« Women underrepresented at LAN gaming event | Main | speakerwatch: foocamp »
September 09, 2004
Gadget blogs by and for women
Popgadget: Personal Tech for Women and Shiny Shiny: A Girl's Guide to Gadgets are gadget blogs, kind of like Gizmodo, except they're for and by women. I'm of two minds: don't I just want gadgets? Why womens' gadgets? I think I'd prefer there just being more women at other gadget sites. But I do like the occasional posts about stupid surveys finding that "96% of women were uncomfortable talking about technology and didn't know the meaning of words like "googling" and "ISP"... And though I can't see much of a difference between these women-targeted sites and Gizmodo, well, why not.
There's a link from Popgadget to a post by Peter Davidsen arguing that women would prefer being told what good technology will do them (uh, us..) rather than just being offered a list of items. He suggests women-friendly themes like communicating with friends or warding off attackers on that late night tube ride, and recommends gadgets be woven into thematic clusters around these topics.
Reading that made me more keen on the idea of copies of Gizmodo, but for and by women. I like looking at cool, new gadgets and imagining I might own them. I already know how to communicate with my friends (haven't seen my friends wondering how to do that either, I've gotta say) and while I'm sure mace and stunguns are nice (though illegal many places), I'd far rather take a kickboxing class every half year and imagine that'll make me into Michelle Yeoh or Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I don't read gadget blogs because I think the gadgets will really be useful! I want gadgets that are fun and cool and that do funky stuff. Not panc alarms. Honestly. That'd just make me scared. Though yes, sure I clutch my mobile phone sometimes, when it's dark.
What do you think?
Posted by Jill Walker at 04:19 PM in General | Permalink
Comments
First, thanks for the link. Glad you joined the conversation.
I think you captured some of what I was trying to get at when you talk about seeing gadgets and technology and imagining how you would use it. Data dump sites are heavy on features and functions and light on the story telling that can spark the imagination.
I know that women know what they want to do with technology. I just think that stories and experiences spark the imagination of how a gadget or technology might find it's way into a woman's life.
I go now but not before I grab your feed for my reader.
Posted by: Peter Davidson at Sep 9, 2004 6:07:30 PM
I totally agree, Jill, I think women really do just want gadgets, not just girl gadgets, which is why I think ultimately Popgadget does sometimes feature the same kind of stuff that's on the other gadget blogs. I know I started Popgadget out of frustration with reading so much tech media that was geared towards men, complete with sexist "jokes" and pictures of girls in bikinis standing around licking cameras and mp3 players. We're not looking for women gadgets, we're finding tech products and presenting them as things that are for women as much as they are for men.
Peter, like I commented on your blog, I do think there's room for a more expansive and anecdotal approach to women and tech, but I think it's hard to accomplish in a blog format. Also, do you think that men don't want to hear about stories and experiences or do you think that type of media already exists for men?
Thanks Jill, and Peter, it's great to hear your thoughts on this.
Posted by: Mia Kim at Sep 9, 2004 11:01:39 PM
I too found it weird to see sites devoted to gadgets for women, although that didn't stop me from adding them to my feedreader.
But when I think about it, I realize that they may help the companies producing the gadgets become more aware of the fact that a large portion of their buyers are women.
I look forward to the day I am browsing through a women's mag at my local dentist and I see an ad for a Treo or an MP3 player.
Posted by: Sylvie Noel at Sep 10, 2004 8:31:08 AM
Oh yes! I'd like that! Mia and Peter, thanks for your comments too - great hearing from the people we write about!
Posted by: Jill at Sep 10, 2004 8:41:33 AM
I really like Engadget and Gizmodo and think they both do a great job of addressing a diverse audience and producing misogyny-free copy. I even write slot over at Engadget. I also subscribe to Pop Gadget and Shiny Shiny, and some of the women’s game blogs – like Game Girl Advance – that you’ve missed off your list.
I really like the idea of women’s tech blogs; they make a lot of sense to me in what are overwhelmingly male dominated markets. Plus I think they’re excellent for younger women who (in the main stream media certainly) have to put up with feeling like a freak for expressing an interest.
What I don’t like is the idea that because women are not men they constitute some homogeneous population, nor, conversely that men are all the same as well – that just contributes to women continuing to be assigned whatever the least appealing half of any dichotomy is. This is one of the things I found a bit disconcerting in the BBC coverage of Aleks Krotoski’s recent Entertainment and Leisure Software Publishers Association backed paper on women and gaming. Although a careful reading seems to indicate that there are women and men who prefer different sectors, genres and features of the whole games market, there’s a more conspicuous message that women’s game choices are limited by their experience of gender:
“There are differences, however, in the types of games that women like playing, and this is partly due to having less leisure time. It means that women like games that are easy to pick up, play, and master, rather than those with complicated controls that require a lot of time to learn.”
The insinuation being that women pick up the bulk of the domestic and care work in a family/home situation. Of course this is unfortunately still true for the majority of women – as a single working mother I know it as well as anyone. But why is playing an easy to play game the answer? Who doesn’t think that “overly complicated controls” is a euphemism for “badly designed” rather than “complex and demanding”? And if it isn’t, then why good old, strait-forward don’t shoot ‘em ups feature more in the womens preferences list?
The other categories in the list – role playing, narrative, life simulations, seem equally as absurd to assign to a gender and suspiciously stereotypical to me.
Posted by: Josie Fraser at Sep 10, 2004 1:58:10 PM
