In theory in these posts can be split.
In researching Survivor episodes for Wednesday’s panel, I’ve been watching tv online which means I’ve seen some of the same ads about 30 times. There’s one that keeps bugging me and I want to know if you’ve seen it and have had similar thoughts.
NB: I can’t find it on the web anywhere unless I’m in the middle of an episode. Sorry, I can’t post it here. Hope you may have seen it.
It’s for Sprint’s 3G Family Plan and the announcer is saying something along the lines of “this plan let’s your family use their phones the way they want.” This is spoken over video of a family enjoying some time at the Natural History Museum in New York. We pan from young boy looking at the display to mom pointing out something to her husband who has his arm around her to pre-teen girl doing something on her phone and not even looking up at the display. The text overlaid on the screen when we pan to the girl says “Unlimited 3G Web Surfing” and then fades to “Unlimited Text Messaging.”
My gut reaction is “why are you even at the museum if you’re going to sit there and surf or text?” And then I think “Wow, Sprint thought this was a positive message to send? That girls don’t like museums, they’d rather use their phones to ‘connect’ with their friends or anything but their families?” It just seems so strange to me that Sprint’s idyllic image of family members being able to use their phones however and where ever they please is a pre-teen girl ignoring her family and their obvious effort to spend time together.
This whole thing also reminds me of those new PC ads where they have 4 1/2 and 7 yr old girls using PCs. At the end, each says “I’m a PC and I’m 4 and 1/2.” My first thought is always “Brainwashing!!!” I’ll admit that I’m a Mac, but I really don’t have any personal vendetta against PCs, so I feel comfortable asserting that my reaction isn’t too subject to my personal preference. Watch the commercial, you’ll see what I mean.
Overheard today at a GameStop (a mother and her son about age 6):
Son: Mommy, why would a girl ever play video games?
Mother: Because they have the WiiFit out now. So they can play too.
Now, this is offensive on a couple of levels. Firstly, it’s perpetuating the stereotype that girls can’t/don’t play video games AND that they are insecure about their body, thus the need to excercise. Secondly, the fact that a mother, of all people, would be encouraging such thoughts. And finally, as my roommate (an avid gamer) noted, it’s offensive to her because it essentially dismisses an entire aspect of her life.
I suppose my reasons for relating this are a genuine desire to know WHY ideas like this get perpetuated throughout THIS day and age. How likely is it that we’ll be able to find a common ground, or some level of equality between the genders?
All I can say is, with this recent experience, I’m looking forward to our “modern connections” section of this course…
Hello again folks! So I will be representing non-human primates as a primatologist tomorrow in class. I’m not quite sure how well I will fit in with the general discussion and the other presenters on the panel tomorrow, but I will do my best to add my input. I thought that it would be nice to represent a non-humanoid portion of the world. I took Sid Perloe’s Primate Origins class at Haverford last semester, so hopefully I can remember some interesting tidbits.This post will be a bit disjointed since I still need to find all of my documents from the class, but I can give a general overview of some things that might be important and/or interesting in a gender and technology class.
- Some people use our primate “cousins” to try to prove points about the essential nature of humans. I would argue that generalizing beyond the species in question (for example, from chimpanzees or bonobos to humans) is a very dangerous endeavor. In every situation and species there are a million factors that add together to create specific behaviors and tendencies. Also, although chimpanzees may be our closest relatives and are often researched with that in mind, this is because the current scientific theory is that they are the most similar to our common ancestor, a chimpanzee-like primate. Evolution, time, place, culture, and convenience, among many other factors, stand between us and chimpanzees. Therefore, one must be very careful in how you apply primate research, such as the article mentioned by Laura earlier on gender-typical toy use, to the basic nature of humans.
- Primates differ considerably between different species in dominance, and roles. Baboons are male dominated. Hamadryas baboon troops consist of single male units in which one male dominates over multiple females. Savannah baboon troops are male dominated, but both males and females mate promiscuosly. In gorillas, the mothers take care of the infants. In some Tamarin species, the father is the primary caretaker and the female is dominant.
