Reproducing the Motherboard: The Invisible Labor of Discourses that Gender Digital Fields (original) (raw)

Abstract

Within the digital workforce, women are disappearing. While there are many factors that could be 'blamed' for this phenomenon, this article takes issue with the sexist and patriarchal discourses that are deployed within the digital workforce. In many ways, sexist discourses are taken for granted within the digital workplace; and in that way, the discourses themselves are rendered invisible through a lack of concerted uncovering of the ways that these sexist discourses produce-and reproduce-women as sexual objects and outsiders in this field of work. The sexist and patriarchal discourses I address in this article validate the gender binary even as there is gendered play. It is this 'play' that also makes counter-hegemonic discourse and discursive acts productive (and reproductive), as I argue toward the end of the paper. Schools are a place where counter-hegemonic discourses and acts can be nurtured and, hopefully, affect and counteract the disappearance of women in digital fields. Keywords Gender Á Digital Á Technology Á Discourse Women's job opportunities, and women as workers within the digital workforce, are being 'disappeared''. According to a 2013 report from the US Census Bureau, while women have increased participation in most of the STEM workforce since 1970, in some fields such as computer science and engineering, women's participation in these workforce areas has plateaued or declined. Within the digital workforce, women are disappearing. While there are many factors that could be 'blamed' for this phenomenon, this article takes issue with the sexist and patriarchal discourses that are deployed within the digital workforce. In many ways, sexist discourses are taken for granted within the digital workplace; and in that

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (21)

  1. Austin, J.L. 1975. How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  2. Butler, J. 1997. Excitable speech: A politics of the performative. Hove: Psychology Press.
  3. Butler, J. 2011. Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Abingdon: Routledge. do Amaral Madureira, A.F. 2007. The psychological basis of homophobia: Cultural construction of a barrier. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science 41(3-4): 225-247.
  4. Draus, P., S. Mishra, N. Goreva, D. Caputo, G. Leone, and D. Repack. 2014. A comprehensive study of the perceptions and support structures of women engaged in IT/IS careers. International Journal of Management & Information Systems (Online) 18(3): 155.
  5. Eckert, P., and S. McConnell-Ginet. 2003. Language and gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fat, Slutty, or Ugly.com.
  6. Gardner, S.K. 2012. ''I couldn't wait to leave the toxic environment'': A mixed methods study of women faculty satisfaction and departure from one research institution. NASPA Journal About Women in Higher Education 5(1): 71-95.
  7. Godfrey, J.E. 2003. The culture of engineering education and its interaction with gender: A case study of a New Zealand university (Doctoral dissertation, Curtin University of Technology, Science and Math- ematics Education Centre).
  8. Miller, Claire. 2014. Technology's man problem. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/technology/ technologys-man-problem.html?_r=0.
  9. NPR. 2015. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/12/413986529/-distractinglysexy-tweets-are- female-scientists-retort-to-disappointing-comments.
  10. Notapattern.net. NSF Statistics 2015 Digest. Retrieved 9-14-16. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2015/nsf15311/digest/theme5\. cfm; http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2015/nsf15311/digest/theme2.cfm#overview; http://www.nsf.gov/ statistics/2015/nsf15311/digest/theme2.cfm#psychology; http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2015/nsf15311/ digest/theme2.cfm#engineering; http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2015/nsf15311/digest/theme2.cfm#compsci; http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2015/nsf15311/digest/theme5.cfm#trends; http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2015/ nsf15311/digest/theme5.cfm#women.
  11. Peterson, Andrea. 2015. The position gap is more important than the wage gap. Washington Post. Retrieved: 5-20-16. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/04/14/why-the-position-gap-is- more-important-than-the-wage-gap-for-women-in-tech/.
  12. PMWiki.org.
  13. Rasmussen, M.L.L. 2013. Taking homophobia's measure. Confero: Essays on Education, Philosophy and Politics 1(2): 16-45.
  14. Reproducing the Motherboard: The Invisible Labor of…
  15. Reuben, E., P. Sapienza, and L. Zingales. 2014. How stereotypes impair women's careers in science. Proceedings of the National Academy Sciences 111(12): 4403-4408.
  16. Sedgwick, E.K. 1993. Epistemology of the closet. In The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader, eds. Abelove, H., Barale, M.A., Halperin, D.M., 45-61. New York: Routledge.
  17. Singh, R., N.A. Fouad, M.E. Fitzpatrick, J.P. Liu, K.J. Cappaert, and C. Figuereido. 2013. Stemming the tide: Predicting women engineers' intentions to leave. Journal of Vocational Behavior 83(3): 281-294.
  18. Teague, J. 2002. Women in computing: What brings them to it, what keeps them in it? ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 34(2): 147-158.
  19. The Guardian. 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/10/nobel-scientist-tim-hunt-female- scientists-cause-trouble-for-men-in-labs.
  20. The Huffington Post. 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/colleen-debaise/inspiring-girls-to-be-tec\_b\_ 5630786.html. Titstare app: Betsy Morais, The Unfunniest Joke in Technology, The New Yorker, September 9 2013. Titstare app. https://www.facebook.com/titstare/posts/566491406741701\. US Census Bureau Report on STEM. Retrieved 9-20-16. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/ newsroom/releases/2013/cb13-162_stem_female.pdf.
  21. Wentling, R.M., and S. Thomas. 2009. Workplace culture that hinders and assists the career development of women in information technology. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal 25(1): 25.