Mary Kirk, the author of Gender and Information Technology: Moving Beyond
Access to Co-Create Global Partnership, just directed us to this review of her book.
Something to keep in mind as we move towards the last section of the course,
and your next set of papers, upcoming..
The story of Gilead to me was comparable to the daunting stories of war I hear from friends overseas in Iraq: It seems like it takes years to get there, and once you do everything is just as it isn’t … or shouldn’t… you stare in disbelief, and are soon ready to get the hell out. Although you’ve experienced the tale, it’s still just a story that’s been told—the society is so far removed from your own, that despite the vivid, haunting images and merciless violence, you can’t even begin to imagine living in it.
It is unfortunate that the stories I hear about Iraq are very much non-fiction, but are unfathomable nonetheless.
In fiction books that construct one possible future dystopia, I feel they have much more of a “threatening” impression if they maintain an essence of applicability to current society. This isn’t to assume that all books of this sort are implying that our society is in the process of spiraling downward toward a hellish parallel of current times, but I like to assume that many of them are implying something. The parts of A Handmaid’s Tale that I absolutely loved were those that illustrated the few remaining ties between our and Offred’s society. Offred commenting that Moira was of interest because she “defied fashion as usual” with her short hair and overalls was awesome. The handmaids’ wings (blinders?) were a reminder of the fact that society sees women as innately social—you need external constraints to control this, and even then, we’ll find a way around it. Zing!
These lovely reminders of our own, gendered society in the society of Gilead are inevitable. It is nearly impossible to write a book… or communicate at all… without your own, socially implanted biases shining through. Despite the fact that this book is about a society far in the future and vastly distinct from our own, the parallels to present times, intentional or otherwise, is what makes it accessible. “Caught in the act, sinfully scrabbling”!? Genius.
These reminders are also a bittersweet reality check concerning the pervasiveness of gender stereotypes—they survived a nuclear war. Like fucking cockroaches.
Initially, I thought this book was almost too mechanical. It seemed to be missing so much of what we call “human nature”, particularly in the ceremony scene, which lacked all the passion, domination and allure of good ol’ sex. References to human nature and current society are both necessary and sufficient ingredients of a great fiction book; without them, it may as well be written in the sand. I could see current society seeping out between the lines, but where was human nature? Where was that evolutionary, animalistic driving force that society is run by and runs from? And then I realized, it was on every page, cover to cover. This book is about unremitting repression—something is perpetually being repressed.
Last Sunday, right before I got back from spring break, I visited the Museum of Natural History in New York with my sister. I hadn’t been there since I was a toddler and it was fun to catch up on the exhibits (the dinosaurs are breathtaking!). Nicole and I are just walking around the North American mammals section (which is ironic for what I’m about to say) and we saw a mother with two twins, one boy and one girl. She had the boy strapped to one of those “child leashes” that have become so popular nowadays but her daughter was just holding her hand next to her. I know the two children were twins and of the same age since she gave a hint when she spoke to her husband. So why does her son get to wear the collar and not the daughter? I watched the little boy closely and he had the overactive tendency to touch things and puch through people to press his face up against the glass of the cases. The little girl was just as active as the boy but she seemed to show a little restraint. She of course was running around to look but she never touched or bumped into people to get a better view. What I found most intriguing was that the woman’s son seemed to always come to back to his mother after he saw what he wanted to see. Whether it was because of the leash, I don’t know but it seemed that he was also consciously looking to mae sure his mother was in plain sight. The girl on the other hand, didn’t even look back. In fact, the mother spent more time calling out for her and catching up with her and the leash seemed to be on the wrong child. I’m against these “ropes” completely but it was interesting to watch the gender and technology dynamics at play. The technology of the leash did seem to be upholding the gender stereotype of male children being more rambunctious and thus needing to be restrained while female children are more fragile and passive. In this case, it seemed the little girl was more reckless than her brother, not caring where her family was at any given point in time. BY the way, these observations occurred over the course of maybe 10 minutes, the time it takes to get through one of the rooms in the exhibit. I was not deliberately stalking these children (!).
The leash also made me have this sense of a freedom disparity. The boy seemed to have very little freedom and was on a short leash (literally) but he didn’t seem to mind since I suppose he was used to wanting to be near his mother anyway. The girl on the other hand, had all the freedom in the museum and would probably have walked out without a care if her mother wasn’t calling her name every two minutes. It’s interesting to see this switch in gender stereotypes as well that stem from this technology of the leash. Girls usually want to be in close proximity to their mothers and her kept protected from such predators as “boys.” That girl did not want to have anything to do with her mother, even when she wasn’t interested in the display she was standing in front of. In contrast, boys are suppose to have this disconnect and individuality to them that gives them an independent character. It was fascinating to see this boy on a leash…and liking it.
So, like, if I start typing with this bubbly tone, I’m so sure I’m not going to be taken for an academic.