- I can’t say much to the difference between sex and gender in primates, since they are animals and we cannot tell what they think. We can project stereotypical ideas of gender, sex, and sexuality onto them, assuming that definitive groups can be made from the female/male dichotomy of which we are so fond. I know that some primates that have been observed could classify as homosexual or gender-queer under our definitions.
- As for technology, some primates make use of simple tools like sticks and rocks for distinct purposes such as escape, filtering, and food extraction. Although these new uses are often forgotten easily after the inventive member passes on, some primates pass on their knowledge to further generations. These practices pull into question our definition of technology once more. Is it human oriented? Does it have to be a complex mechanism?
Basically, as I said, I’m hopeful that I this knowledge can be helpful in some way and I would like to fill in some of the blanks in the class and bring in a new realm of gender and technology to consider both in regards to primates and our projections on non-humans.
For the panel tomorrow, I have chosen to “study” feminist blogs and bloggers. I have been a reader of Feministing for well over a year now, and I have learned a lot about what it means to be a feminist, and to be a more informed and critical “consumer” of my own culture. I have also become more aware of issues that affect women in other parts of the world, and have expanded my view of what feminism is, and of what it means for people in other cultures.
There are multiple authors who contribute to the main Feministing site (nine women in their 20’s and early 30’s who identify with different cultures, different sexual orientations, etc.), and they all bring their various interests and viewpoints into the discussion. Recently, Feministing also added a community section to their site, allowing pretty much anyone to post about topics related to feminism. The authors often pull out community posts and feature them on the main part of the site, giving bloggers the chance to have their voices heard by an even wider audience and to engage in discussion about their thoughts.
Feministing describes its mission statement on the website as follows: “Young women are rarely given the opportunity to speak on their own behalf on issues that affect their lives and futures. Feministing provides a platform for us to comment, analyze, influence and connect.” I like the idea of creating a space where feminists (the audience is mainly women, though I have seen a few men post before) can convene and share their thoughts, work, etc. and have it be recognized and celebrated. I also find it interesting to see the ways in which Feministing authors, as well as community members, place importance on both the personal and political, and show that the two are often not so far removed from one another.
But of course, there are numerous feminist blogs out there – Feministing is just the one I have chosen to peruse on a regular basis. Feministing has a huge list of links to other feminist blogs (http://www.feministing.com/links.html#blogs), and I am sure there are even more that aren’t linked. Another that I have looked at on occasion is Jezebel (http://jezebel.com/index.php) which has more of a celebrity/fashion focus. There is also Feministe (http://www.feministe.us/blog/), and a blog I just discovered today but wish I had found earlier called Finally Feminism 101 (http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/). Feel free to comment with any others that you guys might enjoy reading!
As I look at these blogs, I am thinking about who the authors are, what they are aiming to do with their blogs, and essentially, how the technology of blogging has been used by feminists (and women specifically) to reach and inform their audience. I am also curious to think about the place of blogging in the feminist movement, and about how technology is being used to alter the way feminism is understood by our “technophilic” generation. I am thinking about some of the questions that Anne posed in her “head’s up” blog post, especially the ones toward the end of the list, such as how technology has allowed this group to “restore” something that has been taken, and about how social networking plays into the use of this technology. I suppose we’ll see what kinds of working answers I have by class tomorrow!
So when trying to find a group for this panel i thought it would be interesting to look into a group of Native Americans and how the gender roles of the group inter-played with the technologies of the group. I picked the Abenaki (also known as the Wabanaki, as well as many other names) because I am part Native American and am unsure as to which group I’m related to and there is a good chance it might be the Abenaki or the Mohawks. I chose the Abenaki because they are from the Northeast, specifically Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, as am I. I thought they would have developed some interesting technologies to survive in the often harsh climates and not incredibly fertile land of Northern New England and Canada.
