Difference between revisions of "325--Week 1 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
The section "Masculinity and Technology" raises a couple of issues for me that I find very interesting. The author states that if one understands technology and has a skill, then one is truly a man. He explained that with the case of Frederick Douglass. Now, my first question is do we think that's a valid argument? Do we believe that people today still believe that you're wimpy if you don't understand technology? That you're not a real man? The next thing I found interesting was the notion that women are inferior and therefore should not be as technologically fluent. Technology has always been seen as far more masculine and a more manly skill to acquire. But with the dishwasher and the washing machine, and other such advancements, do you believe that the classification that technology = masculine is changing? Or does a large majority of society consider technology to refer to computers and other such items that the stereotype might not be different? -Kelly Wuyscik | The section "Masculinity and Technology" raises a couple of issues for me that I find very interesting. The author states that if one understands technology and has a skill, then one is truly a man. He explained that with the case of Frederick Douglass. Now, my first question is do we think that's a valid argument? Do we believe that people today still believe that you're wimpy if you don't understand technology? That you're not a real man? The next thing I found interesting was the notion that women are inferior and therefore should not be as technologically fluent. Technology has always been seen as far more masculine and a more manly skill to acquire. But with the dishwasher and the washing machine, and other such advancements, do you believe that the classification that technology = masculine is changing? Or does a large majority of society consider technology to refer to computers and other such items that the stereotype might not be different? -Kelly Wuyscik | ||
| + | |||
| + | Langdon Walker's article "Do Artifacts Have Politics?" and Donald MacKenzie's article "The Social Shaping of Technology" address the premise that technology itself is not merely technical. Rather, "technological advancement" brings social, economic, and political consequences that often have negative repercussions for different groups of people often lost in the historical narrative. We view the latest technology as the "best" and often do not consider the how "advancement" might effect the way society progresses and develops norms (Robert Moses' parkway overpasses discriminating against the poor and minorities). Similarly, the development of the mechanical tomato harvester by the University of California in the late 1940s put small tomato farmers out of business and cost thousands of people their jobs. As MacKenzie asks, what are the characteristics and qualities that make a certain mode of technology "best"? Who benefits from these new additions? -Bryan Lees | ||
| + | |||
| + | In her article, "Problems with 'Skill'" Nina Lerman discusses the hesitancy in using words such as skill, sophistication, and intelligence. Lerman argues that these words carry loaded meanings that people often associate with one's social status, ambition, etc. The term "knowledge" seems better because it covers all types of technology (churning butter to locomotive operation). I find Lerman's argument compelling because I believe that we subconsciously and consciously label people based on their "skilled" or "unskilled" labor. Part of the reason that I decided to take this class is because I knew that there has to be more to technology than just the basic facts of its invention, use, etc. Technology can reinforce stereotypes, social status, economic position, and more importantly, the value we assign to one another as human beings. -Bryan Lees | ||
