I meant to post this last week, but here’s the information about Ada Lovelace Day, which is tomorrow!  The idea is post about your female technology heroine and they’re interpreting heroine broadly:

It’s up to you how you interpret the phrase “in technology”. We’re not just interested in hardcore ninja programmers, but any woman who creates, invents, or uses any technology in an innovative way. Feel free to interpret it as widely as you like.

I think, given the themes of this class, that we could interpret gender/female broadly as well.  It’d be great to see some posts tomorrow from some of you.

One of my absolute favorite books from childhood is The Giver by Lois Lowry. Does anyone else see any connections between The Giver and The Handmaid’s Tale?

The society in The Giver appears to be utopian at first, but then gradually appears to be more and more dystopian. Each individual is assigned a job, husbands are matched with wives and only allowed 2 children per family unit: one boy and one girl, to keep the genders even. And the children are produced by girls designated to be “birthmothers” and family units have to “apply” for children. In the society, all emotions are suppressed. Beginning at puberty, everyone takes a pill to suppress any feelings of love or sexuality, called “stirrings”. Essentially, the society strives for “sameness,” which is absent of all violence, sadness, prejudice etc… and consequently, there are no such things as color or music or joy, as well. The main character is given the role as “the giver” who stores all the memories and emotions of the time before “sameness.” In this society, there is also minimal technology- no televisions or radio- except for 2 way microphone/speaker systems for announcements, and surveillance. Transportation is limited to bicycles, although there’s mention of cars and airplanes mainly for the transportation of food.

Even in hypothetical fictional societies which seem to reject the mainstream uses of technology, technology is still very much present. What does that say about the necessity for technology? While people are forced into these strict roles, they themselves are becoming a form of technology (such as the birthmothers in The Giver or the handmaids in The Handmaid’s Tale).

I found some work by photographer Patricia Piccinini while scanning articles for my last paper, and thought some would find it of interest. This (above) is the photo I came across, a 1997 photo from Piccinini’s exhibit Protein Lattice. The photos in this exhibit were of naked women holding the controversial Vacanti Mice– lab mice which were programed to grow a cartilage structure resembling a human ear on their back. Piccinini coments on her work: “I have to admit to feeling a certain sympathy for laboratory rats and for models. Both are pieces of meat. They are organic vessels destined to contain the desires of those who utilise them.” Our beloved Donna Harroway says, “When I first saw Patricia Piccinini’s work a few years ago, I recognized a sister in technoculture, a co-worker committed to taking “naturecultures” seriously without the soporific seductions of a return to Eden or the palpitating frisson of a jeremiad warning of the coming technological Apocalypse.”

There are plenty more interesting essays by and about Piccinini at her site.

also related… is this great southpark episode about the Vacanti mice, but the mice aren’t growing ears on their backs… theyre growing penises. So, as you can imagine, the mice get out of the labs and run rampant, and all the women jump on their chairs screaming, “Eek! A mouse Penis!” because well… penises and mice are equally threatening until someone reminds you, “its more afraid of you than you are of it”.

The week we discussed transgender and gender identity, I had multiple discussions with friends about it, outside of class; especially after the plenary resolution was passed, to make our constitution gender-neutral. The other day, one of the friends I had talked to mentioned a really interesting show on NPR about young children coming out as transgendered so I thought I would share it with you all. 8 year olds discovering their gender identity! Any thoughts?

This was taken from the Valentine’s Day episode of This American Life on NPR (http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1283):

“Act Two. Tom Girls.