Any way, while doing the research for this group i realized there wasn’t much out there about the group before the English french settlers came, except for work done by this one anthropologist, who is an Abenaki, Frederick Matthew Wiesman. He starts his book Reclaiming The Ancestors by talking about how the Abenaki have been considered “dumb” in comparison to other groups of Native Americans (specifically the Iraqoui). They were considered “dumb” because they “were not” as technologically advanced as the Iraqoui and that any technology they did have came from the Iraqoui. Weisman’s goal is to rectify this by looking at new archeological data and retelling the story of the Abenaki and how in fact they were extremely technologically advanced. He proposes an amazing theory that he supports with a lot of data about their ability to do it and it’s usefulness for explaining an interesting mitochondrial DNA anomaly. He proposes that the Wabanaki had the ability to travel across the Atlantic in the gulf stream and reach Europe, in small trips, well before Europeans made it to America.
I feel this reclaiming of the Wabanaki’s story and capabilities is important to this class because of the importance of technology and how a group’s, (a kin’s) use of it defines what people think of them, in modern times. Because they were a relatively small and dispersed group of people their achievements have been over looked and thusly this group has almost been treated in a similar fashion as women and technology (either women who develop it or use it). They have been marginalized and considered incapable of developing technologies, when in fact they were quite technologically advanced. Also i think it is really interesting that technology, (the creation of and use of) is being used to divided up groups of Native Americans much like it is used in dividing up genders. And how by being tied with a certain group there are preconceived ideas of your technological skill.
Something else i have found while doing this research is that while there were specific gender roles, the men hunted and fished, and the women kept house and made things, they as a whole decided things together (like if they were going to go to war) and there was a mutual respect for the powers of each gender.
Sorry my thoughts are alittle all over the place, i’m still working through many of them as i read more and more. I would love to hear anyone’s thoughts on this stuff.
My lingering question from class on wed. was in response to someone saying “men treat men, women treat women”. (my apologies– I’m not sure if this was the male nurse group or the women healers) I wanted to know if the expert on male nurses saw any connection, if at all between the field of male nurses and male gynecologists.
I thought it was interesting that in individuals’ name cards, comments, and in Anne’s graphic diagram, sex and gender were used exchangeably. Male nurses, female phone operators, women healers, female operatives and women truck drivers… is there a difference between professions that are male or female dominated vs. men or women dominated? I could understand the argument that women-dominated jobs are those which are more social: phone-operators (social) vs. truck driver (I assume less social). This, however, would stem from the frequently made assumption that “women are more social beings”, but I’m not sure if this is a socially constructed belief or not…. are females the more social being or are women? I’m pretty sure sex and gender are often seen as one in the same, and are only distinguised when biology comes into play, so its very possible that this is just a case of over-analysis.
it was also interesting when we started talking about women being “trapped” in a profession. I’m guessing this was refering to women socially being trapped in a profession, but I thought it was funny (see:ironic) that the female (woman…) truck driver spoke about women literally being trapped… in their trucks.
more over-analytical philosiphizing to come…. stay tuned.
A little more about Administrative Assistants
I just wanted to post a little more about the group that I represented on Wednesday’s panel.
With the invention of the typewriter in the 1880’s, more women began to enter the secretarial field, though what I found interesting about this was that in order to make the typewriter become more “comfortable” for women to use, flowers were printed on the casing of the some of the earlier models. This then lead to the image of the “typewriter girl”
Another thing I noticed was that both interviews with male administrative assistants that I read mentioned the idea of the “lesser” tasks that secretaries were sometimes given, like getting the coffee. What I found interesting was that one man said that out of the group of secretaries in the office (he was the lone male) he was the only one that was sent to get the coffee or to get lunch for the office because: “No one thinks a man is going to be as good a secretary as a woman, so [he’s] usually the second choice to give the difficult job to.”
On the other hand, in the other interview, the man actually complained about the opposite effect: he was never sent to get the coffee, instead he was usually asked to fix things around the office that were broken. I find it interesting that we’re dealing with two different assumptions here, one where the male secretary is being treated as if he’s “under qualified” while the other one is being treated as if he’s “overqualified” and yet they both have the same effect of isolating the male secretary. As I mentioned in class, one of the men (the one that had to get the coffee) complained that none of the women wanted to talk to him; they already told he didn’t belong, that “he could do better.” Which brings up another disturbing fact in my mind, that some of these women don’t think they can do “any better”.
Also, when I was reading up on the International Association of Administrative Professionals, which was formally known as the National Secretaries Association and the Professional Secretaries international, I read that that the organization’s then-president Mary Barret and C. King Woodbridge, president of Dictaphone Corporation created a “Secretary’s Recognition Day” in order to acknowledge the hard work of “the women in the office.” Again, men were excluded from this holiday, or if they were included it was already established for women in the first place. Later the whole event was renamed to “Administrative Professionals Week” partially to drive out the notion that the term “secretary” refers only to women; however, in my opinion, I think the damage has already been done.
I’ve haven’t been a ‘long time’ Survivor fan, but I have been watching for the past couple years (since TV became my favorite de-stressing activity). The new season just started and I’ve begun noticing many striking differences between the roles taken on by men and women on the tribes. I have always been aware of the physical differences in performance during challenges and when paired up or teamed up against each other, the show’s producers ensure an equal number of men and women on each team.
Since taking this class, however, I’ve seen the more subtle differences in gender roles back at camp and in how the contestants relate to one another. For example, in last week’s episode, one tribe won fishing gear at a reward challenge. Back at camp, a male cattle rancher and his friend, a male corporate consultant, bonded over using their new fishing gear. I immediately realized that I’d rarely or really never seen female contestants using fishing gear on the show.
I’ve been re-watching key episodes to see how tribes react to the introduction of new technology (fire, fishing gear, etc). I’ve seen occasional glimpses of women fishing in the background, but the main story line tends to revolve around men using it. I need to do more research to see who’s using fire and who’s doing the cooking around camp. I’ll have that prepared for the panel on Wednesday.
Tangents, found on the [transgender ——– atomic aliens] spectrum
This was originally a comment in response to Anne’s comment on my paper, One Small Step for Trans, One Giant Eek for Mankind but I began going off on a few tangents about technology and atomic aliens, and figured I make it a more accessible post.
Anne, you commented, —
“What I think I see you doing is making a distinction between the usefulness of surgical technologies on the individual level, and the problematics of their larger, social effect”
Yes– this is my argument, and I apologize that this was not better articulated.
In class, we did make the claim that “we are all transgender”, however I have to respectfully disagree with this. As a class, we are able to admit that we do not and cannot always be a perfect fit to one gender or another; we cross gender lines daily, both consciously and unconsciously. However I feel that to say we are all transgender undermines the portion of the population that DOES identify as transgender. Though we cross boundaries, I don’t believe that we are a class of 35 transgendered individuals– I don’t see crossing gender lines and being transgender as synonymous. If it were possible to quantify, maybe someone could report being 75% woman and 25% man, but this person still, more or less, falls to one side of the spectrum. Granted– “falling at one end” is different from “falling mostly at one end”, but the latter is what I was attempting to portray.
as for my question about technology– “do the pros outweigh the cons”; I ask this because I think people too often assume that this is the case. In class we said technology “makes something easier” but for who? ALL of society? at ALL times? I do agree that we are stuck with it, and should learn how to make the most of it, but if we always jump to the conclusion that technology is a positive push towards… I’m not sure what… ignorance may get the best of us. This is why I think the “imaginative” panel was so destructive– fiction media (concerning technology) usually plays on the consequences of allowing technology to get out of hand. There is a common theme of pending destruction, foreshadowed by a hero figure saying “we have technology! what could possibly go wrong?!” Yet only in some of these films is there a clear and direct link between humans and technology; technology is treated like an all-powerful new species.
its also interesting to juxtapose the more current use of technology in fiction media with the technology used in the sci-fi films of the early 50’s. The atomic bomb started an entire film revolution, in which technology was the villain, particularly in Japanese sci-fi films. Not only was technology the villain, but it was usually from another planet (see: the US) — the gigantic laser-beaming bugs and genetically altered lizards were from OUTTER SPACE, not from the hand of any human. The hero was a level-headed doctor, who had a great nuclear family, often a cute daughter, and some means of naturally destroying the invasive technology (ha! the giant ants are allergic to water!).
is this theme only relevant to the nuclear age, when technology was seen by many as the villain? And if technology ever does get “out of hand” as a plethora of films suggest, is it ever destroyed by “natural elements”? or is it always a new technology that saves the day? The Terminator is destroyed with the flick of a switch on some sort of steel pounding machine in a factory that the last chase scene conveniently leads to. As his robo-red eyes dramatically fade out, Sarah delivers her famous line, “You’re terminated, fucker”. Technology destroyed by technology. Is it a new species?
I presented about domestic workers in South Asia at the panel last week and didn’t get the opportunity to talk about some things I found out. The reason why I chose a particular location and didn’t look at domestic workers all over the world is because their work and responsibilities vary greatly based on the part of the world.
In South Asia, general every day work in the household comprises primarily of cooking, washing clothes and dishes, cleaning the house, dusting furniture and scrubbing the floor. Sometimes, they are employed part-time, where they come in at a certain time in the morning and do some of the household chores and leave. Often, they are employed full-time, and they also live with the family they are working for. These are tasks that are mostly taken up by female helpers. Why is it mostly females? Our immediate thought is that gender roles are stereotyped – so we relate females with household chores. Well, there are other reasons too. Families with children or girls often feel safer if they employ a female helper if the person is going to live with them. At the same time, the employers do not have to worry about the safety of their female employees as much if they are at home.
Families also employ drivers to drive their cars – and they are always male. How come? Drivers in South Asia don’t just drive, they constantly guard the car too. They stay with the car at all times and make sure nothing happens to it when it is parked in some public area. This role thus not only requires driving skills but strength/ability to protect the car, often be alone, and try and stop any violence that might occur. Men are stronger than women and thus considered more appropriate for this position. The point about safety also plays here – when the employees have to be out alone a lot, employers worry less about their safety if they are male instead of female.
So I will do a post later about my role for Monday’s panel, but I was bored today and after failing to find something to watch, I remembered about the fictional panel and Echo from the Dollhouse. So I just watched the first episode and I tried to keep notes on how Echo’s “blank” personality is portrayed versus her given roles. How does one convey a person without a person-ality anyways? So I’ll just make a little list and try to watch some more of the show this weekend and add onto it as I see it.
I apologize to those who have watched more already. Please remember that I have only seen the first episode. I’m basically just thinking aloud/online. Feel free to add your own observations.
Echo at the Dollhouse: short sentences, generally only consisting of a subject and a simple verb. At the Dollhouse they seem to do only stereotypically peaceful, passive activities such as sleeping, yoga, showering, and going to the doctor. She is serene, blank-looking facially, and hesitant to probe into anything very deeply. The dolls are often described as childlike, blank slates with no worries.
Echo on Assignment: her head moves a lot more, lots of facial expression, uses longer, more complicated sentences, is relatively intelligent if not brilliant, confident, and lively. So far she has done very active activities. I mean active both mentally (mediator in a kidnapping) and physically (motor cycling). She is very much an active agent in her other lives. Her roles are very much made up of her appearance as well as her performance. Most of her roles include very feminized clothing and makeup.
I just think that as this list expands and as other people comment (hopefully) that it might be interesting to compare the “passive” female role to the programmed female role that the clients request. I think that as the series goes on it will be interesting to see how gendered the character is in her performance both in the Dollhouse and out. Even when she has no personality she appears to have a distinct gender identity in her performance. Is gender a part of a person’s personality? What do you think would happen if she was programmed with a male memory set? If gender is such an important aspect of a person’s performance, as it appears to be in this series, could the actress portray a man when her character has been completely wiped of everything?
EDIT: I watched the other two episodes today and I updated my list a bit.
Regarding Wednesday’s panel I couldn’t help but be a little frustrated. You all know from my introduction that I’ve never taken a gender studies class or a technology-related class…outside of Mathematica.. so I have a harder time linking concepts together and finding something “deeper” in our discussions. I did have a question for male nurses and women engineers and those occupations who specialize and interact with customers…I wondered if there was any evidence found that shows whether men could only deal with certain kinds of clients and women, others? Maybe this customer separation was based subtly on the technological knowledge of such clients and whether they felt it would be easier for them to convey their opinions on men rather than women or even vice-versa?
