Why are women averse to technology? Is this something programmed into their special “female” psychology to prefer the irrational to the rational – as infants they prefer to play with dolls rather than trains?
Perhaps I am biased because I grew up with a father who was a mechanical and electrical genius. Women have empathy with other people. Dad had empathy with machines. From the earliest age I appreciated the value of technology in making life easier, more comfortable and safer. Something, which if you are a woman, you can’t rely on men to provide.
I love technology. Of all inventions of civilisation I rank technology at the top, in a league of its own, a world above art, music, drama, literature, all the folksy things that anyone can do to some degree living in a tent in a field.
For a start without technology I and everyone close to me would have died years ago. The women first. My sister and two nieces, along with their children would have died in child-birth but for the miracle of medical science and the application of technology to that situation. The death rate is considerably higher for women who do not have birth technology at their disposal. It is not simply that such women often give birth before they are fully developed or that they suffered malnutrition stunting their development. My sister and nieces never suffered a hungry day in their lives, were fully adult, healthy and athletic, and each one had a pregnancy that would likely have killed them without modern medicine.
I would never have met my late husband. He was born with a bowel obstruction and would have died within days but for the emergency surgery that saved his life. He carried an indented scar across his stomach you could lay your finger in, his whole life. That is 69 years – thank you technology.
I wouldn’t have made it out of my teens. Age 16 I got a gum abscess under a tooth. But for the drugs to bring the infection under control the end result could have been brain damage or death.
Mother Nature is not kind. The other area where she is not kind is the differential protection she provides. As a woman you notice this. For protection men have physical strength and the psychological tendency to bond with other men for collective self-defence. Women have lesser strength, don’t automatically gather in self-protective groups, and in addition have young to protect, when the woman isn’t even equipped to protect herself. Plus we have males who often enough combine unsolicited and rejected mating with injurious physical attack sometimes resulting in death. And women all carry around a sexual incentive for men to attack. We need the means to self-protect much more than men, but we are hardly equipped at all. Mother Nature, pleeeeze go back to the drawing board!
In the meantime, technology has provided the solution. Guns. The equaliser. It doesn’t matter how big, how mental, how many your male attackers, but if you have a gun you can end the attack there (but not in the UK where you are advised to call the police so they can call around later when the danger is past to collect your body). If you are elderly, or in a wheelchair, the technology exists to protect yourself. Though one thing puzzles me about guns – perhaps the male-macho thing has had too great an influence. Technology provides dart guns to sedate animals. They can even stop an elephant. They don’t work instantly, but as criminals wish to avoid being caught I believe they would give up their attack if darted, in order to get away. Whatever. Technology wins again. You can rely on a gun to protect you, not an individual man nor men in general.
Housework. The thing men don’t do, even though they create enough of it. Why argue with them? Buy a dishwasher, buy a washing machine and most of all buy a vacuum cleaner. Men love vacuuming. The thing has an engine, makes a nice engine noise and needs them to control and steer it.