“Smart Homes, Old Inequalities”: Nina Andrš Fárová on Gender, AI, and San Francisco

Society is changing, also thanks to technology, but what remains is the fact that women have a complicated role, both in households and in Hollywood. That the two are interconnected and that films reflect contemporary reality is illustrated by the sociologist's use of the comic-book character Wonder Woman. In the past, this superheroine was a feminist through and through: she attended feminist lectures at university, advocated ideas of sisterhood and solidarity among women, whereas today’s commercial adaptations portray her much more cautiously.

“Perhaps so that the film appeals mainly to young men, who are the target group of superhero movies,” explains Nina Andrš Fárová, adding that foreign research has for some time observed a rise in antifeminism, toxic masculinity, and the manosphere.

“By contrast, in other titles, such as the film Barbie, we see feminism directly as the main theme. But I don’t think this is done selflessly in support of feminism. Women generally make up half of the audience, so the effort to introduce themes close to them stems from commercial interests. If it nevertheless brings about positive change, that is only a good thing.”

In your research, you focus on smart homes and gender. Does technological progress bring positive change to the division of domestic labor by significantly easing some tasks?

 

With some technologies, it is actually the opposite. Smart homes do not completely free us from domestic work. It is often claimed that technology will significantly simplify our lives, that it will “do everything for us.” But that is not true. It helps with small things, but the overall volume of work does not decrease significantly. These technologies still cannot do many things.

A typical example is the robotic vacuum cleaner. Before you turn it on, you have to tidy up so that it can reach where it needs to go. And after it finishes, you still have to clean corners, empty the container… In the end, technologies add new tasks. And this also relates to gender: if domestic work does not disappear, inequalities persist.

What is interesting is that men often gain a new privileged position in this context. Not necessarily intentionally or negatively, but they are usually the ones who bring technologies into the household, install them, and manage them. They become something like “household administrators.” And the other household member, often a woman, then does not have the same access to them.

So, can technologies also bring new conflicts?

 

Exactly. For example, when a man has full control over a smart system that manages heating, lighting, cameras, and his partner does not have access to it, or cannot have it because the application allows only one administrator. Sometimes the partner does not want to, sometimes she does not have the time or space to learn it, but often it is also a purely technical problem: applications do not support multiple users with the same rights.

This is also related to the so-called gender digital divide. From childhood, it is clear what girls play with, what boys play with, and what society leads them toward. Boys are more likely to continue to technical schools, while girls are less so. And this is then reflected in the labor market, and in the development of these technologies, which are designed by men and tested on men. It is a vicious circle that is not biologically given, but culturally and socially constructed.

Perhaps the most significant current technological advance is large language models and AI. Can artificial intelligence change anything?

 

There are studies showing that AI can reproduce gender stereotypes because it is trained on data that contains those stereotypes. For example, if you ask AI about “female leadership” versus “male leadership,” you get different results. With women, concepts such as emotional support and care appear, while with men, there are more strategic or authoritative elements.

In an interview for Vogue, you also spoke about gender differences among the younger generation. Why are young women more progressive while men cling to traditional values?

 

We have been observing these differences in foreign research for some time. For example, in the United Kingdom, it is very clear that young men tend toward greater conservatism, while young women are more liberal. In the Czech Republic, this trend is not yet as pronounced, at least according to available data. But that does not mean it cannot gradually change.

In general, women tend to be more progressive on issues related to gender equality or LGBTQ+ rights, and this has been confirmed in the long term. What is changing now is the context. New topics are emerging, such as the manosphere and toxic masculinity, and with them, new challenges for young men who are searching for their role in the world.

Social networks also play a role, as they can algorithmically amplify certain conservative narratives. And although there are, of course, various positive role models on social media, they can also trap young people in opinion bubbles, especially if they are vulnerable or searching for identity.

Your Fulbright stay in the United States was the opportunity that led you to focus on smart homes and gender. What influenced your decision to gain experience in the USA?

 

I grew up in the 1990s, when popular culture from the USA arrived here in large waves. San Francisco, in particular, was completely idealized for me. It was the setting for many interesting films and music videos. In my mind, it was a beautiful city. I always wanted to see it.

I even had a puzzle with the Golden Gate Bridge as a child, completely by chance. Nevertheless, when I was seeking postdoctoral opportunities, I focused primarily on the USA. A colleague from the Netherlands recommended her colleague in San Francisco, and I thought that couldn't be a coincidence. From that moment on, there was no other option for me. And it worked out.

Did San Francisco meet your expectations?

 

I think it did. I know that people have various opinions about San Francisco; many are even disgusted by how it looks on the streets. It is not a “polished” city like European metropolises. But that is rather a problem of the whole of America. In California, homeless people or vulnerable groups tend to concentrate more, partly because of the weather and partly because of a more progressive social system.

But I perceived it differently. Of course, sometimes one finds oneself in an unpleasant situation, but the city is truly beautiful, like in the movies. The streets, bridges, houses… I felt like Alice in Wonderland there.

What do you see as the main differences between higher education in the USA and in the Czech Republic?

