Technology Diary: Robots
Robots. Before they were even possible, the idea was always obsessed over. Dating back to the early mechanical robots of the renaissance and through the science fiction of the 1960s, and even to today, humans have been completely fascinated by the concept of a robot, so much so that entire mythologies have been created surrounding both the potential harms and triumphs they can create.
Now this is where gender comes in. Robots have an inherent paradox in their gender roles. Robots have no sex, have no biological source for an assigned gender, are made of steel, and do not have any societal standard to live up to, or gender roles to be taught. So based on this they should be completely genderless in their function or associations, but they aren’t.
Because robots are products of the human mind, the creator’s gender roles are thrust unto the machine. For example, men are gendered as dominant and/or destructive. Whether through the fictionalization of Megatron or actual war machines, we have male robots. In the same vein, there are examples of gendered robots to women’s gender roles, like Rosie Jetson (a homemaker robot) of the Jetsons cartoon, or the Fembots (sexy robots that fire weapons out of their lingerie) in Austin Powers. The point is robots are often made to emulate human labor, in doing so we also often assign human gender’s that are associated with them.
This problematizes the symbol of the genderless cyborg that Harraway theorizes.
For reference, the following are pictures/gifs of the robots mentioned:
Megatron
Fembots
Rosie Jetson
Class and Lecture on Oct 10
Hi All,
Emily started a poll to see who is interested in attending a talk at Barnard tomorrow evening in lieu of class (http://bcrw.barnard.edu/event/habitual-new-media-exposing-empowerment/). Because the topic is so well suited to our course, I’d like to let those of you who were interested attend with her, while the rest of us will meet at Macaulay as per usual. Those of you who are going to Barnard (Sophia, Ana, Liz, and Myrna, according to the poll) will tweet and/or blog about the event to keep us all up to date, and the class will do the same to keep you in the loop.
In addition, I would like to propose a face to face meeting next week, Oct 17 at our regular time. I’d like to get a report back about Wendy Hui Kyong Chun’s talk and give us some more discussion time. We’ve had some challenging readings and I want to make sure we digest them before we move into the next phase of class.
Please leave a brief comment here so I know you saw this, and contact me by email if you have any concerns.
Reading Response 10/10
Where to even begin? My first brush with Sheryl Sandberg was a discussion with a friend about the TED talk she gave. My critique of the talk still remains the same in light of the two takes of her book, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead. Mainly, her view and advice is definitely one-sided in terms of the individual vs. society or individual vs. institution. She focuses on individual change rather than societal, structural, or institutional changes. Annie of the PHD in Parenting blog points out that Sandberg does acknowledge the structural and institutional challenges and the need to change them along with the double standards in the workforce, but I would argue that this discourse of the woman “having it all” in work, family, and parenting through self-change and fighting to work is still problematic. For one, it applies to a small segment of women (educated, professional jobs, middle to upper class, arguably white, and heterosexual). Second, while I am all for positive motivation and promoting self-esteem for women and girls, her framing of women not putting themselves out there or being insecure and afraid to rise in her career as a problem to overcome is troubling. It can be interpreted that females are inherently insecure, timid, etc. and does not question why women do not act this way (external pressures, socialization throughout life, etc.) or why this is a “good” (and marked as masculine) trait for the workplace, which without a doubt has a masculinized ideal worker in mind.
As Kate Losse points out, it is also troubling that this discourse is promoted much more than other feminist ones. It can be risky that this type of advice (which is not completely new) starts acting as the stop gap for the gender and racial/ ethnic inequalities of the workplace and that structural and institutional change is neglected. Losse points out “lean in” circles and Sandberg’s book as a manual is already advocated in corporations and the book’s corporate partners like American Express, Amazon, and Bain. The not too subtle ties of Sandberg’s book and the feminism movement framework with corporations and Facebook are also of interest. I appreciate that Losse points this out and poses the question: “does the corporation that Sandberg leads and in which she is invested have an interest in limiting feminism in this way?” (March 26, 2012). Losse speculate that these ties between Facebook and Sandberg is a way to neutralize critiques of companies like Facebook of having homogenous workforces and people in positions of power as well as promote Facebook as the face of cutting edge new technology in social movements and revolutions. It reminded me of when H&M, the fast fashion giant who is not exactly known for sustainable environmental and social practices, published a sustainability report in 2012. On one hand, it is great that corporations are more interested in social changes and movements and arguably, this might be the only way to get information across and spur change in today’s society and culture. However, I can’t help but suspect the motivation and the extent of change…
***
Other than the gross sexism and misogyny reported in Tasneem Raja’s article (I had a slimmer of hope in humanity when she reported that no one laughed at Van Horn’s fraternity’s recruiting strategy to “‘attract the hottest girls’” joke), the revamping or even re-branding of fields and start ups in technology from geeks to frat boys/ bros is an interesting take. It reminds me that there is indeed a hierarchy of masculinities (and femininities and so on) and asks the question of why a geeky masculinity/ stereotype (which might not be less sexist or misogynist) needed to be replaced with a literal dick-swagging frat boy masculinity/ stereotype that inherently has sexist, misogynist, and heterosexual properties. Is it to attract other men to these fields? A reaction to concerns about the lack of women in these fields? A common remedy for the specter of homosexuality in homosocial settings? I’m curious.
Technology Diary 2: Movies
After our class meeting where we talked about Goldie Blox, it made me think about how a lot of things we watch influence our perception. One thing being movies. Gender roles are something that has followed us from our history but even today, the things created by our society even now still reinforce these things. I find it quite interesting to see how movies based on books written in the past compared to the newly created movies differ so much. For those based on classic novels, I often find a lot of romance movies very stereotypical. There’s almost always a damsel in distress that needs to be saved. The girl usually can’t do anything by themselves and there this idea the main male protagonist is the hero that needs to save her. There’s been quite a change in the role of characters as we get to more modernized movies. It’s very common these days to see movies with a strong female protagonist that does everything on her own.
When I watch some of my favorite movies by time order, it’s really easy to see how society has changed and the improvements that have been made. Instead of the female protagonist suddenly getting pregnant and having to stay at home and become a house wife, it’s more like the character will simply give birth, and continue on with where they left off in their lives. The most recent movie I watched, was Cloudy with a Chance of Meatball 2 and the main male character is basically a wimp compared to his girlfriend who’s a meteorologist out battling through tornadoes. Even though we can see a trend of having strong female characters for females, it’s still undeniable that there are still a lot of gender role stereotypes in movies. Even in Cloudy with a Chance of Meatball, the main male protagonist still had to save his girlfriend in the end became she got captured by the enemy. I think it says more about what society likes to watch. These movies that come out are based on what the writers think will be popular.
Sandberg Reading Response
Sandberg’s book Lean In stood out to me right away because it uses Facebook, the social network everyone knows about, to get a point across. Facebook is such a successful enterprise, it is a wonder there are not more literature out there that brings its policies into play in other aspects of our lives. A website that appeals to so many people around the world, all with different interests and lifestyles must show that they are doing something right. Sandberg goes into using terminology that Facebook uses to motivate its staff, such as “Done is better than perfect” and “Be bold.” This shows how word choice is so important when influencing large groups of people. This assertive but encouraging vocabulary is bound to stay in the minds of the women Sandberg is hoping to target. Facebook was not a model in the sense that it had an equal distribution of genders and wages, because it had an all male board until 2012 and women still get paid significantly less than women. Sandberg just brings in what she has learned from working with the people side of Facebook and the top-down method of change. The key difference between what Sandberg is calling for and other feminist thought out there, is she calls for women to overcome “women’s universal internal resistance to career velocity.” This goes back to everyone being their own worst critic. According to her, being “in” is all that matters, there is not use in complaining over where exactly you are as long as you took the job. I agree with this in the sense that there is no logic in passing a job over pay or position when being in the company itself is a well-deserved privilege. There will be chances to climb up the corporate ladder and make it easier for other women to get to the point that you are. Sandberg is calling for women leaders to pave the way for others in the field. I do believe that eventually self change will lead to systemic change for when everyone is changing, major corporations do not want to be left in the dust.
