It comes back to Biology
Regarding Wednesday’s panel I couldn’t help but be a little frustrated. You all know from my introduction that I’ve never taken a gender studies class or a technology-related class…outside of Mathematica.. so I have a harder time linking concepts together and finding something “deeper” in our discussions. I did have a question for male nurses and women engineers and those occupations who specialize and interact with customers…I wondered if there was any evidence found that shows whether men could only deal with certain kinds of clients and women, others? Maybe this customer separation was based subtly on the technological knowledge of such clients and whether they felt it would be easier for them to convey their opinions on men rather than women or even vice-versa?
My frustration arouse in class when Anne asked why do you think there are such deep gender divisions in many of the groups represented on the panel. I suppose because my mind is more math and science oriented (as Anne knows very well) I couldn’t help but go back to ancient greece and even early humanoid behavior. The ancient greeks hypothesized that we are all composed of various elements but what makes us female or male are those ratios of elements found in our bodies. Our personalities were governed by this theory as well. I wonder if the ancient greeks could add to our conversation and if they did, they would divise a “technological element” that is found in humans and whether they would decide if women or men had higher percentages. Also, I think gender divisions essentially always go back to biology. Women are physically not as fit as men to perform heavy labor but are good at socializing. I’m not trying to be anti-feminist here but just read any anatomy textbook and it’ll tell you the same thing. So, stemming from our early ancestors viewpoints and by their trial and error, they must have realized women are more fragile physically but more relatable sociologically and I think that’s what has governed our stereotypes today. But the aggravative part is that this answer seems so concrete and not deep enough. If this class has taught me anything, it has taught me that our perspectives can always be flipped since they don’t take into account every variable involved. I’ll keep thinking about Anne’s question to dig further but I’d appreciate any feedback from anyone.