So today I finished Eve Shapiro's book Gender Circuits: Bodies and Identities in a Technological Age.  Shapiro states repeatedly that by looking at the effects of technology on gender using a sociological analysis the evidence shows that new technologies have multiple effects on gender, both positive and negative.

Looking back on the case studies throughout the text, I can see how Shapiro comes to this conclusion.  Some technologies, such as the internet, push the boundaries of societal norms and give people, at least those privileged enough to have computers and internet, the opportunity to find information and to find others who have the same concerns.  On the other hand, there are times when technology helps to re-entrench us in the gender scripts and the hegemonic society we have all come to know and expect.  Case in point are all the ways people use technologies such as plastic surgeries and drugs to uphold the binaries we are most use too.

As Shapiro states, "the conclusions [she] can draw open as many new doors of inquiry as they close" (189), and in reality, I question whether or not any doors have been closed.  I've no doubt that others, more well versed in this area of scholarship, would be more prone to argue with Shapiro than myself, but I enjoyed her text and, as anyone who has read this blog can tell, she opened my eyes to quite a few things about myself.

I think it is interesting that Shapiro ends with a case study that looks at the pregnancy of Thomas Beatie.  Shapiro notes that this case pushes the boundaries of what we believe about gender scripts, gender norms, identity, and the binary of men and women.  I couldn't agree more.

As predicted last night, the end of Eve Shapiro's chapter 3, "New Biomedical Technologies, New Scripts, New Genders," in Gender Circuits ends on an up note.  But, before we get to the positive, Shapiro discusses some case studies by scholars that have to do with strippers. 

Many strippers go through massive body modifications in order to make more money at their profession.  These of course can include things like extreme breast augmentation, permanent hair removal, drug use, etc.  But I guess I had never thought about what these types of body modifications due to a person's identity.  If a stripper changes her body drastically for her profession, does this match who she is outside of the job?  According to Shapiro, "the more technologies the women used to produce ideal bodies, the more wedded they became to their 'stripper' identities" (157).  It seems as if these identities are difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile. 

Another point that Shapiro makes, almost offhandedly, is that men likewise go through the motions to replicate the ideal gender script of body with things such as steroids, shaving, waxing, and other drastic measures: all to meet an ideal that is impossible to replicate.  With today's media portrayal of the perfect bodies, even men are succumbing to the need to replicate an impossible, often airbrushed, image. 

The rest of the chapter, however, deals with the possibilities that new technologies bring to gender.  Shapiro states that "it is important to remember, however, that while each technology may have the possibility of reifying gender scripts, it can also open up potential for new gendered bodies" (161).  While many of the advances for transgendered have already been discussed, she goes into more detail by describing the differences between Michael Dillon, who went through FTM transformation starting in 1930, and Rey, who has gone through the same transformation recently.  The advances in the last 50 years are amazing. Access to surgery and other medical treatments are much easier than they were 50 years ago, and the acceptance of such transformations is much greater.

Shapiro also discusses in her case study in this chapter those children who are born without any definite sex.  In the past, parents were usually forced to choose a sex for the child soon after birth regardless of what gendered identity the child might acquire as they grew older.  Today, however, and with the help of the Intersex Society of North America (ISNA), parents often receive counseling, advising them to wait until the child can develop an identity and help in making the decision, and many of them heed this advice.  I was surprised to learn that some of these children choose to have no surgery, thereby not conforming to the binary of two sexes, two genders.  I would call this progress!

The next entry will focus on the "Review" (last) chapter of Shapiro's text which will likely just rehash much of what we have already discussed.  Book two will be complete and I'll be onto the next text.

Well, in this first half of chapter 3 of Eve Shapiro's Gender Circuits entitled "New Biomedical Technologies, New Scripts, New Genders," it sounds as if the biotechno stuff goes a long way in keeping everything status quo as far as gender norms and scripting.  It's true, however, that there has been no mention yet of gender reassignment surgeries or the hormone therapies that go along with that.  But at this point, I question whether or not those will even constitute straying from normal gender practices.

Looking at what Shapiro did discuss in the first half of this chapter, it is apparent that much of the hassles people put themselves through biologically (everything from bariatric surgery to spa treatments) are in direct alignment with keeping the scripts already established by society.  As Shapiro points out, if only 59 percent of the population of the U.S.  are obese women, why is it that 85 percent of the bariatric surgeries are performed on women? (147)  Well, even a 5th grader, to borrow from Jeff Foxworthy, could answer that question; it's because women are suppose to be thin!!!  Another disturbing fact that Shapiro points out is that "the most common cosmetic surgery procedures for people of color are nose reshaping, eyelid surgery, and breast agumentation, which are all procedures that alter racialized facial and body features to better match White norms" (152).  So not only are we attempting to meet correct gender scripts, but we are also trying to reproduce the hegemonic power structures.

