Minutes of the second planning meeting for Scholar and Feminist X, 1982, page 1

Download: Transcript

Pages:2 View All

Show transcript

          To: The Scholar and Feminist X Planning Committee
From: Lee Coppernoll, Women's Center

Subject: Minutes of Second Planning Comittee Meeting, September 30, 1982

Bettina announced that several people have conflicts with the April 16 date

set for the conference; in order to make a final decision about the date so that

we can reserve space at the College, all committee members must inform Bettina

or the Women's Center staff no later than October 13 whether April 16 or 23 is
problematic. We will let you know the outcome at the 10/14 meeting. Bettina
distributed a reading list and suggested that the articles on technology and
women's paid labor be read for the next meeting, and the articles on technology

and women's unpaid labor and reproductive rights be read for the October 28 meeting.

Bettina opened the discussion with Braverman's point that the problem with tech-
nology in a capitalistic society is the manner in which it is employed; that
technology itself is not inherently bad. In response it was pointed out that
technology has not actually improved the conditions of women's lives. (Perhaps
if women were more involved in the development and technology it could bring
more benefits to women?)

The issue of time in relation to technology was discussed from both a positive

and negative view. Developments in technology can cut down work time and

increase "leisure" time. Reproductive technology is marketed as a means of giving
women control over time by allowing women to decide when to become pregnant

and when to give birth. At the same time the desire to control time can become
problematic. Whose time is being saved? Whose time is being controlled? For
what purposes is time being saved? It is important to look at how people spend
their "leisure" time. How will the control and saving of time change our
understanding of time and how does this impact on class and gender?

It was asked how technology is being defined in the context of the conference -
in a philosophical or mechanical way, as development or product? The general
response was that both aspects need to be taken into account. For example,

we need to look at both the meaning of the home and how the home is changed

by technology - how the idea of the home as a computer workplace calls up images
of pre-industrial family life; yet the electronic cottage may become a highly
privatized home sphere with women once again doing piecework.

The impact of artificial intelligence was examined as an issue of power and control
over knowledge. One principle in the development of artificial intelligence, as
presented by Marvin Minsky in the New Yorker interview, is the reduction of
information, to get to the least information needed to know something, which
requires the ability to abstract from context, focusing only on necessary and
sufficient information. If the end of artificial intelligence is to "whittle

away knowledge" to minimal logical points, doesn't this present a threat to

other ways of thinking and living — isn't this a form of intellectual and

cultural imperialism? ‘

The discussion frequently returned to the specific relation of women to technology.
Will it make any difference whether women take part in the development of

technology? Why are women afraid of technology? Are women more people-oriented?
Several people asserted that there is no such thing as male and female logic and

that if women are trained to be knowledgeable about and comfortable with computer
technology they will be active agents in the development and use of technology.

They emphasized that expertise in technology broadens women's employment
opportunities as evidenced in the library fields where changes have been particularly
significant.