One woman makes a wrong turn and, suddenly, her accidental witness — the male driver — turns judge and jury, remarking that the entire female species should be exiled from the driver’s seat. Such is the attitude of men towards women using technology; or rather, women using technology in ‘masculine spaces’. But what happens when technology enters the household, a space that a man spends a lifetime avoiding? Does the allure of technology draw him into taking up — finally — domestic responsibilities? Or is it just false optimism being served through seemingly progressive marketing?
Automation promises to balance the scales at home. But the real question is, will it? In her book, TechnoFeminism, Judy Wajcman discusses the concept of “technological determinism” where technology is viewed as a neutral force that shapes society. She critiques this idea by arguing that technological development and its use are shaped by social, economic, and political factors, including gender, and that these factors influence how technologies are utilised in ways that maintain existing power structures. If the dominant culture continues to frame the household as a woman’s domain and perceives men’s participation in that space as emasculating, no amount of sleek branding or AI-powered efficiency can ‘defeminise’ household labour.
This framing of the household as a woman’s domain is not just rooted in the essentialist belief that women are inherently better at running a home but it is also a carefully maintained social construct. Historically, women’s movement beyond the home has long been perceived as a threat to male hegemony. So the very technology that promises to ‘liberate’ them, by making their household chores easier, thereby giving them time to ‘move out’, may, instead, be seen as an intrusion, one that destabilises the patriarchal order.
If automation is the way forward, to what extent does it actually transform the nature of the household is worth scrutinising. A machine only takes up fragments of a task. For example, a washing machine only executes the washing bit, that too after being operated manually. The drying and folding of the laundry remain out of its scope. Who, then, does the remaining task? Can the convenience introduced by technology encourage men to volunteer in household work? Possibly not; the reason being since the task is now deemed ‘easier’, women should have, the logic goes, even less reason to complain.
The monetary aspect of automating a household also calls for attention. A truly automated home requires an entire fleet of machines where each task is performed by a specific machine. Unless automation is made accessible and affordable, such tech-based equality would remain illusionary. But even in households that can afford these high-tech advancements, convincing men to replace centuries of free female labour with pricey gadgets seems far-fetched, given that men serve as the fiscal authorities in most families. Moreover, in a society where woman’s labour is romanticised through notions such as ‘Maa ke haath ka khaana’ being an irreplaceable culinary standard, if the machine fails to produce the same taste, will the mother be summoned back to the kitchen?
There is also the question of agency. A woman’s ability to operate a device is not
solely determined by its design or her technological literacy but also by her autonomy to use it. Financial independence does not always grant women the freedom to make financial decisions due to deeply-ingrained societal norms; high-tech gadgets may encounter a similar fate. Women might feel hesitant to engage with these devices, fearing misuse or damage, ultimately reinforcing existing patterns of dependency.
Technology cannot redistribute household labour by itself. A broader societal shift is required, one that not only redistributes labour but also dismantles structures that confine women to domesticity.
Sanya Darapuri completed her Masters from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
