Gender and Technology

ICT and the Internet provide huge, innovative and special opportunities for human development and empowerment in a wide range of fields including business, education, health, but these are economic and social differences It is one of the main aspects to achieve. Various social and economic groups (Primo, 2003). In particular, gender disparity is one of the major inequalities that can be strengthened by widespread advances in technology.

Co-production of gender and technology is the term used to describe "dialectical formation" of gender and technology. It emphasizes gender and technical performance and the nature of the process and suggests that the boundary and contents of both are socially negotiated rather than being determined beforehand. This constructivistic method is called "anti-essentialism" to deny the concept that technology and gender have unique properties (Grint & Woolgar, 1995). This interrelational relationship has been demonstrated by technological enhancement or deconstruction of the gender of technical artifacts and the role of gender in society. For the purposes of this article, it is useful to define the terms "gender" and "technology" before discussion. In this article, we use gender conceptualization of Harding (1986) as a symbol, structure, and individual.

The structural gender of the technology is not merely recognized by the user but rather by the concept of Akrich's (1992) "script", where the relationship of gender is actually materialized as a technical artifact I can. This "scripting" process begins with the designer himself who adds gender to the product assuming gender for the user himself. This is particularly important as the development and design of technology is mainly done by men. The absence of women in STEM's occupation is clearly an important aspect of sexification of artifacts, but the reason for the small number of women is beyond the scope of this article. The practice of "I methodology" (Akrich 1995) that designers think their preferences represent future user preferences means that technical artifacts adapt to the interests of young men.

Co-production can be seen through the symbolic gender of many technical crafts in everyday life. For example, marking specific electromechanical parts as "male" and "female" reinforces the concept of male superiority and norms of homosexuality (Faulkner, 2001). At a broader level, society sees masculine technologies like building tools, high-speed cars, and high-tech "props", but other technical tools such as kitchens and beauty tools are related to femininity I will. These male and female associations are developed and replicated through the use of technology. For example, the study of men working in the high-tech industry of Massey (1996) thought that they were technical experts in the workplace, but dismissed household technologies such as washing machines and found themselves at home I have built a technical incompetence.