Gurak and Bayer-- "Making Gender Visible: Extending Feminist Critiques of Technology to Technical Communication"

1) The problem: TC has undergone many changes. It has (in theory at least) moved away from the positivist model of thinking, and TC's have moved away from the periphery of development teams in technology. However, this also means they move towards a field with a masculine bias. TC's are usually user-centered and/or collaborative and/or women. These facts are at odds with one another (according to the authors).
2) The Solution: The authors call for a feminist critique/approach to TC.
--They set up their argument by laying out a cursory history of feminist critiques of technology:
+They give a framework of common themes, including: rewriting the history of technology to include women as technologists (asking questions like what counts as technology, why are women underrepresented in technology, how can we expand our belief in the validity of multiple ways of knowing and thinking?); redefining technology to include women's technologies (challenge us to explore popular culturally-based beliefs about positive effects of household technology on women, see technology/ institutions as culturally-biased, what counts as technology, and look at the amount of funding that goes towards types of technology); studying the ways technology affects  organizational structures and women in the workplace (automate [reinforcing hierarchies and standards] vs informate [changing hierarchies by allowing workers to access and use info that only managers normally got]); and analyzing the relationship of the body to technology especially in reference to email, virtual reality, and cyberspace (the potential for more egalitarian and democratic work because of skewed gender awareness, blurred lines, and exploratory/transitional gender identities made possible through these technologies).
--Then, the authors go on to discuss three feminist theories of technology and connect them to TC:
+liberal feminism: stress androgyny by minimizing gender differences. Technology is gender-neutral, but the institutions are patriarchal. solution: equal gender access to education, credentials and jobs. Critics: it hasn't worked.
+radical feminism: emphasize differences (biological and cultural) and binaries. Technology is gender-biased. Solution: celebrate the characteristics traditionally associated with women and thus create more technology based on these values. Critics: too close to biologism and assumes a universal idea of "womanness". Dichotomies as a concept may be gender-biased, too, so they wouldn't be challenging the underlying structures anyway. More women doesn't mean more collaborative or non-violent.
+postmodern feminism: wants to transform the fundamental character of technological institutions and the forms of power they give to social groups. no binaries, gender is a historical construct. Critics: threaten to make gender invisible, and thus makes it hard to talk about gender biases that do exist.
--The authors conclude their article by stressing the need for more research and awareness of feminist critiques of technology by TC's (shock and awe, I know), teaching more feminist critiques in TC, and using feminist theory as a framework for evaluating existing product development. They push for more participatory design when it comes to product development because it makes it more interdisciplinary, dialogical, and collaborative.
3) Connections:
--similar to Durak piece in questioning whether we should count household technologies as technology and rethinking how we see women in relation to the development of science and technology
--similar to Miller in eliminating positivist thinking and emphasizing the cultural production of knowledge
--similar to Beamer-- can we see gender divisions as a type of cultural division? We need to adapt how we communicate between genders to be more competent as well. Also, always having to challenge the stereotypes (Beamer) relates to feminist thought because its about challenging what is considered neutral to see gender in it and lib fem wants to soften the differences between genders
--similar to thrush  in the idea of “masculine and feminine” ways of communicating…but these are not real, as the critics of radical feminism point out.
--similar to lay--stresses collaborative writing, compare to participatory design; issues lay lays out echo the disputes between the theories of feminism
--similar to Breuch-- asks to what degree should we consider contextual aspects of  technology-- we see that in the tying of gender to technology and its institutions
--similar to ornatowski-- stress TC’s to consider the meaning of what they do and the implications of their decisions-- feminist theory can help with this because it will make TC’s think specifically about what the impact of technology has on gender and vice versa.
--similar to Bernhard-- TC’s as agents of change with informed practice…basically the same connection.
4) Questions:
-- Which line of feminist thought (lib, rad, postmod) do you think is most logical in relation to technology and TC? Which one do you think would solve the most problems? Is there a difference between your two answers?
--Despite the potential for cyberspace etc. to erase or blur gender, it still manages to make itself present. Why do you think this is?
--Is there a danger in associating participatory design with feminist thought?