Print

---

  "Jan Coker" <[log in to unmask]> wrote :


> Cameron,
> Cameron
> Thankyou for setting some early discussion points in a discussion of
design
> research ethics and gender polities. The points you make are some of the
> intellectual ethical issues which have been I think generally ignored by a
> designer population in the west which is approximately 90% male. It raises
the
> issue of gender in terms of politics, ethics, and power. I am interested
in
> whether we can shift into a discussion which can start with a premise that
> humans have characteristics, rights and responsibilities that are not
delimited
> by gender. Hopefully we don't have to go back to the basics of the 70s and
> discuss whether there are prescriptive gender characteristics beyond the
> obvious physical differences of sexual attributes and capabilities. There
are
> qualities which have been slotted into gender which are not gender
specific but
> human. Some examples are compassion, anger, tenderness, caring,
determination,
> etc.
>
> Like racism and homophobia, gender stereotypes may be blocking good design
from
> being accessible to society and human populations. The issue of what is
> acceptable commercial design research is a big one. Can designers tell big
lies
> as a part of trying to "get the design right" or "sell the most products",
do
> people have the right to speak on their own behalf? When can that speaking
be
> an advantage to design development and what are ways that can be
effectively
> done. Do commercial agendas preclude honesty? Do designers have any
special
> need for clear ethical boundaries similar to doctors (of course I am not
really
> holding the medical profession up as an example just the Hippocratic
oath).
>


Feel compelled to share some
personal feelings here. Hope the list doesn't
mind. Anyway here goes :

If there were no form of discrimination of any kind,
the world would have stocked
only fine and useful products on the shelves. We would not
have big problems or rather silly but harmful ones around.
I used to just take away what I don't like to read in the papers,
namely politics and business. The reading exercise goes like this :
Anything about Business--->crushed and sent into bin;
anything about Politics -->page co-shredded by pup and me;
before shooting them to the bin.

I was the merry shredder and newspaper ball thrower.
I tore pages out after skimming the headlines,
the pages I don't like to read. I admit it was damn fun but I think I
learnt a lot too that shredding doesn't throw away problems.
I  later learnt that it was far better and economical to finish reading them
before using them as 'puddle' paper for pups.

I still don't  have good impressions of
politics and business as I don't believe they really solve
problems. The more you learn about them the more you are convinced they
merely move around problems. I never like how some business people
shed their workers in the light of resizing/rationalisation, then offer
large sums to Charities. But it happens.

But I want to know what I shreded now despite I dread them.
The reason why good products rarely
go through the lines because the people who created them
are not as aware about both business and politics as strategies.

I believe we have the ethics in place. But there are always people who run
around them. So the root is how to prevent people from bending rules.
Commercial agendas often are smart culprits of rule bending.
So when you happend to read too many ads for a particular product,
beware. All products need some form of promotional help, but fine
products do not need a lot of advertising.

How many times do we see a so-so product that goes pass ethics and
even good design basics ? The fact is people. People make the rules,
form cliques, make roads with inroads and side paths; people form what is
prefrential and discrimatory based on money and power objectives.
Luckily we also form what we believe in
fairness and righteousness.  Its a matter of people and principle.
I was fortunate the last time both my written ideas and
design concepts were taken away from me, that they only took what is the
skin of the work to benefit one of their kind. That person
took it, modified it with the help of fellow gang, obviously benefitted
big time, while putting me down.   So definitely I remember
that very solidly  that some people are just what they are
even when you have been kind.

Were there rules in place ? Yes there were.
Were they bent ? Yes they did.
But was there anything I could do ? Nothing.
Because it was basically about people and I was
at the wrong time in a bad place with unscrupulous people.
Fortunate to keep myself one piece is what I am thinking now.

However, it made me more careful and definitely much wiser.
Rules are dead. But people are not. So how to handle people
should be emphasized other than setting the ethics in.
Do I loose hope in humanity ? Nay.
In fact, it made me believe that if you are straight and honest,
somehow you are protected.

Karen Fu