Analysis of Women Hold Up Two-Thirds of the Sky :: Women Hold Sky Papers

Analysis of Women Hold Up Two-Thirds of the Sky The essay " Women Hold Up Two-Thirds of the Sky - Notes for a Revised History of Technology " was written by Autumn Stanley in 1983. She begins with a few quotes, which are extremes in sexist views on history and technology. She then states the purpose of her article. The purpose is to imagine what this revised history would look like. She makes the claim that the " very definition of technology would change , from what men do to what people do." By doing this, she makes the broad assumption that the majority of people define technology as what men "do". In no way does she back up this definition; you'd be hard-pressed to find it in a dictionary. While I understand that the author has the right to define certain terms for the purposes of her article, she should base these in reality, using outside sources. This broad assumption is problematic from the very beginning, meaning that there are problems throughout the article whenever this assumption is implied. She does this several times throughout the article, stating her own definition, and assuming that the reader shares it, or doesn't want to think about it enough to disagree, as they are often extremist or full of holes. She states that the definition of significant technology would also change. Once again, there is the problem of her broad brush strokes in saying what the accepted definition of technology is. Although she never explicitly says these definitions are accepted, in the context of a sociological critique, it is implied. Apparently, significant technology of today focuses on war and machinery, while it should focus on medicine, advances in food science, child care, and environmentally-friendly technologies. When the author says this, she is ignoring massive amounts of technology. While in 1983 computer technology was not nearly what it was today, the fact that she completely leaves it out because it doesn't help with child-rearing left a bad taste in my mouth. In addition to that, these days it most certainly does help with all the things she listed. She only skims the surface of the technologies; how can one talk about food preservatives without talking about war (MREs - Me als Ready to Eat) or industry (canning and processing, for example. Analysis of Women Hold Up Two-Thirds of the Sky :: Women Hold Sky Papers Analysis of Women Hold Up Two-Thirds of the Sky The essay " Women Hold Up Two-Thirds of the Sky - Notes for a Revised History of Technology " was written by Autumn Stanley in 1983. She begins with a few quotes, which are extremes in sexist views on history and technology. She then states the purpose of her article. The purpose is to imagine what this revised history would look like. She makes the claim that the " very definition of technology would change , from what men do to what people do." By doing this, she makes the broad assumption that the majority of people define technology as what men "do". In no way does she back up this definition; you'd be hard-pressed to find it in a dictionary. While I understand that the author has the right to define certain terms for the purposes of her article, she should base these in reality, using outside sources. This broad assumption is problematic from the very beginning, meaning that there are problems throughout the article whenever this assumption is implied. She does this several times throughout the article, stating her own definition, and assuming that the reader shares it, or doesn't want to think about it enough to disagree, as they are often extremist or full of holes. She states that the definition of significant technology would also change. Once again, there is the problem of her broad brush strokes in saying what the accepted definition of technology is. Although she never explicitly says these definitions are accepted, in the context of a sociological critique, it is implied. Apparently, significant technology of today focuses on war and machinery, while it should focus on medicine, advances in food science, child care, and environmentally-friendly technologies. When the author says this, she is ignoring massive amounts of technology. While in 1983 computer technology was not nearly what it was today, the fact that she completely leaves it out because it doesn't help with child-rearing left a bad taste in my mouth. In addition to that, these days it most certainly does help with all the things she listed. She only skims the surface of the technologies; how can one talk about food preservatives without talking about war (MREs - Me als Ready to Eat) or industry (canning and processing, for example.