Permeating every aspect of our lives, artificial intelligence- in every form- is shaping our everyday interactions with the outside world. Among the most well-known examples are virtual assistants such as Google Assistant, Apple's Siri, and Amazon's Alexa. Despite their intended convenience, these technologies fully ingrain harmful gendered stereotypes. By giving these virtual assistants stereotypically feminine traits, society upholds antiquated ideas of gender roles in an environment that ought to be one of advancement and inclusivity.
The majority of virtual assistants come pre-programmed with names and voices that sound feminine. In keeping with stereotypes of women as helpers and caregivers, their "personalities" are courteous, amiable, and submissive. While Siri cheerfully sets your
alarms and plays your favourite music, Alexa patiently responds to your inquiries. These assistants are not programmed to question the user's authority or expectations, which subtly supports the notion that women are there to serve and accommodate others- specifically men, their target audience.
These design decisions are not incidental. Not at all actually. According to research, because society has conditioned us to associate femininity with deference, patience, and nurturing, consumers feel more at ease interacting with a "female" virtual assistant- but rather than reflecting any fundamental reality about roles or abilities, this preference is a reflection of the ingrained prejudices that support gender inequality.
Tech companies that make these ‘assistants’ mimic the unequal division of labour in real life by giving them a feminine identity. Universally, in the workplace and at home, women are expected to perform administrative and caregiving duties at an imbalanced rate. These expectations are carried over into the virtual world by these digital personas, which are made to handle schedules, respond to orders, and troubleshoot.However, when it comes to roles that signify expertise or authority, such as AI systems used for financial analysis or high-level decision-making, these systems are rarely “gendered” female. For example, IBM’s Watson for Financial Services analyses large datasets, assess financial risks, detect fraud, and provide strategic insights for investment and portfolio management. Unlike virtual assistants like Alexa or Siri, Watson is positioned as a sophisticated, authoritative tool rather than a "helper," underscoring the bias that roles requiring expertise and leadership are less likely to be gendered female.
The implicit message? Women assist; men lead.
The gender performativity theory of Judith Butler offers a helpful framework for analysing this specific problem. Butler argues that gender is not an innate characteristic but a repeated performance shaped by societal norms and expectations. The “femininity” of virtual assistants is not a natural choice but a programmed one, designed to align with cultural scripts about how women should behave.
Engineers and designers who are themselves products of a gendered society created the gendered personas of Alexa and Siri. These performances normalize the idea that women, whether real or virtual, should be obedient, approachable, and accommodating, reinforcing stereotypes rather than challenging them.
The gendering of virtual assistants like Alexa and Siri forces us to confront a deeper question: why do we instinctively assign femininity to roles of servitude and support in technology? By embedding these biases into AI, we are not just reflecting societal stereotypes—we are perpetuating them in ways that shape how future generations interact with both technology and gender.
It’s time to rethink these choices and ask ourselves: what kind of world are we programming, and who gets to define it?
Your analysis of the gendered personas of virtual assistants is sharp and thought-provoking, shedding light on how AI design reinforces harmful stereotypes. By linking the femininity of virtual assistants to Judith Butler’s theory of gender performativity, you effectively frame these choices as societal constructs rather than neutral decisions.
Your critique of tech companies mimicking real-world gendered labor divisions is particularly striking, especially when contrasted with the male-coded authority of systems like IBM’s Watson. This comparison underscores the implicit message that roles of expertise and leadership are deemed unsuitable for "feminine" personas.
Your closing question—what kind of world are we programming?—is a powerful call to action, urging us to challenge and redesign the biases embedded in AI. This is a compelling…
I really enjoyed reading this blog as this was an idea that had never occured to me before which brings into view the broader problem. We are so conditioned towards the concept of women being the nurturing and helpful figures in our lives that we don't even question it anymore. After reading this, the gravity of such societal issues and traditional gender norms are highlighted where these gender biases not only exist in the real world but now in the virtual world aswell.
By talking about Judith Butler’s gender performativity theory, it helps us understand that the femininity of virtual assistants is not natural, but a product of societal norms and biases and this promts us to question why gender…
This is a critical and well informed post on the way in which gender is personifying Virtual Assistants (VAs) such as Siri, Alexa, and Google Assistant. By effectively arguing, this argument shows that these technologies continue to prop up harmful gender stereotypes by promoting traits such as submissiveness, courtesy and servitude for their overwhelmingly feminine personas, and it’s an excellent comparison between VAs like Alexa and Siri who more often find themselves in support roles versus IBM’s Watson, which occupies authoritative, male coded roles. This echoes the way gendered identities are assigned to AI functions similarly to the way gendered identities are assigned to labor in the real world. However, the critique is raised to a higher level by the…
This blog post provides a thought provoking critique of how virtual assistants like Siri, Alexa, and Google Assistant reinforce long-standing gender stereotypes. The conversation shows us how media and technology are anything but neutral rather, they serve as platforms for cultural narratives that uphold conventional notions of gender roles. As the blog highlights, rethinking how we design these technologies isn’t just about making AI better, rather it’s about reshaping how we, as a society, understand and interact with gender. I also instantly thought of Judith Butler's theory of gender performativity, which reminds us that gender isn’t something we’re born with but something society teaches us to act out, over and over, until it feels natural. Virtual assistants like Alexa and…