Julia Storch
DIG340
Professor Shrout
May 8th, 2016
Originally my literature review examined the origins of gendered technology for a wide spectrum of fields, and so my conclusions were understandably varied. Still, I was able to pinpoint how certain technologies became coded masculinely though no real consensus was found. I liked my analysis of vibrators and birth control, because I found it was more nuanced than my analysis of the other articles. In revamping this project, I thought I would look at the other side of gendering by looking at fields and technologies which are associated with women. I assumed there has been less research done on these fields, since the question of why women cannot get into certain fields appears to be more pervasive than the question of why certain fields contain mostly women. This would make my conclusions more interesting and I probably would have less research material to sift through. In addition, I decided to narrow my focus onto medical technologies, in the hopes that my conclusions would be more applicable to other technologies that are female coded and medical in nature. We spent a significant portion of time looking at women in medicine in class, so I felt I had a good foundation for examining when and where certain fields became gendered. One theory I hope to look at in this new project include how women are written about and excluded from the history of science, or in this case, where they have been allowed to be included and why. Another theory that came up in my research is the opportunities women had to get into science, such as the “pipeline” theory and how women were able to create niches form themselves. Finally, there is also the issue of gendered expectations for women in science, and how some women played into those like Ada Lovelace, while others worked hard to subvert them.
My methodology for this project will focus on engaging with theories that explain why women are put into certain fields and then how those fields become “feminized.” One theory for this is separate spheres, which became popular to explain why women oversaw the domestic sphere while men were in charge in the public sphere. Implicit in this theory is another theory, one that focuses on the gendered expectations that are forced onto women, particularly the expectations to be selfless, caring, patient, and hands on. They are supposed to contribute the “human factor” when they do enter traditionally masculine fields, such as Lillian Gilbreth being delegated to domestic technology with her skills as a productivity expert and history focuses on her concern for the workers, while her husband worked with large factories. Another theme I will look at in this paper is the assumption that men are the default. Both in terms of education and larger medical history, men are always presumed to be the student and subject. Women attempting to break into science must grapple with technologies and standards that have excluded them for centuries, and often try to create niches for themselves where they can assimilate easier. I will be using three texts which we discussed in class and three outside texts to put our class readings into a broader perspective. In order to improve on my previous attempt, I hope to allow the origins of gendering to have more nuance, since it is never just one thing or evil misogynist twirling his mustache that creates gendering, but rather a multitude of factors interacting. Though this paper will not address the gendering of the majority of the technology we discussed in class, hopefully looking at why technologies are gendered, and not neutral like most people presume, will become a more natural part of engaging with gender theory.
Works Cited
Linker, Beth. “The Business of Ethics: Gender, Medicine, and the Professional Codification of the American Physiotherapy Association, 1918–1935.” Journal of the History of Medicine & Allied Sciences 60.3 (2005): 320–354. EBSCOhost. Web.
Maines, Rachel P. The Technology of Orgasm:” Hysteria,” the Vibrator, and Women’s Sexual Satisfaction. JHU Press, 2001.
Poovey, Mary. “A Housewifely Woman: The Social Construction of Florence Nightingale.” Uneven Developments. Chicago, US: University of Chicago Press, 1988. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 8 May 2016.
Stillwell, Devon. “‘Pretty Pioneering-Spirited People’: Genetic Counsellors, Gender Culture, and the Professional Evolution of a Feminised Health Field, 1947–1980.” Social History of Medicine 28.1 (2015): 172–193. Print.
Toman, Cynthia. “Body Work”: Nurses and the Delegation of Medical Technology at the Ottawa Civic Hospital, 1947-1972.” Scientia Canadensis 29.2 (2006): 155–175. Print.
Tone, Andrea. “Making Room for Rubbers: Gender, Technology, and Birth Control before the Pill.” History and Technology 18.1 (2002): 51–76. Taylor and Francis+NEJM. Web.
