+
GENDER AND
TECHNOLOGY
MAPPING THE TERMS OF THE DEBATE
+ THREE PERSPECTIVES ON TECHNOLOGY AND
GENDER
1) THE GENDER DIVISION OF LABOUR AND
STRUCTURAL INEQUALITY AT WORK
2) THE GENDER CODING OF TECHNOLOGIES
3) THE GENDER CODING OF TECHNOLOGICAL OR
ENGINEERING PROFESSIONS
4) TECHNOLOGY AND HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY
5) RE-SHAPING GENDER-AWARE TECHNOLOGIES AND A
MORE EQUITABLE WORLD.
+ IS TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL OR
GENDERED?
◼ MOST AGREE TECHNOLOGY LIKE SCIENCE IS GENDER
CODED BOTH IN KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICE.
◼ BUT THE PROCESSES OF GENDER CODING OF
TECHNOLOGY ARE NOT PRE-DETERMINED –THEY ARE
SOCIALLY SHAPED.
+
EARLY MARXIST APPROACHES TO
TECHNOLOGY AND GENDER
◼ THE EARLIEST STUDIES OF TECHNOLOGY AND GENDER
WERE INITIATED BY MARXIST SCHOLARS WHO BEGAN TO
ARGUE HOW TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION IN MODERN
MANUFACTURING PROCESSES WERE NOT ONLY
DISADVANTAGEOUS TO SKILLED WORKERS WHO WERE
REPLACED BY MACHINES BUT ALSO TO WOMEN WHO LOST
OUT IN THE COMPETITION FOR LIMITED JOBS OR WHO
WERE MADE TO WORK ON LOW WAGES.
+ TECHNOLOGY AS A TOOL FOR BOTH
CAPITALIST AND GENDER
DOMINATION
◼ TECHNOLOGY FOR THESE SCHOLARS WERE THUS NOT
ONLY A TOOL FOR CAPITALIST DOMINATION BUT ALSO
FOR GENDER DOMINATION.
◼ THE FOCUS OF SUCH EARLY STUDIES WERE USUALLY IN
FACTORIES, WORKSHOPS, MILLS ETC WHERE INITIALLY
MEN AND WOMEN WORKED TOGETHER BUT WHERE
WOMEN CAME TO SYSTEMATICALLY MARGINALIZED IN
THE COURSE OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.
+ THE CONTINUED MARGINALIZATION OF
WOMEN FROM WORKSPACES
◼ SUCH STUDIES ARGUED THAT MODERN INDUSTRIAL
PROCESSES PRACTICED A GENDERED DIVISION OF
LABOUR THAT CONTINUED BEYOND THE FIRST INDUSTRIAL
REVOLUTION TO CONTEMPORARY TIMES.
◼ THE CONCLUSIVE POSITION BEING CAPITALISM AND
PATRIARCHY WORKED HAND IN HAND TO KEEP WOMEN
SUBORDINATED AND CONFINED TO THE DOMESTIC
SPHERE OF WORK.
+ THE TENDENCY TOWARD TECHNOLOGICAL
DETERMINISM
◼ WHILE MANY LATER SCHOLARS ARGUED THAT THE
MARXIST FEMINIST POSITION ON THE QUESTION OF
GENDER AND TECHNOLOGY WAS VALID, THIS WAS
BASICALLY A DETERMINIST ARGUMENT THAT COULD NOT
BE SUSTAINED OVER WIDE SPHERES OF ANALYSIS.
◼ THE GENDERING OF TECHNOLOGY WAS NOT A PRE-
DETERMINED PROCESS NOR WERE THERE ALWAYS
PREDETERMINED OR PREDICTABLE OUTCOMES OF
TECHNOLOGY IN SECTORS OF PRODUCTION.
+ BUT THERE WAS A COMMON GROUND
◼ CRITICS OF MARXIST FEMINISM HOWEVER AGREED WITH
ONE MAJOR ARGUMENT- THAT IS TECHNOLOGY
WHEREVER IT WAS DEPLOYED – IN MANUFACTURING,
SERVICE, OR DOMESTIC SECTORS WAS IMPLICATED IN
WHAT IS KNOWN AS THE GENDER DIVISION OF
LABOUR.
◼ SO WHAT IS GENDER DIVISION OF LABOUR?
+ GENDER DIVISION OF LABOUR
◼ Work in all countries is characterized by a gender division of labor in
which tasks are assigned to workers on the basis of their gender. The
gender division of labor among paid workers is termed gender
segregation.
◼ Thus, gender segregation is the tendency for different genders to do
different kinds of paid work in different settings. It may involve physical,
functional, or nominal differentiation of work.
◼ Because economic and social rewards are distributed through people's
jobs, segregation facilitates and legitimates unequal treatment.
◼ Segregation also contributes to gender inequality by assuming that
gender differs in fundamental ways, by reducing the likelihood of
equal-status contact between them, and by creating same-gender
reference groups against whom workers assess their rewards.
+ WOMEN IN THE INDUSTRIAL
REVOLUTION- AS MILL LABOUR
+ WOMEN IN THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION- IN
THE COAL MINES
+ CONSEQUENCES OF THE GENDER DIVISION
OF LABOUR
◼ The consequences of segregation include disparities
between pay and promotion opportunities. The gender
composition of jobs is linked to employment rewards
because men hold more desirable jobs and because
customarily female activities are culturally devalued.
◼ Many explanations for segregation focus on the preferences
of workers and employers, including statistical
discrimination.
◼ More useful explanations emphasize the impact of
employers' or nations' policies and practices on the extent of
sex segregation.
