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

[Alfredo Jornet Gil]

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
>
>