“Tech has become another way for men to oppress women” (Guardian by way of a Facebook friend) describes women being victimized by male-developed software:
Millions of people bark orders at Alexa, every day, but rarely are we encouraged to wonder why the domestic organiser is voiced by a woman. … But the issue is not only that technology products reflect a backward view of the role of women. They often also appear ignorant or indifferent to women’s lived experience. As the internet of things expands, more devices in our homes and on our bodies are collecting data about us and sending it to networks, a process over which we often have little control. This presents profound problems for vulnerable members of society, including survivors of domestic violence. Wearable technology can be hacked, cars and phones can be tracked, and data from a thermostat can reveal whether someone is at home. This potential is frightening for people who have experienced rape, violence or stalking.
Products that are more responsive to the needs of women would be a great start. But we should also be thinking bigger: we must avoid reproducing sexism in system design. … We need to allow women to reach their potential in workplaces where they feel safe and respected.
As is typical for articles describing what should be happening in offices full of computer nerds, the author has no experience with computer nerdism: “Lizzie O’Shea is a human rights lawyer, broadcaster and writer.”
If women are oppressed, as Ms. O’Shea suggests, why don’t they write their own software for female use? It doesn’t take a lot of programmers to build functional software (e.g., Adobe Photoshop was built by two programmers). Why don’t the world’s nearly 4 billion women shake off their digital chains? Can it be due to a lack of market size? Somehow these billions of women aren’t able to purchase their own software and/or choose which online services to use? Is the Guardian suggesting that there is a lack of basic intelligence among women? They can’t see that they are being oppressed by male-developed computer programs? Or perhaps the Guardian is suggesting that there is a lack of basic competence among women? What mixed-sex teams were able to develop in the 1960s (Internet), 1970s (Unix), or 1980s (Windows) is beyond the capability of an all-women team in 2017?
How is it possible to believe that women are oppressed by technology without simultaneously believing some deeply insulting stuff about women?
(For the record, I don’t personally believe that women are oppressed by technology and therefore I am not forced by logic to make some negative inferences about women’s intelligence or competence.)
Some fun reader comments on the article:
You see, if you immediately cast women as fragile victims, you are basically agreeing with all the worst misogynist stereotypes that should have been consigned to the nineteenth century. It always amazes me that so-called progressives eagerly embrace the idea that women need to be protected from the big, bad world. But I shouldn’t be amazed, because it is a direct consequence of identity politics – when you look at the world through the prism of difference, everything becomes divisive, and ‘equality for all’ is replaced by a competition for who can claim to be most vulnerable. When it comes to political power these days, nothing stands in the way of the victimhood juggernaught for too long. Of course, the great irony behind this article is that technology has enabled women, and men, to transcend many aspects of traditional gender roles. The effect of technology in the home, workplace and our leisure time has transformed how we spend our time, and how we communicate with one another. The anonymity of the internet often means you cannot judge someone on the mundane aspects of their identity – gender, race, sexuality. Instead you have to engage with what they say and believe. Technology has been a great existential leveller.
Facts are a tool of patriarchal oppression and should be replaced with NewTruth(tm) that define exactly how the world ought to be… Siri, name something toxic? “Masculinity”
Barking instructions to Alexa? Huh? If it was a male voice, then we would be asserting female oppression as we look to a ‘man’ for answers to all our questions!
Alexa was created by a woman. It’s two lead engineers were also both women, and the person who managed the entire team responsible for bringing it to market was Toni Read, a woman.
Indeed. In the past, women were chained to their sinks. Now, they’re chained to their phones.
“Barking instructions to Alexa? Huh? If it was a male voice, then we would be asserting female oppression as we look to a ‘man’ for answers to all our questions!”
I was going to make this same comment but someone beat me to it. In Feministworld, it’s heads I win, tails you lose – any outcome can be viewed as “proving” sexism. If Alexa’s voice is female, then men are ordering (robotic) females around. If it were male, then computer nerds show that they are not willing to accept answers from (even robotic) females.
“more devices in our homes and on our bodies are collecting data about us [females] and sending it to networks, a process over which we often have little control”
It’s a shame that these devices only collect information about women and not about both (all?) genders. Men apparently have FULL control over all what is done with their data, and so are not in the same boat on this issue as women. “World ends – women and minorities hit hardest” is a standard leftist story template. By making this a female issue and not a human issue, she makes it LESS likely that anything will be done to fix it.
“We need to allow women to reach their potential in workplaces where they feel safe and respected.” Because we all know that the best work is done in places like government bureaucracies where there is no chance of your work product being “disrespected” and not in competitive rough and tumble environments where the best ideas compete with each other. One of the reasons that programming has become more male oriented is that in its early days it was done in more bureaucratic 9 to 5 settings which women prefer to jobs where you stay up for 3 nights straight in order to finish the code before the other team.
This one will be easier to solve than the refugee problem, so I’ll just take it. You guys work on the refugees and we’ll meet back here in 2038 to compare notes. (Just give me a little prod – I’ll be the one in the wheelchair in the corner with my name pinned to my sweater.)
“…Photoshop was built by two programmers…”
Yes, the original prototype in 1991 was built by two programmers. The current product is the work of many dozens of developers working over the last quarter century.
J: It is too much trouble for oppressed women to marshall “many dozens” of their sisters? (Separately, does the average user need most of those extra features? GIMP hasn’t had a big team and it still gets the job done, right?)
You’re referring to the 80/20 feature myth. “80% of the people use 20% of the features. So … you only need to implement 20% of the features, and you can still sell 80% as many copies. … Unfortunately, it’s never the same 20%”
In Photoshop’s case, a graphic designer using Bezier paths may never touch the video editing tools, but a wedding photographer may use them routinely. Having both available is why Photoshop’s user base is much larger than GIMP’s, even though GIMP is free and Photoshop costs actual $$$.
Why do the graphic designer and the wedding photographer both have to use the same expensive Swiss Army Knife software that contains many “blades” that they will never use? Wouldn’t they both be better off with simpler, cheaper tools that are more tailored to their specific needs?
Jack D’s comment is how we got “apps”. Which has worked fairly well, all things considered.
J: I’m one of those paying Adobe customers. I’m not being oppressed by them because I don’t currently identify as a woman. But if I were being oppressed by them I would like to think that I could get by using GIMP and/or banding together with my fellow victims to write something like GIMP.