You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
64<br />
lori reed<br />
In time, computer manufacturers and marketers realized that in order<br />
to move <strong>the</strong> computer into <strong>the</strong> home successfully, <strong>the</strong>y had to encourage<br />
<strong>the</strong> comfortable and profi cient female computer user. Advertisers began<br />
to market <strong>the</strong> computer to <strong>the</strong> female user in ways it had not previously<br />
(Lewyn, 1990), and women’s magazines such as Ladies Home Journal<br />
(Asimov, 1983; Hait, 1983) and Good Housekeeping (“I Couldn’t Learn,”<br />
1987) included advice regarding how women could overcome computer<br />
fear to use computers confi dently. Women were advised to stop viewing<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir computers as tools and to, instead, view <strong>the</strong>m as “appliances,” just<br />
like a toaster, washing machine, or any o<strong>the</strong>r household convenience<br />
(Van Gelder, 1983, 1985, pp. 89–91). Computer classes especially for<br />
women helped to produce confi dent computer users (“A Computer<br />
Lesson,” 1984). As women became increasingly competent computer<br />
users during <strong>the</strong> 1970s and 1980s, <strong>the</strong> discourse on computers converged<br />
with contemporaneous and emergent debates regarding “women’s rights”<br />
and a woman’s “correct” place in <strong>the</strong> family and society. Isaac Asimov, for<br />
example, advocated that “one of <strong>the</strong> most signifi cant uses for computers<br />
[will be], that of fi nally raising <strong>the</strong> role of women in <strong>the</strong> world to full<br />
equality with that of men” (p. 66). On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, a prominent<br />
conservative fi gure announced, “We are against <strong>the</strong> women’s rights<br />
movement . . . and we are very concerned about <strong>the</strong> growing menace of<br />
home computers” (quoted in Van Gelder, p. 36). And it made perfect<br />
sense when Ms. Magazine provided guidance and instruction on how a<br />
woman could fi nd herself “falling in love with [her] computer” (p. 36).<br />
So while <strong>the</strong> manufacture of female computerphilia was necessary and<br />
benefi cial to <strong>the</strong> computer industry, it simultaneously raised cultural<br />
anxieties about how <strong>the</strong> machine might threaten traditional gender and<br />
family roles. As a result, much of <strong>the</strong> 1990s discourse on computer can<br />
also be seen as a prescriptive and mediating discourse on gender, <strong>the</strong><br />
family, and <strong>the</strong> politics of domestic space (cf. Cassidy, 2001).<br />
When Love Turns to Obsession: Assembling<br />
Healthy Women and Healthy Families<br />
Into <strong>the</strong> 1990s, women increasingly used computers at home and questions<br />
continued about just how computer technologies could and should<br />
be incorporated into people’s lives. Who should use computers? For what<br />
purpose? Where should <strong>the</strong>y use <strong>the</strong>m? How should <strong>the</strong>y use <strong>the</strong>m? What<br />
are <strong>the</strong> dangers pertaining to computer use? As Marvin (1988) describes<br />
in her history of “new” media, “new media intrude on existing habits<br />
and organizations and new media provide new platforms on which old<br />
groups confront one ano<strong>the</strong>r. Old habits of transacting between groups