 

Certainly, the most fundamental difference is funding. In the USA, education is paid for, even at public universities, although fees there are somewhat lower than at private ones. But students always pay. And according to some colleagues, this makes them more invested in their studies. I am not saying that tuition fees should be the ideal, but they can influence how seriously students take their studies.

At the same time, American education is much more commercialized. Universities have huge budgets they have to maintain, and the entire environment is much more strongly governed by market principles than here.

How does this manifest itself specifically?

 

For example, in California, it is very pronounced, many technology companies are based there and invest in universities or sponsor them. This creates a close connection between universities and the private sector. In this respect, the American environment is certainly different and much more performance- and results-oriented.

Performance and results of academics?

 

Yes, there is much greater pressure on academic work in the USA than here. Academics are expected to constantly perform, produce outputs, publish, and teach. There is a high degree of overwork. The system is really very psychologically demanding.

Did you perceive this performance orientation also in everyday contact with people, for example, when collecting data for your research?

 

Yes, very strongly. Recruiting respondents for my research was many times more difficult than in the Czech Republic. I always had to explain very clearly in advance why they should devote time to an interview, what they would get out of it, and the interview's purpose. It was not necessarily about offering money, but rather about whether it would bring them some benefit.

And this mindset is really specific. I was surprised by how difficult it was to convince anyone at all to make time. In the Czech Republic, people are much more open in this regard. 

Another research topic you are currently publishing on is antifeminism in education. How do these tendencies manifest themselves?

 

It is a very broad topic, but a very common example is that we have different ideas about female and male teachers. We tell ourselves that female teachers are caring, frustrated, cautious, while male teachers are the funny ones, who play with children and are more relaxed. This division is often taken as something given “by nature,” but it reproduces stereotypes and shapes what we expect of people in education. And those who do not fit into these boxes then have a more difficult position.

Stronger antifeminist tendencies can then be seen more at the political level, for example, in attacks against gender education, claims that feminism is harmful, that there are “too many women” in schools, and that this mainly harms boys. The term re-masculinization of education appears, the idea that education needs a strong, authoritative male figure. This is a very problematic view.

In what way is it problematic specifically?

 

When I conducted research at the primary level in elementary schools, I found that men there had to be very careful how they presented themselves. On the one hand, authority, order, and the ability to “discipline children” are expected of them. On the other hand, they must also be sensitive and caring, because they work with small children. And this sometimes goes against the idea of “traditional masculinity.” They therefore have to combine masculine and feminine aspects. And this balancing is done by everyone, it is not primarily about whether the teacher is a man or a woman. But for men in this profession, it is more demanding in this respect.

In the university environment, the topic of mental health, not only of students, is appearing more and more frequently. Did you perceive this already during your studies?

 

Today, students definitely have more options for taking care of their mental well-being. There are support services here at the university, for example, UHK Point. There are not many of them, and availability is improving slowly, but the framework exists.

During my studies, it was hardly talked about at all. When I experienced something difficult, I told myself that I just had to “endure it,” wait for a new semester, change a course… It did not occur to me that I might have the option to deal with it differently. Today, students have not only options but also a greater awareness that they can and should take care of these things. They are aware that it is okay to seek help or support.

In fact, I have the feeling that today’s generation has greater competence in this than we did. And that I myself could learn a lot from them, for example, how to cope with stress or set boundaries better.

You work at the Department of Sociology, Philosophical Faculty UHK, and you are the guarantor of the sociology programme. What do you enjoy about working in academia, and is there something you like less?

 

Honestly, I do not enjoy writing academic articles at all. I could happily skip that. But doing research fulfills me, and I really enjoy teaching. I consider it an advantage that I can devote myself to both research and students; I cannot imagine one without the other.

The greatest joy for me comes precisely from contact with students. When I see that something really excites them, that they immerse themselves in a topic, that they give me positive feedback, for example, when supervising a bachelor’s thesis, that is the most valuable thing for me. Not an article, not a grant, but these human moments. And students could easily give that feedback more often!

Why did you choose sociology as your field? Was there a specific topic or life experience behind it?

 

I have to say that I chose sociology completely by chance. I was a diligent student, but I was not heading in any specific direction. That changed only when I entered university. Perhaps it also has to do with the fact that in secondary school, we did not have many inspiring subjects. It was only at university that sociology really opened my eyes.

I know it sounds like a cliché, but it truly showed me a new world and new topics, especially topics connected with power inequalities, not only gender-based ones, but also other forms of inequality. I learned to look at the world through the lens of vulnerable groups and realized that we really are not all starting from the same line. Inequalities are truly present and manifest themselves in society in very concrete ways.

How would you introduce UHK to someone from abroad?

 

I would say that Hradec Králové is a beautiful city where it is pleasant to spend several months or even years. The university is friendly and open, without exaggeration. And the Philosophical Faculty has the advantage of being smaller, which allows for a personal approach, discussion, and the opportunity to really get to know each other.

We have many international students here, and the debates we have with them are very inspiring. And we, as staff, also have many opportunities to go abroad and gain experience. For a university as small as UHK, it is very international, which I consider a big plus.

Department of Sociology, Philosophical Faculty UHK