The main question to be discussed in this article is: Why do women not program? In other words, why, in an activity that appears similar to others where women have gained ground, one cannot find an analogous process of incorporation? We propose a scheme of five related factors in order to analyse the genealogy of women’s exclusion from the world of software. First, we discuss the relation between gender and technologies in general, focusing on the initial stages of socialisation. Second, we fast forward a few years in the lives of boys and girls and we analyse their first interaction with digital technologies. Next, in relation to puberty or adolescence, we inquire into peer-group dynamics which are established by those who dedicate much of their time to computers. Fourth, we take into account the gender gap in college or bachelor degrees related to informatics. Lastly, we analyse the common representations of and beliefs about gender that employers hold in relation to informatics workers. These five parts of the explanation have different foundations. Some rely strongly on our qualitative fieldwork in Buenos Aires; others are based on texts or statistics which belong to other authors.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamA. (1995). Woman and computing in the UK. Communications of the ACM, 38(1), 43.
2.
ArdittiR.KleinR. D.MindenShelley (Eds). (1984). Test-tube women: What future for motherhood. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
3.
BalsamoA. (1996). Technologies of the gendered body: Reading cyborg women. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
4.
BaringoltzE.GaunaB. M. (2014). Situación de género en los Grupos de I+D en TIC [Gender situation in R & D Groups in ICT]. Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología (MINCYT), Argentina. Retrieved 3August2014, from http://www.ragcyt.org.ar/descargas/3521_doc.pdf.
5.
BeckerG. S. (1991). A treatise on the family, enl. ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
6.
BergA. J. (1997). Digital feminism. Dragvoll, Norway: Senter for Teknologi of Samfum, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Rapport nr. 28.
BrayF. (2012). Gender and technology. In WyerM.BarbercheckM.CookmeyerD.OzturkH.WayneM. (Eds), Women, science, and technology: A reader in feminist science studies (pp. 370–381). Routledge: London.
9.
BryceJ.RutterJ. (2002). Killing like a girl: Gendered gaming and girl gamers’ visibility. Paper presented at the Computer Games and Digital Culture Conference, pp. 243–256.
10.
BurfootA. (1999). Through the eyes of Mary: Maternity and modernity in Italy. Canadian Woman Studies, 18(4), 31–38.
11.
CampT. (1997). The incredible shrinking pipeline. Communications of the ACM, 40(10), 103–110.
12.
CampT. (2002). Message from the guest editor. SIGCSE Bulletin, 34(2), 6–8.
13.
CaputiJ. (1988). Seeing elephants: The myths of phallotechnology. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 487–524.
14.
CastellsM. (2003) [1997]. La era de la información, tomo II, El poder de la Identidad [The information age: Economy, society and culture. Vol. 2, The power of identity]. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI.
15.
CastilloV.NovickM.RojoS.TuminiL. (2008). Gestión productiva y diferenciales en la inserción laboral de varones y mujeres. Estudio de cuatro ramas de actividad [Productive management and employment differentials between male and female. Study of four industries]. In NovickM.RojoS.CastilloV. (comps), El trabajo argentino en la posconvertibilidad 2003–2007 [Argentinean labor market in the post-convertibility 2003-2007]. CEPAL, Naciones Unidas, Santiago de Chile, abril de 2008.
16.
CockburnC. (1985). Machinery of dominance: Women, men and technical know-how. London: Pluto.
17.
CockburnC.OrmrodS. (1993). Gender and technology in the making. London: SAGE.
18.
ColatrellaC. (2011). Toys and tools in pink: Cultural narratives of gender, science, and technology. Columbus OH: Ohio State University Press.
19.
CoreaG.KleinR. D.HanmerJ.HolmesH. B.HoskinsB.KishwarM. (1985). Man-Made Women: How new reproductive technologies affect women. London: Hutchinson.
20.
CowanR. Sch. (1976). The industrial revolution in the home: Household technology and social change in the 20th century. Technology and Culture, 17(1), 1–23.
21.
Del BonoA. (2006). Deslocalización extraterritorial de empleos del sector servicios [Offshoring of service sector jobs. Senses and transformations of work]. Sentidos y transformaciones del trabajo. Sociología del Trabajo, nueva época, 56, 3–31.
22.
DugheraL.SeguraA.YansenG.ZukerfeldM. (2012). Sobre los aprendizajes de los trabajadores informáticos: Los roles de la Educación formal, No formal e Informal en la adquisición de técnicas [The technical skills of informational workers: Formal, non-formal and informal education in the production of software]. EnRevista Educación y Pedagogía, Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación de la Universidad de Antioquia, 23(62), 79–101.
23.
EickK. (1998). Gender stereotypes in children’s television cartoons. Adolescence, 37(253), 7. Retrieved 9June2012, from http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba/495/papersS98/paper1.html
24.
EvansF. (1985). Managers and labourers: Women’s attitudes to reproductive technologies. In FaulknerWendyArnoldErik (Eds), Smothered by invention: Technology in women’s lives (pp. 109–127). London: Pluto Press.
25.
FaulknerW. (2001). The technology question in feminism: A view from feminist technology studies. Women’s Studies International Forum, 24(1), February, 79–95.
26.
FeenbergA. (1991). Critical theory of technology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27.
FernándezV.RuízT.LarranzaE.MaritxalarM.LazkanoE.SarasolaK. (2006). Ingeniería en Informática y género: un estudio cuantitativo [[Computer engineering and gender: A quantitative study]]. In MiqueoC. (Eds), Actas del VI Congreso Iberoamericano de Ciencia, Tecnología y Género (pp. 383–384), Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza.
28.
FrommeJ. (2003). Computer games as a part of children’s culture. Game studies, 3(1).
29.
GhoshR. A.GlottR.KriegerB.RoblesG. (2002). Free/Libre and open software: Survey and study. Part IV: Survey of developers, (pp. 1–23). Maastricht: In Institute of Infonomics/Merit.
GuptaU. G.HoutzL. E. (2000). High school students’ perceptions of information technology skills and careers. Journal of Industrial Technology, 16(4), 2–8.
32.
HabtuR. (2003). Information technology workers. Perspectives on labour and income. Statistics Canada: Catalogue No. 75-001-XIE.
33.
HapnesT.SorensenK. H. (1995). Competition and collaboration in male shaping of computing: A study of a Norwegian hacker culture. In GillR.GrintK. (Eds), The Gender–Technology Relation: Contemporary Theory and Research, (pp. 174–191). London: Taylor & Francis.
34.
HarawayD. (1991). A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century. In Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature, (pp. 149–182). New York: Routledge.
35.
HenwoodF. (1996). WISE choices? Understanding occupational decision-making in a climate of equal opportunities for women in science and technology. Gender and Education, 8(2), 199–214.
36.
HoracekG. (2004). La construcción de la identidad social a través de los videojuegos: UN ESTUDIO DEL APRENDIZAJE EN EL CONTEXTO INSTITUCIONAL DE LA ESCUELA [The construction of social identity through video games: A study of learning in the institutional context of school]. Universidad de Valencia: Servei de Publicacions.
37.
KarahaliosM.MujtabaB. G. (2004). Twenty first century leaders creating gender equality in the use and promotion of technology. In ParrisM. A.BarnesB. VickersMargaretH. (Eds), Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Conference 2004 (pp. 149–155). Manhattan: Association on Employment Practices and Principles.
38.
KempS.SquiresJ. (1998). Feminisms: An Oxford reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39.
KirkupG. J. L.WoodwardK.HovendenF. (2000). The gendered cyborg: A reader. London: Routledge.
40.
KriegerB.NafusD.LeachJ. (2006). Free/Libre and open source software: Policy support. Gender: Integrated Report of Findings. UCAM University of Cambridge.
41.
LagesenV. A. (2012). Reassembling gender: Actor–network theory (ANT) and the making of the technology in gender. Social Studies of Science, 42(3), 442–448.
42.
LangC.HedeT. (2004). Gender and IT: Do stereotypes persist? In BrebbiaC. A.VoiskounskyA. (Eds), Human perspectives in the internet society: Culture, psychology and gender (pp. 287–296). Southampton: WIT Press.
43.
LightJ. S. (1999). When computers were women. Technology and Culture, 40(3), 455–483.
44.
LohanM. (2000). Constructive tensions in feminist technology studies. Social Studies of Science, 30(6), 895–916.
45.
LucasK.SherryJ. L. (2004). Sex differences in video game play: A communication-based explanation. Communication Research, 31(5), 499–523.
46.
MaccobyE.JacklynN. (1966). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
47.
MargolisJ.FisherA. (2002). Unlocking the clubhouse. Women in computing. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
48.
MartinM. (1991). ‘Hello central?’: Gender, technology, and culture in the formation of telephone systems. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press—MQUP.
49.
MckayS. C. (2006). Hard drives and glass ceilings: Gender stratification in high-tech production. Gender & Society, 20, 207–235.
50.
McNeilM. (1987). Being reasonable feminists. In McNeilMaureen (Ed.), Gender and expertise (pp. 13–61). London: Free Association Books.
51.