Lilly and Thomasina have a lot in common. They’re both 8 years old. And they were both born boys, although it became clear pretty early on that they’d prefer to be girls. There aren’t all that many kids in the world like them, but recently, at a conference in Seattle on transgender parenting, they met. And they immediately hit it off. They could talk about things with each other that they’d never been able to share with other friends back home. And that’s comforting, even if they never see each other after the conference ends. Producer Mary Beth Kirchner tells the story, with production help from Rebecca Weiker. (17 minutes)”

While trying to think of something to post about I went youtube surfing and ended up looking at videos that come up under man makeup/men and makeup. The videos were not as varied as I would have hoped. The videos could generally be broken up into themes:

• makeup tips by/for gay men (visible but not overly much, softer appearances)
• makeup tutorials for asian men (these videos did not seem to indicate that this was anything out of the normal like some of the others did)
• “drag” makeup (male to female as well as female to male) not made for passing
• “Straight” man makeup (extremely subtle and mostly consisting of foundation and moisturizer)
• Goth/emo makeup (exaggerated eyes and large amounts of black, sometimes resulting in an androgynous appearance)
• One video about highlighting your abs that I found amusing

It surprised me that there weren’t more videos similar to the abs video, using makeup to further enhance “masculine” qualities (abs, large muscles, stubble, chest hair) similar to how makeup is often used to enhance more  traditionally “feminine” qualities in women (long eyelashes, red, succulent lips, blushing cheeks). Maybe I’m just not using the right search words. Also, in the videos in which someone other than the models are putting on the makeup the makeup artist is almost always female, reestablishing that this technology is part of the feminine domain, an interesting switch from the male mechanic fixing a woman’s computer/sewing machine/stove etc.

On a side note, the female to male video that i posted above includes a story about discrimination in a gay bar in relation to gay customers which might have resulted from not acting “gay enough”. Thoughts, comments, concerns on that general topic?

I must admit, at first I was a bit skeptical of being able to tie my major (archaeology) into any of the things we’ve been discussing lately. I know we’ve moved in from that somewhat, but it was just frustrating the living daylights out of me. Having finished “The Handmaid’s Tale,” though, I think I finally found something which I can tie in. During our discussion of Metropolis, I thought of the recurring themes in archaeology of the disconnect between workers and elite, and the loss of information on entire classes of people. The head instructs the hands to build these great monuments, but the hands have no idea what they’re actually building. They are being employed as mindless drones without any knowledge of the intended outcome of their work. The hands are also not given any means of representing themselves. When history looks back on the city, the heads will be remembered because they created the monuments and the texts and the things which will be passed on to future generations, but the hands, who have no means of representing themselves, will essentially be forgotten. As you can imagine, this happens with relative frequency in archaeology.

I was incredibly pleased to find these themes were present in “The Handmaid’s Tale” as well. It is implied that the Commanders and the Guardians are the only ones who know what is really going on in Gilead. The Handmaids are employed to reproduce, which is only a small segment of the duties to the state. They know nothing of the higher motives and pursuits of those on power, but are still enlisted to help the mission. They are also largely unnoticed. During the birthing process, the Wives gather and congratulate themselves, adopting the baby right away as if there was never a Handmaid involved. When Offred is given the photo of her daughter, she is surprised that Polaroid cameras still exist and comments that the Handmaids will be invisible in the photographic history of Gilead. Commanders and Wives and children will be remembered, as are ancient kings, philosophers, and scribes. But the Handmaids and the Marthas, the average citizens, have no means of representing themselves in history. If they wished, the rulers of Gilead could pretend they never existed, because there is no historical documentation of them. When you read about the Ancient Near East, you don’t read about the man transporting pots to sell or the woman who grinds wheat all day long. You hear about the elite, who know how and are allowed to read and write. The historical record is woefully incomplete. Without “The Handmaid’s Tale,” what would Gilead look like to us?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgamzhPd4b8

This a clip of Ralph Green a skier in the Paralympics. He was shot and lost his leg.  Later he became involved with skiing. I saw him on CBS Sunday Morning and thought about our first class. I wondered why he didn’t use a bionic leg like the woman model/runner we saw in class. There is also the famous Oscar Pistorius, who has prosthetic legs and fought to be part of the Olympics. If anyone one would like to read more on Oscar there is a great article about whether he is a cyborg or not. I found out a lot about the Paralympics, which both men compete in. It was started after World War II for soldiers with spine injuries. It was first organized in England by Sir Ludwig Guttmann.  It has never had as large a following as the Olympics. I wonder because we have the technology now, why not allow those who want to compete and have bionic ligaments to be in the Olympics?  Why have the abled and disabled segregated if technology can allow them to compete? Is it that cyborgs are scary to some people? Or is it that people are afraid of developing “super-humans” with technology.  While researching bionic legs I came across this great clip of a pair of legs designed by Honda.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsQnq-31nuE

If all this technology helps us…should there be a dividing line between what is necessary or fair? Or should we just accept it as it is? Personally, I think we should not separate the cyborgs from everyone else.

this is a topic worthy of more than a blog post, but all ideas start somewhere.

One of the things that really struck me about Metropolis was the way Robot-Maria moved. Her motions during the dancing scene were very robotic (as well as completely hilarious), but throughout the rest of it, I couldn’t help but be reminded of a snake or lizard. This scene is a pretty good example of what I’m thinking of:

Robot Maria on Youtube (forgive the alternate soundtrack)

The way her head jerks about and her eyes are in constant motion just made me think “reptile.” It was very interesting to me in part because it’s not what we usually think of as robotic. The robot that we see at first, sans Maria-skin, moves more like a robot “should:” upright, deliberate, efficiant. Robot-Maria, on the other hand, is asymmetrical, jerky, and so hunched over that if you tried to imitate her for a day you’d need a chiropractor after. Two thoughts immediately pop into my mind at this:

1. That this technology appears more organic than it does mechanical.

2. That this technology is, despite its appearance, astonishingly different from the orgamisim it was designed to emulate.

This venture into the uncanny valley is somewhat different from what we’re used to. Instead of having, for example, a robot that looks almost but not quite human, we have a robot that looks perfectly human, but behaves nothing like its inspiration. Though the workers in the deep below the metropolis may be fooled by this simulacrum, we the viewers – previously flooded with images of Maria’s calmness, symmetrical expressions, and fluidity of motion – are not convinced, and the robot’s shortcomings are obvious and horrifying.

My questions, then, are: When does technology attempt to mimic nature (naturally-occurring substances or organic life)? Is all technology an imitation of nature? When does technology fall short in its imitations, and when does it produce something more successful (and how would success be defined)? Is just being able to disguise technology as natural enough for some purposes (like in Metropolis)? Definitely enough questions for a paper . . .

One of the first things I noticed when I was reading the Handmaid’s Tale was how descriptive the narrator was of her surroundings from the very beginning. She never failed to mention the color of what she was describing. I was wondering why she went into such detail about every piece of what she was wearing initially, which of course was clear in a bit. Colors signified a lot more than one would imagine.

The main colors – red for handmaids, white for covering the handmaids’ faces, green for the Marthas, black for the Commanders and blue for the Commanders’ wives. Each somehow related to oppression, power and privilege. If we define technology as anything that is man-made, then this division/distinction is technology – the technology of colors. Each color had a very clear connotation that was created by the society. “Everything except the wings around my face is red: the color of blood, which defines us.” (page 8 ) Every time I read a line that mentioned the color of something, I always connected it to its underlying meaning. “I go out into the polished hallway, which has a runner down the center, dusty pink. Like a path through the forest, like a carpet for royalty, it shows me the way.” Dusty pink (close to red) carpets that we associate with special treatment for VIPs had a completely different meaning in the story, and the narrator’s uses a sarcastic tone to show that to us.

What did others think about color and its technology?

I was really fascinated by the scene of the Women’s Salvaging in “Handmaid’s Tale,” and the comments it inspired in the “Historical Notes” section at the end of the book. It is described as

“not only a particularly horrifying and effective way of ridding yourself of subversive elements but that it would also act as a steam valve for the female elements in Gilead. Scapegoats have been notoriously useful throughout history, and it must have been most gratifying for these Handmaids, so rigidly controlled at other times, to be able to tear a man apart with their bare hands every once in a while.”

Those singled out for “particicution” are labelled as rapists, despite the fact that they are generally politically prisoners. It is clear that while the state nominally labels rape as the most heinous crime of all, the fact that Salvagings are used strategically to misdirect the anger of the Handmaidens from their own experiences implies that they realize how violating and deadening “The Ceremony” is (to everyone involved, I do not hesitate to suggest that men involved are being just as violated, for their will has also been stripped by the society, despite the fact that they may have helped to build it.) At another point in the book, Offred remembers a conversation she had with Moira in college:

“What’s your paper on? I just did on on date rape…Date rape, I said. You’re so trendy. It sounds like some kind of dessert. Date rapé.”

