[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Analysis of Gender in early xmca discourse
Social protocols are best. Flag it on the subject line: (S)low
conversation, no (H)ogging, no h(U)mping, (F)emale please, etc.
XKCD on Penises <http://xkcd.com/194/>.
On 27 October 2016 at 22:34, Alfredo Jornet Gil <email@example.com> wrote:
> Helena, Analissa, Jacob, all,
> thanks so much for sharing your invaluable thoughts and experiences. It
> strikes me as very interesting and positive finding that xmca has so much
> more for the world out there than what one can tell by just looking at what
> appears in the e-mail thread itself. I should myself testify to this truth:
> I have in many occasions gone back to readings and/or conversations that
> were sparked by threads going on at xmca where I had not contributed and no
> one would have been able to tell wether xmca had had anything to do with
> whatever (cumulative) product may have emerged from there. It is also truth
> that some of the times in which xmca has had a biggest impact in me have
> been when I had to articulate myself, to unfold in writing by
> addressing/responding to others, taking active part in whatever a thread
> was to become. Clearly, there are different levels/places in which the
> “cumulative” problem that Mike poses exists as a different problem, and
> none should be ignored; all are valuable and worth taken care of. Thanks to
> ALL for making visible the lines of development that remain invisible to
> the mail list but which nonetheless begin there, for good and for bad.
> Making sure that EVERYONE feels welcome and worth participating is surely a
> premise for any form of accumulation, collective, personal, visible, or
> I think that what many of the posts in this thread are showing us, in
> addition to the profound respect to Mike and his borderless generosity, is
> that the challenges that Mike has identified are re-definable rather than
> solvable, or that part of their solution requires a re-definition of the
> problems. As David Kirsh nicely summarises in his chapter in the Cambridge
> Handbook of Situated Cognition, solving problems is more about framing and
> defining them than about searching for their solution. Experiences such as
> those by Jacob are invaluable input (thanks so much for sharing!). But hear
> surely invisibly listening, as Analissa seems to suggest, may not be
> enough. I hear Analissa asking everyone to take responsibility in acting
> upon what, for many, is a problem. Just as we have to work out what the
> problem is, it is in and as the WORK that a solution exists. In a book that
> has had some influence in recent MCA publications, Tim Ingold cites Spanish
> thinker/writer José Ortega y Gasset to remind us that “The only thing that
> is given to us and that is when ther is human life is the *having to make
> it*, the fact that “life is a task.” As such, I think we surely need
> materials such as the one Analissa has shared. Whether the particular one
> she has now shared is more or less helpful, more or less sensible, whether
> the term "allie" is appropriate, etc, may be the topic of another thread,
> or an extension to this one. Obviously, being about supporting woman in
> open technology, this link is relevant to xmca. But what I take for this
> thread is that, as a task, addressing (framing, re-defining) xmca’s
> challenges with regard to gender needs to be approach with the openness to
> learning that other educational tasks require.
> Analissa, I take your suggestion on being able to remove one’s own texts
> verbatim and will transmit it to the persons that will know whether that is
> technically possible or not (I guess it will be possible to take them out
> of the archive in the xmca pages, but I also believe that it will remain in
> anyone else mailbox unless they do not delete it themselves; but let me
> find out with someone with the appropriate competence to answer).
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>
> on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: 27 October 2016 22:07
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Analysis of Gender in early xmca discourse
> I am very sympathetic to Jacob's post. I think what I want to respond to
> immediately, and I hope respectfully, is the underlying emotion and hurt I
> sense in his post, feelings which I share. It is one thing that perhaps
> isn't addressed because it is non-academic in nature, too messy or too
> irrational or overwrought. I have solidarity with Jacob's appeal to
> consider the the subtle hurtful practices that just end up causing Others
> not to participate.
> No one wants to be called a whiner, or complainer, or be considered "too
> sensitive," which just adds insult to injury, by the way. And yet the
> problem stubbornly remains.
> Of course, I do not say these things in a general way: there are some very
> sensitive, evolved, and mature people on this list who sincerely want to
> create a just and equal space here. However, the labor involved to create
> that space has to be shared. It cannot be the victims of the hurt who must
> carry the labor of fixing the problem.
> In a car wreck (for example!), we don't expect those who are injured to
> drive themselves to the hospital. Emotional injury should be no different.
> Saying "I'm sorry," is a powerful bridge maker, and also listening with an
> intent to learn to be better. Empathy for a fellow human being goes a long,
> long way, as well as reaching out to ask for understanding. No one is
> requesting perfection. Well maybe some of us do, but we will be in the
> I just spent the half hour watching the Ally Workshop video at youTube,
> and there you will learn about many unsavory scenarios that will never
> happen on this list serve. Still, there are many subtle dogwhistles in
> posts sometimes that signal and threaten many women and Others, who have
> worked too much of a hard-scrabble journey to get where they are to
> jeopardize all that in a display of defensiveness on a listserv where a
> post could sit for a few decades.
> [Suggestion: Might it be possible to instill a listserv policy that an
> aggrieved person who calls out can request the texts of one's own posts
> removed, with a fidelity for a "right to be forgotten"? Clearly, this has
> to be done on a case by case basis, but I myself am unclear of such a
> Just as an injured person from a car wreck cannot know how to operate upon
> her own injuries, it's a lot to expect the same harmed constituencies to
> advocate all the time for a better listserv so as to prevent future injury.
> That is why those voices are silent is my best guess, even though I do not
> mean to speak for all Others, I can say that for myself.
> Also... even though such nefarious exchanges as described in the Ally
> Workshop don't happen on this listserv, it is a nagging fact that they
> still exist in the world in which we live. So there are triggers, or not to
> be as gun-happy in metaphor, there are aromas. It is hard sit in a room
> that just smells bad. And it is impossible to battle a bad smell without
> opening some windows.
> Many of us have to slog these unwelcome realities out in the real world
> and it is not easy to place that baggage down at the door. Which is why an
> aroma can be sometimes far more offensive on the list than someone making
> an obviously crude and baldly offensive comment.
> As a consequence, rather than get bogged down by this emotionality and
> defensiveness (as Jacob points out, we can be interested in other things),
> we either lurk or we just stop reading and do Other Things.
> What I hope to bring focus at this point Most of All is the Lost
> Opportunity for those who think the status quo is just fine. But also to
> those who don't think that it is fine.
> We are Losing Out because of all what hasn't been shared in the entire
> life of this listserv. Strike that, we have Lost Out. It isn't something
> that can be analyzed, so it is impossible to think that the solution will
> be found in past discourses on the list. If there is, it will only be the
> tip of a very large iceberg that will never be seen, cannot be detected,
> because it exists far below the surface of the textual discourse of posts.
> I do not intend to be binary about this. There have been plenty of
> tremendously rewarding discussions I have had the privilege to benefit from
> XMCA. I have learned from adversarial discussions too. I warrant that am
> learning now. Might I emphasize that we simply cannot know How Much Better
> the list could be if there had been more plural voices who feel safe enough
> to connect here.
> Kind regards,