The pleasures experienced by boys and men who work and play closely with technology have important implications for both gender and technology. This article presents empirical evidence on the topic from two studies: one of hobbyist “robot builders” who build machines for the U.K. television program Robot Wars (Kleif), the other of professional software developers working in a large U.S. corporation (Faulkner). In spite of the obvious differences between these two groups, they experience strikingly similar pleasures—in creating technologies, in their skills and knowledge, and in their intimacy and comfort with technology. The authors discuss available gender-based analyses of men’s pleasures in technology, drawing on the empirical material to both challenge and extend these analyses. The authors suggest, tentatively, that technology is a gender-authentic and gender-available avenue for those men who particularly crave certainty because technology appears more certain, easier to understand, and easier to master than other worlds they inhabit.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baker, A. 1999. Robot Wars technical manual. London: Boxtree.
2.
Bucciarelli, L.L. 1994. Designing engineers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3.
Cronberg, T. 1995. The feeling of home. Russian women in the defense industry and the transformation of their identities. Presented at the international workshop The Mutual Shaping of Gender and Technology, University of Twente, the Netherlands, 6-8 October.
4.
Deem, R. 1986. All work and no play: The sociology of women and leisure. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
5.
Downey, GL. 1998. The machine in me: An anthropologist sits among computer engineers. New York: Routledge.
6.
Downey, G.L., and J.A. Lucena. 1995. Engineering studies. In Handbook of science and technology studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, E.G. Markle, J.C. Petersen, and T. Pinch, 167-88. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
Easlea, B. 1983. Fathering the unthinkable: Masculinity, scientists, and the nuclear arms race. London: Pluto.
8.
—. 1996. The closed world: Computers and the politics of discourse in cold war America. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9.
Faulkner, W. 2000a. Dualisms, hierarchies and gender in engineering. Social Studies of Science30 (5): 759-92.
10.
—. 2000b. The power and the pleasure? A research agenda for “making gender stick” to engineers. Science, Technology, & Human Values25: 87-119.
11.
Flax, J. 1990. Thinking fragments: Psychoanalysis, feminism, and postmodernism in the contemporary West. Berkeley: University of California Press.
12.
Florman, S. 1976. The existential pleasures of engineering. New York: St. Martin’s.
13.
Freeman, C., and L. Soete. 1997. The economics of industrial innovation. 3rd ed. London: Pinter.
14.
Gerrity, M.S., J.A.L. Earp, R.F. DeVellis, and D.W. Light. 1992. Uncertainty and professional work: Perceptions of physicians in clinical practice. American Journal of Sociology97 (4): 1022-51.
15.
Hacker, S. 1989. Pleasure, power and technology: Some tales of gender, engineering, and the cooperative workplace. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
16.
—. 1990. Doing it the hard way: Investigations of gender and technology. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
17.
Haddon, L. 1990. Researching gender and home computers. In Technology and everyday life: Trajectories and transformations, Report No. 5: Proceedings from a workshop in Trondheim, 28-29 May, edited by K.H. Sørensen and A.-J. Berg, 89-108. Oslo: Norwegian Research Council for Science and Humanities.
18.
Huizinga, J. 1963. Homo ludens—Om kulturens oprindelse i leg. Copenhagen, Denmark: Nordisk Forlag.
19.
Håpnes, T. 1996. Not in their machines: How hackers transform computers into subcultural artefacts. In Making technology our own? Domesticating technology into everyday life, edited by M. Lie and K.H. Sørensen, 121-50. Oslo, Norway: Scandinavian University Press.
20.
Håpnes, T., and B. Rasmussen. 1991. Excluding women from the technologies of the future? FuturesDecember: 1107-19.
21.
Keller, E.F. 1990. From secrets of life to secrets of death. In Body/politics: Women and the discourses of science, edited by M. Jacobus, E.F. Keller, and S. Shuttleworth, 177-91. New York: Routledge.
22.
Kidder, T. 1981. The soul of a new machine. New York: Penguin.
23.
Law, J. 2001. Machinic pleasures and interpellations. Lancaster, UK: Centre for Science Studies and the Department of Sociology, Lancaster University. Available from http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/soc067jl.html.
24.
Lovell, J., and J. Kluger. 1994. Lost moon: The perilous voyage of Apollo 13. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
25.
MacKenzie, D., and J. Wajcman. 1999. Introductory essay: The social shaping of technology. In The social shaping of technology, 2nd ed., edited by D. MacKenzie and J. Wajcman, 3-27. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
26.
Massey, D. 1995. Masculinity, dualisms and high technology. Transactions of the Institute of British Geography20: 486-99.
27.
McIlwee, J.S., and J.G. Robinson. 1992. Women in engineering: Gender, power, and workplace culture. Albany: State University of New York Press.
28.
McNeil, M. 1987. Being reasonable feminists. In Gender and expertise, edited by M. McNeil, 13-61. London: Free Association Books.
29.
Mellström, U. 1995. Engineering lives: Technology, time and space in a male-centred world. Linköping, Sweden: Linköping University, Department of Technology and Social Change.
30.
Millard, E. 1997. New technologies, old inequalities—Variations found in the use of computers by pupils at home with implications for the school curriculum. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of York, 11-14 September.
31.
Morrow, V. 1994. Responsible children? Aspects of children’s work and employment outside school. In Contemporary UK children’s childhoods: Observed and experienced, edited by B. Mayall, 128-40. London: Falmer.
32.
Murphy, P. 1991. Gender differences in pupils’ reactions to practical work. In Practical science: The role and reality of practical work in school science, edited by B. Woolnough, 112-22. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
33.
Murray, F. 1993. A separate reality: Science, technology and masculinity. In Gendered by design? Information technology and office systems, edited by E. Green, J. Owen, and D. Pain, 64-80. London: Taylor & Francis.
34.
Oldenziel, Ruth. 1999. Making technology masculine. Men, women, and modern machines in America, 1870-1945. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
35.
Papert, S. 1993. The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
36.
Pless, M. 2001. Unge om ingeniørfaget: Om at knække ligningen eller finde sig selv? En kvalitativ undersøgelse udarbejdet for Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark. Maj 2001. Copenhagen, Denmark: Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark.
37.
Sroufe, A., and J.P. Wunsch. 1972. The development of laughter in the first years of life. Child Development43 (3): 1326-44.
38.
Turkle, S. 1984. The second self: Computers and the human spirit. NewYork: Simon & Schuster.
39.
—. 1988. Computational reticence: Why women fear the intimate machine. In Technology and women’s voices: Keeping in touch, edited by C. Kramarae, 41-61. London: Routledge.
40.
West, C., and S. Fenstermaker. 1995. Doing difference. Gender and Society9: 8-37.
41.
Yates, S., and K. Littleton. 1999. Understanding computer game cultures: A situated approach. Information, Communication & Society2 (4): 566-83.