At this point in time, this book is simply depressing me.  I've always known that this society does everything possible to maintain gender norms and power structures, but this text points this out with statistics and facts that can't be ignored.  I just keep telling myself that even with the proof being presented, things have gotten better.  For some, the internet has opened up a wealth of information and things like transgender are no longer taboo subjects to discuss in the open.  And even though I haven't read it yet, I'm sure that Shapiro will discuss the fact that it is easier for people trapped in the wrong body to get help, something that just a few years ago was still extremely difficult.

So tune in tomorrow night to see if Shapiro does indeed find the positive in the biotechno aspects of gender.  Hopefully, I'll get to finish the chapter.

I had no idea when I began Eve Shapiro's book Gender Circuits that she would look at Second Life with regard to gender identity.  Anyone who knows me understands how thrilled I am about this sense Second Life is of particular interest to me. 

Shapiro begins "Information Technologies and Gendered Identity Work" by discussing a myriad of topics that have been written about the subject.  It's almost as if she is trying to legitimate the topic, or it could be that she just wants the audience to understand how prevalent this virtual world is in our real world.  I have been a citizen of this virtual environment for over three years now.  I have seen avatars of all shapes and sizes and never blinked an eye at how the real world people chose to represent themselves in this virtual space.  It took Shapiro to point out just how homogenous Second Life really is for me to even consider this.  She brings up some interesting questions as well, asking "Why was gender, racial and body size homogeneity, the outcome of allowing people to construct their own avatars?  Is this homogeneity intentional, purposefully or unconsciously produced by this virtual world's designers or participants?  Or is it a product of those who participate in Second Life?" (89).  (Note: While many choose to italicize Second Life, I do not unless I am discussing the software that must be downloaded to enter the virtual world.  If we do not italicize "world", I see no reason to italicize Second Life.)  Shapiro notes that most people likely just create their "ideal" self when they construct their avatar, but that in so doing "we created a world that reflected social body norms and hegemonically valued existing gender, race, and class scripts" (89).

If this isn't food for thought, I don't know what is.  But I do have a bit of a theory, and I'll pose it here.  While residents of SL are allowed to create their own avatar, the beginning choices are limited in what you can be.  When I researched first-year composition in this world in 2007, my students did not even have the initial choice of choosing African American.  And I had a student who wrote about the disembodied feeling they had walking around as white when in reality they were African American (my use of "they" is intentional to avoid gendering here).  Second Life does allow you to completely remake yourself once you are in-world, but that requires some knowledge and often Linden $$$ to create what you want, and many noobs (new residents) do not make these investments unless they decide to remain a citizen of this society.  So perhaps these citizens appear to reproduce homogeneity simple because they have not made the commitment to the money and time it takes to create the avatar they really want.  At any rate, it is a theory.

I want to take this one step further.  Shapiro notes that different theorists believe "that technology can produce new and reconstructed bodies and identities" (93).  There is ample evidence that this is true.  Perhaps the reason Second Life reproduces homogeneity is because it puts everyone on equal playing ground.  Wagner James Au, in The Making of Second Life and Robbie Cooper, in Alter Ego: Avatars and Their Creators, both discuss an avatar in Second Life known as Wilde Cunningham.  An avatar with nine real world individuals, who suffer from various physical challenges, behind it.  As these people say, Second Life allows them "to fly and walk and run and drive and basically experience everything life has to offer.  It allows us to fulfill some dreams and meet really cool people we would not otherwise have met" ("Wild Cunningham" from Robbie Cooper's Alter Ego: Avatars and Their Creators.  Homogeneity, for some, creates an identity that puts them on an even playing field and affords them things and experiences they would otherwise miss out on.

Obviously the first half of this chapter dealt with a lot more than just the creation of identity in Second Life, but I have written far too much for one blog post and likely bored my readers to tears, so I'll end with a goodnight.

First, just let me say that my simple blog posts here do not do Eve Shapiro's book, Gender Circuits, justice.  But it seems I often find one or two points in these text quite interesting and usually end up focusing there.  On the plus side, perhaps this makes you, the reader, curious enough about the book to read it for yourself.

Tonight I finished Chapter 1, "A Social History of Technology and Gender," which concluded with the case study "Bloomers and Nineteenth-Century Womanhood."  I will conclude with the case study, as I found it very interesting, but first, I'll discuss a little bit about the second half of the chapter.  It focuses primarily on gender non-conformity as well as on how new technologies often make way for new genders.  When it comes to non-conformity, Shapiro points out that "Western societies have not offered third (let alone fourth or fifth) gender options, many other societies have, and some still do" (66).  She goes on to argue that "some cultures not only accommodate these alternate genders but also see them as legitimate ways of being, powerful and important to the society at large" (66).  But of course the Western world has never been able to come to terms with this, and instead, uses these types of differences to try to somehow prove it is better than these other societies. 

