El sentimiento de lo siniestro

As briefly discussed above (see Section 2.1.3), although described in gender-neutral terms, occupations are identified with certain images and symbols. These images and symbols are closely connected to the traits, skills and qualities that an ideal member of an occupation is expected to possess (Peterson 2010). They are thus influential on the formal or informal organisational processes of recruitment, selection and promotion. Workers who conform to the ideal image are rewarded with higher and more powerful positions in the organisational hierarchy, whereas those who do not are considered to be relatively ‘unsuitable’ for such positions (Bird 2003).

The image of the white-collar worker, for instance, particularly for managers and professionals, is generally aligned with traits such as independence, devotion to work, competitiveness, self-reliance, rationality, aggression and technical competence (Acker 1990; Demaiter and Adams 2009). This systematically pictures many women as unsuitable for managerial positions on two counts. On the symbolic level, as these traits are traditionally linked to masculinity, they do not fit women. On the practical level, since this image is premised upon a male normative life, then due to their disproportionate share of family and childcare responsibilities, women are less likely to work long hours, which is an essential trait to live up to this image (Ayre et al. 2011; Kelly et al. 2010; Meyerson and Kolb 2000). Moreover, even when women adjust their private lives and act in ways that are consistent with this image, such behaviour is not necessarily perceived as positive or appreciated given its discrepancy with appropriate feminine behaviour (Evett 1997; Rees and Garsney 2003). This situation is termed the dilemma of double-bind, whereby the woman professional is

“measured against a double yardstick of gender appropriateness and masculine work ideals” (Peterson 2010, 69).

This mismatch, particularly the one acting on the symbolic level, has been further emphasised in technology-related occupations, since technology is commonly and explicitly associated with some hegemonic forms of masculinity. Whether based on the professional rationality and competence of the white-collar worker or the physical strength and mechanical skills of the blue-collar worker, the image of the ideal technological worker incorporates the abilities and traits that are traditionally accepted as masculine (Wajcman 1991a). Both these forms of masculinity are linked to the “mastering of, and the control over, technology and nature”, and they both conceptualise men as suitable for such work, regardless of whether all men are equally attached to or interested in technology or not (Mellström 2002, 462; Lie 1995). Here ‘gender in/authenticity’ is a useful concept. I borrow this concept from Faulkner (2007) to refer to how the normative conceptions of gender lead people to expect to see women and men in certain roles in society, and to notice when they see someone that does not meet these expectations. Therefore, the historical and symbolic association of technology with masculinity marks men as ‘gender authentic’ for both manual and professional technology- related work.

However, critical research on men and masculinities, which draws on the theoretical perspective discussed earlier (see Section 2.1.2), shows that there are important power relations between these two distinct forms of masculinity, namely shop floor and office masculinities. Collinson (1992) indicates that the shop floor masculinity, which is subordinated to office masculinity, is characterised by traits such as doing production work, independence, honesty, having practical knowledge and being the family breadwinner. This image is constructed through the negation of managers, who are ignorant about the processes of production; white-collar office workers, who are defined as ‘yes-men’ and ‘wimps’ engaged in feminine office work; and women, who do not have such a strong symbolic link to paid work and who are dependent on men (Collinson 1992; Willis 1979). Informal relations between shop floor workers are noted as often highly aggressive, sexist, humorous but insulting and degrading (Meyer 1999). For example, newcomers are tested to prove that they are ‘men enough’ to take and give insulting jokes, and those who fail to do that are likely to be kept in a distance (Collinson 1988). Professional men, on the other hand, display a more ‘civilised’ image of masculinity, which is marked by higher educational and cultural status and an

egalitarian manner towards women (Pyke 1996). This image is not ‘softer’ than the shop floor masculinity, rather it demonstrates the hardness of intellectual and professional competence and commercial rationality (Cockburn 1988; Morgan 1992; Wajcman 1991a). With this image, middle-class men distinguish themselves from the hypermasculine and ‘macho’ image of shop floor workers and emphasise their superiority over them (Pyke 1996).

As I will demonstrate in Chapter 7, for a deeper understanding of the gendering of a technological profession that includes production work, it is important to take into consideration the construction of the image of the professional technological worker in relation to the working class masculinity. But it is also necessary to explore how this image is identified with masculinity and men in a way that marks women as ‘gender inauthentic’ for technology-related professions.

In the last two decades considerable attention has been paid to the masculine image of professional technological worker in feminist research, in both technology studies and organisation studies, which investigate women’s underrepresentation and/or disadvantaged status in professional technological occupations (Demaiter and Adams 2009; Dryburgh 1999; Faulkner 2000a, 2001, 2007; Henwood and Hart 2003; Lie 1995; Mellström 2002; Peterson 2007, 2010; Phipps 2002; Wajcman and Lobb 2007). These studies have mainly focused on engineering and IT, the two most typical examples of technological professions. In the following section I will investigate the construction of the masculine image of the technological worker in relation to femininity and women in these two professions.