[mhink]

That's not exactly what she's saying. She's basically advocating for 'non-making' roles in society, and contending that society undervalues 'non-making' roles as a result of undervaluing women's roles in society, since they traditionally occupied 'non-making' roles.

Note these paragraphs in particular:

"The cultural primacy of making, especially in tech culture—that it is intrinsically superior to not-making, to repair, analysis, and especially caregiving—is informed by the gendered history of who made things, and in particular, who made things that were shared with the world, not merely for hearth and home."

"A quote often attributed to Gloria Steinem says: “We’ve begun to raise daughters more like sons... but few have the courage to raise our sons more like our daughters.” 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. Rather, I want to see us recognize the work of the educators, those that analyze and characterize and critique, everyone who fixes things, all the other people who do valuable work with and for others—above all, the caregivers—whose work isn’t about something you can put in a box and sell."

Which I think is a pretty reasonable argument.

[vezzy-fnord]

The core premise that society undervalues "non-making" seems wrong, though. It can certainly feel that way when you hang around in specific circles and subcultures where it is disproportionately represented (as the author presumably does, mentioning technology), but on a macro level Western culture is in favor of positions that have historically been considered prestigious and well-paid - law, medicine, finance and so forth.

Someone whose title includes "manager" is likely held in higher regard, than say, someone with "engineer". Doesn't matter what kind of manager, the term itself has positive connotations to laymen.

Then of course, artists are stereotypically associated with bohemianism and poverty.

As an example, certain aspects that encompass "maker culture", including many fields that fundamentally intersect with programming, aren't even formal professions.

[stegosaurus]

Not to mention the fact that modern feminism is focusing mainly on getting women into 'non-making' jobs, specifically because of the reasons you mention.

Working as a builder (can't think of anything more 'maker' than that) isn't particularly glamorous. Being a lawyer/banker/exec is.

Software development is relatively unique in the way that it gives you the ability to command a reasonable salary whilst straddling the line between directly producing and facilitating production.