At The Washington Post's Monkey Cage Erica Chenowith has an opinion piece complaining that current military robots appear too masculine and that in turn reinforces gender stereotypes.
While I think I have something uninteresting to say about this (along the lines that psychology and military necessity should decide how these things look and sound) I would be interested in comments from the public. What say you? Does it matter what these things look like? Does making robots look aggressive in a masculine way make them bad for society? Should we sacrifice some aggressive efficiency for social betterment? Is a masculine look really telling women that they don't have a place in an aggressive military? If we needed something to look aggressive and we made it aggressive looking and also female, would that reinforce another stereotype about military women? Does the fault not lie with society who still thinks that looking masculine is an insult when said to women?. . .
Any thoughts?
While I think I have something uninteresting to say about this (along the lines that psychology and military necessity should decide how these things look and sound) I would be interested in comments from the public. What say you? Does it matter what these things look like? Does making robots look aggressive in a masculine way make them bad for society? Should we sacrifice some aggressive efficiency for social betterment? Is a masculine look really telling women that they don't have a place in an aggressive military? If we needed something to look aggressive and we made it aggressive looking and also female, would that reinforce another stereotype about military women? Does the fault not lie with society who still thinks that looking masculine is an insult when said to women?. . .
Any thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment