research will develop?
>
>Teena
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 06:00:22 -0500
From: "Filippo A. Salustri" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: abduct all the male design researchers from this world
Maybe "ungendered professionalism" sounds "homogeneous and unappealing"
to you, but not to me. I value good, deep thinking. Whether that
thinking comes from men or from women is irrelevant to me.
Cheers.
Fil
Fiona Jane Candy wrote:
> Hi Lubomir
>
> Yesterday I showed two prospective students around the Design
Department where I work. I took them first into the textile workshop
(where I teach). There were around 30 female students working in there
(there are currently no males on our Textile Innovations degree). I went
from there to the Games Design studio where there were 30 or 40 male
students working (there are currently 3 female students on our games
design degree, although I should explain that there are now two female
tutors on the team).
>
> Gendered thinking was almost palpable as we moved from one room to the
next.
>
> Can't let you get away with your ideology of the ungendered nature of
professionalism. It makes professionalism sound very homogenous and
unappealing.
>
> Cheers Lubomir, I know that your provocation is only an intellectual
challenge.
>
> :)
>
> Fiona
>
> www.a-brand.co.uk
>
>
>>>> "Lubomir S. Popov" <[log in to unmask]> 01/19/08 3:31 pm >>>
> Hi Teena,
>
> Please do not make provocations. You know how much contentious is
> this subject matter. This can be the beginning of a major gender
revolution!
>
> I am a proponent of non-genderized science and professions. In the
> professions, there should be no men and women. Men and women are in
> the bars and in bed. In the professions we have doctors, engineers,
> architects, planners, not men and women. If someone performs with
> his/her gender thinking on the workplace, that is too bad. That is an
> indication that this person is not professionalized. Professional
> thinking should be unisex and specific only to the profession. When
> professionalized, men and women have to give up their streetwise
> gender thinking in favor of professional thinking. Anything other
> than that indicates lack of professionalization.
>
> There are a lot of myths in the world. Some of them are about dumb
> blondies. Others are about caring women. And so on. The bottom line:
> there is too much ideology introduced in today's world and sadly, in
> the professions. All kinds of myths are disseminated in order to
> obtain a better position in the process of acquiring resources.
>
> I can talk a lot about this, but this is enough.
>
> Best wishes Teena, I know that your provocation is only an
> intellectual challenge.
>
> Lubomir
>
> At 04:44 PM 1/18/2008, teena clerke wrote:
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I have a question for the list:
>>
>> Q: If aliens were to abduct all the male design researchers from
>> this world, how do you think the field of design research will
develop?
>>
>> Teena
--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 12:39:36 +0000
From: Fiona Jane Candy <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: abduct all the male design researchers from this world
Edouardo
have you been taking some kind of hallucinogenic substance? =20
F
>>> Eduardo Corte-Real <eduardo.corte-real=40IADE.PT> 01/20/08 1:23 am
>>>
Dear Teena and all,
I think that no one replied properly your first question.=20
I=E2=80=99ll try to do it (and I hope that you read my post with Texan
accent,=20
don=E2=80=99t ask me why=E2=80=A6)
I think that one major question is: if all male design researchers were
to=20
be abducted by aliens, isn=E2=80=99t there a difference if they were =
abducted
by=20
male aliens or female aliens?
Another question (which is quite pertinent): what would be the effect
on=20
alien culture if all male earthling design researchers were to be
abducted=20
by aliens?=20
These are the real important matters that no one seems to worry about.
As=20
always, our humancentered vision of the problems forgets about others.
Yes, what about the aliens? Does anyone thought why they are compelled
to=20
abduct humans? And from all humans, why they are so keen on design=20
researchers? And from all human design researchers why they would to
focus=20
on male design researchers? This is so typical=21=20
I=E2=80=99m inclined to believe that ALL male design researchers =
weren=E2=80=99t
already=20
abducted by aliens because almost all addicted to abduction aliens are
also design researchers. But maybe there are other reasons.
The reasons because all male design researchers weren=E2=80=99t already
abducted=20
by aliens are:=20
1. The aliens have their lot of male design researchers and they=20
don=E2=80=99t want any more.
2. They haven=E2=80=99t got much time lately with all the female =
soccer=20
players to think about.
3. They have abducted all the Spanish design researchers because
they=20
thought (wrongly) that they were the only male design researchers.
4. They thought that Australia was just a realistic painting on the
ocean.=20
But, probably the main reason is that, in fact, for sure, certainly,
and=20
this is a secret very well kept for so many years, all male design=20
researchers are aliens and yes, they are not very keen on abducting=20
themselves.=20
But, what if, what if, all male design researchers were to be abducted
not=20
by aliens but by (no, not by female design researchers) but by =E2=80=A6
=
ahh
aahh=20
ggg swosh
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 16:55:20 +0000
From: Fiona Jane Candy <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: abduct all the male design researchers from this world
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.=20
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?
=20
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.=20
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
encompasse=
s 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.=20
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=20
>>> "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
>
--=20
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
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:22:38 -0800
From: Milena Droumeva <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: abduct all the male design researchers from this world
Just to attempt my own version of answering the first question, except
I=20
won't be nearly as "funny" as Eduardo, I want to begin by saying,=20
Lubomir and Filippo - I don't think the issue is that anyone is
trying=20
to diminish the 'professionalism' quality of profession by suggesting=20
that the experiences of men and women, both in the world
(socialization)=20
and at work (professionalisation) and in terms of family (as another=20
arena of adult life) may be (and I'm saying may be) fundamentally=20
different. In the realm of design, both its theory and its practice,
I=20
believe it is the same - the fundametally different genedered=20
experiences that men and women designers being to the field do indeed=20
lead (I think - I have no 'proof' off hand) to approaching design in=20
different ways, using different methods, having different design=20
priorities, sensibilities and intuitions. And I think such
perspectives=20
have to be cherished and recorgnized, not denied their existence! I=20
think if anything, recognizing and fostering such differences
enriches=20
the field of design, not make it less 'professional'
My $0.20 (inflation)
Milena
Fiona Jane Candy wrote:
> Edouardo
>=20
> have you been taking some kind of hallucinogenic substance? =20
>=20
> F
>=20
>=20
>>>>Eduardo Corte-Real <[log in to unmask]> 01/20/08 1:23 am
>>>>
>=20
> Dear Teena and all,
>=20
> I think that no one replied properly your first question.=20
> I=E2=80=99ll try to do it (and I hope that you read my post with Texan
> accent,=20
> don=E2=80=99t ask me why=E2=80=A6)
> I think that one major question is: if all male design researchers
were
> to=20
> be abducted by aliens, isn=E2=80=99t there a difference if they were
ab=
ducted
> by=20
> male aliens or female aliens?
> Another question (which is quite pertinent): what would be the effect
> on=20
> alien culture if all male earthling design researchers were to be
> abducted=20
> by aliens?=20
> These are the real important matters that no one seems to worry about.
> As=20
> always, our humancentered vision of the problems forgets about others.
>=20
> Yes, what about the aliens? Does anyone thought why they are compelled
> to=20
> abduct humans? And from all humans, why they are so keen on design=20
> researchers? And from all human design researchers why they would to
> focus=20
> on male design researchers? This is so typical!=20
> I=E2=80=99m inclined to believe that ALL male design researchers
weren=E2=
=80=99t
> already=20
> abducted by aliens because almost all addicted to abduction aliens are
>=20
> also design researchers. But maybe there are other reasons.
> The reasons because all male design researchers weren=E2=80=99t
already
> abducted=20
> by aliens are:=20
> 1. The aliens have their lot of male design researchers and they=20
> don=E2=80=99t want any more.
> 2. They haven=E2=80=99t got much time lately with all the female
soccer=
=20
> players to think about.
> 3. They have abducted all the Spanish design researchers because
> they=20
> thought (wrongly) that they were the only male design researchers.
> 4. They thought that Australia was just a realistic painting on the
>=20
> ocean.=20
>=20
> But, probably the main reason is that, in fact, for sure, certainly,
> and=20
> this is a secret very well kept for so many years, all male design=20
> researchers are aliens and yes, they are not very keen on abducting=20
> themselves.=20
>=20
> But, what if, what if, all male design researchers were to be abducted
> not=20
> by aliens but by (no, not by female design researchers) but by
=E2=80=A6=
ahh
> aahh=20
> ggg swosh
>=20
>=20
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:11:59 +0100
From: Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Gender
Dear Fiona, Carlos, and Milena,
There's several answers to the gender question, and it helps to sort
out the central issues from contingent effects. The degree to which
gender affects any human activity has several components. It is
likely that some of these are biological and physical. Males and
females have different bodies, different hormone structures, even
some kinds of different brain structures. These affect what women and
men can do.
What human beings _can_ do is mediated by what human beings permit us
to do through the patterns, behaviors, history, laws, and culture
that surround or govern us. Women can drive motor vehicles except
where the law states that they may not do so. Women can pilot jet
planes, except where company custom or government edict prohibits
female pilots. These cultural or social differences get down to the
old question in human studies of nature versus nurture.
Some issues are contingent in a narrow historical sense. Women enter
the professions in far greater numbers today than even fifty years
earlier. In the Chartered Society of Designers, the cohort that forms
today's associate members in a 50/50 ratio will move upward in
qualifications and achievements at a relatively equal rate. We can
expect the proportions of members and fellows to shift toward
equality as they do. The imbalance of men and women in membership and
fellowship is an historically contingent artifact of an era in which
fewer women than men entered the design profession.
A male designer who sometimes chats with me about these issues has
now chosen the successor at his practice. Over the next decade, he
will gradually sell the shares in his practice to one of his female
associates. I've worked with both. They are both good. Longer years
of experience and greater name value give him an edge today. Greater
emotional sensitivity and a different style give her a different
approach. I suspect that the firm will grow and move in new
directions when she takes charge sometime in the 2010s.
If I think about design research, I find that I spend a little more
time talking and corresponding with women than with men. In Lisbon,
someone noted that the podium was generally occupied by slightly
overweight, aging men with hair loss. (Not the effervescent Eduardo
Corte-Real, of course, who is slender, energetic, and -- like his
colleague Martim Lapa -- blessed with luxuriant, dark hair.)
The comment had the ring of truth. Of course, I was in the audience
at the time, rather than on the podium. But I do have some mildly
overweight, aging male friends with whom I tear my hair out in grumpy
emails. Being a grumpy old guy, I suppose our short snippy comments
account for the majority of my correspondence among research friends,
but I have as many females among those with whom I correspond. Among
the blogs and newsletters that I follow carefully, my number one
daily read is Dori Tunstall followed by Nadia McLaren. The newsletter
of the month, of course, remains Design Research News. DRN is
produced by a distinguished aging male -- but he remains the
exception.
Fiona's comments on textile are quite to the point. This may have
more to do with the field than with gender, though textile has
traditionally been a part of women's culture. Interestingly, though,
the one person I know who works in research on textiles is male, and
the issues that Fiona notes characterize my experience of him. Is
this a factor of textile, or of women's culture, or of the way that
women's culture has influenced textile, thus influencing (or
selecting for) the men who enter the field?
The same holds for games. I suspect much of the violence of gaming
has to do with audience and market factors. And all games have an
element of winning and losing, even chess and bridge. The only game
designer I know personally is a female. Her success must have
something to do with an ability to meet market demand.
Sorting out what holds for gender and what holds for society's
interpretation around gender is a matter for study. Perhaps one's
gender should not matter for those kinds of research that we believe
involve objective understandings of a world outside us such as
chemistry or physics -- or a world of purely logical constructs such
as mathematics or logic. Nevertheless, this may not be the case.
Consider the physics research community. Margaret Wertheim (1997)
explored the world of physicists in a book titled Pythagoras's
Trousers: God, Physics, and the Gender Wars.
One might expect that gender, gender roles, and the human experience
of being male or female could make a difference to those who work
with any kind of social research or research involving human action
or interaction, including much design.
One of the key questions in management studies, for example, is
whether women bring different skills and qualities to leadership than
men do. While one might say they do, others argue that successful
women take on the skills and qualities necessary for success in a
role by virtue of inhabiting the role. Some women take on
characteristics formerly attributed to men as they begin to occupy
positions formerly restricted to men. A female soldier or fighter
pilot must be a warrior as a man is, prepared to do battle, to kill,
and to win.
In Scandinavia, many professions once assumed to be male professions
have been changing. Many of our prime ministers and presidents are
women, or will be if their parties win election. Some of you know my
wife Ditte, a deacon and theologian in the Church of Sweden. When she
was a canon at Lund Cathdral, she worked for Christina Odenberg, the
first female bishop. Over the past decade, the number of female
bishops has grown to three. Like the fellows of the Chartered Society
of Designers, this number should increase as the eligible cohort of
female priests continues to grow. The Rt. Rev. Bishop Odenberg also
broke gender barriers as a priest, when she began a sideline career
as one of Sweden's first female jockeys.
The question of female ordination remains a point of contention in
many religious denominations -- including some denominations where
the church accepts female ordination while some bishops and
congregations do not. I was once headed toward a career in the
ministry. The school where I occasionally took courses and once or
twice taught has moved over the past three decades from an all-male
faculty to a faculty where most professors and the president are
women. At the time that our first female ministers were ordained,
however, it bothered many people. Many who had no interest in the
theological arguments that Biblical fundamentalists or Pauline
theologians adduce in their opposition to ordaining women still found
it difficult to accept the female ministry on purely conventional or
social grounds.
These issues are very much to the point in today's world. The answers
may not always be simple or straightforward.
Ursula LeGuin's fiction sheds interesting light on this. LeGuin is a
distinguished author who has chosen the genre of fantasy and science
fiction because they enable her to tinker with the workings of
culture, setting characters in them while asking how real women and
real men might address the challenges of worlds based on the premises
she sets out. Her Earthsea books are set in a world of magic in which
language and the names of things give them their substance. The first
three books -- written in the 1960s -- focus on the adventures of a
young, male wizard and his mostly male friends. She revisited the
world of Earthsea in 1990 and again in 2000 and 2001, this time
focusing on female protagonists, while addressing the issue of sexism
and gender bias in the wizard's profession. Women play the lead role
or central roles in other novels such as The Telling, or her recent
three novels Gifts, Voices, and Powers. I find this progression and
the way that a great female author give voice to these issues worth
reflection. LeGuin is one of the models in my research writing
workshops -- not for the science, but for the skill of giving voice
to ideas in a clear, elegant way.
For my money, Milena sums it up nicely. Worth a lot more than twenty
cents.
Yours,
Ken
--
Reference
Wertheim, Margaret. 1997. Pythagoras's Trousers: God, Physics, and
the Gender Wars. London: Fourth Estate.
--
Carlos Sapochnik wrote:
Some years ago I looked up the gender balance (M/F) amongst the paid
members of the Chartered Society of Designers in London.
Unsurprisingly, it was Associate Members 50/50, Members 65/35,
Fellows 90/10.
Fiona Jane Candy wrote:
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.
Milena Droumeva wrote:
I don't think the issue is that anyone is trying to diminish the
'professionalism' quality of profession by suggesting that the
experiences of men and women, both in the world (socialization) and
at work (professionalization) and in terms of family (as another
arena of adult life) may be (and I'm saying may be) fundamentally
different. In the realm of design, both its theory and its practice,
I believe it is the same - the fundamentally different gendered
experiences that men and women designers being to the field do indeed
lead (I think - I have no 'proof' off hand) to approaching design in
different ways, using different methods, having different design
priorities, sensibilities and intuitions. And I think such
perspectives have to be cherished and recognized, not denied their
existence! I think if anything, recognizing and fostering such
differences enriches the field of design, not make it less
'professional'
--
Ken Friedman
Professor
Dean, Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 14:26:11 -0500
From: "Lubomir S. Popov" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: abduct all the male design researchers from this world
I am surprised that everyone focuses so strongly on gender bias in
design and research and no one ever thinks about mentioning that
socioeconomic class bias is much stronger. Social class bias
overrides gender bias. Social class defines human thinking stronger
than gender. This is a truism in social science. Of course, there are
different visions.
I am concerned about politization of science. Introducing political
agendas very often leads to manipulations that are used to obtain power.
I will give you a few examples from history.
-- "Workers" science in the Soviet Union. Luckily, this trend existed
only about a decade before the Bolshies realized that it doesn't make
sense. However, for several decades it was referred to with other,
more subtle names. The overt goal of workers science was to empower
workers and to show that the working class is superior to the
capitalists. The covert goal was to control society with
quasi-scientific doctrines.
-- "Arian" science in Nazi Germani. There were "scientific" attempts
to justify Nazi ideology and the extermination of over 30 million
people, not counting soldiers in combat. By the way, not many people
would like to mention that Nazi stands for National Socialism. Again,
under the cover of empowering German workers, many other workers were
killed.
-- "Workers" science during the Cultural Revolution of Chairman Mao.
Professors were treated like cattle on the fields and students were
used as prison guards.
So, every time you believe that ideology will help you get empowered,
think that someone else might use ideology to disempower you. Fusing
science and ideology in human history has always ended with
genocides. On the top of all, the ideological interventions always
lead to deformations in science and preposterous claims.
I personally have not much desire to engage in this politicized
discussion, but after my first voluntary intervention, I have to
answer some preposterous implications about my position and my
intentions. Some people misread my posts and the appeal for
non-gendered, non-politicized science. Some people make a living from
political action. I hope I would not be drawn more into the dispute.
However, the discussion is important from a standpoint of philosophy
of science. It is legitimate on a scholarly discussion list. I just
hope that we will focus more on the epistemological implications
rather than on the harsh reality of office competition. Some people
drink and golf their way to the top, others sleep their way to the
top. Such strategies are actually heavily gendered. They rely on
gender peculiarities and resources. I will agree with you.
Kind regards,
Lubomir
PS I have to apologize for changing the subject of the thread several
days ago. It was an error. Just after I sent my mail, I noticed that
someone has already started a similar thread.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 14:34:19 -0500
From: Sam Ladner <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Gender
Hello all,
While I haven't read every post on this topic, I see a bit of confusion
that
can be cleared up by looking at gender studies' fundamentals.
The notion that men and women have "different hormones" really is
irrelevant
here. Men's and women's hormonal structure has been shown to affect a
very
narrow portion of human behavior, specifically relating to aggression.
See
Armstrong and Armstrong, The Double Ghetto for a very nice critique of
supposed anatomical differences that are actually constructed out of
gendered assumptions.
Gender is a very fluid category. See for example the excellent film
Paradise
Bent, the story of the Fa'Fa'Fine on the island of Samoa. This is
effectively a third gender: anatomical men that take on stereotypical
feminine roles, including housework, childrearing and sexualized labour.
These men are not ashamed or hidden -- in fact it's considered a
blessing to
have such people in one's family.
The point of that example is to show our "male designers" discussion
isn't
about men, but false androgyny. We assume there to be one gender of
importance, that is the masculine gender. We ignore "feminine" issues of
home life, reproductive labour, sexual objectification, and systemic
under-valuing of empathy.
We will likely NOT see a 50/50 ratio of credentialed designers, just as
we
do not see a 50/50 ratio of law firm partners, CEOs, engineers, computer
scientists, surgeons, or airline pilots despite many years of women
entering
these fields. The issue isn't that we don't have enough women with
sufficient experience in the field yet, and just given time, we will
have
them.
No the issue is the systematic undervaluing of life concerns that
typically
fall under women's responsibility. That is to say women's domestic
labour
and social labour prevents them from reaping the full benefit of their
professional experience.
Gender is not sex; women are not anatomically determined to be
empathetic or
caring. Neither are men pre-programmed to be insensitive poor designers
who
ignore the users of their products.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:58:15 -0000
From: Terence Love <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Gender
Hi Sam,
I'm interested in how you feel the reason for gendering occurs and why
biological women and men are associated with genders.
Best wishes,
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sam
Ladner
Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2008 7:34 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Gender
Hello all,
While I haven't read every post on this topic, I see a bit of confusion
that
can be cleared up by looking at gender studies' fundamentals.
The notion that men and women have "different hormones" really is
irrelevant
here. Men's and women's hormonal structure has been shown to affect a
very
narrow portion of human behavior, specifically relating to aggression.
See
Armstrong and Armstrong, The Double Ghetto for a very nice critique of
supposed anatomical differences that are actually constructed out of
gendered assumptions.
Gender is a very fluid category. See for example the excellent film
Paradise
Bent, the story of the Fa'Fa'Fine on the island of Samoa. This is
effectively a third gender: anatomical men that take on stereotypical
feminine roles, including housework, childrearing and sexualized labour.
These men are not ashamed or hidden -- in fact it's considered a
blessing to
have such people in one's family.
The point of that example is to show our "male designers" discussion
isn't
about men, but false androgyny. We assume there to be one gender of
importance, that is the masculine gender. We ignore "feminine" issues of
home life, reproductive labour, sexual objectification, and systemic
under-valuing of empathy.
We will likely NOT see a 50/50 ratio of credentialed designers, just as
we
do not see a 50/50 ratio of law firm partners, CEOs, engineers, computer
scientists, surgeons, or airline pilots despite many years of women
entering
these fields. The issue isn't that we don't have enough women with
sufficient experience in the field yet, and just given time, we will
have
them.
No the issue is the systematic undervaluing of life concerns that
typically
fall under women's responsibility. That is to say women's domestic
labour
and social labour prevents them from reaping the full benefit of their
professional experience.
Gender is not sex; women are not anatomically determined to be
empathetic or
caring. Neither are men pre-programmed to be insensitive poor designers
who
ignore the users of their products.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:16:45 +1100
From: teena clerke <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: not 'gender'
Hi all,
my intention was to provide an opening for discussion about design
research epistemology without introducing the construct of 'gender',
but by removing the actual bodies themselves. I saw this as a
poststructuralist way to ask a question about possibilities. I wanted
to see what people imagined design research might look like if either
men or women were removed from its practice. This asks for an
entirely different kind of imagining other than the binary of
men/women. In a Foucauldian sense, power and knowledge are
interrelated within the social relations between people and are
(re)produced within discourses. So, I thought if you take out the
bodies, what kind of discursive imagining would ensue?
Any thoughts?
Teena
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:16:50 +1100
From: teena clerke <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: abduct all the male design researchers from this world
Hi all,
Fiona talks about her embodied experiences in design research,
sitting through meetings and listening to the various ways in design
is perceived in a large faculty. I am curious to hear of others'
personal experiences, and particularly welcome those not based on
'proof'. In this call, I do not wish to debate 'validity' because
from my epistemological position, all writing is fiction.
Teena
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 00:17:40 +0100
From: Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Gender
Dear Sam,
Thanks for your reply. Three quick thoughts --
(1)
There are biological differences between women and men. As I stated,
most differences are cultural, not biological, and culture governs
the expression of biological difference. Nevertheless, physical
differences may indeed shape some capacities. What we often cannot
say with certainty is what those capacities are.
(2)
We have nearly 10,000 years of recorded human history behind us. Most
of this has been male dominated. With less than half a century of
major social change toward equality in the professions, it is
difficult to predict the future of women in the professions. It seems
to me that we need more time before we make sweeping predictions that
women will not achieve equality in the professions.
One reason that we do not yet see a 50/50 proportion of women at the
upper reaches of the different professions is that we still don't
have large enough cohorts of women with equal experience to similar
male cohorts. Law is a good example. The first cohort of women
graduates left Harvard Law School in 1953. There were only 13 in that
group. It was fifty years before Harvard Law got is first female
dean. It has been in this time that entering cohorts finally attained
equality between men and women -- 51% at University of California in
1997, roughly 50% at Harvard in 2003, and so on.
In 1960, fewer that 2% of all graduates in the six professions of
medicine, veterinary medicine, dentistry, law, engineering, and
architecture. Since senior cohorts take a quarter century or more to
emerge, women have been reaching the senior levels of their
professions in rough equivalence to their proportion in graduating
entry cohorts. It is true that we do not yet see 50/50 equality in
the upper reaches of the professions, but this can easily be
explained by the size of cohorts. Something similar happens in the
cohorts of MBA graduates on which business career paths leading to
CEO populations have been based. It is true that women continue to
have a more difficult time than men for several reasons, but we will
not see the 50/50 graduate cohorts reach the senior level for at
least two decades. It is too early to predict what will or will not
happen then -- in design or any other profession.
(3)
The work and family roles that women occupy tend to be undervalued.
This is exactly the point made by many Scandinavian feminists. This,
too, may change as societies change in response to the larger range
of issues. It is also the case that many men are responding in new
ways to the need for different kinds of change.
Yours,
Ken
--
Sam Ladner wrote:
(1)
>The notion that men and women have "different hormones" really is
>irrelevant here. Men's and women's hormonal structure has been shown
>to affect a very narrow portion of human behavior, specifically
>relating to aggression. See Armstrong and Armstrong, The Double
>Ghetto for a very nice critique of supposed anatomical differences
>that are actually constructed out of gendered assumptions.
(2)
>We will likely NOT see a 50/50 ratio of credentialed designers, just
>as we do not see a 50/50 ratio of law firm partners, CEOs,
>engineers, computer scientists, surgeons, or airline pilots despite
>many years of women entering these fields. The issue isn't that we
>don't have enough women with sufficient experience in the field yet,
>and just given time, we will have them.
(3)
>No the issue is the systematic undervaluing of life concerns that
>typically fall under women's responsibility. That is to say women's
>domestic labour and social labour prevents them from reaping the
>full benefit of their professional experience.
--
Ken Friedman
Professor
Dean, Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 18:18:28 -0500
From: Sam Ladner <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Gender
that's a big question, Terry!
I believe it boils down to convenience. Yes, convenience. We cannot NOT
know
how to treat people in everyday life. We form conventions for dealing
with
all sorts of social interactions and gender is one of them. It is a core
ordering social category. We learn to act like a man or a woman not
because
we are biologically pre-determined to do so but because it is socially
convenient to occupy an established gender.
I reject the idea that gender is necessarily associated with
"biological"
males and females. Gender happens to be associated with "biological"
males
and females because we are socially trained to occupy those roles, not
because it is pre-ordained. Again, there are some exceptions to this,
specifically relating to heightened levels of aggression in some
circumstances due to male testosterone levels, but most of what we think
of
as biologically "male" and "female" are actually socially constructed
"man"
and "woman."
Drag queens and kings tell us that when we "do" gender, we can often
fool
people without changing our biological traits. The Fa'Fa'fine of Samoa
and
the Ladyboys of SE Asia tell us that our disbelief about a third gender
is
rooted in our particular cultures, not biology.
On Jan 20, 2008 2:58 PM, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Sam,
> I'm interested in how you feel the reason for gendering occurs and why
> biological women and men are associated with genders.
> Best wishes,
> Terry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
related
> research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sam
> Ladner
> Sent: Sunday, 20 January 2008 7:34 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Gender
>
> Hello all,
>
> While I haven't read every post on this topic, I see a bit of
confusion
> that
> can be cleared up by looking at gender studies' fundamentals.
>
> The notion that men and women have "different hormones" really is
> irrelevant
> here. Men's and women's hormonal structure has been shown to affect a
very
> narrow portion of human behavior, specifically relating to aggression.
See
> Armstrong and Armstrong, The Double Ghetto for a very nice critique of
> supposed anatomical differences that are actually constructed out of
> gendered assumptions.
>
> Gender is a very fluid category. See for example the excellent film
> Paradise
> Bent, the story of the Fa'Fa'Fine on the island of Samoa. This is
> effectively a third gender: anatomical men that take on stereotypical
> feminine roles, including housework, childrearing and sexualized
labour.
> These men are not ashamed or hidden -- in fact it's considered a
blessing
> to
> have such people in one's family.
>
> The point of that example is to show our "male designers" discussion
isn't
> about men, but false androgyny. We assume there to be one gender of
> importance, that is the masculine gender. We ignore "feminine" issues
of
> home life, reproductive labour, sexual objectification, and systemic
> under-valuing of empathy.
>
> We will likely NOT see a 50/50 ratio of credentialed designers, just
as we
> do not see a 50/50 ratio of law firm partners, CEOs, engineers,
computer
> scientists, surgeons, or airline pilots despite many years of women
> entering
> these fields. The issue isn't that we don't have enough women with
> sufficient experience in the field yet, and just given time, we will
have
> them.
>
> No the issue is the systematic undervaluing of life concerns that
> typically
> fall under women's responsibility. That is to say women's domestic
labour
> and social labour prevents them from reaping the full benefit of their
> professional experience.
>
> Gender is not sex; women are not anatomically determined to be
empathetic
> or
> caring. Neither are men pre-programmed to be insensitive poor
designers
> who
> ignore the users of their products.
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:53:00 +1100
From: Gavin Melles <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Gender
Hi all
My penny's worth. I touched on this issue a little in my PhD Education =
when I looked at gender and teaching practice so this is where I'm =
speaking from. If we acknowledge that sex (biological) and gender =
(socio-cultural) are distinguishable much like ethnicity versus some =
bio-genetic measure of 'race' or anything else you care to imagine and
of =
import then there are a number of possibilities for outcomes, some of =
which have been addressed in the literature. Let's assume for the
purposes =
of this little illustration tbat design like nursing, civil engineering,
=
etc., are activities that are neutral (in principle) to sex, gender (I'm
=
artificially extracting them from context to develop a point) then we
can =
have the following. we can have, e.g., a mismatch of (biological) sex =
weighting in a field where, e.g. there are more mails than females and =
vice versa. If this is the case then we can look for reasons -
historical =
(read political, ideological) and otherwise that might explain why, all
=
other things being equal, such a situation could have arisen. This is =
often the approach to disease and illness that is taken in Public Health
- =
both qualitative and quantitative - to explain such anomalies. In design
=
we might have, for example lots if female interior designers and not
many =
males or in industrial design lots of males and not many females (at =
whatever level interests us) then we can also ask, all other things
being =
equal how did this arise? And then we'll come up with multiple
explanations=
than we can evaluate as more or less productive in explaining things
and =
matching our current preoccupations and concerns (thus explanations are
=
always purposeful - pragmatic)
We might also find that by talking and watching to men and women (and we
=
already have the precedent of established 'facts' about existing
difference=
s in men and women's speak, cultural and social roles etc) - discourse =
analysis and ethnography etc., that the meaning and practice of design
is =
done differently by the two sexes on average and that, however, we find
=
some males and some females acting according to what is dominant in the
=
other averaged out sex grouping. Given that the different behaviours can
=
no longer be comprehensively explained by sex alone we will have an =
instance of gender =3D the dominant way of thinking and practicing among
a =
group which is distinguished by being largely composed of a biological =
sex. We can use Wittgenstein's fuzzy protoypes to gather together the =
centre and the peripheries. Notwithstanding, we can still ask, how did =
things get this way, all other things being equal, in terms of whatever
=
interests us, e.g. workplace activity etc., or childrearing, whatever.
One =
thing that history, anthropology teaches us is that most of the gendered
=
and culture distinctions we take for granted regarding how we do social
=
life are either not universal historically, i.e. we did it different in
=
the past, or synchronically, i.e. somebody else somewhere does is =
different than we do. So, I suppose what I;'m saying is I can see, in my
=
rather pithy view, that gender can do some important theoretical work
and =
remains useful for all kinds of things we might want to achieve - =
including change, writing a thesis, emaaling our thoughts, and being =
intellectually challenged. Musing. Gavin Melles
Dr Gavin Melles
Research Fellow, Faculty of Design
Swinburne University of Technology
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:54:42 +0000
From: Bruce Currey <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Gender, Lacan and Elizabeth Wright
Terry,
While Jacques Lacan's 'Symbolic Logic of Sexuation' has been found
to induce herpes zoster opthalmicus in some design PhD students,
the wee 75 page paperback by the late Elizabeth Wright of Girton
College Cambridge entitled 'Lacan and Postfeminism' Icon Books (UK)
2000 or Totem Books (US) 2001 has been known to help the gender
blind design student to see again.
Enjoy! Jouis!
'Aye,
Bruce
------------------------------
End of PHD-DESIGN Digest - 19 Jan 2008 to 20 Jan 2008 (#2008-15)
****************************************************************
|