I was browsing the web when I came upon some of this interesting stuff on DeviantArt (a staple of my futzing around life). The picture Condition X by raza-d is indicative of an odd technological construct that I think ties in to the idea that robots from the Movie Metropolis are “uncanny”. (As well as hitting on “Uncanny Valley” that we mentioned in class when discussing Melanie’s picture of a Gender Neutral Utopia.
Also a Fashion Week article in the NY times references “A Handmaid’s Tale”. Not sure if they’re trying to be “intellectual” or actually saying something here.
Additionally, there’s this: Like A Boy which I almost forgot about. It’s Ciara! I was wondering what everyone else thought about the technology of clothing and the idea that it was sufficient enough (or not) to transform Ciara into “a guy”. It makes me wonder if there are any videos in which a male ballerina is lifted by a female ballerina or something like it.
OK, enough blather, see y’all on monday ^_^
hi all, just posting to inform people of a talk/q&a session (hosted by SGA) that will be held tonight with Jessica Valenti. Here’s the info:
She will be speaking in Dalton 300 at 7:30 pm with a question & answer session after.
Founder and executive editor of Feministing , author of “He’s a Stud and She’s a Slut and 49 Other Double Standards Every Woman Should Know,” “Full Frontal Feminism,” “Yes Means Yes,” and the just released “Purity Myth” — Valenti will be speaking on her work online, young feminism, and her most recent book.
For more information on Jessica Valenti and her work go to;
Jessica’s bio at Feministing.com:
http://www.feministing.com/jessica.html
Jessica on the Colbert Report : http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=88092
Or read the introduction to “The Purity Myth”: http://www.feministing.com/purity_intro.pdf
On another note. This is not really relevant in any way but… did anyone else hear the news about Natasha Richardson’s death yesterday? She played Offred in the 1990 film version of The Handmaid’s Tale.
With our broad definition of technology in mind, I’m beginning to see technology everywhere. While rereading The Handmaid’s Tale, I am becoming exceedingly frustrated with the paradoxical role of technology in the novel. I will save the larger discussion of this topic to the final paper and will focus this post on how the handmaids/their bodies can be seen as technology.
Already on page 16, we have our first reference to a handmaid being doll-like: “They used to have dolls, for little girls, that would talk if you pulled a string at the back; I thought I was sounding like that, voice of a monotone, voice of a doll.” Then, on page 43, referring to her twin, Ofglen: “Without a word she swivels, as if she’s voice-activated, as if she’s on little oiled wheels, as if she’s on top of a music box.” In this two quotations, we understand these women to be doll-like; the former is acting out a scripted role while the latter is physically mimicking the movements of a toy (the quotation is a little cyborgian, no?).
read more…
Okay, so, I’m now regretting my promise to Cat, that Laura and I will provide “wrap ups” for each class, tying all the overlapping together and refreshing our understanding of what we’re trying to explore…
As interim, and promise, here are my notes from today. I realize that’s not what Cat was asking for (or what I was intending). By Monday, I promise, some sort of “summation” forthcoming; in the interim, enjoy the program written by some of the comp sci majors….
Notes from our first day’s discussion of The Handmaid’s Tale
On the technology of clothing→
read more…
So initially, the first time I read Handmaid’s tale, for the first couple chapters I though her name was Off-red instead of Of-fred. I kept thinking Atwood named her Off-red to show that the protagonist didn’t adhere to the new constraints placed on her in Gilead, that really she was more than the color and position assigned to her. Obviously once another handmaid was introduced I had an ah-ha moment of embarrassing clarity, but I still can’t help but like my original reading of her name.
This is one of the things I was thinking about in class today when we were discussing clothing.
I’m not sure if I’ll be able to capture this all that accurately, so please feel free to add corrections and/or additions in the comments.
There were several different threads and they all certainly speak to the movie and give us something to think about, but it’s hard to weave them together into something coherent. There was, however, quite a bit of conversation around relationships between things and between people. What is the relationship between the mind and the hand? What is the relationship between the classes, between the genders, between the father and the son, between the watchers and the watched, between human and machine? It seems that these relationships could not be entirely pinned down. The math majors offered us 3 different equation-like analyses of the relationship between the mind and the hand that seemed typical of many of the conversations.
From a social commentary perspective, there was conversation around change/revolution and whether the film advocated these kinds of changes or whether change was ultimately impossible. We talked about this more at the end in discussion of violent vs. non-violent protest.
