Artificial intelligence voice assistants often embedded in people’s daily lives appear as social partners. Most artificial intelligence assumes the humble and submissive female names and voices. Scholars from Techno-feminism argue that technology has a gender aspect, not neutral and transparent. Why should AI voice assistants be designed as female images? How do users use such a product and interpret its gender? Based on feminist theory, this study interviewed 11 users and analyzed publicity videos and text materials on Classmate AI’s official media platforms. The finding is that the intelligent voice assistant of Xiaomi company has feminine characteristics, with most users being male. Cutting-edge technology, convenience, and emotional support are the main reasons users use it. Due to traditional gender stereotypes and the imperfections of the product itself, male users frequently express insensitivity to the gender of intelligent voice assistants. However, they unintentionally consolidate the dominant perspective of technology and gender through participatory, creative, and personalized practices such as training programs.
AmmariTKayeJTsaiJY, et al (2019) Music, search, and IoT: How people (really) use voice assistants. ACM Transactions on Computer Human Interaction26(3): 1–28.
2.
AzumaH (2009) Otaku: Japan’s Database Animals. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
3.
BrahnamSKaranikasMWeaverM (2011) (Un) dressing the interface: Exposing the foundational HCI metaphor “computer is woman.” Interacting With Computers23(5): 401–412.
4.
BucherT (2017) ‘Machines don’t have instincts’: Articulating the computational in journalism. New Media & Society19(6): 918–933.
5.
ChambersD (2020) Domesticating the “smarter than you” home. Gendered agency scripts embedded in smart home discourses. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft68(3): 304–317.
6.
ChenF (2006) Designing Human Interface in Speech Technology. Sweden: Springer Science & Business Media.
7.
ColatrellaC (2006) Feminist narratives of science and technology: artificial life and true love in Eve of destruction and making Mr. Right. In: FoxMFJohnsonDGRosserSV (eds) Women, Gender, and Technology. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp.57–173.
8.
CowanRS (1987) The consumption junction: A proposal for research strategies in the sociology of technology. In: BijkerWEHughesTPPinchT (eds) The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, pp.261–280.
9.
DepountiISaukkoPNataleS (2023) Ideal technologies, ideal women: AI and gender imaginaries in Redditors’ discussions on the Replika bot girlfriend. Media Culture & Society45(4): 720–736.
10.
DraudeCKlumbyteGLückingP, et al (2020) Situated algorithms: A sociotechnical systemic approach to bias. Online Information Review44(2): 325–342.
11.
FaulknerW (2000) Dualisms, hierarchies and gender in engineering. Social Studies of Science30(5): 759–792.
12.
GillR (2007) Postfeminist media culture: Elements of a sensibility. European Journal of Cultural Studies10(2): 147–166.
13.
GnJ (2016) Designing affection: On the curious case of machine cuteness. In: DaleJPGogginJLeydaJ, et al. (eds) The Aesthetics and Affects of Cuteness. New York: Routledge, pp.185–203.
14.
GoodeL (2018) Life, But Not as We Know It: AI and the Popular Imagination. Culture Unbound: Journal of Current Cultural Research 10(2): 185–207.
15.
GuzmanAL (2016) Making AI safe for humans: A conversation with Siri. In: GehlRWBakardjievaM (eds) Socialbots and Their Friends: Digital Media and the Automation of Sociality. New York: Routledge, pp.85–101.
16.
GuzmanAL (2019) Voices in and of the machine: Source orientation toward mobile virtual assistants. Computers in Human Behavior90: 343–350.
17.
GuzmanALLewisSC (2020) Artificial intelligence and communication: A human–machine communication research agenda. New Media & Society22(1): 70–86.
18.
HansenSS (2022) Public AI imaginaries: How the debate on artificial intelligence was covered in Danish newspapers and magazines 1956–2021. Nordicom Review43(1): 56–78.
19.
HarawayD (2006) A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late 20th century. In: WeissJNolanJHunsingerJ, et al. (eds) The International handbook of virtual learning environments. Dordrecht: Springer, pp.117–158.
20.
HardingSG (1986) The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
21.
HeppA (2020) Artificial companions, social bots and work bots: Communicative robots as research objects of media and communication studies. Media Culture & Society42(7-8): 1410–1426.
22.
HumphryJChesherC (2021) Preparing for smart voice assistants: Cultural histories and media innovations. New Media & Society23(7): 1971–1988.
23.
JasanoffSKimSH (2009) Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva47(2): 119–146.
24.
JohnsonDG (2010) Sorting out the question of feminist technology. In: LayneLLVostralSLBoyerK (eds) Feminist Technology. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp. 36–54.
25.
KarppiT (2018) “The computer said so”: On the ethics, effectiveness, and cultural techniques of predictive policing. Social Media + Society4(2): 2056305118768296.
26.
LaestadiusLBishopAGonzalezM, et al (2022) Too human and not human enough: A grounded theory analysis of mental health harms from emotional dependence on the social chatbot Replika. 26(10): 5923–5941.
27.
LeavyS (2018) Gender bias in artificial intelligence: The need for diversity and gender theory in machine learning. In: Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on gender equality in software engineering, May, pp.14–16.
28.
LiuJ (2021) Social Robots as the bride?: Understanding the construction of gender in a Japanese social robot product. Human-Machine Communication2: 105–120.
29.
MagerAKatzenbachC (2021) Future imaginaries in the making and governing of digital technology: Multiple, contested, commodified. New Media & Society23(2): 223–236.
30.
MoranTC (2021) Racial technological bias and the white, feminine voice of AI VAs. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies18(1): 19–36.
31.
NagyPNeffG (2015) Imagined affordance: Reconstructing a keyword for communication theory. Social Media + Society1(2): 2056305115603385.
32.
NassCIBraveS (2005) Wired for Speech: How Voice Activates and Advances the Human-Computer Relationship. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, p.9.
33.
NataleSGuzmanAL (2022) Reclaiming the human in machine cultures: Introduction. Media Culture & Society44(4): 627–637.
OregliaELingR (2018) Popular digital imagination: Grass-root conceptualization of the mobile phone in the global south. Journal of Communication68(3): 570–589.
36.
OudshoornNEPinchT (2003) Introduction: How users and non-users matter. In: How Users Matter. The Co-construction of Users and Technology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp.1–25.
37.
OudshoornNNevenLStienstraM (2016) How diversity gets lost: Age and gender in design practices of information and communication technologies. Journal of Women & Aging28(2): 170–185.
38.
OudshoornNRommesEStienstraM (2004) Configuring the user as everybody: Gender and design cultures in information and communication technologies. Science Technology & Human Values29(1): 30–63.
39.
PerezCC (2019) Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men. London: Vintage.
40.
PhanT (2019) Amazon Echo and the aesthetics of whiteness. Catalysts5(1): 1–38.
41.
PuringtonATaftJGSannonS, et al (2017) “Alexa is my new BFF” social roles, user satisfaction, and personification of the Amazon Echo. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, May, pp.2853–2859.
42.
ReevesBNassC (1996) The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43.
ReevesJ (2016) Automatic for the people: The automation of communicative labor. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies13(2): 150–165.
44.
RicaurteP (2022) Ethics for the majority world: AI and the question of violence at scale. Media Culture & Society44(4): 726–745.
45.
RobertsonJ (2010) Gendering humanoid robots: Robo-sexism in Japan. Body & Society16(2): 1–36.
46.
RoderoELucasI (2023) Synthetic versus human voices in audiobooks: The human emotional intimacy effect. New Media & Society25(7): 1746–1764.
47.
SaukkoP (2018) Methodologies for cultural and social studies in an age of new technologies. In: DenzinNKLincolnYS (eds)The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp.261–274.
48.
SongXXuBZhaoZ (2022) Can people experience romantic love for artificial intelligence? An empirical study of intelligent assistants. Information Management59(2): 103595.
49.
TurkleS (1988) Artificial intelligence and psychoanalysis: A new alliance. Daedalus117(1): 241–268.
50.
WajcmanJ (1991) Feminism Confronts Technology. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
WajcmanJ (2010) Feminist theories of technology. Cambridge Journal of Economics34(1): 143–152.
53.
WalkerM (2020) Successful social media resistance: Implications for employee voice. Labour & Industry a journal of the social and economic relations of work30(2): 174–184.
54.
WestEMutasaSZhuZ, et al (2019) Global trend in artificial intelligence–based publications in radiology from 2000 to 2018. American Journal of Roentgenology213(6): 1204–1206.
55.
WhiteM (2015) Producing Women: The Internet, Traditional Femininity, Queerness, and Creativity. New York: Routledge.
56.
WoodsHS (2018) Asking more of Siri and alexa: feminine persona in service of surveillance capitalism. Critical Studies in Media Communication35(4): 334–349.
57.
YuanYZhuL (2021) Whose Love is AI for? The networked body and multiple masculinities in Chinese child-rearing robots. Journal of Communication and Society57: 225–254.
58.
ZdenekS (2007) “Just roll your mouse over me”: Designing virtual women for customer service on the web. Technical Communication Quarterly16(4): 397–430.
59.
ZeavinH (2021) The Distance Cure: A History of Teletherapy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
