3 ms·
I'm still not sure I understand your objection. Is it specifically to the phrasing that "gender-associated styles exist"? How about the alternate phrasing of
by jdp23 11y ago
I'm still not sure I understand your objection. Is it specifically to the phrasing that "gender-associated styles exist"?
How about the alternate phrasing of "Patriarchal society has historically associated styles with gender, devalued those styles typically associated with women, and used this as a tool to reinforce patriarchy" ... is that equally objectionable?
- gone35 11y agoSorry I wasn't clear. My objection is to the very idea that 'styles' exist in the first place. I claim that's the primal rift that starts it all. Like saying, e.g., "there are different kinds of human(ity)". Starts innocent, but it opens a dangerous door.
- jdp23 11y agoThanks for the clarification. I agree that the categories we put on "styles" are constructed, but not sure that for me it follows that they don't "exist". For example after I shared this discussion with a friend, we talked about how the "wall of text" of Hacker News' UX was jarring to them and they much preferred a Pinterest-style UX, while I like the information density of HN (and Slashdot, and lobste.rs, and Reddit, and ...). To me it seems like this difference in our preferences certainly exists; and it feels like "style" is an okay word for it. Although of course "style" is usually thought of as generalized, which can be problematic. So, I'll think more about it ... My initial reaction is that like gender (which I also see as constructed) it's still a useful concept, although you have to be careful with it, but like I say, worth pondering.