[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Analysis of Gender in early xmca discourse



On 28 October 2016 at 15:16, Jenna McWilliams <jennamcjenna@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I do think the people who choose to "stay clear," as you say, of gender
> are those who tend to feel that accusations of sexism are, as you say,
> "arbitrary." They're nearly always not arbitrary, no matter how confusing
> it may feel to be on the receiving end of such an accusation.
>
>
By arbitrary I mean the relative scope of what is logically perceived and,
worse, when the logic itself is perceived to be part of the power
relation.  I.e. when a request to heed the logic is itself treated as
exercising an abusive power.  It is true that logic is powerful -- a hard
won skill -- but I think it is madness to politicise it.  If you could
disentangle the various sources of power, then perhaps it would be a
simpler problem.

I hope that helps and I'm happy to continue offline.

Best,
Huw



>
>
>
> Jacob McWilliams
> jennamcjenna@gmail.com
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Oct 28, 2016, at 7:51 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
> wrote:
> >
> > thank you so much for taking the time to articulate, Huw, it is very
> much appreciated. Of course, humour ceases to be such when explained... But
> yes, there is definitely an issue and it seems that staying clear when
> using sexist terms could also be in the subject line.
> >
> > Alfredo
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> on behalf of Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> > Sent: 28 October 2016 10:35
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Analysis of Gender in early xmca discourse
> >
> > Clarifying on the link, it is a cartoon in which a female stick figure is
> > saying "Penises: they are about this big (pretty small). Now can we
> please,
> > as a culture, move on."
> >
> > The headings are a simple leap: it is necessary to be overt if you want
> to
> > indicate some form of desired behaviour.  I literally do mean that you
> > could put "slow" up in the subject line, indicating that you want to
> have a
> > slow conversation... and that you don't mind if you have a thread that
> > appears to have fallen with a thud.  The peculiarity of it is
> commensurate
> > with the peculiarity of wanting to guide others in the responses sought.
> >
> > It seems to me to be a plague subject: something v. important, but also
> > something that can be used to accuse others on pretty much any arbitrary
> > basis.  No wonder people stay clear.
> >
> > Sorry, again, to offend.  I really do have other things I should be
> doing.
> >
> > Best,
> > Huw
> >
> >> On 28 October 2016 at 07:44, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Annalisa, Huw,
> >>
> >> As someone that has moved from one country (Spain) to another (Norway),
> >> then lived a while in another (Australia), and yet a couple more years
> >> somewhere else (Canada), having in the way changed kindergarten, school,
> >> neighbourhood, hair dresser, office colleagues... I know how closely
> >> humour/irony and membership are connected. You really don't need to move
> >> across countries to know that, just try to follow any English
> conversation
> >> between professional/training pilots, or a chat between orange pickers
> in
> >> Valencia talking Spanish or Catalan (no matter what country they are
> from)
> >> while lunch during a work day, to realise that you have no clue what
> they
> >> are talking about even though they seem to be talking (and laughing) in
> a
> >> language (English, Spanish, Catalan) you think you know.
> >>
> >> When I read Huw's post, I had to do a search for almost every word he
> >> used, including hogging, humping, and I am still wondering whether
> "SHUF"
> >> might refer to a command in programming that generates "random
> >> permutations"  (that's what I found online!). I did not know these
> words in
> >> English, and so I had to look for them. Even more embarrassing is the
> fact
> >> that, even though I know every word, I have not yet got what the
> squirrel
> >> story is about, or how it relates to the thread it was posted on... Not
> >> that the story is nonsense, but only that I do not (yet) belong to
> whatever
> >> history (chains of reference, whatever you'd like to call it) has
> brought
> >> it up as a sense-full story/joke/turn, etc.
> >>
> >> The thing is that humour seems to be tightly connected to the sort of
> >> abbreviation that Vygotsky described with regard to inner speech. As
> people
> >> get along well together, just as the 3 boys in Larry's post do, there is
> >> lesser need for articulation, things can be shortened, they can simply
> be
> >> suggested by a word, a gesture. As Vygotsky notes, "When the thoughts
> and
> >> consciousness of the interlocutors are one, the role of speech in the
> >> achievement of flawless understanding is reduced to a minimum." I love
> >> humour, and irony (not sarcasm, as Huw notes), and I believe they are
> vital
> >> for a healthy humanity and, again as Huw notes, to a healthy list.
> Through
> >> humour we can address challenges and paradoxes in ways that articulation
> >> and explicit talk simply cannot. Yet, if it is right that humour rests
> upon
> >> this competence of abbreviating, of not needing to say the unsaid to
> make
> >> it said, then there always is the risk that someone else won't hear the
> >> same and, worst, feel excluded, ridiculed, etc... I think those are
> >> occasions for articulating rather than for more abbreviation. I think
> that
> >> such occasions are important because, otherwise, we may loose highly
> >> interesting discussions on the historical and genetic account of the
> >> problem (what Annalisa and Larry have been asking for, what Huw
> probably is
> >> missing and asking for too) and how such an account may be different and
> >> more productive than protocolary statements of the sort of those
> exposed in
> >> the video Annalisa has shared.
> >>
> >> With all due respect,
> >> Alfredo
> >>
> >> PS: you can see in how much I do articulate how much of an outsider I
> >> feel/am, and how much work it takes for us to participate. I hope to be
> >> able to abbreviate a bit more at some point...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> >> on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu>
> >> Sent: 28 October 2016 05:24
> >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Analysis of Gender in early xmca discourse
> >>
> >> Thank you for the explanation.
> >>
> >>
> >> Why not address Huw? Why me?
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> >> on behalf of David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu>
> >> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 9:18 PM
> >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Analysis of Gender in early xmca discourse
> >>
> >> Surely, Annalisa, a symbol of intimidation, rather than intimidation,
> >> itself.
> >> David
> >>
> >>
>
>