Mid-Semester Evals
2009 March 2
Because there was some complaining, as we ended the last section, about “crowding @ the board” to do your evaluations, we’re asking you, before you leave for break, to provide a mid-semester evaluation on-line (in the form of a “comment” to this post), letting us all know
1) how you now understand the process of “engendering technology”
2) what you know (=what you’ve gotten)
3) what you do not know/want to know (=what questions do you have?)
4) also any relevant feedback re: what’s working/ what’s not working in the class as a whole.
Thanks!
Anne and Laura
37 Responses
Trackbacks and Pingbacks
- Wrap Up/Not | Gender and Technology Spring 2009
- Gender and Technology intersect in the Southern Hemisphere | Gender and Technology Spring 2009
Comments are closed.
Rebecca, I somewhat agree with you about having a hard time tying the stories together. But I think it’s okay that they don’t all tie together. If there were one neat theory to explain the gender-technology relationship that covered all situations, we probably wouldn’t have much of a class.
As for the issue of how gender writes on technology, I was talking to someone in a conference and we kind of decided that in some cases, when women adopt a technology en masse, that technology becomes feminine, even if it was masculine to begin with. We haven’t really discussed at great length yet whether we think, as some of our earlier articles suggested that technology is masculine, feminine, or neutral. I feel as if we’re trying to make it neutral, but I think in reality, it’s not.
Interesting questions. I hope we continue to work through these in the rest of the class.
1. I guess I now understand that the process of ‘engendering technology’ is not something that is black and white. Even though something may seem absolutely feminine, ie romance novels, there can be a ‘hidden’ masculine side that is really only apparent if you look for it. It would seem that technology doesn’t really have a set gender, rather it floats somewhere in the middle of the two poles.
2. Honestly, this course is acting as sort of a Thesis 101 for me – allowing me to play with potential ideas and see different sides of my possible argument. I have gotten a lot out of it in terms of exploring the different gendered aspects of the romance novel and how it ties into gender roles and technology. In addition to this, I’ve gotten a better understanding of gender studies and how the ‘gender binary’ really seems to be all in our heads in some aspects, and in others is very concrete.
3. At this point, I really don’t have any questions… I’m very content to just explore the different areas of gender and technology and see what comes up.
4. The panels seem to be a good idea, but with such a huge class it is really hard to say everything I want to say. The blog helps, but sometimes I get back to my room and completely forget what I want to say, or I feel that the moment has passed and my comment is completely out of context. I guess we could try to make smaller panel groups? Maybe cut the class into quarters instead of thirds…
1. I used to think engendering technology was an oxymoron. How can an inanimate system of wires and electricity be given something so “human” as a gender? I’ve actually thought about this topic alot and thinking about the meaning of the term, “engendering technology” helped me to write my second paper on individuals in fact inscribing themselves on a technology such as DNA. Then again we look at computers and just see boxes of hardware but computers come in blue, pink and even green…giving them somewhat of a character that is meant to attract a certain gender. What I understand as engendering technology I’ve learned through the panels, especially the individual panel encompassing fictional characters. The “cyborgs” and space figures each demonstrated how their respective technologies allow them to be of a gender or to manipulate gender. It’s quite an eye-opening topic.
2. I do know now that there is a duality between gender and technology that I didn’t think existed before taking this class. Gender affects technology and technology in turn leaves its mark on gender. I’ve also noticed that people will not tend toward a certain trend. The panels especially showed that people’s fascination lie far beyond my own views and opinions and that I wasn’t as open-minded about gender before taking this class as I thought I was.
3. I would like to know the underlying basis behind calling objects such as cars, ipods and computers a certain pronoun, whether it be him, her or even it.
4. I thought the panels wored really well. I think having conversations with each other is the best way to handle such an engrossing topic. I also lied having visitors speak to the class. I think it really adds that “outside” element to the conversation that we want to have. I think at the end of each class we should a kind of “wrap up.” We talk about a lot of different things that seem to have overlapping themes. It would be nice to tie to them all in together and refresh our understanding of what we’re trying to explore.
Well, I personally very much enjoyed the blackboard crowding process, but I’ll do my best with this anyways.
1) how you now understand the process of “engendering technology”
“Engendering technology” means so much more to me now than it did at the beginning of the class. I have a much better sense of the reciprocal relationship between gender and technology and the wide definitions that can be used for both of these terms. Although I have generally thought of technology as gender-neutral in its essence, when forced to consider the technologies of makeup and the historical context of these technologies I have a little more to question and consider.
2) what you know (=what you’ve gotten)
I’ve learned to further expand my gender and sexuality studies to include other axes beyond just female and female-oppressive ideas. Ever since my first feminist theory class I was always trying to think around all of the theories, which mostly ended up just thinking of other axes and considerations such as race, men, economic classes, countries, and in this class even beyond humans. I really enjoyed broadening my knowledge and information on intersexual, transsexual, and transgendered individuals as well. I love messing with categories and now I have even more information at my disposal.
3) what you do not know/want to know (=what questions do you have?)
I want to know a better way of inputting primates in a discussion, though I don’t think that that will be addressed in this course. 🙂 I’m really looking forward to the gaming portion and the discussions of all the new material. Looking at Cat’s post, I agree that it would be cool to look into the logic behind giving objects gender whether it be historical and language-related or simply arbitrary.
4) also any relevant feedback re: what’s working/ what’s not working in the class as a whole.
While I enjoyed the panels, after a while sitting in the audience got boring. I wonder if there is a better way of guiding or organizing them so that the questions and themes apply to an equal distribution of the presenters. Maybe assigning a topic ahead of time for each panel and then asking people to choose people/characters might help focus the discussions. Otherwise, I do miss the blackboard rush and the post-it-notes like I said before. I think that just looking at the resulting opinions in all of the colors on the board is its own important learning process. We often discuss theory and other people’s views, but very rarely do we see the views of our peers. I feel like we are our greatest resource, and as long as no one abuses the process by stalking each person as they go up to the board, then it would be nice to have open discussions on controversial and confusing topics. I also really like the new to do list link. This will make my life so much easier.
1) When I first thought of engendering technology, I thought of the societal assignment of a particular piece of technology to a particular gender (i.e. stoves for women, grills for men). Now, I’m also coming to terms with the seemingly primal urge of humans to assign the technology a gender as well. I thought this was particularly well reflected in the online debate over Wall-E and how we decided which was male and which was female, even thought it was never stated that either robot had any gender to begin with.
2) The main thing I’ve come to realize in this class is that it seems there is no aspect of human society which can escape the confines of gender. In our instinctive need to categorize and label, we’ve put everything into neat little boxes that we are only recently realizing are not one size fits all. I thought there might be something which has escaped, but thanks to the panels, a huge range of gender/technology has been covered and nothing has emerged yet.
3) I’m really interested in the historical forces and events which drive the changes we are seeing in gender and technology. I know that it’s only in the last 20 years that gynecology has stopped being a man’s field and has opened up again to women, but I want to know *why* it happened then. What sets off these changes? People? Politics? War? I see the what but not the why.
4) While I think the panels were a really interesting way of delving into a wide range of perspectives, I miss the small group discussions from the beginning of the course. I think that we get so caught up in acting the part or proving our panel group’s point that we sort of neglect the questions we came in to answer. I’m looking forward to the next segment of this course (especially since Metropolis is one of my fav films of all time), but I guess I was a little struck by the homogeneity of the choices. It’s certainly going to broaden my horizons in terms of genre. I also really liked our post-it note extravaganza. I’m a very visual learner, so things like charts and color groupings are extremely helpful for me. So, I vote more post-it notes!
I had to write my evaluation as a post in order to put in an original diagram. I apologize for any inconvenience.
1) I now think about the relationship between gender and technology as a cycle, with each element influencing the next. I don’t think about technology as separate from gender, or as gender separate from technology. I don’t think about people in non-traditional technological fields for their gender as somehow anomalous, but as people performing gender differently and giving new meaning to some technological practice. Not only are we gendered by technology, but our need for categories genders the particular technologies we use.
2) I know that technology does not automatically equal computers, or research science, or industrial machines. Technology is a framework through which the world in general can be constructed, and re-constructed. I know that gender is not simply biological, or psychological, or social, it is a combination of many things and a result of active participation in its performance.
3) I’m really interested in the intersection of online life and “real life,” which is not something we’ve discussed yet but will probably be discussed at length when we do readings on online identity etc. Why is gender so important on the internet, when you can’t see anyone? How is gender transmitted and performed online?
4) The panels were sometimes fun, and sometimes slightly unhelpful. I think the stories made class more interesting, but it was often hard to figure out what exactly we were learning from them. I’m excited to read more outside material and see what we can learn from that.
1) how you now understand the process of “engendering technology”
My understanding of “engendering technology” is that our society has placed a “gender” on some technologies and professions based on who (which gender prominently and historically) uses them. This can be messed with with people breaking gender norms and such. In general i think that these days technologies can be associated with a gender using them, but i think that the technology its self is genderless.
2) what you know (=what you’ve gotten)
I know that i understand how technology can gender us more then i can believe that technology has been actually gendered.
3) what you do not know/want to know (=what questions do you have?)
I am looking forward to reading the novel and graphic novel as well as watching the videos and discussing them. I am also looking forward to the part of the class about gender on the internet in the realm of gaming and online personals (aka secondlife)
4) also any relevant feedback re: what’s working/ what’s not working in the class as a whole.
The first panel was fun, i really enjoyed embodying a person, but the second round i didn’t like as much. I liked it also when we did discussions in small groups. I’m looking forward to changing directions again and looking into different stuff.
1) I think before this, I’d never really thought about how gender leaves its mark on technology. I’ve thought a lot about how technology affects gender, about how it lets us change the way we represent our gender. It makes sense though, that technology also sometimes carries the same gender implications that are found in the rest of society. As to how technology is engendered, I think it happens whenever a technology is strongly associated with gender, either because it only tends to be used by one gender, or when it can be interpreted as having characteristics that are inherently masculine or feminine.
2) I’ve been thinking about gender’s impact on technology, which I’d never done before, so I think thats mostly what I got.
3) I don’t think I have any specific questions at the moment… I’m just looking forward to whats next.
4) I really liked the panels, I thought it was easier to have conversations, and see the links between things that were more concrete. It would have been nice if the panels were smaller though, so there could have been more discussion apart from everyone having to introduce themselves. One thing that seems like it might be interesting to do is have two smaller panels, and let people decide which one to go to. Of course, that would create a whole new set of issues, but. And the to-do list is really helpful, because I could never remember when I was supposed to do what.
1)I think perhaps technology could in theory, be neutral because both men and women can (in theory) use it. However I believe that society is what gives technology its gender and thus maybe technology has a sort of pseudo-gender, based on what society deems it worthy of. This then leads to different genders being familiar with different technologies, and when these technologies are grouped together to form careers and communities and what not, then the stereotypes soon follow.
2)I’ve realized that many things can be considered technology, not simply computers or things produced via math and science. Plus, I’ve realized that I do indeed fall into one (see: multiple) of the gendered stereotypes that stem from engendering technology and that this fact is not the end of the world.
3) What I don’t know is HOW can we stop society from assigning gender to technology? Or perhaps, do we really want technology to be 100% neutral?
4) Maybe we should go back to talking in small groups for a week or two after spring break? I’m only suggesting this, because how hard it was to talk in the second panel since our class is so large, so maybe it’ll be a little bit of a relief to speak more within small groups before reconvening into a large class to piece together our ideas.
I have thoroughly been enjoying this class.
I’m especially grateful to Laura and you all, for what you’ve been teaching me, both technologically and pedagogically speaking. I’ve been especially pleased w/ the liveliness and interactivity of the blog, both among us and with the larger world (as figured by images, videos and posts-by-visitors…).
I realize that the large size of the class makes some of you feel overwhelmed or silenced, or left behind as we go off in directions that aren’t your own/your preference. But I very much like the energy of the large group, and the surety that something interesting will arise, in the course of any given hour-and-a-half, without my having to generate or script it (as I often feel I have to do in smaller classes….)
I do have some (new) thoughts, for the classes ahead of us, about balancing large and small group discussions, drawing both on your various expertises and your ability to select who you’ll work w/-and-on. I’ve been especially struck by (and would hope we can find ways of responding to) Cat’s hope for end-of-class summaries (“where have we gone? what have we learned?”) and Guinevere’s (complimentary) hope for a naming of possible “real-life” applications for the work we have done.
Not unrelatedly: the final session of the by-now-infamous conference on “Re-thinking Sex” was on pedagogy–interestingly, and symptomatically, replaying once again a utopian/dystopic couplet that echoed throughout the sessions, as we learned that “fantasies of pedagogy are always disappointing.” We were told that “the best thing we can do is teach ignorance” (what do you think of that idea??). And we were asked whether teaching is “a practice of friendship (is friendship possible?) or of solidarity.”
So: more food for your thinking!
1. How I understand “engendering technology”: Now that I think about it, the WALL-E thread with Ruth, Solomon, and the Doctor’s comments switched my mental gears from thinking that technology genders us to thinking about how we project our genders onto technology. I first thought, all the gender stereotypes in WALL-E are bad because the movie re-teaches traditional gender roles. But I realized that these originate from our need to ‘read’ the genders we have onto technologically made characters in order to make sense of them as human-like. As Roisin wrote above: our need for categories genders the technology we use. Gendering happens ‘bidirectionally’ between people and technology; this is a word from this course that I like and will probably use from now on.
2. What I’ve learned: I learned a lot about intersex people that I didn’t even know I didn’t know. I realize that I used to think about intersex as something unfortunate that happened to a very small number of people. Now after reading this website and watching the movie, I see that there are lots of different kinds of intersexuality, it’s actually pretty common, and that it’s one more kind of diversity, not than a ‘defect’–at least, it would be this way if we could get rid of the idea that intersex people need to be ‘fixed.’ I also learned (through reading the theory, websites, and hearing about different people/groups on the panels), as Cat said, that people are thinking about and discovering things I never would have considered, and I wasn’t as open-minded as I thought I was either. Bugchasers are defintely one example; also Donna Haraway’s cyborgs.
3. Questions? : I wrote on the board last time, something like, Can we or anyone come up with a system of labels that work for everyone? I think the answer is no, but then I’m still wondering how we can best use labels, or if it’s better or possible to abolish them. When we say labels do we really mean ‘language’ in general?
4. Comments: I liked the panels in that we heard from everyone, and I like the blog for that reason, too. I don’t know how you could do a class this big effectively without a blog. Even when I have “more pressing” things to do, I find myself checking it often because people have interesting things to say…
The smaller group discussions at the beginning were helpful, I hope we can get back to those soon. What didn’t work so well this part of the semester was choosing the movie/books for this next part, and I think Anne was right when she said it wasn’t an “emergent” process since we couldn’t see what others were thinking–that was frustrating to me, but just a technical fluke. I also do appreciate the chance to give input on what we read, but I also like to read new things, and I can’t be the best judge of whether something is worth covering in class or not if I haven’t read it myself. But, for that reason, thanks for making the executive decision to read The Handmaid’s Tale, I think that will be a great discussion.
1) the process of “engendering technology” was easier for me to start to understand through the panels. it seems to me that it’s sort of a cycle, we gender certain technologies while other technologies gender us based on the gender we’ve associated with them…it feels like one large circle – one really ridiculous and convoluted circle. its difficult to think about a technology that is without a gender…possibly because we’re so obsessed with the gender binary.
2) i’ve come to understand more about the intersection of gender and technology. it’s somewhat of a symbiotic relationship – we need technologies to be gendered and we technologies to help gendered ourselves – whether it be the use of the technology to directly affect our genders (cosmetic surgery perhaps?) or the way technologies use us as gendered individuals (Playboy and the like).
3) questions? hmm – i feel like i always have questions running through my head but right now – i’m hard pressed to think of anything.
4) i really enjoyed the panels in the last couple of weeks. i have some difficulties with theory (as i’m sure many of you know at this point) but being able to put theory into context that i understood and had (more or less) direct connections to was really helpful.
1) how you now understand the process of “engendering technology”
I think of the process in two ways now. The first is building technology AROUND ideas of gender, and the second is building ideas of gender INTO technology. This first notion is something I spoke of in my original post on internet pornography. Technology is built based on perceived ideas of gender, in that case male sexuality. The second is more like what Rebecca wrote about in her more recent paper about AI, where artificial intelligence may necessarily contain gender, either because we deliberately build it in to make the intelligence appear more human, or because we are unable to create that technology without unconsciously building
2) what you know (=what you’ve gotten)
I think I’ve learned a lot about the things I’ve mentioned above, and their distinctions. Before, I hadn’t really thought at all about how we build gender into technology; I’d only thought about gender STEERING technology.
