Hi Folks,

Two thoughts here:

Firstly, mammals don’t have gender (a socially constructed concept reflecting ideas about masculinity and femininity). There is nothing obvious or literal about the metaphor of “female” and “male” connectors- they are indeed ideological referents.

Secondly, I can’t help but read this thread in direct contrast to the thread criticizing Rankin’s talk. I note that on the latter thread a woman scholar is being taken to task for presenting informed research on gender in computing, while on this thread we have male scholars hazarding uninformed guesses about gender and computing metaphors with no pushback whatsoever.

Reading these threads side by side has definitely given me pause on the state of the field and the challenges we continue to have for fully integrating cultural studies, gender, and race perspectives into information and computing studies.

Miriam E. Sweeney

Assistant Professor , School of Library and Information Studies

The University of Alabama
527 Gorgas
Box 870252
Tuscaloosa , AL
office 205-348-1522
mesweeney1@ua.edu | https://slis.ua.edu/

On May 24, 2017, at 9:51 AM, Paul N. Edwards <pne@umich.edu> wrote:

Interesting discussion. OED does not speculate on this connection; first use of “motherboard” it lists is 1965.

It’s worth noting that some of the gendered terms in engineering are very clear and literal metaphors, not specifically human though definitely mammalian.

“Mother ship,” like “motherboard,” refers to a larger thing from which smaller, but similar dependent units (smaller ships, subsidiary circuit boards) are launched, to which they are attached, and from which they draw sustenance (fuel, electricity).

“Female” and “male” connectors refer to sockets and plugs respectively, also quite literal, also not particularly human but mammalian.

This is not to say that such metaphors aren’t sometimes deployed in objectionable, human-oriented ways, but it would be silly to ignore their value as readily understood descriptors of physical structure and/or relationships.

Best,

Paul

On May 24, 2017, at 9:43 , mike willegal <mike@willegal.net> wrote:

My guess is that the term, Motherboard, was derived from the term Mothership, which is still in common usage by the general population, and according to several online dictionaries originated in the 19th century. Note that when techs and engineers refer to Motherboards, they normally use the gender neutral pronoun, "it".

cheers,

Mike Willegal

On May 23, 2017, at 1:51 PM, Mark Priestley <m.priestley@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Caitlin,

I'm not sure if this is the sort of thing you're looking for, but some CS pioneers were rather keen to use the master-slave metaphor to talk about human-computer relations. Eg:

Jack Good reported that: "Turing used to refer jocularly to people who are forced to do
mechanical operations as slaves."

Bardini quotes Engelbart: "Think ahead to the day when computer technology might provide for your very own use the full-time services of a completely attentive, very patient, very fast symbol-manipulating slave who has an IQ adequate for 95% of your today's mental tasks."

And there's this unfortunate Newsweek caption about Harry Huskey.

I think probably links back to earlier tropes about robots: eg in Capek's RUR, the rebellious robots are precisely slaves. I've got an unpublished conference paper I wrote a few years back about this which I could dig out if you're interested.

Cheers,

Mark

On 23 May 2017 at 18:29, McMillan, William W <william.mcmillan@cuaa.edu> wrote:

Caitlin, this is an interesting study!

I'm not sure, though, if "today's engineers" would very readily coin gender-specific terms for parts of computers. These terms go back a long way.

The "master-slave" terminology has going for it that the relationship between, say, a bus arbiter and connected devices is, in truth, a master-slave relationship. The other connotations make it hard for me to use the terms in class, but it's difficult to find synonyms. Controller-controlled? Decider-doer? Kind of awkward. (Suggestions welcome!)

In contrast to the gendered terms, in describing the tree data structure, the relationship between nodes has always been parent-child, back at least to Knuth's volumes, not father-son, mother-son, or the like. Same with object/class hierarchies.

- Bill

________________________________
From: Members [members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org] on behalf of Wylie, Caitlin Donahue (cdw9y) [cdw9y@eservices.virginia.edu]
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 8:11 PM
To: members@SIGCIS.org
Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] History of gendered terms, e.g., "motherboard"

Dear all,
Do you know of any studies of gendered language in computing? I’m intrigued by the way today’s engineers throw around words like “motherboard” and “daughterboard”, and also “master” and “slave”, without being aware of how those words sound to non-engineers (like me). I’d be interested in learning about historical or sociological studies.

Thank you!

All the best,
Caitlin Wylie
_______________________
Caitlin D. Wylie, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Program in Science, Technology and Society
University of Virginia
wylie@virginia.edu<mailto:wylie@virginia.edu>
http://www.eands.virginia.edu/faculty-staff/wylie/

_______________________________________________
This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

_______________________________________________
This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

_______________________________________________
This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

—————————————————

Paul N. Edwards

Professor of Information and History

Distinguished Faculty in Sustainability, Graham Sustainability Institute

Senior Fellow, Michigan Society of Fellows

Starting July 1, 2017:

William J. Perry Fellow in International Security

Center for International Security and Cooperation

Stanford University

pedwards@stanford.edu

Terse replies are deliberate. Here's why!

University of Michigan School of Information

4437 North Quad

105 S. State Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1285

(734) 764-2617 (office)

(206) 337-1523 (fax)

pne.people.si.umich.edu

_______________________________________________
This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org