The Construction of Gender at UBC Computing Services (UCS)

by Diane Currie

University of British Columbia

November 16, 1993

The computer culture is a masculine culture where women are defined as the "Other". It may seem strange to speak of the computer, which is essentially a machine, as having its own culture. However, I think it is unworkable to essentialize a computer as just a machine, because it contains much more meaning than that. I believe it often serves as an extension of the self , and an extension and reflection of the society it operates in. I think it is important to examine the culture that has built up around this machine, because it may well be this construction of the masculine computer industry that is limiting the involvement (and potential contributions) of women.

I work at the computing department at the University of British Columbia, in the area of technical support. Despite what I think are sincere attempts to hire more women, it remains a department of primarily men. Based on my observations and experiences working there, I assert that it is similar to the rest of the computer industry in that it is very much enshrined in the masculine computer culture. It seems to me that the construction of gender in my workplace can be examined on virtually every level, from the hierarchical, authoritarian culture of UBC, to the individual exchanges between employees. Every encounter is rich with meaning. However, I will focus on two major aspects that I believe are strong contributers to the construction of the masculine computer culture at University Computing Services (UCS). The first is the "privleged discourse" of technical jargon and how it serves to exclude the "other" and maintain control. The second is how the computer itself is constructed as something to be mastered, and thus is often used as a method of controlling and mastering people.

Since I work in the area of technical support, a large part of my role is to translate the technical words used in the computer industry to everyday language. The entire industry is awash in technical language and jargon. It is not just restricted to specialized publications, it is everywhere. To even think of buying a personal computer, you must become familar with a number of terms such as O/S , RAM, MHz and co-processors. Sherry Turkle in the book The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit , describes someone purchasing a computer:

"There is something striking about these conversations. People feel a pressure to have an opinion about all such matters.....Becoming fluent in this language, participating in this world, is part of what people are buying."1

Despite the complexity of a computer, I don't believe technical jargon and terminology is always necessary. I think it is often used as a means of maintaining control over the person who uses the computer product. Using technical language gives the speaker (usually the man) an aura of legitimacy and power. You can't participate in that special world unless you can talk the talk. Like the stereotypical boys in the treehouse, you can't come up and play with them unless you know the secret codes. Yes, the nature of the technology is complex, however, in many cases the "secret codes" could be readily explained and simplified so the person who uses the product doesn't have to rely on the expert , and can share in some of the power a computer can provide. Since most of the technical experts are men, and, at UBC anyway, many of the end users are women, the overuse of jargon is a means of maintaining the stratification of power along gender lines. I believe that a legitimacy based on using technical language is a false legitimacy. Just as masculinity as defined by the exclusion of feminity is an incomplete and contaminated construction, so to is a language defined by the exclusion of everyday words.

For example, creating straightforward documentation describing the computer system or network is rarely included as a task in the main project, but is often relegated to an afterthought. Very little budget is committed to technical writing - there are about three full time technical writers for a staff of over a hundred, and customers that number well into the thousands. I've observed people come into the office for technical assitance, speak to someone who is using technical jargon, and walk out of the office more bewildered than when they came in. Technical support for the people who are actually using the computer system is also treated as an afterthought. Staff who can translate the technical words and spend time and effort to teach and explain the systems are not a priority either, as there are very few of them and they are the lowest paid. For example, there has been an effort recently to expand student access to networked information on campus with additional modem connections and email accounts, etc., and while tens of thousands of dollars have been spent on the computer and the programmers, there have been no additional resources assigned to provide techical assistance, and there has only been a one page information sheet written.

