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!!

I know that last night I said I wanted to move away from the techie stuff and pick up on something different, but I just wanted to read Stuart Selber's introduction to his edited collection entitled Rhetorics and Technologies: New Directions in Writing and Communication.  I wanted to read this for a couple of reasons.  First, I read Carolyn R. Miller's "Foreword" a couple of weeks ago about the Pushmi-Pullyu and did not really get a good sense of what the book had to offer.  I understood her stance, but wasn't clear on where this particular text was headed, so I wanted to read Selber's "Introduction" to see if that helped.  And believe me, it did.

This was one of those pieces that I wrote all over the margins.  The margins are full of "YEP"s, "Amen"s, and "How true"s.  For me, that means I am connecting with the text and enjoying it.  This is, however, just an introduction to the rest of the chapters written by various authors, so whether or not my enthusiasm will hold true for the entirety is another matter completely.  I do want to point out a couple of quotes that I feel are noteworthy and which I wholeheartedly agree with.  I welcome anyone else's opinion on this quotes. 

In relation to the discipline of Rhetoric, Selber notes that "technology does not really function as a separate category or subcategory of consequences.  It tends to infuse each and every area of the discipline . . " (2).  Can I get an amen on that one.  Technology is not simply a necessary evil that we, as rhetoricians, must put up with.  In fact, as Selber points out, it is "difficult to imagine a rhetorical activity untouched by ongoing developments in writing and communication technologies" (2).

Another "amen" point is when Selber explains that "rhetorical education on arrangement no longer assumes a linear organizational pattern--or a patient reader, for that matter" (2).  Bingo.  In today's society, many people have become extremely inpatient readers.  If you do not hook them within the first few seconds, you have likely lost your audience.  It this a bad thing?  I don't think so.  I read tons of stuff daily, including emails, and if I don't find out the point or my attention isn't grabbed in those first couple of lines, I'm outta there.  I get into more trouble for reading my email this way.  But dammit, I have a lot of email to get through in a days time and I don't have time to be messing around.  On the other hand, I am a huge fan of Charles Dickens.  One of that man's sentences can go on for two pages.  But he hooks me from the beginning.  We cannot expect our readers to just bare with us, or follow our linear way of thinking.  We have to be aware of these things.

Another issue that Selber notes is the fact that the "Internet itself has become a robust storehouse for both individual and collective memory" (2).  It that not amazing?  A truly collective memory.... anyone feel like a cyborg here?  And I always thought Cyborgs were bad things.  Well, in the true sense of being a Cybory, they are.  But the fact that we now have this collective memory is fascinating to me.  I almost feel as if the internet has brought back a sense of oral tradition to our world.  Yes, yes, I know it's written, but not all of it.  There are podcast and videocast, and a wealth of other types of information as well.  Learning it knit is a very oral tradition type thing.  You need someone to explain and show you how it is done.  But what if that someone is miles away, or maybe you don't know anyone who knits.  The internet has it all.  The oral and the visual.  A collective memory.... I like that.

Ok, one more point and then I'll let this one go, I promise.  This is a particular pet peeve with me actually, so I'm glad Selber addresses it briefly.  When someone talks about teaching online, or hybridly (yea maybe that's not a word, but it is tonight), I get all excited.  I want to know what they are doing in class and how they are doing it.  More often than not, I am completely disappointed.  Why?  Because they are the teachers who "transfer[red] to the screen their pedagogical approaches from the brick-and-mortar classroom" (3).  IT WON'T WORK PEOPLE!!!  They are two completely different animals!!!  If you are a rhetorician, and you have simply uploaded all of your class material to Blackboard, Angel, WebCT, D2L, or some other fancy course management system, hang it up, or to put it as Selber does "this assumption was useful to new teachers, but a non-dialogic perspective failed to emphasize the interanimations of rhetorics and technologies" (3).  (I like my version better, just hang it up.)

Ok, it's late, I'm tired, and I've bored all of you to death, so thanks for listening to my rant, and good night.

As the big day to the "official" beginning of this projects looms ever closer, I find myself getting a little nervous about whether or not I'll be able to pull it off.  But I have faith and confidence that I'll find a way.

I decided I might as well get one, maybe two, more Pre-Project Post in before the official day, so I read the introduction to Webbing Cyberfeminist Practice: Communities, Pedagogies, and Social Action, edited by Kristine Blair, Radhika Gajjala, and Christine Tulley with the introduction by them as well.  First, let me admit that I struggle with terms like "web cyberfeminist practice" (3).  I'm not sure that it is a flaw in my understanding or knowledge, just that terms like these can have multiple meanings or even have a fluidity to them that can be elusive.  I will say, however, that my knowledge in this area of inquiry is quite limited.  With that said, the text has a LOT to offer. 

The book is laid out in three themes: 1) Forming Virtual Kinships, 2) Redrawing Academic Borders, and 3) Resisting Gendered Hierarchy.  Each of these section has a wide range of essays. 

There were a couple of phrases, comments, statements, that I thought were interesting.  In the first section, the editors state that "this emphasis on how the personal is a necessary part of cyberfeminism practice is a theme . . ." in the essays here (4).  Is that true?  Do I have to divulge something personal about myself in order to participate in "web cyberfeminist practice"?  Not sure I buy into that theory.  Can I not perform feminist practices on the web without also being personal?  I think about this blog, and I believe all I have written about are things of a professional nature, except maybe the little bit of biography that discusses some pretty vague hobbies.  Are those considered personal?  I don't know that they really add to what I am doing here. 

That leads me to question exactly what I am doing here.  I believe I'm chiseling out a place for me in cyberspace.  A place where my voice can be heard.  Not that it will be, people would have to read it for that be true, but it CAN be.

Another quote, dealing with an essay in the second session, argues that "gendering of cyberspace occurs at the moment when boys become the makers of technology and girls aspire to be but its users" (8).  What constitutes the making of technology?  Do I have to go out and invent something?  Maybe I just need to be a programmer?  Maybe making this site on Weebly counts as being a technology maker?  To be fair, the article being discussed here is arguing that it's about education and literacy.  Hard to argue with that.

The final section, about hierarchies, deals with JUST that.  In the beginning of the information highway, there were pipe dreams and ideals of utopia when it came to how the internet would create a true democracy.  What we have learned is that hierarchies can be recreated on the web just as they are offline.  Therefore, we have to aware of these hierarchies and find ways to overcome them.

I will definitely be interested in reading several of the articles in this text.  There are a couple that I will probably bypass, like the one dealing with women who have lost children and the bonds they create online, but I think the collection, overall, will be fascinating for me.