Difference between revisions of "325--2011--Week 12 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
(New page: In David Nye’s excerpt, he states quite clearly that the use of electric appliances began as a form of novelty or conspicuous display. Table 6.1 only enhances this argument, where it sho...) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Nye also presents an interesting argument with the increase of bachelor living. It appears that the use of electric appliances allowed for the creation of a bachelor house, because they could perform the work of the housewife. I find this argument to be contradictory though. If it reduces the amount of work to allow for bachelor to 10 or 12 hours, then it should have a similar effect on women’s work. This is not presented in his piece; rather he shows that women’s work only increased. | Nye also presents an interesting argument with the increase of bachelor living. It appears that the use of electric appliances allowed for the creation of a bachelor house, because they could perform the work of the housewife. I find this argument to be contradictory though. If it reduces the amount of work to allow for bachelor to 10 or 12 hours, then it should have a similar effect on women’s work. This is not presented in his piece; rather he shows that women’s work only increased. | ||
~~Kyle Allwine | ~~Kyle Allwine | ||
| + | |||
| + | An interesting theme that I found in the article on the vibrator was the notion of social camouflage, disguising an objects purpose through its place of use, such as in the medical field, or by the company name, such as the White Cross, which represented social hygiene and the eradication of masturbation and prostitution. These both suggest decency and moral purity, both of which are not concepts associated with the vibrator. I wish Maines would have expanded upon the theory of social camouflage, at least with more examples other than abortion pills or the distiller. Where are other instances that we see social camouflage, and how does that affect the object and its usage? | ||
| + | --Sara Krechel | ||
| + | |||
| + | As far as Kyle’s comment on Table 6.1, I think we can definitely look at that table as saying that homes wanted the new electrical equipment for novelty, but I think another take on it is that this table shows what electrical equipment was important. Yes, perhaps 64% of the poor homes buy an iron or 33% buy a vacuum cleaner, but these items, as we discussed in class today, are also making the housework a little easier. The novelty is there, but so is the change in the difficulty and strenuousness of certain household chores. | ||
| + | --Sara Krechel | ||