3) what you do not know/want to know (=what questions do you have?)
Right now, the big question in my mind is regarding the internet. Since I’m thinking about engendering technology, it’s interesting to think about a tool which was probably mostly conceived of and developed by male minds, but that now has countless contributors both male and female. This may turn itself into a blog post at some point . . .
4) also any relevant feedback re: what’s working/ what’s not working in the class as a whole.
So far, things seem to be working well. The panels were interesting, though to some degree I almost even want to get back into theory. It was really interesting seeing where discussing gender and technology had gotten others before us. Right now, though, I have only positive things to say about the class.
1) “Engendering technology” is really the way that we as a society treat some technologies as masculine or feminine. We begin to think of some technologies as inherently masculine or as inherently feminine from the way that we use them and how they are used. Technology is built and artificial, there is nothing that would indicate a gender in any form of technology at its most basic level. However it is the people who use some form of technology over the other, the way in which those people speak about those technologies, and how those same people perceive the way those technologies are used that leads to an abstract notion of how they are gendered.
2) I think that I’ve learned to analyze the way I use technology and how gendered technologies affect me and how I treat those technologies to avoid being gendered. Before I would go through my daily routine without much thought on the technologies I use and how those technologies gender me. For example, I am very vain about my hair, though it is cut short in a man’s style. And I always have to try to make it look good by using products and brushing it. On the other hand, I don’t wear make-up because it makes me feel too girly. I guess what I am trying to say is that technologies and the way in which they are gendered is always going to affect us, even if we don’t realize how/when.
3) As of right now I cannot think of any questions. But I’ll try to think of some and post them later.
4) The panels were a lot of fun, though I am glad that we are all going to be studying the same materials as a class again. I think the broadening of our gender and technology class with the panels was necessary, but it is healthy to focus on specific materials. I am so excited for the second half of this semester!
1) how you now understand the process of “engendering technology”
It’s part of a larger process whereby social ideas lead to the gendering of technology in (often) stereotypical ways, which then leads to further social steretypes (a technology of gender) which then feeds back into the social ideas about gender again.
2) what you know (=what you’ve gotten)
There are lots of ways to gender technology and it’s often entertwined with making gender “technologized”. For instance, the magazine images of women who’s faces have been altered: that is giving a gender to technology (if we consider the magazine as a technology that’s been gendered by putting a woman’s face on it) but also technologizing gender (making the women appear different/technologized rather than how they actually look…. oh the cyborg comes again!). Also, it’s often easier to think of examples where gender has been technologized rather than the other way. Finally, the technology of gender changes over time. For instance, with the panels, there were different expectations for the gender of a certain profession at different times (for instance, there used to be a number of male nurses and now there are few).
3) what you do not know/want to know (=what questions do you have?)
What are other ways that technology becomes gendered? Where is it most obvious (because often for me it was somewhat subtle)? Why/how do gender expectations change over time? How is knowing about how technology is gendered useful to other applications?
4) also any relevant feedback re: what’s working/ what’s not working in the class as a whole.
The panel discussions for me were a mixed bag. While it was sometimes aggravating not being able to talk during class (at least for the first few panels; this laxed up a bit afterwords which I appreciated), there was something that I thought was really, really great about the panel discussions: they provided a space for some people to talk, who hadn’t talked much at all before the panels. And I found that some of these people, who hadn’t said anything before, had some really interesting things to say!! I think it really opened up the class a bit for some people.
From my own personal experience, there were pros and cons. When I presented as Bhutto, I felt a bit put-on-the-spot, like you have to remember all these random facts about yourself. However, presenting about the pro-feminist men was interesting and I felt more able to express my own feelings (wasn’t as fixed into being a single person — Bhutto). I also found it was fun learning in a more detailed way on my own about a particular group that I was interested in.
1. Engendering technology: a process that assigns technology to a gender and a gender to technology; a dualist, societal construction of the influence of technology on gender and vice versa
2. I’ve learned that there are ways to form gender identities from technology and form technologies from gender; however technologies/gender is fluid and can change over time.
3. I wish I knew why some technologies are gendered and why some gender identities are “technologized.” How does technology create a gender identity for Playmates? Or how is technology, such as circuit design masculinized?
4. The panels are interesting, but I wish I had a background on who we represented. Some of the individuals/groups were unknown to me. They were useful applications of theory to “real life.” Suggestion: Let’s watch movies!
1) how you now understand the process of “engendering technology”
I don’t think that engendering technology is a very straightforward relationship between gender and technology. It is more like a cycle, like Roisin mentioned in her comment. Society does not only assign a gender to a certain technology (like video games is considered masculine) but also stereotype certain technologies for certain genders.
2) what you know (=what you’ve gotten)
I have become more aware of the relationship and intersection of gender and technology. Also, I mostly thought about gender’s effect on technology and hadn’t thought too much about technology’s effect on gender.
3) what you do not know/want to know (=what questions do you have?)
Do we want gender to be completely gender-neutral? What are some some good sides of having labels, if any?
4) also any relevant feedback re: what’s working/ what’s not working in the class as a whole.
I have mixed feelings about the panels. While it was eye-opening and we got a wide variety of information, it was sometimes difficult to keep track of what every one was representing. I think it would have been great if we spent fewer classes on the panel – maybe 3 instead of 6 classes.
For the discussion classes, I think I would like to have a general discussion as a whole class with the professors giving an overall summary and/or answering questions (since some of the readings can be difficult to follow) and then split into smaller groups of maybe 6 to 8.
