I’m fascinated by the discussion in this article from the Atlantic , the online comments on the article, and the online conversations that followed (just google it). The article zeros in on coding and hacking and contrasts “making,” which the author sees as primarily a male domain, with caregiving, educating, and other more traditionally female roles. The author points out that traditionally female jobs are, of course, traditionally low-paid.
“But there are more significant issues, rooted in the social history of who makes things—and who doesn’t.”
Being a stay-at-home mom was not unusual when my kids were small. The years I spent as an unpaid-but-full-time volunteer (in issue and electoral politics) when they were older were outside the norm, though. Working in politics was very satisfying, but there’s no doubt that the lack of a paycheck cast(s) a shadow on my self-image. Still, I always felt that I was making something: I was making a difference.
That’s why I am interested in the discussion about what we make. The author believes that the maker movement ” mostly re-inscribes familiar values, in slightly different form: that artifacts are important, and people are not.” Others suggest that making things that last is more highly valued than making things that are quickly consumed (dinner, anyone?). Pointing out that women make food, the commenters quickly move into a discussion of why while women are often described as good cooks, top chefs are still usually males. 
“It’s not, of course, that there’s anything wrong with making (although it’s not all that clear that the world needs more stuff). “
I’m know the world need more good food. Although I’m not particularly artistic, I’m pretty sure the world need more beautiful stuff. And that sometimes it’s hard to appreciate what’s beautiful if it isn’t attached to a price.
At this point, I think I am a maker. Some of what I make is ephemeral, some lasts. Most of what I make involves other people, either as consumers or as partners. I understand the author’s concerns, and I appreciate that she has inspired me to think about what that means. The term has become kind of intimidating, but I want to define it for myself rather than rejecting it because I don’t agree with the way others define it.
I’d love to know what you think…..
Okay – I read the article. It didn’t speak to me. Here’s my bias showing, and of course I noted the author’s position, but it sounded like an engineer. The whole thesis didn’t seem true to me, that being a “maker” is especially valued. I think you could just as well argue that making things is traditionally women’s work and undervalued – clothing, interiors, gardens, meals and so on, although I get the distinction about making “important” things like sculptures and buildings not being thought of as women’s work. It also seems to me that our society devalues making things in the traditional manufacturing sense. Am I missing the point here? Certainly in the legal profession “making” only seems to apply to making deals – which is really communicating and negotiating, not making. (Though as a side issue, my area of law which is very service oriented is certainly valued less than deal making.)
you should ask your daughters about the “maker movement” which is certainly a big deal right now.
I agree, interesting to think about semantics, but I don’t feel the author’s indignation. My random thoughts after reading the article…
Each culture or sub-culture creates its own societal hierarchies.
In A2, a town heavily populated with doctors, lawyers, PhDs, research scientists and academics of all types, “makers” do not top the social hierarchy. And in this environment, gender biases seem less prevalent than skills and accomplishments in determining status.
In Kailua-Kona, “makers” of traditional Hawaiian arts—e.g. instruments, clothing, weaving and leis—are highly respected and the artifacts have monetary value. Those skills are generally passed down to and from women. Women are “makers” in this culture in addition to their care taking roles.
In the political arena, I’m reminded of the Mitt Romney (GOP) “job creators” argument. A person is valued, respected and rewarded more for owning a business than working in a business (even if the worker is the actual “maker”).
Artifacts are easy to value (assign monetary worth), to study, to quantify, to recognize, whereas support, love, care taking, effort, and teaching/learning outcomes are often less visible and always more difficult to quantify.