Forum – Week 7 – Mass Debate 3
The topic for this week's student presentations was 'Gender in Music Technology', presented by 1st year n00bs Doug and Amy, and 1337 veterans Jake and myself. After Stephen Whittington's extended introduction speech (which covered a few of my points) I presented my findings on 'the lack of female interest' in Music Technology. It was a huge relief when I'd finished and there were no furious girls in the audience, so I hope that means it was sufficiently asexual.
The next presenter was Doug, who also happens to be the only other Music Education student studying Music Technology, and thus my mortal enemy. He had a few more enemies in the room by the time he had finished, as he tried to draw connections between Homo erectus lifestyles and the intricate differences between men and women today. While I can see where the suggested similarities lie, such as early man's need for more dexterity for hunting etc. translating to our obsession with 'tinkering', the presentation still spawned an awkward conglomeration of opinion from the audience. Some managed to let some stereotypes slip, such as “When women cook they use a recipe but men play around with ingredients”, which was certainly news to me.
Up next was Amy, who provided an insight into the mind of an anti-feminist female. She stated she did not like the hyper-feminist obsession with numbers, such as 'there aren't many girls doing this, so we need to get girls doing it'. I agree with her that it is not fair if a woman gets a job etc. because she is female when there may be a more qualified man who is rejected. I find this to be tangential to the purpose of feminism, which is (should be?) equality between sexes, not simply favouritism for women. It does not matter what gender someone is, if they have the skills they should be recognised for them.
The final presenter was Jake, who used singer Bjork as an example of gender indifference. I get a bit tired of people who say 'everyone is gay/bisexual', I find remarks such as this damaging to the image of bi/homosexuality. People of such persuasion have every right to demand respect for their life choice, but such comments show a disrespect for heterosexuality. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Get it? This one's better- You can't have your 'cake' and eat it too.
1. Stephen Whittington "Music Technology Forum." Lecture presented at the Electronic Music Unit, University of Adelaide, South Australia, 26 April 2007.
7 comments:
Yet another entertaining read, cheers! I felt that many people actually missed the point of this discussion. It is not about gender rights, obligations, feminism, upbringing, cultural treatment etc... it is about getting to the core of the question - why does technology of this nature have an intrinsic appeal to those of the male gender? Although I would love to see a hypothetical world of technology created only by females, technology is inherently mathematical and I don't see any other way of performing an equation other than just doing it. The "hard" approach! I can only conclude that women and men respond and behave differently in a given set of circumstances, entirely aside from their upbringing and environment. Therefore, the "lack of women" in technology, as we observe, may not actually change, for the same reason that men aren't going to flock to craft classes just because they can.
Disclaimer: My previous sentence is very general and does not intend to create stereotypes, although it probably did.
I don't think we'll be able to figure out why men are so connected to technology, unless one of us starts a thesis. Stop looking at me.
I believe everything will change when we upgrade to organic technology. Can we even define living tissue as technology? If anything, we will be creating extensions to our physical being in order to promote survival, much like how we create a scab to protect a wound.
While we're at it we should cross-pollinate our species with plants. Sweet.
Speaking of organic technology... what's the gender in that? I think as organic technologies develop, perhaps we can get closer to the question of why men (as suggested in this discussion) are 'apparently' more inclined to technology than women. Is a piece of steak man or woman? Is this question relevant or even worth asking? What is it that defines gender? Is it the body or the mind?
Speaking of gender, Poppi did a documentary of Electrofringe interstate a year or two ago and although I think she was specifically targeting the music of women in her doco, I think she said there were actually quite a few women there so maybe it's more of a question about how many women we tend to notice in area of music tech rather than how many are actually involved in it.
Also Peter is a good conversationalist when it comes to bio tech art.
Oh yeah and clever choice of picture
Hah, I thought you were going to say "Also Peter knows what it's like to be a woman in Music Technology." Mheh mheh mheh.
I sort of touched on that in my talk, that maybe women don't participate only in the educational side of things. Perhaps they are more prominent 'in the field'?
Much like the human race, I would imagine an organic computer would go through 2 main stages of life- n00b and 1337. NB: gender can only be defined when there is a possibility of reproduction, otherwise they are asexual. So unless they start mating...
'everyone is gay/bisexual', I find remarks such as this damaging to the image of bi/homosexuality
good. i find that people, whether they are straight/gay or whatever, are way too obsessed with this "image" of sexuality. for example, gay is slang for bad. many gays nowadays are over-the-top obsessed with the image of their sexuality, it's as if their life revolves around their sexuality (which i shouldnt think it ought to). equally, why is a boy gay if he wear pink tshirts? LET THE IMAGED BE DAMAGED!! think imma go play some metal on guitar now haha
peace
jake.
--
by the way, your source for this forum post is audio arts - david grice. oops
I'll damage your sexuality. No wait...
Post a Comment