1) Technology is necessarily gendered. I’m beginning to believe gender is something that can not be gotten rid of (and I also question if the absence of gender in its entirety would be a good thing). However, I do NOT think technology needs to be gendered, but rather than it is an inevitable outcome of the state of the world today.
2) While I’m starting to believe that I don’t actually know much of anything for certain, I can say that this course has allowed me to explore a lot of topics I never would have thought to think about before. My two main areas of research throughout the semester have been: technology as an extension of humanity and representations of women in the techno-media. A third sub-topic of research has also been developing outside of my posts for class (with the exception of my first web-paper) and that is the technology of sex. Specifically, I’ve learned that I have many misconceptions about the sex/porn industry. (Thanks Laura for the book recommendation . . . crazy stuff)
3) To be honest, I want to know the answers. TO EVERYTHING. But that’s not really useful, so I guess what I really want is to delve deeper into the gaming aspect of the course. It should fit in nicely with my research on women in the techno-media. I have a lot of questions about the gaming industry’s lack of competence.
4) I’ve been having a lot of problems with reconciling the way this course is set up with my other online activities. I think I’ve solved these problems for the most part, but it’s a bit difficult for me to deal with my virtual reality and reality so closely tied together. I’m just putting this out there to see if anyone else is having these issues.
1.Social norms and beliefs assign a certain gender to a certain technology and vice-versa. The usage of any type of technology affects the way our peers perceive us in within this stereotypical bubble we live in, where a baby girl playing around with a toy as simple as a machine gun constitutes as acting ‘masculine.’
2.Technology and gender have been forced to merge together since the absence of such a merger will lead to complete annihilation of the human race (I’ve been reading Watchmen, so excuse me for being so intense). Myriad forms of technology such as cosmetics enhance our beautiful or ‘not so beautiful’ bodily features. I felt this class did boost my knowledge of gender, that everything is not all black and white. As Hannah mentions in her post, I was also not aware of the existence of the numerous intersex people within our communities. With the advent of new technological breakthroughs, all sorts of surgeries are being carried out to allow these intersex individuals to transition themselves within society, which believes they need to be ‘fixed.’
3.Why do we need to adopt technology into every aspect of our lives to somehow make it more fulfilling? Does nature not have any role to play within our thought processes? Technology did overtake our perceptions to a large extent. Will it one day overtake our bodies as well? Why is it so biased?
4.The panels did not work out to my liking. People were too busy introducing themselves, less time was allocated on how the characters adjusted and lived within the world of technology. I also want the class to focus on more films, instead of textual contents.
(I’m so sorry this is late, I’ve just got access to the internet at this moment, so my paper will be up ASAP)
1) Goodness… engendering technology. Well, unfortunately it really depends upon the context and what type of technology one is referring to. According to some of our classes we really discuss technology in a bunch of different chunks, such as makeup, transgender issues, hormone therapy, household implements, and destruction. Having so many different standards makes it hard to define technology (which in and of itself with no reference to specific pieces of the genre sounds rather neutral to me).
2) I think I’ve learned quite a lot from this class. I thought that I was going to be a lot more judgmental than I ended up being. It has definitely given me the time to think some more regarding technology and gender. I enjoy the relaxed atmosphere of class and the way that everyone can have an opinion, but still respect others as they talk. In terms of gender and technology, I have had my definition of technology expanded a bit and the affirmation of gender as a label rather than a being. To explain further, there is this idea that we are our gender, aka “I am a man” or “I am a woman” or “I am transgender” and other similar statements. What I think I got from this class is the idea that there are male people, female people and transgender people. In essence, gender is an adjective not a noun.
3) I’ve always been fascinated by the role of science-fiction in gender and technology. Perhaps we could explore more of that? I believe studying pertinent issues through items meant to be fun and humorous can often be fun. I realize some people might say analysis of something takes away the humor of it, but I think that this is incorrect in regards to myself at least. I quite enjoy the aspect of taking something apart to put it back together. “Just because you know how it was done, does not mean it isn’t magic” (totally forget who said that, and if anyone else knows then I’ll bring them homemade peppermint candy). I think it’s especially fun to apply theory to fun things. For example, Star Wars: Princess Leia, she’s a BAMF, a babe, and was only nineteen at the filming of the show, what does that mean? The movie Pocahontas: lead role of Pocahontas, she is only sixteen in RL and looks eighteen so there were no sex scenes for reasons of not getting sued for corruption and prostitution of a minor, what does that say about our society that we have to hire underaged actors to act the part, but not LOOK the part? Also, I was wondering why we don’t have any stories about male to female transgendered people. Why is there a greater number of stories out there about female to male transgendered stories?
4) I really like how the class is amorphous and always developing itself, much like the concepts we are exploring in the class. I think I concur with most of the sentiments regarding the panels, so I’m not going to re-hash it to death. But, um… see above for my love paragraph to sci-fi and research… 😛
Actually, Baibh, there are lots and lots of MtoF stories; see, for starters, My Right Self; the many essays by Susan Stryker, by Kate Bornstein and by Sandy Stone; and the several books of Jenny Boylan.
awesome ^_^ I’m glad to know about it… when I need a break from thesis writing I’ll take a look!
process/learned: What I seem to keep coming back to in this class is the idea of interconnectedness. One thing never seems to _cause_ one other thing, but thing a influences thing b which then in turn influences thing a and creates thing c both of which continue to influence thing b all at the same time! (eg. industrialism and sex roles ~1840).