MellströmU. (2009). The intersection of gender, race and cultural boundaries, or why is computer science in Malaysia dominated by women?Social Studies of Science, 39(6), 885–907.
52.
MerchantC. ([1980] 1982 2nd ed.). The death of nature: Women, ecology and the scientific revolution. London: Wildwood House.
53.
MiesM.ShivaV. (1993). Ecofeminism. Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: Fernwood.
54.
MilkmanR. (1987). Gender at work: The dynamics of job segregation by sex during World War II. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
55.
MillarM. (1998). Cracking the gender code: Who rules the wired world?Toronto: Second Story Press.
56.
MillerJ.JaggerN. (2001). Women in ITEC courses and careers. Final report. Department for Education and Skills. Government of the United Kingdom. Retrieved 15June2012, from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/*/http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/
57.
National Science Foundation (NSF) (2004). Women, minorities and persons with disabilities in science and engineering, NSF04-317. Arlington, VA: National.
58.
NovickM.RojoS.CastilloV. (Eds). (2008). El trabajo argentino en la posconvertibilidad 2003–2007[Argentinean labor market in the post- convertibility 2003-2007], CEPAL, Naciones Unidas, Santiago de Chile, abril de 2008.
59.
O’KeefeB. (2005, January26). Australian IT: IT demand for ‘soft’ skills rise. The Australian.
60.
OEDE Observatorio de Empleo y Dinámica Empresarial (2010). Boletín de estadísiticas de género y mercado de trabajo [Bulletin of gender and labour market stats]. Ministerio de Empleo Trabajo y Seguridad Social [Ministry of Employment, Labour and Social Security].
61.
OIT (2010). Modelos Econométricos de Tendencias [Econometric Models of tendencies], October2010.
62.
OldenzielR. (1999). Making technology masculine: Men, women and modern machines in America. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
63.
OudshoornN. (1994). Beyond the natural body: An archeology of sex hormones. London and New York: Routledge.
64.
ParsonsT. (1970). The social system. London: Routledge.
65.
PlantS. (1998). Zeros and ones: Digital women and the new technoculture. London: Fourth Estate. Traducción al español: Ceros + unos, Mujeres digitales + la nueva tecnocultura. Barcelona: Destino.
66.
RoigA. E.Rubio HurtadoM. J. (2004). The digital gap: Gender and computer games. Interactive Educational Multimedia, (9), 1–15.
67.
SanzV. (2008). Mujeres e Ingeniería Informática: el caso de la Facultad de Informática de la UPM [Woman and computer engineering: The case of the school of computer science at the technical university of Madrid]. Arbor, 184(733), 905–915.
68.
Sanz GonzálezV. (2006). Las tecnologías de la información desde el punto de vista de género: posturas y propuestas desde el feminismo [The information technology from the point of view of gender: positions and proposals from feminism]. Isegoría, 34, 193–208.
69.
SørensenK. H. (2002). Love, duty and the S-curve: An overview of some current literature on gender and ICT. Digital divides and inclusion measures. A review of literature and statistical trends on gender and ICT, STS report, (59). Retrieved from www.rcss.ed.ac.uk/sigis/public/documents/SIGIS_D02_Part1.pdf
70.
SpalloneP.SteinbergD. (1987). Made to order: The myth of reproductive and genetic engineering. London: Pergamon Press.
71.
StanleyA. (1995). Mothers and daughters of invention. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
72.
StanworthM. (1987). Reproductive technologies and the deconstruction of motherhood. In StanworthMichelle (Ed.), Reproductive technologies: Gender, motherhood and medicine (pp. 10–35). Oxford: Blackwell.
73.
StarrD. (2000). How toys teach children stereotypical gender roles: A look inside a local toy store. NSCU. Retrieved from http://www.unc.edu/~dcderosa/STUDENTPAPERS/childrenbattles/toysrusdenise.htm
74.
SuchmanL. (1995). Opportunities for disruption: Reflections on technology and authority. Presented at workshop on The Mutual Shaping of Gender and Technology, Twente, The Netherlands, October.
75.
SwansonJ. (2000). What’s the difference? Retrieved 18July2012, from http://www.girltech.com/Mentors/MN_research.html
76.
ThomasT.AllenA. (2006). Gender differences in students’ perceptions of information technology as a career. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 5(1), 165–178.
77.
TurkleS. (1986). Computer reticence: Why women fear the intimate machine. In KramaraeCherys (Ed.), Technology and women’s voices (pp. 33–49). Nueva York: Pergamon Press.
78.
WadeL. (2009). Gender, technology, and Toys R Us. Sociological Images. Retrieved 18March2012, from http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/12/21/gender-technology-and-toys-r-us/