I had a hard time figuring out what Atwood was exactly getting at, except to think that she was drawing a parallel between Offred’s previously flippant attitude toward’s her mother’s strident second-wave feminist views on porn etc. and her subsequent sexual slavery. But I also think it’s more complex than that, because obviously Atwood doesn’t think societies which ban pornography and nominally worship femaleness to the point of repression turn out awesome, either.

In any case, what the Salvaging really reminded me of was the witch-hunt aspect of much discourse on sexual violence and exploitation in the mainstream media. Although we don’t engage in state-sponsored public lynchings, extra-judicial punishment is evident in the attitude of shows like “To Catch a Predator” and even some of the actions taken by cops on the show “Law and Order: SVU.” Often, sexual violence on television is shown not through the experiences of victims or through considering the cocktail of sexual politics and gender roles which contribute to the lack of accountability for perpetrators but through a kind of revenge scenario, in which a father/brother/boyfriend/husband takes it upon himself to stage a particictution. Vigilantism of this kind (which I’ve also seen referred to as “country justice” in various news sources) often misdirects anger which could be focused on dealing with systemic issues.

I am mindful of–and bothered by–Nat’s repeated reminders (she’s right!) about our failure to “look more closely at intersections of gender and the gendering of technology with race and class.  The readings and our perspectives (for the most part) are very eurocentric and I think it would be benificial to hear from other perspectives.”

So, see The Downside of Letting Robots Do the Bombing, in the NYTimes this morning, about the psychological and social effects of the U.S.’s using drones (unmanned aerial vehicles) in our strikes on Pakistan:

Even when precise, the drone strikes often kill women and children in militant compounds. When that happens, local Pashtun customs of “badal” obligate their survivors to seek revenge.

Over the weekend I found a clip that reminded me a lot of the Handmaid’s Gilead society but more….current with today’s society. It is titled “Beware of the DogHouse.” Please watch the clip before reading the rest of my post.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SecVCh9dg4I

(Picture from http://marketingtowomenonline.typepad.com/blog/2008/11/jc-penney-helps-men-avoid-the-doghouse.html)

This is a clip done by JC Penny as an advertising gimmick. I think it has a lot of similarities to the Gilead society we’ve been reading. Some key traits I noticed throughout the clip were:

1.) Control – No longer do we see female suppression but male. Unlike Gilead the females have the control over who or who is not in the doghouse. One could compare this to the position the Handmaid’s play. The wife and their own biological clock is the ruler over when they will no longer be “useful” as Handmaiden’s. We also see in the doghouse how the men are subjected to trials. Similar to Gilead when Offred was being trained and the discussion of rape with the one Handmaid. They made he think that the rape was her own fault. Within this clip the all female judging panel replayed the specific incident that made the men be thrown into the Doghouse. One can guess that after repeated viewings of their misbehavior the men just like Offred will be completely different people.

2.) Restriction – Similar to Gilead we find the suppressed individual’s restricted. They are taken out of their old lives and thrusted into a new one. The things they previously took for granted or failed to notice are now a coveted treasure they desperately wish to get back. For Offred this comes in the form of magazines and hand lotion. For the men within this clip it’s home cooked meals, permission to enter the house again and their wife/girlfriend’s love and affection.

3.) Specific Jobs – The men in the doghouse are performing the task of laundry. This is typical thought of as a female role. There immediate drop in status has put them in a place where they must earn back the trust and devotion of their female partner. Showing them doing the laundry lets the viewer know they have less power and shows just how “bad” they have it. Since they must now perform tasks which were not originally assigned to them. The same goes for Offred as she is now solely valued for her reproductive skills. By having a baby the Handmaiden “proves” she is worthy of keeping around as her worth and status with other’s in the household and with other Handmaiden’s goes up. By being constantly raped throughout the book, the viewer sympathizes with Offred and we realize just how bad she has it.