Also, it seems to me that the more dichotomous we (people in general? americans?) make issues, the harder it makes some people’s lives to deal with the lack of dichotomoy in “real life”. In an attempt to simplify life for understanding (is that good or bad? are you a feminist [or not]? are you a person of color [or not]? is it a boy or a girl? is that a machine or a robot? human or animal? human or machine?) we make life more complicated for those who do not fit squarely inside the dichotomous realms (some good points and some bad points, supports equal pay for equal work, but not abortion because generally more girls get ‘discarded’ than boys etc, biracial, intersex, cyborg, …). Perhaps our (again questionable who this is) mistake is that we think we can or should be able to fully understand life and that it will make sense and then we will know what to do and why. Maybe that’s why I always liked the ultimate answer as 42 – because it addresses the complexity of life. I think I’m getting off topic…
questions:
What _really_ is the effect of testosterone and estrogen on the human body? How can we test this effectively given current standards (or lack thereof) of science? (I’m thinking of the biology books that explain [scientifically] the (human) fertilization process in language that completely reflects the sex norms at the time of publication.
comments: I like board work! Maybe we could meet in smaller groups and post as a group (for crowd control). Also, I think [I would like] in general more students talking and less professors talking.
Okay, I’m clueless: what does it “mean” that “the ultimate answer is 42″?
And while I’m here….I’ve been wanting for a while to respond to Rebecca’s saying (in the very first comment in this sequence of mid-semester evaluations) that it’s harder to work from the bottom up. I agree–but disagree that we weren’t able, collectively, to do that work very well. I think lots of theory emerged from our panels about the influence (not to mention “resistance” and “opposition”) that gendered subjects have had–and continue to have–on techno-expansion and techno-structures. I think we saw lots of ways in which the extensive use of various technologies by female-bodied and male-bodied persons could have the effect of countering prescribed practices and planned patterns of distribution. I think we didn’t just pay attention to women, but to larger structures–ideologies, really–of gender. I think we saw how technology works as both an intellectual construct and a cultural practice, a narrative production that is insistently contextual and always changing.
And now I’m ready to move on to representation!
1)My understanding of the process of “engendering technology” is that societies themselves place their ideas about gender onto technology. We have explored a lot of this in class, such as women truck drivers and the use of makeup.
2) I know that gender definitions are complicated, and that everyone’s persective is different. I also know that certain technologies have become gender, because society has labeled them in that way. I feel I have learned a lot about what we take for granted when it comes to the intersection of gender and technology.
3)I still have questions about why gender and technology often seem divided. When the two have come together it seems to have been in recent years. I want to know why. I also want to know about more societies outside of the U.S. Is it the same for them?
4) I liked the panels, but I think the second one was a little more vague. I feel like it was hard for people to represent an entire group. I have really enjoyed the exercise with the colorful post its. I would like to do other ones where we come up to the blackboard or answer some questions.
1. The process goes both ways. Some technologies are associated with either gender, but gender is also associated with certain technologies. I think it is a social construct – technologies don’t need to have a gender and both genders have the skills to use all types of technology, so neither needs to be limited to a group.
2. The intersection of gender and technology is deeper than I thought. Both gender and technology affect each other in multiple ways. There are more areas of gray than I had thought about before.
3. I’m still trying to get closer to the answer I posed before: is everything a type of technology?
4. The panels were interesting and informative – both listening to what people had to say and researching the person/group I had chosen to represent. However, as many people have said, they were too big and we weren’t able to absorb everyone’s persona. I liked the smaller group discussions and then going back into a big group like we did in the beginning of the semester. The To Do list is very helpful!
Sorry this is late!
1) how you now understand the process of “engendering technology”
I think I would have had a much simpler answer to this before taking this class. That word “engendering” is apt because it both means “making” and “ascribing a gender to.” I understood before that a lot of gender distinctiongs are pretty arbitrary, but from the panels and other work, I’ve gotten more of a sense of the complex history and social factors which contributed to the gendering of various technologies. I also think I now understand technology as something which can be both limiting and empowering to the individual; I think it’s useful to consider whether someone is being used by technology or is using technology.
2) what you know (=what you’ve gotten)
I know how inadequate my understanding is! I guess that’s a good thing- I see technology now as something whose importance is determined by its human use, but also see that importance as effecting the people using it. I’m getting a sense of a reciprocal relationship, but there’s a lot more to learn.
3) what you do not know/want to know (=what questions do you have?)
I’m curious about learning more about technology and gender in other cultures and times. I’ve also been wondering about the operational definition of technology we’re using; it’s really different from the definition most people use in everyday speech today, but I like how it’s more open. How can you get at a definition of something like “technology” – should you use the dictionary or go by how people use it?
4) also any relevant feedback re: what’s working/ what’s not working in the class as a whole.
I thought there were too many panels, and while I learned a lot from them, I felt like I could only get an overview of what each person wanted to say. I liked the combination of small group discussion/whole class discussion- it helped me feel less anonymous in the class, but then also allowed us to have a cross-class dialogue.
1) Engendering technology: The first thing that comes to mind when I read this phrase is the concept of the cyborg. From what I understand of this concept, it is a being that represents an acknowledged fusion of technology and nature. That said, I think engendering technology would mean something like assigning a particular gender to a particular technology, which would make that engendered technology somewhat cyborgian, in that it is part technology and part gender, which is something that is presumably human, though after some of the readings we’ve done in this class, I’d hesitate to call gender “natural.” Like gender, I think a lot of the readings and discussions of this class have shown me that the engendering of technology is a result of a lot of suppositions and assumptions piled on top of one another to the point where presumption is taken for fact. For example, I thought until very recently that it was a scientific fact that women were hard-wired to be inferior in math and science to men. It’s scary how off-track a lot of people’s information is.
