Why Feminine Technologies Matter - part c

I agree with many of the points that the author tries to make in this section. I just find her supporting evidence and method of argument non-convincing. Of course feminine technologies matter. And of course you can consider something like a bra a technology. And of course people take mass produced goods and select or modify them to suit individual needs.

McGraw starts by arguing that calling the invention and use of a bra "progress" is dubious, and that bras are not necessary, but merely a preference. I do not know what women used before the invention of the over-the-shoulder-boulder-holder but I will state that I view a decent bra as close to a necessity as possible when considering any sort of exercise. If we're going to call "not being in pain when walking up or down stairs" a preference, fine. I have minor quibbles with the thesis, but we'll go with it. So that is our starting point - bras are a technology, they are a preference instead of a need, and serve a cosmetic rather than a functional purpose.

She then argues that by studying this feminine technology, we might call into question the way we view other technologies such as cars, research labs, and the electrical grid. For example, she asks whether cars might serve a cosmetic purpose "associated historically with enhanced masculinity." She asks whether they "in fact provide the freedom and speed of travel often considered as their function, or merely the illusion of freedom and speed." Wha...? I can state with complete confidence that cars do in fact move faster than a horse and buggy. Now the freedom point you could argue (were we more free when we lived and worked in the same space and didn't have a daily commute...), but speed? Yes, yes, cars do, in fact, provide faster speed of travel than the preceding technology. Are there cosmetic and cultural purposes that cars also fill? Sure. But cars do have a definite functional purpose. McGraw also asks exactly how light our offices and houses need to be - how much light is cosmetic vs. how much is functional. I'm not saying that we couldn't survive with candles and lanterns and the like, but go ask a surgeon that question. There is a definite functional advantage. I think my hang up here is that she posited that bras were 100% preference and non-necessary and is trying to have us believe the same about other technologies. Had she tempered the original argument (bras are largely cosmetic, but do have some functional advantages) I would make this leap with her more easily.

Her second point is that since bras don't fit perfectly, women have built up a well of expertise in knowing which brands and styles work and in adjusting the technology to their personal needs and that applying such expertise constitutes an "area in which their labor is economically and socially invisible." I agree with her main point - many times women's work is economically and socially invisible, or downplayed. But because they figure out a way to deal with not 100% perfectly fitting bras? Really? I must admit that I was unaware that jock straps were individually fitted to each man. Or perhaps the wives are altering them as part of their "economically invisible" labor. I don't think either gender corners the market on altering or adjusting mass produced goods to meet their individual needs.

To recap: I do not disagree with her main points. Technology *is* about the cosmetic as well as the functional. (Well, she posits that "although we usually associate technology with utility, it's actual role is often decorative..." - where I would say most technology serves *both* a functional and aesthetic role.) And secondly, "apparently functional technology in inherently flawed... [and] goods are made serviceable through women's invisible bodies of knowledge." Which... I think the work and expertise is spread a little more equally between the genders. I also don't see it as some huge flaw in the system; it is simply the way that mass produced goods work.