Feminist Technology? Now I've heard everything!

They ought to call it "Womyn's Studies meets Engineering", and engineering loses. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, which used to be a pretty good engineering school, has apparently redefined their scholarly standards. Professor Linda Layne's latest book is entitled Feminist Technology. As if "technology" has a gender.

"A technology may appear feminist in the light of one type of feminism and antifeminist through a different feminist lens," said Layne, a medical anthropologist and Alma and H. Erwin Hale '30 Professor of Humanities and Social Sciences at Rensselaer.

Sometimes a bridge isn't just a bridge? And what exactly is the refraction coefficient of a "feminist lens"?

Well, that's not quite what this is about. "Feminist technology" is short on technology per se, but long on feminism. Think of it as "cutesy packaging", which somehow empowers women. And of course there's post-modern mumbo jumbo galore.

In discussing the two-edged sword of being able to pass as a non-menstruating woman by using tampons, the discussion turned to similar issues with regard to the birth control pill.

OK Toto, we definitely aren't in Kansas anymore. I spent four years at Rensselaer. The female students I knew weren't concerned about being able to "pass as a non-menstruating (or otherwise) woman"; they were just trying to pass the class like everybody else. Any "two edged swords" were considered only in terms of their angular momentum, velocity, and trajectory.

Before I knew it several of the students in this all-female class had whipped out their pill packs to illustrate the point. One student used an Ortho brand case which a flower on it which she explained was designed to look like a compact, i.e., to disguise the pills, and present them to the casual viewer as a makeup tool (something appropriately feminine) rather than a tool for non-reproductive sex (something for which one should/would feel embarrassed).

I don't know which is more bizarre — the idea of an all-female class at The Tute or a universe where decorative packaging is conflated with advanced technology. I'll grant that packaging is important. It plays a big role in marketing and is vital when transporting fragile items. But there is nothing inherently technical about floral logos. Ah, but the class is not talking about the function of the packaging, they're interested in the meaning of the packaging.

There are two issues: 1) Does making a pill pack "fashionable" make them more or less feminist? And, 2) Does disguising pill packs as non-sexual tools make them more or less feminist?

Given the imprimateur of RPI I assume that these questions are asked with a straight face.

But I seriously doubt whether Stephen van Rensselaer or Amos Eaton would be able, or willing, to answer them.

Posted at 15:30 by Chris Wysocki   [/feminists]   Comments | Perm Link |
Technorati Tags: RPI feminist feminism technology Linda-Layne   |   Tweet