4.) Mentor’s – Upon entry into the doghouse the main character is given a mentor to show him the error of his ways. Offred was also given a mentor to shape her into the person she is today. We can look at the people who made her a Handmaid or the other major female influences in her life such as her mother and her rebellious best friend. These mentors’s are there to help the character understand the new world they have been placed in. In this way the character can assess their place within the society. Notice how the man in the doghouse was neither the worst nor the best example of a man that needed to be in the doghouse? Because of the mentor he was able to establish his position and rank himself accordingly. He needed this information in order to think about what he needed to do in order to get out. The same thought applies to Offred as her position within the house and the specific’s that apply to her (She has a relationship with the Commander, her previous child’s whereabouts’, Nick) make her position drastically different from someone else’s.

It would be interesting to hear what everyone else thought about this clip!

Censorship “looks forward to the day when writers will censor themselves and the censor himself can retire”- J.M. Coetzee

I’ve been thinking about censorship a lot lately for a politics class and a possible internship, so of course it occurs to me that technology, gender, and censorship all interact in The Handmaid’s Tale.

We could look at it several different ways:  censorship is a technology, technology is used to censor, or a lack of technology is a tool for censorship.  All these apply to the book depending on what you mean by “technology.”

For me the most interesting reading ties into what one group was saying about the body on Weds, about how the handmaids are receptive channels for state power.  I think that thought was based on both their sexual function and the blinders they wear, giving them “tunnel vision.”  Structuring the oppression this way makes it bi-directional (!):  the state exerts control over the handmaids in lots of ways, including physical/sexual, clothing them, brainwashing them, taking away their families, money, language, etc.  But even though the handmaids are receptive of the oppression in all these ways, they’re also complicit in its creation because their vision, they way they see or construct their environment, is narrow.
read more…

This article in the most recent issue of Oprah Magazine was brought to my attention by a friend at breakfast this morning. It’s entitled “Why Women Are Leaving Men for Other Women“, the subtitle reads: “Cynthia Nixon did it. Lindsay Lohan’s doing it. TV shows are based on it. Is it our imaginations, or are our wives and girlfriends ditching their men and falling in love with other women?” The article is interesting but also, I find, slightly problematic. The link to the article on the website is particularly troubling to me : She’s So Fine! With team-switching on the rise, Mary A. Fischer gets to the bottom of why women are leaving men for other women

I’ve always disliked the use of phrases like “playing for the other team” and in this case, “team-switching”, with regards to sexuality. Apart from it obviously reinforcing binaries between homo/heterosexuals, I feel like it creates a sense of competition and rivalry, and often feelings of guilt or shame when an individual ‘switches sides’. The article does discuss the fluidity of sexuality, stating scientific studies showing that “it might be more fluid than we thought” and even goes so far as to say that for women in particular, it is the most fluid. I have issues with this because for one, while I think it’s great that the visibility of homosexual women in the media and popular culture is increasing, I don’t think that this article is creating visibility in a context that is actually productive. It positions alternate sexualities in women and ‘switching sides’ as something trendy and once again blurs the lines between the ‘norm’ and the ‘ideal’. Cynthia Nixon and Lindsay Lohan did it so clearly everyone’s doing it, right? Using celebrities, who often read more…

So I went to that talk that I mentioned at the beginning of class on Wednesday, Sound Migrations: Queer Suburban Soundscapes and the FilAm Imaginary, and decided to do a little bit of graphic facilitation! woo! so here is what I came up with:

(click the images for a closer look)

So at first I couldn’t really think of anything particularly relevant to our discussions to ‘report back’. But after mulling over it for a while, I realised that there were actually plenty of connections in what Karen had to say. The main theme behind her presentation was trying to catalogue the queer immigrant suburban experience. She did this by tracing her own experience (as a Filipino American) through the music that she listened/listens to. Her presentation, which she called a ‘sound party’, was a series of musical excerpts and video performances, each one representing some facet or stepping stone to her complex queer Filipino American suburbanite identity. Cool huh? read more…