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

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

I want to bring a call back to the idea of logic and gender.

Someone in the thread noted that "academic discourse" wasn't about winning
but simply prevailing logic. Anna commented back you could be logical and
not be a "jerk" about it.

Maybe both statements can be true.

White males may not excel in this type of logic simply based on their
privilege. Though I am sure privilege plays a huge role.

Could it be the Western tradition of logic is itself rooted in gender
inequality? It is a field a few thousand years old that was made up by
white men arguing "logically" with other white men. Naturally the discourse
practices would signify and reinforce membership within these circles.
Exclusion of underrepresented voices has influence how the concept of
"logic" has evolved.

I keep thinking about "logic" and argumentation as I begin to interact with
scholars outside of the US. We have put a strong emphasis on arguing in our
K12 curriculum. Yet when I talk to people from other countries they note a
word for "argumentative writing" or "argumentation" does not really exist
in their language. Which as we know influences thought...which influences
language..and both contribute to culture and activity.

So could it be the gender bias that has existed in the listserv is a
symptom of stressing a definition of "logic" maybe engendered. Notice the
talk in our models of logic have been proving who is right and who is
wrong? What translation is best for example.

It is one individual "proving" he is right rather than they reaching a
consensus on what is right.

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 12:47 AM Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu> wrote:

> Hello,
> Sometimes synchronicity is spooky. I spied this in the Guardian just now.
> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/02/silicon-valley-sexism-diversity-valerie-aurora-frame-shift
> In reply to Maria-Cristina, it's difficult to have work-life balance when
> the division of the personal and the public worlds exists. From what is
> described in biased workplaces (in article above), it's necessary to have
> some sort of protective wall, if only to survive another day.
> The irony is that people become competitive in the work place because of a
> perceived scarcity of resources, but in technology it seems to me to be a
> perceived scarcity of privileges. I have never understood how sitting at a
> keyboard is somehow "hard work." I know it requires effort and intellectual
> effort in particular, but it's not like working on a farm, where solving
> problems with scarce resources is always the norm. Think bricolage.
> Maybe this perceived scarcity is the same in academia. Having a worldview
> that the field of knowledge is infinite, seems to be, looking from the
> outside. But perhaps I am unaware of the bricolage people do inside the
> university. I do not mean to diminish truly hard work.
> Anyway, these resources are culled from the public world to feed the
> personal world in the end, isn't that the true motivation? To protect home
> and hearth when we aren't talking about invading hoards on longboats
> shooting flaming arrows at our huts shouldn't carry that same impending
> fear, dread, and uncertainty. But sometimes it seems to feel that way, that
> people behave with that same ferocity of a struggle to the death.
> It is an illusion, a misperception. But this misperception has its
> apparent reality that creates real fear in people. As if their lives didn't
> matter and unbalanced equations must be attacked with quadratic solutions,
> to set the matter straight.
> Instead, a shared effort is required to permit that defensiveness, born of
> competition, to dissipate. In order to do that, people have to feel safe.
> So how is safety created in the spaces? Spaces free of ridicule and
> non-acceptance. Then, isn't that what every human being desires and
> requires to flourish? Interesting that that need has no bias.
> That is why I admire Aurora so much. I really think that she is on to
> something.
> Larry, rather than reversibility, I'd prefer receptivity or reciprocity.
> And rather than finer nature, I'd prefer true nature (with an idea that
> being competitive, biased, prejudiced, unethical etc, are actually
> artificial constructs, that when obstructions have been lifted, what is
> natural is to balance what is there (like homeostasis), free from
> hindrances.
> In order for us to recognize what is fullness in ourselves, fullness must
> already be present within us, otherwise we could not recognize it, we
> wouldn't have affinity toward it. So if we can remove the notion of
> scarcity, then the fullness of who and what we are, which is already there,
> will be evident. It will have an appearance of emerging from nothing, but
> it's really just appearing like a tree in the fog that was standing quiet
> all along, and all that was required was for the fog to lift.
> Anyway, I want to lastly add that I bring up demand over production, which
> Maria Cristina had shown some interest. The idea is that we have demands
> which actually decide production, and these demands are socially based,
> because we have social natures. Even if we are talking about biological
> demands like food and shelter, early childcare, regardless, in those cases
> there is a social aspect to them.
> Looking through the other end of the telescope, when we consider demand
> first rather than production, things look interestingly different. If we
> include things in demand in that exploration (rather than things in
> production), we begin to see the social life of things, we start to see how
> these items go in and out of commodification, where objects have auras of
> value that reside outside of monetary value and markets.
> Let's consider your dining room table. You bought it in a furniture store,
> or perhaps online, or from a thrift store or garage sale, maybe it was a
> gift. But as long as you own it, you don't consider the market value of
> your dining room table, or its appreciating value if say it was made by a
> famous furniture maker where in 20-30 years you'll see those items
> appraised on The Antiques Road Show; at least not until you decide you
> don't want to own it anymore. During that time of possession, the dining
> room table starts to have different value, a social value, which is
> determined by its demand, or should I say demand for it. It supports the
> family by providing a comfortable place to eat meals. A place for kids to
> do homework. A place to play card games. Or to cut a dress pattern from
> fabric, etc. All of these are domestic activities, but they have no
> production value in terms of tables. You only need one dining room table.
> Still, the table will generate value in the household, because of the
> activities that the table supports, even if it is to bring people together
> at holidays, or even if it has only sentimental value, say if the table is
> damaged and must be repaired, or it has been moved because the room is
> being painted. This description depicts the social life of the dining room
> table. Which is based upon its demand, not its production.
> Anyway, as I said previously, my debt for these thought experiments comes
> from Arjun Appadurai. If anyone is interested.
> Maria Cristina makes a great point considering work life and living life
> as two types of activity systems and thinking about their inherent
> contradictions. What comes from this tension that transcends the two?
> (Might this exploration echo the comparison between production and demand?)
> Is Maria Cristina correct that there hasn't been much discussion in this
> area? if so, I'd like to learn more about that.
> Great conversations. Thanks.
> Kind regards,
> Annalisa
Status: O