From an augmented perspective, technologies both reflect and affect social structures and hierarchical relations. It is perhaps no surprise, then, that theorists of science and technology have long recognized how technologies are gendered. This goes beyond probing technologies of female reproduction, or masculine tools of object manipulation. This pervades even those seemingly gender neutral technological objects, and the ways in which we talk about, use, and make sense of them.
Awhile back, I talked about the gendering of Siri. I argued that the female voice, coupled with her designation as a “personal assistant” created an environment ripe for highly sexist/sexualized personification of the iphone application, and iphones themselves. Far from Haraway’s utopic de-categorization, this melding of mechanical and organic solidified gendered meanings and strengthened interactional gender inequalities.
With this understanding, I still couldn’t contain my exasperated eye-roll when, after hooking up television in my home for the first time in almost a decade, I saw this (video after the jump):
(click to play)
Windows released this advertisement for the Windows 8 Surface tablet over the summer. It has been successful enough to continue airing regularly for several months. This success speaks volumes. It indicates that the gendered meanings inscribed through the commercial are ones with which viewers are a) comfortable and b) moved by to purchase the product.
So let us take a minute and deconstruct what this comfortable and moving 31- second advertisement does. The narrative trope is simple: two women/girls flaunting their features in hopes of selection within a competitive marketplace. The Windows 8 tablet boasts the following advantages: it is penetrable, easy to display, easy to use, easy to manipulate, and cheap to own. Or, said differently, she is penetrable, easy to display, easy to manipulate, easy to use, and cheap to own.
The closing line, in which the ipad pathetically asks: “Do you still think I’m pretty?” shifts the gendered allusions into a fully anthropomorphized culmination. The ipad, undesirable in her waning capacity to be penetrated, used, manipulated, displayed, and owned, relies on the shallowness of good looks. “Don’t leave me,” she implicitly begs, “you can still use me, too.”
This punch line only works within a culture that simultaneously evaluates women on their appearance, while ridiculing those who rely on attractiveness to obtain desired ends. And the desired ends are, of course, to be desirable.
The meanings imbued in eveyrday technological objects not only reflect existing gender relations, but reinforce the very structures in which these relations make sense. These are the very structures that facilitate “art” projects like the “100+ Boob Grab” that PJ Rey (@PJrey) talked about last week. These are the very structures in which all women Cyborgologists are Othered within a key public intellectual debate, as pointed out by Whitney Erin Boesel (@weboesel). These are the very structures in which “Strong is the New Skinny” passes for feminism. The logical conclusion of gendering technologies is the construction of technological objects that both reflect and perpetuate existing, problematic, structural and cultural realities. The asexual tablets, through their sexualized and gendered inscriptions, become engines of continued cultural and material power relations.
Follow Jenny on Twitter @Jenny_L_Davis
Comments 18
ArtSmart Consult — October 1, 2013
I saw that ad as comparing convenience features to cosmetics and belittling cosmetics, but I didn't get that belittling cosmetics was sexist. It was saying that cosmetics are shallow, not feminist. If Siri had a male voice instead, then maybe they would have used a different phrase like "handsome," I don't know.
If there is any problem here, it's more of a human vs machine thing, not a male vs female thing. That's an important cultural divide. See related discussion:
http://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2013/09/13/ais-of-the-world-unite/
The culture of Apple has always been humanistic user-centered design, and the culture of Microsoft has been more of a mechanical use-centered design. If gender does come into play, I would say that feminine values have always leaned towards humanism, going all the way back to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. I welcome the feminist leanings as long as feminists favor warm humans over cold machines. My iPad won't replace my wife.
Lateef Martin — October 1, 2013
I love how men come along with that argument, as if the playing field is level, as if men are sexually harassed, abused and raped the way women are. Get out of your comfort zone and just for a minute, consider that perhaps, there is actually a reason why women a(and many men) are upset about things like this instead of dismissing and downplaying it. But that would require some introspection I suppose,and ain't nobody got time fo' dat.
Le sigh.
Derrick — October 2, 2013
It is not uncommon to see companies use feminine voices in their advertisements to market their products. The reason is obvious; the female voice is more appealing than the male's. No wonder all mobile networks use automated feminine voices to assist customers who call their helplines. Maybe there is power behind the feminine voice which enables companies to see their products. People argue that companies, most often, employ this strategy to entice men but the multi million dollar question is: Is it only men who patronise these products?
Em — October 2, 2013
Something I've wondered ever since hearing about Siri (and I could be wrong about this, as I've only seen others use the app. and have never used it myself) was why the app. only had one voice--and thus, one "gender". What if someone wanted it to be masculine instead? Companies like Apple have such on computers, so why not for something like Siri, too?
Anyway, in regards to the commercial, I was thinking about how it'd be interesting if the iPad spoke the exact lines it did but in a masculine voice. And then, in a very similar commercial, used Siri's voice but did not seem "female" based on context. I feel it's important to try and cut down on gender stereotypes as much as possible, and although I understand virtually switching roles (e.g., having an iPad ask if they're "pretty" in a masculine voice) may not have too much an impact on this, it's a better alternative to assigning roles to certain genders. It's unfortunate that machines can't have "gender neutral" voices, as I feel that would help reduce the gender roles. (And I agree with Art that no human voice is recognized as androgynous regardless of if they're mistaken for the opposite gender, so using an "androgynous" voice is out of the question.)
Atomic Geography — October 2, 2013
The commercial can be taken to imply that the Windows tablet is also female, but in fact we only hear the faux Siri - it's a monologue. The Windows tablet highlights it's functionality while it makes fun of gynopromorphized rival. You interpretation is the next step, I think, in this drama. But by recognizing what I'm suggesting is the set up, we can see that Windows get to have it both ways. It suggests it is above the the foolishness and kinda creepiness of the Apple approach, while, at the same time, participating in it in the way that you so aptly analyze.
Linkspam, 10/4/13 Edition — Radish Reviews — October 4, 2013
[...] Do You Still Think I’m Pretty? I loathe this commercial. LOATHE it. [...]
Friday Roundup: October 4, 2013 » The Editors' Desk — October 4, 2013
[...] Do You Still Think I’m Pretty? on Cyborgology [...]
Digital Property & The Virgin/Whore Dichotomy » Cyborgology — October 5, 2013
[...] Whitney, and I were talking on Twitter about Jenny’s recent post on the gender politics of a Microsoft Windows 8 Surface TV advertisement. I want to recap that [...]
The Apple Event » Cyborgology — October 23, 2013
[…] queered identity never transgresses normative sex politics. When we want to treat the iPad as an object of desire or a subservient assistant it can be a woman. When it is a “killer” machine capable of […]