 |
 |
Hi Eduardo The whole perception of gender is a real challenge to change to something more respecting of diversity because we are so led by our language(s), as I have said in my paper 'Modelling Complexity of Gender as an Agent of Change', in the UK Systems Society conference this year in Oxford. While it is appreciated that in less literal ages we had simplistic models, which in terms of gender were often binary, in order to simplify decision-making and behaviour, now in the age of information and more Inclusive forms of literacy many acknowledge the need for dimensional models, as opposed to categorical models and terms of reference, for the gender related contexts of gender, sex and sexuality. However, dimensional perception lacks value if it cannot easily be communicated. There is a need to effectively quantify and describe identity of people and artefacts, much of which should now be seen a neutral. However, there is also an apparent need, in the performativity of gender, to declare more masculine or feminine characteristics or behaviours, and to acknowledge gender fluidity in that time and context can change these performative needs. But what are we declaring as masculine and feminine characteristics? The more I consider Gender, the more inclined I am to perceive Gender as an implicit form of Sexism, because so many things should just been seen in the neutral, such as the V&A exhibition of 'Men in Skirts', though the point of that was to create reaction and debate. So, to return to the issue of language(s), it would seem that the only way to increase literacy and deepen understanding is to start to devalue the established semantics to develop more inclusive meaning(s). But is there not an ethical paradox here, in that I am suggesting change and potential loss of cultural traditions?! What can you do? You cannot please everyone. Thoughts? Kev Dr. Kev Hilton Director of Research The Centre for Design Research School of Design Squires Building Northumbria University Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST Tel: 0191 243 7340 Fax: 0191 227 3148 [log in to unmask] http://www.openfolio.com/users/kevhilton http://northumbria.ac.uk/researchandconsultancy/Res_conf_06/kevin_hilton/?vi ew=Standard -----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 Eduardo Corte Real Sent: 16 November 2006 16:55 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Gender 101 and design - Looooong post, sorry! Dear Chris, From Glorious Lisbon, really Lisboa (a female). Our language genders everything. This is a totally different perspective how our mind is structured. There is a long controversy between two diferent kinds of cooking pans in Portugal: One is called Tacho (masculine), the other is called Panela (feminine). But the tacho is short and fatty and the panela is slim and stronger. Everybody confuses them. What I mean is that All things, and I mean All Things (except for tachos and panelas), contribute to stereotypes we dont have neutral . Even Feelings: A Saudade, (without translation) feminine. O Ódio (hatred) masculine. Even Cities: Évora (feminine), Porto (masculine). But some cities are slightly different like Moskow or London. I can write: Moscovo é lindo (Moscow is beautifull) but I can also write Moscovo é linda if I'm implying the city of Moscow is beautiful since the word city is feminine. The same with London or Paris. Rome and Babilon are clearly feminine. Some words became feminine or masculine by linguistic hazard but most are really sterotyipical. I wrote a about it in this list a few months ago. It is diferent to thing the artificial world with things that are galls and things that are boys. By the way, thing (coisa) is feminine). Academy: Feminine Presentation: Feminine Speech: Masculine Question: feminine University: feminine Art: feminine Science: feminine Revolution: feminine Dialogue: masculine (you didn't expect this one...) Article/Paper: masculine well, discussion list... feminine Cheers, Eduardo ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christena Nippert-Eng" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 3:46 PM Subject: Gender 101 and design - Looooong post, sorry! Cheers, everyone! Especially my new wonderful friends from glorious Lisbon! Yesterday, I jotted down what turned out to be two pages! of text related to a quick introductory lecture I'm giving in five minutes. I couldn't resist an attempt to address a couple themes that have been introduced to the list recently. So apologies, apologies but I'm going to send this now anyway since everyone has the option to delete at will! Sociologists distinguish between sex and gender. Sex is a biological, ascribed attribute. It is dichotomous, and usually assigned for life. Gender is a sociological, achieved attribute; it is about learned behavior and it is distributed across an ideal-typical continuum, ranging from behavior that is extremely feminine to extremely masculine. Note: We sometimes use the word gender instead of "sex" in order not to confuse it with sexual intercourse (or whatever Bill Clinton did or did not do) but in my discipline, one's gender is analytically distinct from one's sex. We tend to roughly assume the gender of people on first sight, given what appears to be their sex and the gender work they have done to create a certain impression: what they do about clothing, facial appearance, body hair, smell, musculature, movement and then, if it happens, things like styles of conversation, vocal timbre, face work, etc. Again, all of this is learned and we learn to do gender work in accordance with what our culture, significant others, and we, ourselves, expect of us. Gender is extremely cultured, of course, and what, precisely, constitutes femininity or masculinity changes around the world. Any given individual may be classified as more masculine or more feminine in general, given cultural norms about these behaviors. Certainly, for instance, any female can be surprisingly masculine and any male can be surprisingly feminine in both their general way of being and in how they behave during any specific encounter. But it is quite normal for any given individual to be more masculine or feminine at given times of the day, in different places, with different people, or at different times across the life course. Each individual combines femininity and masculinity and is therefore - at least theoretically -- able to emphasize more of one or the other as appropriate. In the U.S., for instance, the ideal manager, employee, parent, professor, student, president, janitor, athlete, conference attendee, etc., etc., embodies both classically feminine and masculine attributes, switching between them as needed in order to best achieve the performance and goals expected of her or him. Many of the world's most revered religious and political leaders provide fine examples of this. One may note that Jesus Christ, the Prophet Mohammed, Buddha, and people like Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. encouraged others to aspire to daily in practices that must be considered extremely "feminine" by the classification guidelines of Western European thought. One cluster of their ideological frameworks (thinking is a behavior, by the way) as well as their more visible behaviors certainly focuses on the importance of unmitigated inclusion of all human beings as people who matter, for instance, and they often conveyed this message through provocative stories and remarks that require quite a bit of thinking in order to understand. They remain quite the political radicals and visionaries for this. It turns out this is also a very feminine way of thinking and being, for Westerners. Deborah Tannen, a sociolinguist, argues, for instance, that more feminine styles of talk are not only indirect but they are focused on connection and leveling social hierarchies - finding common ground with the people we talk to, in ways that invite them to do the same. More masculine styles of talk are direct, however, and focus on establishing individuals' status within a specific social hierarchy. Men tend to focus on the question of "who's one-up on whom" in their conversations, she finds, while women try to find the substantive footholds that establish their equality and their care for each other. Consider, for instance, people who 1) go (sometimes massively) over their allotted time in conference presentations, 2) prepare and read extremely closely argued and difficult to follow "papers," or 3) provide a single, closely-controlled point of access to their thoughts (say, only verbal delivery) and belittle individuals who might offer or benefit from other ways of presenting. These are people who, in other words, refuse to make room for the audience, who perhaps even think that a conference is not supposed to be about the audience, only about the speakers. Such individuals are simply behaving in a more classically masculine way. So, too, are people in the audience who make long expository, corrective, constant, or aggressive statements, as these are also part of a metaconversation about who's one-up over whom. They also show what Charles Derber calls the largely masculine behavior of demanding and getting (not giving) attention. On the other hand, consider people who 1) carefully adhere to their allotted time, who 2) prepare and deliver their talks in an inviting, accessible way -- including those who 3) offer multiple points of entry to accommodate those who are better visual learners, better auditory learners, or who might find a certain style and rapidity of English difficult to follow. These are people who, in other words, make room for the audience perhaps because they see their talks as part of a conversation and they are at least as interested in what others have to say than they are in what they, themselves are saying. Such individuals are behaving in a more classically feminine way. People in the audience who make succinct, supportive, sometimes appreciative statements or who actually ask for more information about something (the most attention-giving form of conversational support according to Derber) are behaving in more feminine ways, too. The feminist movement in Western scholarship also has led to the assertion that women scholars are responsible for inserting the legitimacy of a research interest in the classic territories associated with their sex and with the feminine gender. Everyday life, the home, emotions, family relations, etc., etc., became important points of interest and were properly problematized because women were finally permitted into the halls of the Academy. Accordingly, we understand much more now about things like power, public life, politics, the economy and economic behavior, the workplace, etc., because of the insights gained from the problematizing, feminist, "outsider" perspective that most of us now take for granted in our academic work. Thus, it is quite conceivable that there are designers, for instance, who are more masculine and designers who are more feminine, as well as designers who are very good at being more of either, depending on the situation. Conference organizers, conference panels, conference presentations, conference-sponsoring societies and conference- interested communities -- any of these may contribute to, reinforce, challenge, or constitute gender work as well as reveal the gender assumptions and behaviors of those concerned. Far less obvious -- and therefore of more interest to me -- is the possibility that there are more masculine and more feminine approaches to the practice of design, to the reward structures of design, to the teaching of design, to the kinds of problems and solutions one is attracted to in design, and to the designs, themselves, produced as they are in their possibly variously gendered ways for variously gendered people. I have asked a number of my students about this and encouraged many of them to pursue any of these questions. I don't know much about it but would love to know more! If anyone knows a good article on the subject, please share! Probably the whole list would like to know, but if we go off-list, I'll put the collective responses together and share later. Very best wishes, Christena Nippert-Eng, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Sociology Illinois Institute of Technology 312-567-6812 (office) 312-567-6821 (fax) http://www.iit.edu/~socsci/faculty/nippert-eng.html -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by the NorMAN MailScanner Service and is believed to be clean. The NorMAN MailScanner Service is operated by Information Systems and Services, Newcastle University. ==== This e-mail is intended solely for the addressee. It may contain private and confidential information. If you are not the intended addressee, please take no action based on it nor show a copy to anyone. Please reply to this e-mail to highlight the error. You should also be aware that all electronic mail from, to, or within Northumbria University may be the subject of a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and related legislation, and therefore may be required to be disclosed to third parties. This e-mail and attachments have been scanned for viruses prior to leaving Northumbria University. Northumbria University will not be liable for any losses as a result of any viruses being passed on.