Some thoughts concerning the gendering of the iPod

In the words of Sacha Baron Cohen as his beloved and controversial character Borat, "I get iPod, he only get iPod mini, everybody know it's for girls!" For some reason this quote stuck with me: I remember laughing at it when first viewing the film, mostly because I knew that it was true.  But why was iPod mini, and now its contemporary equivalent, the nano, "for girls"? And what does it mean that these iPods are for girls, and that the "Classic" is not?  Perhaps I am over-thinking things, dear readers (both of you...) but this is what poindexter does, and this is what poindexter will continue to do.

Apple has released iPod minis, nanos, and most recently shuffles (although they are a slightly different case, being associated with athletics), in a variety of colours to appeal to girls and women. These devices hold less music than the Classic, which was originally released in pristine, Apple-Futuristic-Kubrickian-White, and later the basic black.  I am instantly reminded of the advent of many other technologies,  and their marketing to women:  telephones, typewriters, kitchen appliances, cars, and pdas...

Why is colour is feminized, since it does not interfere with the functionality of the device?  Although I can't deny that there was (and still is) a demand for such candy-coloured gizmos, I wonder why they are marketed to women, and why the more utilitarian, drab items are marketed to men.

Not to condense hundreds of years of history, but beginning essentially in the 18th century  "women's work" was infantilized, and devalued.  Women of the burgeoning middle class would learn how to embroider, paint, sing, and play clavichord or piano, so that they could entertain their husbands, and other men who visited their homes. Society regarded their function as primarily decorative; with amateur artistic ability, and a strong sense of fashion, they would make man's time at home more comfortable.

These ideas about women, work, and culture persisted through the 19th century, and into the 20th and arguably 21st. A change seemed possible when women went to work in during the world wars, but when the men returned home for good, women were expected to return to the home, and the 50s era of hyper-domesticity ensued.  Inevitably, when companies launched technologies marketed towards women, they emphasized ease of use, and style over function. For example, it is with the introduction of automatic transmission (driving is so easy that even a woman can do it!)  that cars become bright colours, with chrome and fins- the stereotype of 50s excess.  Of course, post-war  prosperity played some part here, but women's engagement with cars as consumers is largely responsible for this shift in design. Although some change was achieved with the women's rights movement of the 70s, the idea that women are irrational and childish (with regards to consumption) has largely persisted, both in the realms of technology and culture. Taking an example from the musical sphere: who listens to that god-awful-top-whatever-radio-station-that plays-the-hits-from-every-genre-and-decade and believes they are "cool" in doing so?  Housewives.  Mothers. Grandmothers, even.  At least, this is what we are lead to believe.


Returning to the iPod.  Women's engagement with music through iPod adheres to this model of infantalization.  In other words, technologies marketed towards women are made to seem like toys, pretty and easy to use, so that they have less worth than those serious devices marketed towards men.  It follows naturally that the iPods associated with female listeners hold less music than those associated with men. According to this line of thinking, women do not need iPod Classics because they know less about music.  They want the greatest hits.  They want singles, not albums. In the grand old age of vinyl, they wanted 45s, not LPs.  Men obviously know more about music than women do, inherently, they have better taste, larger libraries, and they're more likely to talk about music seriously with their peers. They follow pitchfork (whether they admit it or not), and you might hear them discussing the meta-narratives of dejection in the music of the National. Maybe I'm making too many generalizations here.  But I ask of you, humble reader, to consider the audiophile in your life (heaven forbid you have one.)  This person is near obsessive-compulsive, prefers analog to digital, talks about tradition, ingenuity, authenticity, grit and realism. This person may possess an iPod, if so, they will bemoan the compression of mp3s, but tolerate for the sake of portability. This person likely owns the iPod with the most gig available at any given time.  Sound familiar?  This archetypical audiophile is male, and essentially identical to John Cusack's character in High Fidelity.

So, where does this all leave us?  I am not accusing Apple of sexism, or oppression, or anything like that. There is nothing inherently feminine or masculine about pink or black iPods: these preferences are merely a reflection of social conditioning over hundreds of years.  Don't go pawn your nano or your mini or your blackberry pearl or your smith-corona: next time, question whether it's the colour or the content that attracts you when purchasing a device.

And as for me?  Of course I have a sixth-generation "Classic," with a skin of Kandinsky's Composition VII.  Because Kandinsky painted music, and it seemed fitting.

(Can you tell that I just learned to embed pictures? The adventures continue!)