Ludditism: An Equal-Oportunity Pastime
by KateThis article in the NYTimes is an infuriating example of exactly what to do to discourage women from caring about technology.
Ms. Duarte represents a growing number of women who are embracing consumer electronics just as the technologies are reaching out to embrace them. Behind this quiet revolution are engineers and designers who are bringing a more feminine sensibility to products historically shaped by masculine tastes, habits and requirements.
Only a few years ago, feminizing a consumer electronic product meant little more than creating a pink or pastel version of the same black or silvery item coveted by men. And, some retailers note, that kind of marketing still goes on. But feminizing technology is more about a product’s fundamentals, often expressed in its ease of use.
Where does this persistent belief that technology needs to be “feminized” in order to be successfully marketed to women come from? I’m not entirely familiar with the marketing data that makes manufacturers so obsessed with gender, but surely there’s a little merit to the idea that if you update a product’s features and design so that it’s easier and more efficient to use, the resulting increase in sales has less to do with women preferring “simpler” technology than better product design. Ghettoizing women by making special technology products “for her” will never be the right way to “encourage” women to use computers, if we need encouragement at all.
Luddites abound in both genders. I work in tech support at my college, and see equal numbers of male and female techno-terrified professors. Among students, there are rather fewer who are unfamiliar with the technology in use around them, but an equal number of men and women ask for help formatting their papers and printing out homework assignments. Granted, this is evidence from personal experience, never a statistical source to be trusted absolutely— but what is it that so convinces people that women are afraid of technology?
I do remember hearing from friends— and occasionally teachers— during elementary and high school that it was “weird” for me to be interested in computers, or to play online games.[1] When I was in fifth grade, we first got a computer powerful enough to connect to the internet (a Mac G3). I excitedly told my teacher all about how neat the new computer was one day while walking with our class to the school buses, only to hear her reply, “I’m really not all that interested in your new computer— I’d rather hear about your craft projects.”
I hope we don’t still so emphatically tell girls that computers aren’t interesting or appropriate for them. Indeed, evidence points to girls being just as interested in technology and the internet as boys— take another article from yesterday’s NYTimes, for example. Some online playgrounds for kids are as much as 96% female now, belying the tired old tripe that girls “just aren’t as interested” in computers.
This may seem trivial to producers of technology products, software, and web apps whose work isn’t directly linked to the “interactive online doll” movement. Yet these programs are creating interest among girls in computers and the web, and ensuring that children who grow up in the middle class in this generation will be technologically literate.[2] When women are making half of all technology purchases in twenty years, it won’t be because manufacturers have finally hit on the right shade of pink with the perfect glitter-coated single-button interface for every gadget and software app, it’ll be because technology is central to work, play, and every aspect of life for the new generation.
Manufacturers should be making the user interface changes described in the NYTimes’ piece— smart televisions that turn on when a DVD is inserted into an attached player, or gadgets whose size doesn’t overwhelm their usefulness, or consumer electronics that interface easily with everyone’s laptop are wonderful additions to the plethora of technological devices available today. They’re great additions because they’re designed well and appeal to a variety of consumers, though, not because women are any more likely to be the Luddites adopting them than men. Instead of “feminizing” technology by making it “simpler” for women, we should be simplifying technology with the goal of making it easier for everyone to use, and ensuring that girls and boys alike grow up interested in tech.
Edited To Add: Today (6/12/07) I came across an excellent blog post at Shrub.com tangentially related to this article. Go read it, and the rest of the Shrub blog.
[1] I was an avid player of MUDs in middle and high school, particularly the RPI variety. Someday I’ll get around to writing a post about how gender seems to play out in many MUD environments. Back to where you were.
[2] The growing disparity in technological literacy between the “middle” class and those in poverty is a troubling one, and further disadvantages those already held back from full economic success. However, the problems of technology and poverty— and the accompanying issue of technological literacy and race— is a can of worms for a different post. Back to where you were.
License
This work is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike2.5 License.
June 8th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Beyond the tacit, silly implication that men don’t care about easier-to-use technology, that article really made me glad to have the social environment I have at Reed. It almost entirely lacks the kind of pop-psychological theorizing about gender differences that is a big part of casual chatter elsewhere, stuff like this:
“Women are busier than men,” she said. “I don’t love technology enough to sit down and spend two hours with a manual like it’s some great puzzle. Men get great gratification out of that. I’d rather read a book.”
It’s not even that these ideas are necessarily wrong as that they make for tiresome conversation, especially from people who have no particular authority on the subject. Personally, y’know, sometimes I like figuring out how a technology works, and sometimes it’s frustrating, and sometimes I just want to read a book–and my job is simply to organize my life optimally given all these subtleties. The fact that I’m male has such a distant and incomplete relation to these issues that it seems almost an absurd connection to make. But I guess it doesn’t seem that way for a lot of people, as they end up obsessing over these casual inductions. On a social level, too, I’ve found that individual differences in my friends usually outweigh group differences, and my mind naturally avoids considering their gender, not out of taboo but just because it often doesn’t make for useful distinctions. Of course, it’s worth noting that (even) in a perfect world, environments should have this kind of theorizing in proportion to how much it’s actually useful, so I might find gender a more useful predictor in different groups, ones I’ve never been a part of.
June 12th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Wait, in order to love technology you have to actually read manuals? Shit, I’ve been doing it wrong this whole time! I wonder if it’s my double X chromosomes that did it. Or maybe it was my vagina. Or boobs. How do we define this essential “manness” and “womanness” that makes men techies who love to read manuals and women luddites who are manual-phobic?
Do I get to keep my “Certified Grade A Female” card because I don’t read manuals? Do I have to give up my geek rights because I’m not a man? It’s all so confusing!
Ahem. All snark aside, thanks for the shout-out.
June 12th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Tekanji:
*snicker* Growing up, I was always the one who read the whole manual, and my dad was the one who sat there and cursed at the program when he couldn’t figure out what to do with it. Clearly, my liberal father was blurring the gender lines in a deliberate attempt to destroy the traditional family structure. For shame.
As per the shout-out: I’ve been reading your blog with great enjoyment for a while, so it was nifty to see your take on the (related) article.
Rob:
To take that one step further, it seems that people are often willing to accept that diversity of choice (puzzling things out, being frustrated, doing something else) in men, but not in women. The NYTimes article in question makes a point of mentioning that technology aimed at Luddites is “not solely” for women– yet they ignore the presence of women techies entirely. In general, it seems that women are expected to conform to much narrower roles– or sets of roles– than men; you see this in everything from children’s books to the ever-present pop-psychology theorizing denigrated here.