Technology Diary: Smart Phones
After reading these articles regarding jobs in technology, Facebook, and Sheryl Sandberg and her book Lean In, my thoughts were immediately drawn to the technology of “smart” phones. As Kate Losse quotes from Lean In, “technology extends the weekday.” I think this is very accurate, especially in relation to smart phones. With a smart phone, everyone is always connected to everyone and everything else at all times. On my own phone I have Facebook, Twitter, and my email all constantly sending me notifications – as well as regular text messages and phone calls. Going home isn’t really the same as it was once was – with a break from everything. Even without my computer I am never really alone, never not connected to the outside world. And although I don’t have a full time job by any means, in the past year I’ve definitely caught myself using my phone to check my work email for my various internships.
I think this plays a huge role of the struggle of a working mother in the business world. Is it possible to be really alone with your kids, really focusing all of your time on them if you are constantly connected to work? I remember both of my parents getting emails all the time from their bosses on their phones, and although I was too old for it to make an impact, I feel perhaps this might not have the best effect on younger children who will see their parents being distracted by work even at home, and perhaps won’t feel as if they are being paid attention to. There’s definitely a double standard in the business world where this type of behavior – constantly checking the phone and talking to people from work – could be excused for a male, but women have the extra societal burden of being the primary caregivers of their children. Despite any agreement a woman and her husband may have worked out, she is more likely to be judged for using her smart phone and take time away from her children.
On the flip side, perhaps the smart phone is a good tool to help a working mother better balance her life. Since mothers are usually still the ones expected to take care of children (except in certain cases when couples have a better system worked out), their lives are filled with stress trying to learn to balance. The advent of computers and the internet makes it easier to work from home, and smart phones take it a step further. Perhaps someone can work on the train for a half hour on their phone, and then leave a half hour earlier to perhaps pick a child up from school? Since children of all ages seem to have phones nowadays, maybe the smart phone is a good way for a parent to connect with their child while at work. There are are a lot of different options the smart phone brings, so perhaps it isn’t such a bad thing at all because it makes things easier to juggle.
Reading Response on Harraway and Halberstam
One of the main points Harraway makes in her essay “A Cyborg Manifesto” is how gender has too much to do with our identity. There is nothing that means “being female”. Rather than picking what they like, people are being forced into preconceived notions of what being a female should be like. She brings in the cyborg by comparing these previous statements about feminism to how nothing is truly “organic” or “artificial.” With all the medical and technological advances out there, the natural and the metal goes hand in hand to help us progress as a society. To make a similar point, Halberstam analyzes the analogy of Eve and the apple. The forbidden fruit has provided Apple with the perfect logo to represent power and network. Eve taking a bite, has turning into “byte” as in computer units of data, which is what Eve sought after originally to quench her curiosity. While eve and the apple represent the relationship between man, woman and god originally, the female cyborg now represents “a mass cultural composition.”
I intend to be a doctor and Harraway’s analysis really stuck with me. She is right in saying that with technology and humans working so closely together, one cannot say which is which anymore. Components of both work together towards a common goal and the strengths of both help achieve that goal. People once used to be afraid of having technology more powerful than us but we are slowly letting go of that fear of lack of control and embracing the future. Similarly, we must not be afraid to drop labels just because it is all we have ever known. We need to see what we like, what we are good at and let that determine our choices, not taking a specific path because that is what has been done in the past.
Reading Response – 9/26
Siobhan Somerville’s “Scientific Racism and the Invention of the Homosexual Body” and Judith Butler’s “Imitation and Gender Insubordination” examined homosexuality in relation to race and labels, respectively. I found it fascinating that the field I am interested in studying, sexology, had its beginnings “circulated within and perhaps depended on a pervasive climate of eugenicist and antimiscegnation sentiment and legislation”, mostly because sexology today tends to be very “sex-positive” (Sommerville, 31). Less surprisingly, Somerville makes a great point that “scientific assertions about racial difference were often articulated through gender” and she brought out the quintessential example providing evidence for this statement, the “Hottentot Venus,” also known as Saartje Baartman. Because Saartje’s genitals and overall body differed from that of the “normal” Caucasian female body, Saartje was exploited and exocticized essentially for being an “Other.” Anytime of I think of Saartje Baartman, I am reminded of a reading, “Hottentot 2000: Jennifer Lopez and Her Butt” by Magdalena Barrera which examines how women of color to this day are still exocticized and exploited by the difference between their bodies and the bodies of “normal” Caucasian women. From personal experience, because I have a large posterior, I am usually harassed by both men AND women because they are just surprised at how large it is relative to my body and their own.
An interesting question was posed when Sommerville asks in reference to Margaret Otis’ account, “Did the girls’ initmacy trouble the authorities because it was homosexual or because it was interracial?” (Sommerville, 34). While homosexuality was deemed as sinful and problematic, lesbianism is to a lesser extent, especially when you examine how popular lesbian pornography is for a straight, male audience today. In contrast, race is more visible, especially between an interracial couple. Because of the visibility of interracial love, it would be more problematic lesbian love than it is for that of a lesbian relationship between a same-race couple.
Switching gears a bit, I’m going to focus on Butler’s statement that “identity categories tend to be instruments of regulatory regimes” (Butler, 13). Being in the closet and coming out of the closet present their own regulations by society. For example, the ambiguity of being in the closet often leads to snooping and curiosity by others. This is evident today by celebrity and gossip magazines that poke at the lives of people who are not overtly sexual or have ambiguous sexualities. This spotlight on the unknown sexuality is often a pressure for that person to come out of the closet and place a label on that person. Once the label is placed on that person, more than often they are known for that specific label rather for other qualities such as being talented. For example, this is currently an issue with actress Michelle Rodriguez who made a statement after nagging media statements on her sexuality.
Technology Diary 3: Cars
Cars are a piece of technology that has become so common that most people would not know what to do without it. It not only helps us get from A to B but has also turned into something of a status symbol as the brand of car you drive can sometimes makes the first impression for you. However, in many ways, cars keep women from gaining equal treatment around the world. In Queering the Color Line, Sommerville talks about how researchers focused extensively on using “data” about physical features to judge gender or racial qualities. African women were said to be more sexually “accessible” because they had larger clitorises than white women. Somerville states, “women’s genetalia and reproductive anatomy held a value and presumably visual key to ranking bodies according to norms of sexualities. ” Since then, scientists have confirmed that many of these 19th century findings have no real evidence and cannot be used to make generalizations about race or gender. However, making up fake scientific data to justify unfair practices is still happening today. In Saudi Arabia, there are no laws explicitly stopping them from driving but women are not given licenses. A conservative cleric went on record to say that driving causes damage to ovaries and can lead to bearing unhealthy children. Sheikh Saleh bin Saad al-Lohaidan, a judicial adviser to an association of Gulf psychologists said “If a woman drives a car, not out of pure necessity, that could have negative physiological impacts as functional and physiological medical studies show that it automatically affects the ovaries and pushes the pelvis upwards” but provided no scientific evidence to back up this claim. Sheikh Abdulatif al-Sheikh, the head of the morality police, admitted that there is nothing in Sharia law that bans women from driving. This false argument that driving can cause reproductive issues is being used as propaganda to continue the policy of preventing women from being able to drive. Not allowing women to have driver’s licenses goes hand in hand with the policy that makes them have a male family member accompany them whenever they leave the house. Cars are being used as a method of controlling women in Saudi Arabia which is important to remember because being able to have the convenience of going wherever you want with your car is a basic human right we take advantage of everyday.
Source: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/29/saudi-arabia-women-drivers-ovaries
Haraway & Halberstam Reading Response
The readings by Haraway and Halberstam were a mixed blessing for me. On the one hand, they delved into a fascinating conversation of Marxist Feminism and how technology and postmodernism can fit into this framework. On the other hand, they were quite dense (especially Haraway), not unlike a lot of Marxist literature.
Both authors utilize the objet of a cyborg to examine how the use of technology can be made into a tool to advance feminist thought. The current gender roles of capitalism consist of men being thought of as the ones who hold the intellectual power and dominance over the world, while women are emotional and are in-sync with nature and are dominated. The concept of a female cyborg breaks from these contraints and uses technology to reverse gender roles and put women in a place of intellectual and structural equality. Despite the technophobia of most feminists, technology here is actually being used to level the playing field.
Although I don’t entirely agree with Haraway and Halberstam’s theory, I do appreciate how they are the ones to introduce a counterpoint to the relationship between women and technology. On the basis of our class discussions, as well as various readings, feminists and technology are often antagonistic. Technology is often seen as an extension of male identity and a tool of patriarchy to oppress women. In this alternate view technology can be co-opted by feminists to advance their own views.
