Dear colleagues,

Most of you have already stated or implied that 
gender is a social construction. That implies 
that it is "designed." So, gender is what people 
want it to be. In different societies gender is 
defined differently, and in particular, the 
gender roles and references. Gender is "designed" 
through many channels, and most often the 
"design" is not conscious. Of course, this defies 
the definition of design -- that is why I set 
Design in quotation marks. Gender is 
"constructed." I would not discuss the media 
because this is a vast and contentious topic. My 
intent is to focus your attention on the fact 
that with this discussion on this list you 
contribute to the construction of gender, you 
become agents that shape and reshape the concept 
of gender. By engaging in gender discourse, you 
infuse your own views, interests, agendas and 
beliefs. You become unconscious social designers. 
That is fascinating, because you are conscious 
spatial-material designers, exceptionally 
reflective, and analytical. Yet in this 
discussion on gender the same people who are so 
conscious about material design, are impulsive 
and ideological social designers. The whole 
discussion started on ideological grounds, in 
relation to opportunities and actualities to 
obtain or retain a higher position in the social 
hierarchy. There was nothing about design in it. 
although it took place on a design discussion 
list. It was pure ideology and politics. I even 
thought to stay way, but was I curious about the 
problems and perceptions of designers as 
individuals and interested parties. Now the 
discussion became fascinating for me with its 
unintended aspect -- the construction of gender 
by designers acting in a non-design mode. The 
situation also provokes thoughts about the nature 
of shaping the social world, social engineering, 
and the multiples ways in which the social world 
and social situations are happening. At one point 
of the discussion, I was thinking to suggest that 
the topic is sociological and it might be better 
to discuss it on a sociological list. The last 
developments in the discussion are a good example 
of the process of social construction and the 
multiple channels and agents that engage in this process.

I would like to thank Noemi for her example with 
the websites. It is a good illustration of one 
mechanism of genderization. It highlights our 
responsibilities as designers in this process, as 
well as our potential to affect the process and 
to drive the construction of gender in various 
directions. Designers rarely realize that by 
creating gendered artifacts, they either 
reinforce or redefine current tendencies in 
gender construction/definition. In this regard, 
before designers take a social stand, a social 
position, they should  be aware of their position 
and should consider the social consequences of 
that position. This should be a part of their 
social responsibility. By gendering artifacts, we 
reinforce the current status of gender definition 
and relations. If you believe that currently 
there is inequality between genders, then we 
reinforce this inequality. If we want to create 
equal opportunities for both genders, we might 
need to "dis-gender" the social reality and drive 
the construction of material reality in this 
direction by minimizing gender differences. That 
is only one approach, an idea. However, the 
stronger we define polarities, and the more we 
accommodate them separately and reinforce their 
agendas, the more we strengthen differences and 
disparities, which in the long run lead to 
different rules of engagement in the social arena 
and to clashes and conflicts. We already have 
this model taking place in the socioeconomic 
realm. This is a project beyond the scope of the 
present discussion and might be the project of 
the century. Twenty century was the century of 
socioeconomic struggles that ended with 
comparative equality and reasonable access to 
resources; twenty-first century might be the time 
to redefine gender and to develop and new framework for gender behavior.

You might be wondering why I engage in this 
rhetorics. I have an agenda too. I would like to 
contribute to the social construction of 
pre-design studies. There  are many issues of 
social nature that have to be analyzed and framed 
before material designers start working. In most 
cases, in order to resolve these issues we need 
to engage in social research and social design. 
You might object this separation just like many 
other people do. However, there is a difference 
between social design and materials design in 
terms of knowledge, methods, and experience. If 
we search for the meeting point, for the 
interface, this is somewhere around pre-design 
studies, programming, or briefing, as this 
phenomena is referred to in different cultures. 
(I am aware that these activities continue and 
wind out in and during the design process, 
changing agents and modes of happening.) We need 
more attention to the pre-design process in order 
to have more clear directions and foci of 
crystallization in the design process. In this 
way we would not take huge responsibility and 
make big mistakes on behalf of society and we 
would not impose our material design thinking on 
society or particular social groups that are 
incarnations of society in the design situation. 
And, of course, it might be too much for us to 
engage enthusiastically in reshaping the social 
world. We all know the adage that war is too 
complex to be left to generals only. I would 
reiterate again that shaping the material 
environment is too complex to be left to material designers only.

Kind regards,

Lubomir Popov, Ph.D.

At 06:15 AM 11/25/2006, noemi sadowska wrote:
>Dear François To answer your question I would 
>like to direct you towards work done by Spilker 
>and Sørensen (2000) who do not come from design 
>discipline in a traditional sort of way but have 
>been very interested in questioning the 
>relationship between gender, design and 
>technology. The case studies presented by 
>Spilker and Sørensen (2000), give examples of 
>the development and implementation of design 
>strategies that would be in position to manage 
>gender in a digital technological context.  As 
>Spilker and Sørensen observe, JenteROM (a CD-Rom 
>targeting female users) demonstrated ‘… a 
>clearcut example of a mutual reconfiguration of 
>technology and gender’ (p. 280).  The CD-Rom 
>makes and attempt to transform this type of 
>technology into a ‘feminine artefact’ paralleled 
>with what Spilker and Sørensen refer to as the 
>‘… effort to change some aspects of the 
>definition of femininity’ (p. 280).  On the 
>other hand the HjemmeNett web service, they 
>observe, uses design strategies to create spaces 
>for both male and female participation, relying 
>on gender as an important consideration in 
>developing such outcomes.  They argue that each 
>artefact uses different design strategies 
>embodied by what both researchers term ‘action 
>concepts’, to achieve its goal.  As Spilker and 
>Sørensen (2000) indicate, JenteROM inscribes its 
>technology with the dichotomous opposition of 
>female vs. male in order to acknowledge gender, 
>where as HjemmeNett sees male and female genders 
>as end points within a continuous scale. 
>Unfortunately there the not too many such cases 
>of research and they often stem from other 
>disciplines than design. Noemi bib refrence: • 
>Spilker, H. and K. H. Sørensen (2000). "A ROM of 
>One's Own or a Home for Sharing? Designing the 
>Inclusion of Women in Multimedia." New Media and 
>Society 2(3): 268-285. ----- Original Message 
>---- From: FrFrancois-Xavier Nsenga 
><[log in to unmask]> To: 
>[log in to unmask] Sent: Monday, 20 
>November, 2006 12:45:55 AM Subject: Re: Gender 
>101 and design "Even thinking about objects as 
>things that can be more and less successful in 
>inviting humans into different kinds of 
>(non)/gendered relationships with each other is 
>just grand." Dear Christena and others, 
>Linguistic features and "Human - equal -Rights" 
>considerations aside, have any of you already 
>worked, or have bibliographic references, on 
>gendered artifacts, both immaterial and 
>material, as purposely designed - or not - to 
>induce gendered relationships among humans? 
>Regards! François Montréal Send instant messages 
>to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com