Interestingly, there were a few discussions that focused on the film as visual representation apart from any discussion of either relationships or social commentary. Not that those representations weren’t themselves a form of commentary on social conditions, but some groups were simply struck by the representation itself. As one group pointed out, there was a tension between the spectacle and the plot at times and they were wondering what that meant. Of course, those spectacles and representations forced us to see relationship a certain way. For example, one group noted the way robot Maria was figured as a goddess primarily through one of the most spectacular scenes in the move where she performs for the “masters”.
aalch has an interesting post up that I think asks the questions we were wrestling with in class on Monday, the idea that the film sets up all these contrasts, or oppositional relationships as I’ve discussed them here, that it doesn’t entirely resolve. If the heart is the = sign between the head and the hand, what the heck does that mean? Did change happen or not? Is it an equal sign or a > sign? Are humans ultimately more important, more valued than technology? One could say that by getting rid of the robot, the film says they are, but it also seems that the workers are going back to their machines. One doesn’t know if their conditions will change. The film leaves this an open question, which leaves me wondering whether it’s really a Marxist critique of capitalism at all.
Technology and sexuality, continued…
Am still having some trouble w/ the del.icio.us bookmarkleting option.
Until further progress, see “The Pleasure Principle” for an account of
technologically (would you call this technological?) assisted female orgasm.
Let’s all think back to the individual panels, so long ago.
Maddie came to class dressed as The Terminator. In her post following her panel, “Some math,” Maddie asks if being gendered male is about subtracting female traits and proposes that the natural gender is male much like the natural sex (without any hormonal changes to a fetus) is female. She makes a good point, because all she had to do to look more masculine was simply not shower, remove nail polish, and dress more simply. To be female she has to “add” more clothes, more accessories, etc.
But I have to disagree with the idea that there is a natural gender. To be male Maddie had to find clothes and add them on, she had to find a new “masculine” persona and add that on, and I almost remember her voice as deeper that day… though it was so long ago I might be making that up. At any rate, even though femininity in Western culture asks that we add and add and add to create a female appearance, the same is asked of men (though in a different, less obvious way). Men are asked to subtract any signs of femininity when they are boys (e.g. no crying, playing active games over social games, avoiding certain feminine colors at all costs) and when they grow into adulthood a homophobic patriarchal culture asks them to subtract anything else such as clothes, hairstyles, accessories, attitudes, and emotions that might make them lose their manhood.
I felt she made a fine example of The Terminator, but perhaps this College Humor video will make the gender appearance of the The Terminator make much more sense. I found it on YouTube like ten minutes ago… and it is the true reason why I created this post:D
From drudgery to toolkit…and still few women
Report from this morning’s NYTimes: computer science programs are making a comeback. Their reputation has morphed–no longer a site for drudgework, but “increasingly seen as a toolkit for pursuing a number of modern careers.” Read, however, to the end of the article. Despite “amazing increases in enrollment,” “diversity in computer science programs continued to remain poor. For example, the fraction of bachelor’s degrees awarded to women remained steady at 11.8 percent in 2008.”
The dance scene in Metropolis really made me think of Gustav Kimt’s paintings of women. The way she moves, her clothing, and the background all look like a Klimt paintng brought to life. He was a German Expressionist, so perhaps, it is just the Art Deco style that reminds me of him. Also, I know he liked to deal with primitive symbols, which fits in with the subterranian world in the film. It seems to me that the gaze (from the men and the audience) at this highly decorated woman is a natural human function. Although the men are wearing tuxedos, we (the audience) are taken to a primitive moment. I think this scene can be juxtaposed with the catacomb scenes, where we see neo-Christian elements. My question is how much of the film expresses religion’s (Christianity) role during this time?
Here are some Klimt paintings to compare with the dance clip.
Here is the clip:
The clip is from youtube and the pictures are from http://www.gustavklimtcollection.com/
I want to build a little more off of what Eva (sp?) said in class today.
Metropolis seemed to set up or suggest a lot of dichotomies, for example above and below ground, head and hand(s), ladylike and unladylike behavior, human and robot, good and evil, etc. The moral (stated at least three times) of the movie was that the head and the hand(s) need a mediator. I am not really sure how this was supposed to work. Was the mediator another thing? Was the mediator a head and a hand? Or, what seems more plausible from the movie, was the mediator a relationship between the head and the hand? (Thinking in terms of math (category theory in particular) – head and hands are objects and mediator is a morphism).
Supposing this is the case, that the mediator relates the head and hands together – why were the other dichotomies not similarly resolved with appropriate relationships? Were they, and I just missed it? Why this particular dichotomy?
Over the break, I did some baking. In the last few years we have begun to replace our old cookware with new silicone products. I really noticed the amount we have now in our kitchen at home. I went online to try to find out more about why baking technology has gone into the silicone field. I found very little, but I think it might be cheaper to make. Anyway, Wipedia’s page on silicone shows its multiple uses. I wonder how far it will go? Will silicone cover almost everything we use in the future? It already covers our cell phones, keyboards, and toys. Plus, it has a place most parts of the house. Is this a technology that could unite gender or cause it to be more divided? I am not sure it will have any affect on gender. I think it will have more of an affect on the typically gendered space, where it is used. Here is a picture of some cookware I found on google:
Also here is the Wikipedia site in case anyone is curious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicone
