Yoshie--
I think the silence about condomes and pills is more indicatove of the way people think about technology than it is indicative of anxiety about reproduction and gender. Pills and condoms are microtechnologies, and we tend to conflate macrotechnologies and technology. We're also used to them, so they sort of fade into the technological background. Technology is thought of as such when there is a question of how it works--a function of novelty. I never think of my coffee maker as technology, but I'm still rather in technological awe of my computer, since I have absolutely no idea of how it works.
frances
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> I mentioned reproductive technologies and I got the following (which is a
> composite from several posts), with the exception of Liza's reply:
> >one
> >of these new services like hellobaby.com where you can choose a sperm and
> >egg donor online <snip>
> >a surrogate mother <snip>
> >a sex change <snip>
> >>Deirdre McCloskey
>
> Why is that the first things that come to people's minds when they hear the
> term 'reproductive technology' tend to go ilke the above? Because they are
> still exotic? Or is it a reflection of sex/gender/sexuality anxieties that
> headlines in the papers provoke? Baby M! Postmenopausal Pregnancy! Heather
> Has Two Moms! The End of the World (As We Know It) Is Coming!
>
> When I wrote my post, I was thinking of something much more mundane, like
> condoms, the Pill, abortion, giving birth at a hospital vs. birthing at
> home with a midwife, etc. In a funny way, though, the replies I got really
> prove that reproductive technology, both in its mundane forms and how
> people imagine it to be, makes a lot of difference ideologically, not just
> materially.
>
> Yoshie
>