However, it is not only the use of technical language that establishes my workplace as a privleged, male, domain. There are some words that we use that I find quite revealing about the overall culture. For example, an expert in a certain topic is often described as a "guru" or a "wizard". Words which to me suggest an aura of mystery and power that the common person can not attain. The person who uses our services is often referred to as the "user", not the customer, not the owner, but just a "user"; a description which clearly places the ownership and control of the computing power within the male culture of UCS. If a program stops working it is said to have "crashed", as if it were a jet plane. If someone gains unauthorized access to a computer, he is called a "hacker", suggesting a violent breaking into or "penetration" of the computer system. If the system is working well it is "up", if not, it is "down", attributing to the system an almost phallic virility. These terms are subtle, yet compelling. I think they suggest a controlling, dominating, masculine construction of gender that has arisen around the computer, and thus, around my workplace. Nothing exists except in relation to everything that surrounds it - the language and culture of the computer labels it with a gender as if it were a bathroom door.

Despite a number of highly skilled women working at UCS, I have never heard the terms "guru" or "wizard" applied to a woman. I'm not sure why, but I think it may have to do with how judgements about power and knowledge are made. For example, I've noticed that most men in the office can recite exactly how much memory each computer in the office has, almost like hockey scores. They know in detail how fast and powerful each other's machines are. I , by contrast, can't be bothered to remember what speed my colleague's machine are - I know how to find out if I needed to, I know how to install and configure more, how to assess a machine's memory needs, etc. but I just don't care enough to memorize everyone's configuration details, and I don't need it for my job anyhow. But, I think it may make a subconscious impression on how my knowledge level is perceived - you can't be a "guru" if you don't know all those stats and if you don't care to compare them with your colleagues. The offfice conversation can sometimes become a competition about something that I care very little about. It's not how well you made the computer work, or how much you helped someone figure out something, it's how fast and powerful the computer is that seems to be the point of many of the office conversations. I think that reflects a masculine, competitive construction, that many women, including myself, just aren't inclined to partake in.

I think my observation of the competition over computer power in the office can be seen as an example of how the computer sometimes serves as an extension of the self. It's as if the computer represented masculinity, and that is why it is important for it to be fast and powerful in and of itself, instead of just being important due to the improvement in efficiency, which is usually the intent of adding more memory and speed to a computer system.

Carol Gilligan's In a Different Voice 2suggests that while men reason using abstract and authoritarian moral rules, women tend to be more relational. That may suggest why, as the computer is identified with the self, many men feel compelled to master and control it. It may also suggest why women and men tend to approach computers differently. For example, I remember discovering a small anomoly in how my computer started up, and thought it was kind of interesting, and left it at that. (It wasn't causing any damage, and didn't add any perceptible time to the start up). I knew what caused it, and was satisfied with that. I knew how to change it, but didn't feel like changing it as I had plenty of more important things to do. Now, when my boss came over to use my computer, he saw it, and felt compelled to fix it immediately, before he did anything else. It was as if he had to master my computer, force it to conform to his will, whereas I was satisfied knowing what it was doing, and had established a relationship with it that I could live with. It is a minor example of a different approach, but it illustrates how he felt a need to control. However, I also wondered whether it gave the impression that I was not "in control" of my computer and whether that different approach seemed to him to be an inferior one.

Turkle (1994) descibes a similar situation when she compares the attitudes of two programmers:

"There are ways for fixing this bug, but what is important here is the difference in attitude between a programmer like Jeff, who would not rest until he fixed it, and a programmer like Mary, who could figure out how to fix it, but decides not to. Mary likes this bug because it makes the machine appear to have more of a personality. It lets you feel closer to it. .. she allows the computer its idiosyncrasies and happily goes on to another program."3

Turkle's point is that the approaches are different, but neither is inferior to the other (both Jeff and Mary are innovative programmers). I agree with Turkle on that point, but wonder if the typically masculine "mastery" approach is often thought of as a superior approach, due to the construction of the computer as masculine. I know that I can run a fast and efficient, even elegant, computer system, but if I don't bother to compare speed and memory in the lunch room conversations, and my style is not to control or master my computer or my customers, then that is not necessarily what is perceived.

