Are non-DiDIY-ers "less valuable humans"?
"I am not a maker. In a value system that is about creating artifacts, specifically ones you can sell, I am a less valuable human."
This is just one of the many valuable hints for our research on real meaning and value of DiDIY on one side, and on gender "barriers" that obstacle its diffusion on the other, that are contained in the article titled "Why I Am Not a Maker". To explain why we think so, here are some other quotes from the same article:
- "Making is not a rebel movement... it mostly re-inscribes familiar values, in slightly different form: that artifacts are important, and people are not."
- "The problem is the idea that the alternative to making is usually not doing nothing—it’s almost always doing things for and with other people"
- "Describing oneself as a maker—regardless of what one actually or mostly does—is a way of accruing to oneself the gendered, capitalist benefits of being a person who makes products."
- "Maker culture, with its goal to get everyone access to the traditionally male domain of making, has focused on the first. But its success means that it further devalues the traditionally female domain of caregiving, by continuing to enforce the idea that only making things is valuable."
Image source and credit: snapshot of infographic from Intel report, described in this article that contains other useful inputs on gender issues in Digital DIY