<br>Sam -- I'd LOVE to be on a panel with you arguing these points! :-)<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Dec 31, 2007 8:11 AM, Sam Ladner <<a href="mailto:samladner@gmail.com">samladner@gmail.com</a>> wrote:
<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Steve, with respect, I heartily disagree with your arguments.<br><br>Regarding the telephone, there was great concern when it was launched that women were using it "inappropriately," that is, for social reasons. In fact, the switches were designed specifically NOT to encourage social use. The fact that your grandmother and her friends used the party line in this unintended way does not demonstrate the neutral nature of technology. It demonstrates their co-opting of a male design.
</blockquote><div><br>SB: Can you cite *any* historical facts to show me that "great concern" or to support the positioning of the telephone in "appropriate" ways that intentionally put in place discouragements for women's use? (Dominating a party line yes, excluding women, no). This seems like a real stretch and the circuit switching telephone network was designed with the available capability of the time and cost money to build the network (there was scarcity). Today's packet switching internet means that those connections are NO LONGER SCARCE and thus social aspects of voice, video, and other social connections (
i.e., Web 2.0) have exploded in use. So any social discouragement of the early telephone system was economic and not some form of mythical male collusion intended to oppress or exclude women.<br><br>My grandmother also regaled me with stories of how she and her party line pals ("The Bunch" she called them) used their time to plan dances and functions, talk about local issues, chat, and inform each other about their lives and they always got off the line if someone else needed to use it. So they were bending the rules of use (and they knew it) but the efficiency of connecting them all was so great, and the social aspects so strong, that they were willing to push the envelope a bit.
<br><br>"It demonstrates their co-opting of a male design." What would a "female design" have looked like and how can you possibly justify a position that the telephone is "male"? <br><br></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br><br>And while your daughter may perceive technology to be "neuter," as you say, well, she's quite simply wrong. Technology is not neutral at all. There are judgment calls made at each step of the design process, which are based on normative values. Should we have a switching system that allows for long, meandering conversations? Or should we have an "efficient" switching system intended for short, direct contact? This is not a neutral choice.
</blockquote><div><br>SB: She'd beg to differ and would be in your face if you said you're "quite simply wrong" which in-and-of-itself demonstrates her own personal strength I guess. She and her pals SMS like crazy (she sent over 4,000 text messages last month from her iPhone) and I know very few guys her age that leverage technology and SMS in quite the same way that she and her girlfriends do. Do I make the cognitive leap that SMS is therefore feminine? Nope.
<br><br>You're absolutely correct that there are judgement calls made at each step of the design process. My wife would love to have a 1lb laptop with a 15" screen that runs all the applications she needs for 12 hours on a battery charge but the technology doesn't exist....yet. So designers have to make tradeoffs and compromises. Are some mythical "males" making anti-women decisions? Au contraire. Companies would love nothing better than to maximize their sales to all genders.
<br><br>Case in point: I was in a session recently with Lori Gilbert, VP at Best Buy, who is materially changing this retailers focus on women. Rather than recreate the article, let me give you a quote from it and the link so you can go and read it and you'll see one great example of a woman empowered to drive real change in an organization and is doing so.
<br><br>Quote: "<i>Women now influence 90% of consumer electronics purchases, from the
type and look of the big-screen TV to the color of the iPod speakers
for the living room, Best Buy says. The Consumer Electronics
Association estimates their influence is less, but still significant
and growing. It says women influence 57% of purchases, or $80 billion
of the $140 billion spent on consumer electronics this year.</i>" <br><br>Hmmm....perhaps you should reframe your perspective to the reality of the power of women with respect to the consumption of technology. If all this tech is male-created and by its very nature exclusionary of women, are you implying that women are a bunch of sheep uninvolved in tech design, unable to create their own technology and so powerless as to subordinate themselves to men and are going ahead and buying the technology anyway? It seems to me by the numbers in the quote above that *women* are the dominant force driving the consumption of technology and therefore perhaps technology is more feminine than masculine? I'm seeing that tech is being increasingly designed to celebrate the feminine and cater to women (though all the flipper, flappers and dweebezarbs built into most technology -- exceptions being what Apple, Bose and even the software in the OLPC provide -- are far too geeky and geared for the technoweenie males that love to fiddle with features).
<br><br>Here's the article URL: <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2006-12-20-best-buy-usat_x.htm">http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2006-12-20-best-buy-usat_x.htm</a><br><br></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br><br>I could go on, of course....the famous overpasses in New York state that disallowed buses (filled with poor, mostly black people) to make it to beaches (not a mistake, btw); the nuclear power stations that require round-the-clock guards instead of decentralized wind turbines on people's individual properties, the QWERTY keyboard designed to be more "efficient," etc....there are countless examples.
