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

[Huw Lloyd]

Seems fine!

On 28 October 2016 at 21:04, Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu> wrote:

> Huw,
>
>
> It isn't about logic. It is about not being a jerk. Many people can be
> logical *and* kind.
>
>
> In other words, I do not accept your implicit equation that being logical
> means being dominating, cruel, and/or insensitive. Even Mr. Spock was not a
> mechanical automaton, but then he was half human; you are 100% human.
> Unless... you are just a bot that has passed the Turing test. In that case,
> bravo.
>
>
> How is that for being brief, without bullet points.
>
>
> Annalisa
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> on behalf of Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 1:52 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Analysis of Gender in early xmca discourse
>
> I would like to say again I am sorry for the rude email, its been a day for
> squirming.  What I would like to do, is take something from this. The
> technology part to the offensive email was the reason I chipped in.
> Generally I like to brief, both to get to the point but also not to hog the
> space.
>
> Here are some issues, I am currently thinking about:
>
> i) Lets assume for the sake of it that a 'discourse of logic' is one of
> many equally applicable approaches.  I have read interesting articles about
> the treatment of science as a specialisation of writing, so it is not
> entirely foreign to me.
>
> ii) This raises (to me) big questions concerning alternative viable
> structures for many subjects (-ologies) and the fabric of technology.  But
> even were we to try to put this aside and to treat discourses as equal, if
> it turns out that actually one discourse is inherently more powerful than
> another in a certain context, then we again have a problem of 'pandering'
> to the weaker discourse and effectively reducing opportunities for taking
> up something that is inherently more useful in that context.
>
> iii) A significant proportion of the discourse pertaining to technical
> understandings of developmental processes is heavily logical.
>
> iv) Let us suppose that you can have a convention along the lines of "when
> in Rome...", meaning that each thread has a dominant discourse, how does
> that pan out?
>
> v) Supposing one said "logic is an offensive weapon, and should only be
> used in certain contexts", well are we not denying this skill to others by
> hiding it away?
>
> Back to the technology. I don't know if its clear, but the reasoning I was
> giving earlier about "a social policy" being the most important is, I
> think, the same thing Greg is alluding to.
>
> Best,
> Huw
>
>
> On 28 October 2016 at 18:39, Greg Mcverry <jgregmcverry@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I too am new to the list serve. In fact I think Jacob introduced me. I
> have
> > since shared XMCA with scholars everywhere, but I often get the feedback
> > that the practices do feel engendered.
> >
> > Basically I get comments that the academic discourse is of the
> > -oneupmanship (deliberately engendered) and argumentation that has long
> > favored the dominant narrative. Basically privledged white males excel at
> > this kind of discourse sense they helped to build the system.
> >
> >  This is not something unique to the listserv. It is something as a
> society
> > we need to address.
> >
> > Can technology help? Maybe> I think listserves stink because they work so
> > well. They are truly one of the only federated systems on the web.
> >
> > Their success leads to an amplification and mirroring of discourse
> > practices that exist in both digital and meat spaces.
> >
> > I do wonder if we turned to open source tools like Discourse (an email
> > enabled discussion board) where features could help create a more
> inclusive
> > environment. Specifically there are moderation tools, we can create
> labels,
> > archive discussions, have private chat features....and actually find
> > previous conversations.
> >
> > Just switching platforms will not address the problem.
> >
> > I am  not saying technology isn't value laden but we as actors must be
> > conscience of community we create and curate .
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 11:37 AM Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > 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
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>