Everyone,
Let us not forget that it was only 20 years ago that the organizers behind a major international design conference in Toronto planned to invite no female speakers whatsoever. When I questioned that point, the chief organizer explained that no women had been invited "because we only want the best." I squawked, provided names, and a sole female was added to the roster. When the day came, she was the only speaker to receive a standing ovation.
Around the same time, my female students expressed squeamishness about being identified as feminists, on the basis, they explained, that feminists were shrill and unpleasant. I did the natural thing, and went home to wail on the phone to my mother. Unmoved, she suggested that my female students be invited to leave my class, since they were only permitted to attend it thanks to the efforts of past feminists, who had had to make themselves very unpleasant indeed to win that privilege.
What disturbs me about this current discussion is that no one appears to have read the original book. We are hearing comments based on reviews, interviews, and personal experience. That's the game of telephone, not scholarship, and this is supposedly a PhD list. My personal schedule is currently chock-a-block with marking, movers, funerals, and the like, so it will be some weeks before I will have time to locate and read a copy of Down Girl, but I've done the next best thing and added it to the acquisitions list for my institutional library.
Heidi

      From: Gunnar Swanson <[log in to unmask]>
 To: [log in to unmask] 
 Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2018 1:13 PM
 Subject: language choices; was: I am a misogynist
   
> On Feb 4, 2018, at 11:18 AM, Colleen Seifert <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> My request was really aimed at asking posters to
> remember that women and students are reading these posts, at least enough
> to determine whether to keep reading. At a minimum, changing the subject
> line would be a way to continue discussing this important topic without
> repeating negative language about women.


I hope nobody will think that I am being dismissive and/or combative about this; I am asking real questions, not putting forth rhetorical Qs. (BTW, I changed the subject line largely because the topic is neither misogyny in general nor the interpretation of the term in Manne’s book but kept the old subject associated for the sake of continuity. I invite the next person who posts to eliminate the "was:" and subsequent part of the subject line.)

Colleen (and anyone),

Some questions:

How does the use of the word "misogyny" reflect negatively on women? In most uses, it seems to reflect negatively on men (or at least on many men.)

How can we avoid the use of a description of a topic if someone is bothered by the topic itself without censoring a discussion of the topic?

How do we go about figuring out when the use of charged terminology should be legitimately dismissed as offensive and when it is prompting a discussion of charged topics that require our attention? Can "uncomfortable discussions" really be comfortable?


On a slightly related topic, I am an advocate of changing seemingly-exclusionary language when practical. I remember the days when the then-neologism of "Ms." was dismissed by many as clumsy, weird sounding, and destined for the linguistic junk heap. Now it’s odd to hear "Mrs." or Miss." So I recognize that new-sounding stuff will not stay new sounding for long.

However, I wrote a review of the book *The Philosophy of Design* and referred to the author’s distinctions between designers, artists, and craftsmen. The editor changed it to "craftspeople." I changed it to "practitioners of tradition-based crafts" (which reflects Glenn Parsons’ terminology.) I thought my solution solved the problem and even increased accuracy a bit and still read like reasonably graceful English. But it’s still bothering me.

I spent several days engaging my wife, colleagues, friends, and students in discussions of neutral (or at least neutralish) terminology. There was (at least so far) universal agreement that "craftspeople" is ugly and awkward. Unlike "Ms.," it leads inevitably to questions of how to deal with discussions of craftspersonship. 

Does anyone have any thoughts on terminology to replace the word "craftsmanship"? Is the relative abstraction of the term "craftsmanship" less exclusionary than the more concrete title of "craftsman," thus arguing for retaining the former and avoiding the latter? 

(Since "exclusionary" includes emotional repercussions, answers like "it feels less exclusionary but I’m not sure why" strike me as reasonable so don’t worry that I’m going to go all Socratic/Professor Charles Kingsfield on you–although I don’t promise to not ask any questions.)


Gunnar

Gunnar Swanson
East Carolina University 
graphic design program

http://www.ecu.edu/cs-cfac/soad/graphic/index.cfm
[log in to unmask]

Gunnar Swanson Design Office
1901 East 6th Street
Greenville NC 27858
USA

http://www.gunnarswanson.com
[log in to unmask]
+1 252 258-7006


-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------

   


-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------