

A Feminine Computer? - haxel
http://haxel.ca/a-feminine-computer.html

======
BrandonMarc
Reminds me of what Dodge did about 20 years ago. They decided to try creating
a car using only women - from design to engineering to construction to
manufacture, the car was 100% created by female employees of Dodge - with the
goal that the end result would be one that female customers would be excited
to buy and drive.

The result was the Neon (Dodge Neon / Plymouth Neon ... either way, it was the
same car) and by most accounts was an absolute success at achieving that goal.
It may sound silly or sexist, but it worked, and the car was very popular (and
made Dodge a lot of money).

The fact that it wouldn't appeal to men was not a problem for Dodge. Guy
Kawasaki has often advised, "don't be afraid to polarize," which means if you
offer a product that has a very strong flavor then yes some people won't like
it, but the people who do like it will like it so much the product will be
quite successful.

~~~
haxel
I agree that women would appreciate and especially benefit from a more
balanced computing experience, but I also think it would help everyone else
too, including techies like myself and many here.

It seems to me that modern computers are already severely polarized and it's
limiting our views of what they can do for us.

------
angersock
I think that there may be something to the idea of a gender binary as a way of
viewing computer interfaces, and the idea that we've only accomplished the
masculine.

At the same time, I don't agree with it, personally. For example, whenever I
do sysadmin work, or watch other sysadmins, there is very much this sort of
nurturing relationship--"What did you do? Where does it hurt? Have you tried
this? Can you show me what your settings were? Poor computer. :("

Perhaps this is no longer true in the new cloud days of servers as livestock-
not-pets where you summarily destroy a misbehaving instance, but there was a
time where we'd treat sick instances like sick children.

In fact, one of the things I very much disagree with is this whole notion of
how difficult computers are to work with--command-line based ones especially.
In classes or meetups, whenever I'd work with people new to the shell I always
make sure to point out that we're about to have a conversation with the
computer: we're going to ask it how it's feeling (`top`, `tail
/var/log/messages"), what it's doing right now (`ps -A`), who it's been
talking to (`netstat -plant`), who else it's working with (`users`), and if it
knows anything interesting today (`fortune`).

What _doesn 't_ help is treating it like some black box that needs to be
dumbed down or referring to it as something which requires a special skill set
to use, which is a common theme in this article. Another thing I disliked
about this article is that while it handwaves a bunch about how masculine
computers are and how feminine it could be, it never really describes what
such an approach looks like nor why it would be attractive.

In fact, I rather resent the implication that femininity is defined as this
sort of spaced-out, overly-intimate, scatter-brained, disorganized sort of
thing. Contrast author's work, for example, with a mother running herd over
several kids and keeping things on time, or a young woman making an evening
date with a friend after dressing up and working on her appearance.

~~~
haxel
Beginnings are, pretty much by definition, largely mysterious and chaotic,
intimate, and disorganized. I have a tremendous respect for those qualities -
without them we'd not have computers or even ourselves to talk to. We wouldn't
exist.

Overall, in my view, the feminine represents the creative process - the
ability to discover and establish new directions. It's the way to achieve any
kind of change. Is there anything more valuable?

The idea though is that by making the beginning of a computing experience more
closely align with where we actually are as individuals, the ramp-up is much
less steep than it is now. I say it's steep because of my observations of
people who are not long-time techies - just regular folk who are afraid of
computers and abhor detail. People taking classes and using command lines are
already well along their journey.

~~~
angersock
_just regular folk who are afraid of computers and abhor detail._

This is a good example of the sort of language that I think doesn't help us.

"Regular folk" somehow implies that it's normal and acceptable not to know how
to use computers--it's not. In fact, it's no more acceptable nowadays to be
ignorant of how to use a computer than it is to be ignorant of how to use a
book or how to use a phone or how to use a lighter.

"abhor detail" is a _defect_ , not a common trait. Mankind is defined by our
use of tools and our ability to pay attention to details _as well as_ the
abstract.

I think the sooner we stop using language that lets people excuse themselves
from being functioning members of a technological society the better we'll be
as a civilization.

~~~
haxel
Those are my observations, maybe I run in different circles than you do.

You seem to be saying there's only one way for technology to be - the way it
already is - and that everyone had better get on board with it, or else.

I'm saying there's also another way for computers to be that lets everyone
receive more value with less effort and, if they choose to take it that far,
ease into the way technology is now. But they may not ever need to. This would
accomplish the same goal you are espousing, but in a practical way rather than
by decree.

I'm taking the beginning and moving it way back, to the point where an Uzbek
villager seeing such a computer for the first time can use it as well as an
expert within a day or two, because it operates on principles he's already
familiar with and doesn't require classroom instruction.

As a SysAdmin, you have the keys to the kingdom, the world of technology is at
your fingertips. You're in a position of power in a technological world. As a
long-time software guy, the same is true for me. Yet our expertise only puts
us on thick side of a power-law distribution; a fine place to be, but the vast
majority of people have nowhere near our expertise and simply do not possess
the comfort-level and skills to extract the value we do. Whether it is to pull
down a nice salary or to change the world with software, at this point in time
we are a minority.