In addition, since the computer is seen as something to be mastered or controlled, it is often used in my workplace as a tool to control people. Put to such use, the computer that has been masculinized itself, starts to masculinize the workplace. I think this can be clearly seen in its use as a communications tool. It is often said that the future of the computer industry is in information and data technology. Huge "super highways" capable of transmitting vast amounts of data are currently being planned and built. It has been claimed 4that communications technology breaks down barriers such as sexism, racism, ableism and ageism because using a computer to communicate means we can not see or hear each other and make judgements. Well, it may be true with some of the other "isms", but based on my experience, it doesn't break down sexism, but probably exagerates it. For example, whenever I send an email message or post a message to any of the public computer discussion groups, my first name "Diane" is always included. It is a feminine name, and readily identifies me as a women, as do most names given to women in our culture. It is because people can neither hear me or see me, but can still label me as a women that some of the normal social conventions break down and the sexism that is often used to control women comes to the surface. In the computer industry, I can't think of any other aspect of the workplace that is so male dominated and controlled than the computer discussion groups (Usenet). For example, recently there was a discussion in the "soc.feminism" group about violence on the network that some women were experiencing in the form of verbal assault. One women described how she had signed on to play a role playing adventure game on the network, and upon finding out that her character was female, the other characters went on to describe how they were raping her. These were real people typing in the descriptions, not a computer program. Another women posted an interesting and revealing story about a friend of hers, a man, who had a "gender neutral" name:

"As an example, I knew someone (before his account went west) who was shocked and confused by the response his posts were getting on the net. He would have people write to him, patronizingly putting him aright, making obscene comments to him, and telling him to "get off the net, you damn bull dyke." Since he was about 6' 5" with a bushy beard in person, he had never once received this sort of treatment from anyone he'd ever dealt with.

It took him a while to realize that his name was gender-ambiguous: Ciaran. THIS was what was getting him these responses. People thought he was a woman, and so treated him like a woman -- patronizing him, threatening him, and being obscene to him ON THE NET."5

There are probably a number of dynamics at work, but I think the fact that the computer itself is so masculinized contributes to the culture of the computer networks. For example, often discussions erupt into "flaming wars" or arguements, over which operating system is better or over minor configuration details. Since the computer has been constructed as an extension of the self that needs to be dominated, the discussions on the computer networks often degenerate into useless attempts to dominate someone else. From my observations, postings are at least 10 to 1 male to female. Even in feminist discussion groups, the conversation is often dominated by men. While the female voice is intimidated (or bored) into silence, the male discourse is continued to be heard loud and clear.

I spend a great deal of my time at work using the computer to communicate through email or computer discussions. I also use computer networks as a valuable research and teaching tool. It is becoming a sort of electronic workplace. It is disheartening to see computer networks as even more masculinized than the computer itself. It's interesting that the one computer discussion group I read that is positive and friendly is also one of the very few that has primarily female participants (a hobby based group called alt.sewing). There are never any "flame wars" over what sewing machine is the best, just advice and friendly discussions.

As a woman working in the industry, I know that the construction of the computer as masculine can put psychological or subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) limitations on a woman's career in the industry. However, the background colour on my computer screen is defiantly pink, to remind myself that even if the computer culture is masculine, it is just a construction, and there is room for the female voice in the computer industry. I will continue not to dominate my computer, or my customers, but to establish relationships with them.

Works Cited

1/ Turkle, Sherry. The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984., pg 185

2/ Gilligan, Carol. In a Different Voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982.

3/ Turkle, The Second Self, pg 113

4/ A Slice of Life in my Virtual Community", published on the Internet by Howard Rhiengold, 19925

5/ Article: 7997 of soc.feminism
Path:unixg.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!cyber2.cyberstore.ca! math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!remarque.berkeley.edu!muffy
From: cortese@netcom.com (Janis Maria C. C. Cortese) Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Violence on the Net Date: 29 Oct 1993 20:56:41 GMT