2) What I’ve gotten: I’ve gotten a lot of my preconceived ideas about gender deconstructed. Same goes for technology in relation to gender. I think one of the most jarring things I’ve picked up on from this class is the statement that gender is a technology. There are of course many other things I’ve learned, but this phrase is I think the most important to me.
3) What I don’t get: I’m still having trouble understanding some of the theory we read, I think my understanding them better would help me write papers that are more targeted toward deeper and more interesting topics. I know the time for reading theory has pretty much passed, but I think connecting some of the ideas we discuss in class with ideas from theory we’ve read would help me understand. I kind of feel like my papers thus far have been kind of superficial and I’m not doing justice to the depth of the topics we discuss, and I think my lack of confidence concerning the theory is a big part of that.
4) Other relevant feedback: None! Good class.
The process of engendering technology for me is the understanding that technology can and will be gendered. If the basic concept of technology is roughly a tool that can to make a person’s life better. Then “engendering technology” is nothing more than society imposing gender restrictions of certain aspects of technology to suit the gender notions that exist today. As society changes its ideas about gender so too will the gendering of technology change. For instance, now in society we are seeing a shift within technology as more and more technology becomes “female friendly.”
I know now that gender is a multilayered subject that is different for everyone. Gender can be a concept, a representation, an idea, or even a way of thinking. There is no “right” way to think about gender because every individual has the power to define and construct their own gender as well as impose and influence the gender of others. In this way of thinking people can see that gender by itself is not as important as what people do with it, regardless if it is their own or someone else’s.
I would like to understand the implications of gendering anything that does not have a clear sex, for instance, the historical male obsession with cars. Are there any long term ramifications on the female sex (Positive or negative) when men look upon cars as women. The ideas that come to mind such as possessing a car, showing it off, and taking care of the car (Maintenance) come to my mind. Are these concepts of an inanimate gendered object placed subconsciously towards the female sex as a whole? Also, now in 2009 can we see any reversal affects with females naming inanimate objects?
I like when we refer to the blog postings that other people have written in class. Not everyone is good at being “put on the spot” and I feel referring to the blogs helps other people notice an interesting concept that they may have missed. I think it also gives the person who wrote the blog topic a change to express their personal interests within technology. We have such a large class that when a lot of people post it sometimes becomes another assignment all together to read everyone’s posts. Maybe it would be a good idea for any volunteers to take five minutes after “class keepings” and speak a little about a blog topic they are passionate about.
1) how you now understand the process of “engendering technology”
I now see engendering technology as a double entendre. On the one hand, engendering technology is technology that has the power to engender; the directional link between man and technology is blurred, and technology is given a sort of agency that is beyond man– we’ve created a monster. On the other hand, engendering technology is the process of creating specific technologies “made for” a specific gender. From the child’s toy to the sex toy, technology is designed with he or she in mind.
2) what you know (=what you’ve gotten)
I’ve gotten curious, I’ve gotten enlightened, I’ve gotten angry, and I’ve gotten stuck. There is so much to be said about the role that gender and technology play in our society, both in their own ways and as intersecting phenomena, but I’m stubbornly fixated on believing that we cannot step back from our society and find the true origins from which the issues with gender and technology originate. If we can’t see the origins, can we fix the problems? There is something inherently human about needing to categorize, needing to enhance, and needing to prioritize — it is from these buds that gender and technology bloom.
3) what you do not know/want to know (=what questions do you have?)
I came to this class with the question, “So What?” This has now been answered many times over, but has evolved into, “What now?” How do we use this newly acquired knowledge in an efficient way? Much less, how do we use this knowledge at all? Technology has proven that its effect on an individual’s physical appearance can be beneficial to that person, but can promote the gender roles that required that person to change their physical appearance in the first place. Using technology to change one’s persona is often about acceptance and self-affirmation. In what ways can technology positively impact gay and trans men and women who’s reason for being shunned from society is not something PHYSICAL?
4) also any relevant feedback re: what’s working/ what’s not working in the class as a whole.
I feel that this blog is a great means of communication, but is at times overwhelming. There’s no way I can read everything that passes through the homepage, “show more….” button activated or not. Nonetheless, I am glad that I even get to share and absorb and what I do of my fellow classmates, because somehow, this 30+ class is one of the most intimate and reflective classes I’ve ever been a part of.
I personally have been struggling with the structure of the paper assignments. I don’t feel that I’ve written a successful paper yet, because of 1) the vague nature of the assignments, and 2) the loaded nature of the content squished in such a small space. In a class on ‘Sex and Violence in the Cinema’, I had a similar problem, and what was helpful was for the professor to provide a list of suggested paper topics/questions to explore, along with the option to create your own. I think I write much more successful blog posts because they are usually on a very specific topic or a specific and powerful instance. Obviously the paper assignments provide the general topic to write on and suggest choosing something specific and tailored to your interest to expand on, but with the infinite number of possibilities this class allows for, I feel like I just don’t know where to begin.
1) Firstly that engendering technology isn’t just about gender or technology. People’s attempts to engender technology are driven by various factors, factors that include intersections with race, class, culture and geography. The intentions behind engendering technology can be attempts to empower but can also end up being restraining. Perhaps most importantly, just as convoluted society constructs gender, it also chooses to gender technology… and everything else for that matter. But then again everything else also seems to be part of some kind of technology… except nature. But we gender nature a lot of the time too. I guess we just like to put labels on things. Does it make life easier? Some of the time, sure. But things always seem to get much more complicated when they don’t fit our predetermined categories.