My frustration arouse in class when Anne asked why do you think there are such deep gender divisions in many of the groups represented on the panel. I suppose because my mind is more math and science oriented (as Anne knows very well) I couldn’t help but go back to ancient greece and even early humanoid behavior. The ancient greeks hypothesized that we are all composed of various elements but what makes us female or male are those ratios of elements found in our bodies. Our personalities were governed by this theory as well. I wonder if the ancient greeks could add to our conversation and if they did, they would divise a “technological element” that is found in humans and whether they would decide if women or men had higher percentages. Also, I think gender divisions essentially always go back to biology. Women are physically not as fit as men to perform heavy labor but are good at socializing. I’m not trying to be anti-feminist here but just read any anatomy textbook and it’ll tell you the same thing. So, stemming from our early ancestors viewpoints and by their trial and error, they must have realized women are more fragile physically but more relatable sociologically and I think that’s what has governed our stereotypes today. But the aggravative part is that this answer seems so concrete and not deep enough. If this class has taught me anything, it has taught me that our perspectives can always be flipped since they don’t take into account every variable involved. I’ll keep thinking about Anne’s question to dig further but I’d appreciate any feedback from anyone.
So, awhile back I made a post about pornography. Having thought about it, I think that it’s a pretty good example of the way gender shapes technology, particularly with regards to the sheer volume of porn on the internet, particularly when compared with non-pornographic websites. I’ve decided to write my next paper on this subject. I’d like to talk about the assumptions that technology (in this case, the technology that is the porn industry) makes about gender, while thinking about who porn is intended for, who actually consumes it, who WOULD like to encounter erotic works if they were more (or less) tasteful than those produced by the porn industry, etc. I’m really interested in trying to include more opinions from people on this blog, too, so if you have any thoughts about it, whatever they may be, please feel free to contribute either here or on the post linked above (which has more content of my own thoughts about it than this post). Thanks in advance!
Oh, and let’s link some articles, too.
(I admit, a huge part of the reason I link is to see if people outside the class come in and comment. So if you’re outside the class, come in and comment!)
I thought the last one was interesting because there was little (no?) mention of the men in pornography, or the men who are intended to be sex objects themselves. Pornography is if nothing else multifarious; if there’s a fetish, there’s probably porn to pander to it.
so much to say. this will be an interesting essay, I hope.
Just an overview of my findings about IVF patients, who I’ll be representing on Monday’s panel:
Overwhelmingly, the data I’ve come across has dealt exclusively with married heterosexual women. I have a friend back home whose parents are lesbian and was conceived via IVF, so I know this happens, but I’ve found no other resources addressing this particular vein of IVF pregnancies. Nor have I found anything on trans people and IVF pregnancies. So I apologize for the limited nature of my information, but anyway…
Like our anthropologist on women truck drivers on Monday, the vast majority of my data comes from forums. These forums are written pretty much exclusively by women undergoing treatment, and even mention of their husbands is seldom. It seems that this experience is really regarded as an individual one, not a family one. Women who try IVF often have felt like they’re deficient as women for being infertile. Because of the technological nature of the treatment, in that it relies on the harmonious synchronization of tons of hormone levels and other kinds of levels, these women are VERY informed about the science that’s involved, to the point where many of the posts on their forums are unreadable to the outside world, comprised mostly of obscure abbreviations and acronyms. It was strange for me, finding this out, because I had this stereotype in my head that mothers are really nurturing and governed by their feelings and “maternal instincts,” and being so calculating and logical about motherhood just seemed weird.
When IVF is successful, and the patient posts her good news on a forum, the baby is almost ALWAYS referred to as a “miracle.” This concept interests me because it seems that IVF represents a curious intersection between science and something almost other-worldly. It never occurred to me that something founded in science could rely so heavily on chance, because the whole process involves SO MANY variables having to do with the human body that, for the most part, are out of the person’s control.
On a somewhat related note, I was watching a Dr. Phil interview with Nadya Suleman earlier this week, and I found out for the first time that her octuplet pregnancy was not intentional. Her intention was to have one more baby, and she was implanted with 6 embryos, and the probability of all of them surviving was a percentage of a percent. So that made me dislike her a little less. But I still think she’s put herself and her family in a horrible situation by just deciding on another pregnancy. But ANYWAY.
