Does anyone see the obvious fail in the article? Hint: what gender is the significant other?
Of course! Even though the article is ostensibly about "significant others" and "lovers," gender non-specific terms, it's really about what guys should get their girlfriends for Christmas (It actually admits this in the url: http://gizmodo.com/5416345/8-gifts-for-girlfriends-neglected-by-tech+addicted-boyfriends). Because of course only guys are tech-obsessed, and of course all girls are intimidated by technology. Thanks for reminding me of that, I had forgotten while I was busy blogging (using the HTML editor, not the WYSIWYG one) on my laptop and trying to figure out the cheapest source for a barcode scanner and a free database with good metadata that I can use to catalogue our library.
Also, some of the specific advice in the article bugs me too:
23andMe: What better way to make up for neglecting your girlfriend than by giving her the most personal gift possible: a detailed analysis of her genetic code. She'll be able to learn about her descendants as well as get clued in on what sorts of diseases she needs to look out for in the future. And as an added bonus, all that data she'll get will require a good amount of time for her to go through. Time you can spend playing video games.So instead of spending time with your girlfriend, have some website give her a dense packet of all the ways her genes could kill her, so you can have more time to play video games? If you don't want to spend time with her, why are you going out in the first place? Also, where were you planning to get the DNA sample for them to analyze? Were you going to ask her first? This is getting into serious creepy and invasion of privacy and personal autonomy areas.
Classmates.com membership: Nothing will make her appreciate your half-assed brand of boyfriending like a trip down ex-boyfriend lane, especially the high school sections. Look, you might not be able to make it through a dinner without dicking around with your phone, but at least you didn't get fat and never leave your hometown like these schlubs. Here's to being the most palatable of an unpalatable group!Great, so instead of giving a gift that shows any consideration of what she actually wants, buy her a membership to a website under the assumption that you'll look good in comparison to people from her past. Why bother actually being considerate when you can settle for not-as-bad-as-your-ex-right-honey instead? Ever occur to you that maybe if you're practicing a "half-assed brand of boyfriending" and can't "make it through dinner without dicking around with your phone," that maybe you should shape up and be a decent human being?
Asus O!Play: Getting a gadget for a gadget-wary girl might seem like an obvious blunder, but think about it: with this thing, you can stream downloaded movies and TV shows to your TV that you can watch together! As long as you are well prepared with some of her favorite movies and shows, you'll be able to sneak in some gadget-lust fulfillment in a way that you can enjoy it together instead of by yourself. A novel thought!Let's all repeat, the purpose of gift-giving is to give something that the recipient will like and enjoy, not something you want for yourself. Purchasing something for yourself and pretending that it's for your girlfriend doesn't count.
Don't get me started on the heteronormativity of the article, how it assumes that in any partnership where one member is tech-obsessed and the other is less so, that it must necessarily be a heterosexual couple. Or actually, that it assumes that all couples are heterosexual.
So in summary, all couples are boy-girl, all girls are intimidated by technology, and all tech-geeks are male, selfish, socially dysfunctional, and terrible boyfriends.
Thank you, Gizmodo, I don't think I'll be taking any more of your advice. Come back and we'll talk when your perceptions of people have caught up to the twenty-first century, not just your gadget recommendations.
