Read on Twitter
i wasn’t going to weigh in on this ‘cos it’s truly exhausting. but there are some very troubling responses and non-points in the replies here. especially from young designers, so here’s why what happened the other day is not okay ↓ https://twitter.com/dburka/status/1357018558354587649
1. if you’re someone who is respected for your opinions, someone with a platform, especially with over 10K followers, it’s not your obligation to be right, but is your obligation to be responsible. drawing attention to a homogeneous list of designers is irresponsible.
2. there isn’t a problem with arriving at a list of only male, largely western, largely apple alum designers. the problem lies in the lack of realisation or acknowledgment that this happened so instinctively. the problem is not rectifying it as soon it’s realised.
3. and no, the onus of doing better is not on others who will call you out and make you see what is fairly obvious. it’s your responsibility.
the irony of privilege is that you can’t see it until you’re disadvantaged or you make a conscious choice to SEE.
the irony of privilege is that you can’t see it until you’re disadvantaged or you make a conscious choice to SEE.
4. coming back to the list, it wasn’t a list of personal favourites (which, let’s assume is one’s individual preference), it was a “list of digital designers who have pushed the boundaries of the craft (...) and have shown what’s possible”.
5. what does that even mean? as #designtwitter, we often joke about imposter syndrome, and the subjectivity of design. so, what exactly are we trying to prove with a list of “designers doing great craft work”? what does that even mean?
6. consider this: you’re a woman designer, you taught yourself everything, you created roles that didn’t ever exist, leading/guiding others more experienced than you, constantly hustling and proving your worth through your work. haven’t you “pushed the boundaries of the craft”?
7. back to the list: 1st innovators were largely men, consider why?
• women/poc were actively left out of these spaces; and/or
• their contributions weren’t given as much weight. there are very active patterns in history of this. read: mileva einstein → http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-forgotten-life-of-einsteins-first-wife/
• women/poc were actively left out of these spaces; and/or
• their contributions weren’t given as much weight. there are very active patterns in history of this. read: mileva einstein → http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-forgotten-life-of-einsteins-first-wife/
8. even today (in 2021!), google’s engineering department is under fire for having structures in place that showed “hiring rate differences that disadvantaged female and Asian applicants”. read: http://theverge.com/platform/amp/2021/2/1/22261263/google-pays-3-million-us-department-labor-settlemt-allegations-pay-discrimination
9. in conclusion, you can’t make an arbitrary “best list” because everyone isn’t on the same footing. meritocracy is a fallacy. if you really aspire to be a conscientious designer/human, don’t idolise— empathise.
“Meritocracy represents a vision in which power and privilege would be allocated by individual merit, not by social origins.” — Kwame Anthony Appiah
fin.
fin.