2) In a class I took last semester about gender, the nation and diaspora, I was constantly frustrated because I felt like much of the reading and discussing that we were doing kept revolving around the same topics and problems, one large one being the dichotomous nature of well, everything. She had made the assertion that it is impossible to exist outside these binaries no matter how much you challenged them from within. One day, in total despair, I remember asking my professor “if these problematic binaries are ever-present and even your challenging of them doesn’t change them then what’s the point?”. She then told me that there as value in talking about things and challenging discourses. I was not satisfied. But I think that this class and its initial introduction to the ‘never-ending conversation’ going on in the parlor made me realize the value of engaging in discourses that challenge traditional dichotomies. And that it’s ok to ask questions that nobody seems to have the answer too, and to keep re-asking them. I’ve also learnt that nothing can ever be fully understood. There are always questions to ask.
3) I would like to look more closely at intersections of gender and the gendering of technology with race and class. I feel like we often glaze over or overlook those aspects, particularly in relation to gender identity. The readings and our perspectives (for the most part) are very eurocentric and I think it would be benificial to hear from other perspectives.
4) I really like the fact that this class has students from so many different disciplines and I think the idea to utilize those different perspectives with the disciplinary groups was an excellent one. I would agree with Roldine though and would love to see the groups be mixed with different perspectives. I also really enjoy the way our paper assignments are structured (or not). I’m used to being given specific questions or themes to choose from and I think it’s very liberating to be able to write on topics of my own choosing. I also think that it really makes me think more and challenge my own ideas, as well as the general ones brought up in class.
When i think of engendering technology, i think of the handmaids in The Handmaid’s Tale who become a birthing technology, clearly female. Engendering technology… like embodying technology with a gender or vice versa. Another example would be cyborgs. It’s the intersection between gender and humanity, and technology or something constructed and used for a purpose.
The panels were definitely a useful way of learning about how different jobs, historical figures, and even fictional characters relate gender to technology. It’s interesting to look at gender stereotypes among certain jobs like nurses and secretaries, and it a good reminder that jobs can’t be generalized by gender. Also, I always thought of Barbie as being a terrible influence to young girls- contributing to eating disorders for example- and I didn’t think about how the original idea of Barbie was meant to be empowering. I’ve learned how expansive the definition and application of technology is and how technologies can construct and de-construct gender. There are so many intersections between gender and technology that we’ve talked about, that my head constantly feels like it’s spinning and it’s hard to form coherent thoughts about what I know.
I want to know how the continuous development of technology (especially modern technology like the internet) affects our personal lives, having to do with gender (i.e. relationships and gender identity). Also is everything technology? And I also want to address cultural differences that arise, with different forms of technology and different notions of gender.
I enjoy having smaller group discussions because there’s just more opportunity for people to talk and discuss and then bring it into the larger class setting.
I profusely apologize for the late reply and if my post seems repetitive after the others.
1) How you now understand the process of “engendering technology”
“Engendering technology” seems to me the process of assigning a particular gender to a particular piece of technology, with the gender mostly being masculine or feminine. This ‘gender assignment’ usually depends on which gender uses the technology most often or whether the technology looks ‘more suited’ to a particular gender. E.g. a baking oven is feminine while a pneumatic drill is masculine. However, the lines become blurred with certain technologies. E.g. cars can be either masculine or feminine depending on the styling of the car.
2) What you know (=what you’ve gotten from the class)
I like that, while we have our discussions in class, I see all the different perspectives of an argument that enable me to make the difficult decision of what my stance is on the particular subject in question. More importantly, this class has taught me that nothing can be labeled, nothing is clear cut, nothing is black and white. Society, in its attempt to make distinctions so that it would be easier for us to identify / make sense of things, created labels that unfortunately did not fit everyone. Anyone who did not fit the labels was deemed unusual, something that couldn’t be understood. We are breaking out of that mindset but it seems a slow process.
3) what you do not know/want to know (=what questions do you have?)
I can’t think of any particular questions right now. I’d like to see where all these discussions lead to.
4) also any relevant feedback re: what’s working/ what’s not working in the class as a whole.
As I said before, I do enjoy having group discussions, whether the groups are large or small, as it’s always interesting to have different viewpoints and compare and contrast them. I also enjoyed the panels where the panelists were facing the rest of the class – it was easier for us then to see all the panelists’ faces and to have a two-way conversation between the panelists and audience as opposed to just among the panelists.
1) I’ve come to realize that technology becomes gendered as a result of the societal constraints and ideological views of a people. In American society, technology became gendered because of which technologies were in common use by which gender. Therefore, we have computers, televisions, etc. as more masculine technologies and kitchen appliances are feminized. As a result of the engendering of technology, and the dominance of the male gender in regards to technology, we have an interesting “other-ing” effect on women who are affiliated with technology. I believe that is the reason for the sexualization of the female cyborg; because for so many people, women and technology are two separate things, and therefore the union of the two is exotic.
2) What I’ve gotten: everything is a continuum. There are no absolutes, and there are never only two possibilities. “Sex” is M/F, the one we circle on official documents, but “gender” is so much more than that. It’s the person, the identity, to which you ascribe. Also, everything is a technology when viewed through the right lense.
3) Any questions I have (i.e. What impacts do the engendering of technology have on modern women in gaming, etc?) will likely be answered in the last section of our class. Although, one question, that’s really more of a problem we’re facing, is now that we know, and understand these things, how do we deal/confront bigots in the world? How can we address these issues in modern society?
4) I LOVE the small discussion sessions where we wrap up conclusions at the end of class. I also enjoyed the panels for something different, but I’m not sure if it would work for the next session discussion.