Shapiro also discusses how new technologies, such as advances in medicine, help to bring about new genders and new gender scripts.  And this leads me to the case study and to the answer of who slaughtered the "angel in the house" (a phrase popularized by Coventry Patmore's Poem by that title in 1854). Before I point a direct finger at that notorious murderer, let me just first explain that Shapiro sheds light on this crime by pointing out many changes were taking place in the Victorian era.  We had the industrial revolution, and with it came the sewing machine, and with that came the ability to make clothes quicker.  Eventually came the ability to mass produce clothing, which lead to being able to offer them to a much wider populace than ever before.  Also during this time women were beginning to demand more rights, including the right to work, vote, and even have leadership abilities right along side of men.  There was also the fact that period clothing hinders women from most physical activities, including that of riding a bicycle (something that had become quite popular). 

Therefore, women were demanding the right to wear pants, or as they were called, bloomers.This was outlandish and Shapiro points out that "many suggested that bloomers (and the bicycle riding that they were affiliated with) 'destroys the health of women, and unfits them for the important and sacred duties of motherhood'" (84).  Of course, the corset that women were required to wear did WONDERS for her health, but I digress.  The person ultimately (apparently) responsible for the death of the "angel in the house" is Elizabeth Smith Miller, the woman responsible for designing the first pair of women's pants in 1851 (85).  There you have it.  That first pair of pants was the downfall of the angel from her throne (Thank God).

It is late, so I bid you goodnight.

Tonight I began the first chapter, the one after the "Preview", of Eve Shapiro's book (Gender Circuits) entitled "A Social History of Technology and Gender."  Before I go there though and to be fair to anyone who might pick this book up to read it based on something said in these blogs, I just want to mention that the organization, for me at least, is a bit haphazard, jumping from one place to another and then back again.  However, I think this might simply be the nature of the topic, and I only notice it from time to time.

Ok, that being said, this chapter continued to discuss how society and technology have affected gender throughout history.  I think I have always, to a degree, understood that societal norms change--sometimes slowly, sometimes more quickly--with the passage of time.  I guess I never really considered, though, technologies influences on these changes.  I think it is important to understand what Shapiro means by technology.  As Shapiro points out, "technology is often defined in terms of machines, its linguistic origins, meaning 'the expression of a craft,' suggest its scholarly use to refer to anything people develop to manipulate the natural environment" (46).  I had never thought about technology like that.  So one example Shapiro uses is the vitamin supplements men use to enhance their masculine appearance (54).  The supplements are a technology used to change a persons natural appearance.

Which leads us to the corsets, which are also a technology used to change a woman's natural figure.  Corsets were advertised as helping women maintain a healthy existence, and an ad for a girl's corset implies that "girl's and women's bodies need corseting to develop both physically and morally" (64)  Apparently, had I been corseted as a young girl, my life would be sooooo much healthier both physically and morally.  I'm simply relieved to finally know where I went wrong!! 

At any rate, Shapiro's text has been an eye opener thus far.  She discusses how technologies have been used, as above with the corset, to control gender and set the norms that society holds for those genders.  While some see technology as always progressive and innovative, the fact of the matter is that it is often used to keep the status quo and control social norms and gender scripts.  As Shapiro states, "there has not been a single new contraceptive developed for men in the last 100 years" (51).  Uh-huh!!

Ok, so the section I read tonight was not totally about tattoos, but the case study at the end of the "Preview" chapter of Eve Shapiro's Gender Circuits was, and it is really what I found the most interesting about this section.

To be fair though, I should have read another page last night because Shapiro discusses the impact of challenging gender norms by discussing drag communities and how many begin to play with gender once they have been a part of that community of a while.  Interesting stuff, to be sure.  And Shapiro also talks about how technologies such as Second Life (yes she did discuss SL) allow people to bend gender rules and play with identity.

But the case study on tattooing is where I want to take this.  Again, brings it home for me in a big kind of way.  Shapiro does an excellent job of discussing, briefly, the history of tattooing.  But more interesting is the meaning or meanings behind tattoos and what they say about us.  Probably the most obvious thing is that tattoos have never been and still are not looked kindly upon for women.  Shapiro argues that "tattoos on men and women are interpreted in vastly different ways boosting masculinity while threatening femininity" (40).  This got me thinking about my own tattoos, those of my partner, and those of my niece.  If you look at my partner's tattoos, they pretty much tell a story on their own.  There is a pooh and tigger, which needs some explanation, and two Indian themed tattoos which pretty much stand on their own.  A fourth needs explanation.  People see it and do not understand what it means at all.  My niece's are probably what I would call the epitome of a woman's tattoos.  She sports a lady buy, maybe a butterfly, and one associated with her two girls.  These are the types of tattoos that I can see being appropriate gender scripts for a woman.  My two tattoos are unique.  They did not come from the wall of a tattoo parlor, and as such, if you don't ask, you won't know what they mean.  One of them matches my partners and thus the tattoo she has that needs explanation.  The other one people mistake all the time, but people rarely enter into a discussion with me about it. 

So what do my tattoos say about my gender?  I hope nothing.  They are very personal to me and not meant to scream femininity nor masculinity; they are meant to say something about my inner being.  While I am thoroughly enjoying Shapiro's text, I hate to think of all of this gender scripting and what it says about me.

It's late, I'm tired, I'm outta here.