+ TECHNOLOGY AND THE GENDER
DIVISION OF LABOUR
◼ MOST STUDIES OF TECHNOLOGY AND GENDER TEND TO
CONCUR THAT DELIBERATELY OR NOT THE DESIGN OF
TECHNOLOGIES IN MANUFACTURING OR SERVICE
SECTORS TENDED TO INVEST MORE VALUE AND MEANING
TO THOSE THAT INVOLVED THE DEPLOYMENT OF WHAT
ARE DEEMED TO BE TYPICALLY MALE SKILLS- WHETHER
MENTAL OR MANUAL.
+ FEMINIST STUDIES OF TECHNOLOGY
AND SCOT
MORE CONTEMPORARY FEMINIST STUDIES THAT HAVE MOVED
AWAY FROM EARLIER MARXIST MODELS ARGUE THAT THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND GENDER CAN BE
MORE MEANINGFUL IF THESE DRAW UPON THE
CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACHES OF SCOT AND ANT STUDIES OF
TECHNOLOGY AND FOCUS ON THE VARIOUS STAGES OF
TECHNICAL INNOVATION FROM CONCEPTUALIZATION, TO
PROTOTYPING, TO PRODUCTION AND RETAIL.
IN OTHER WORDS INSTEAD OF FOCUSING ON OUTCOMES OF
TECHNOLOGY, NEW STUDIES OF GENDER AND TECHNOLOGY
ARE MORE KEEN TO TAKE LARGER LIFE-CYCLE APPROACHES.
+ MOVING AWAY FROM DETERMINIST
MODELS
◼ THE KEY MOTIVATION IN THE TURN TO CONSTRUCTIVIST –
LIFE CYCLE APPROACHES IS TO MOVE AWAY FROM ANY
PRE-DETEMINED JUDGEMENT ABOUT TECHNOLOGIES
AND FOCUS ON WHAT PINCH AND BIJKER REFERRED TO AS
‘INTERPRETATIVE FLEXIBILITY’ OR
◼ THAT PHASE OF TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT THAT IS
MARKED BY ‘INTERPRETIVE FLEXIBILITY’ WHEREIN
RELEVANT SOCIAL GROUPS CAN ARGUE ABOUT THE
FORM, FUNCTION, AESTHETICS OF AN ARTIFACT.
+ THE BEGINNINGS OF GENDER CODING
OF TECHNOLOGY
◼ IT IS AT THIS EARLY POINT THAT THE FIRST GENDERING OF
AN ARTIFACT TAKES PLACE BASED UPON ASSUMPTIONS OF
THE SKILLS REQUIRED TO USE IT. EITHER MENTAL, MANUAL
OR RELATIVE PRIVILEGING OF ONE OVER ANOTHER.
◼ THE MARKING OF SKILLS AS MASCULINE AND FEMININE
ARE THEN INSCRIBED ONTO THE ARTIFACT AND SOLD
ACCORDINGLY.
+ GENDER AND TECHNOLOGY IN THE MAKING-
CYNTHIA COCKBURN AND SUSAN OMROD,1993
+ THE MAKING OF GENDER AND TECHNOLOGY AS
MUTUALLY CONSTITUTIVE SOCIAL PROCESSES.
◼ CYNTHIA COCKBURN AND SUSAN OMROD
◼ Cockburn and Omrod, demonstrated the making of gender and
technology as comparable social processes, one helping shape
the other. They take as an example the microwave oven, a recent
innovation in domestic technology that neatly encapsulates the
technology//gender relation. In the microwave, masculine
engineering encounters an age old woman's technology:
cooking.
◼ The authors show how the microwave begins as a state-of-the-art
masculine technology, is translated in the retail trade into a
`family' commodity, one of a range of domestic white goods, and
eventually settles into the kitchen alongside other humble
feminine appliances; unlike the old cooker, however, the
microwave retains just a whiff of aftershave.
+ SO HOW DID THAT HAPPEN?
◼ Like many other technological wonders, the beginnings of
microwave technology were discovered by accident. One day in
1945, the story goes, Dr. Percy Lebaron Spencer, a radar expert
contracted by the Department of Defense, was working on
building the magnetrons that were then used to produce the
microwave radio signals used in radar technologies. When he
noticed that the candy bar that was in his pocket had melted,
Spencer began applying magnetrons to food.
◼ Raytheon, the company Spencer worked for, eventually
developed the first microwave available to home cooks, but not
until 1967. Even by then, the appliance was still bulky and cost
an astronomical $500. Later versions would go down in both size
and price.
+ A ‘MASCULINE TECHNOLOGY’ SOLD AS
FEMININE APPLIANCE
◼ Because potential consumers were put off by microwave
technology, which seemed complicated and potentially
dangerous, early producers of the microwave invested
heavily in marketing to their target customers: women, the
ones who would be using the appliances to get dinner on the
table.
◼ Early advertisements for microwaves show well-coiffed, well-
heeled housewives happily pulling burnished roasts from
their fancy new ovens of the future. So even as the microwave
started out as a wartime technology, it eventually became the
most domestic of appliances.
+ FROM ‘BROWN GOODS’ TO’ WHITE
GOODS’
◼ Designed by men and marketed initially as a state-of-the-art
technology for men without wives, the microwave attracted
little interest when placed in the “brown goods” – TVs and hi-
fis – leisure sections of shops, aimed at men. It flourished
only once moved to the “white goods” – washing machines,
ovens and fridges – catering for what were seen as women’s
needs.
+ A WOMAN’S BEST FRIEND
