[Xmca-l] Re: The genesis of gender(ed) expectations: demand, production, and reproduction (and reversibility)

[lpscholar2@gmail.com]

David, Annalisa,
I take the view that misunderstandings are inevitable on the way to shared understandings. The notion of postings being invitations that open a place for conversation. The concern is the possibility the invitations will not be taken up. This is why we must (take time) and (take care) and when inevitable ruptures occur to once again go back and pick up the loose threads.

Ruptures seem to be an aspect of developing shared meaning. I do not believe they can be avoided but conversations can be (with care and concern) returned (resumed) as an opportunity for exploring our ethical turn (including feminist theory and historical imaginary).

It is not the rupture itself, but the care and concern in response that models this ethical turn.



Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: David H Kirshner
Sent: November 5, 2016 1:31 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The genesis of gender(ed) expectations: demand,production, and reproduction (and reversibility)

Annalisa is right. My suggested empirical study was not responsive to the ongoing thread. 
I inserted it into the thread because I'd been wishing for some kind of empirical backdrop to the discussion of gendered participation, and something in Annalisa's post brought that to mind. And I attributed the basic interest to Annalisa as a way to justify my pursuing it. I can see that falsely attributing the interest to her might be seen as hijacking her direction, so I apologize. 

By way of explanation, because the suggested research study was so far off of the ongoing topic, I didn't consider there to be much danger that the ongoing thread would be disrupted; in fact, I thought my suggested study might be interpreted as a humorous interlude (though I am pleased that Alfredo and Peter find it of possible serious interest). If anyone does want to discuss it further, please introduce a new thread line for it. 

Finally, threads don't belong to individuals, they belong to the list. And they frequently break out in directions not intended by the initiator. This case of my intentionally diverging from the main thrust of a thread seems to me a rare exception. So, Annalisa, whereas you're justified in being angry at me in this case, I don't think there's much to be mined here in terms of the general problem of gendered discourse on XMCA. This doesn't seem to me to be a good example of anything. 

David

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Annalisa Aguilar
Sent: Saturday, November 5, 2016 2:05 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The genesis of gender(ed) expectations: demand, production, and reproduction (and reversibility)


Hi Alfredo,

I think to take what I have written and to say that my idea is (really) his idea (or his idea is mine) doesn't make sense to me. Let me put it plainly: *I do not want to talk about logic here.* I've discussed it all I want to. Please, go start a different thread about that. I was not suggesting empirical studies, I am talking about having a conversation right here right now about the genesis of gender expectations and to reflect about demand, production, and reproduction.

It's like I said. If you want to know why people are feel reticent to post here, then why don't you ask the people who feel marginalized? Why not listen to us? And what's so foreign about asking you to put yourselves in our shoes and empathize with us? We have to do that all the time with those with power and privilege, something I think African Americans have written much about, and perhaps others. Why not ask how you can be an ally? Why do you need sprint to a solution as if possessing some logical analysis will help you to know what the problem is?

Do you NOT believe us?

Sure, if this mere kindling of thought generates into a flame for your own work, certainly you should move forward upon it. Isn't that what this list is all about?? But please do not stamp out the small flame here and please allow a fire be built for those who want to participate.

If I'm sounding defensive, there is a reason for it.

Maybe this conversation will just have to be off-list in order for it to grow sufficiently and be nourished appropriately. Which means it will be not something shared here, for reasons perhaps that we have been considering that pertain to gendered discourse and why there are such imbalances in the voices.

So from being moved from the center to the periphery, I am now being escorted out of the building like Medea Benjamin of Code Pink, and I'm just being vocal about each infringement, as people have been with me when bringing up (arbitrary) rules, that are not written down anywhere, anyway.

Do you see the violence inherent in the system?

I hope so.




________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
Sent: Friday, November 4, 2016 11:13 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The genesis of gender(ed) expectations: demand, production, and reproduction (and reversibility)

I do not take David's comments as graffiti. I think you both are suggesting empirical studies, and both proposals make sense to me. Indeed, I have already begun to look for a student who may want to draw on xmca to do some analyses on gender and (academic) online participation (and I am not joking).

Alfredo

________________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu>
Sent: 05 November 2016 02:58
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The genesis of gender(ed) expectations: demand, production, and reproduction (and reversibility)

David,


That is not my idea. I was *not* suggesting a discourse analysis of Dilemmas of Gendered Discourse at XMCA* at ALL. In fact quite the opposite. Where in the world did I say that, and why are you attributing that to me?


I don't understand what you didn't understand.


I said how about we compare and contrast in this thread, as a thought sculpture (not embark in some sort of statistical analyses), what the differences are between non-gendered discourse, and gendered discourse. But first focusing upon non-gendered discourse. I don't think that means we should talk about Math, either, or logic!


It sort of feels like you just graffiti'd my thread, I'm sorry to say. So if that is the intent, I don't know how that is supposed to work here.


Thanks?


Kind regards,


Annalisa