</blockquote><div><br>SB: Huh? The bus issue has nothing to do with the argument and instead is a sad civil rights and social decision that is thankfully relegated to the history books. <br><br>The energy issue is a problem many are looking at (and investing in) from many perspectives. Here's the thing Sam: I've added up the monthly energy consumption in my own home and have looked for alternatives and no, placing a windmill in my backyard, burying battery storage, installing power conditioners to ensure an uninterrupted clean flow of electrons, and attempting to be self-sufficient is a really, really hard problem to solve. Is this a "male" direction? Hardly. It's the reality of a dependent-on-oil-based economy that thankfully has awakened to carbon's impact and is changing...in no small part to the leadership of women around the world in green and sustainable efforts.
<br><br>What I do take issue with is the lack of leadership in the US with
respect to driving alternative forms of energy in order to, in fact,
make us self-sufficient and energy independent but I'm not going to
digress.<br><br>The QWERTY keyboard was designed simply to SLOW DOWN TYPISTS since women were so fast at typing that the levers with letters on them in the old typewriters were jamming. Other sources assert the rearrangement worked by separating common sequences of letters in English. Ostensibly, the hammers that were likely to be used in quick succession were less likely to interfere with each other. (from Wikipedia which, by the way, kids could access with the OLPC:
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qwerty">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qwerty</a>)<br><br><br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
The "don't like technology, so don't use it" argument underestimates the constraining forces we all face in "choice." Should I "choose" not to use email, I face repercussions. Should I "choose" not to use a computer, I also face repercussions. And we also know that girls and women in many countries have very little "choice" at all.
</blockquote><div><br>SB: Agreed. One example would be the original justification for the 'war' in Iraq -- spreading freedom and democracy -- while allowing our so-called friend, the Saudis, to maintain a monarchy and oppress women. Male domination and oppression is rampant in many countries. But we're straying from the original discussion which is the OLPC and its benefit.
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br><br>How might a laptop change that? Well she could start emailing new friends in Scandinavia for example, who tell her she can and should go to school and not be married against her will. Okay, could happen. But chances are, the social context in which she is embedded will more likely see her brother steal her laptop from her and use it for his more "important" activities.
</blockquote><div><br>SB: Sam, I don't see how you can leap to an assumption that a young girl in a third world country with an OLPC would subsequently have it stolen by her brother. That's a straw man argument and I couldn't possibly respond in the affirmative by saying, "
<i>You're right....so let's not bother and just let those little girls stay barefoot, unconnected, oppressed and uninformed.</i>" <br><br>"<i>Well she could start emailing new friends in Scandinavia...</i>
" is part of the point of the OLPC (connecting with others). But it's tapping in to the collective consciousness of humankind, the storehouses of knowledge increasingly digitized and online, and learning how to be comfortable with technology that isn't going to go away. Why do you think China and other controlling and oppressive regimes limit, filter and control Internet access? Because they're afraid their people will be empowered, that information of oppression will leak out and they, in turn, will be economically pressured by civil rights organizations and less oppressive governments. What they don't realize is -- barring the removal of all computers and Internet-centric devices and turning off the internet connections into their countries -- the horse has left the barn.
<br><br>What's the point of education and why is the OLPC a good thing? To give kids a foundation of knowledge to function in the modern world, to broaden perspective, to grow as a human being and make a positive impact on themselves, their community, their country and the world. NOT giving access to the greatest technological network in human history is to guarantee all kids without access to a life of intellectual and global awareness poverty.
<br><br>Do you believe, as I do, that ideas can change the world? That a single person can affect change? That gaining knowledge and broadening horizons can empower people -- even little girls -- to change their own circumstances? To think otherwise is relegating all girls and women in oppressive societies to victim status and a state of powerlessness that I cannot accept.
<br><br>--<br>Steve<br><br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br><br>Technology cannot be separated from the social. Anyone who says it can has a vested interest in its effects.
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Dec 31, 2007 1:12 AM, Steve Borsch <<a href="mailto:steve@iconnectdots.com" target="_blank">
steve@iconnectdots.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br><font color="#888888">Steve Borsch</font><div>
<div>
</div><div><br><br><br></div></div></blockquote></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (<a href="http://distributedcreativity.org" target="_blank">distributedcreativity.org</a>)<br><a href="mailto:iDC@mailman.thing.net">
iDC@mailman.thing.net</a><br><a href="https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc" target="_blank">https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc</a><br><br>List Archive:<br><a href="http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/" target="_blank">
http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/</a><br><br>iDC Photo Stream:<br><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/" target="_blank">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/</a><br><br>RSS feed:<br><a href="http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc" target="_blank">
http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc</a><br><br>iDC Chat on Facebook:<br><a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647</a><br><br>Share relevant URLs on
<a href="http://Del.icio.us" target="_blank">Del.icio.us</a> by adding the tag iDCref<br></blockquote></div><br><br>